False beliefs, religion & science

[pantheory]

The false beliefs of religion are obvious to nearly all of us here, while the false beliefs of science are generally unknown to nearly all of us.

In many ways the errors of religion and science are not similar. Take the book of Genesis for instance. Almost all well-educated people know this book cannot be taken literally. The same thing applies to the book of Revelations, the story of Noah’s Ark, etc. But the errors in mainstream science theory are not obvious. If they were, they would no longer be the prevailing theories of science.

But to most of us ex-Christians, we realize that if the “Bibles” of the world and related stories are obviously wrong, why should any related beliefs of God(s) be credible? This is why most here are agnostics and atheists. As time goes on, most of us believe that as scientific knowledge spreads, the belief in religion will continue to decrease worldwide. But few consider the possibility of what would happen if major theories of science were proved to be invalid. This seldom happens because instead of theory being proved wrong by observation, it is instead changed to accommodate the new observation or realization. But if observations would contradict major tenets of a theory, would some believers in that theory become theists again?  

Half of the PHD scientists in America are Christians or spiritual in some way to begin with. This can lead to some science theories being influenced by religion. For instance, The Big Bang model was first proposed by a Belgium Catholic priest. The Catholic Pope about 20 years later called the Big Bang theory consistent with the Catholic faith.

Pope Pius the 12^th quote, English translation: 

“… it would seem that present-day science, with one sweeping step back across millions of centuries, has succeeded in bearing witness to that primordial Fiat lux ["Let there be light"] uttered at the moment when, along with matter, there burst forth from nothing a sea of light and radiation, while the particles of chemical elements split and formed into millions of galaxies.”

The questioning of scientific-theory is always a problem in science according to my readings. Many scientists are reluctant (afraid) to propose or consider alternatives to a mainstream theory or criticize it because many believe that these criticisms could result in new beliefs in religion, and them being ostracized for this or other reasons. Instead many would rather have the wrong theory prevail while they are still alive. For this and related reasons of misinterpretations, science progresses very slowly. The famous scientist Max Planck said about a hundred years ago: "A new scientific truth does not triumph by convincing its opponents and making them see the light, but rather because its opponents eventually die, and a new generation grows up that is familiar with it." “Science advances one funeral at a time.”

Max Planck.

What do you think?

[walterpthefirst]

Half of the PHD scientists in America are Christians or spiritual in some way to begin with. This can lead to some science theories being influenced by religion. For instance, The Big Bang model was first proposed by a Belgium Catholic priest. The Catholic Pope about 20 years later called the Big Bang theory consistent with the Catholic faith.

Pope Pius the 12^th quote, English translation: 

“… it would seem that present-day science, with one sweeping step back across millions of centuries, has succeeded in bearing witness to that primordial Fiat lux ["Let there be light"] uttered at the moment when, along with matter, there burst forth from nothing a sea of light and radiation, while the particles of chemical elements split and formed into millions of galaxies.”

 

What do I think?

 

Well, in the section I've quoted above Pantheory, I think you've got things backwards.  But first, let's deal with Georges Lemaitre.

 

The fact that he was a catholic priest as well as a scientist is an example of correlation and not causation.  A correlation between his religious faith, where all things are created ex nihilo by his god, and his theory of a definite cosmic moment of origin  It falls to you to convincingly demonstrate that his religious faith influenced his scientific work.  That his belief in a god-created universe caused him to formulate a theory that agreed with that.

 

Unless and until you can do that you have not successfully made your case.

 

Furthermore, the notoriously atheist scientist Stephen Hawking ran into the same kind of trouble with the Pope in the 1980's.  The Vatican gave it's support to the Hawking - Penrose Singularity theory, which proposed that the universe had come into being from 'nothing'.  This, of course, appeared to agree with Genesis 1 : 1, where god spoke the universe into existence, from nothingness.  However, this was not the a case of the process you are suggesting, where science was being influenced by religion.  Vice versa, in fact.  A scientific theory was co-opted by religion to bolster it's claims.  So, science influenced religion and not the other way round. 

 

The scientific influence of religion continues today, with the astrophysicist Hugh Ross and the geneticist Francis Collins co-opting science to bolster their claims about god.

 

https://biologos.org/

https://reasons.org/

 

So, I am not in the least persuaded by your claim that scientific theories can be influenced by religion.

 

Thank you.

 

Walter. 

 

 

[pantheory]

4 minutes ago, walterpthefirst said:

 

... So, I am not in the least persuaded by your claim that scientific theories can be influenced by religion.

 

Thank you.

 

Walter. 

 

 

 

Yeah, I don't believe that very many scientists intentionally influence their science with religion. I think they can't help it concerning conflicting beliefs. In particular I don't think that Lemaitre intentionally mixed religion with science. I think he also, like the Pope, saw the possibility of no conflict.

[walterpthefirst]

7 minutes ago, pantheory said:

 

Yeah, I don't believe that very many scientists intentionally influence their science with religion. I think they can't help it concerning conflicting beliefs. In particular I don't think that Lemaitre intentionally mixed religion with science. I think he also, like the Pope, saw the possibility of no conflict.

 

Lemaitre may have been neutral Pantheory, but these days it's religion that's using science to make it's claims sound reasonable and relevant in the modern world.

 

How better to sell the words of an ancient holy book than to claim that it predicted what science is discovering today?

 

Here's a particularly shocking example, being pitched for kids.

 

https://quranforkids.com/scientific-miracles-in-the-quran/

 

[pantheory]

10 minutes ago, walterpthefirst said:

 

Lemaitre may have been neutral Pantheory, but these days it's religion that's using science to make it's claims sound reasonable and relevant in the modern world.

 

How better to sell the words of an ancient holy book than to claim that it predicted what science is discovering today?

 

Here's a particularly shocking example, being pitched for kids.

 

https://quranforkids.com/scientific-miracles-in-the-quran/

 

 

Yeah, you're right. Religion sometimes tries to use science for its confirmation. But I think this is kind of a compliment for science when believers look to science for the justification of  their generally ridiculous beliefs. 

[pantheory]

I bumped this topic to see if Johnny is interested -- and to see if a religious person can participate in this category without preaching and without being attacked because of his or her anti-science theory sentiments.

[walterpthefirst]

3 hours ago, pantheory said:

I bumped this topic to see if Johnny is interested -- and to see if a religious person can participate in this category without preaching and without being attacked because of his or her anti-science theory sentiments.

 

Pantheory,

 

There is a difference between being attacked because of anti-science sentiments and being held to account for misunderstandings of or mistakes about science.

 

Since Johnny and I cannot agree on what constitutes real science I really don't think I can hold him to account for anything much.

 

That would be like a Frenchman holding a German to account for calling a cat a katze and not a chat.

 

The Frenchman has no grounds for holding the German to account for using the German language correctly. 

 

But if both of them were speaking English and one made an error, then the one would have good grounds for correcting the other.

 

That's because they should both share the same understanding of the English language.

 

In English a cat is a cat is a cat and that word is not up for personal interpretation.

 

Thank you,

 

Walter.

 

 

[TheRedneckProfessor]

20 minutes ago, walterpthefirst said:

That would be like a Frenchman holding a German to account for calling a cat a katze and not a chat.

Americans sometimes get confused when you English folks talk about a pussy.  Especially if it's a young woman on a train asking you if you'd like to come and pet hers; and it turns out to be a calico named Mittens that actually belongs to her father.

 

Obviously I'm not speaking from experience, here...

[walterpthefirst]

50 minutes ago, TheRedneckProfessor said:

Americans sometimes get confused when you English folks talk about a pussy.  Especially if it's a young woman on a train asking you if you'd like to come and pet hers; and it turns out to be a calico named Mittens that actually belongs to her father.

 

Obviously I'm not speaking from experience, here...

 

But from what I understand of the American way of speaking English, a pussy can mean two very different things.

 

 

A coward.

 

A vagina.

 

 

Btw, over here 'a calico' usually means...  https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Calico

 

 

[TheRedneckProfessor]

8 minutes ago, walterpthefirst said:

 

Btw, over here 'a calico' usually means...  https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Calico

 

Weird.  Mittens the calico pussy looked like this:

 

 

[TheRedneckProfessor]

11 minutes ago, walterpthefirst said:

 

A vagina.

So you could understand the confusion that might arise for a guy when a young lady approaches him on a train and asks him if he'd like to come home with her and pet her pussy. 

[walterpthefirst]

23 minutes ago, TheRedneckProfessor said:

So you could understand the confusion that might arise for a guy when a young lady approaches him on a train and asks him if he'd like to come home with her and pet her pussy. 

 

No! No!

 

The pussy is her pet.

[TheRedneckProfessor]

4 minutes ago, walterpthefirst said:

 

No! No!

 

The pussy is her pet.

True.  But the proposition was stated thusly: "I've a wee pussy.  Would you like to come and pet it?"  

[TABA]

Viewers of the 1972-1985 BBC sitcom “Are you Being Served?” got a lot of pussy…

 

 

[pantheory]

7 hours ago, walterpthefirst said:

 

Pantheory,

 

There is a difference between being attacked because of anti-science sentiments and being held to account for misunderstandings of or mistakes about science.

 

Since Johnny and I cannot agree on what constitutes real science I really don't think I can hold him to account for anything much.

 

That would be like a Frenchman holding a German to account for calling a cat a katze and not a chat.

 

The Frenchman has no grounds for holding the German to account for using the German language correctly. 

 

But if both of them were speaking English and one made an error, then the one would have good grounds for correcting the other.

 

That's because they should both share the same understanding of the English language.

 

In English a cat is a cat is a cat and that word is not up for personal interpretation.

 

Thank you,

 

Walter.

 

 

 

Yes, you're right.  But Walter, you're way too confrontational. Why argue. One can explain what the other person might believe could be wrong in your opinion, without directly arguing with them. Of course all religion is 100% BS, Nearly all here believe that. But to convince somebody of this by calling them out does not work. Appealing to their best logic  is a better approach IMO.

[walterpthefirst]

12 hours ago, TheRedneckProfessor said:

True.  But the proposition was stated thusly: "I've a wee pussy.  Would you like to come and pet it?"  

 

To me that could mean three things, one not very nice, one that's plain gross and one just plain weird.

 

In our house the duty of dealing with pussy wee falls to me and doing so is not very nice.

 

Would I like to come and pet her wee (small) coward is just plain weird.

 

Would I like to come and pet her wee (urine) pussy (vagina) is just plain gross.  Yuk!

[walterpthefirst]

7 hours ago, pantheory said:

 

Yes, you're right.  But Walter, you're way too confrontational. Why argue. One can explain what the other person might believe could be wrong in your opinion, without directly arguing with them. Of course all religion is 100% BS, Nearly all here believe that. But to convince somebody of this by calling them out does not work. Appealing to their best logic  is a better approach IMO.

 

Pantheory,

 

You say that I'm confrontational and that I argue.

 

I say that I debate.

 

We are both looking at the same data, but choosing to interpret it in different ways.

 

[Joshpantera]

On 3/6/2022 at 5:58 PM, pantheory said:

The false beliefs of religion are obvious to nearly all of us here, while the false beliefs of science are generally unknown to nearly all of us.

 

I've been exploring this a lot lately. And the standard model does take a beating for various reasons. But it's much deeper than just that, Pan. The strong agnostic philosopher's I've been in discussion with on specialized facebook groups are arguing that we will never have a clear-cut ontological primitive, for instance. They're arguing that any attempt at metaphysics is necessarily failed from the outset. We have evolved in terms of fitness, not truth. We perceive reality indirectly, not as it actually is - because as it actually is, means entering a realm of complexity far too intense for us to perceive directly.

 

I have been fine tuning the agnostic aspect of my agnostic-atheism. 

 

Just this justify religion in any way? No. Because it can't be anything aside from metaphor, allegory, and connotation. It can't be otherwise, that's not even in the cards. It can't tell us the mystery of origins directly, or the mystery of anything directly! Game over!!!!!

 

What does this do to all of science? It places it in a similar camp to religion, basically. Physical reality cannot be anything other than symbolic of the reality that really exists behind the perception of anything. We must never forget that science happens IN the mind. 

 

Here's a funny video that someone cited: 

 

 

That means the standard model, that means alternative models, that means physics of any type, and cosmology of any type. 

[TheRedneckProfessor]

1 hour ago, walterpthefirst said:

Would I like to come and pet her wee (urine) pussy (vagina) is just plain gross.  Yuk!

I should point out that in Ulster, "wee" is generally used to indicate "small", though it is so ubiquitous in Ulsterish, that it could denote an object of any size, other than large.  This being so, the proposition, as I understood it, presented the opportunity to pet a small (or at least, not large) vagina.

 

Now, as a Southern Gentleman, I normally would not have entertained such boldness from a complete stranger.  However, earlier in the trip she had made it known that she really did not care for American faggots.  While I would not use such an odious term for folks who are born that way and deserve as much respect as anybody else, I certainly also did not want to be mistook for one.  Thus, I felt almost honor-bound to give her pussy a good and thorough petting.

[TheRedneckProfessor]

10 hours ago, TABA said:

Viewers of the 1972-1985 BBC sitcom “Are you Being Served?” got a lot of pussy…

I'm more of a Red Dwarf fan, myself; but Are You Being Served ranks right up there with Fawlty Towers in the pantheon of British Comedy, which, I might add, greatly influenced my own sense of humor during my developmental years. 

[pantheory]

19 hours ago, TheRedneckProfessor said:

Weird.  Mittens the calico pussy looked like this:

 

 

 

I bit of trivia here:      A male calico kitten (3 colors) is worth about $2,000 US  because they are very rare.  Almost all are females. A symmetrical colored male calico kitten could be worth $10,000 or more.

[pantheory]

5 hours ago, Joshpantera said:

 

I've been exploring this a lot lately. And the standard model does take a beating for various reasons. But it's much deeper than just that, Pan. The strong agnostic philosopher's I've been in discussion with on specialized facebook groups are arguing that we will never have a clear-cut ontological primitive, for instance. They're arguing that any attempt at metaphysics is necessarily failed from the outset. We have evolved in terms of fitness, not truth. We perceive reality indirectly, not as it actually is - because as it actually is, means entering a realm of complexity far too intense for us to perceive directly.

 

I have been fine tuning that agnosticism of my agnostic-atheism. 

 

Just this justify religion in any way? No. Because it can't be anything aside from metaphory, allegory, and connotation. It can't be otherwise, that's not even in the cards. It can't tell us the mystery of origins directly, or the mystery of anything directly! Game over!!!!!

 

What does this do to all of science? I places it in a similar camp to religion, basically. Physical reality can not be anything other than symbolic of the reality that exists behind the perception of anything. We must never forget that science happens IN the mind. 

 

Here's a funny video that someone cited: 

 

 

That means the standard model, that means alternative models, that means physics of any type, and cosmology of any type. 

 

I believe that most of the ideas are wrong that assert that humans are not smart enough. to understand everything. I think that humans can have a valid perspective understanding of anything in reality that's real. The problem is simply that some of our most cherished theories are flawed or wrong. Everything in the universe is simple and can be explained in simple language IMHO, whether we can understand its simplicity or not. If not understandable, the explanation is probably partly or completely wrong.

[pantheory]

18 hours ago, TheRedneckProfessor said:

So you could understand the confusion that might arise for a guy when a young lady approaches him on a train and asks him if he'd like to come home with her and pet her pussy. 

 

Sorry about that, but I would not be confused at all -- and if it were possible, I would kiss and pet her pussy on the train first, if she brought it with her. 

[pantheory]

6 hours ago, walterpthefirst said:

 

Pantheory,

 

You say that I'm confrontational and that I argue.

 

I say that I debate.

 

We are both looking at the same data, but choosing to interpret it in different ways.

 

Yes.

[Joshpantera]

1 hour ago, pantheory said:

 

I believe that most of the ideas are wrong that assert that humans are not smart enough. to understand everything. I think that humans can have a valid perspective understanding of anything in reality that's real. The problem is simply that some of our most cherished theories are flawed or wrong. Everything in the universe is simple and can be explained in simple language IMHO, whether we can understand its simplicity or not. If not understandable, the explanation is probably partly or completely wrong.

 

1) There's a raging counter argument against simplicity and parsimonious explanations. Which is that QM shows arational chaos and complexity at deeper levels. And that simpler, more parsimonious explanations have been found false already. Losing to theories more complex. My come back is to point out that the point particle conception of matter can be wrong itself, and probably is. QM is addressed to the point particle conception of matter and the standard model. If that's out, then conclusions based on the assumption of point particle conception being true are out as well. I'm holding ground there, but there, is a place of willing to lose it all! All concepts out the window as literally true. Physics of any stripe unable to work out what exactly reality actually is. Limited to only trying to describe how things work, not what they actually are. 

 

2) The other issue that's come up is what I'm calling the "monkey brain" discourse. How can we think that this Great Ape brain, one of a great many that have come along before us, and probably not the last, would have the nature of reality all figured out and buttoned up, or could even be capable of such a thing? Especially while nursing a serious handicap like not viewing reality as it actually is?

 

These are tough questions.