1. We have moved to a new forum system. All your posts and data should have transferred over. Welcome, to the new Serebii Forums. Details here
    Dismiss Notice
  2. Be sure to join the discussion on our discord at: Discord.gg/serebii
    Dismiss Notice
  3. If you're still waiting for the e-mail, be sure to check your junk/spam e-mail folders
    Dismiss Notice

Religion in today's society

Discussion in 'Debate Forum' started by Clone™, Mar 4, 2014.

  1. LDSman

    LDSman Banned

    I was referring to what happened to Galileo. Nothing else. While his theory was partly true, he couldn't prove it to the rest of the people. Proving a theory is an important part of the scientific process. You should remember that from high school science classes at the very least.

    Isn't global warming being called climate change now because the predictions of the AGW groups continue to be wrong? First it was global cooling, then global warming, then horrible storms, etc.
    http://www.foxnews.com/science/2013...ted-global-warming-study-finds/#ixzz2enV95yA8


    Science isn't about consensus. If it was, we'd be stuck in the dark ages because the consensus said so. How many things have been thrown out that once were considered true?
    http://www.sciencechannel.com/strange-science/10-science-mistakes.htm
    http://blog.chron.com/sciguy/2010/1...ularly-wrong-widely-held-scientific-theories/
    Not my fault history likes focusing on the issues Galileo had with the church.
     
  2. Brutaka

    Brutaka Ignition

    Well, technically, you can't actually prove anything in science, bud. IIRC, math is the only field where you can actually prove anything. In science, you suggest a model that approximates what we see in reality, then as errors crop up, it's corrected slowly over time until it works as perfectly as reality allows.

    Ah, foxnews. Everyone's favorite source of conservatively-biased fact skewing, cool. In any case, I read the article (and the journal entry the article linked), and any model has an error margin. In fact, they all do. What's cool about science is that they quantify that error. It's pretty much the only field that you can quantify exactly how wrong you might be, which is handy in knowing when you're probably going to be wrong. In this case, both the article and the journal entry agreed that though global warming was somewhat slower than predicted, it still happened in that time (and it's still colloquially called global warming, mind you - though it is also called climate change. It's interchangeable). Point is, no matter the speed or whose fault it is, it's happening, and it's a problem.

    But hey, if you can link loosely based science stuff to make you're point, can I do the same?

    Scientific consensus =/= societal consensus. I expect better of you than to miss that crucial adjective.
    In any case, as long as the mistakes were corrected, that's all I care about. That's what science is all about, and yet you mock science for... doing what science does. Amazing. No, really.

    Not mistakes, but okay. They were theories of a kind, and then they were replaced by better theories. You know, science doing what science does.
    Oh, and most of those were religiously rooted, and then were booted out by scientific theories. Pretty funny.
    Like number 6! I'm still laughing.

    I was about to complain that this was a blog post, but hey, I can use this!

    "One of the very best things about science is that the discipline is self-correcting. A scientist makes a set of observations about nature, and then devises a theory to fit those observations.
    Other scientists then test the theory, and if it withstands scrutiny it becomes widely accepted. At any point in the future, if contravening evidence emerges, the original theory is discarded. At its essence, and though in practice it’s more messy, this is how science works."

    I kinda wonder if you read the article, cuz these are funny. Many of these old "mistakes" were religiously rooted as well - numbers 1, 9, and 10 are the most blatant.
     
    Last edited: Nov 10, 2014
  3. The Federation

    The Federation Why Not?

    Coming from someone who seems to have missed the difference between the scientific definition of theory and the layman definition of theory?

    Once again, "questionable" theories are just as solid as gravitational theory and germ theory. Pretending there is actual debate over whether evolution occurs is being disingenuous. This kind of thinking is what is hurting out educational process, with people thinking that opposing hypothesis with little to no evidence should be taught alongside proven scientific theorem. As much as I wish schools taught students the FSM held people to the Earth with his noodly appendages, it can't be taught because it can't compete evidence-wise with gravitational theory.

    Haven't seen any statements involving "global cooling" other than those from Fox's propaganda machine. Global temperatures are up, just not as much as predicted. Weather patterns are more effected than originally estimated. These models aren't perfect.

    Science IS about consensus. If a large majority fail to disprove it, it is scientific fact. That's doesn't mean it is and will always be fact, but it is literally the closest humanity can get to fact with our given faculties and tools. Attacking science for moving forwards is sort of... counterintuitive. I don't see how it advances your position, especially when your religious perspective has been forced into line by scientific progress all along.
     
  4. Avenger Angel

    Avenger Angel Warrior of Heaven

    "When I applied my mind to know wisdom and to observe the labor that is done on earth—people getting no sleep day or night— then I saw all that God has done. No one can comprehend what goes on under the sun. Despite all their efforts to search it out, no one can discover its meaning. Even if the wise claim they know, they cannot really comprehend it."
    Ecclesiastes 8:16-17
     
  5. SILVER XD

    SILVER XD Momentai, bro.

    This means nothing. This is a claim with absolutely no basis that you happen believe and somehow think that it should be good enough for someone else who doesn't share your beliefs. It isn't. Anyone can quote a few lines from an old text, those don't hold any bearing on reality without anything to back them up. Why is your quote any different?

    inb4 "Because it's from the bible and the bible is the infallible word of god and is therefore true."
    Got any facts to back that up? I'm sure you realize that no one here is inclined to believe you without evidence. Much less so that most here on this thread know what's actually in that book.

    (Not to mention how the message of this quote is terrible. "Without any evidence I'm telling you that whatever you think you know, you don't and that you can never know anything because you're a puny human being. So why don't you just give it all up to the big invisible man in the sky who has all the answers and stop searching for knowledge at all?")
     
    Last edited: Nov 10, 2014
  6. Brutaka

    Brutaka Ignition

    Which is why the wise claim to truly know nothing. In fact, no one can know anything for certain (in reality anyway, logical definitions and mathematical proofs are a little different), which is why science isn't about knowing things for absolutely certain - it's about approximating what we see as closely as we're able to.

    After all, only a Sith deals in absolutes~
     
  7. SILVER XD

    SILVER XD Momentai, bro.

    Fun fact: this was in my sig for a very long while before I changed it
     
  8. Avenger Angel

    Avenger Angel Warrior of Heaven

    Rareow. Man, atheists sure are grouchy, bitter people. Basically the quote means don't act like a know-it-all and be a little humble.

    "Whoever is patient has great understanding, but one who is quick-tempered displays folly."
    Proverbs 14:29

    You may not like the Bible, but it sure has the perfect comeback for anything you guys throw at it.
     
  9. Brutaka

    Brutaka Ignition

    So... you take one of the responses and use it to attack all of them? Without an argument? Way to ad hominem, and a real ad hominem too.

    On your last point, I have significant doubts about that, considering we've shown a lot that the Bible can't answer for.

    Also, the term 'perfect comeback' sounds pretty childish, I must say.
     
  10. SILVER XD

    SILVER XD Momentai, bro.

    That wasn't grouchy that was just me stating the obvious when you replied to a user with only a biblical quote. There is also the fact that my responses do not represent all atheists just as things that you say do not represent all Christians.

    The quote you just posted is pretty funny because a case could certainly be made for labeling Yahweh as quick tempered.

    The bible certainly isn't without it's flaws. Genesis, Judges, Leviticus, and several other books can attest to that.
     
    Last edited: Nov 11, 2014
  11. Zora

    Zora Who dies first?

    Just a few miscellanea i want to talk about...

    There are statements discussing what is often referred to as global cooling, even in scientific journals. It wasn't global as it was pretty much confined to the industrial world, and we have attributed the general decrease in global average temperature from 1940s to 1970s (e.g. the drop seen on the graph here) to industrial aerosols. Essentially aerosols reflect light away and thus less sunlight means cooler temperatures. Here's a source if you're interested in more detail, but in either case, global warming isn't entirely relevant to the discussion anyway.

    Even in mathematics I wouldn't say we know anything for certain. I really appreciate Feynman's description of the Babylonian way of doing mathematics compared to the Greek way of doing mathematics. Essentially, with mathematics, you can prove a lot of conditional (if this then that), but you can never really decide on an axiom. Even axioms that seem intuitively must have inconsistency or incompleteness; something that was proved by Godel's Incompleteness Theorem, which you can read about here.

    As it stands, I'd even throw mathematics in the bucket of "things we think are probably true but could very well not be." The only difference is that in mathematics, what's considered (in some sense, absolutely) true and false changes with time whereas in science everything is taken as tentatively true until someone else has an idea with more predictable power.



    Last thing I want to comment on is the Galileo affair. The entire thing is complicated, and if you have time, this documentary does an interesting job describing it. In either case, I'll refer to this source since it's been awhile since I watched that documentary and not gonna rewatch it for the details.

    Characterizing religion's *exact* role int he Galileo affair is not an easy thing to do; sure, religion was a primary driving force but it wasn't the only one; and there was still legitimate scientific objection for some time.

    The major scientific objection was clarification on how, if the Earth moved in a heliocentric model, can we not feel the earth move? Galileo eventually answered this question (in the form of Galilean relativity); but not before creating a lot of noise. One person took offense to a scientific work of his on religious reasons, and he responded back by saying that we need to sometimes take scripture figuratively. This debacle between Galileo and one person eventually got the church's attention because Galileo was creating a lot of noise.

    But the real concern was the effect that Galileo's ideas would have on the world; after all, religion was so central to this world any evidence to undermine religion may have had serious social consequence--in other words, it was the backlash to Galileo's ideas that were the church's main concern, not Galileo's ideas per se. To quote the secondary source I am using:
    And then in the end, a new pope took over and Galileo was allowed to speak of the matter neutrally and hypothetically. In fact, the Pope's secretary wrote to Galileo:

    However, Galileo's dialogue was anything but neutral. I should mention in this very dialogue, he presented forth Galilean relativity which at least settled the big scientific question. He also basically made the Pope Urban VIII (the new Pope that allowed him to at least talk about it) look like an idiot via the character Simplicio, which added fuel to the fire even if he was getting the science right.

    On the other hand, the actual Condemnation (i.e. sentencing) Galileo got was, well, I'll just qoute it here:


    In either case, it's a mixed bag. On one hand, the whole affair culminated in Galileo basically having to affirm to the geocentric model despite providing (at that time) a powerful case for the heliocentric model of the universe. On other hand, Galileo's attitude during the whole affair made it a lot worse then it could have been, particularly how he presented Simplicio in his Dialogue.

    That said, a fair amount of lingering doubts disappeared after the Galileo affair when Newton basically created what amounted to a mathematical scripture of proof that the heliocentric model was the correct by deducing motion to four basic laws (three laws of motion + law of gravity); in particular, the scientific community felt confident in Copernicus's ideas as fact after Galileo provided his principle relativity that basically cleared the elephant in the room as far as science was concerned.

    As it stands, I'm pretty sure a lot of people here would have a lot more to say about the Galileo affair (i.e. it's an extremely powerful case of religion impeding science or it's too slippery of an example); at the very least, I figured that I'd share my understanding and thoughts on it.
     
    Last edited: Nov 11, 2014
  12. The Federation

    The Federation Why Not?

    The ultimate irony is that that statement, no, your whole worldview, even, is totally gnostic. My own worldview is agnostic, even in it's skepticism, so it always makes me laugh when people who will literally never question their reality assert that those who do lack the ability to grasp their world- as if making up a reality is better than actually, genuinely searching for truth.

    Learn something new every day. Aerosol issues were before my time, really, and it wasn't really covered in school, so it's neat to learn it somewhere.
     
  13. Aegiscalibur

    Aegiscalibur Add Witty Title Here

    If you can't know anything for sure, you also can't know for sure if God exists or if he has done anything. In the form of a citation:

    "You practically defeated yourself again."
    Aegiscalibur, post 939.

    Thankfully, the Bible is a humble book completely void of declarations of absolute truth.
     
  14. Avenger Angel

    Avenger Angel Warrior of Heaven

    "In fact, everyone who wants to live a godly life in Christ Jesus will be persecuted, while evildoers and impostors will go from bad to worse, deceiving and being deceived."
    2 Timothy 3:12-13.

    Looks like the Bible's right again. Also, this looks like proof that someone out there just wants this thread to be a religion-bashing spree devoid of any actual debating or exchange of insight. Guess it's honestly no surprise why I'm the only Christian defender still here (and why a bunch of the ones I know seem like they've left the forum entirely).

    Also...

    "In God I trust and am not afraid. What can man do to me?"
    Psalm 56:11

    Amen to that! Infract me on an Internet forum (I was already starting to consider leaving in the first place)? Please, I've had way worse than that. If Serebii.net is just an atheist-favoring mosh pit, I've got better places to go and more worthwhile things to do.

    Actually, you're the one that read it wrong, as "what goes on under the sun" implies what happens on Earth under God's authority. In other words, humans may think they know with regards to science, but there's so much of the picture that we'll never grasp. But, to put it in better context, I'd say read all of Ecclesiastes. You'll get a much better insight and the full context.

    ...though I predict you're not going to anyway.

    The Bible, according to Aegiscalibur. Not according to everyone else! Especially me (which is why it would be a great idea to stop making silly comments like this). I think it's awesome how this book's teachings and applicable lessons are timeless and are totally spot-on even in today's modern society. No other book holds that kind of power and wisdom. Textbooks on science get old, obsolete, shift things around, disagree with each other, and so on, but the Bible's lessons will remain true for all time.

    Also...

    "Warn a divisive person once, and then warn them a second time. After that, have nothing to do with them. You may be sure that such people are warped and sinful; they are self-condemned."
    Titus 3:10-11

    Seeing as how this is probably time #178 or so and this has really just descended into nothing more than a moderator-authorized religion-bashing cesspool, probably best to treat this thread like Sodom and Gomorrah, walk away, and not look back.
     
    Last edited by a moderator: Nov 12, 2014
  15. The Federation

    The Federation Why Not?

    Holy banana cookies, batman! You got infracted?! You must be a victim of terrible persecution! How can you even go day-to-day when your employer could hear you might be Christian and fire you? What if your family learned about it and disowned you? Wow, what if you have to keep it secret from the general public where you live, so you can retain social standing?

    I feel truly bad for you. There's NO WAY it was because you added nothing meaningful with that post.

    You posted directly from the bible. Wonder if that could possibly be viewed as condescending or lacking substance.

    Everyone here has already read your books.

    Aaaand that was a sarcastic comment from Aegis.
     
  16. Brutaka

    Brutaka Ignition

    While I believe that an infraction would be too much (public ridicule of the fallacy by the conversation participants would have been enough for me), you did do a straight ad hominem. *shrug*

    So... I went back through the last few pages and I can't find any personal attacks that I've done... So I dunno what you're yelling at me for. I will admit that I'm incredibly condescending, but I don't attack people personally.

    Sounds like something a con-artist would say.

    So where was this mod when BigLutz and I had our conversation a few pages back, hm? (posts 789 - 801)

    So you're post consisted of preaching, complaining, and word salad. I really couldn't find any arguments in here.
    You do know this is a debate, right, AA? ;)
     
  17. Zora

    Zora Who dies first?

    Just because we may not understand what exactly we're looking at from some deeper, more abstract level doesn't mean we should stop. For example, few people understand what exactly is quantum mechanics--finding a well-respected physicist saying that no one truly understands quantum mechanics is probably just a google search away. Even a very standard undergraduate textbook on quantum mechanics (Griffiths) says in its preface no one really understands quantum mechanics; most of us just know how to do quantum mechanics. He saves a lot of the philosophy of what quantum mechanics might be later, with the caveat no one really knows.

    At the same time, one could argue that quantum theory is the most important theory, if not in all of science, at least in all of physics. It's completely counter-intuitive but it provided the theoretical framework for all of chemistry; computers are based on a very specific study of quantum mechanics called condensed matter physics (which is basically solving Schrodinger's gosh darn equation in a lattice); lasers rely on quantum mechanics and that has basically revolutionized the study of optics. To say we should walk away from this simply because we don't, at some philosophical level, understand quantum mechanics is just plain silly.

    And part of this, I feel, is that you're still not grasping that science isn't about having questions to all of nature's wonderful questions. It's about being able to predict what nature will do--the sort of "if this happens, this will follow" and "if we do this, this will happen." We don't need all the details so long as we can correctly predict the consequences. For example, Robert Patterson was heavily responsible for finding a causal link between lead pollution and industrial aerosols (you can read about it here; although I find COSMOS's telling of it in Epiosde 7 of Spacetime Odyssey more engaging). Here, establishing that casual link and armed with knowledge of how lead interacts with our body we were able to (eventually) figure out that outputting lead was a bad idea.

    I bring up this story of lead to illustrate how our knowledge of science--even if you want to argue that it was in some sense limited--instrumental to our progression as a species. We are able to use these models in order to make predictions (in this case) about our health which in turn allows us to improve our overall health. Evolution also serves a very important role in predicting our health, which you can through Berkeley's little online classroom presentation here if you're interested.

    Even the big bang theory is important. General relativity and the big bang theory have a lot in common via Friedmann's Equations. I won't bore you the details, but general relativity has a lot of applications (e.g, it makes our GPS works) and a lot of that scientific advancement may not have happened if it weren't for the big bang theory. People attempting to study stars need to use the big bang theory in order to understand most stars are made of hydrogen, helium, and lithium, for example.



    To summarize by point, I don't appreciate the fact that you're implying that science should be, to some extent, disregarded simply because of some a priori belief that humans cannot perfectly understand their world. Science is absolutely instrumental in understanding our world. So long as a theory is able to make predictions without being surmounted by a "better" theory, then that theory is science.

    And I put "better" in quotes, because there's a balance between utility and accuracy. Newton's Laws aren't the most accurate theory out there, but because they work extremely well for macroscopic low-speed objects, they're still very powerful at making predictions. Something like the plum pudding model, however, is completely thrown out because Schrodinger's model of the atom is more robust and rules such as octet rule make handling quantum mechanics highly accessible in high school (to the point we don't even tell kids they're playing with quantum mechanics).
     
  18. Brutaka

    Brutaka Ignition

    Not only that, but even though some models (very few, but they exist) are completely wrong, they're still used because they're useful. Bohr's model of the atom is almost completely wrong, but you find it in textbooks of younger grade classes because it's easier to understand.
     
  19. SILVER XD

    SILVER XD Momentai, bro.

    I would say that I can't believe I'd just seen that level of victim card playing but I Half of me expected it and the other cant stop laughing. You're really saying "come at me" after being infracted and falling it persecution like it's an actual threat. Yes, you must be so very persecuted when the vast majority of the country you live in shares your beliefs, so do most of the officials of the government, and there are temples to your faith within 5 miles of any location in cities or suburbs.

    I don't think that you should have gotten an infraction for that post but this "look at me, I'm standing up for my beliefs and being persecuted!" bit is ridiculous. As for the non-religious on this board criticizing your beliefs, if you don't want your thoughts to be critiqued keep them to yourself. Beliefs out in the open air can and will be questioned out loud, no matter what they are.
     
  20. The Federation

    The Federation Why Not?

    Good riddance, I say. If you can't stand scrutiny, don't participate in a debate subforum. Must be really hard living life when a tiny minority is allowed to question you.

    I think it's funny how the holy book full of unbelievable stuff predicts "people won't believe this" and "followers will be persecuted". Sure, make sure your already gullible following develops a persecution complex and confirmation bias. I guess that's why is was written though, right?
     

Share This Page