Change?

[The Stranger]

Actually not much has changed in the west. Sure we've gone from Chaos to God to Science. And sages have been replaced by priests who in turn have been replaced by scientists. The upperclass has shifted several times and revolutions happened, but in the end, the people, whoever that may be at any given time, still believe whatever they are being told.

when asked: How did they universe come into being? they respond with what they have been told: wether that is Chaos or God or Big Bang. They dont actually know what they are talking about.

And the stories get more fantastic over time too... I mean, from simple forces that collided, to the shaping hand of one all powerfull being to, expansion from nothing into vast space in just moments, dark energy and much more.

One person said he believed Christianity because its story was so absurd it had to be true. I guess he would say the same about the big bang theory if he had lived now.

I mean does anyone, and i'm including (all but) the brightest scientists, have a clue what happened? And what happened before that? They just answer with that is an obsolete question. Sounds a lot like a big fat "I DON'T KNOW!!!" to me.

The only thing that changed is that you can now question authority, resulting in no real authority at all. i doubt wether that is such a big improvement.

[Aemilius Paulus]

*Boom* Godin's Law:

The bigger the lie, the better - Mein Kampf, Adolf Hitler; confirmed by Goebbels.




So are you expressing dissatisfaction with the current scientific establishment? May as well be like that Churchill quote on democracy. Science may have its shortcomings, but I sure as hell would rather let it preside over the society, rather than religion. And we could have the philosophers filling the moral void, just as in the ancient Greek times.

Hmm, so can you put forth a brief, concrete, debatable statement which reflects your views? I mean, I understand your post, but I am not certain what you advocate. If you are meaning to advocate any viewpoint at all, that is.

I simply hope you will not examine the validity of the Big Bang, because no-one here has any clue on how to evaluate the mathematical pros and cons of the theory in regards to how it fits within the current astrophysical model and such...

[Rhyfelwyr]

I often sympathise with YEC's, because 99% of the people who mock their ideas probably know nothing about either the big bang or the Bible, they just believe it because the scientiests do.

That's defintely something that has never changed - there are always only a few intellectual elites when compared to the masses that know very little about the world and just take what the elites say for granted.

Whenever I have had any sort of discussion with someone in RL on politics/science/religion or whatever, pretty much everything they say would get torn apart in seconds on these forums, because they are so filled with logical fallacies/ad hominems/whatever. Some of the latest comments from RL include "Enoch Powell was right", "person x down the road lost some service because Muslim immigrants are taking all the money", "Scotland is for the Scots". Well, you get the idea...

[Furunculus]

I often sympathise with YEC's, because 99% of the people who mock their ideas probably know nothing about either the big bang or the Bible, they just believe it because the scientiests do.

sounds familiar, certainly.

[Aemilius Paulus]

I often sympathise with YEC's, because 99% of the people who mock their ideas probably know nothing about either the big bang or the Bible, they just believe it because the scientiests do.

Yep. The only problem is, is that the YEC-ites know nothing about even the most basic scientific principles when formulating their arguments. People never know anything. Even the most educated have trouble grasping the full implications of the government policies. We always operate in ignorance. Anyone who tells you that something is more simple than you think, anyone who explains something in a manner that makes a lot fo sense, is very likely to be a fraud.

Such is the fact of life. And so, the people choose the side which seems to be the most trustworthy. An appeal for the people to challenge science directly, as the YEC-ites are doing, is utter bollox, because all those challenges are grounded on ignorance of science. I would actually respect the YEC-ites is they followed the scientific method, if they used valid debating scientific techniques. Yet, if any YEC-ite were to be put in a situation where they would have to present their argument to a peer review panel, the would be laughed off - not because their hypothesis challenges the mainstream consensus, but because their argumentative methods are utterly simplistic, invalid, or plain deceptive and fallacious.

That's defintely something that has never changed - there are always only a few intellectual elites when compared to the masses that know very little about the world and just take what the elites say for granted.

Now you are thinking . Certainly true. Nothing regrettable either - people are not made to decide on their own - the vast, vast majority simply follows the lead. Including all of us.

Whenever I have had any sort of discussion with someone in RL on politics/science/religion or whatever, pretty much everything they say would get torn apart in seconds on these forums, because they are so filled with logical fallacies/ad hominems/whatever. Some of the latest comments from RL include "Enoch Powell was right", "person x down the road lost some service because Muslim immigrants are taking all the money", "Scotland is for the Scots". Well, you get the idea...

Yep, I was repeating this point of yours. But, you have no debatable points... You meant this to be so, huh?



The only reason why I respect YEC is because they stand by their beliefs, and fail to compromise their religion. Say whatever you wish about Christianity, but I doubt it is compatible with most sciences or, say, homosexuality. And no, I am not asking for a debate here, PVC

sounds familiar, certainly.

But you seem to usually speak out against people who do so. Why?

[Beskar]

Science is constantly changing, improving, correcting itself. It is the persuit of knowledge and exploration. You constantly ask questions and attempt to answer them through it.

Religion is dogmatic belief where they have the answers, and you don't ask any questions.

There is a massive difference between the two, so comparing them like that is completely futile and only shows ignorance.

[Rhyfelwyr]

Science is constantly changing, improving, correcting itself. It is the persuit of knowledge and exploration. You constantly ask questions and attempt to answer them through it.

Religion is dogmatic belief where they have the answers, and you don't ask any questions.

There is a massive difference between the two, so comparing them like that is completely futile and only shows ignorance.

Pffft, what kind of leftist are you? You are supposed to criticise religion on the grounds of it being far too fluid and changing, evolving through a set number of stages which complement the development of society and the economy, all in a very deterministic fashion.

[The Stranger]

Science is constantly changing, improving, correcting itself. It is the persuit of knowledge and exploration. You constantly ask questions and attempt to answer them through it.

Science isnt changing at all. It actually hasn't changed since its method has first been introduced. Yes they way we practice science has advanced, we have gotton answers for many questions and invented many things, but they way scientists work now hasnt changed a bit from the way the scientists worked in the modern times. it is still the step by step revealing of the darkness untill we reach close enough to that objective truth that we can say something about it and make it into a law.

and yes it is true that that law can be questioned, and yes it is true that the scientist can be questioned, but science itself? It cannot be questioned without being accused of not being scientific.

Religion is dogmatic belief where they have the answers, and you don't ask any questions.

I dont know but i dont see the majority of the people asking questions about science, it concludes laws that are supposed to be infinite from a certain number of observations. Science is for Scientists i hear them say... sounds a lot like Church is for the Priests.

There is a massive difference between the two, so comparing them like that is completely futile and only shows ignorance.

that is such an ignorant and narrow perception of religion. that is just what the people of the Enlightenment made it out to be. Sure it has bogged down into a rigid set of dogmas in the religions of the book but it has not always been like that and neither are those the only religions in the world. Besides that, if there is anything dogmatic it is science. Classic Religion also tried to improve itself, it tried to find new ways to come closer to god, to prove and understand stuff that we dont associate with anymore.

[Rhyfelwyr]

Yep, I was repeating this point of yours. But, you have no debatable points... You meant this to be so, huh?

Yeah, I wasn't trying to make an argument (since the OP didn't really either), so far this thread is more just about us saying how we see things.

I wouldn't disagree with anything you said in your post. Of course, the average person will never be an expert on everything, most of the time the reasonable thing to do is trust those above you, although everyone likes to put on their tin-foil hat from time to time.

[The Stranger]

Such is the fact of life. And so, the people choose the side which seems to be the most trustworthy.

i doubt they choose the most trustworthy one, they choose the one that is the most appealing, spectacular. or else they dont choose at all and just stick with what they have been taught. most of these people that believe in the laws of physics nowadays would have believed in the laws of god 500 years ago.

An appeal for the people to challenge science directly, as the YEC-ites are doing, is utter bollox, because all those challenges are grounded on ignorance of science

you are right here, you cannot critisize a system properly if you dont understand it. revolutions are always children of the tradition they rise up against.

I would actually respect the YEC-ites is they followed the scientific method, if they used valid debating scientific techniques

here i disagree. you do not tell a scientist that he has no right to say god doesnt exist to a christian because he is not using christian/theological methods. so you either should tell the scientist that, or not tell the YEC-ites the opposites. This is a huge problem, because since the introduction of the scientific method, every other method or way of looking at the world has been deemed inferior. The scientific method is not foolproof, neither is it the only way to produce a valid worldview.

[Rhyfelwyr]

The world would be a nasty place without our scientific advancements, I'm not going to rant about how science is bad just because the world of internet debating makes it seem like it should be in direct contradiction to faith/religion.

Faith deals with morality and our understanding of humanity and life. Science deals with entirely different things, at the end of the day it is about understanding the mateiral world around us. Of course, they can overlap when it comes to the broader existential questions.

Science has reduced the importance of faith, simply because the advancements it has brought has meant that people no longer need to turn to God so much. Complementing th is has been the processes in the political sphere, which has caused the state to replace the social role of religion.

[Kralizec]

I often sympathise with YEC's, because 99% of the people who mock their ideas probably know nothing about either the big bang or the Bible, they just believe it because the scientiests do.

There's nothing wrong per se with assuming that people who are supposed to know their stuff are in the right.

My own brother is a ...er, 9/11 revisionist if you will. He berates people who believe in the mainstream story of 9/11, because they're just believing what the American government and the media tells them.
If you've ever met one of these people, you'll notice that they (probably) "know" a lot more about 9/11 than you. If you're discussing 9/11 with one of them, you'll find that often you can't answer them directly on some points simply because you don't know about them, and can't be bothered to spare the time to learn about them.
Instead, for example, we assume that the vast majority of professional architects would surely have protested if the official explanation for the WTC collapses as inplausible.

Actually now that I think of it, more often than not when large numbers of people reject the consensus of the "learned elite" there are quite a few conspiracy nuts in them. With the vaccination campaign against influenza in the Netherlands for example one of the foremost detractors was convinced that the vaccines contained nano-chips from the government.

[The Stranger]

*Boom* Godin's Law:

The bigger the lie, the better - Mein Kampf, Adolf Hitler; confirmed by Goebbels.




So are you expressing dissatisfaction with the current scientific establishment? May as well be like that Churchill quote on democracy. Science may have its shortcomings, but I sure as hell would rather let it preside over the society, rather than religion. And we could have the philosophers filling the moral void, just as in the ancient Greek times.

Hmm, so can you put forth a brief, concrete, debatable statement which reflects your views? I mean, I understand your post, but I am not certain what you advocate. If you are meaning to advocate any viewpoint at all, that is.

I simply hope you will not examine the validity of the Big Bang, because no-one here has any clue on how to evaluate the mathematical pros and cons of the theory in regards to how it fits within the current astrophysical model and such...

science is the same as religion. they both aim for one objective truth and try to find proof for that truth, founding a large pyramid that is supposed to hold itself up on a very shaky foundation. Besides to say that philosophers are just there to fill the moral gap is an insult both to philosophy and ethics. what philosophy does is question foundations that have become so evident, so normal that no one even bothers to look at them critically. and if philosophers were just there to uphold the moral ethics of the system and no one would be available or able or allowed to question that system, we would find ourselves in a worse situation than ever before with any religion.

I simply hope you will not examine the validity of the Big Bang, because no-one here has any clue on how to evaluate the mathematical pros and cons of the theory in regards to how it fits within the current astrophysical model and such...

yet you are still convinced that thats at least roughly how the universe got created, and that can be said for most people. yet no one really has a clue.