Failing to see how ridiculous religion is until you escape it

Glenster · 18-02-2010 03:25PM

Ickle Magoo wrote: »

Because the analogy is about trusting what people are saying based on the facts they have at their disposal which you always have the choice to check for yourself - or trusting unverifiable assumptions that you must put your faith in...

Check facts. Please do. When have I ever said that questioning things is wrong?

But questioning things is useless if you only question the things you dont agree with.

Accepting evolution without questioning it but questioning ID is as stupid as accepting ID without questioning it but questioning evolution.

Ickle Magoo · 18-02-2010 03:28PM

Glenster wrote: »

I've a problem with someone who doesn't check the science behind a theory but still espouses it. Someone who is not expert enough in the theories of the origin of the universe to posit any insights of their own (i.e. someone who reads what someone else has written and accepts it) and then has the arrogance to turn around and scoff at someone else for accepting what some guy you dont like has written.

Can you discuss the theory of relativity in detail, have you posited any insights of your own regarding special or general relativity? And yet would you jump from a 12th story window or would you take the lift....?

Stercus Accidit · 18-02-2010 03:29PM

Glenster wrote: »

I've a problem with someone who doesn't check the science behind a theory but still espouses it. Someone who is not expert enough in the theories of the origin of the universe to posit any insights of their own (i.e. someone who reads what someone else has written and accepts it) and then has the arrogance to turn around and scoff at someone else for accepting what some guy you dont like has written.

The definitions for this hypothetical boogey man atheist hypocrite are evolving at a rapid pace, to contend with the constant rebuttals it is suffering. Darwinian isn't it.

If you love the scientific method as much as you have indicated you would know that reading a peer reviewed piece of scientific work is different to reading a holy faith based book.

You are succeeding phenomenally in the art of dodging the point being made to you, that these scientific studies aren't opinions or idle story telling, they are testable, and this testing is rigorous and published for review.

Back to the straw man, he surely is foolish but to a level of foolishness that is confounding to a logical mind, and I doubt very much he exists.
Its like trying to refute "Don't you just hate atheists who claim its ok to kill babies yadda yadda..." Sure, I do hate those guys, thankfully they don't bloody exist and if they did their baby eating wouldn't have anything to do with atheism.

Sam Vimes · 18-02-2010 03:34PM

Glenster wrote: »

Personal attacks? Really?

No I was saying that no one person is capable of carrying out every single bit of science in the world. It’s a big job.

Glenster wrote: »

How many times do I have to say it? The scientific method is fine, is great, more power to it. Best thing ever.

I've a problem with someone who doesn't check the science behind a theory but still espouses it. Someone who is not expert enough in the theories of the origin of the universe to posit any insights of their own (i.e. someone who reads what someone else has written and accepts it) and then has the arrogance to turn around and scoff at someone else for accepting what some guy you dont like has written.

I'm not saying I would go through either door or listen to either man, I dont know what's on the other side of either one!

How does the fact that the second person doesnt know one way or the other convince you that what the 1st guy says is true?

If there was no person at the second door, it wouldn't make a difference, I would still be suspicious of the first guy. I certainly wouldnt turn around to someone else there and tell them that the first door is the safe one.

You’re still missing the point. I don’t know that what the guy who claims to have looked through the door says is true; I am not saying that you should blindly accept whatever a scientist says. The point is that the opinion of the guy who hasn’t looked through the door is completely irrelevant. I have absolutely no reason to listen to anything he says because he cannot possibly know any more than I do, even if he claims to. I am not trying to say that science is always right, I am saying that you might as well flip a coin as accept a religious opinion. Without verifying for yourself you are believing a scientist when they say they have performed an experiment but not only do you have no way of knowing if a religious person is correct but they have no way of knowing either. They just “believe”.

Please answer this question: do you not see any difference whatsoever between not seeing any reason to think someone is lying to you and accepting that someone knows something that they cannot possibly know?

Glenster wrote: »

Quote the bible to your hearts content, just leave your opinions about the workings of my inner mind to yourself.

I’m not saying anything about your inner mind, I listed some teachings of Christianity. If you choose to ignore those teachings and pretend it’s all love thy neighbour and give to charity that’s your business.

Glenster · 18-02-2010 03:37PM

Ickle Magoo wrote: »

You are still completely missing the point, deliberately I think at this stage. One claim comes with evidence which can be checked, it doesn't have to be a matter of trusting scientists, that is down to personal choice - religious people have no alternative, they must have faith because there is no evidence to check.

To the person who doesn't check the evidence what difference does it make that he did it because he was lazy or didnt have enough time or that it wasn't available? It's the same action.

To that person a preacher who said the world was going to end on a certain date and who also claimed to have proof of this hidden away in his basement would seem eminently reasonable.

Ickle Magoo · 18-02-2010 03:37PM

Glenster wrote: »

Check facts. Please do. When have I ever said that questioning things is wrong?

But questioning things is useless if you only question the things you dont agree with.

Read posts. Please do. What are you talking about? Where in my post did I suggest that you said questioning was wrong? You asked what the point of the people being there was, I was trying to tell you.

Glenster wrote: »

Accepting evolution without questioning it but questioning ID is as stupid as accepting ID without questioning it but questioning evolution.

No, it's really not. Dismissing something which has no evidence for a more likely explanation that requires no ethereal bodies and has some evidence is not stupid, even if you don't study evolutionary evidence first hand. Something which comes with evidenced claims will ALWAYS carry more weight than claims which have none, even if the evidence is later deemed to be inaccurate or the claim falsified.

Stercus Accidit · 18-02-2010 03:43PM

Glenster wrote: »

To the person who doesn't check the evidence what difference does it make that he did it because he was lazy or didnt have enough time or that it wasn't available? It's the same action.

To that person a preacher who said the world was going to end on a certain date and who also claimed to have proof of this hidden away in his basement would seem eminently reasonable.

And then makes very definite claims yes? That's who we are describing now.

Person who takes a very specifically described hypocritical stance is a hypocrite.

I agree.

Glenster · 18-02-2010 03:49PM

Sam Vimes wrote: »

You’re still missing the point. I don’t know that what the guy who claims to have looked through the door says is true; I am not saying that you should blindly accept whatever a scientist says. The point is that the opinion of the guy who hasn’t looked through the door is completely irrelevant. I have absolutely no reason to listen to anything he says because he cannot possibly know any more than I do, even if he claims to. I am not trying to say that science is always right, I am saying that you might as well flip a coin as accept a religious opinion. Without verifying for yourself you are believing a scientist when they say they have performed an experiment but not only do you have no way of knowing if a religious person is correct but they have no way of knowing either. They just “believe”.

My point was that if you were to walk through the first door, what you would be doing would be blindly accepting what the 1st guy said, scientist or not.

Sam Vimes wrote: »

Please answer this question: do you not see any difference whatsoever between not seeing any reason to think someone is lying to you and accepting that someone knows something that they cannot possibly know?

They are two very different actions, one we do every day and another we should never do, that much I accept, they are different.

But if someone tells you something and you dont check it out, the likelihood of it being true (in an objective sense) is equal whether they tell you they performed an experiment or if they heard a voice in thier head.

Experiment and scientist aren't magic words that give your argument more weight in much he same way faith and god aren't words that mean your conclusion is wrong. You have to investigate to get to the truth.

scienceoverBS · 18-02-2010 03:54PM

Sam Vimes wrote: »

Exactly. The lay people trust the priests but the priests don't actually know so they trust the bishops but they don't actually know so they trust the pope.....but the pope doesn't know either. They're all just hoping they're right even though there is absolutely nothing to suggest that they are

wasnt the current pope in the hitler youth or something like that , wouldn't suprise me

Glenster · 18-02-2010 03:55PM

Ickle Magoo wrote: »

Can you discuss the theory of relativity in detail, have you posited any insights of your own regarding special or general relativity? And yet would you jump from a 12th story window or would you take the lift....?

If someone else was talking about a counter-theory to special relativity, I wouldn't use phrases like 'It stands to reason' or dismiss their argument out of hand as ridiculous, or suggest to others that they had been brainwashed. That level of arrogance requires expertise.

Besides I was talking about a double-standard.

I though that was clear.

Glenster · 18-02-2010 03:58PM

Stercus Accidit wrote: »

You are succeeding phenomenally in the art of dodging the point being made to you, that these scientific studies aren't opinions or idle story telling, they are testable, and this testing is rigorous and published for review.

So someone else does your critical thinking for you and prepare a journal full of things you can accept without viewing the evidence for.

Dont get me wrong, if you test it then fair play to you, but if you dont what makes you different from some wretched serf in 13th Century Bohemia?

Ickle Magoo · 18-02-2010 04:01PM

Glenster wrote: »

To the person who doesn't check the evidence what difference does it make that he did it because he was lazy or didnt have enough time or that it wasn't available? It's the same action.

I'm not sure in how many more ways the same sentiment can be worded.

Choosing not to check the validity of evidenced claims for yourself while accepting others have is not, will not, cannot be considered equal to a claim of fact which has no evidence to substantiate it.

Glenster wrote: »

To that person a preacher who said the world was going to end on a certain date and who also claimed to have proof of this hidden away in his basement would seem eminently reasonable.

No, it wouldn't. Logic is based on probability, the likelihood of such an event given the huge body of scientific evidence, theories and laws we have - evidence and claims which have been tested and verified by others. The general acceptance in the scientific community of the most current theories which are known to have been subjected & thus far, survived the rigours of the scientific method.

A claim by one man to have the evidence in his basement is hardly full disclosure of claim subjected to the scientific method, why on earth would you think that is what people do when they accept the theory of relativity, or evolution, or genetics or technological advancement?

Dades · 18-02-2010 04:02PM

Glenster wrote: »

So someone else does your critical thinking for you and prepare a journal full of things you can accept without viewing the evidence for.

The point is that there is evidence there if he wanted to see it.

Do you really not understand this?

Glenster · 18-02-2010 04:07PM

Ickle Magoo wrote: »

No, it's really not. Dismissing something which has no evidence for a more likely explanation that requires no ethereal bodies and has some evidence is not stupid, even if you don't study evolutionary evidence first hand. Something which comes with evidenced claims will ALWAYS carry more weight than claims which have none, even if the evidence is later deemed to be inaccurate or the claim falsified.

If you've checked the evidence and you find that one has more than the other then by all means make your judgement.

Evidenced claims are great, but you must check the evidence. if you dont check the evidence it's just a claim.

But it's sheepish to say that the things that the majority of scientists say carry more weight, you may as well say that the things the majority of people say carries more weight.

Sam Vimes · 18-02-2010 04:08PM

Glenster wrote: »

My point was that if you were to walk through the first door, what you would be doing would be blindly accepting what the 1st guy said, scientist or not.

They are two very different actions, one we do every day and another we should never do, that much I accept, they are different.

But if someone tells you something and you dont check it out, the likelihood of it being true (in an objective sense) is equal whether they tell you they performed an experiment or if they heard a voice in thier head.

Experiment and scientist aren't magic words that give your argument more weight in much he same way faith and god aren't words that mean your conclusion is wrong. You have to investigate to get to the truth.

If you don't check it out for yourself there is still a significant likelihood that the scientist is wrong or lying. Even if you do check it out yourself you could still be wrong but you are totally wrong to say that if you don't check it out yourself the likelihood is equal in both cases because you're forgetting about the peer review process. With the scientist, even if you do no checks of your own many other scientists will have verified their work and you can find out if they were able to repeat the findings. One scientist might have reason to lie but the whole point of the peer review process is to have as many qualified and unbiased people as possible verify something before it's passed onto the public. Creationists don't go through the peer review process for precisely this reason, they would be laughed out of the place.

When you look at at scientific theory like evolution, gravity, string theory (which is not really a theory yet), you are looking at the work of thousands and thousands of qualified people who worked as hard as they could for decades or even hundreds of years to find any problems with the theory and fix them. You are never looking at one guy's crackpot theory that he has provided no evidence for that you have no way of checking for yourself. The process of peer review is not perfect but it is absolutely not the same as taking one person's word over another.

Sam Vimes · 18-02-2010 04:12PM

Glenster wrote: »

If you've checked the evidence and you find that one has more than the other then by all means make your judgement.

Evidenced claims are great, but you must check the evidence. if you dont check the evidence it's just a claim.

But it's sheepish to say that the things that the majority of scientists say carry more weight, you may as well say that the things the majority of people say carries more weight.

No it's not the same. Science is not an argument ad populum. If a million people claim that they know something but they have nothing to back their opinion up then their opinion is meaningless. As I keep saying you might as well flip a coin because they don't know any more than you do, trust is irrelevant. But if a million scientists claim to have been able to repeat an experiment then it comes down to whether or not they're lying. Again the difference between believing that someone is not lying and believing that someone knows something they cannot possibly know

Mark Hamill · 18-02-2010 04:12PM

Glenster wrote: »

So someone else does your critical thinking for you and prepare a journal full of things you can accept without viewing the evidence for.

The level of ignorance in this sentence is staggering. Have you ever even seen a scientific journal? The inside, I mean, not just the cover? What is published in scientific journals is evidence. You cant just publish that you added two chemicals in a lab and saw something form, you have to provide pack up material-nuclear magnetic resonance, ultra violet, infared, and crystal ray spectroscopy, gas chromotography, differential scanning calorimetry and many others- in order to justify any claims that you make and the entire peer review process is centred around making sure that unjustified claims dont get published. Things do get through (very rarely), but thanks to the other half of the process, the reviewing of the published journals by hundreds and thousands of scientists and the repeating of published experiments by many scientists working for their own purposes, any flaws that get through will eventually be found out and removed or fixed.

Glenster wrote: »

Dont get me wrong, if you test it then fair play to you, but if you dont what makes you different from some wretched serf in 13th Century Bohemia?

Go read up on the scientific and peer review processes before making more of a fool of yourself, will you.

Glenster · 18-02-2010 04:15PM

Dades wrote: »

The point is that there is evidence there if he wanted to see it.

Do you really not understand this?

I understand it, but any evidence that you havent seen remains theoretical. To accept any claim by anyone with this notion that 'evidence is there if I ever want to look at it' but not to look at it is the blindest kind of faith there is.

If you dont check the evidence, then the assumption that 'evidence is there' will only give weight to any argument that you havent properly investigated.

scr123 · 18-02-2010 04:16PM

Only registered today and this thread was top of New Posts. Its probably been asked before but why do atheists make a religion out of ridiculing the religion of others. If all our actions and emotions are just chemical reaction in the brain why not just accept this is a fact and move on with life ?

Ickle Magoo · 18-02-2010 04:19PM

Glenster wrote: »

If someone else was talking about a counter-theory to special relativity, I wouldn't use phrases like 'It stands to reason' or dismiss their argument out of hand as ridiculous, or suggest to others that they had been brainwashed. That level of arrogance requires expertise.

You are suggesting only people who are experts in specific scientific fields have the right to "espouse" that science, which is nonsense. You yourself have accepted many scientific theories and are not an expert on them.

Are you now seriously trying to suggest that people who require some kind of evidence or testable model to back any claims or theories are arrogant for doing so? How dare we expect some kind of proof or semblance of logic to differentiate between what could actually be a better explanation for the universe and it's working from the millions of false claims and presumptive ramblings made every day.

Glenster wrote: »

I understand it, but any evidence that you havent seen remains theoretical.

Really? You think the other planets in the universe are theoretical do you? Is DNA theoretical? All the billions of things people have not personally witnessed you think remain theoretical?! You really don't understand the scientific method, do you?

Ickle Magoo · 18-02-2010 04:20PM

scr123 wrote: »

Only registered today and this thread was top of New Posts. Its probably been asked before....

It has, a billion times. Please do a quick search...

Sam Vimes · 18-02-2010 04:22PM

Glenster wrote: »

I understand it, but any evidence that you havent seen remains theoretical. To accept any claim by anyone with this notion that 'evidence is there if I ever want to look at it' but not to look at it is the blindest kind of faith there is.

If you dont check the evidence, then the assumption that 'evidence is there' will only give weight to any argument that you havent properly investigated.

You used the example of someone who was lying about claiming to have proof hidden away somewhere and said that was the same as someone who accepts something like evolution where they simply don't check the evidence. But even if we were to accept that, what does that have to do with religious claims? Mistakenly believing someone who claimed to have proof can happen but religious leaders openly admit they have no proof of their claims and ask that people believe them anyway. You believe in a religion even though you know there's no evidence to support it. You can say all you want about "blind faith" in science but you have blind faith in some goat herders who lived 2000-4000 years ago.

Ickle Magoo · 18-02-2010 04:24PM

Glenster wrote: »

To accept any claim by anyone with this notion that 'evidence is there if I ever want to look at it' but not to look at it is the blindest kind of faith there is.

Accepting a claim which has already been widely accepted by the scientific community who have studied the hypothesis and all accompanying data is a blinder faith than accepting a claim which presents no evidence at all? Seriously now, wtf are you talking about?

Glenster · 18-02-2010 04:28PM

Sam Vimes wrote: »

When you look at at scientific theory like evolution, gravity, string theory (which is not really a theory yet), you are looking at the work of thousands and thousands of qualified people who worked as hard as they could for decades or even hundreds of years to find any problems with the theory and fix them. You are never looking at one guy's crackpot theory that he has provided no evidence for that you have no way of checking for yourself. The process of peer review is not perfect but it is absolutely not the same as taking one person's word over another.

Accepted, it's the best system we have, but it is still imperfect and requires, albeit you might consider it to be a negligible amount of, faith.

Again I'll say that just because the smartest people in the world all agree on something doesnt mean you can walk around saying it's true without ever having looked into it, it would be frustrating for anyone discussing it with you to be constantly confronted by the statement that 'evidence exists out there somewhere'.

Naz_st · 18-02-2010 04:33PM

Glenster wrote: »

Stop making this gross generalisation, I'm not saying that science done properly requires the same amount of faith as religion.

I'm saying hypocrites attack religion for being a matter of 'faith' while at the same time refusing to recognise that they have a similar level of 'faith' (i.e. blind acceptance) in certain other systems or claims.

Having "Faith" means believing something without evidence, or despite contradictory evidence, and essentially it boils down to believing something for no good reason.

The scientific method of ensuring testable, falsifiable, predictive theories that adequately and consistently, without exception, explain the facts apparent in the universe around us, in a rigorous and peer reviewed manner constitutes a very good reason for believing the resulting conclusions.

Ergo, no "faith" required.

But dont make the self-satisfied assumption that you are smarter than the unthinking, doctrine-accepting, religious simpleton just because the things you believe in, for which you have never looked up the cold, hard evidence or even have activly verified the existance of such, are 'true'.

You're both as credulous as each other.

No. You seem to be ignoring a key point in the scientific method, that being "peer review". When a scientific paper is released that posits some new theory, or (more often) a modification or expansion of an existing theory, it is reviewed by other experts in the field prior to publication to see if they can find any flaws in it. They can (and often do) re-test or re-produce the experiments in order to verify the findings. This means that I can reasonably accept the claim without having to personally carry out the same experiments in order to verify it as I know that other people (who know significantly more than I do about the specific area) have already done this and haven't found any flaws.

In Sam's doors analogy, this amounts to there being a multitude of other people standing beside the guy at the first door who back him up as to exactly what's behind it because they've all had a look for themselves.

And I would further expand Sam's analogy to say that beside the other door there are lots of people, none of whom have been through the door and all of whom claim to know what's behind it, and they all claim that completely different things are behind it.

Dades · 18-02-2010 04:34PM

Glenster wrote: »

To accept any claim by anyone with this notion that 'evidence is there if I ever want to look at it' but not to look at it is the blindest kind of faith there is.

What you are ignoring here is that the claims we accept on a day-to-day basis are based on science. That is, a valid method of inquiry that does not allow for fraudulent or wishful claims to gain any credence.

Simply put:

Claim #1 is based on science.
Science has no agenda, is subject to evidence, and any false claims are ruthlessly dealt with. It can claim every invention, device, or medicine we have developed as it's referee.

Claim #2 is based on theology/philosophy.
There is simply no way of verifying a concept that somebody comes up with as true or false. It is field where any concept is crippled by 1,000 other similar, but conflicting concepts.

Sam Vimes · 18-02-2010 04:37PM

Glenster wrote: »

Accepted, it's the best system we have, but it is still imperfect and requires, albeit you might consider it to be a negligible amount of, faith.

Now you're backtracking. Is it "the best system that requires a negligible amount of faith" (which I still wouldn't accept) or is "the likelihood of it being true (in an objective sense) equal whether they tell you they performed an experiment or if they heard a voice in thier head"

Even if I don't check out the evidence for a scientific theory for myself I know it's gone through the scientific process, which as you say is the best system we have

Glenster wrote: »

Again I'll say that just because the smartest people in the world all agree on something doesnt mean you can walk around saying it's true without ever having looked into it, it would be frustrating for anyone discussing it with you to be constantly confronted by the statement that 'evidence exists out there somewhere'.

And I think you'll find that it's rare for someone to say a scientific theory is "true" and if they do say that they're wrong to. No scientific theory is "true" but a lot of them have mountains of evidence to support them that only a fool would ignore. And if anyone ever claims that a theory is true and that the evidence exists out there "somewhere", you have my full permission to demand that they produce it and if they don't you have my full permission to ignore anything they say. But don't just assume that they haven't looked at the evidence, people should always be prepared to back up their opinions. Of course if you don't ask them to back up their assertion that there is evidence out there "somewhere" because you don't feel confident to refute it that's not their problem

Glenster · 18-02-2010 04:56PM

Mark Hamill wrote: »

The level of ignorance in this sentence is staggering. Have you ever even seen a scientific journal? The inside, I mean, not just the cover? What is published in scientific journals is evidence. You cant just publish that you added two chemicals in a lab and saw something form, you have to provide pack up material-nuclear magnetic resonance, ultra violet, infared, and crystal ray spectroscopy, gas chromotography, differential scanning calorimetry and many others- in order to justify any claims that you make and the entire peer review process is centred around making sure that unjustified claims dont get published. Things do get through (very rarely), but thanks to the other half of the process, the reviewing of the published journals by hundreds and thousands of scientists and the repeating of published experiments by many scientists working for their own purposes, any flaws that get through will eventually be found out and removed or fixed.

I was hoping we wouldn't have to go into rotten semantics. Bleh!

Evidence/facts/whatever are interpreted data. The data that goes into preparing even a short jornal article is immense and hence is not included, but edited, cut down and processed into a presentation of facts. you've heard the expression maniulating the data?

That is what I was saying, I though it was clear enough but......

Sam Vimes · 18-02-2010 05:00PM

Glenster wrote: »

I was hoping we wouldn't have to go into rotten semantics. Bleh!

Evidence/facts/whatever are interpreted data. The data that goes into preparing even a short jornal article is immense and hence is not included, but edited, cut down and processed into a presentation of facts. you've heard the expression maniulating the data?

That is what I was saying, I though it was clear enough but......

Even if that does happen you seem to see no distinction between believing someone who has manipulated the data and believing someone who openly admits that they have no data to manipulate

Glenster · 18-02-2010 05:00PM

Sam Vimes wrote: »

Now you're backtracking. Is it "the best system that requires a negligible amount of faith" (which I still wouldn't accept) or is "the likelihood of it being true (in an objective sense) equal whether they tell you they performed an experiment or if they heard a voice in thier head"

You cant be double wrong. You cant make a double leap of faith. From a purely philosophical point of view a tiny leap of faith is as damaging as a huge leap of faith.

And that quote was about the unverifiable existance of a chasm behind two doors. Not about things that have been examined.

Failing to see how ridiculous religion is until you escape it

Comments