Plus, I Got Religion

[Mesozoic Mister Nigel]

I can't decide what's worse...the holier-than-thou religious types, or the smarmy-ass atheists.

They're the same thing.

[Mesozoic Mister Nigel]

Also, IMO there are people who have built a religious structure around some scientific theories, but as soon as they do that it stops being science.

[potato]

Also, IMO there are people who have built a religious structure around some scientific theories, but as soon as they do that it stops being science.

can you give me a for instance? because a theory should be testable, which should keep it within the realm of science. the ideas people form about theories might become the basis for religion, but ideas are in the realm of hypothesis.

[Requia ☣]

Oh, I'm altogether aware of that...

HEY GUYS, MEET MY SISTER!

I'm scared.

Also, this thread needs to move slower, I can't follow it at work.   

[Requia ☣]

So, unless someone has a strong grasp of Hebrew, Aramaic and Greek, plus access to all the oldest scrolls and manuscripts still available, plus a deep understanding of the social and ethnic dynamics of the ancient Hebrews and First century Greeks/Christians/Jews/Romans.... they're not gonna know what the book actually says. They have to trust the interpreter.

Nah, then they still may not have any idea what a passage says.  I know some of the new testament passages that are supposed to condemn gays are contested on the grounds that the words used don't exist anywhere else in antiquity.  The writer could have been talking about furniture for all we know.

[Torodung]

all this has really led up to telling a story of an experience I had when I was in the cult. we were having statewide gathering/conference at a hotel and it just so happened that the athiests society was having one at the same time at the same hotel. both camps spent time examining displays and eavesdropping. the thing that struck me most was that there was essentially no difference in the materials presented or the fervor with which adherents embraced their position. the bumper stickers, the t-shirts, the books, the speakers... all the noise to get god and religion out of everything... it was itself a religion.

But the a-theists, the one holding conventions in hotels at least, are often so anti-religious and a-faithist that they can't see the religious nature of their organized activities. It's clear as day to the theists. They look at it and say, "Oh, you've created a religion around science" or "a religion around the state."

Just as anything, ANY organization, that organizes itself around the concept of hierarchy will eventually start to look like a church. It's happened to the law, and it's happening to the stock market. Hierarchy, applied indifferently as the ONLY way to "get r' done," is the problem here.

We need to look beyond ancient ideas like hierarchy and authority, as one of many ways to approach administration of effort.

I don't like the concept of religion created around science. it's contradictory. I don't think atheists have created a religion around science, I think they've created a religion around an hypothesis (just as all good religions should be), which is just fine but it's not "science".

Not really. In order to gain cred in the University system, which was authoritarian and religious in nature, modern scientists had to abscond with the works of Sir Issac Newton, amongst others, as the authority by which they would found their new "natural science." The real reason we have "laws" in science is because of this authority grab, necessary to overcome the prejudices of the 18th C university system.

Now, some "scientists" are making up such "laws," or at the very least overstating their case, to combat the certainty of morons who believe the world is 6,000 years old because it says so in a mistranslated book. It's the same old battle against authority based "knowledge."

Before the modern science movement, science was called "natural philosophy."

At about the point where a scientist says, "I'm trying to know and/or discover" instead of, "I'm determining if this model is useful," you know you have a a religious scientist. Some of them never quite get past the "YOU KNOW NOTHING" phase.

So the whole thing started quite religiously, a religion based around mathematics, and could quite easily descend right back. All it takes is an inflexible set of minds in a position of authority.

So do you get a chuckle when a scientist draws a conclusion based on their prejudices instead of including the many ways the data obtained could be interpreted?

That's the nature of the problem. Authority is a bastard, and he's pissed off at anyone who thinks for themselves.

And because a pat answer always trumps a "who is to say?" he tends to win, in any circle.

[Mesozoic Mister Nigel]

Also, IMO there are people who have built a religious structure around some scientific theories, but as soon as they do that it stops being science.

can you give me a for instance? because a theory should be testable, which should keep it within the realm of science. the ideas people form about theories might become the basis for religion, but ideas are in the realm of hypothesis.

No good examples come to mind, but I'm talking about when people like an idea so much that they discard the science of it and revere the idea itself as an absolute, which is the point at which it ceases being a scientific idea for them (though it usually continues on being a scientific theory for others) and becomes a dogma.

[Mesozoic Mister Nigel]

Wow, Torodung rocked that reply.

[Thurnez Isa]

Wow, Torodung rocked that reply.

i don't think so, but too tired and drunkess to think

[Mesozoic Mister Nigel]

Maybe a context thing... I've probably been reading too much Vine Deloria.

[Thurnez Isa]

1st of all if a model is useful or not has NOTHING to do with anything, and people get into science to know and understand how the natural world around them works.

So do you get a chuckle when a scientist draws a conclusion based on their prejudices instead of including the many ways the data obtained could be interpreted?

That's why everything is rigorously peer reviewed. There is no authority that judges work. Your peers have to be able to replicate your methods and experiments. If they can't be replicated your ideas don't become part of the scientific literature except maybe just as ideas to discuss

[LMNO]

For example, let's say that someone tells you that it is written in the Old Testament that gays are not allowed to marry.


If you ask them where it says that, they won't know.  Because it's not there.  And while I think that basing your biases and prejudices because a book told you to is silly, basing it on a book that doesn't even say it is downright idiotic.

oh, I get it now. it's not the WORDS, it's the INFERENCES. so people take on faith inferences made by others and that bothers you?

Let me try to be more clear.

Joe has a book.  It has a front cover which says "The Holy Book of Holiness," and only one page.  On that page, it says, "2+2=4".  Joe has never opened this book to read what's written inside it.

Joe's spiritual leader, Kevin, has told Joe that what is written in the book is "2+2=5".  Because Joe is a devout Kevin-ist, he believes Kevin completely.

Joe approaches Mary, and says, "The Holy Book of Holiness says that 2+2=5".

Mary, being a skeptical type and who has opened the book says, "No it doesn't.  It says 2+2=4."

Joe replies, "Well, even the devil can cite scripture."

Mary: 

[P3nT4gR4m]

Of course if Joe was to open his book it would say "2+2=5"

He's reading the KKV right? And I'm assuming Mary has the Orthodox

Suppose we want to work out what 2+2 equals.

Do you suppose either of these versions would be of any use to us?

[Bebek Sincap Ratatosk]

Of course if Joe was to open his book it would say "2+2=5"

He's reading the KKV right? And I'm assuming Mary has the Orthodox

Suppose we want to work out what 2+2 equals.

Do you suppose either of these versions would be of any use to us?

Then you have that bastard Crowley who says that "2+2" is true and "2+2=4(or anything else I guess)" is false....

[LMNO]

Kevin would say, "Even though it seems to say that 2+2=4, you are forgetting the One that is contained in everything, so therefore 2+2=4(+1), giving us 5.  Of course."