Science TV Show - AGuest and bohm please jump in

by EntirelyPossible 78 Replies latest watchtower beliefs

  • tec

    But that is what i dont get: is the best way to express that you dislike people who treat science to religion by saying science is the same as religion (as in new light)?

    Sorry, Bohm. I should have added this regarding what I thought about new light: (though I should add for the record, that I don't think science is the same as religion... only that there are some similarities)

    New understanding that adds to or replaces old understanding, even if old understanding was once accepted as true.

    New light isn't a bad thing... it should represent new and improved understanding. But when people in religion use it dishonestly (to cover their butts) it becomes a bad thing. And when people in science deride people for not accepting new light/understanding, knowing that it could change, then they give it a bad name too.



  • bohm

    tammy: now i am confused, does your point relate to the scientific community at large (ie. as a rule rather than an exception), does it relate to a few members of the scientific community who overstate certain things, or does it mainly relate to fringe idiots on "teh interwebs" who treat science as something which it is not?

    New light isn't a bad thing...

    I will appeal to the ladies and gentlemen of the jury: Am I really the only one who equate "new light" with something along the lines of "brainfarts pulled out of the ass of an old idiot 5 years after it was evident even for todlers the previous brainfarts failed; soon to be forced down the throat of family members and loved ones"?

    I mean REALLY?

    because last time i checked a "phrases we all hate"-thread, "new light" was an all-time vomit-inducing favorite.

    (updated to remove obviously misplaced "not")

  • unshackled

    I know what Tammy is trying get across. But gotta say that this 'new light' comparison is just wrong. The WT Org disgustingly dish out 'new light' as deliberate lies to mislead, manipulate and control the JW R&F. Can't agree that relates to science or the scientific community. That would belong in the conspiracy theory threads.

    Edit: bit of a simulpost there bohm.

  • bohm

    Unshackled, i really hate it when people compare others to religious leaders when it is not warrented.

    That being said, you are like a jehovahs-witness elder.

    it isnt a bad thing: i simply mean you are not afraid to state your oppinion.

    Your also like a member of the governing body.

    It isnt a bad thing: You believe in something, you say certain things are wrong, and you dont get paid for doing so.

    I hope that makes it clear what i think about you .

  • sizemik
    My statement is more general, and deals more with human nature and failings.

    In a general sense human nature taints every aspect of human activity. But I think it's fair to say at this point that there exists a level of evidential integrity in science which is probably at the highest level it has enjoyed in mankinds history. The levels of scrutiny has never been higher in spite of the fact that there has never been a larger and more diverse scientific community.

    The same level of evidential integrity is not expected or applied to religious dogma and subsequent belief. Critical analysis and substantiated evidence is not the primary mechanism of traditional or modern religion . . . there are so many other factors which have an influence on what is viewed as truth or fact.

    Religious "new light" is often interpretal and heavily influenced by previously held belief, not to mention the overall objective of the religious establishment.

    Scientific discovery on the other hand undergoes quite a different journey to becoming accepted.

    The different processes involved are far more influential than simply the common failings of human nature. And beyond that have little in common.

  • unshackled

    Ah okay bohm, about as clear as this pale ale I just poured. I can almost see through it but it is a bit dark and fizzy. Cheers though.

  • tec

    tammy: now i am confused, does your point relate to the scientific community at large (ie. as a rule rather than an exception), does it relate to a few members of the scientific community who overstate certain things, or does it only relate to fringe idiots who treat science as something which it is not?

    Which point?

    The definition of 'new light'... or the nature of the people abusing 'new light'?

    If the latter, then my point simply relates to anyone who does it - treating science like a religion and deriding anyone who disagrees with the mainstream. Not everyone does this - and I imagine that most scientists want the questions in order to test their theories. But there are people who DO do this.

    Bohm, I don't mean any offense when using 'new light'. I get that this triggers something here - perhaps seeming to lend credence to the WTS, since new understanding is credible in the scientific community? It doesn't mean that though. Even if there is a similarity, it doesn't mean that WTS is credible or that science is not credible. Just because two things have something in common doesn't make them the same, or equally valid (or invalid). I am not saying that, and I don't think anyone else is saying that either. I don't know what else to say on that matter, but we should probably leave off... because I don't want to cause you undue stress over something that really doesn't matter. It isn't important to me, and I just thought I would share (because of EP's post), what I saw as a similarity.

    Please, peace to you, and don't let this place (or me and my thoughts) cause you stress. Everyone sees things differently.

    This is a little off-topic, but can anyone understand (even if you don't agree with it personally) that some people have lost faith in scientists and the scientific community because they were taught one thing as children, and then that thing was completely wrong (or there are so many different theories)... so they see no reason to abandon any of their cherished beliefs over a conclusion that might well change in the future? I know that might mean there is some bias on their behalf (cherished beliefs), but can you deign to understand it?



  • bohm

    Tammy: Okay i think i get your point by this phrase:

    If the latter, then my point simply relates to anyone who does it - treating science like a religion and deriding anyone who disagrees with the mainstream. Not everyone does this - and I imagine that most scientists want the questions in order to test their theories. But there are people who DO do this.

    I can only add two things: First off i really really hope you would take a minute or two flipping through a scientific article in nature some other reputable place, and notice how the authors tries very carefully not to step outside what their ideas/data warrent. One reason is that doing so will seem awfully silly when you are at a conference presenting your work, and the "hallelujah" conclusions are demolished by the audience (which will happend because in the audience there will most likely be some of the researchers who have contrary ideas), a second reason is that you will most certainly get it back from peer review with a big fat "REJECTED: the data does not support conclusion" (most peer reviewers are boored out of their skull and want nothing else but a quick and easy reason for rejecting your work; a bad conclusion is like send from heaven!) and thirdly scientists tend to have integrity like everybody else.

    Secondly is about the comparison. If you honestly feel "new light" is a neutral term for changing your mind, well, by all means. But when you write things like this:

    • Science is like some religion (in particular the WTS and similar sects), in the sense of 'new light'. You are supposed to believe what is 'true' right now, even though it could be wrong, until such a time as something new is learned.

    It sound an awfull lot like you are comparing science with religion with respect to new light. In particular in the light of this comment:

    • I do not dislike or invalidate science itself. Only the people who treat it like a religion - hence causing a similarity between science and religion

    it is ironic, because surely you must appreciate that using an analogy most here consider very loaded to express your view of science is saying science is like some religion. (which you actually wrote verbatim).

    I think that was all. by all means, if you find some jerk on teh interwebs who speak outside what the evidence warrent, call him out! redicule him!

    I just think you will have a really, really hard time finding clear examples in the established scientific community (fringe notwithstanding, you can find a guy with a phd who will say anything), and if you are not talking about the scientific community, then use the english language and instead of writing: "science is like some religion" write "a few members of the scientific community which does not represent the majority tend to speak outside what the evidence warrent which is something i associate with certain forms of religion".

    I would like to believe you are not being unclear on purpose and have a better command of the english language than me. As your sentence was, YOU was speaking outside what the evidence allowed, surely THAT is an irony you appreciate.

  • PSacramento
    I'm not aware of any of record of Dawkins stating "evolution proves there is no God". If you haven't read both The God Delusion and The Greatest Show on Earth, I suggest you do to better understand what Dawkins' view is.

    Well, I have to admit that I can't recall if I heard or read what lead me to conclude that Dawkins believes that evolution disproves the existence of God. I may have "put words in his mouth" base don what I conclude from his works.

    In The Greatest Show on Earth he regularly points out that the evidence for evolution disproves the 10,000-year-old earth/creation story AND/OR Intelligent Design.

    As much as I agree with that, we KNOW that not everyone draws the same conclusions from that evidence.

    Early in The God Delusion he makes a point of defining the concept of God that he is addressing. It is a personal God, a creator of the universe that interferes with the affairs of man, which for most would be the God of the Old Testament. Not a pantheistic god, or Spinoza's and Einstein's god.


    I strongly doubt Dawkins' "war" on religion is directed at the PSacs and Tammys of this world. (At least I hope not, I like them.) In his books he rails against the established institutions and organizations of religion that continue to press to have the creation account taught in schools as a scientific alternative to evolution. At the end of Greatest Show on Earth he references a 2008 poll, which revealed 44% of Americans believe that the earth is only 10,000 years old and all life was created as is within that time frame. It is slightly better in the UK just under the 40% mark. Staggering really.

    After seeing the behind the scenes fottage of his discussion with Alasiter McGrath I agree with you and believe that Dawkins isn't against religion per say, but against religious people that ignore the facts that are staring them in the face.

    He is against ignorance disguised as religious belief, buT I am not sure that HE sees it that way but I hope that one day he does.

  • Band on the Run
    Band on the Run

    This is my view and faith is involved. Why can't standard evolution be the mechanism by which God created? Forget the years. I've read Einstein bios but I don't fully understand black matter and the start of the universe. Why can't evolution be part of God's tool box? Few people interpret the Bible literally. As a child, I saw many Dinosaurs on display. They terrified me.

Share this