I liked the OP. Nice how ‘my ridiculous beliefs’ slipped under the radar. I don’t think this thread is gonna thrive in GD though.
Since I have already broken character, I might as well clearly articulate the point of my OP, in case it isn’t clear.
The point is to mock supporters of pseudoscientific views who try to turn the tables on their more scientifically literate counterparts by accusing them of dogmatism. This obscure twist - where the obviously irrational dogmatists view the scientifically defensible position as itself being a dogma - shows that, in most people’s minds, a dogma is not a position held out of faith, but any position opposed to one’s own.
And the moral of the story is that the word “dogma”, along with similar words and phrases, should only be used to refer to what it is supposed to: the belief that what you believe is true because it’s true because you believe it because it’s true.
Okay, I admit, I got caught. I saw “ridiculous” in the title and read it as “religious.”
Can’t imagine how I did that.
Well, for what it is worth, part of the trouble is that each “side” if you will of the “debate” (PLEASE note the quotes around the use of that word here!) over a created world and human species vs. an evolved human species resulting from a natural process ongoing since a “big bang” refuses to stay true to what they are discussing. Whack-a-Mole puts the finger on this, by noting that the theory of the evolution of species says nothing about whether or not life (or for that matter, humans) is or is not “created” by some divine being. Instead, it is propounding a theory that attempts to explain two things: the present evidence we have of past occurrences, and the present evidence we have of ongoing occurrences. But a good many scientists will take this a step further and assert that this theory represents not only a good explanation of what we perceive, but also the Truth about what happened. And if you don’t believe this, or wish to admit it is true, you are simply in denial.
By the same token, people who believe that humans are divinely created cannot simply accept that on Faith, and leave the scientists alone. So what if “science” propounds a theory that you don’t believe represents the Truth? Is your faith in the Truth so weak that you must confront the attempt to explain things we perceive in a logical fashion? Can you not simply shrug your shoulders and say, “Well, maybe it looks that way, but I believe it happened in a different way?”
Part of why the believers get so insistent upon trying to “prove” their beliefs (a silly concept by its own nature) is that they perceive scientists as trying to discredit their version of “Truth” through application of science. And part of why scientists get so touchy about the issue of “Truth” is that they see believers as unwilling to even accept that the scientific theory does do a good job of explaining that which we perceive. Around and around they go, and where they will stop, well, who knows?
BTW, I loved the OP. Too bad some less than perceptive people rained on the concept. Of course, I suspect they think Swift was a troll, too, for his Irish babies recipes. :rolleyes:
I never really understood the idea until today.
I find your lack of belief …
disturbing.
No, but the various scientific theories about abiogenesis all have one thing in common : God is not included. Because there’s zero rational, scientific reasons to believe in one.
Well, with evolution especially, you ARE in denial if you don’t believe it. Or just stupid, or ignorant. The evidence is just that overwhelming.
Some do, but not all believers are equally insane. Some can’t just ignore it when reality comes along and pokes a pin in their bubble of delusion. They have to demand silence from anyone who would point out the facts to them to feel comfortable.
Well, the scientists ARE doing that, even if not usually on purpose. It’s the job of the scientists to discover the facts; and the believers are wrong. So of course the scientists are by nature the enemy of the believers, whether they intend to be or not. As a side effect of it’s efforts, science naturally works to discredit religion.
I’m glad I ducked.
Der Trihs, you cannot argue against a belief with evidence. Your evidence is simply not applicable to the believer’s belief. Provide evidence that says “God” did NOT simply create the world as indicated, but did so in such a way that you would interpret it as supporting the concept of the evolutionary development of human kind? You can’t, and trying to do so is stupid. Just as stupid as trying to argue a belief as if it is a rational theory. :smack:
Indeed, your post (and your consistently espoused BELIEFS here) make my exact point. 
The same criticism could be leveled at any conclusion from empirical evidence.
I have a “theory” that the big light in the sky is a massive ball of fusing hydrogen gas. But, of course, my theory is merely a convenient explanation of past and present evidence. It would be *presumptuous *of me to claim that my theory is The Truth. Or to assert that those who believe otherwise are in denial.:rolleyes:
Whatever The Truth is, we don’t have access to it. All we can ever do is construct convincing models that agree with the evidence that is available to us. We all do this every day when we interact with the world around us, converting a welter of sensory phenomena into a model of reality that we engage with as though it were true. Science is merely the systematic extension of this instinctive epistemology.
Apparently I was incorrect. The thread is doing well here. I guess all that is needed is a seed crystal around which the thread can coalesce.
Great OP though.
“as indicated”? Which creation myth are you talking about?
There seems to be substantial geological evidence that more than three days passed between the separation of the earth and sea and the appearance of mankind. Unless you’re arguing that the Christian god is an evidence-fabricating god like the FSM…
Duh … yes you can. If you believe I have a twenty dollar bill in my pocket, I can easily convince you otherwise by turning my pockets out and showing you that they’re empty.
The problem is that modern theists have consciously chosen to structure their beliefs so they are immune to falsification. Why they would chose do to so is baffling to me. An active God who engages with humanity should be relatively easy to verify empirically, and I’m not quite sure why theists aren’t aggressively working to do so. It would certainly convince many of us atheists to become believers and would resolve many questions of doctrine. On the other hand, if God is passive and doesn’t engage with humanity … well, what’s the point in believing in him? It would be like me having a belief about a twenty dollar bill in the pants pocket of a random farmer in Turkey. It may or may not be true, but it has no bearing on my life.
Theists who do this fall into two categories - ones that fall into suspect evidence-gathering practices, like selective memory and confirmation bias, and ones who eventyally stop trying to prove their beliefs, possibly by stopping being theists.
:smack::smack::smack: In that case, well done and I’m looking forward to more of your posts.
You could read the [Snark][/Snark] tags from a mile away.
Google shows dogma defined as:* a religious doctrine that is proclaimed as true without proof*. Taking proof here to be legal type proof, not mathematical proof, I think creationists call scientists dogmatic because they are ignorant of or reject the evidence. Certainly the “evolution is religion” meme gets used a lot.
Good OP, though I saw through it because it wasn’t ranty enough and you didn’t spew the spittle real religious creationists usually spew.
I saw through it because of the, uh, title.
Of course I can; if the believers choose to believe despite evidence, that means they are fools ( or outright lunatics ), and in the wrong.
First, it’s the job of the believers to come up with evidence for their assertions, not mine to provide evidence countering the infinite number of possible false beliefs. I note you don’t demand that the believers provide evidence that it was Azathoth who created to world and wrote the Bible just to fool them.
And second, there IS evidence against it. Like the laws of physics that God would have to violate, all the other religious claims about Creation that contradict each other ( because if one group’s claims deserve to be taken seriously, all do ), the fact that we see evolution happening right now, and the fact that religion is relentlessly wrong any time it makes any factual claim.
Saying that you can’t argue against a belief if the believer declares all evidence against it automatically invalid just means the believer in question is a fool or a liar.
It’s not stupid when the point is to demonstrate that the belief in question is irrational, baseless, and in error.