The Faith & Religion mega Thread

Originally Posted by acid_kewpie this is surely just a list of things you don't understand. Why do they need to be distrusted? This stuff is generally VERY hard (especially Sting theory... why DO people buy his records???) Multiverses feel like nonsense to me, but as I know I'll never understand enough about the underlying knowledge, I just have to leave it as "no opinion" as I at least appreciate that I am not personally qualified to state a case against it. Compare this to the muppets who deny evolution from their (often high intentional) misunderstanding of the subject matter. One common thing I've picked up on, is that religious people only generally tend to distrust / deny the things that conflict with their religion. You don't distrust vaccines, electricity and all that do you? The things that (until someone posts a suitably amusing bible quote) aren't actually casting any doubt against the things you believe. It's only when you find yourself with two alternate realities that you have to say how bad science is. I don't want to have "faith" in scientists, and sure I'll accept pretty much everything they say as long as I find it broadly compatibile to my actual proven knowledge of the world. I'll say that I don't understand quite how I should best perceive much of scientific research to not basically treat it as something like a religion. I do have to take things like peer review as good enough for me, as I do not have the time, inclination nor mental capacity to really understand everything ever. Real scientists will often have a much better perspective on this though. People who take science as fact will often say pretty dumb things about it being absolute fact etc, whereas a scientist will often say "You know, I've no idea really, but it's our best guess so far" and they get really excited when things are shown to be incorrect.

That's most people's problem, they doubt their abilities. They believe that these scientists they see on TV are like gods. Their brains must be unusual and very heavy.

I don't believe any of these scientists past and present and future are any smarter than any I am or have any special abilities. I am quite capable of understanding any theories they come up with and exactly what they mean and what they want to do with them.

There is a difference between not understanding and it not making sense. The difference is much like that of religion to me. To me, religion does not make sense, and therefore I do not believe it. Much the same way, the list above is what I also consider religion because it does not make sense.

You may be happy just believing that someone out there, these scientists and their gigantic brains can understand these, but I am not. I can understand these theories and I know they are wrong. I think they don't make sense and they don't fit with the rest of the data that I have.

Of course, from your POV, I do not understand the things listed. That's fine if you think that, but I have every right NOT to believe in them, as much as I have a right not to believe in religion. I am not insulting anyone by not believing in them, and you have no argument for it. In fact, some of them insult my intelligence, but we'll call it even.

I'll add a few things to the list.

There are many things that don't add up for the trip to the moon, just look into in yourself. I've had my doubts for a while about the physics involved, and as I looked into it further my doubts only grew.

I'm not gonna discuss that here, because it would be too off-topic.

Originally Posted by H_TeXMeX_H Here's a list of things I distrust about science (hope not to get burned at the stake): Big Bang Quantum Physics / Modern Physics Sting Theory Global Climate Change / Warming / Cooling / whatever they come up with next to line their pockets with cash from money wasting projects. Out of Africa theory That we evolved from Chimps / Bonobos (Darwin never said this AFAIK) Higgs Boson Thermal death of the Universe Multiverses The shape of the universe (the universe is infinite, so how can you know its shape ?) Moon hitting the earth theory (because they never went to the moon, and never brought back any rocks, they took rocks from here said they were from the moon and thus the moon must have hit the earth millions of years ago) The concept of an indivisible particle The expanding universe theory Relativity Mass-energy conversion other things that I can't think of right now. *Runs away from the peasants with pitchforks* EDIT: Added to list.

I will adress only a few of them:
- Quantum Physics/Modern Physics: Throw away your CPU, it won't work without it. Have a look at experiments with Quantum computers, they actually work.
- String theory: Even controversial amongst scientists and not the current "standard" theory.
- Global Climate Change / Warming / Cooling : So you believe that our climate is absolutely stable, since you don't believe in change, regardless it is warming or cooling? You should know it better. The big question is if it is man-made or not and what we can do about it, not if it changes. We know that it changes.
- That we evolved from Chimps / Bonobos (Darwin never said this AFAIK): In fact, not one scientist would claim something like that. That is a misbelief distributed by creationists. The theory is that we have a common ancestor, not that we evolved from them. Evolution 101.
- Big Bang, Thermal death of Universe, the shape of the Universe, the expanding Universe: We know for a fact that Galaxies are spreading out in the Universe, we actually can see that (expanding Universe). Those three things can be logically deducted from that fact. For the shape of the Universe, I recommend the book "A Universe from Nothing" from Lawrence Kraus, it has an excellent explanation about that topic. But I would be interested to know how you came to the conclusion that the Universe is infinite.
- Moon hitting the earth theory: There is no moon hitting the earth theory. The theory is that a larger object, most likely another planet or planetoid, hit the earth and the mass that was splitted from the earth by that impact formed the moon. I will not comment on your conspiracy theories.
- Relativity: Please, don't use anything that needs GPS for its function, GPS wouldn't work without relativity.
- Mass-Energy conversion: Well, functions pretty good and holds the earth in a pretty warm state, so that we can live on it. Sun, anyone?

Many of the things you distrust have real life applications, so distrusting them sounds a bit weird to me. For other things it seems that you simply are misinformed about those topics, distrusting because of misinformation is not the way to go, I would think, but of course it is up you.

What am I misinformed about ?

You believe whatever you want, and I will believe whatever I want. No devices today depend on theories, they depend on engineering and trial and error.

Originally Posted by H_TeXMeX_H What am I misinformed about ? You believe whatever you want, and I will believe whatever I want. No devices today depend on theories, they depend on engineering and trial and error.

whatever you want? You seem to have a hell of a lot of usual suspects on that list.

I see what you say about relying on theories, so in that case what is it about quantum theory that you don't "Believe"? Conventional theories of physics mean that transistors don't work, quantum theories make it make sense, so where's the bit in the equation you reject? Outside of things being accurate etc, it doesn't really make sense to reject it. Not that it's a dumb thing, i mean that it doesn't literally make sense to reject it in terms of language and logic or whatever.

and nothing depends on trial and error. things depend on trial and improvement. big difference.

Originally Posted by H_TeXMeX_H What am I misinformed about ?

For example your believe that scientists think that humans were evolved from chimps and Bonobos.

No devices today depend on theories, they depend on engineering and trial and error.

So you think they have launched the GPS satellites first and then they recognized that they need to apply the theory of relativity to it to make it work? Nonsense, it was known before that they would need it and they applied the theory to it to make it work before launching the satellites. No trial and error. http://www.astronomy.ohio-state.edu/...Unit5/gps.html

Of course you can believe whatever you want, but if your believes are proven to be wrong by real world applications (or are based on misinformation, as shown above) it says a lot about how to value your statements if you still adhere to those believes.

Originally Posted by TobiSGD For example your believe that scientists think that humans were evolved from chimps and Bonobos.

as right as you clearly are, this is a pretty pointless comeback. Guess what... they think you're wrong too...

Originally Posted by acid_kewpie as right as you clearly are, this is a pretty pointless comeback. Guess what... they think you're wrong too...

That's interesting. Do you have a link for me?

Originally Posted by TobiSGD That's interesting. Do you have a link for me?

it's not about links. I'm fscking awful at arguing, but clearly "i'm right, you're wrong" is no use. You need to dismantle the structure of the argument, put the subject matter to one side. I often think that the scientific method is more important than science. Understanding why you are justified to beleive in X, Y or Z is much more important that what you believe in.

you have two books, one a physics text book and the bible. They'll be just as definite in what they say, despite one making me literally laugh when I read it, but it's everything that's NOT in the book that really matters, as to how you can say "I believe this because I read it in a book". Sometimes that's valid, sometimes it's in the Bible.

Originally Posted by acid_kewpie it's not about links. I'm fscking awful at arguing, but clearly "i'm right, you're wrong" is no use. You need to dismantle the structure of the argument, put the subject matter to one side. I often think that the scientific method is more important than science. Understanding why you are justified to beleive in X, Y or Z is much more important that what you believe in. you have two books, one a physics text book and the bible. They'll be just as definite in what they say, despite one making me literally laugh when I read it, but it's everything that's NOT in the book that really matters, as to how you can say "I believe this because I read it in a book". Sometimes that's valid, sometimes it's in the Bible.

"I'm right, you're wrong" can be of use, specifically in the case when it is about facts. H_TeXMeX_H asked what he is misinformed about and I pointed it out to him. No scientists claims that humans were evolved from chimps and bonobos.

But you are right, the scientific method is important, because it enables people to get rid of believes that can no longer be seen as valid. that is essential to science, that change actually can happen.
A scientist can say: Well, see, we were wrong with that, we have found out that this can no longer be seen as valid and we came up with a better explanation that matches the case, as we know it, better. There may be an even better explanation in the future and we are constantly looking for it, but for now this one fits pretty well and we actually can use it.
As happened for example with many of Newton's theories, that fit pretty well (and can be used even today in many circumstances), but are replaced with theories that fit even better to what we can observe and can be used to make better predictions.

This is what science is all about, we may be wrong, but we can change that, we are constantly looking and if we are proven to be wrong and find something that is better we will adapt it.
This is totally contrary to religion, which by definition must have the absolute truth that can not change, especially if the god in question is one of the omniscient, omnipotent, omni-whatever kind. IMHO, if such a religion adapts itself to newer findings it can't be (and shouldn't be) taken seriously.

Originally Posted by TobiSGD This is totally contrary to religion, which by definition must have the absolute truth that can not change, especially if the god in question is one of the omniscient, omnipotent, omni-whatever kind. IMHO, if such a religion adapts itself to newer findings it can't be (and shouldn't be) taken seriously.

Absolutely. Whilst I think what they actually do is frequently dreadful, the ones that stick to their texts more fiercely seem to deserve much more respect than most branches of Christianity and the likes, with their shellfish eating and women mot covering their hair, and praying in public and saying the old testament doesn't actually count when they don't want it to.

Originally Posted by acid_kewpie whatever you want? You seem to have a hell of a lot of usual suspects on that list. I see what you say about relying on theories, so in that case what is it about quantum theory that you don't "Believe"? Conventional theories of physics mean that transistors don't work, quantum theories make it make sense, so where's the bit in the equation you reject? Outside of things being accurate etc, it doesn't really make sense to reject it. Not that it's a dumb thing, i mean that it doesn't literally make sense to reject it in terms of language and logic or whatever.

Quantum physics theories make everything make no sense, and I believe they are specifically designed to be eclectic and hard to understand. I don't really blame them, that's what every field tries to do, to make themselves feel superior, special, and beyond the understanding of the layman. It's just human nature I suppose.

The equation I reject most, is also the most popular E=mc2 (squared). But, I'm not yet going to tell you what bothers me about it, instead I want you to tell me (without looking at wiki or the net), what you believe this equation means, and what its purpose is in physics. What is E, and m and c, first of all ? And where would it be applied, and what does it mean.

Originally Posted by TobiSGD For example your believe that scientists think that humans were evolved from chimps and Bonobos. So you think they have launched the GPS satellites first and then they recognized that they need to apply the theory of relativity to it to make it work? Nonsense, it was known before that they would need it and they applied the theory to it to make it work before launching the satellites. No trial and error. http://www.astronomy.ohio-state.edu/...Unit5/gps.html Of course you can believe whatever you want, but if your believes are proven to be wrong by real world applications (or are based on misinformation, as shown above) it says a lot about how to value your statements if you still adhere to those believes.

I've heard scientists say and believe exactly that. Shall we not consider them scientists ... if so, then I'll remove it from the list. I know that it is a misunderstanding of evolution, but it is not my misunderstanding.

As for relativity, just because some of the formulas work some of the time doesn't mean the theory behind them is right.

Originally Posted by H_TeXMeX_H Quantum physics theories make everything make no sense, and I believe they are specifically designed to be eclectic and hard to understand. I don't really blame them, that's what every field tries to do, to make themselves feel superior, special, and beyond the understanding of the layman. It's just human nature I suppose.

well that's just outright insulting, there's nothign of merit in what you've said there at all

The equation I reject most, is also the most popular E=mc2 (squared). But, I'm not yet going to tell you what bothers me about it, instead I want you to tell me (without looking at wiki or the net), what you believe this equation means, and what its purpose is in physics. What is E, and m and c, first of all ? And where would it be applied, and what does it mean.

You want me to explain it? Good for you. No thanks. I know it's a broadly acceptable model, and not perfect. Every actual scientist knows it's not waterproof, it's only those who don't understand the scientific method that do still blindly support it in ignorance that say otherwise.

I've heard scientists say and believe exactly that. Shall we not consider them scientists ... if so, then I'll remove it from the list. I know that it is a misunderstanding of evolution, but it is not my misunderstanding.

they can be scientists if they go against evolution, sure. But they'll have minimal peer review as their evidence will be bullshit.

As for relativity, just because some of the formulas work some of the time doesn't mean the theory behind them is right.

absolutely, again that's only an ignorant science fans view, not someone who actaully studies science and the scientific method. Those nerds LOVE that fact.

Originally Posted by H_TeXMeX_H I've heard scientists say and believe exactly that [humans evolved from chimps and bonos]. Shall we not consider them scientists ... if so, then I'll remove it from the list.

The most generous interpretation of what you've written, since you've declined to name or quote, is that the scientists were speaking outside their field. A scientist speaking outside his or her field is not speaking as a scientist. Therefore, you should not consider them scientists and you should take this off your list.

Originally Posted by dugan The most generous interpretation of what you've written, since you've declined to name or quote, is that the scientists were speaking outside their field. A scientist speaking outside his or her field is not speaking as a scientist. Therefore, you should not consider them scientists and you should take this off your list.

I don't know about that really. There are plenty of people who are undeniably "scientists" who will go against all sorts of conventions, however well accepted. And I'd suggest backing up a little and taking this situation in a broader context. If ALL scientists agreed on the same thing, then we'd be in a hell of a lot worse a place than we are. Modern examples like the disproval of stress causing stomach ulcers would only have come to light from certain scientists being apparent crack pots for not following the general concensus. Now in the ulcer example when Barry Marshall drank the bacteria to give himself an Ulcer, he was way way out on his own, and did look like a fool. In fact there is plenty about what he did that is very irresponsible and poor science, but the end result seems to have been worth it.

So scientists should absolutely not flock together by default, and there are plenty of genuine scientists who don't believe in the theory of evolution, but at the same time they are ostrichificated by the rest of the community by in large, and have little peer reviewed work of any merit (due to them being totally wrong and misguided imho) but these things do not stop them being scientists for one second.