Failing to see how ridiculous religion is until you escape it

strobe · 18-02-2010 05:04PM

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.

Listen, you are right. It does require a negligible amount of faith, but only in one very specific way. It requires the faith to believe that the entire process of modern science and all scientists that submit their work and work within the peer review system have been, and are still involved in, the largest, most expertly planned and perfectly executed conspiracy off all time. With no goal or aim whatsoever besides doing it for sh1ts and giggles as some kind of centuries long practicle joke on the wider public. A conspiracy that would require the constant falsification of information and the indoctrination of every single human being with an education in a branch of science into the conspiracy and the completely untracable murder of anyone that couldn't be indoctrinated.

So congratulations, you caught us out. We do have faith that the above scenario is complete fiction. Can't definitively prove it, it might have happened just like that, I just have faith it didn't.

Sam Vimes · 18-02-2010 05:05PM

Glenster wrote: »

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.

Ah but you can make a double leap of faith which is the point I'm trying to get across. If you accept what the peer review process says you are putting your "faith" in thousands of scientists that they are telling the truth, you have substantial reason to believe them because they are following what you call "the best system we've got". But with a religious claim you are putting your faith in someone who doesn't know any more than you do, you are believing someone even though you have no reason whatsoever to believe them

robindch · 18-02-2010 05:11PM

Glenster wrote: »

From a purely philosophical point of view a tiny leap of faith is as damaging as a huge leap of faith.

And from a philosophical point of view leaping off a telephone directory is as damaging as leaping off the Eiffel Tower.

Mark Hamill · 18-02-2010 05:12PM

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......

I can read what you wrote, but all thats clear is that you dont know anything about what you are talking about. Its very simple: in order to have something get through peer review and be published, it has to have evidence for anything and everything it claims. And this evidence has to accompany the material to be published. If someone makes a claim, but the evidence is not their to substansiate it, the paper fails the peer review process-I have seen it hapen, my own supervisor failed a paper he was asked to review because one of its claims could not be substansiated based on the supporting material.
In fact, if you did actually read some papers, you would see that surprisingly little is claimed, beyond what is actually pretty obvious from the results, ie. beyond claiming that the experiment happened as reported. A lot of a paper is speculation (and carefully worded as to be understood as specualtion) on why the experiment happened as reported, and justification for that specualtion. Very little is claimed definitively, and what is, is supported by a wall of data that is presented with the claim. Fixing so much evidence to give the appearance of your claim being true, while making sure that it is still internally consistent, would take more work than actually finding something else to substansiate your claim.

Glenster · 18-02-2010 05:13PM

Sam Vimes wrote: »

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

From the point of view of someone who accepts either claim without looking at the data, yes.

It doesn't matter to them that there is data out there somewhere, they are embarking on the same leap of faith as they would if they didn't know if there was any evidence.

Keep in mind i'm not saying that there is no distinction once you start examining the data. Just that if you dont examine the data, you are essentially doing the same thing.

Sam Vimes · 18-02-2010 05:15PM

Glenster wrote: »

From the point of view of someone who accepts either claim without looking at the data, yes.

It doesn't matter to them that there is data out there somewhere, they are embarking on the same leap of faith as they would if they didn't know if there was any evidence.

Keep in mind i'm not saying that there is no distinction once you start examining the data. Just that if you dont examine the data, you are essentially doing the same thing.

So you are telling me that someone who has to submit to an operation and is told that the operation is run of the mill, standard and has been done a million times and accepts that as true is making the same leap of faith as someone who is told they are the first person the operation has ever been tried on, until they go and verify that the surgeon isn't lying to them?

Glenster · 18-02-2010 05:22PM

Sam Vimes wrote: »

But with a religious claim you are putting your faith in someone who doesn't know any more than you do, you are believing someone even though you have no reason whatsoever to believe them

Your reason to believe a scientist is that other scientists and people support him and say "this is a good guy with good methods"
You would not believe a preacher in the same way if other preachers and people said "this is a good guy with good methods"

Keep in mind that this is a world where we dont examine the evidence of claims. In the real world you should listen to both men and then base your answer on your own analysis of the data.

Sam Vimes · 18-02-2010 05:32PM

Glenster wrote: »

Your reason to believe a scientist is that other scientists and people support him and say "this is a good guy with good methods"
You would not believe a preacher in the same way if other preachers and people said "this is a good guy with good methods"

Keep in mind that this is a world where we dont examine the evidence of claims. In the real world you should listen to both men and then base your answer on your own analysis of the data.

The difference, the crucial difference, the difference you don't seem to grasp is that the other preachers are no more in a position to say the guy has good methods than you are yourself because nothing they say is verifiable. Their opinion carries no more weight than the toss of a coin. As you say it's the "a million people can't be wrong" fallacy. But assuming that no one is deliberately lying, when a scientist says that another scientist has good methods it's because those methods have been shown to be accurate through rigorous experimentation. They have verified their methods. The reason I accept a scientist's opinion over a religious leader's is the same reason I accept Galileo's view of gravity over that of the ancient Greeks. The Greeks reasoned to themselves that heavier things dropped faster than light but Galileo actually went and dropped stuff from high places and objectively proved his position. And now it doesn't matter how many people tell me that heavier objects fall faster because I know the evidence says they're wrong

Glenster · 18-02-2010 05:33PM

Sam Vimes wrote: »

So you are telling me that someone who has to submit to an operation and is told that the operation is run of the mill, standard and has been done a million times and accepts that as true is making the same leap of faith as someone who is told they are the first person the operation has ever been tried on, until they go and verify that the surgeon isn't lying to them?

I suppose so, though that is taking it a little far.

I certainly wouldn't view the world in terms of probabilities, a one in three cance of dying is worse than a one in five chance of dying but how many of us make that distinction if we are told either way.

You're far more likely to die in a run of the mill robbery than in a terrorist attack, but most people fear terrorism more.

The point I was making is that it is still a leap of faith, it doesnt make sense for the person going through the minor operation to scoff at the person going through the major one with the refrain "I cant believe you have faith in that doctor, dont you know that kind of doctor are all liars?"

Ickle Magoo · 18-02-2010 05:37PM

Glenster wrote: »

Your reason to believe a scientist is that other scientists and people support him and say "this is a good guy with good methods"
You would not believe a preacher in the same way if other preachers and people said "this is a good guy with good methods"

Keep in mind that this is a world where we dont examine the evidence of claims. In the real world you should listen to both men and then base your answer on your own analysis of the data.

What data does the preacher have? You are still not grasping this point. I Can't DO any analysis of what the preacher says because he hasn't got any "good methods" - he has faith.

Sam Vimes · 18-02-2010 05:38PM

Glenster wrote: »

I suppose so, though that is taking it a little far.

I certainly wouldn't view the world in terms of probabilities, a one in three cance of dying is worse than a one in five chance of dying but how many of us make that distinction if we are told either way.

You're far more likely to die in a run of the mill robbery than in a terrorist attack, but most people fear terrorism more.

The point I was making is that it is still a leap of faith, it doesnt make sense for the person going through the minor operation to scoff at the person going through the major one with the refrain "I cant believe you have faith in that doctor, dont you know that kind of doctor are all liars?"

You're still not getting the point. You keep talking about liars versus truth tellers. With religious claims lies or truth or trust is completely irrelevant, no one has any idea which religion is true because there is no way to verify any religious claims. A better analogy would be: "I cant believe you have faith in that doctor, his doctorate is in English literature" but even that gives too much credence because even someone with a doctorate in English literature could possibly know something about medical science whereas no one on the planet knows which religion if any is true. It doesn't matter how much you trust a religious leader because he doesn't actually know the answers to your questions and if he claims to, as Stephen Fry says, he's either a liar or a fool.

Flamed Diving · 18-02-2010 05:45PM

Glenster wrote: »

Personal attacks? Really?

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

But...

Accepting what science has to say on a matter is a fairly safe strategy if one actually understands what the scientific method is for. If you don't understand the scientific method, you might be tempted to say things like:

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.

where the trust of a collection of unverified superstitious books is the same as the trust of a product of the scientific method.

Zillah · 18-02-2010 05:54PM

I don't think I will ever understand why there are so many people with very strong opinions on subjects they know nothing about.

Sam Vimes · 18-02-2010 05:57PM

Zillah wrote: »

I don't think I will ever understand why there are so many people with very strong opinions on subjects they know nothing about.

Brilliant

liamw · 18-02-2010 09:59PM

Glenster, just so I'm clear on your position here. You are asserting that both religious and scientific beliefs require faith; giving you that point for a moment, would you acknowledge that one requires vast amounts more faith that the other? Would you accept this?

Permabear · 18-02-2010 11:04PM

This post has been deleted.

cavedave · 18-02-2010 11:40PM

0verblood

"Originally Posted by cavedave View Post
Money is just an illusion. It has no intrinsic value. You spend all your time slaving away to flip a few bits in a banks computer system. Someday you'll see how ridiculous all your efforts to gain worthless tokens have been."
What the hell?

U.S. Economy Grinds To Halt As Nation Realizes Money Just A Symbolic, Mutually Shared Illusion.

"It's just an illusion," a wide-eyed Bernanke added as he removed bills from his wallet and slowly spread them out before him. "Just look at it: Meaningless pieces of paper with numbers printed on them. Worthless."

Petrovia · 19-02-2010 01:54PM

donegalfella wrote: »

This post has been deleted.

As most current philosophers of science will tell you, this is impossible.

You cannot, strictly speaking, verify claims (um, apart from pure maths). You can have a strongly corroborated claim, but it can never be properly verified. You can never be completely certain that that you are not somehow mistaken.

(This, of course, does not detract from the fact that when you have some knowledge which is strongly corroborated, it is much more rational and sensical to go along with that than with some 'knowledge' someone tells you because they 'believe in it'.)

Blackhorse Slim · 19-02-2010 02:11PM

I think "scientifically verified" is not quite the same as "philosophically (epistemologically) verified"

Flamed Diving · 19-02-2010 02:15PM

Uhh, hermunetics, sophistry, ninininininininninininiin...

Petrovia · 19-02-2010 02:27PM

Blackhorse Slim wrote: »

I think "scientifically verified" is not quite the same as "philosophically (epistemologically) verified"

I don't really know about that. It depends on whether you hold an instrumentalist view of scientific knowledge or not, I guess.

Some (not me, really) do argue that there is such a thing as scientific verification in an instrumentalist sense (but not in an 'absolute truth' sense). What I mean by that is that you could have a claim that proves to work time and again, let's say, the formula to predict X predicts X every time, without fail. This formula could then (by some) said to be properly verified, in that it works each time. However, it could still be that there's actually something else going on (the 'absolute truth'). It just means that you have found a way of predicting X reliably, not that your way of predicting it is the way it actually happens.

(I hope that made sense.)

But anyway, the point here is, I think, that scientific knowledge was being compared to religious knowledge, and then by definition we're talking epistemology and not instrumentalism (unless you (that's a general you, not you in particular!) are one of those people who thinks there's evidence for the existence of God/s). We're talking about what's actually, really, absolutely true, not about which formula works best to predict events.

Flamed Diving · 19-02-2010 02:31PM

Would I be correct in assuming that what DF meant by "scientifically verified" was that unless our very senses are somehow an illusion and we are living in controlled sensory deprivation without realising it (or something similar) then the notion that the Earth revolves around the Sun is FACT.

Or to put it another way, discounting the extreme values of the bell-curve.

Ickle Magoo · 19-02-2010 02:34PM

“Philosophy of science is about as useful to scientists as ornithology is to birds,” Richard Feynman :pac:

Zombrex · 19-02-2010 02:43PM

Petrovia wrote: »

As most current philosophers of science will tell you, this is impossible.

You cannot, strictly speaking, verify claims (um, apart from pure maths). You can have a strongly corroborated claim, but it can never be properly verified. You can never be completely certain that that you are not somehow mistaken.

(This, of course, does not detract from the fact that when you have some knowledge which is strongly corroborated, it is much more rational and sensical to go along with that than with some 'knowledge' someone tells you because they 'believe in it'.)

Perhaps a better term to use would be scientifically testable, or scientifically modellable (if that is a word)

The point about the first two and the last one is that the former you can attempt to experiment to determine if your view is anywhere close to reality and the later you are basically left with no clue.

cavedave · 19-02-2010 02:45PM

Without ornithology an awful lot of bird species would be extinct.

"Science is the belief in the ignorance of experts" Richard Feynman

Ickle Magoo · 19-02-2010 02:46PM

Lol, I could have put money on someone posting that quote next.

ETA: "Science is the belief in the ignorance of experts" is a fair observation. The vigorous testing that hypothesis undergo via peer review is the corner stone of the scientific method. If everything "experts" claim was to be taken at face value, not doubted and assumed to be correct and true; then it wouldn't be science as we know it.

Petrovia · 19-02-2010 02:46PM

Flamed Diving wrote: »

Would I be correct in assuming that what DF meant by "scientifically verified" was that unless our very senses are somehow an illusion and we are living in controlled sensory deprivation without realising it (or something similar) then the notion that the Earth revolves around the Sun is FACT.

Or to put it another way, discounting the extreme values of the bell-curve.

I would assume that also. I just don't know how people can be that optimistic though. I mean, in day to day life it's fine to act as though these things are facts, but when you actually discuss them you have to admit that you can't be sure. Not because our senses are an illusion or something, but because of all sorts of factors. And I'm not saying that the earth revolving around the sun isn't fact, just that you can never be 100% sure of this. It might be, but there's this tiny chance that it isn't the case. That we've overlooked something, or whatever. (Note that this doesn't automatically mean that the sun revolves around the earth instead, it could be something else too.)

As I have said, none of this means that religious knowledge is as valid as scientific knowledge in any way.

Wicknight wrote: »

Perhaps a better term to use would be scientifically testable, or scientifically modellable (if that is a word)

Yes, something like that.

The point about the first two and the last one is that the former you can attempt to experiment to determine if your view is anywhere close to reality and the later you are basically left with no clue.

Indeed. As I hope my first post indicated I didn't mean to say what donegalfella said was complete rubbish or something, just that saying something is 'scientifically verified' is a bit problematic.

evolutionqy7 · 19-02-2010 02:48PM

liamw wrote: »

I always found this one interesting, particularly becuase I guess I've been there before to some degree when I was a kid.

I'm constantly baffled by how some of my friends who are quite rational, logical and critical thinkers in general, don't laugh at the idea of heaven and hell and god and prayers and a resurrection and .... etc.

It really came to light yesterday while talking to a friend. I made a joke about how I had joined the Church of Scientology (he knows I'm atheist), and the conversation went like this:

'I've joined the Chruch of Scientology'
'haha have you booked a good seat on the spaceship? lol'
'yep, first class, only €150 extra per month, have you been saying your prayers so you can go to heaven?'

Needless to say, he did not take kindly to that remark. He said I need to stop joking about religion and how it isn't a joke. Apparently it's just my opinion that religion is ridiculous and not a fact...

Isn't this some proof of brainwashing? Ever since I stepped away from relgion and started studying the actual evidence for it, I gradually came to realise that heaven is just, if not, more ridiculous a concept than the spaceship.

On a related point, whenever I go to a mass now, I always notice how absolutely ridiculous the whole thing is. It's weird how you don't see it untilyou step outside of it. Anyone else feel this way?

well i believed in god at some stage...but my grandma was very religious and forcing me going to church therefore leading me to hate it...when started school and science i kinda lost all there is to believe...learned about different religions and etc...how many gods is there? eventualy just said **** it...its just alot of bull****..

Boardnashea · 19-02-2010 02:55PM

liamw wrote: »

...On a related point, whenever I go to a mass now...,

What are you doing going to mass?

Glenster · 19-02-2010 03:35PM

donegalfella wrote: »

This post has been deleted.

Wrong.

I would never say that the claim that 'the earth circles the sun' (or any claim which has hard data supporting it) is as unverifiable as 'god loves you' or 'If you study really hard you can be whatever you want to be'.

I'm saying that if you do not investigate the data of either kind of claim then, as far as you are concerned, both claims are equally unverified (i.e. your acceptance of both claims is based on the trust you place in the teller or tellers).

Therefore if we are talking about people being 'brainwashed' into believeing things it is as equally valid to say that we are brainwashed into accepting certain incredibly complex scientific theories as it is to say we are brainwashed into accepting religious dogmas.

Note that I am not saying that it is as valid to accept any scientific claim as it is to accept any religious claim. Ideally we should all question and investigate every theory and hypothesis we are told and make our own minds up.

Of course a lot of the time this isn't possible, we all have lives outside academics, sometimes we have to accept things we are told based on trust or reputation.

Failing to see how ridiculous religion is until you escape it

Comments