Hey Der Trihs, over here

As said, people are good at compartmentalization. And they either choose areas of study that don’t touch on their religious beliefs; or they lose their faith, or lose their ability to be effective scientists. Inevitable, given the incompatible nature of science and religion. Once religion begins to inform your judgement on a subject, your ability to do anything involving good judgement or facts on that subject will vanish.

And they do tend to be the lesser lights, not surprisingly; not the sort who win Nobels, or even come close. Being a religious scientist is rather like trying to do marathons with lead weights on your ankles.

I think being able to compartmentalize is a sign of a healthy psyche. It’s the people who* can’t *compartmentalize their beliefs who scare me.

What I would like (and it ain’t going to happen on the SDMB anytime soon) is for Christians to be treated as they themselves proudly treat such nutbars as **KGS **in this thread. The sheer contempt, the derisive questioning, the mocking tone you feel okay usuing to expose all his logical fallacies, the weak and loopy self-serving definitions he gives of his belief system, subject to constant change, and the pathetic solace he takes in describing shit he can’t explain as a mystery known only to those higher powers he (claims he) believes in, ought to be employed on anyone explaining his beliefs, or not employed at all. That’s the double-standard I’m talking about.

You know that it happens to Scientologists, if any of them dared to post here (can’t remember when one has)–they’d get subjected to a grilling that is positively ferocious in its hostility, as it should be.

Now, I DON’T believe in raking people over the coals for their beliefs. I can’t think of a thread I’ve started calling someone out for merely professing to be a believer in Christianity. Indeed, I’m happy to accept the fact that millions of my fellow citizens do profess that belief, and while I feel sorry for them in their delusion, I’ll keep that compassion to myself for the most part. BUT I will engage someone who tries to justify his behavior on the basis of his beliefs, which does occur from time to time. If you tell me that you want something as a Christian, you’ve just opened the door from your private belief (that you have every right to hold, how ever deluded I think it to be) to the public sphere, and I will not grant you an inch of moral superiority to me on the basis of a belief system I don’t share, don’t respect, and see as hypocritical majoritarian bullying.

Until the day that loonytunes, and Scientologolists, and Zeus-worshippers, and Cultists of the Sun are accorded the exact level of deference and respect by Christians on the SD, I think its only fair and reasonable to treat your belief system with the same level of derision you show theirs.

Science is always subject to change. If you think science can never change, you’re not a scientist at all, but a fundamentalist.

That’s what I am, first and foremost – a scientist. Maybe you define that term differently, but what I mean is that my belief in these so-called “woo” topics are not faith-based, they are entirely science-based, involving direct observation and noticing what works and what doesn’t work, plus occasional experimentation.

I hope you’re not saying, if I had firm, rigid beliefs that never change, I’d be more accepted? Because that’s religion, and all religion is stupid and close-minded. If you’re not willing to change your beliefs based on new evidence, you’ve got a problem. But since everyone seems to have that problem…hmm, I guess it all comes down to conformity and peer pressure, doesn’t it? Doesn’t mean I’m right or wrong, it just means I won’t play that conformity game. Fuck conformity.

I couldn’t disagree more. Anyone who needs to compartmentalise their beliefs is apparently incapable of dealing with the idea that at least one of their beliefs is wrong.

Arthur Compton
Theodosius Dobzhansky (Anyone who calls Dobzhansky a “lesser light” is a fool.)
John Eccles
Nevill Mott
Abdus Salam
Arthur Leonard Schawlow
Charles Hard Townes

Okey-doke, but you might as well be speaking a foreign language–say, Martian–for all your definition means to me. To be a scientist you’d have be using a rigorous methodology that would first and foremost have to be able to be replicated by anyone wishing to do so. You’re so far from there that I don’t think there’s any point in discussing this (or much of anything) with you. Honestly, I think you probably have a serious psychiatric problem if you actually believe any of the nonsense you’ve spewed on this forum in the last few days, including the assertion that you are a scientist in any sense of the word that means anything in English. I feel sorry for you, and wish you would seek the help you seem to need, if only to assure me and those like me that there’s nothing wrong with you. I think if you sought counseling, and were willing to accept that you needed some help, it would do you a lot of good, even if you’re just fooling around here, as you seem to be in your last few posts.

I think that Christians are at bottom as fundamentally in need of counseling as well, in that their belief systems are as delusional as yours is, but I don’t think that most of them actually are delusional. I think most Christians are just aculturated to thinking that Christianity is the norm of our society, and thinking that to question their belief system marks them, not as intelligent skeptics, but as strange and troubling deviants in a society that nurtures their peculiar myth. I think, IOW, that they are basically conformists, even if they don’t understand what they are conforming to, or the implications of their professed beliefs. They do understand that proclaiming oneself a Christian scores you bonus points in this society, and that’s good enough for them. There’'s no need to think too deeply, or to reconcile contradictions in their belief system because they always have millions of their fellow Christians to explain that those things aren’t really that important–the important thing is to stay identified as a Christian believer.

I think that if most Christians were to seek out counseling, very few of them would end up working on their delusions, because I think many would quickly see that they don’t really, truly believe in most of the tenets of the Christian faith. But I do think they would be helped by a serious discussion of their personal reasons for labeling themselves and identifying themselves as Christians. Questions of personal integrity, identity, the fears that Christianity promises to protect them from and many other issues that they don’t think about very profoundly would be discussed, and I think that such discussions would help them very much in their own personal lives. Of course, one could do this without a formal counselor, but I feel that counseling would help initially, if only to determine ways of framing questions to ask oneself.

I can only control me, and as far as I know, I’ve not been derisive or insulting to KGS in this thread, or anywhere else for that matter. I’ve been mildly insulting to you, which is maybe why I’m not deserving of a polite reply. I wouldn’t know for sure, because you’ve yet to answer that question of mine.

People who say this (and it gets said a lot) almost invariably have no idea what they’re talking about. You are no exception.

As I have said repeatedly, here and elsewhere, and as I will keep saying until fuckskulled nincompoops like you get it: Science is a method. It is not a body of knowledge. The facts of various scientific disciplines are not, themselves, Science. And even “facts” is the wrong term: “best available knowledge at the present time” would be more appropriate. Because your statement, while wrong, is still within an Olympic javelin hurler’s distance from the truth: that “best available knowledge” is always conditional and subject to review and refinement. That information, yes, can change.

But again, and read this slow because it’s important:

That

information

is

*NOT

SCIENCE.*

It has been (we hope) arrived at by scientific means. But the body of knowledge is not, in and of itself, Science. The two are separate, and are not synonymous. You are clearly using them interchangeably, and that’s how you demonstrate that you don’t have a fucking idea what the fuck you’re talking about, and it’s why your idiotic pronouncements on these subjects are so easily mocked and dismantled.

Science, as a methodological approach to the consideration of proposed facts, is largely unchanged over many, many lifetimes, and furthermore is unlikely in the extreme to change, because of its demonstrated power and utility. As a discipline, its components were created, or stumbled upon, a very long time ago, and have settled firmly into place. Some of the specific details – measurement tools, publication timelines, that sort of thing – have been improved, but the core of the scientific method has been in place since long before your grandparents were hopeful zygotes. Falsifiable hypothesis; repeatable experiment; open publication of method and result; consistent verification by independent parties. All of this has been in place during the explosion of understanding that has created our modern world, from Galileo’s earliest mechanical tinkerings through to today’s cutting-edge genomics. That is Science, and that, you fucking moron, does not change.

Incidentally, don’t think for a moment that I believe this argument will have any effect on you. Per my previous posts, I think you’re just a dipshit who is enjoying the attention and is yanking everyone’s chain. Alternatively, it’s still remotely possible that the original diagnosis from several posters is correct, and you’re laboring under the weight of some crippling cognitive dysfunction. For the purposes of this particular post, though, it’s irrelevant. This is addressed to you, but it is not directed to you. Instead, it is for the casual reader who saw you describe yourself as a scientist, and who thought, hey, how bad could that be? he’s probably wrong, but as long as he’s going about things in the spirit of rational inquiry, maybe we shouldn’t criticize. Well, fuck that. You are not adhering to the scientific method, and you are not doing science.

Shut the fuck up, you fucking troll.

And you may continue in your pondering, because I don’t want to be troubled to explain to you the concept of “politeness to those you disagree with.” You plainly have contempt for me and anything I have to say, and I don’t think either of us will get much of out of any attempts to explain ourselves any further. You may ignore me, or puzzle over such cryptic comments as I will sometimes utter, but I’d rather not waste my time talking to someone who refuses to listen, okay? This took a minute to type out, and I’m sure a real answer would have taken much more of my time.

  1. No one has ever said that science isn’t subject to change; facts and data are CONSTANTLY being added to current knowledge in every area of science and expanding our understanding of How Things Work. Science is fucking AWESOME that way.

  2. One of the neat things about science is that really good scientist may not LIKE that his hypotheses are disproved, but he also knows that the actual facts are more important than what he wants the facts to be.

  3. You are not a scientist. I still remember my stupid Science 101: You’re In College Now class teaching me that the scientific method follows certain steps:

Ask a Question
Do Background Research
Construct a Hypothesis
Test Your Hypothesis by Doing an Experiment
Analyze Your Data and Draw a Conclusion
Communicate Your Results

  1. Now, the thing about the scientific method is, other people have to be able to use it to verify YOUR stuff. Two yaboos in a garage at MIT can say that they’ve discovered cold fusion, but if two other yaboos in a garage at UCLA can’t get the same result, the first two yaboos are probably full of shit. Hell, if the SAME two yaboos can’t replicate their results in front of other scientists at MIT, they’re full of shit.

  2. Other people cannot use your methods to replicate your results. Therefore, if you claim that you are performing science, you are full of shit.

  3. Unless you are using the same definition of “science” that anti-evolutionists use for “theory.”

And I’d like to apologize to Cervaise for using the word Science wrong a lot in my post. And Fact. I hope I did all right with Data.

Uh huh.

Keep on being abrasive and standoffish to theists and wonder why they don’t fall to their knees and thank you for removing the scales from their eyes. It obviously works very well.

Much of what you say is responding to a different question - whether religion is useful. We seem to be genetically wired so that for most people religion is indeed useful. In fact almost any religion from Christianity to cargo cults can help its adherents be better. That is not an indication of truthfulness.

Your second response about whether its principles match the world is closer to answering the question, but I’d have to wonder which religion does match the world? God loves us, but God kills us in horrible ways. God made the universe for us, but he made it unimaginably vast and empty, with some parts of it forever hidden from our sight. There are lots of things about the world that argue against god, and very few, now that we understand it better, which argue for god.

As for internal consistency, your religion is about the least internally consistent one I know of. We have an all powerful god who cannot forgive sin without the intervention of Jesus. We have a Messiah who didn’t do what a Messiah was supposed to, but who will get around to it when he returns, real soon now. Humans are excellent at inventing consistent explanations for any contradictory mish-mosh - look at Star Trek, Star Wars and Sherlock Holmes discussions if you want evidence.

Yes, in Lake Woebegone all our religions are above average.

Cognitive dissonance has been mentioned. Scientists are not immune from upbringing and the impacts of emotion, and don’t live their lives scientifically. Very few scientists bring calipers to singles bars to make measurements. :slight_smile:

There are also brands of theism, and specialties of science. Say a historian can detect historical inaccuracies in the Bible - a chemist can’t. A geologist may know that the Flood story is bullshit but have no reason not to believe the Jesus story. It is simple for people to reject parts they know are wrong and accept the rest.

What you don’t see much of is a scientist who is a fundamentalist. Morris of the new creationism crowd is an engineer, and engineers I am sorry to say don’t seem to use the scientific method a lot. (I’m about 50% an engineer).

I think that scientists are less religious on average than the public is all we could expect.

I apologize for my part in hijacking page 12 of this incompetent pitting into a reasonably friendly and rational discussion.

Look up “Noahide laws”.

Jews may be the only religious group in the world to work up a functioning philosophy about what is acceptable behaviour for those not believing in the religion.

Certainly, non-Jews need not follow all 613 or whatever commandments. They simply must avoid stealing, killing and the like.

Also, note that a “Noahide” non-Jew = just as righteous as an observant Jew.

That, I think, depends very much on the religion - hence my disagreement over the crude equivalence of all religions, in arguing against DT.

For example, some forms of Judaism don’t really care much about belief - they are much more interested in what you do. In other religions, the emphasis is the reverse.

I disagree. The OT, for example, contains no condemnation whatsoever of lesbianism. But a literal interpretation of Biblical condemnations isn’t the point, since insisting on Biblical literalism is a straw-man - very few religious persons insist on literally following all of the Biblical practices (few for example sacrifice small animals on menstruation). “Religion” is and has always been a combination from many sources, and always has involved interpretation.

That’s part of the problem here - you guys are somewhat mischaracterizing what religious folk do. Certainly, some are unreasoning fanatics, but it seems you are insisting, in a no-true-Scotsman sort of way, that unreasoning fanaticism characterizes religious folk.

I’m not a believer in God in the first place. I’m simply telling you (“you” meaning several participating in this debate) that you are wrong to mischaracterize those that do - to insist, in effect, that those people who do not find in their version of God a bloody and tyrannical fanatic, are in effect wrong about what they claim to believe in!

It seems to me that religion, from an anthropological point of view, is an evolving institution. Jews have no problem believing this - the religion is self-evidently not the same now as when there was a Temple; and the bulk of Judaism is to be found in the Talmud. An early statement on the Talmud was that the laws of Judaism could be summarized as the Golden Rule; and “…the rest is commentary”. Nothing in there about stoning people to death for violating tribal taboos or whatever.

Your claim to be a scientist is contradicted by your intention of publishing your great discovery as a fantasy story, not in a refereed journal. This shows that deep down you know you have nothing.

Observation just provides raw data. it does not demonstrate anything. You need to test it - not just do an occasional experiment, but base your work on experiments.

One very common mistake people make is collecting data to support or falsify a proposition, and then notice other trends in the data not being tested for. For instance you might be testing whether smoking is associated with heart disease, and notice that a lot of those with heart problems are also obese. You can’t say anything about this observation until you do another experiment to test it.

I can assure you, you are no scientist.

Where you get the balls to comment on how I talk to you here while reserving the right to talk to me as rudely asyou please is amazing. Why don’t you stick to the subject here and monitor closely your own behavior which, as you say, is the only thing you have control over, and let me worry about how many friends I’m making among Christians, okay?

In other words, Fuck You and please don’t trouble yourself responding to me in any way in the future. You have nothing to say that I place the slightest value on, and I can’t imagine why you think it’s interesting for people to read your opinions of other posters. Learn to discuss the subject under discussion, instead of reflexively threadshitting every time someone says something that bothers you.

Is that abrasive enough for you? Or do you feel you must comment on that? We’re all holding our breath to learn what you have to say.

What was it you were complaining about before? Something about how you weren’t free to tell Christians exactly what you thought of them, I think. How’s that workin’ out for ya?