Should Religious Beliefs Be Immune From Criticism?

[heretic888]

Ya know Bushido, for my part... no where in here have I stated "God did it, it says so in the Bible so you are all wrong" I have simply said show me some proof that The Big Bang is real... so don't talk to me about "My source" being a poem. I simply find the idea that SOMTHING (and you will notice I said SOMTHING before, not "GOD") put everything here far more plausable than the idea that "Nothing" made EVERYTHING.

This line of reasoning makes the same a priori assumption that Thomas Aquinas made. Namely, that an infinite chain of causation is impossible, that there had to be a "beginning" at some point. The only reason given for this?? Just because.

Yeah, so, onto your "proof": You have a small amount of evidence to prove adaptation, but nothing proving speices have ever made that jump from one to another...

If one completely ignores the fossil record, perhaps. This gives a good overview of some of the pertinent data.

....and again, "creation of amino acids in replicable experiments using only electricity and simple carbon chains." is still using somthing to create somthing...

The Miller-Urey experiments simulated the hypothetical conditions in which life began on Earth. The success of such experiments have simply demonstrated that the proposed conditions of abiotic Earth were more than sufficient to initiate chemical evolution.

....If you wanna make that leap, ok... It doesn't fly in my book. My point is, as BH stated, that Science has no actual proof just theorys and ideas packaged as "Fact" to those that want to believe that science knows best, but really, you are just taking the popular scientists word as your faith, and trying to disguse it as somthing other than faith because you believe you have evidence that doesn't exist. I can demonstrate non-sequiter proof of events from the bible, but it doesn't make the writings in there any more factual than the non-sequiter proof of events that science claims to have prove the big bang happened, or that my ancestors were a carbon chain that turned into an amoeba, that turned into a monkey...

With all due respect, Cryozombie, it is readily evident you do not possess a science education. Most of the misnomers you are arguing are addressed in the first day of a Biology 101 class.

Laterz.

 

[Sukerkin]

That last line is a very good one, Tez :tup:.

... whoops, there was an intervening post whilst I was typing ... I was referring to this line:

"Both will be needed if we aren't to destroy what is a very beautiful world."

I am an agnostic and so have yet to cast my vote on the 'God' issue as I'm still collating data (as they would say on Star Trek ).

However, I too have noted that these days Science (deliberate capitalisation) has started to show a disturbing trend towards dogmatism that is every bit the equal to the 'closed-book' appraoch of some Religions.

Peer Review is supposed to be the method by which ideas and theories are winnowed out so that only the 'probable' survive. However, it seems now that if a scientist does not toe the 'party line' then he/she has very little chance of getting any money to do any of that research we really need to expand the frontiers of knowledge (because if we don't get a better technology paradigm than the one we have then we're not going to make it).

 

[heretic888]

Nicely put Cryo. It seems that anybody with any sort of belief in God gets lumped in as a Bible totin, Darwin hatin, close minded, neo-con evangelical Christian. Just because I believe in God and dont believe that Science will ever have "all the answers" doesnt make me an uneducated luddite.

An interesting historical phenomenon is that the hypothetical "answers" science will "never" have access to keep getting smaller and smaller with each passing generation. People used to make the same accusations in regards to the weather, physical illness, space travel, and a dozen other things.

Of course, the only reason given for this assumption? Just because.

....I find many of the "science worshipers" I come across very arrogant and condescending in their belief that "they" are the enlightened amongst all us savage "religious types".

To be fair, it isn't the "science worshipers" (whatever that means) that maintain everybody that disagrees with them are going to be tortured in a fiery pit for eternity.

Laterz.

 

[Sukerkin]

I don't necessarily disagree with some of your position Heretic and can understand (if you work in the field of the Sciences) why you would get agitated by what you might perceive as deliberate 'fact blindness' but it should be borne in mind that a number of salient 'truths' in Evolutionary Theory are actually assumptions and suppositions.

The oft quoted example of the vacuum flask experiments is, to me, proof of nothing other than under certain proscribed conditions you can get certain amino acids to form. It is not, for me, proof that if those conditions exist then some mysterious anti-entropic force will cause 'life' to spontaneously erupt from these simple chemicals if you wait long enough (the simplest of organic structures being unbelievably more complicated chemically than an amino acid).

There is a good deal of observational data that species develop once they exist but there is none that I am aware of that shows a transition from one form to another. The 'chain of man' is a construct of the imagination of some scientific thinkers and is not convincing if you don't start with the mind set that 'that looks similar to that so it must be related biologically'. I've seen the supposed development of homo sapiens mapped through various hominids and, absent genetic proof, it is a theory based almost solely on visual similarity - to me that is not sufficient.

On the other hand, there is convincing genetic research that shows that all of us came from a single pair of individuals, with their origins being on the African sub-continent. To me that was a shock when it was posited but it made compelling viewing when I watched a documentary on the subject. It was particularly interesting that there was a point in the chain when the numbers of 'us' that there were dropped to a very low level - which rang bells with all the 'catastrophism' legends in religions and myths.

Anyhow, my point is, I suppose that there is no solid proof for anyone to say with absolute confidence whether there is a God or whether we (and the Universe) are the product of a fortuitous coincidence of statistical anomalies.

When that proof emerges, I'll no longer be an agnostic but until then, well, this fence I'm sitting on is quite comfortable .

__________________

Just as a post script, to properly lay my cards on the table so to speak; if I was a betting man, I do have to admit that I'd be less likely to put my money on there being a God and more likely to back the Science 'horse' .

 

[Tez3]

It's rare I get exasperated by arguments, I'm female, Scorpio and stroppy at times and like a good debate but I'm afraid this one is making me more and more frustrated. the question started out as 'should religions be immune from criticism,' fairly easy that... yes or no. A lot of people gave their opinions, all perfectly valid I believe even if I don't agree with some of them. Now we are down to one argument - science v faith. How did the world start? Well excuse my language ( and I believe it goes along with the thread going off topic) but who the hell cares how the world started when we are facing killing it off!
I personally won't criticise any belief, scientific or not, if someone is happy with it and it doesn't effect anyone else.I may be amused, bemused or even irritated by some beliefs but criticising it is rather like saying I don't like the colour of someones eyes. I don't feel pity for anyone who doesn't believe in God nor feel superior to anyone who takes things literally from the Bible or other book in the face of scientific proof that it couldn't have happened. Jewish saying "Everything is foretold but freewill is given"
Freewill.... believe what you want as long as you harm no one.

 

[Ray]

An interesting historical phenomenon is that the hypothetical "answers" science will "never" have access to keep getting smaller and smaller with each passing generation. People used to make the same accusations in regards to the weather, physical illness, space travel, and a dozen other things.

It's probably not that the number of answers science has is growing. It's more likely that the new answers are becoming more correct over time.

 

[Jade Tigress]

genesis was a poem, fer cryin out loud. a poem.

Where did you hear this? I never heard anyone call the book of Genesis a poem before. The Psalms, yes. But not Genesis.

People don't believe in God because its best guess they have based on the relevant evidence. They simply believe that he or she or it exists.

That's not true. Plenty of highly intelligent people have placed their faith in God because the evidence for His existence is overwhelming. It takes more faith to believe something came into existence without a creator than it does to believe something was created. The evidence for evolution is not that surmountable. We have evidence only of microevolution. There are no fossils of *link* species. We have not been able to recreate the evolution of one species into an entirely different species.

There is a former Chicago Tribune Journalist named Lee Strobel. He was an atheist to the core. He thought the idea of God and creation was silly and decided to use his investigative skills to prove it. He ended his investigation as a believer. This was not his intent. The fact of the matter is that the evidence FOR the truths presented in the Bible are overwhelming and modern science continually ends up with evidence to support it. Macroevolution and the big bang are nothing more than theories.

Many intelligent people who have *faith* have come to their conclusion not because it's "their best guess" but because they have taken a long hard look at both sides of the fence and made their decision based on real evidence.

I wonder how many atheists and/or agnostics have truly, truly, investigated the evidence FOR God and creation as much as they put blind faith in the big bang and the theory of evolution? Lee Strobel, who was a harded journalist out to get to the truth of all matters with hard core facts, meant to DISPROVE it, and he couldn't. All he could do was find evidence FOR it.

Anyone who is not too close-minded to give both sides of the fence an honest look can find the book here. But somehow I think most won't want to do that. There's just something about it they don't want to know and it's easier to not have to confront that within themselves.

Don't presume, once again, that people who have *faith* make that decision blindly. It is stupid to believe something "just because". Many who believe do so because of the overwhelming evidence to support their decision and have given both sides of the fence a thorough examination.

 

[heretic888]

I don't necessarily disagree with some of your position Heretic and can understand (if you work in the field of the Sciences) why you would get agitated by what you might perceive as deliberate 'fact blindness' but it should be borne in mind that a number of salient 'truths' in Evolutionary Theory are actually assumptions and suppositions.

Correction. Those with a superficial understanding of the field posit they are assumptions and suppositions. This does not mean there actually are.

The oft quoted example of the vacuum flask experiments is, to me, proof of nothing other than under certain proscribed conditions you can get certain amino acids to form. It is not, for me, proof that if those conditions exist then some mysterious anti-entropic force will cause 'life' to spontaneously erupt from these simple chemicals if you wait long enough (the simplest of organic structures being unbelievably more complicated chemically than an amino acid).

The Miller-Urey experiments (which are not actually part of evolutionary theory at all) successfully demonstrate that the conditions believed to have existed on abiotic Earth can naturally produce the "building blocks" of life (i.e., amino acids). Also, regarding your query, the article I cited does provide some information concerning recent research:

During recent years, studies have been made of the amino acid composition of the products of "old" areas in "old" genes, defined as those that are found to be common to organisms from several widely separated species, assumed to share only the last universal ancestor (LUA) of all extant species. These studies found that the products of these areas are enriched in those amino acids that are also most readily produced in the Miller-Urey experiment. This suggests that the original genetic code was based on a smaller number of amino acids -- only those available in prebiotic nature -- than the current one (Brooks et al. 2002).​

There is a good deal of observational data that species develop once they exist but there is none that I am aware of that shows a transition from one form to another.

Once again, please reference this site.

The 'chain of man' is a construct of the imagination of some scientific thinkers and is not convincing if you don't start with the mind set that 'that looks similar to that so it must be related biologically'. I've seen the supposed development of homo sapiens mapped through various hominids and, absent genetic proof, it is a theory based almost solely on visual similarity - to me that is not sufficient.

Chronological morphological adaptations may not be sufficient for you, but then again your claim that the "chain of man" is a "construct of the imagination" in itself speaks volumes of your own understanding of the subject matter. Or rather, lack thereof.

But, you know what? You're right. I mean, it's just as likely that as Austrolepethicus was walking the earth some few million years ago, he was just magically "blinked" out of existence within the span of a few thousand years and the morphologically similar Homo Habilis was magically "blinked" into existence at roughly the same time in exactly the same geographical locales. Furthermore, a few epochs later, the same things happened when Homo Habilitis was magically "blinked" out of existence and replaced by the morphologically similar Homo Erectus that magically "blinked" into existence at around the same time frame in the same areas of the world.

Furthermore, we see a similar trend of magical "blinking" with just about every fossil species we have evidence of. That's it! The theory of magical blinking replaces the theory of evolution!! Why didn't I see it before?!

Ninja, please.....

 

[heretic888]

It's probably not that the number of answers science has is growing. It's more likely that the new answers are becoming more correct over time.

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.

 

[Cirdan]

Plenty of highly intelligent people have placed their faith in God because the evidence for His existence is overwhelming.

You might find this interesting...
http://w-uh.com/posts/031226a-religion_vs_IQ.html

 

[Jade Tigress]

You might find this interesting...
http://w-uh.com/posts/031226a-religion_vs_IQ.html

I'm not surprised really, I separate *religion* from evidence for the existence of a Creator. I am not a religious person at all. I do believe in the existence of God. Religion is a set of rules you follow for some "benefit". You put your forehead on the ground facing east and pray to Allah at 12 noon everyday. You go to confession and cross yourself at mass every week. You baptize your babies so they won't go to hell. You blow yourself up in the name of Allah so you can go to heaven. You shoot the abortion doctor in the name of Jesus.

Those practices which are harmful to nobody are pointless to me, and the ones that are harmful to anybody are just plain stupid. What intelligent person would blow themselves up or kill another person in the name of God, or waste their time with any pointless ritual. For the less intelligent it is their *ticket* to heaven. That has nothing to do with evidence supporting a Creator. Also note this quote concerning the *data*:

Remember my missive about correlation vs. causality? We're not entitled to conclude causality from these data, but there are three possibilities:

1. Considering religion important lowers measured IQ (unlikely, since IQ is substantially genetic whereas belief is not).
2. The causality is via other factors not considered, such as socio-economic conditions, cultural history, or physical environment (definitely possible).
3. Having a higher measured IQ lowers your likelihood of considering religion important (my personal favorite, given the absence of evidence to the contrary).

Please note: these are data, not opinion. (The sources are noted in razib's and godless' posts.) Possible interpretations of the data are opinion, of course.

 

[bushidomartialarts]

boy, i missed some exciting action while i was away. teach me to go enjoy a few hours in a soft bed with a good book.

first, cryo, if i've offended you i apologize. i enjoy informed debate, but certainly didn't mean for this to become personal. there have been some personal attacks on your intelligence and education, and i think that's out of line.

and yes, you're right: there is no conclusive evidence for either evolution or creationism.

but riddle me this, for the sake of informed debate.

there is a whole pile of suggestive evidence, interpreted by keen and fairly objective minds, that points to evolution as the best understanding of the evidence at hand.

you clearly support a contrary stand, and can deliver some interesting points against the majority interpretation of the opinion. what evidence do you have in favor of creationism? this is not meant sarcastically, i'm keen to see it.

for my money, argument is a waste of time. you'll never change my mind and i'll never change yours. but i like to boil it down to the roots: what hair is splitting that leads to our differing opinions? that's always interesting and worthwhile.

 

[Cryozombie]

but riddle me this, for the sake of informed debate.

there is a whole pile of suggestive evidence, interpreted by keen and fairly objective minds, that points to evolution as the best understanding of the evidence at hand.

you clearly support a contrary stand, and can deliver some interesting points against the majority interpretation of the opinion. what evidence do you have in favor of creationism? this is not meant sarcastically, i'm keen to see it.

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.

 

[bushidomartialarts]

that's an interesting stance. what 'suggestive evidence' leads you to support what could be termed a compromised source?

 

[mantis]

In our PC society, we often find that certain religious people, be they muslim, buddhist, hindu, jewish or christian, hide behind the fact that their views on reality are religious and thus they are immune from criticism.

For example, if you are a 6 day, 6000 year Fundamentalist Christian creationist and you find that your beliefs are assailed by the scientific community, one can seek refuge in the fact that you are being "persecuted" for your beliefs.

Or

If someone presents an argument regarding the historicity of an actual physical Jesus, this argument can be summarily ignored because it is perceived as an attack on religious belief.

With that in mind, should we, as a society, insulate all religious beliefs from rational criticism? If so, why? If not, why not?

i missed the whole discussion so im going back to origin. I do not think people who follow those religions think their religions should be immune from criticism. The the wester way of criticizing religions if pretty offensive since westerners mostly are too arrogant to try to understand what offends "others". so i'd say westerners should stick their feet into their mouths and shut up.

 

[heretic888]

Oh, Jade....

Plenty of highly intelligent people have placed their faith in God because the evidence for His existence is overwhelming.

"Evidence" that cannot be independently replicated and subjected to public fallibilism is not "evidence" in the scientific sense of the word. At present, there is no way to hypothetically falsify the existence of a personal deity and therefore the issue remains agnostic as far as science is concerned.

I find your Anonymous Appeal to Authority ("lots of smart guys say X") rather interesting, though. The statistical data I have come across indicate that belief in a personal deity is not strongly correlated with either IQ or educational level. From religiosity and intelligence:

In one study, 90% of the general population surveyed professed a distinct belief in a personal god and afterlife, while only 40% of the scientists with a BS surveyed did so, and only 10% of those considered "eminent."[3] A recent study in 2005 by Rice university professor has shone considerable light on scientists religious beliefs. The study concluded that 38% of natural scientists, 24% of doctors, and 31% of social scientists said they do not believe in God. The study consisted of 1,646 faculty at elite-research universities.[4]

A 1998 survey[5] by Larson and Witham of the 517 members of the United States National Academy of Sciences showed that 72.2% of the members expressed "personal disbelief" in a personal God while 20.8% expressed "doubt or agnosticism" and only 7.0% expressed "personal belief". This was a follow-up to their own earlier 1996 study[6] which itself was a follow-up to a 1916 study by James Leuba[7]. These studies have been somewhat criticized by a number of different groups, not necessarily religious. This is as a result of the fact that the study was by mail and received a return rate of 50%.​

It takes more faith to believe something came into existence without a creator than it does to believe something was created.

As I stated beforehand, it is an a priori assumption to suggest a "creation" or "beginning" is necessary to begin with. We have no good reason to believe that an infinite chain of causation is impossible, as Thomas Aquinas mistakenly believed.

The evidence for evolution is not that surmountable. We have evidence only of microevolution. There are no fossils of *link* species.

This claim is demonstrably untrue. Please see CC200: Transitional fossils and CC050: Hominid transition.

We have not been able to recreate the evolution of one species into an entirely different species.

The reason for this is twofold. One, we do not know what conditions are necessary for macroevolution to occur. Two, if fossil records are any indication, the process of macroevolution should take hundreds, perhaps thousands, of generations to take place.

There is a former Chicago Tribune Journalist named Lee Strobel. He was an atheist to the core. He thought the idea of God and creation was silly and decided to use his investigative skills to prove it. He ended his investigation as a believer. This was not his intent.

I'm not sure what it is about journalism training that you think grants one an expert understanding of natural science, philosophy, history, and archaeology, but I have read Strobel's The Case for Christ. His arguments are easily refuted by any first-year undergraduate history major and were expertly debunked in Earl Doherty's Examining the Verdict.

The fact of the matter is that the evidence FOR the truths presented in the Bible are overwhelming and modern science continually ends up with evidence to support it.

And what "truths" would that be?? The creation of the world six millenia ago in the span of a week? A world flood some four and a half millenia ago? A mass enslavement of "the Jews" in Egypt followed by a subsequent mass "exodus"? A vast Davidic "empire" that encompassed entire regions??

There is no "evidence" for any of these events. Furthermore, the Old Testament (or Torah) itself was not even written down until near the close of the Babylonian Captivity, which is why many Jewish religious motifs bear resemblence to Babylonian mythology and philosophy.

The New Testament fares just as poorly, such as maintaining the census of Quirinus and the reign of Herod took place during the same time, that the first century Jews required their people to wash their hands before eating, or that the Jews had an annual custom of releasing criminals on Passover. And let's not even get into the nonsense that gets passed for Judean geography!!

That literalist apologists claim there is "overwhelming evidence" does not mean such evidence actually exists. However, I am genuinely curious as to where you are getting your information about some of your "science" claims, because it is certainly at odds with majority scholarship in the relevant fields.

Macroevolution and the big bang are nothing more than theories.

I am honestly surprised you would resort to such an obviously contrived and nonsensical line of argumentation. A "theory" is a big deal in science and does not mean at all what it does in popular vernacular.

However, if you want to go that route, I could just as easily argue that Biblical tales (including the belief in God) are "nothing more" than Bronze Age folk stories.

Many intelligent people who have *faith* have come to their conclusion not because it's "their best guess" but because they have taken a long hard look at both sides of the fence and made their decision based on real evidence.

Such "evidence" has never been submitted for public scrutiny and therefore is not genuine "evidence".

I wonder how many atheists and/or agnostics have truly, truly, investigated the evidence FOR God and creation as much as they put blind faith in the big bang and the theory of evolution? Lee Strobel, who was a harded journalist out to get to the truth of all matters with hard core facts, meant to DISPROVE it, and he couldn't. All he could do was find evidence FOR it.

Having read The Case for Christ, I can honestly say that having Strobel on one's side isn't exactly an award-winning endorsement.

Anyone who is not too close-minded to give both sides of the fence an honest look can find the book here. But somehow I think most won't want to do that. There's just something about it they don't want to know and it's easier to not have to confront that within themselves.

Been there, done that. Not impressed.

Laterz.

 

[bushidomartialarts]

i missed the whole discussion so im going back to origin. I do not think people who follow those religions think their religions should be immune from criticism. The the wester way of criticizing religions if pretty offensive since westerners mostly are too arrogant to try to understand what offends "others". so i'd say westerners should stick their feet into their mouths and shut up.

my goodness, that was helpful.

 

[bydand]

I wasn't going to post in this thread because my belief is a personal thing and I don't care what others may think, but decided I should, just because I should be willing to state my position. Personally, someone can come up with the most convincing argument against God or any other higher power and it still wouldn't hold water with me. Call me weak minded, stupid, gulliable, or whatever; really don't care (and I'll put my IQ up against 96.7% of the population any day of the week, at last testing anyway.) Belief is something that cannot be quantified, or measured with any accuracy, and that is the portion that is missing with the scientific argument.

Simply put, in the eyes of the world, I'd rather be a stupid believer and be wrong in the end, than be a noted scholar who doesn't believe and be wrong at the end. End of argument for me. Any reply about how dim I probably am because I can cast out the ideas of simple men compared to the one I believe in; just makes me smile and think about sending the person a bag of marshmallows for their afterlife as I believe it.

 

[Cryozombie]

that's an interesting stance. what 'suggestive evidence' leads you to support what could be termed a compromised source?

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.

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...

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... or that a Single celled organism can become somthing so compiclated and unlikley to survive a mutation, let alone rise to domanance in the animal kingdom as a creature that required 2 seperate sexes to propagate...

The idea of it is, to me, if nothing else, mindblowing... that everything, against the odds happened... by chance and on its own... and it all started because in nothing, a ball of fire started burning nothing, and exploded into everything. In my mind there is no way, and until "God Science" can replicate it, starting with Vaccum, Turning Vaccum into flame without intoducing anything into the vaccum, and then having the flame explode into billions of stars, hunks of rock, and billions of lifeforms... I still cant wrap my mind around the impossibility of it all, just to write it out.

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.

 

[Blotan Hunka]

i missed the whole discussion so im going back to origin. I do not think people who follow those religions think their religions should be immune from criticism. The the wester way of criticizing religions if pretty offensive since westerners mostly are too arrogant to try to understand what offends "others". so i'd say westerners should stick their feet into their mouths and shut up.

Ahh yes the "westerners are soooo bad" argument. Lets all just shut up and go flog ourselves.

Why are the arts so full of Asiophiles that hate their own culture? If you read about the eastern culture you will see its as full of human frailty, war, waste, hate, xenophobia and religious persecution as any other. So spare us all the "westerners" are arrogant crap.