Religion -
1 Like
The whole Gervais show, called religion, was great.
1 Like
Did said scientist conclude that from measurement or had he read it in a book?
1 Like
Werenāt they wise men or philosophers back then anyway?
Yes or often trying to find a balance between science and religion and / or having to to be yes people to royalty.
That said, @richieh_10 is right. Scientists are often wrong, itās part of the process.
For example the shape of the universe. There are 3 options - flat (infinite), closed (3d Balloon) or open (something truly weird). There are scientists that subscribe to each, current measurements are leaning towards flat but there is a recent study suggesting a closed one. The process goes on but they all cant be right.
1 Like
I find the argument of āscience isnāt always right so Iāll stick to my beliefsā very strange. Thatās like saying ādemocracy doesnāt always work well, so Iāll stick my often brutal dictatorship.ā If weāre putting the onus on science to be ārightā what about the same expectations from unfounded belief?
There are some things that science canāt prove or disprove. Like the existence of God. What is God? To the Greeks, gods were just higher beings who were much more powerful than humans but quite capable of being ultimately killed or defeated. To many modern religionists God is omnipotent (which most people pay lip service to but frankly the human brain canāt comprehend eternity or nothingness). Thereās no way to design an experiment around that.
But for other things, science has done a much much better job at producing verifiable, reproducable results than belief. The scientific method also has much less of an ego than belief, the concept of critical peer review is built into the modern method. Thereās no such critical component in belief. In fact, most ābelieversā would go so far as to murder people who criticise their belief.
Lastly, weāre all sitting in front of a phone or computer typing these thoughts out. Those innovations didnāt come about by belief but by the accumulation of scientifically verified results.
You want to believe in God sure, great! But if you want to believe that climate change isnāt a thing despite volumes of scientific data then thatās a real problem.
6 Likes
Well-articulated. In addition to the climate change example you proivded, itās like the COVIDiots who are like āwell, the scientists were wrong, so therefore my opinion is equally valid.ā No, it isnāt ā thereās a reason that they have a PhD and you went to Facebook University.
Near me (Belfast, ME, not the one in Ireland), a COVID conspiracy theorist (and, surprisingly, a former CIA officer) died after calling it a hoax, stating āI will not take the vaccination, though I did test positive for whatever theyāre calling āCOVIDā today, but the bottom line is that my lungs are not functioning.ā Then, his friend had the gall to say that it was the ātypical respiratory thingā (a.k.a. COVID!). Heads in the sand. Conspiracy theorist who held Belfast rally and called COVID-19 a hoax dies of COVID
for what itās worth, I really liked Stigmata.
This discussion has been had numerous time before, but the main issue is that āthe scientists were wrongā doesnāt mean what these people think it means. For instance, the issue raised by @Noo_Noo is an example of robust discussion among people working on an unsolved problem. The key being its an unsolved problem, and an area of active investigation. The people who will ultimately be shown to have been on the wrong side of the argument are not the equivalent of what lay people say when denying consensus scientific opinion by saying science gets it wrong.
The vast majority of times of science having got it āwrongā in the way they mean is typically not even science getting it wrong, but people with powerful platforms fucking it up. Ancel Keys and the Dietary Fat-Heart Disease hypothesis is a great example of this, but the reality is this was a case of politicians picking a winner of a debate that was still legitimately active and making policy based on the hope they had picked the right answer (they hadnt). Again, you dont get to blame science for politicians treating an active debate as solved and enacting bad policy.
Another area where the lay skeptic gets is wrong is in saying stupid like ānewton was wrongā or Einstein was wrong. Sure, with only newtonian physics GPS wouldnāt work as it needed Einsteinās relativity to account for gravitational time dilation, but newton was not wrong enough to avoid dying after jumping out of a 20th story window.
4 Likes
I always love it when somebody questions science in the face of the power of religion.
From their iPhone.
1 Like
the power of Christ compels you!
I was a Christian Believer until I was about 12. I was being confirmed when my vicar (who in retrospect was brilliant) suggested I read the bible. Not read it the way that religious people tend to, cherry picking the nice bits and deciding what it means in abstract. Actually read it. From start to finish.
When Iād finished I wasnāt a Christian anymore. Iām firmly of the belief that no Christian faith can survive an open, fair minded and complete reading of their holy book. Itās absolutely insane. Read in that context itās clear that this book was patched together by ignorant people trying to make sense of a world they didnāt understand, and making a right mess of it.
Thatās probably why the church has historically always been opposed to people reading the bible, and have historically opposed any move towards making it more accessible and freely available.
Iāve become a bit more tolerant of religion in middle age. Where Iād previously been pretty gung ho attacking religion and the religious, Iām now at the point where if people leave me alone and and try and put their faith on me and society, I donāt mind what they believe.
But if anyone tries to push their religion at me, Iām happy to let them have both barrels. The local JWs give me a wide berth these days.
2 Likes
Yes, but people get confused about what agnostic and atheist mean.
Iām agnostic and an atheist. The first speaks to what you know and the second to what you believe and how to live your life.
Iām technically agnostic about God because I donāt know if there is one. But Iām atheist because There is no evidence for one, I donāt believe there is one, and I organise my life around the fact that there isnāt one.
Iām exactly the same about Nessie.
Everyone is agnostic about God if they are being intellectually honest.
1 Like
Interested to find out about your views about the Bible and how it changed your mind?
My father-in-law said something that has stuck with me. Just for context, he is an atheist and so was I, even prior to him saying this. He was brought up Christian but upon his 14th birthday he decided to become atheist because he could not reconcile a merciful Christian God with the suffering of children. In the end, out of all of the āintellectualā arguments that one could make, this stands out as a most pointed of pointsā¦
1 Like
Thatās so true, I once said to someone who asked about my religion that I was atheist.
They for some reason went on for hours saying I wasnāt atheist I was agnostic, which I think conffused me and her no end. Until I said (and for once she listened) I didnāt believe in any god, gods ā¦ what a waste of time.
As I said really.
Every Christian I know cherry picks the bible - they search out the bits that make sense, the beautiful messages and the bits that conform to modern standards of morality. They ignore all the unpleasant stuff, all the rapes and murders and infanticide (in the name of god) the frankly batshit stuff, and crucially lose the overwhelming sense from reading it as a book that this was cobbled together by primitive people who didnāt understand their world.
Iām used to Christians telling me to judge not lest ye be judged and all that. Iād be interested on hearing their views on why, according to the bible, God is fine with slavery, itās absolutely OK to rape children, and why worshipping another god is the greatest crime there is.
3 Likes
Even as a devowed atheist, I think thatās a bad take. Itās not easy to find too many of those sorts of immoral takes in the messages of the new testament (id argue you cannot, but am leaving myself a tiny bit of wiggle room). The whole point of christianty is god giving his son to mankind to tell them that even those who believe in him from the old testament are doing it wrong.
1 Like
Not having that for a second. Jesus had every opportunity to say all the old testament was balls. He didnāt, he specifically said he came not to change a jot nor tittle of the law. Also (as my initial post) talked about the temple being his fatherās house. That god who murdered, condoned slavery, child rape etc. Why didnāt JC renounce it all? You canāt play that card, it just doesnāt wash.
And he gave his son to save us from himself? Youāre a smart guy, read that back a few times. Makes less sense than indicators on a BMW.
Iām smart enough to know not to get into debates with people who use strawmen.
4 Likes