Should Religious Beliefs Be Immune From Criticism?

[bushidomartialarts]

fair enough, cryo. that's a well-put together argument.

i feel much the same way about string theory. sometime in my twenties, physics became a subject for which i need a willing suspension of disbelief.

as far as 'well, shoot, it's always been this way', that makes as much sense as what i figure: cyclical big bangs and big crunches.

the questions that keeps me up at night is, if we do have cyclical big bangs and big crunches, does history repeat itself every time? do souls get recycled just the once, and we live our lives again and again? or do we keep on getting reincarnated throughout the process?

and that still doesn't leave room for a prime mover. but heck, no prime mover makes a lot more sense than strings.

 

[Ray]

I would argue it is a both/and scenario, not an either/or scenario.

It is true that our existing methodologies become more efficient and fine-tuned with the passage of time and peer review. But, it is also true that new methodologies are periodically developed (what Kuhn called "revolutions" in science) and this brings about entirely new bodies of data that were previously inaccessible.

I'm not sure that "bodies of data" and "new methodologies" catch the flavor. Methodology is "how" you do something, not necessarily how you do something new. Data is information, and just like manufacturing execution software which has been "improving" all these years, the trick is "what do we do with the data."

Once upon a time stripping the bark of a tree and eating it was cutting edge medical science. Punch cards, 9" floppies, etc. And still there is fundmentally nothing new under the sun.

 

[Makalakumu]

i feel much the same way about string theory. sometime in my twenties, physics became a subject for which i need a willing suspension of disbelief.

Heck, I felt this way when I began to study quantum mechanics. How can something be there and not there at the very same time? How can all possible paths, traveled by a photon, be traversed at the very same time? How in the heck can an object "tunnel" through another solid object faster then the speed of light?

A professor of me once told me, "if you think you understand quantum mechanics, you don't understand quantum mechanics." All of this is very hard to wrap our minds around...and I totally understand Cryo's point, how can we ask someone to believe in these "impossible" things and not believe in other "impossible" things?

The difference is that, when it comes to quantum mechanics, there has never been an experiment performed which has contradicted the predictions of this theory.

Sometimes, things that humans would consider to be impossible, really do happen.

Does this mean that all impossible things are fair game? Does this mean that the impossible things described by religion hold the same weight as the "impossible" things described by science.

No.

You can "see" quantum mechanics with your own eyes. You can perform any of these experiments and recreate the results...exactly. You don't have to "believe" in quantum mechanics at all, but these "impossible" things described will still happen. Your belief is irrelevent.

"God" exists in our minds and in our hearts...and universe expands completely oblivious to that belief. In other words, "she bangs all by herself, baby."

 

[Brother John]

This is sort of a sticky issue, but it's interesting.

I don't think that religious thought or rationale should be immune to criticism.
Neither to I think it should be at the mercy of it either. Logic can be applied to most religious thought and I think it should be, but it's only one way of thinking and it doesn't explain everything...it doesn't always hold the answers.
There's a great deal of mystery in life and most religions address this. Trying to apply logic or reason to "mystery"....and you'll soon arrive at an impasse.

Your Brother
John

 

[heretic888]

Nope, as I stated above, there is no proof either way... Just as you say, with science that there is "Suggestive Evidence" but that doesnt prove anything, and by the same token, there is no proof that my beliefs are correct either... the only thing that gets my undies in a bundle is people who try and present what science THINKS as FACT and therefore everyone else is stupid... Im not offended by you or your stand, but certain other folk, moreso.

With all due respect, Cryozombie, this is utilizing semantic quibbling to completely obfuscate the discussion.

One of the more alarming aspects of assertions such as these is an apparent ignorance of the fundamental terminology used in the sciences. Science has "methodology", "data", "hypotheses", "theories", and "laws". They don't have "proofs", that is the sole province of mathematics. To claim that science asserts any given explanation is "proven" or is "fact" demonstrates a considerable lack of relevant science education.

Your assertions sound to me as if you have gotten all your "science" information from drunken undergrad students berrating you at a bar around midnight. If you actually spend some time perusing academic journals or academic textbooks, it will become readily evident that the line of argumentation and terminology you attribute to "scientists" is, in fact, almost never used in academia.

As with Jade Tigress' claims about "science", I have to really question where you're getting your information from. It certainly isn't from a science classroom nor a scientific journal.

 

[heretic888]

As I said I have none... I'm gonna dumb me feelings on this down a bit... this isnt the best example, but I'm gonna run with it.

Joe Science Guy says "See that light in the sky, its an ailen spacecraft"
I say "Huh? How do you know that?"
Joe Science Guy "Its brighter than a typical plane, and it moved in an unusal pattern, I've never learned of anything else that moves that way, and is so bright, but Bob Science Guy once theorized that alien Craft would be capable of that, therefore it must be true, it's an alien craft."
I say "Uh, how do you know it cant be somthing heretofore undiscovered?"
Joe Science Guy says: "Wow you are uneducated, look at the facts I laid out, that is the answer, period. You have no evidence its anything else, and I have evidence it is."

No proof its an ailen craft, but Suggestive Evidence that it MAY be. Doesn't make it true tho. You just need to decide who you wanna believe.

As I stated beforehand, this line of argumentation does not take place in academia. Wherever you are getting your information from, it is not from academic sources.

Also, "suggestive evidence" is a nonsensical term in science. Either data supports a given hypothesis or it does not. It doesn't "suggest" anything.

Oversimplified, and dumbed down, sure. But really... I don't think any of us, in our lifetimes, or our fathers lifeimes, or their fathers lifetimes, or their fathers lifetimes, etc etc etc... even saw somthing create itself from nothing. Call me Uneducated or Stupid, but I cannot, cannot, cannot wrap my head around the fact that everything just made itself out of nothing...

Who, exactly, maintains the universe "created" itself from "nothing"??

Then, even if you look at the fossil record, science says "well, even tho there is no evidence, we believe this step and this step and this step exisisted, therefore it must have, and we have unrefutable proof of evolution." again with no proof...

Having some familiarity with the hominid fossil record, I have to conclude this line of reasoning is based on a fundamental ignorance of such a record. More than one person has claimed on this thread that there are no "transitional" fossil forms. This is demonstrably incorrect and I have more than once posted links that refute such claims.

That being said, the whole "missing link" line of argument is rather intriguing nonetheless. It is basically saying that because some numbers are missing from a number line, that therefore the number line doesn't exist.

The idea of it is, to me, if nothing else, mindblowing... that everything, against the odds happened... by chance and on its own...

This is a Straw Man. This proposition is not maintained in contemporary science.

The only "Scientific" answer that would make any sense to ME, but its not what science is even proposing... is that everything simply always was. The planets and stars have existed since the beginning of... well, ever... and then other stuff happened... but that throws science theory out the window too, since thats not thier claim.

Probably because it is not supported by evidence. The thing about science is that it is evidence based, not based on what "sounds good".

Laterz.

 

[heretic888]

I'm not sure that "bodies of data" and "new methodologies" catch the flavor. Methodology is "how" you do something, not necessarily how you do something new. Data is information, and just like manufacturing execution software which has been "improving" all these years, the trick is "what do we do with the data."

Nah. Any data is only as good as the methodology that produces it.

And that's really the point, there. Data doesn't just sit "out there", waiting for all and sundry to just walk by and pick it up. Data is created by utilizing specific methodologies. That is why data is only as good as its methodology.

To answer your query, new methodologies are developed periodically in the sciences. Prior to Sigmund Freud, for example, there was absolutely nothing like free association and that methodology has provided a body of data that far surpasses Freud's rather unsupported ideas about development.

Laterz.

 

[Cryozombie]

Your assertions sound to me as if you have gotten all your "science" information from drunken undergrad students berrating you at a bar around midnight.

Well, you and John.

 

[shesulsa]

Admin note: Thread closed.

My previous warning was to take sidebar conversations in to separate threads - that would include debates on creationism, the creation of evidential data, scientia vs. religion as a general topic, etcetera.

This thread has gone on long enough - the original topic has been long since lost and now this thread seems more about people taking potshots at each other's belief systems and ideations on the faith postulate.

I invite everyone to breathe, meditate, pray, stare at Scientific American or a petrie dish, whatever floats your boat, finish your shopping and entertain more polite, focused threads later.

G Ketchmark / shesulsa
MT Assistant Administrator