JW scientist banned from Institute's WebSite because of Creationistic Views

by GermanXJW 229 Replies latest jw friends

• 

  Abaddon

  No Apologies;

  Funny, you've not addressed the issue of people who venture unsound opinions due to a lack of knowledge or experienece having to put up with the fact their un-informed opinion might be silly to someone with relevent knowledge or experience.

  I think that YOU are being condescending as YOU are assuming an air of superiority about subjects you don't seem not to know too much about. And then you make YOUR lack of knowledge SOMEONE ELSE'S fault. Poor ickle baby.

  I think your ideology is influencing you here; if you conceed that people who spend their lives learning about a subject may know more about it than you (shock! horror!), you might actually have to listen to what they say about things you don't want to revise your opinion on.

  So you attack the messengers to avoid listening to a message you can't deal with... boring, seen it before, please get a new trick...

  Now, you probably won't like me saying this, but unless you can show that people who venture unsound opinions due to a lack of knowledge or experienece don't sound silly to someone with relevent knowledge or experience, it's just sour grapes...

  Now, I must go... I saw some stone masons working on the church tower on the way to work. I am sure I can tell them how to do their job FAR better than they know...
• 

  No Apologies

  Valis, rem

  I am not sure what comment of Ed's you are talking about. He started out comparing the attitude of some scientist types with some religous leaders, in his opinion. Opinions are based on perception, and there is no right or wrong. So where exactly did he go over the line? I am going back and reading his posts, and I don't see it.

  Abaddon,

  What is your point? I am not following you at all. Of course there is a difference between an informed opinion and an uninformed opinion. There is still no reason to call names over it. You seem to know quite a bit about what I know and don't know, btw. Exactly what uninformed opinion are we talking about anyway?
• 

  truthseeker1

  I just read the entire thread and I believe that Ed's uninformed opinion was in the area of what Science is. He compared it to religion. He is uninformed on how science is practiced and how theories are developed. He formed the opinion that science and religion are similar in how their tenants are guarded and protected by their believers. Some people more informed in the realm of science informed him that he was wrong about the facts that made him decide on his opinion. Now if Ed, or anyone, wants to hold the same opinion based on facts that are not true, its up to them.
• 

  Abaddon

  No Apologies;

  You ask what's my point.

  You said;

  Gee rem and AlanF, thanks for showing Ed the error of his ways. How silly for a non-scientist to express an opinion on a science-related subject.

  Now this is strange considering you have also said;

  Of course there is a difference between an informed opinion and an uninformed opinion.

  Now, assuming you really mean the later statement your opinion;

  I'm sure your elitist condescending tone will serve as a warning to others.

  Is biased. Why isn't Ed condescending? He is "assuming an air of superiority" by using his uninformed opinion to make comments about something he obviously doesn't know much about. That is also condescending - in fact, as the comments made to Ed were by people who DID know what they were talking about, they were not assuming superiority - they do know more about it than him and find his comments silly.

  Thus my metaphor regarding me telling stone masons how to do their job. If I had done such a thing, even if they'd been civil to my face, as soon as I'd be gone they'd call me a "laatdunkend klotsak" (condesending ball bag).

  I think anyone who does that deserves what they have coming, as their assumptions are at least offensive as the reaction their errors provoke.

  You don't have to agree, and can listen to idiots whilst smiling sweetly and nodding...

  .... but I did enough of that at meetings!
• 

  drwtsn32

  As much as I don't like supressing a person because of his viewpoint, JW's are not allowed to have their own viewpoint! This scientist, as long as he is a JW, must NOT believe in evolution. He CANNOT believe in evolution. This disqualifies him from having a valid opinion. He has the society's opinion.

  By the way, studying evolution in depth is what finally broke my implicit trust in the society. I could not dismiss all of the evidence of evolution. During my attempts to harmonize JW beliefs with what science has discovered, I ended up re-reading the 1985 creation book VERY CAREFULLY. I started looking up some of the references, and found they were taken out of context. I then found a web site which shows all of the misquotations. I was appalled! My implicit trust was starting to be not so implicit. It continued from there until I no longer had any trust that the society was God's channel. Now I detest them.
• 

  Bona Dea

  Poor Ed ...

  I think Ed was comparing people, not science and religion. I didn't see where he actually expressed his opinion (informed or uninformed) of science or religion and which was right or wrong...just the similarities of the leaders (who are people) involved in both. He appeared to me to be focusing on the people, not what the people represent. And no one has to be a scientist, religionist, informed, uninformed, or an expert of any sort to express an observation about the behavior of people.

  Sadie
• 

  No Apologies

  Sadie,

  Thank you for expressing what I somehow was incapable of putting into words!
• 

  rem

  Ed said:

  Just shows how similar science and religion are in some ways.

  What was he comparing again?

  Now obviously, as was admitted before, people are resistant to change. The difference, though, is that the scientific method is self-correcting, while religions are self-preserving. The fact that we've gone from Newtonian physics to Relativitty to QM to String theory (all have their place) proves that the scientific method promotes an environmment that is agreeable to change. If it weren't, then we wouldn't even be able to discuss this subject on this here Internet thingy.

  rem
• 

  Bona Dea

  Just shows how similar science and religion are in some ways. This is what "we" believe, and you must subscribe to all elements of what "we" believe, otherwise you are not one of "us" and will be shunned/ridiculed. He did state that. You're right. Yet I think that the meat of his argument predominently involved, not the methods of religion or science, but the leaders of science and those of religion...who are people. If you took his statement out of context and ignored everything else he had said, then yes...I suppose it would appear that he was arguing religion vs science or what have you. But, hey, we've all played that game before via the WTS and well, we know that you cannot draw any decent conclusion based on one singled-out sentence. Now obviously, as was admitted before, people are resistant to change. The difference, though, is that the scientific method is self-correcting, while religions are self-preserving. The fact that we've gone from Newtonian physics to Relativitty to QM to String theory (all have their place) proves that the scientific method promotes an environmment that is agreeable to change. If it weren't, then we wouldn't even be able to discuss this subject on this here Internet thingy. The fact that we are able to discuss this subject freely on the internet lends no more support to the idea that "scientific method promotes an environment that is agreeable to change", than does the fact that we are able to discuss the subject of the JWs and their doctrine freely via the internet reinforces the argument that they are aggreeable to change. We all know the latter is simply not so. And as I have no idea as to what the "methods" of the scientific community are, I can make no informed comments regarding the accuracy of the statement that it "promotes an environment that is agreeable to change", except to say that the fact that we are able to discuss it on the internet proves nothing and lends absolutely no support to that statement, albeit be it a concrete description or not. Sadie
• 

  Realist

  bona,

  scientisits have all right to disregard religious believes. science is based on facts and logic whereas religions are based on myth, lies and faith.