The Faith & Religion mega Thread

Please, try to keep this thread close to the original question.

"I'm just curious about the gross distribution of faith or non-faith on a forum like this. "

Please don't post issues outside of that question. Members are free to make new general posts on the subjects they wish to air.

Originally Posted by malekmustaq Such a poor reasoning. Mathematics is a pure science. Evolution is just a drunkman's theory which is continually disproved by recent evidence. How dare you claim saying "much like Evolution" !? In logic it is a non-sequitur. I am sorry. Here and there Enorbet bubbles out nothing but words and falacies. I am tried of following this thread. I am sorry.

Firstly "much like" means has some similarities and one of the similarities, being a scientific endeavor, is that they are both subject to 'showing the work". So, please, do show the evidence for your broad and sweeping claims of "a drunkman's theory" as well as 'continual disproving"? Ball is in your court, Sir.

Originally Posted by malekmustaq Such a poor reasoning. Mathematics is a pure science. (...) How dare you claim saying "much like Evolution" !? In logic it is a non-sequitur. I am sorry. Here and there Enorbet bubbles out nothing but words and falacies. I am tried of following this thread. I am sorry.

I think you are beating a strawman here, Malek. What Enorbet did was an analogy, the scope of which I think is explicit enough. Mathematics does start from simple, intuitive terms and rules, and builds everything upon them. The ideas behind the theory of evolution are also simple and, I guess, quite intuitive for most people, and yet those simple ideas have been able to explain, reasonably enough, why and how complex living organisms do exist.

Evolution is just a drunkman's theory which is continually disproved by recent evidence.

Are you referring to any particular alternate theory which is more reasonable than evolution? Which one? Which evidence is disproving evolution?

With all due respect, jefro, it is my understanding that you, while having a respected position as a moderator, this thread numbering currently 530 pages, left that basic distribution constraint ages ago. OP doesn't seem to mind. Perhaps the title of this thread is the cause, since "Mega" may imply "all encompassing" or at least "really wide" or maybe it is just the fact that few forums have the courage to allow such threads to exist that many jump at the chance to discuss the details. In any case, I sincerely hope you intend to continue in allowing this level of adult responsibility in LQ.

Someone complained about this thread and I thought that maybe a minimal sort of statement could help the thread. Maybe I was wrong.

You are very correct that the thread has turned into a sort of daily post. Members are the ones that control this area basically. It's kind of a free area and mostly mods try to leave it alone. It's possible that my attempt was an incorrect choice.

Originally Posted by enorbet Simply put, you cannot compare ridiculous concepts like Flat Earth that never had any scientific backing and stood for a time until Science finally, physically proved the idea had no basis in fact. For someone today to assume that Evolution will fall just like Flat Earth is patently dismissive and ignorant of the realities. Will it be revised? Of course. That's what Science does - continually refine. Will it be fundamentally refuted? Hell No!

Flat Earth is a bad analogy because it was never a scientific theory. No serious mediaeval thinker ever thought the earth was flat; only uneducated people believed that. The correct analogy is geocentricism: the theory that the sun, moon and planets circle the Earth. This was worked out mathematically to "save the appearances" (i.e. to correspond to the observed measurements of the planets' positions). For centuries it worked very well. Now it's pseudo-science.

There are many other examples of things that once were science and now are pseudo-science: the luminiferous ether, fixed continents, rotten teeth as "septic foci" that caused rheumatism (a lot of doctors taught that when I was growing up). And some things that were pseudo-science are now science: continental drift, black holes.

The dirty secret of science (and I speak as a trained scientist) is that the frontier with pseudo-science has always been porous. Ideas cross over in both directions. But we don't tell the masses that because we fear they would use it as an excuse for believing all kind of rubbish. Pas devant les enfants!

PS: Evolution was pseudo-science once. That's why Samuel Wilberforce felt so confident in opposing Huxley in the great evolution debate. He knew he had all the respectable scientists on his side.

I think you are beating a strawman here, Malek. What Enorbet did was an analogy

Don't get it wrong Lacroix. "Much like" is more than "like". It is greater than "akin". You can argue as you want, but you will never beat me off from the debate pulpit. Let us try to grow up in logic. Your analogy can never apply. Better say it: "analogy" is a forceful tool in poetry, but it is not acceptable in Categorical Thinking.

Sorry.

Please, try to keep this thread close to the original question.

Yes Jefro. My apology. The Title Post doesn't talk about "Evolution". But poor latter-day-saints-to-this-Drunken-Theory has rather used this thread to promote their cranky philosophy. Yes, the thread has gone 500+ so pages yet they have not erected solid proof to maintain a drunken ape-driven world.

I am willing to put the case at rest if that is necessary.

My pardon.

Originally Posted by malekmustaq Don't get it wrong Lacroix. "Much like" is more than "like". It is greater than "akin". You can argue as you want, but you will never beat me off from the debate pulpit. Let us try to grow up in logic. Your analogy can never apply. Better say it: "analogy" is a forceful tool in poetry, but it is not acceptable in Categorical Thinking.

While I respect your opinion, I still think you are beating a strawman and splitting hairs. You are focusing on the form, while both the content and the scope of Enorbet's analogy are clear enough, to me at least. Besides, using "like" while making an analogy is perfectly acceptable.

This thread is not (like) the Principia Mathematica: we are using natural language, and natural language also involves analogies. Which, by the way, scientists as well often use to make their thinking clearer, to others and even to themselves.

But I'm still curious about this statement you made:

Originally Posted by malekmustaq Evolution is just a drunkman's theory which is continually disproved by recent evidence.

This looks much like the pot calling the kettle black (another analogy). Again, are you referring to any particular alternate scientific theory which is more reasonable than evolution? Which one? Which evidence is "disproving" evolution? Thank you for elaborating.

Originally Posted by malekmustaq Don't get it wrong Lacroix. "Much like" is more than "like". It is greater than "akin". You can argue as you want, but you will never beat me off from the debate pulpit. Let us try to grow up in logic. Your analogy can never apply. Better say it: "analogy" is a forceful tool in poetry, but it is not acceptable in Categorical Thinking. Sorry.

That would possibly be so IF you provide evidence to support your conclusion that Evolution is hogwash. In my experience it is a well-regarded, oft attacked yet never falsified scientific theory which does indeed make it more than just "akin". My analogy stands with no retraction nor apology until you do due diligence.

Originally Posted by hazel Flat Earth is a bad analogy because it was never a scientific theory. No serious mediaeval thinker ever thought the earth was flat; only uneducated people believed that. The correct analogy is geocentricism: the theory that the sun, moon and planets circle the Earth. This was worked out mathematically to "save the appearances" (i.e. to correspond to the observed measurements of the planets' positions). For centuries it worked very well. Now it's pseudo-science. There are many other examples of things that once were science and now are pseudo-science: the luminiferous ether, fixed continents, rotten teeth as "septic foci" that caused rheumatism (a lot of doctors taught that when I was growing up). And some things that were pseudo-science are now science: continental drift, black holes. The dirty secret of science (and I speak as a trained scientist) is that the frontier with pseudo-science has always been porous. Ideas cross over in both directions. But we don't tell the masses that because we fear they would use it as an excuse for believing all kind of rubbish. Pas devant les enfants! PS: Evolution was pseudo-science once. That's why Samuel Wilberforce felt so confident in opposing Huxley in the great evolution debate. He knew he had all the respectable scientists on his side.

I do agree that geocentricism would have been a more accurate choice. Thank you for that correction. However I disagree that Evolution was ever pseudoscience even though I am well aware that it met with tremendous negative reactions from noblemen who understood how much importance Evolution places on women, much to "the nobility's" distaste and chagrin.

Similarly continental drift and black holes were not pseudoscience either. Specifically, "continental drift" was speculated upon as early as 1600. When it was given some gravitas in the early 20th century it was only rejected because no mechanism was yet known. It was barely an hypothesis searching for a means to become a testable, fgalsifiable theory. Black Holes were predicted mathematically as a consequence of Einstein's Theory of General Relativity. It wasn't (and a few argue, still isn't) Science since it isn't directly observable. However indirect evidence has mounted to overcome that concern for most serious scientists. It, or something very much like it or vastly weirder, does indeed exist. In fact, now that we think the majority if not all galaxies have Black Holes at their center and have observed relativistic speeds of surrounding objects, jets of energy from the poles, among other phenomena, only a few holdouts remain denying the existence of black holes.

There is a subtle but important difference between pseudoscience and these subjects, which at one time were simply speculation. They were never claimed to be scientific let alone fact as pseudoscience routinely does. Phlogiston and The Ether did come close but it is difficult to separate speculation from hypothesis since both concepts occurred very early in Science before the rules of evidence became as firm as they are today, not to mention the impetus of the avalanche effect of actual tested knowledge of how Nature actually functions and it's reductive effect on wild claims. Also our abilities to test and falsify have increased dramatically and continue to grow exponentially. Out in the sticks, anyone who owns a hammer can call himself "a Carpenter", but in big cities, one actually has to qualify for and obtain a license. Joe Average is not about to "shake up the roots of Science" anytime soon, if ever again.

Regarding the subject of Evolution as it applies to this thread - It is my opinion that the subject of Evolution has become extremely important to some religious people, most notably fundamentalists. So, because it seems so highly unlikely that, since it was not so described in some bible, that fundamentalists can ever accept that The Creator "invented" Evolution (the simpler and more manageable solution) it will remain a heated point of controversy, made central by fundamentalists. I don't personally see the problem but then I take Occam's Razor one step further. In fact it has become such a Sacred Cow that simply knowing one's stance on Evolution has become a sharply defining characteristic,. a sample of "the metal from which one is made". Therefore it not only should be allowed but needs to be discussed so that

1) People can learn just how solid Evolution is

-- OR --

2) Discover what a "drunken mess" it is

How we decide, most definitely speaks volumes about us.

Originally Posted by malekmustaq Yes Jefro. My apology. The Title Post doesn't talk about "Evolution". But poor latter-day-saints-to-this-Drunken-Theory has rather used this thread to promote their cranky philosophy. Yes, the thread has gone 500+ so pages yet they have not erected solid proof to maintain a drunken ape-driven world.

Nevermind, I can see where we're heading to once again. I hope we won't, but please, before going on, be aware that if you want to disprove the theory of evolution you will have to provide some better arguments than this one.

Originally Posted by malekmustaq You can argue as you want, but you will never beat me off from the debate pulpit.

But that's not my intention. I think we're all interested to keep this conversation on a civil tone, and personally I'd like to read some actual and (why not?) interesting arguments from you, instead of random and gratuitous insults like the above. As I said, I'm curious.

Smart religious people simply say their creator set in motion evolution, now we just need smart people?!.

An incurable disease is not religion or any other opinion for that matter... ;p