If you are religious, stop cherry-picking science

[Joon]

And so science should be the true answer? Both have their qualities and flaws, you would be surprised to see just how scientists reveal whatever benefits them best for whatever causes they want to defend.

I am not religious in any way but, I needed to point this out to you.

I agree with this post and would link to this article to support @Central statements:

You must be registered for see links

 

[fiercerunner]

I agree with this post and would link to this article to support @Central statements:

You must be registered for see links

I think that article struggles to address anything I've put forth here. The author acts as if they can compare religious cherry-picking with science cherry-picking, but that's just not the case. They go off on an existential rant about how science can't tell you why life matters. Well, of course not, because science doesn't deal in meaning. It deals with raw facts and nothing more. It's up to you to decide what matters in life.

The author also suggests that we all participate in science cherry-picking, but that's not the case at all. Obviously, if a scientific consensus hasn't been met on a certain issue, people are free to debate, speculate, and conduct further research, but that doesn't mean they're cherry-picking. Eventually, a consensus will be reached.

And the author has the audacity to suggest that we all ignore some parts of science. Sorry, but no. Not everyone does that. But, at least this highlights the concept of my original post.

Another issue:

"Why is it that physical scientists can’t say that the moon values a rising tide, but life and social scientists can say that we value things? Why the double standard?"

Is this a serious question? Do I really need to even talk about this? This idiotic rhetorical question makes me want to blacklist the entire website to save brain cells.

And another one:

"On the hard science side, everything can be explained as the product of cause-and-effect. But on the life and behavioral science side, scientists are allowed explain what happens as means to ends—ends of value to the living."

What exactly does this point accomplish? Animals act in such a way as to promote their survival and reproduction. That's just another cause and effect scenario.

The article also tries to shift the burden of proof of a rather outlandish claim:

"Scientists have not offered a plausible alternative to magical supernatural theories that explain valuing as emanating from God, soul, spirit, or vital force."

Apparently, the author is unaware that the burden proof is always on the person making an assertion. And even if they weren't shifting the burden of proof, this is a God of the gaps logical fallacy.

 

[Dreckerplayer]

Science doesn't care about power or being better than anything. People do. Religion is a concept derived from people. Science is a concept derived from the observable laws of reality. Once again, your argument is misdirected. I am not talking about scientists. I am talking about science as a concept, which is utterly immune to outside influence because its definition is static and has no individual entity representing it.

If by one thinking it's better than the other you mean the groups of people supporting science and religion, then that's still wrong. It's not only one group thinking it's better than the other. Absolutely not. Do you have any idea how many religious folks have a holier-than-thou complex? It's unbelievable. Likewise, it's unbelievable how many scientists have a smarter-than-thou complex, if you will.

Science was founded by the people, the people are what make it what it is. And it's a "tool" for better understanding, yes, but also POWER. To have POWER over the next person, to have an advantage.

You're misdirected. Science is a man-made concept. What it's about, is observable, however what it's used for...is for POWER. The studies of science. I think it's you trying to curb your own argument to make it seem as we're not on the same page.You're trying to seperate the two, as if either one doesn't entail the same thing.

Wow, you really know how to complicate things, to make things sound bigger than what it is.

I know plenty of atheists with a holier than thou complex, it isn't just christians. They're all sadly mistaken to me.One definitely thinks they're better than the other, and it's as simple as that.

 

[fiercerunner]

Science was founded by the people, the people are what make it what it is. And it's a "tool" for better understanding, yes, but also POWER. To have POWER over the next person, to have an advantage.

Science (the philosophy, not the technology it brings about, such as weapons) as it's progressed by humans does bring about certain social pressures, but it's not aimed at mass control like religion. I'm not sure why you didn't comment on the brainwashing that's done for control/power over the up and comers (i.e., children) of each religion. For example:

"If you don't believe in x, you're going to hell!"

That's some pretty brutal controlling and power-hungry fear-mongering. I know not all religions believe that example, but a very, very large percentage of the world's religious people have that in their holy books. Meanwhile, on the science side of things, a person might feel social pressure to accept something as fact, but the evidence is there for everyone to see and no one will feel like their existence is going to end in suffering for not agreeing with something in science.

You're misdirected. Science is a man-made concept. What it's about, is observable, however what it's used for...is for POWER. The studies of science. I think it's you trying to curb your own argument to make it seem as we're not on the same page.You're trying to seperate the two, as if either one doesn't entail the same thing.

But we're not talking about what science is used for. We're talking about the concept of science by itself, which is just a philosophy. It's not man-made. Saying science is man-made is like saying the concept of forming conclusions from observations is man-made, but that would make no sense.

If we draw this back to the original post, the entire problem I'm talking about is that many religious people gladly accept some scientific facts while rejecting others despite being derived from methodology that's just as good, which makes absolutely no sense. It's an irrational thought process that's predicated on personal bias and nothing else.

I know plenty of atheists with a holier than thou complex, it isn't just christians. They're all sadly mistaken to me.One definitely thinks they're better than the other, and it's as simple as that.

Sure, that's true that some atheists have a holier-than-thou complex. What I was trying to spell out with that last point is that both groups are condescending towards each other. I mean, for crying out loud, you literally just said, "it isn't just Christians." I also didn't even say Christians, but that example works.

 

[Dreckerplayer]

Science (the philosophy, not the technology it brings about, such as weapons) as it's progressed by humans does bring about certain social pressures, but it's not aimed at mass control like religion. I'm not sure why you didn't comment on the brainwashing that's done for control/power over the up and comers (i.e., children) of each religion. For example:

"If you don't believe in x, you're going to hell!"

That's some pretty brutal controlling and power-hungry fear-mongering. I know not all religions believe that example, but a very, very large percentage of the world's religious people have that in their holy books. Meanwhile, on the science side of things, a person might feel social pressure to accept something as fact, but the evidence is there for everyone to see and no one will feel like their existence is going to end in suffering for not agreeing with something in science.



But we're not talking about what science is used for. We're talking about the concept of science by itself, which is just a philosophy. It's not man-made. Saying science is man-made is like saying the concept of forming conclusions from observations is man-made, but that would make no sense.

If we draw this back to the original post, the entire problem I'm talking about is that many religious people gladly accept some scientific facts while rejecting others despite being derived from methodology that's just as good, which makes absolutely no sense. It's an irrational thought process that's predicated on personal bias and nothing else.



Sure, that's true that some atheists have a holier-than-thou complex. What I was trying to spell out with that last point is that both groups are condescending towards each other. I mean, for crying out loud, you literally just said, "it isn't just Christians." I also didn't even say Christians, but that example works.

idealism.

And you're just pointing out the obvious when it comes to Christianity. It's nothing new, not sure why you keep bringing it up.People have been aware of it's purpose, for some time now.

But what I did notice, was your bias. Pointing out religion's flaws, without pointing out it's similarities with science.

Science, what it's used for, is the same as religion. Period.point.blank.

Please don't back-track and say "I'm talking about the concept of science", it isn't that complicated. What's actually there, isn't always what's being "presented".

Don't try to separate it. Science, a systematic study of the structure and behavior of the physical/natural world through observation and experiment...is a man-made concept.

 

[fiercerunner]

idealism.

And you're just pointing out the obvious when it comes to Christianity. It's nothing new, not sure why you keep bringing it up.People have been aware of it's purpose, for some time now.

Just because it's nothing new doesn't mean it's not a valid point. That's why I brought it up. And once again, I didn't say Christianity. I'm not targeting any specific religious group. I'm criticizing nearly all religions for exercising power and control.

But what I did notice, was your bias. Pointing out religion's flaws, without pointing out it's similarities with science.

Science, what it's used for, is the same as religion. Period.point.blank.

Please don't back-track and say "I'm talking about the concept of science", it isn't that complicated. What's actually there, isn't always what's being "presented".

Don't try to separate it. Science, a systematic study of the structure and behavior of the physical/natural world through observation and experiment...is a man-made concept.

Everyone has bias, including me. The man-made part of science is the scientific method, which is what you're referring to. I wouldn't be backtracking by restating that I'm talking about the concept of science. I've been saying that since the original post, so it makes no sense to demand that I abandon it.

The only flaw in the scientific method is that it's sometimes carried out poorly by flawed humans. That's not the case with religion because holy books contain contradictions, moral shortcomings, and unsubstantiated claims. People often say, "the people who practice a religion are flawed, not the religion itself," but this simply isn't true -- it's both.

And you're right, the science I've been talking about -- science as a concept -- is an ideal, and it can never be achieved perfectly, but it can be achieved well enough that we can draw conclusions about reality and call those conclusions facts.

 

[Dreckerplayer]

Just because it's nothing new doesn't mean it's not a valid point. That's why I brought it up. And once again, I didn't say Christianity. I'm not targeting any specific religious group. I'm criticizing nearly all religions for exercising power and control.

That's highly deceptive. I spoke of "Religion" in general, then you went on to speak on "christianity", specifically.I was simply following up on what you said. Either way, if I say christianity, I mean ALL of it.

You're making it look as if I'm misunderstanding you, when really I'm being very clear and concise with things.

I was speaking on ALL religion, until you targeted Christianity, then I spoke on christianity, following up on your statement. I'm not sure if you're following me, here.

This is going back and forth, lmao.Such a miscommunication(or is it...).

Everyone has bias, including me. The man-made part of science is the scientific method, which is what you're referring to. I wouldn't be backtracking by restating that I'm talking about the concept of science. I've been saying that since the original post, so it makes no sense to demand that I abandon it.

The word "science" was used, there were no specifics. Science, in general. And it applies to it, as a whole.

man-made concept.

The only flaw in the scientific method is that it's sometimes carried out poorly by flawed humans. That's not the case with religion because holy books contain contradictions, moral shortcomings, and unsubstantiated claims. People often say, "the people who practice a religion are flawed, not the religion itself," but this simply isn't true -- it's both.

It's like you're indirectly putting words in my mouth. What you speak of, is "he say/she say", I'm not interested in any of that, or any idealism.These things never came out of my mouth, so where is it coming from, and WHY is it being brought up in the discussion to sway us off topic? You're stating the obvious, too. Regardless if it doesn't invalidate it, it still has nothing to do with what I'm trying to tell you. I'm WELL AWARE of the religious side of things,I don't disagree with you on that part, but you keep bringing up these obvious things. Religion, as a whole, has already been disclosed.

And condoning bias, takes away your credibility. You should never condone bias, cause it's one-sided, selective,and selfish. It's not something that you should do, or aim for. It distorts everything. One missing link, or a few, can distort/misrepresent everything...and that's an issue with science, this "systematic study" is performed only by selective-thinking humans...since that's what science is.

Hell, condoning bias is selfish and choosing to be selfish.

And you're right, the science I've been talking about -- science as a concept -- is an ideal, and it can never be achieved perfectly, but it can be achieved well enough that we can draw conclusions about reality and call those conclusions facts.

Take it with a grain of salt. Cause if you don't, you're understanding of things will still be limited.

 

[Lightbringer]

And so science should be the true answer? Both have their qualities and flaws, you would be surprised to see just how scientists reveal whatever benefits them best for whatever causes they want to defend.

I am not religious in any way but, I needed to point this out to you.

That's a fallacious argument. There's psuedoscience which is science that is not supported by adequate evidence or has not been peer-reviewed. Then there's peer reviewed science which is theories and data that are tested by other scientists and institutions to see if they hold up.

What people don't seem to understand that science being wrong is still science because you learn what is something is not rather than what something is. If you cross out the negative, you're still getting closer to the true answer. Science is simply the accumulation of data in order to explain our world and every theory is made based on some prior data which was collected and is then tested to see if that theory works to explain the gaps in whatever evidence there is. And if the theory is wrong, then you refine that theory and why it was wrong.

Religion doesn't admit to folly. All it does is reinterpret vague wording in order to fit a preconceived narrative that God is a certainty and that whatever holy text is not contradictory or historically and scientifically inaccurate.

 

[fiercerunner]

That's highly deceptive. I spoke of "Religion" in general, then you went on to speak on "christianity", specifically.I was simply following up on what you said. Either way, if I say christianity, I mean ALL of it.

You're making it look as if I'm misunderstanding you, when really I'm being very clear and concise with things.

I was speaking on ALL religion, until you targeted Christianity, then I spoke on christianity, following up on your statement. I'm not sure if you're following me, here.

This is going back and forth, lmao.Such a miscommunication(or is it...).





The word "science" was used, there were no specifics. Science, in general. And it applies to it, as a whole.

man-made concept.



It's like you're indirectly putting words in my mouth. What you speak of, is "he say/she say", I'm not interested in any of that, or any idealism.These things never came out of my mouth, so where is it coming from, and WHY is it being brought up in the discussion to sway us off topic? You're stating the obvious, too. Regardless if it doesn't invalidate it, it still has nothing to do with what I'm trying to tell you. I'm WELL AWARE of the religious side of things,I don't disagree with you on that part, but you keep bringing up these obvious things. Religion, as a whole, has already been disclosed.

And condoning bias, takes away your credibility. You should never condone bias, cause it's one-sided, selective,and selfish. It's not something that you should do, or aim for. It distorts everything. One missing link, or a few, can distort/misrepresent everything...and that's an issue with science, this "systematic study" is performed only by selective-thinking humans...since that's what science is.

Hell, condoning bias is selfish and choosing to be selfish.



Take it with a grain of salt. Cause if you don't, you're understanding of things will still be limited.

Oh my God, dude. I never brought up Christianity. You are the first one who brought it up. Go back and check our posts. I also never condoned bias. The entire point of everything I've been saying is that bias is reprehensible. I just stated the fact that everyone has bias, which is absolutely true. It can't be helped. We can only try to reduce the amount of bias we have as humans.

I'm not the one putting words in someone's mouth.

 

[Dreckerplayer]

Oh my God, dude. I never brought up Christianity. You are the first one who brought it up. Go back and check our posts. I also never condoned bias. The entire point of everything I've been saying is that bias is reprehensible. I just stated the fact that everyone has bias, which is absolutely true. It can't be helped. We can only try to reduce the amount of bias we have as humans.

I'm not the one putting words in someone's mouth.

Yeah, you're clueless.lmao.

Yes, you are condoning of bias, it shows and it's selfish. "We're all bias"...that's assumed, just to defend you're own point of view, and I pretty much hate that.Another example of selfish thinking.

Anywho, "christianity" was mentioned. I don't need to go back, unless you went back and edited your post to erase your traces...

You're actually what I consider a "limited-thinker"...because you limit yourself, ironically.

And in previous comments you use the word "religion", but let's be straight up here, you're talking about "christianity", cause you know little to nothing about other religions, perhaps touched the surface of "islamic" religion, but you're whole stand-point on religion, comes from christianity, most likely. You using the term "religion" is just avoidance, pretty much...pretty obvious what religion you're specifically targeting. The big bad wolf in english speaking countries..."christianity"...

 

[Legendary Saiyan]

No different from losers who cherry pick religion lol

 

[Uverdore9]

So Science=God,but Religion which talks and gives insight on 'God' is not 'Science'?The irony.

 

[Lightbringer]

So Science=God,but Religion which talks and gives insight on 'God' is not 'Science'?The irony.

What kind of dumb comparison is that? No one says that science is God. Science is data which accumulates over time that people can observe, test, and recreate which gives us a better understanding of the world as time progresses.

Religion is not based in observable evidence but belief that a God exists. And whatever scientific or archaeological evidence that debunk or contradict certain aspects of a holy text is either ignored or reinterpreted to keep the narrative that their God exists and their holy text is infallible. Science does not deal in absolutes, it deals in probability. Religion, with its lack of verifiable claims, deals in absolutes and prompts you to accept these absolutes through faith alone.

There is no comparison between the two. You just made that comparison in order to make a fallacious point.

 

[fiercerunner]

Yeah, you're clueless.lmao.

Yes, you are condoning of bias, it shows and it's selfish. "We're all bias"...that's assumed, just to defend you're own point of view, and I pretty much hate that.Another example of selfish thinking.

All living beings have bias. That is a fact. It's not something I'm assuming. Everyone in academia and the real world knows this. It's common sense. Educate yourself.

Anywho, "christianity" was mentioned. I don't need to go back, unless you went back and edited your post to erase your traces...

Look at you. Pathetic. YOU are the one who mentioned Christianity, and YOU damn well know it. That's why you don't want to go back and check. How DARE you suggest I might have lied? How pitiful that you resort to that. You are absolutely beaten. You're just another person who can't admit when they're wrong because you're completely blinded by your ego.

And in previous comments you use the word "religion", but let's be straight up here, you're talking about "christianity", cause you know little to nothing about other religions, perhaps touched the surface of "islamic" religion, but you're whole stand-point on religion, comes from christianity, most likely. You using the term "religion" is just avoidance, pretty much...pretty obvious what religion you're specifically targeting. The big bad wolf in english speaking countries..."christianity"...

That's completely wrong. You're doing nothing but assuming because you want things to be a certain way. You are incapable of looking at our discussion objectively. If I were a betting man, I'd wager you're a Christian and want to feel like the victim. How shameful and sad if that's the case.

You suggested I might be dishonest for no reason at all and refused to admit that I never -- not even once -- brought up a specific religion, and that you were wrong about that because you are the one who brought up Christianity. And then you turned around and made wild accusations that I meant Christianity all along because it helps you feel better that you're actually the one who brought it up and not me.

How dare you. I've tried to have a civil conversation, but obviously you're incapable of it. You might actually be insane. I will never reply to you again. You're a waste of my time. Go be a fool somewhere else.