Religion: The views of an agnostic

feywon said:
i've often been in the middle of Science vs Religion debates, perhaps because i have studied both don't belong to an organized faith and have respect for both subcultures but can see the realities of each. It annoys the hell out of me when either side is insulting--even just condescending towards the other.

So, there is only 1 thing that i will take issue with you concerning Science and many who consider themselves 'science minded: The admission of mistakes. While i will concede 'Science' as a discipline will eventually acknowledge mistakes and change its paradigms--in the meantime people with new ideas, even ones supported by experiments and studies are often shunned, ridiculed and it can take decades to budge the paradigms at all--sounds like a 'dogma' problem to me. When the paradigm does shift--they often don't acknowledge the pioneers of the new paradigm as even inspiration for the latest researchers who have produced evidence they finally could not ignore or dismiss. So i can't let the 'moral and intellectual' high ground claim about admitting mistakes slide without pointing out some things.

Doctoral students often have problems getting their dissertations approved if the basis for it challenges any of the accepted paradigms, even when experimental evidence to support their thesis exists. And as Professors or research scientists they often can't get their papers published in mainstream journals if they are challenging existing paradigms. At one time they thought baby males didn't feel their circumcisions much, also thought Black people had less pain receptors (much as i dislike polls--i can believe a recent one that some 50% of recent graduating medical school class still believe that one but then i'd think anyone believing it would be too many). Established scientists ridiculed Plate Tectonics, Neuroplasticity, Mind-Body connection. They circumvented acknowledging the impact of the last one by coining the dismissive term 'Placebo Effect' instead of investigating why a significant number of people in control groups have positive results from a 'sugar pill'.

Not to mention the ease with which non-science degreed people accept the conclusions of studies without investigating how the study was conducted by whom borders on cultish. Thing is not only the how, (i.e. the mechanics of the study, what kind of documentation of results, who was asking whom what) but who paid for it is crucial. And most degreed scientists that are in the public eye do not remind the public often enough, IMO, that if you don't know certain things about a study---you can't really evaluate it's relevance to your life.

But people blithely cite studies they don't understand (often haven't even skim read) and change their nutritional intake, exercise and lifestyle choices on what they think it means. What's more they'll lecture others about it with no understanding of how that other's needs may be different. When they released the findings that salt raises Blood Pressure it helped me understand my lifelong craving for salt--i've had chronically below 'normal' BP most of my life. About the only problem it ever caused me was occasional hypo-orthostatic tension wooziness if i stood up too quick and sometimes having to do jumping jacks to raise it enough to be able to donate blood or plasma. But complete strangers felt comfortable getting in my face about using salt at restaurants, because -- a study says its 'bad' for us. About that--newsflash--everybody is literally a unique combination of genes and bodily 'norms'. Hell, my body temp is chronically below normal too.

i knew what my 'norms' were when in my 20's, and also knew that if i took those measurements several times a day over the course of a day they could be radically different depending on what i'd been doing physically and my emotional state. Way too many doctors, presumably scientifically oriented, will just look at the numbers, and also tend assume patients (especially women) don't know how their bodies work and what their norms are regardless of our age. And i get that a lot of people don't know their own norms and the normal fluctuations of the measurements. But when someone tells you up front they do know--odds are they do, and they're just tired of people labeling something problematic that is just normal for them.

What i'm trying to illustrate with all this is that the 'Science' culture as a whole is only marginally better at updating paradigms, accepting new ideas, admitting mistakes than the Religious Believers camp is. And i've known Religious people better at considering new ideas than some people that have degrees in hard science or consider themselves 'science minded' --this happens because psychologically we're all unique too--every single consciousness.
Click to expand...

I am aware (and I cannot disagree) with you about the problems within the realm of science. Science fans or, even worse, scientists may not accept or even ridicule new theories and hypotheses for many reasons: ego, money etc. But my belief is that at the very end Science "gets it nailed" and theories inevitably disappear or become strongly stated laws. This is what makes me say that Science is non-dogmatic while Religion is. Whenever science discovers or proves something new that makes Religion appear wrong the believers are ready to take the blame on their shoulders and "admit" that it wasn't Religion's fault but their own interpretation of it! This is much clearer in older times when Science was making huge leaps with discoveries causing the embarrassment of Religion (and its followers) that had to admit its errors. (No, Sun is not a God, No, Earth is not the center of the universe and everything revolves around it etc.). But yes, you are right to mention that a lot of science fans take what is given to them without even bothering to understand, just like a believer would do with their Religion.

Regarding the field of medicine (which is one of the most incomplete fields of science): Medicine is based hugely on statistics and the treatment of patients follows suit. There are ranges of norms, that the general population falls in and doctors follow mostly blindly because they cannot afford (money and time wise) to consider each case individually. Similar to you, I've found my "specs" to be outside those norms. My blood pressure is lower (in general) than the general norm, my body temperature too. It took me two years of ER visits to determine that while normal levels of potassium are accepted to be 3.5 mmol/L to 5.1 mmol/L (and doctors kept telling me that the reasons of my arrhythmias (AF) were due to my misfunctioning heart) I had to study my analyses myself and determine that I shouldn't let my potassium fall below 4.2 mmol/L otherwise I would have an AF.

I will end with this: When was the last time you experienced a change of the "scriptures" i.e. the Holy Bible scratching something out and replacing it with something else?
 

Jennina said:
First of all, great thread. It activates metacognition which repels the trolls from covid threads. :ROFLMAO:

It's interesting to see the "little battle" between atheists and agnostics. I think of myself as both.

I'm atheist in so far as interventionist gods are concerned. But I consider myself agnostic when it comes to the concept of a non interventionist creator. The physics/mathematics governing the universe makes me wonder if there's an intelligent designer.

Unlike agnostics, I do believe science will eventually crack "the god code" (for want of a better term) or disprove god's existence. So depending on the outcome, I'm either a deist-in-waiting or an atheist in waiting. Placing my bet on the latter.

Anyway, I do get what you're saying and if I followed your thought process I would agree with you.

My thoughts:

1) In this theist-atheist debate, shouldn't the concept of god be asserted first before an atheist can reject it? Isnt that the real sequence?

2. You can't prove a negative. Atheists aren't saying god doesn't exist because they have proof that he/she doesn't exist. They're merely rejecting the concept of god becausethere's no proof that he/she exists.

3. Hitchen's razor becomes even more relevant in this age of conspiracy theories where anybody can claim anything without evidence and shift the burden of proof to the other side.

4), You said "We don't have enough evidence to prove God's existence"

Not aware there's scientific evidence of Gods existence. Please share?
Click to expand...

Thank you for your thoughts. I'm not sure if I should thank you for your "great thread" praise, since it's not mine per se. I'm just the OP. :)

There are many of your arguments that are identical to mine so, there's not much for me to comment on. I too have faith that Science will finally explain everything and consider myself a deist-in-waiting or atheist-in-waiting.

Re your thoughts:
1. The way I see it is semantic. In my mind an assertion to be an assertion has to be proven. So if the assertion "God does not exist" comes as a statement prior to "God exists" the burden of proof falls on the shoulders of the atheist.

2. A negative can be proven. To understand this one has to consider "smaller" cases e.g. one can assert "There's no human being in this room." which is quit provable.

3. Agreed. That's why one has to be careful with what one asserts.

4. Maybe my use of the word "enough" was wrong (or rather "non-confrontational") to the ones claiming that the universe itself is a "proof" of God's existence.
 
feywon said:
i've often been in the middle of Science vs Religion debates, perhaps because i have studied both don't belong to an organized faith and have respect for both subcultures but can see the realities of each. It annoys the hell out of me when either side is insulting--even just condescending towards the other.

So, there is only 1 thing that i will take issue with you concerning Science and many who consider themselves 'science minded: The admission of mistakes. While i will concede 'Science' as a discipline will eventually acknowledge mistakes and change its paradigms--in the meantime people with new ideas, even ones supported by experiments and studies are often shunned, ridiculed and it can take decades to budge the paradigms at all--sounds like a 'dogma' problem to me. When the paradigm does shift--they often don't acknowledge the pioneers of the new paradigm as even inspiration for the latest researchers who have produced evidence they finally could not ignore or dismiss. So i can't let the 'moral and intellectual' high ground claim about admitting mistakes slide without pointing out some things.

Doctoral students often have problems getting their dissertations approved if the basis for it challenges any of the accepted paradigms, even when experimental evidence to support their thesis exists. And as Professors or research scientists they often can't get their papers published in mainstream journals if they are challenging existing paradigms. At one time they thought baby males didn't feel their circumcisions much, also thought Black people had less pain receptors (much as i dislike polls--i can believe a recent one that some 50% of recent graduating medical school class still believe that one but then i'd think anyone believing it would be too many). Established scientists ridiculed Plate Tectonics, Neuroplasticity, Mind-Body connection. They circumvented acknowledging the impact of the last one by coining the dismissive term 'Placebo Effect' instead of investigating why a significant number of people in control groups have positive results from a 'sugar pill'.

Not to mention the ease with which non-science degreed people accept the conclusions of studies without investigating how the study was conducted by whom borders on cultish. Thing is not only the how, (i.e. the mechanics of the study, what kind of documentation of results, who was asking whom what) but who paid for it is crucial. And most degreed scientists that are in the public eye do not remind the public often enough, IMO, that if you don't know certain things about a study---you can't really evaluate it's relevance to your life.

But people blithely cite studies they don't understand (often haven't even skim read) and change their nutritional intake, exercise and lifestyle choices on what they think it means. What's more they'll lecture others about it with no understanding of how that other's needs may be different. When they released the findings that salt raises Blood Pressure it helped me understand my lifelong craving for salt--i've had chronically below 'normal' BP most of my life. About the only problem it ever caused me was occasional hypo-orthostatic tension wooziness if i stood up too quick and sometimes having to do jumping jacks to raise it enough to be able to donate blood or plasma. But complete strangers felt comfortable getting in my face about using salt at restaurants, because -- a study says its 'bad' for us. About that--newsflash--everybody is literally a unique combination of genes and bodily 'norms'. Hell, my body temp is chronically below normal too.

i knew what my 'norms' were when in my 20's, and also knew that if i took those measurements several times a day over the course of a day they could be radically different depending on what i'd been doing physically and my emotional state. Way too many doctors, presumably scientifically oriented, will just look at the numbers, and also tend assume patients (especially women) don't know how their bodies work and what their norms are regardless of our age. And i get that a lot of people don't know their own norms and the normal fluctuations of the measurements. But when someone tells you up front they do know--odds are they do, and they're just tired of people labeling something problematic that is just normal for them.

What i'm trying to illustrate with all this is that the 'Science' culture as a whole is only marginally better at updating paradigms, accepting new ideas, admitting mistakes than the Religious Believers camp is. And i've known Religious people better at considering new ideas than some people that have degrees in hard science or consider themselves 'science minded' --this happens because psychologically we're all unique too--every single consciousness.
Click to expand...

I so love this mini dissertation

I've had many a confab with heavily degreed academics
Many don't even know the gist of what they've been taught
And when challenged to break it down, can't

I happen to hate 'religion' for that very reason

Yet, I'm a Christian

It's a bit of a crux
 

CAKCy said:
I am aware (and I cannot disagree) with you about the problems within the realm of science. Science fans or, even worse, scientists may not accept or even ridicule new theories and hypotheses for many reasons: ego, money etc. But my belief is that at the very end Science "gets it nailed" and theories inevitably disappear or become strongly stated laws. This is what makes me say that Science is non-dogmatic while Religion is. Whenever science discovers or proves something new that makes Religion appear wrong the believers are ready to take the blame on their shoulders and "admit" that it wasn't Religion's fault but their own interpretation of it! This is much clearer in older times when Science was making huge leaps with discoveries causing the embarrassment of Religion (and its followers) that had to admit its errors. (No, Sun is not a God, No, Earth is not the center of the universe and everything revolves around it etc.). But yes, you are right to mention that a lot of science fans take what is given to them without even bothering to understand, just like a believer would do with their Religion.

Regarding the field of medicine (which is one of the most incomplete fields of science): Medicine is based hugely on statistics and the treatment of patients follows suit. There are ranges of norms, that the general population falls in and doctors follow mostly blindly because they cannot afford (money and time wise) to consider each case individually. Similar to you, I've found my "specs" to be outside those norms. My blood pressure is lower (in general) than the general norm, my body temperature too. It took me two years of ER visits to determine that while normal levels of potassium are accepted to be 3.5 mmol/L to 5.1 mmol/L (and doctors kept telling me that the reasons of my arrhythmias (AF) were due to my misfunctioning heart) I had to study my analyses myself and determine that I shouldn't let my potassium fall below 4.2 mmol/L otherwise I would have an AF.

I will end with this: When was the last time you experienced a change of the "scriptures" i.e. the Holy Bible scratching something out and replacing it with something else?
Click to expand...
With genomics progressing as fast as it is, I doubt it's going to be very long before we have huge leaps in patient-specific medicine. My prediction is that this will be as much of a game changer as was the invention of the microscope.
 
Gary O' said:
I so love this mini dissertation. I've had many a confab with heavily degreed academics. Many don't even know the gist of what they've been taught
And when challenged to break it down, can't. I happen to hate 'religion' for that very reason.
Yet, I'm a Christian.It's a bit of a crux
Click to expand...
You're a Christian who makes people laugh, and if that isn't "a gift from god" I don't know what is! :)
 
One day, several years ago, a colleague (Jim) and I were discussing another colleague (Tom) who had recently died. I mentioned my father, and observed that both my father and Tom were good, decent persons and men of strong faith. I said that both Tom and my father believed in heaven and that they were going there when they died. I said: "I hope that they were right." Jim: "Does it really matter, as long as that was what they believed at the moment of their passing?" Profound!
 
Dancing_Queen said:
I don't see it, Graham. . :) The reason I don't see it is that that part of my answer was all one sentence: "I didn't see a profound question, Graham. Is it what the minister said? If so, I took that to mean that god is in the mind of the beholder; each individual needs to decide if such an entity exists or not and that becomes the reality for that person. It doesn't, however, become the reality 'out there.' "
Everything I answered was in reply to your request for my thoughts on what the minister said. Pardon me while I test some HTML coding; it may or may not work in this forum. Did this work right? How about this? And this?
Click to expand...
I do believe you don't understand the argument put by the minister I keep referring to.
There's a reason for this, (scientific reason, or some other!), but what reason will take much effort to elucidate. :)
 
i'm going to respond to some triggering phrases from @ CAKCy's response to me:

1) "But my belief is that at the very end Science "gets it nailed"..." A) Key words "my belief" B) How many careers/lives get ruined in the meantime?

"and theories inevitably disappear or become strongly stated laws." much more often they only become new, expanded theories. In astrophysics alone they are constantly coming up against limits they put on the universe (size of certain types stars, structure of various galaxies) that are disapproved by their own equipment as various types of telescopes go further out into the universe. And did any of them predict lifeforms that could live again after being in artic ice for centuries? Albeit very small, simple organisms. But still...

"When was the last time you experienced a change of the "scriptures" i.e. the Holy Bible scratching something out and replacing it with something else?"

That is a borderline false equivalency because while the scriptures (of all religions) have remained the same save for translation transgressions since first committed to writing, interpretations of how to practice the faiths have grown and changed. Even Catholicism one of the most hide bound of faiths can change it's practices. Usually by Papal intervention.

But if we look at how religion is practiced by believers--most will admit things have changed. Only the most regressive fundamentalist sects will fault a person for fleeing an abusive marriage, or after discovering their spouse is sexually abusing a child (especially if their own child). As late as the mid 50's when my parents got divorced there were neighbors who didn't want their children associating with me because my parents were divorced.

While i totally agree that the world would be better off without the 'B & C' type of believers you describe no matter what their religion, i cannot concede that science is not dogmatic. Whether it admits to mistakes (and often the doing so is not a straight admission--but 'oh we have more evidence now' rarely with apologies for the ridicule and roadblocks they heaped on the people who first proposed whatever) in years or decades after a new paradigm is suggested they still actively resist new paradigms even when there is evidence to support them. And it's not the let's do more experiments type resistance which i could get on board with, it's the 'Oh that isn't even worth looking at' type of resistance.

But as with religions--the fault lies not in the discipline or principals--but the flaws of human nature.
 
Last edited:
Here is one thing that I find amusing about us and our religions.

There are 100 billion to 200 billion start in our galaxy. That is beyond huge and simply enormous in scope, totally beyond human understanding.

But wait there's more. There are 200 billion to 2 trillion galaxies in the universe, or perhaps it is infinite.

And yet all religions seem to think that there is just Earth and human beings.

You must believe in the one true religion which is (fill in the blank) in order to be saved. All religions can't be right, so the only conclusion is that they all must be wrong.

Reality is what it is. No wishful thinking in the collective consciousness of the human race can change that.
 
grahamg said:
I do believe you don't understand the argument put by the minister I keep referring to.
There's a reason for this, (scientific reason, or some other!), but what reason will take much effort to elucidate. :)
Click to expand...
Then don't try to explain the reason, Graham. Just please tell me what you think he meant.
 
feywon said:
i'm going to respond to some triggering phrases from @ CAKCy's response to me:

1) "But my belief is that at the very end Science "gets it nailed"..." A) Key words "my belief" B) How many careers/lives get ruined in the meantime?
Click to expand...

Probably many. That, though, doesn't change the fact that the flow, at the end, is in the right direction.

"and theories inevitably disappear or become strongly stated laws." much more often they only become new, expanded theories. In astrophysics alone they are constantly coming up against limits they put on the universe (size of certain types stars, structure of various galaxies) that are disapproved by their own equipment as various types of telescopes go further out into the universe. And did any of them predict lifeforms that could live again after being in artic ice for centuries? Albeit very small, simple organisms. But still...
Click to expand...

You have chosen a field/discipline which is relatively new hence the knowledge deriving from it is expanding rapidly.

"When was the last time you experienced a change of the "scriptures" i.e. the Holy Bible scratching something out and replacing it with something else?"

That is a borderline false equivalency because while the scriptures (of all religions) have remained the same save for translation transgressions since first committed to writing, interpretations of how to practice the faiths have grown and changed. Even Catholicism one of the most hide bound of faiths can change it's practices. Usually by Papal intervention.
Click to expand...

Practices may change. People admitting their mistakes/errors may voice them out. The last ecumenical council (Second Council of Nicaea - 787) attempted to "rewrite" Religion. When are we going to have a new ecumenical council?

But if we look at how religion is practiced by believers--most will admit things have changed. Only the most regressive fundamentalist sects will fault a person for fleeing an abusive marriage, or after discovering their spouse is sexually abusing a child (especially if their own child). As late as the mid 50's when my parents got divorced there were neighbors who didn't want their children associating with me because my parents were divorced.
Click to expand...

Religion has become a matter of personal interpretation ("Flat Earthers are a real thing!) which makes it difficult if not impossible to debate.

While i totally agree that the world would be better off without the 'B & C' type of believers you describe no matter what their religion,
Click to expand...

I'm glad we agree on something!

i cannot concede that science is not dogmatic. Whether it admits to mistakes (and often the doing so is not a straight admission--but 'oh we have more evidence now' rarely with apologies for the ridicule and roadblocks they heaped on the people who first proposed whatever) in years or decades after they've a new paradigm is suggested they still actively resist new paradigms even when there is evidence to support them. But as with religions--the fault lies not in the discipline or principals--but the flaws of human nature.
Click to expand...

I still believe that Science, as a concept, is not dogmatic. Communism and Socialism "failed" because of the flaws of human nature. That does not make them bad political/economical systems.
 
@CAKCy said: "I still believe that Science, as a concept, is not dogmatic."
Scientific method/process in purest form is not, but as some Scientists practice it?
Interesting how you complain about religious believers 'making excuses' for their faiths and allowing for individual interpretations of scriptures, but then basically justified your belief that 'science as a concept is not dogmatic' while not really admitting that Scientists often are. If there are to be different standards shouldn't those claiming to devotion to verifiable facts be more
circumspect in their language and practices?

And as for Astrophysics being 'relatively new' so expanding rapidly--even more reason that Scientists of all people need to be precise in their use of language: Call theories what they are--theories, more consistently. Add qualifying words and phrases "It seems, we think" more often than making straight affirmative statements as if your interpretations of what your instruments see, record is absolute fact.
 
feywon said:
@CAKCy said: "I still believe that Science, as a concept, is not dogmatic."
Scientific method/process in purest form is not, but as some Scientists practice it?
Interesting how you complain about religious believers 'making excuses' for their faiths and allowing for individual interpretations of scriptures, but then basically justified your belief that 'science as a concept is not dogmatic' while not really admitting that Scientists often are. If there are to be different standards shouldn't those claiming to devotion to verifiable facts be more
circumspect in their language and practices?

And as for Astrophysics being 'relatively new' so expanding rapidly--even more reason that Scientists of all people need to be precise in their use of language: Call theories what they are--theories, more consistently. Add qualifying words and phrases "It seems, we think" more often than making straight affirmative statements as if your interpretations of what your instruments see, record is absolute fact.
Click to expand...

We have agreed on Scientists being human. But I can't understand how, while you accept that Science in its purest form is not dogmatic, you don't seem to assert that Religion, in its purest form, is dogmatic. If it wasn't it wouldn't rely so much on the "interpretation" of the scriptures by each and every one. Science does not depend on any interpretation; a law is a law is a law until there is a new law replacing it.

It is clear from your view of Astrophysics that, once again, human imperfection is the culprit of Science not being "treated" right. One cannot blame Science for the imperfections of its ministers.
 
A theory in science means way more than speculation. Theory in science is based on facts, laws, and be provable and must be tested. A theory must have supported evidence. If new evidence comes along a theory must be able to incorporate it or have the theory changed or rejected.
 
Pepper said:
A theory in science means way more than speculation. Theory in science is based on facts, laws, and be provable and must be tested. A theory must have supported evidence. If new evidence comes along a theory must be able to incorporate it or have the theory changed or rejected.
Click to expand...

I wish things were as straight forward. @feywon is right: Many reasons make science appear dubious and untrustworthy. (Remember Hydroxychloroquine?) :)
 
feywon said:
@CAKCy said: "I still believe that Science, as a concept, is not dogmatic."
Scientific method/process in purest form is not, but as some Scientists practice it?
Interesting how you complain about religious believers 'making excuses' for their faiths and allowing for individual interpretations of scriptures, but then basically justified your belief that 'science as a concept is not dogmatic' while not really admitting that Scientists often are. If there are to be different standards shouldn't those claiming to devotion to verifiable facts be more
circumspect in their language and practices?

And as for Astrophysics being 'relatively new' so expanding rapidly--even more reason that Scientists of all people need to be precise in their use of language: Call theories what they are--theories, more consistently. Add qualifying words and phrases "It seems, we think" more often than making straight affirmative statements as if your interpretations of what your instruments see, record is absolute fact.
Click to expand...
I'm not looking to get into the crux of this discussion, feywon. I do want to state, though, that, as I'm sure you know, the scientific definition of a theory is "an accepted hypothesis." And an accepted hypothesis is one that's gone through rigorous testing and is shown to have a statistical probability of no more than 5% of occurring simply by chance.

That said, I do agree with you that even if a hypothesis has been accepted at the .001 level of significance, it's still not a law; that's why it's Einstein's Theories of Relativity even though without both the Specific and General Theories our GPS's would send us 30 miles or so out of the way and don't seem to have that problem with all of the billions of uses they've gotten.
 
CAKCy said:
I wish things were as straight forward. @feywon is right: Many reasons make science appear dubious and untrustworthy. (Remember Hydroxychloroquine?) :)
Click to expand...
I don't think that was a serious scientific statement of use, but I could be mistaken. However, because of all of the disinformation about it, the hype did make science look "dubious and untrustworthy."
 
CAKCy said:
Just to disagree with me.... So be it....
Click to expand...
Ahh i will tell you this...while i mostly enjoy these discussions sometimes (more often in 'socio-political' discussions, but on any complex subject) i make responses not for the person who's words prompted my thought, but for onlookers--those who have the feeling the poster was somehow 'offbase', but have no clue how to counter the point and also for those who may have thought they were alone in thinking a similar or very same thing.
 
You must log in or register to reply here.

Back
Top