Advertisement
If you have a new account but are having problems posting or verifying your account, please email us on hello@boards.ie for help. Thanks :)
Hello all! Please ensure that you are posting a new thread or question in the appropriate forum. The Feedback forum is overwhelmed with questions that are having to be moved elsewhere. If you need help to verify your account contact hello@boards.ie

How are intelligent, critical thinkers still religious?

1…457910…12

Comments

  • #182
    robindch
    Moderators, Society & Culture Moderators Posts: 24,461 Mod ✭✭✭✭robindch


    Des Carter wrote: »
    Do you know this for a fact or are do you "know" this because a few scientists and quantum mechanics claim this (yet have not provided solid proof)

    kinda sounds like Christians following the Church.
    Couldn't be arsed answering such a thunderlingly ignorant question.


  • #183
    Zombrex
    Closed Accounts Posts: 25,848 ✭✭✭✭Zombrex


    raah! wrote: »
    Well, were you not saying that science is more amazing than other things?
    Define "other things". Theology? Yes, miles more amazing.
    raah! wrote: »
    Well yes, familiar maybe, as familiar with theology as reading popular science makes you with science perhaps. But do not disparage a subject just because it's in the arts, perhaps you understand it to some degree, but not at the same level at which it's understood by those spending their lives studying it.

    I'm not disparaging theology because it is in the arts. I'm disparaging it because it is nonsense.

    Imagine instead of theology we were talking about Star-Trek-ology. Imagine some where someone spend their entire lives studying the the ins and outs of Star Trek, all the time believing it was real?

    Now would you say it is wrong for me to dismiss this because I am not an expert in Star-Trek-ology? Think about that for a minute.

    If theology has some secret reason that only people who have studied it for years know as to why it is in fact not a gigantic irrelevance to reality by all means can they share it with the rest of us
    raah! wrote: »
    Well, this was addressed in that thread. Perhaps you've forgotten it. Or maybe this is all just sophistry.
    Nothing was addressed in the other thread. It just descended into the usual "well this is what I believe..." nonsense.
    raah! wrote: »
    I am not so arrogant as to presume I know as much as people spending their lives studying it know.

    See Star-Trek-ology analogy above. If someone spends their entire life studying theology and believes it is true they know less than I do in a very crucial area..
    raah! wrote: »
    I'm sure those people studying darth vader understand that he is a character in starwars.

    Why? You think people never believe imaginary characters are real....?


  • #184
    Turtwig
    Registered Users, Registered Users 2 Posts: 26,578 ✭✭✭✭Turtwig


    robindch wrote: »
    Couldn't be arsed answering such a thunderlingly dumb and insulting question.

    Oh,
    My eyes must have been playing tricks on me.;)


  • #185
    Dades
    Moderators, Society & Culture Moderators Posts: 25,599 Mod ✭✭✭✭Dades


    Wicknight wrote: »
    If theology has some secret reason that only people who have studied it for years know as to why it is in fact not a gigantic irrelevance to reality by all means can they share it with the rest of us
    Thank you for posting this. :)


  • #186
    Ghost Buster
    Banned (with Prison Access) Posts: 5,172 ✭✭✭Ghost Buster


    Dades wrote: »
    Thank you for posting this. :)

    Im putting that on a T shirt!:D


  • Advertisement
  • #187
    robindch
    Moderators, Society & Culture Moderators Posts: 24,461 Mod ✭✭✭✭robindch


    Malty_T wrote: »
    My eyes must have been playing tricks on me.;)
    That was a Heisenpost :)


  • #188
    robindch
    Moderators, Society & Culture Moderators Posts: 24,461 Mod ✭✭✭✭robindch


    Wicknight wrote: »
    If theology has some secret reason that only people who have studied it for years know as to why it is in fact not a gigantic irrelevance to reality by all means can they share it with the rest of us
    +1

    Time to dust off the Courtier's Reply:
    PZ Myers wrote:
    I have considered the impudent accusations of Mr Dawkins with exasperation at his lack of serious scholarship. He has apparently not read the detailed discourses of Count Roderigo of Seville on the exquisite and exotic leathers of the Emperor's boots, nor does he give a moment's consideration to Bellini's masterwork, On the Luminescence of the Emperor's Feathered Hat. We have entire schools dedicated to writing learned treatises on the beauty of the Emperor's raiment, and every major newspaper runs a section dedicated to imperial fashion; Dawkins cavalierly dismisses them all. He even laughs at the highly popular and most persuasive arguments of his fellow countryman, Lord D. T. Mawkscribbler, who famously pointed out that the Emperor would not wear common cotton, nor uncomfortable polyester, but must, I say must, wear undergarments of the finest silk.

    Dawkins arrogantly ignores all these deep philosophical ponderings to crudely accuse the Emperor of nudity.

    Personally, I suspect that perhaps the Emperor might not be fully clothed — how else to explain the apparent sloth of the staff at the palace laundry — but, well, everyone else does seem to go on about his clothes, and this Dawkins fellow is such a rude upstart who lacks the wit of my elegant circumlocutions, that, while unable to deal with the substance of his accusations, I should at least chide him for his very bad form.

    Until Dawkins has trained in the shops of Paris and Milan, until he has learned to tell the difference between a ruffled flounce and a puffy pantaloon, we should all pretend he has not spoken out against the Emperor's taste. His training in biology may give him the ability to recognize dangling genitalia when he sees it, but it has not taught him the proper appreciation of Imaginary Fabrics.


  • #189
    Zombrex
    Closed Accounts Posts: 25,848 ✭✭✭✭Zombrex


    "His training in biology may give him the ability to recognize dangling genitalia when he sees it, but it has not taught him the proper appreciation of Imaginary Fabrics."

    ha, brilliant :D


  • #190
    Des Carter
    Registered Users, Registered Users 2 Posts: 720 ✭✭✭Des Carter


    bluewolf wrote: »
    edit: sod it, yes


    interesting read:
    http://www.mpg.de/english/illustrationsDocumentation/documentation/pressReleases/2010/pressRelease20100909/index.html

    OK, but all these are just claims that are not backed up for example
    The scientists use vacuum fluctuations as quantum dice. Such fluctuations are another characteristic of the quantum world: there is nothing that does not exist there. Even in absolute darkness, the energy of a half photon is available and, although it remains invisible, it leaves tracks that are detectable in sophisticated measurements: these tracks take the form of quantum noise. This completely random noise only arises when the physicists look for it, that is, when they carry out a measurement.

    How do we know for sure scientists have used a quantum dice (does a quantum dice even exist (have you ever seen one/ or vaccume fluctuations for that matter)
    Even in absolute darkness, the energy of a half photon is available

    How do you know that? maybe they are just saying it exists and we just believe them because their scientist!
    and, although it remains invisible, it leaves tracks that are detectable in sophisticated measurements

    Why do you blindly believe this?


  • #191
    Zombrex
    Closed Accounts Posts: 25,848 ✭✭✭✭Zombrex


    Des Carter wrote: »
    How do you know that? maybe they are just saying it exists and we just believe them because their scientist!

    Do you actually know anything about science? Genuine question. Have you heard of "peer review" or "repeatability"?


  • Advertisement
  • #192
    Des Carter
    Registered Users, Registered Users 2 Posts: 720 ✭✭✭Des Carter


    PhiloCypher wrote: »
    Thats a farcical argument so scientists can't be trusted is that it ?
    Can priests be trusted?
    PhiloCypher wrote: »
    if no source can be trusted how can you be so sure Jesus existed or that he was the Son of god and not just a charismatic preacher, if the old testement is suspect in your eyes what makes you think the rest of it is anymore accurate.

    I am not sure of this at all and there is a real possibility that all religions are wrong however I believe he existed in the same way I believe scientists are telling the truth whereas you believe scientists are telling the truth yet dont believe the people who claim Jesus existed.


  • #193
    Turtwig
    Registered Users, Registered Users 2 Posts: 26,578 ✭✭✭✭Turtwig


    Wicknight wrote: »
    Do you actually know anything about science?

    Do you really think you'd be asking this question if s/he did?:)


  • #194
    Zombrex
    Closed Accounts Posts: 25,848 ✭✭✭✭Zombrex


    Des Carter wrote: »
    Can priests be trusted?
    You and no one else have any way to verify what the priest is telling you.

    The same is not true with science. You don't need to verify what the scientists is telling you if you are happy that someone is. Which they are.


  • #195
    Turtwig
    Registered Users, Registered Users 2 Posts: 26,578 ✭✭✭✭Turtwig


    Des Carter wrote: »
    OK, but all these are just claims that are not backed up for example



    How do we know for sure scientists have used a quantum dice (does a quantum dice even exist (have you ever seen one/ or vaccume fluctuations for that matter)



    How do you know that? maybe they are just saying it exists and we just believe them because their scientist!



    Why do you blindly believe this?

    Of course you don't know for sure, they could be lying their arses the off, but if you really doubt the veracity of their claims then I think you should throw away any flash memory devices you have in your possession. That's as much leeway as I'm going to give you though. Blindly believe? I don't. The whole point of science is to put this disclaimer before every single concept it discusses.

    "This material on X is a scientific theory and not a fact. This material should be approached carefully with an open mind and critically consider."

    Science is scepticism.

    As it happens I have carried out many physics experiments and have seen many phenomena before my very eyes, using these as a starting point as well as mathematics as tool I can see how it is highly plausible for such notions to be true. Then, I just add a bit of humanity (something many people strangely seem to think scientists lack) and trust the integrity of the results. Of course, the results could indeed have been fabricated, but generally such is the nature of science and how the process works that bad science usually always get filtered out, it's just a matter of time and humans being alive. Repeatability, also helps to filter out the false results. Put simply, science is most effective when the results a person got from doing experiment A are obtained by another scientist who did an experiment from a completely line of thought and research but arrived at the same conclusion. When scientists from a plethora of disciplines start to converge on the one theory then you are only really left with two options : Either they are involved in a mass global scale conspiracy, or they are actually doing independent research and arriving at the same results that helps use truly understand nature better. Science doesn't stop there though, even when they have a theory that they fully understand, they keep testing it and making logical predictions from it. In other words, they are consistently assuming the possibility that the theory is wrong.
    Religion on the other just says it is so, because it is so and doesn't bother its arse in testing it to be so.


  • #196
    Nemi
    Closed Accounts Posts: 334 ✭✭Nemi


    Wicknight wrote: »
    You and no one else have any way to verify what the priest is telling you.

    The same is not true with science. You don't need to verify what the scientists is telling you if you are happy that someone is. Which they are.
    I'd just be mildly uncomfortable with this depiction of science as if it were not a human activity, and subject to the compromises that entails.

    I think the balance of argument is that theology just isn't at the races. It really is just making stuff up. Science has high aspirations, which it frequently does not live up to. But, as you say, there is at least a way in which scientific statements can be evaluated.

    I'm just conscious of things like the amount of medical treatments employed without an evidence base, and the reluctance of many doctors to accept evidence from scientific trials as superior to their clinical judgements. Unfortunately, there's not a lot of difference between 'clinical judgement' and 'making stuff up'.


  • #197
    robindch
    Moderators, Society & Culture Moderators Posts: 24,461 Mod ✭✭✭✭robindch


    Des Carter wrote: »
    How do you know that? maybe they are just saying it exists and we just believe them because their scientist!
    Are you posting here because (a) you want to discuss something in a spirit of openness and exchange and hopefully learn something by doing so, or are you (b) here to produce a long series of similar posts, each one declaiming the same unhappy and unmovable view of science and scientists?

    (b) is against rule (3) of the forum charter, but (a) is good and the excellent A+A crew will be more than happy to oblige.


  • #198
    Zombrex
    Closed Accounts Posts: 25,848 ✭✭✭✭Zombrex


    Nemi wrote: »
    I'd just be mildly uncomfortable with this depiction of science as if it were not a human activity, and subject to the compromises that entails.

    I'm not following? Verification of scientific results is a human activity, is it not?
    Nemi wrote: »
    I think the balance of argument is that theology just isn't at the races. It really is just making stuff up. Science has high aspirations, which it frequently does not live up to. But, as you say, there is at least a way in which scientific statements can be evaluated.
    Agreed
    Nemi wrote: »
    I'm just conscious of things like the amount of medical treatments employed without an evidence base, and the reluctance of many doctors to accept evidence from scientific trials as superior to their clinical judgements. Unfortunately, there's not a lot of difference between 'clinical judgement' and 'making stuff up'.

    Well doctors aren't scientists (or at least don't have to be) and neither is clinical judgement. So that isn't really an issue with science.


  • #199
    Turtwig
    Registered Users, Registered Users 2 Posts: 26,578 ✭✭✭✭Turtwig


    Nemi wrote: »
    I'd just be mildly uncomfortable with this depiction of science as if it were not a human activity, and subject to the compromises that entails.

    I think the balance of argument is that theology just isn't at the races. It really is just making stuff up. Science has high aspirations, which it frequently does not live up to. But, as you say, there is at least a way in which scientific statements can be evaluated.

    I'm just conscious of things like the amount of medical treatments employed without an evidence base, and the reluctance of many doctors to accept evidence from scientific trials as superior to their clinical judgements. Unfortunately, there's not a lot of difference between 'clinical judgement' and 'making stuff up'.

    Yeah but that's it really science is a damn useful and very powerful tool. The application of the tool though is done by humans, who as we all know, tend to prefer intuition over data.


  • #200
    natsuko
    Registered Users, Registered Users 2 Posts: 129 ✭✭natsuko


    Havent read through all pages, just first and last. Just want to reply to the original post...
    Two things, a sense of fear and/or hope.


  • #201
    Nemi
    Closed Accounts Posts: 334 ✭✭Nemi


    Wicknight wrote: »
    I'm not following? Verification of scientific results is a human activity, is it not?
    Put quickly, Climategate illustrates the kind of thing I have in mind.

    Anecdotally, I can recall a lecturer who supervised Masters students telling me he'd once allowed one, who had collected a load of data that really revealed nothing, to adjust her statistical tests so that they appeared to be giving some support to her thesis. Maybe he was just repeating some urban myth, as people do. But I think it shows the human limits to any process.

    There's a quote doing the rounds at the minute, which is something like "no system is so perfec that you don't need good people".
    Wicknight wrote: »
    Well doctors aren't scientists (or at least don't have to be) and neither is clinical judgement. So that isn't really an issue with science.
    I'd be slow to dismiss the example of medicine so quickly, as its surely one of the human activities most initimately concerned with the practical application of advances in human knowledge.


  • Advertisement
  • #202
    Goduznt Xzst
    Registered Users, Registered Users 2 Posts: 1,353 ✭✭✭Goduznt Xzst


    Linoge wrote: »
    There is a distinct difference though. Alcohol, cigarettes and drugs are physically satisfying. Intelligent people will know that it is bad but still do it because "god damn it just feels so good". You could argue that an intelligent person could take comfort in a life after death (or any other such other nonsensical religous comfort) but how can a truly intelligent, logical, scientific mind take comfort in what they know doesnt really exist?

    They don't know it doesn't really exist though. You don't either.

    It's been commented on previously but it's all part of how we can compartmentalize. A person can just as easily choose to remove their own logical and rational abbilities from analysing their reasons for believing, as they can from analysing why they smoke, and how it will impact them in the future.

    I don't see any difference between the effects of cigarettes on a persons mind to the effects of belief. Being able to look at your loved ones and believe fully that they will never die is a pretty intoxicating drug for most I'd imagine.

    I remember my parents, coming out of Church, talking about being "refreshed" and "lifted"... the act of going in there and listening to those sermons they didn't understand lifted, momentarily, their crippling Christian guilt and reassured them that they'd be saved when death came for them. Over time I'd imagine, when feeling stressed or under pressure, going into that Church was as much a release as the smoker who steps away to light up and not think of anything else for a few moments.


  • #203
    liamw
    Closed Accounts Posts: 1,780 ✭✭✭liamw


    Nemi wrote: »
    But this doesn't work, as I think Dawkins even explains in 'The Selfish Gene'. Natural selection would favour the free rider - the person who accepts your protection of his child, but who doesn't reciprocate.

    No, that isn't what Dawkins says in the book. Natural selection will only favour the 'free rider' in a population which is abundant in non-free riders.

    IF natural selection does indeed favour the freerider in this particular environment, then the ratio of freeriders to non-freeriders (or the tendency to freeride) will saturate the environment and eventually non-freeriders may flourish again. Eventually an ESS (evolutionary stable strategy) will arise in the population. There may be many possible ESS points, and it may shift with environmental changes but you get the point.

    BACK ON TOPIC :)
    Goduznt Xzst wrote: »
    I don't see any difference between the effects of cigarettes on a persons mind to the effects of belief. Being able to look at your loved ones and believe fully that they will never die is a pretty intoxicating drug for most I'd imagine.

    The cigarette analogy doesn't really work for me. The person who chooses to smoke the cigarette in your example knows and understands that it is unhealthy but consciously chooses to do so anyway. Sure, they might try to ignore the fact it's unhealthy but they still know it if you ask them.

    The religious person as described in the OP does know or accept that religion is false. They truly believe that it is true. They truly believe that they have reached that position through entirely rational reasoning.

    Wicknight and a few others have posted earlier in the thread about how we all tend to be irrational at times. I've been there too with certain things - cognitive dissonance. However, most people when they are applying cognitive dissonance in favour of believing something will tend to purposely ignore debate.

    Some theists (not many I've found) will be open to debate and try to rationally defend their belief. This is kind of the part that confuses me.
    Jakkass wrote:
    OP: Admittedly, I wonder why intelligent, critical thinkers would even pose this question.

    I admitted in my post that I felt that I was missing something. You've outlined your reasons before for believing and they just seemed weak to me.


  • #204
    philologos
    Closed Accounts Posts: 22,479 ✭✭✭✭philologos


    liamw wrote: »
    Some theists (not many I've found) will be open to debate and try to rationally defend their belief. This is kind of the part that confuses me.

    I admitted in my post that I felt that I was missing something. You've outlined your reasons before for believing and they just seemed weak to me.

    I don't see how it confuses you. People can clearly be intelligent, and believe in God. Belief doesn't really indicate how intelligent you are, and it never really has done. Indeed, I'd argue that belief in God is hugely intellectually satisfying as well.

    Admittedly, I find the reasons why one would be an atheist to be lacking in how much they make sense. However, I don't go as far as questioning how intelligent people can be atheists.


  • #205
    liamw
    Closed Accounts Posts: 1,780 ✭✭✭liamw


    Jakkass wrote: »
    I don't see how it confuses you. People can clearly be intelligent, and believe in God. Belief doesn't really indicate how intelligent you are, and it never really has done. Indeed, I'd argue that belief in God is hugely intellectually satisfying as well.

    Admittedly, I find the reasons why one would be an atheist to be lacking in how much they make sense. However, I don't go as far as questioning how intelligent people can be atheists.

    I didn't say people who are intelligent couldn't be religious. That was the whole point of the OP! I said there seemed to be intelligent crticial thinkers who are religious. So quite the opposite really.

    It confuses me, yes. Again, because I can't find any rational line of reasoning to believe in any religion.


  • #206
    Goduznt Xzst
    Registered Users, Registered Users 2 Posts: 1,353 ✭✭✭Goduznt Xzst


    liamw wrote: »
    The cigarette analogy doesn't really work for me.

    All analogies won't "work" if you continue to compare them in facets which weren't originally intended. For instance, cigarettes require tobacco, religious beliefs do not. The analogy doesn't work for this.

    I drew the comparison based purely on what each activity gives the person as a result. For smokers and the religious, their habits have a lot of grey. The smoker might know of the health studies but do you imagine they would continue to do it if they where guaranteed, 100%, that they'd get cancer as a result of it? They hope to dodge the bullet and end up as one of the individuals who smokes for a lifetime and suffers little because of it.

    In the same fashion that a Religious person says their prayers and obeys their God in the hope that they'll secure an eternity of bliss for themselves.


  • #207
    Nemi
    Closed Accounts Posts: 334 ✭✭Nemi


    liamw wrote: »
    No, that isn't what Dawkins says in the book. Natural selection will only favour the 'free rider' in a population which is abundant in non-free riders.

    IF natural selection does indeed favour the freerider in this particular environment, then the ratio of freeriders to non-freeriders (or the tendency to freeride) will saturate the environment and eventually non-freeriders may flourish again. Eventually an ESS (evolutionary stable strategy) will arise in the population. There may be many possible ESS points, and it may shift with environmental changes but you get the point.
    I checked the text, and you're essentially right, but two significant clarifications are needed.

    Firstly, he distinguishes between two types of altruists - "suckers" who expect no reciprocation, and more tit-for-tat "grudgers". "Suckers" are eliminated by freeriding "cheats". The elimination of the "suckers" then enables the "grudgers" to grow, as the "cheats" effectively have a resource removed.

    Also, he seems not to apply this model to human altruism, which he does not attempt to explain. (The man does, I find, make clear when he knows there's an area on which nothing much useful can be said.)


  • #208
    liamw
    Closed Accounts Posts: 1,780 ✭✭✭liamw


    Goduznt Xzst wrote: »
    In the same fashion that a Religious person says their prayers and obeys their God in the hope that they'll secure an eternity of bliss for themselves.

    Ye, but shouldn't an understanding of the Pascal's Wager fallacy just refute that instantly.

    I think I get your point now though. The smoker may not wish to implement risk/reward accurately, but rather irrationally seek reasons to continue to smoke. And a relgious believer may just seek reasons to believe and ignore contradicting arguments (like pascals wager above).

    This ignoring is the interesting part though. The believer, I don't think, is consciously ignoring the rational points. That's why I suspected a deeper psychological phenomena at work which is clouding judgement.


  • #209
    liamw
    Closed Accounts Posts: 1,780 ✭✭✭liamw


    Nemi wrote: »
    Also, he seems not to apply this model to human altruism, which he does not attempt to explain. (The man does, I find, make clear when he knows there's an area on which nothing much useful can be said.)

    True, he doesn't. But what annoys me is how religious people are perfectly happy to accept that alruistic behaviour in animals may have fully evolved, but refuse to accept that it could even be possible when it comes to the human species (since it contradicts their religion).


  • #210
    Des Carter
    Registered Users, Registered Users 2 Posts: 720 ✭✭✭Des Carter


    Malty_T wrote: »
    Of course you don't know for sure, they could be lying their arses the off,

    You admitt this yet you still believe they are telling the truth yet you dont believe anyone who teaches that that there is more to this world than meets the eye. A bit hypocritical dont you think?
    Malty_T wrote: »
    As it happens I have carried out many physics experiments and have seen many phenomena before my very eyes, using these as a starting point as well as mathematics as tool I can see how it is highly plausible for such notions to be true.

    So if you didnt do experiments and study mathematics you would not believe scientists?
    Malty_T wrote: »
    Repeatability, also helps to filter out the false results. Put simply, science is most effective when the results a person got from doing experiment A are obtained by another scientist who did an experiment from a completely line of thought and research but arrived at the same conclusion.

    When scientists from a plethora of disciplines start to converge on the one theory then you are only really left with two options : Either they are involved in a mass global scale conspiracy, or they are actually doing independent research and arriving at the same results that helps use truly understand nature better.

    Here is another major flaw in your argument. You are saying that scientific evidence must be true because a whole lot of scientists from a whole range of different areas of expertise etc have come to the same conclusion

    Yet nearly every different society in the history of the Earth have all come to the conclusion that there is a "God"/something more to the world yet you dont take this as evidence. Again very hypocritical!
    Malty_T wrote: »
    Science doesn't stop there though, even when they have a theory that they fully understand, they keep testing it and making logical predictions from it. In other words, they are consistently assuming the possibility that the theory is wrong.

    So science itself is ADMITTING it may be wrong yet you still believe in it unquestioningly???:confused::confused::confused:


  • Advertisement
  • #211
    Kenna Shrilling Tofu
    Posts: 81,310 CMod ✭✭✭✭ Kenna Shrilling Tofu


    Des Carter wrote: »
    OK, but all these are just claims that are not backed up for example


    Why do you blindly believe this?

    :rolleyes::rolleyes:
    I don't "blindly" believe anything, what with having a physics background.
    I also know that if I got up off my backside and went to research physics, I could do so. Hell I could ask my friends doing postdocs in physics.

    The point with science that YOU CAN VERIFY THESE THINGS FOR YOURSELF.

    :mad:
    So science itself is ADMITTING it may be wrong
    Of COURSE it is admitting it may be wrong that is the WHOLE POINT.
    You don't learn anything new if you don't admit you may be wrong.

    I'm really losing patience with this.
    I wish you were just a troll and people don't *really* go around saying things like this.


Advertisement