Why religion isn't under the same amount of scrutiny?

[slipstrike0159]

Re: Why religion isn't under the same amount of scrutiny?

Notice also that believing things such as Einstein's theory of relatively are firmly rooted in logic and science. To believe in the principles behind relativity is to believe a fundamental principle of physics that has not only logic behind it, but also tested evidence. Religion has neither. Religion forgoes logic and instead appeals to feelings. It isn't logical to believe in God, but it certainly can feel right.

I read through every post looking hard for the one key word that i was sure would turn up but apparently didnt (at least not in right way); Miracles.

But first let me address this comment that seemed very out of place to me. To be very clear you just stated that the theory of relatively is rooted in logic and science whereas religion doesnt because of one word "Feelings." Sorry, but by definition that theory describes how things FEEL. How time FEELS relative to the observer. I hope you realize that while you are experiencing this 'time difference' the only way you can measure it is by how it feels. I think the statement "time FEELS slower today because what I'm doing is boring" accurately illustrates my point. So how does saying "i FEEL the presence of a higher being (when i pray, for example)" act as less 'logical'? To me the difference in time can only be measured on how it FEELS to you and the presence of said higher entity can only be measured on how it FEELS to someone. Thus your statement is very foolish to say that theory is 'firmly rooted' while the religious belief forgoes those same standards even though the measurements for both are incalculable.

On to my first statement. I have read SO many times here the saying "there is no evidence" and many other statements questioning the validity of the bible in contrast to other documents. Let me put it very simply and in proper perspective. To a given religious person that holds the bible credible, to them there are MOUNTAINS of evidence in every day life that proves the teachings of the bible correct. Miracles is the key word here. Miracles are inherently defined by saying we have no idea how it happened. Many doctors who are 'deeply rooted in science' use this term to define a medical phenomenon in which they cannot explain. To a religious person this would be 'proof' or 'evidence' that a higher being intervened. Such things happen every day and all throughout time. THIS is why the bible is held to higher standards and credibility throughout the ages.
In a very arbitrary way, part of the scientific method is adopted into this line of thinking. To many these miracles can only be seen as intervention especially when in terms of prayer. You could say 'omg i have telekinesis cause i made that pot fall' right as an earthquake rolls in and through a twisted reasoning believe that to be true. Same to be said about believing in santa or any other type of fiction. However, religion is held to the higher credibility because of these miracles that many have seen many times. Such comes into play the primative adaption of science i spoke of earlier. It is much more than fiction because the things spoken of in the bible -miracles- can be supported by the idea that miracles can be witnessed (and many times shown after someone prays for that certain thing). This can draw a parallel between random occurring events in science where there is evidence supporting it exists, yet no plausible prediction as to the time frame in which it happens.
To these people seeing these events come as a reassurance, or rather evidence, that what they believe is true. You can claim that this is just the idea that if you look for something hard enough you will find it (such as finding the number 23 in everything) yet most turn to the idea that it was intervention. Many believe in chance or coincidences while others believe that everything has a reason through fate or destiny. Either way you look at it, using your own style of reasoning you cannot prove or disprove EITHER SIDE. However, to both sides it is proven through evidence; whether it be data or miracles, to the observer it is proven.

[QED Stepfiles]

Re: Why religion isn't under the same amount of scrutiny?

Okay so I took a 3 day break from this forum and I have absolutely no idea where this thread is going anymore lol... but I felt like I should at least respond to the most recent poster. I know that we've already discussed whether or not it's even viable to discuss religion in a scientific context, but since slipstrike insists on doing so, I guess I'm pretty justified in pointing out why such arguments ultimately fail.

But first let me address this comment that seemed very out of place to me. To be very clear you just stated that the theory of relatively is rooted in logic and science whereas religion doesnt because of one word "Feelings." Sorry, but by definition that theory describes how things FEEL. How time FEELS relative to the observer. I hope you realize that while you are experiencing this 'time difference' the only way you can measure it is by how it feels. I think the statement "time FEELS slower today because what I'm doing is boring" accurately illustrates my point.

So... this is actually a very bad misrepresentation of the theory of relativity. In a relativistic sense, time does not FEEL slower when you are in a frame of reference that is time dilated. It pretty much IS slower. If I were looking at a clock that was attached to the window of a vehicle traveling at relativistic speeds, I would actually be able to measure that clock going more slowly that it would normally. This doesn't have anything to do with feeling - just because I feel like time is going slowly because I'm doing something "boring" does not mean that time actually is slowing down. If I were to measure the time by looking at my watch at that moment I was bored, I wouldn't be able to say "hmm.. my watch is ticking only one second every two seconds it's supposed to tick." In this context, there is a HUGE discrepancy between "feeling" like time is slowing and objectively being able to measure such a phenomenon as per the rules of relativity.

So how does saying "i FEEL the presence of a higher being (when i pray, for example)" act as less 'logical'? To me the difference in time can only be measured on how it FEELS to you and the presence of said higher entity can only be measured on how it FEELS to someone. Thus your statement is very foolish to say that theory is 'firmly rooted' while the religious belief forgoes those same standards even though the measurements for both are incalculable.

^^See above comment about interpretation of relativity. This argument about "feeling" is all pretty irrelevant at this point. Science definitely is not about "feeling" in the same sense that you want it to mean when you talk about it in this quote.

On to my first statement. I have read SO many times here the saying "there is no evidence" and many other statements questioning the validity of the bible in contrast to other documents. Let me put it very simply and in proper perspective. To a given religious person that holds the bible credible, to them there are MOUNTAINS of evidence in every day life that proves the teachings of the bible correct. Miracles is the key word here. Miracles are inherently defined by saying we have no idea how it happened. Many doctors who are 'deeply rooted in science' use this term to define a medical phenomenon in which they cannot explain. To a religious person this would be 'proof' or 'evidence' that a higher being intervened. Such things happen every day and all throughout time. THIS is why the bible is held to higher standards and credibility throughout the ages.

So, the problem is, there's a major inconsistency here for the "evidence" you are talking about and "evidence" that would be acceptable in any scientific statement. The problem is that all these alleged "miracles" occur in places with so many confounding variables that you can't really justifiably (and I say justifiably in a scientific sense) say that they imply the existence or non-existence of a divine entity. I agree that the word "miracle" is something that refers to something that in our current state of knowledge is inexplicable, but it is definitely a huge logical jump to go from that to "there exists a God."

In a very arbitrary way, part of the scientific method is adopted into this line of thinking. To many these miracles can only be seen as intervention especially when in terms of prayer. You could say 'omg i have telekinesis cause i made that pot fall' right as an earthquake rolls in and through a twisted reasoning believe that to be true. Same to be said about believing in santa or any other type of fiction.

Yes, you could be (incorrectly) led to believe you had telekinesis in this fashion, but once again this wouldn't be acceptable in a scientific statement. Too many confounding variables. No experimental control.

However, religion is held to the higher credibility because of these miracles that many have seen many times.

So, the problem here is that you're lumping a large number of different phenomenon under this umbrella term "miracle." At that point, any scientific significance the statement may have is weakened, and in this case pretty much vanishes. This is also partly the fault of media - miracles are very, very rare, but when they happen they are immediately publicized and are spread like wildfire through every orifice of the country. The truth, though, is that for every miracle that happens, hundreds of thousands of events in the same category go as expected. Is it really scientifically sound in this context to cite such miracles as reasonable evidence for the existence of a creator? Or, are these miracles more likely just statistical blips that we should expect to see (ironically) every once in a while?

Such comes into play the primative adaption of science i spoke of earlier. It is much more than fiction because the things spoken of in the bible -miracles- can be supported by the idea that miracles can be witnessed (and many times shown after someone prays for that certain thing). This can draw a parallel between random occurring events in science where there is evidence supporting it exists, yet no plausible prediction as to the time frame in which it happens.

I am actually... completely baffled as to what you meant here. If this is still part of your argument that miracles somehow give us good proof of the existence of a creator, I refer you to my comments above.

To these people seeing these events come as a reassurance, or rather evidence, that what they believe is true. You can claim that this is just the idea that if you look for something hard enough you will find it (such as finding the number 23 in everything) yet most turn to the idea that it was intervention. Many believe in chance or coincidences while others believe that everything has a reason through fate or destiny. Either way you look at it, using your own style of reasoning you cannot prove or disprove EITHER SIDE. However, to both sides it is proven through evidence; whether it be data or miracles, to the observer it is proven.

Ahah, so here we have met with another interesting variable. If faced with an alleged "miracle," would you rather think that this is evidence for the existence of God, or just some random event? Of course, I don't have concrete evidence to back this up, but intuitively I can say that the vast majority of people who are asked this question would choose the former. Why? You said it yourself - the key word is "reassurance." Ultimately, it's very reassuring and comforting that there exist a God, and as such wanting to be secure (which is probably a ubiquitous desire) becomes a kind of incentive in this belief. This is, though, hardly a scientific argument. It actually is almost an argument against religion... <.<

I'm not saying that religion is incorrect. I also (and I mentioned this in a previous post) firmly believe that no amount of scientific skepticism can ever touch the subject of "Is there a God?" However, I do believe that if religion were ever held to a scientific type of rigor, it would fail in many respects. The question of whether or not it is even appropriate to judge religion on scientific terms is another debate entirely, but since you tried to mold the religious perspective into "scientifically acceptable" terms, I'm just trying to show you where this molding fails. If you want to properly argue the virtues of religion, it's generally a very bad idea to ever cite the "scientific method."

[Afrobean]

Re: Why religion isn't under the same amount of scrutiny?

You have no way to know that kmay is any more real than I am or any other claimed consciousness to which you don't have introspective access. *grin*

Yeah, but I'm trying to get the point into his own head.

Also, I believe that since the subjective truth works for me that it holds true for other persons as well.

I'm glad you didn't. I would have been angry. Sorry but a source confirming itself isn't actually proof.

The Bible is true because the Bible says it is true. Hurr

So you don't trust a book telling you who authored it?

I mean, it's not like this is an unbelievable story point here that you're refusing to believe. You're refusing to believe it when they say "this was written by ____".

Question: how do you confirm the authors of other books if the book telling you isn't enough proof for you? How can you be sure that an alternative source giving information regarding the author of a book did not get the information from the book (GASP OR THE PUBLISHER)?

I mean, when you go to Wikipedia, do you think they should require a citation when they say who the author is? A citation that is not the material itself, that is?

1. Third party not directly related to Christian literature

Anything involving Jesus can be identified as "Christian literature".

2. Agrees with the rest of recorded history

By this, do you mean "does not include unrealistic or unbelievable stories"? What if HE REALLY IS THE SON OF GOD AND ALL OF THOSE STORIES ARE TRUE?

3. Written by people who has known Jesus, or known of Jesus during his time as not just a great prophet or son of god.

Quick question, bro.

Do you think people will be reading things about you in 2000 years? Do you think anything written about you now would survive for 2000 years? Do you know how unreasonable it is to ask for something written about him 2000 years later THAT IS NOT directly related to HIS CHURCH or HIS FOLLOWERS?

4. Historical records kept by government

What of Dev's claim of Roman records indicating that they had crucified Jesus? I've heard of such records myself, and frankly, if you're willing to dismiss the possibility that such a thing is real because some propaganda website tells you they absolutely don't exist, I gotta question whether you're actually open minded or if you're simply so set in your opinions that you will shut out anything that might go against them.

And no, I have not SEEN these records, but there is plenty on this Earth that I have not seen. However, when I hear someone who I trust to know what they're talking about saying "yes there are records", I'm going to believe what they say.

But first let me address this comment that seemed very out of place to me. To be very clear you just stated that the theory of relatively is rooted in logic and science whereas religion doesnt because of one word "Feelings." Sorry, but by definition that theory describes how things FEEL. How time FEELS relative to the observer. I hope you realize that while you are experiencing this 'time difference' the only way you can measure it is by how it feels. I think the statement "time FEELS slower today because what I'm doing is boring" accurately illustrates my point. So how does saying "i FEEL the presence of a higher being (when i pray, for example)" act as less 'logical'? To me the difference in time can only be measured on how it FEELS to you and the presence of said higher entity can only be measured on how it FEELS to someone. Thus your statement is very foolish to say that theory is 'firmly rooted' while the religious belief forgoes those same standards even though the measurements for both are incalculable.

You don't understand how far-reaching the principle behind relativity runs. First of all, the time difference can be measured using a time piece. It is not merely a FEELING, it is an effect of the natural world that effects all things, even mechanical devices.

Second of all, http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Theory_of_relativity

Third of all, shut up.

On to my first statement. I have read SO many times here the saying "there is no evidence" and many other statements questioning the validity of the bible in contrast to other documents. Let me put it very simply and in proper perspective. To a given religious person that holds the bible credible, to them there are MOUNTAINS of evidence in every day life that proves the teachings of the bible correct.

Yeah, and people in a mental hospital might think the CIA is trying to murder them.

A person's perception of reality does not equate to absolute truth.

Miracles is the key word here. Miracles are inherently defined by saying we have no idea how it happened. Many doctors who are 'deeply rooted in science' use this term to define a medical phenomenon in which they cannot explain.

The explanation for such a thing can always be written off as good luck or random chance.

Exactly the same as when something tragic happens. The difference here is that a person would not want to attribute a child dying of cancer randomly for no good reason as an action of this God they so love and worship.

To a religious person this would be 'proof' or 'evidence' that a higher being intervened.

Because nothing good can happen if someone doesn't cause it to happen? What about bad things?

Such things happen every day and all throughout time. THIS is why the bible is held to higher standards and credibility throughout the ages.

You're talking in circles. Do you realize this?

In a very arbitrary way, part of the scientific method is adopted into this line of thinking. To many these miracles can only be seen as intervention especially when in terms of prayer.

Funny, because I read an article a very long time ago where a scientific test had been made to test the effectiveness of prayer. They found that the effect was negligible, but if such an effect were to exist, their findings indicated it was a NEGATIVE effect.

You could say 'omg i have telekinesis cause i made that pot fall' right as an earthquake rolls in and through a twisted reasoning believe that to be true. Same to be said about believing in santa or any other type of fiction. However, religion is held to the higher credibility because of these miracles that many have seen many times.

So you don't believe random chance exists? Someone wins the lottery, it means that God "rigged" it so that the person would win? Someone overcomes a terminal cancer and it can't be that their body fought and won, it's that God healed them?

Such comes into play the primative adaption of science i spoke of earlier. It is much more than fiction because the things spoken of in the bible -miracles- can be supported by the idea that miracles can be witnessed (and many times shown after someone prays for that certain thing).

People pray for things all of the time. They either happen or they don't. The praying doesn't change anything, and even if the asked for thing comes true, that's not actually evidence of anything. I don't have the time to look it up and identify which kind of logical fallacy that is, but if you challenge my claim, I'll get it later when I'm home from work.

This can draw a parallel between random occurring events in science where there is evidence supporting it exists, yet no plausible prediction as to the time frame in which it happens.
To these people seeing these events come as a reassurance, or rather evidence, that what they believe is true.

That's not science. That's "I think one thing and if that thing happens, I'll believe it, but even if it doesn't, I'm going to believe anyway."

You can claim that this is just the idea that if you look for something hard enough you will find it (such as finding the number 23 in everything) yet most turn to the idea that it was intervention. Many believe in chance or coincidences while others believe that everything has a reason through fate or destiny. Either way you look at it, using your own style of reasoning you cannot prove or disprove EITHER SIDE. However, to both sides it is proven through evidence; whether it be data or miracles, to the observer it is proven.

If "miracles" could be proven, religion would not be religion; it would be science.

ps lol at double teaming this kid

[slipstrike0159]

Re: Why religion isn't under the same amount of scrutiny?

I think you are missing the point of my post. The point was not to PROVE anything. The point is to show why it seems 'logical' to religious people. In the same way you see statistics and think of them as evidence for something, religious people see miracles and think of them as evidence for something. Think of it as illogical as you will but thats how things are seen. Also about the whole mental institution thing, that would be in one case out of a million whereas the grouping of 'miracles' would be many examples of a higher entity to which we do not understand the workings of it all throughout a broad spectrum of time with countless examples.

Along the whole prayer lines it is almost entirely a different story. You could test the effectiveness of prayer but where would it get you by religious standards? No where. For a prayer to be called a legitimate use of communicating with 'God' you would most certainly have to abide by His rules. For example, prayer is said to only have effect when it is spoken with pure intentions and humbleness to this superior being. If you are trying to prove or disprove his workings so you kneel down to find out you obviously wouldnt be doing it very humble and with the best intentions now would you? Its almost like giving it half effort and saying "look, see? it didnt work!!" For as a true religious person doing it under the right conditions would see the effect in a roundabout way and take that as the sign they were looking for. To put this in an example it would be like praying for you to be able to get through hard times and then having a friend coming up to you and having long talks with you to help you feel better.

It all comes down to the way you look at life. Religious people would see a bad event and attribute it to being a test by God to either prove your faith or to make you stronger; whereas a scientific (or just any nonreligious person) would simply see it as cause and effect, learn from the mistake, and use that knowledge to not do it again. Either way, the effects of that particular event are very similar on the individual. The perception change is the biggest difference, however which way you choose to follow is set up on personal standards. Whether these standards of living come from religion or science, both aim to point an individual a better way of life (through knowledge or faith) so why do both sides try to tear each other down? To me they both provide acceptable means, so to 'prove' them wrong would be just be a way of intentionally trying to make someone feel worse with the only motivation being able to say "i was right sucka."
Both sides do plenty of it but i move for a common understanding of the two. Regardless, proof on either side of the line means nothing to the other side.

[Afrobean]

Re: Why religion isn't under the same amount of scrutiny?

I think you are missing the point of my post. The point was not to PROVE anything.

I think you are missing the point of arguing. The whole point is to prove something-- that your stance is the logical one.

The point is to show why it seems 'logical' to religious people.

Like I said, people can think something but that doesn't make it true. They can think it's logical til the cows come home, but that doesn't mean that it is actually logical to believe these things.

In the same way you see statistics and think of them as evidence for something, religious people see miracles and think of them as evidence for something.

But the logical fallacy here is that they're just seeing what they want to see. They see something amazing happen and they go "OMG MIRACLE!" when in fact it can be explained by more REASONABLE REASONS.

Think of it as illogical as you will but thats how things are seen. Also about the whole mental institution thing, that would be in one case out of a million whereas the grouping of 'miracles' would be many examples of a higher entity to which we do not understand the workings of it all throughout a broad spectrum of time with countless examples.

You are making no sense. Just because tons of people think something doesn't make it right. Every single person in the world could think that it's logical to believe in things without any evidence of it, use logical fallacies to back up their beliefs, and claim it as the most logical thing in the world... BUT THAT WOULD NOT MAKE IT ACTUALLY LOGICAL.

Along the whole prayer lines it is almost entirely a different story. You could test the effectiveness of prayer but where would it get you by religious standards? No where. For a prayer to be called a legitimate use of communicating with 'God' you would most certainly have to abide by His rules. For example, prayer is said to only have effect when it is spoken with pure intentions and humbleness to this superior being. If you are trying to prove or disprove his workings so you kneel down to find out you obviously wouldnt be doing it very humble and with the best intentions now would you?

You're right. I bet those Christian punks who prayed for hospital-ridden folks to get better were actually wishing them ill-will the entire time. Damn their tainted intentions causing their magical prayers to fail!

Its almost like giving it half effort and saying "look, see? it didnt work!!"

I am confident that any person who believes that prayer would help, and was asked to pray for someone who was sick in the hospital, they wouldn't give it "half effort".

For as a true religious person doing it under the right conditions would see the effect in a roundabout way and take that as the sign they were looking for.

All you're saying is "there will never be proof of it EXCEPT IF THERE IS LOL BUT U CANT SEE IT BCUS U DUNT BELEEVE!"

To put this in an example it would be like praying for you to be able to get through hard times and then having a friend coming up to you and having long talks with you to help you feel better.

Yeah, or maybe your friend is actually your friend and comes to talk to you because he's your friend.

It all comes down to the way you look at life. Religious people would see a bad event and attribute it to being a test by God to either prove your faith or to make you stronger; whereas a scientific (or just any nonreligious person) would simply see it as cause and effect, learn from the mistake, and use that knowledge to not do it again. Either way, the effects of that particular event are very similar on the individual. The perception change is the biggest difference, however which way you choose to follow is set up on personal standards. Whether these standards of living come from religion or science, both aim to point an individual a better way of life (through knowledge or faith) so why do both sides try to tear each other down?

I only tear down faith as far as it does logic. I'm not against the fundamental idea of a higher power, I'm against organized religion, and I also don't like it when people try to justify their beliefs based on feelings by claiming it is logical when it is not. If you say "I believe because it feels right," that's ok, but you cannot say "it is logical because it feels right."

To me they both provide acceptable means, so to 'prove' them wrong would be just be a way of intentionally trying to make someone feel worse with the only motivation being able to say "i was right sucka."

No, the intended goal of an atheist arguing like this would be to have absolute freedom of logic. People hide behind religion to ignore the logical world around them. Not all atheists want to rub it in everyone's faces with a "haha there's no god haha there's no afterlife haha enjoy being eaten by worms ***." Many out there are just upset about the way people view the world, by putting religious beliefs ahead of logical fact.

Both sides do plenty of it but i move for a common understanding of the two. Regardless, proof on either side of the line means nothing to the other side.

Do you know how absurd you saying that is?

I guess people who are religious can't believe in evolution? Can't believe that the Earth is millions of years old? Can't believe the Earth revolves around the Sun? These are things which science knows to be true, yet scripture says otherwise. You really think religious people should actively make fools of themselves by denying true logic? You think it's a good thing to keep your head in the sand?

[QED Stepfiles]

Re: Why religion isn't under the same amount of scrutiny?

Unfortunately, "logic" is a pretty well defined concept - it's not correct to somehow split this off into "scientific logic" and "religious logic" - such a dichotomy doesn't really exist. A lot can be said for the validity of the religious perspective, but logic isn't really one of them - you're badly misusing terms if you are saying that people interpreting alleged "miracles" as existence of a creator is somehow related to conventional "logic."

[N.T.M.]

Re: Why religion isn't under the same amount of scrutiny?

When one openly attacks a religion, they are deemed impolite, rude, and gets attacked back for venturing into enemy territories. however, i think any idea should be subjected to the same amount of scrutiny given the chance to. every scientific theory undergoes a huge amount of scrutiny/peer reviewing/trying to prove it wrong before it is even published to the public.

the theory of evolution undergoes an exception amount of scrutiny (not only by the religious community but more so the scientific peer reviewers), in fact that's one of the reasons why it's one of the most solid theories in present time.

religion is also an idea, however, they undergo little scrutiny and those doesn't really affect it at all. attacks against religions are big no-no's. isn't this unfair?

one of the best flow charts i've seen:

Removed. If the OP wants to salvage a single strand of legitimacy from this thread, he won't mind. If not, I'll gladly lock the thread for lack of an interest in discourse.

Holy crap that's a bias OP!! Religious beliefs are constantly criticized and also undergo scrutiny. All scientific evidence produced also complies with the existence of a god. Now who'd know more about evolution than Darwin himself? Even he eventually said that it's inaccurate (that all species present today DID NOT stem from a single ancestry). Oh and lets not exclude the irony that its most compelling evidence is its greatest downfall: fossils. The fact is that for all creatures present today to have stemmed from a single ancestry there must be fossils of the intermediate phases in equal quanities to the fossils of the final product. The truth is that there are tons of documented fossils in their final phase, yet VERY few demonstrating the intermediate phases (and many aren't even complete fossils). Soley from a mathematical aspect, the theory of evolution is inconceivable.

I have some more to say but I've got to leave. I just wanted to explain how bias the OP is.

[QED Stepfiles]

Re: Why religion isn't under the same amount of scrutiny?

Holy crap that's a bias OP!! Religious beliefs are constantly criticized and also undergo scrutiny. All scientific evidence produced also complies with the existence of a god. Now who'd know more about evolution than Darwin himself? Even he eventually said that it's inaccurate (that all species present today DID NOT stem from a single ancestry). Oh and lets not exclude the irony that its most compelling evidence is its greatest downfall: fossils. The fact is that for all creatures present today to have stemmed from a single ancestry there must be fossils of the intermediate phases in equal quanities to the fossils of the final product. The truth is that there are tons of documented fossils in their final phase, yet VERY few demonstrating the intermediate phases (and many aren't even complete fossils). Soley from a mathematical aspect, the theory of evolution is inconceivable.

I have some more to say but I've got to leave. I just wanted to explain how bias the OP is.

I'm... not even SURE how to begin responding to this post... but here goes?

All scientific evidence complies with the existence of a God?! WHAT?! I have no idea how that follows from anything. You DO realize that even though evolution is still a theory, there are just such copious amounts of evidence that suggest that it is true. And, obviously evidence that supports Darwinian evolution does not exactly support religion. If you went through this thread, this has already been discussed - religion fails in many respects when viewed from a scientific perspective, but at its core, it's not very meaningful to view religion from that point anyways.

I'm also completely not surprised that Darwin himself doubted his own theory. I believe the quote (or at least, idea) you are referring to is this one:

"But then with me the horrid doubt always arises whether the convictions of man’s mind, which has been developed from the mind of the lower animals, are of any value or at all trustworthy. Would any one trust in the convictions of a monkey's mind, if there are any convictions in such a mind?"

Sure, that's nice and all, but when you put this quote into historical perspective, can we really blame Darwin for saying something like this? Especially during that time, such a scientific theory was so groundbreaking that it's natural to have doubts. And, considering that disbelief in a higher power was less acceptable back then, it's no surprise that Darwin would be hesitant.

In any case, I would really like to see you argue that "all scientific evidence complies with the existence of God." That's a huge, broad statement that is obviously not true.

As to the fossils... I'm not impressed? Just because they have not been discovered as of yet is no indication that they have not existed, and definitely no indication that somehow the theory of Darwinian evolution is "inconceivable." All this leads us is to the question: "Why can we not find that many fossils in this 'intermediate' stage?" I'm hard pressed to see how you can justifiably make a logical jump from this question to any meaningful statement about religion. And, obviously, modern evolutionists aren't going around and going "ahhhh... we give up. No fossils! *cries*"

I actually find your assertion about fossils (should they be true - I'm not going to check your sources), doesn't say much about the theory of evolution, since generally, older things are harder to find than newer things. Considering that evolution (should it exist) happens on such a huge time-scale, the age difference between "intermediate fossils" and "final product fossils" is presumably very, very large - who knows what geological and environmental factors could have effected these fossils in that time? Unless you can somehow account for all the variables involved, there is absolutely no logical foundation for your saying that this fossil record somehow gives us substantial insight into anything.

I also completely to fail to see how any of this has to do with some sort of "mathematical aspect," although that may have just been an unintentional misuse of vocabulary on the poster's part.

I apologize if I seem a bit irritated, but that was just, to me, a very bad sweeping generalization.

[Afrobean]

Re: Why religion isn't under the same amount of scrutiny?

Religious beliefs are constantly criticized and also undergo scrutiny.

That's a completely different kind of criticism and scrutiny. The criticism it receives is more literary in nature, while the scrutiny is entirely faith-based rather centered around reason and logic.

If one applies the same sort of scrutiny to the claims of religions that is given to science, all of the fantastic claims would be have to be false; science doesn't agree to fantastic ideas without evidence, so when religion fails to provide any evidence, said fantastic ideas must not be scientifically true.

All scientific evidence produced also complies with the existence of a god.

No. As defined literally within religious texts, science says that many of those things are not literally possible. For example, the Christian Bible says that God created man from dirt, while science agrees that we evolved from apes. That is a direct contradiction between what this religion says about God and what we have deduced by using science and reason.

What you mean to say is that science does not produce any proof that it's impossible for some kind of god to exist (but as I've already said, believing in it for this reason would be a logical fallacy). A god as an extradimensional being is certainly within possibility according to the scope of science, but a god as defined literally in the bible is most certainly not. This is why reasonable religious people fall back on the metaphor idea. Some of the things in the book are blatantly at odds with what we know about the world around us, so those things which are at odds must be read as metaphors or else those religious people would have to be of the opinion that their holy and perfect book is riddled with half truths and whole lies.

Anyway, notice that while science fails to provide negative proof (which is IMPOSSIBLE, might I add), it also doesn't come close to providing even one piece of actual evidence either. You say, "Science fails to prove god cannot exist," and I'll reply back, "Science also fails to provide any evidence to support his existing."

Now who'd know more about evolution than Darwin himself? Even he eventually said that it's inaccurate (that all species present today DID NOT stem from a single ancestry).

Plenty of people know more about it than him. He put forth the idea and the scientific community tested it and ran with it when they found it to be an accurate way of answering the question of speciation. And you do realize that we know evolution to be a real process thanks to the study of micro-organisms, right? Our DNA doesn't mutate as easily because it's not as "malleable", but bacteria and viruses are constantly changing and getting better. This is evolution. Now, Occam's razor in mind, what's more likely: evolution (which is a scientifically known system) or God (which has no actual evidence on its side)? The simple answer is the one that has evidence, buddy.

And anyway, Darwin's later claim of saying it was wrong was a fearful repentance. He wasn't an atheist, so he feared for his "immortal soul", and in his later years, his fear drove him to ignore logic. Plenty of bright minds have believed in God, but they have a means to balance their observance and "reverse engineering" of the world around them while still maintaining their faith that there is a greater power; Darwin failed to keep it balanced.

Oh and lets not exclude the irony that its most compelling evidence is its greatest downfall: fossils. The fact is that for all creatures present today to have stemmed from a single ancestry there must be fossils of the intermediate phases in equal quanities to the fossils of the final product. The truth is that there are tons of documented fossils in their final phase, yet VERY few demonstrating the intermediate phases (and many aren't even complete fossils). Soley from a mathematical aspect, the theory of evolution is inconceivable.

The common ancestor you refer to would be a SINGLE microscopic organism. You really expect to find a FOSSIL of a SINGLE MICROSCOPIC organism? Or do you think that plants and fungi evolved from a dog or fish? Take a look at the classifications of animals and it's pretty clear to be able to guess where each evolution branched into something new, whether that something new led to plants, fish, reptiles, mammals, etc.

And do you know how fossils come to be? They're not just bones. They're bones turned to rock. That requires a special process and not all bones will become fossils. Some bones may become heavily damaged in the process of fossilization, and many dead animals' bones will just decay and not become fossils at all. I suggest you learn a little bit about fossilization and such before accusing it of failing to produce evidence; it's not as common a natural occurrence as you think it is.

I have some more to say but I've got to leave. I just wanted to explain how bias the OP is.

By spewing bias in the opposite direction? Bias in the name of science is a better bias to have when talking about THINKING CRITICALLY.

[slipstrike0159]

Re: Why religion isn't under the same amount of scrutiny?

A god as an extradimensional being is certainly within possibility according to the scope of science, but a god as defined literally in the bible is most certainly not. This is why reasonable religious people fall back on the metaphor idea. Some of the things in the book are blatantly at odds with what we know about the world around us, so those things which are at odds must be read as metaphors or else those religious people would have to be of the opinion that their holy and perfect book is riddled with half truths and whole lies.

I just want to make a quick observation about the bible. Has anyone stopped to realize that considering how long ago the authors of the bible lived they obviously dont have the same understanding that we do now? Ill refer to some of the things discussed about the last days as told in the books. Many times it will talk about these massive serpents and other such strange creatures that these prophets saw in revelations. Wouldnt it be plausible to think that someone living back in those times could think of no easier or literal way to describe, lets just say, a battleship? Without a lot of knowledge about the workings of the earth and the technology we would develop i think it would be close to impossible to try and describe these things while writing them down.
The same thing goes for descriptions of events, i think there is a good possibility that the stories and some of the things look at as 'literal' could be interpreted wrong. This brings us to our interpretation of it. Some things are said to be literal while others are metaphorical, however, there is a big lapse of their understanding then versus ours now. From this i only propose that perhaps the things science and logic can prove wrong about the bible, they are not actually proving it wrong but rather the 'literal' interpretation of it.

[ledwix]

Re: Why religion isn't under the same amount of scrutiny?

Well, we know that what any holy book says about how a god made stuff has no bearing at all on the existence of a divine being, no matter how ridiculous the book was. And I'd also have to say that it's impossible to employ the scientific method and come up with a story of how the world came to be. In other words, evolution as a whole is unscientific. Don't get me wrong. The theory of evolution itself is very scientific, but I'm talking about the "story" of evolution, the theoretical lineage we've put together after decades of searching for fossils and links.

Now I'll be paraphrasing Kent Hovind, although not in a Young Earth Creationism supporting way. There are the "four great questions" in life:

1. Who am I? (What am I worth?)
2. Where did I come from?
3. Why am I here?
4. Where am I going when I die?

These questions can't be answered using the scientific method. No empiricism can be employed. But pretty much every organized religion makes an attempt to answer these questions. Clearly, there is no concrete certainty involved in an answer to the questions. The Big Bang, for instance, can't be repeated. But if it could be repeated and tested, then we could take a stab at where we came from and possibly why we're here. Since we don't have this luxury, pretty much any statement we make about one of those questions is a "religious" statement, or otherwise an a priori statement. I think religion is under a different type of scrutiny because of the fact that the answers it offers are of a religious, a priori nature. There is no guarantee that one answer is any better than any other answer, and no hope of testing anything, either.

The theory of evolution describes how things change, which we've observed a buncha times, but to try and figure out where we came from, we have to think without experience and conceive of things, and this is not a scientific way of doing things. It is also inductive rather than deductive. What we are doing when we try to trace our lineage is not science but reason, good ol' a priori reasoning. Obviously, there are ways to come to the truth without employing scientific methodologies, and this may be one of those ways. But to turn around and say that we cannot use the same a priori reasoning and apply it to God is slightly hypocritical. It's clearly impossible for the scientific method to make any judgement about a supernatural thing existing. But it's certainly conceivable that such a thing could exist, because the scientific method isn't the sole way of coming to the truth, even in certain fields of science, like in biology. There's no way of testing it, but through induction we can trace the evidence of the complex world we live in today back to a creator as a possible cause. The same line of reasoning is used in predicting evolutionary pasts. As soon as we make a prediction, we leave the realm of science and try to find the truth another way. We have to do this always when talking about unobserved past events.

[Afrobean]

Re: Why religion isn't under the same amount of scrutiny?

I just want to make a quick observation about the bible. Has anyone stopped to realize that considering how long ago the authors of the bible lived they obviously dont have the same understanding that we do now? Ill refer to some of the things discussed about the last days as told in the books. Many times it will talk about these massive serpents and other such strange creatures that these prophets saw in revelations. Wouldnt it be plausible to think that someone living back in those times could think of no easier or literal way to describe, lets just say, a battleship? Without a lot of knowledge about the workings of the earth and the technology we would develop i think it would be close to impossible to try and describe these things while writing them down.
The same thing goes for descriptions of events, i think there is a good possibility that the stories and some of the things look at as 'literal' could be interpreted wrong. This brings us to our interpretation of it. Some things are said to be literal while others are metaphorical, however, there is a big lapse of their understanding then versus ours now. From this i only propose that perhaps the things science and logic can prove wrong about the bible, they are not actually proving it wrong but rather the 'literal' interpretation of it.

When you think like that, you're not thinking like a scientist.

You're given a conclusion and you're trying to prove that it is right (or at least, possible). That's not how science works. Science works by making an observation, guessing at it, checking it, testing it, disproving/measuring/retesting, THEN conclusion.

And there are plenty of things where what they say is absolute in its definition even by today's standards. How about Dinosaurs? The age of the Earth? How long man has existed on this planet? Christianity makes straightforward statements about these things which have the exact same implications then as they do now. A year to them is the same as a year to us. A thousand years to them is a thousand years to us.

the scientific method and come up with a story of how the world came to be.

It's not testable, no, but by observing, we can know that all of the matter in the universe is moving away from a certain point, and because of this, we guess that all matter was once at this point. By figuring this, we can guess that the Earth developed as a piece of mass that happened to fall into revolution around our Sun, and because of its size and mass, it became basically spherical in shape. At some point life developed from basic compounds (this is the only one that science cannot fully explain), and that life evolved into more complex forms and millions of years later, there were intelligent social beings capable of language and tool use.

That's how the world came to be.

In other words, evolution as a whole is unscientific

We can look at micro evolution easily. It's only macro evolution that is not possible to observe, but just because something is impossible to observe directly does not mean it is impossible to observe its effects. For example, there are plenty of upright apes found in fossils that are remarkably similar to us, yet still plainly distinct. Where did these animals go? Died out? No chance that slight mutations lead to the cranial shape we now have?

the theoretical lineage we've put together after decades of searching for fossils and links.

Again, just because NO FOSSILS of something exist does not MEAN THAT ANIMAL NEVER EXISTED. THIS IS THE SAME NEGATIVE PROOF FALLACY THAT RELIGIOUS PEOPLE USE TO ATTEMPT TO JUSTIFY LOGIC IN THEIR FAITH. IT IS A LOGICAL FALLACY.

Not everything fossilizes. Go to wikipedia and look at the article for fossils and I'm sure you'll find that your thoughts about fossils are grossly incorrect. Fossilization is a special thing and there is a chance that the special required circumstances might not have ever come up for any one of a specific species, particularly if it was a "shortlived" and "inbetween" evolution.

1. Who am I? (What am I worth?)
2. Where did I come from?
3. Why am I here?
4. Where am I going when I die?

These questions can't be answered using the scientific method.

Wrong.

Here are empirical answers for myself:

1. Christopher Obey, a.k.a. Afrobean. I am worth minimum wage.
2. I came from my mother and father. Their gametes created as is their function to create a zygote. This zygote split and replicated itself and with time those cells came to be an embryo that eventually came to be born as a baby which is me.
3. I am here to procreate, to advance my species.
4. I personally haven't decided, but statistically speaking, buried under the ground is probably the most likely. I've always thought it would be pretty cool to have a funeral pyre though, in which case my body would be burned up and my charred, broken down remains probably disposed of hygienically or stored in a keepsake urn.

Those are not deep questions.

[ledwix]

Re: Why religion isn't under the same amount of scrutiny?

You're missing my point.

It's not testable, no, but by observing, we can know that all of the matter in the universe is moving away from a certain point, and because of this, we guess that all matter was once at this point. By figuring this, we can guess that the Earth developed as a piece of mass that happened to fall into revolution around our Sun, and because of its size and mass, it became basically spherical in shape. At some point life developed from basic compounds (this is the only one that science cannot fully explain), and that life evolved into more complex forms and millions of years later, there were intelligent social beings capable of language and tool use.

That's how the world came to be.

Right, I didn't say this view was wrong. What I was saying is that you didn't come to that conclusion using the scientific method. Extrapolating movement backward in time is clever reasoning but is totally independent of experience, which is why it is unscientific. What I'm saying is that unscientific =/= bad or wrong. In that same sense, predicting the past is not scientific. It's more subjective than recordable things.

We can look at micro evolution easily. It's only macro evolution that is not possible to observe, but just because something is impossible to observe directly does not mean it is impossible to observe its effects. For example, there are plenty of upright apes found in fossils that are remarkably similar to us, yet still plainly distinct. Where did these animals go? Died out? No chance that slight mutations lead to the cranial shape we now have?

Mmhmm, but observing the effects of something is not the same as directly observing that something. So observing the effects of something involves the presupposition that that something caused what we are observing today. This means that it's not based on science and is another kind of reasoning. It's also fallacious to say "If A happened, then B would happen, and B does happen, so A happened, because this is what we would expect to see if it did happen." Although this doesn't really have much to do with my main point.

Again, just because NO FOSSILS of something exist does not MEAN THAT ANIMAL NEVER EXISTED. THIS IS THE SAME NEGATIVE PROOF FALLACY THAT RELIGIOUS PEOPLE USE TO ATTEMPT TO JUSTIFY LOGIC IN THEIR FAITH. IT IS A LOGICAL FALLACY.

Not everything fossilizes. Go to wikipedia and look at the article for fossils and I'm sure you'll find that your thoughts about fossils are grossly incorrect. Fossilization is a special thing and there is a chance that the special required circumstances might not have ever come up for any one of a specific species, particularly if it was a "shortlived" and "inbetween" evolution.

Eh, I never made any attempts to discredit evolutionary theory, only point out that methods of reasoning other than scientific ones have been used to formulate it. I'm gonna say that again. I did not make any attempts to discredit evolutionary theory, at all. And because we can use unscientific reasoning to approach the truth about our evolutionary past, in that same sense, we can use unscientific reasoning to find the truth about other questions. And since there is less certainty involved in such questions, the amount of justified scrutiny is lower than it would be with historically recorded events, like 'which team won the superbowl last year?' Questions that no one is really empirically qualified to answer require less scrutiny, which is my answer to the question in the thread title.

Here are empirical answers for myself:

1. Christopher Obey, a.k.a. Afrobean. I am worth minimum wage.
2. I came from my mother and father. Their gametes created as is their function to create a zygote. This zygote split and replicated itself and with time those cells came to be an embryo that eventually came to be born as a baby which is me.
3. I am here to procreate, to advance my species.
4. I personally haven't decided, but statistically speaking, buried under the ground is probably the most likely. I've always thought it would be pretty cool to have a funeral pyre though, in which case my body would be burned up and my charred, broken down remains probably disposed of hygienically or stored in a keepsake urn.

Those are not deep questions.

I didn't say these were deep questions, just that we are not scientifically qualified to answer them. But that didn't stop you from subjectively answering them, because you answered them for yourself, just as a religious person would answer them, but in a different way. I suppose I should have typed 1. What are we worth in the grand scheme of things? 2. Where did we all come from (in the beginning) 3. Why are we all here? What are we supposed to be doing etc. 4. Where are we going when we die. The last one implies continued consciousness which I'm guessing you don't believe in. But either way, if you are able to answer these questions for you, the fact that some people disagree with your answers implies that it's subjective. And the inherent subjectivity involved in the answers implies that less scrutiny can be placed on them.

[QED Stepfiles]

Re: Why religion isn't under the same amount of scrutiny?

Ledwix,

You seem to be operating under the misconception that it's somehow not scientifically valid to formulate a theory and then to backwards extrapolate in terms of seeing effects of that theory after the fact. I'm not sure where you're getting that from, because there are plenty of scientific theories that are only tested in this context, and this by no means makes them "less scientific." Pretty much all of medical research, for example, relies on tests after certain treatments are administered to see the results of that treatment. We are not able to observe how precisely the treatment works on an anatomic scale, but the effects of said treatment are sufficient as scientific evidence of the efficacy of this treatment.

It all comes down to statistical data - we can observe many things that may or may not relate to evolution, but under stringent enough conditions we can conduct experiments in which, should we see effects that comply with evolutionary theory, it is almost statistically impossible that said effects were caused by random chance or anything other than the theory that is being tested. If we were able to observe evolution empirically, and do this without question in a controlled setting, then there wouldn't even be the need of such statistics, but it is nonetheless very compelling evidence if we observe the results of evolution (in a controlled experiment). And these results are, undoubtedly, scientifically valid, in every sense of the word.

I agree that those four questions you posed are not answerable in a scientific sense, but this is just a matter of their being highly subjective questions. What is "worth" in the context of "How much am I worth?" Presumably, different people have different perspectives on what this word "worth" mean. If you want those questions to be scientifically answerable, you need to make sure that all your terms are well-defined and unambiguous. This really isn't a problem with science as a discipline, but more a problem with the irrelevance of your question itself. And, from a scientific perspective, if you were to phrase that question in objective terms, you'll probably end up with a series of questions that have as answers precisely what Afrobean mentioned.

So no, it is wholly scientifically possible to come up with a theory on how the world was created, and how we came to be in this world, given the question is phrased precisely. It is really possible to create a scientific theory about any phenomenon that is a physical process. Ultimately, evolution is, at its core, a valid scientific theory, and inductive reasoning is used almost ad nauseum in modern scientific thought (and in a way that is scientifically consistent). And, within science, there is no "subjectivity" in terms of answers to these questions. If people disagree, they are not disagreeing on scientific terms, but rather that they disagree with science as a whole.

[slipstrike0159]

Re: Why religion isn't under the same amount of scrutiny?

When you think like that, you're not thinking like a scientist.

You're given a conclusion and you're trying to prove that it is right (or at least, possible). That's not how science works. Science works by making an observation, guessing at it, checking it, testing it, disproving/measuring/retesting, THEN conclusion.

And there are plenty of things where what they say is absolute in its definition even by today's standards. How about Dinosaurs? The age of the Earth? How long man has existed on this planet? Christianity makes straightforward statements about these things which have the exact same implications then as they do now. A year to them is the same as a year to us. A thousand years to them is a thousand years to us.

Well theres my guess then Besides, scientifically speaking, the ability to know exactly what someone meant when they wrote something (especially in regards to the bible) is very close to impossible without being able to ask them. Interpretation can be very much flawed considering the writer could have meant pretty much anything from the obvious to the extremely complicated deeper meaning. Either way, we cannot know for sure. So from this religion makes an attempt at it but that does not necessarily say they are completely right. Its their belief and at least they gave it a try eh?

Also, even time frames can be skewed in this same respect. Many people talk about God making the world in seven days because thats what they have read in the bible. However, looking at someone who is outside the bounds of time (God), how can we say that it IS the same to us? Seven days to him may certainly not be seven days as we see them. This is why many people now think that instead it is seven "periods of time" which could even be like 1 day=1 thousand years.

My point is you say that religion attempts to answer these questions and you look down at that because it doesnt follow the scientific process that you hold so dear to your hearts. At least they do just that, they attempt it. Of course they could be wrong, however you cant effectively criticize for explaining something that you cannot just because they didnt do it in a way that seems acceptable to your standards.