Theology Overrides Science

[petrushkagoogol]

Theology overrides Science

 

A) For a Chemical Engineer - Coke is the purest form of Carbon

 

B) For a Theologian - A Saint is the purest form of carbon

 

Who do we trust A or B ?

[GAHD]

I admit I enjoy the pun but...Religion is a mental illness that should be medicated.
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=mJM5mipwebw

[Moronium]

For far too many "science," which they don't even understand, IS a religion.

 

I swear I could not find a fundy who had a more simple-minded, yet absolute, faith in, and devotion to, their ideology than some people who claim to believe only in "science."

 

For that matter, atheism adopts a basic theological and metaphysical stance.  By it's very nature, it too is a religion.  Many atheists (of the militant variety) even admit that it is their new religion.  They even have "churches" which atheists attend regularly to listen to some guy preach from a pulpit about the virtues of atheism.

 

Don't even get me started on the modern day disciples of the ancient pythagorean cult who believe that numbers are, and provide access to, the ultimate truth.  A great many so-called "scientists" belong to this sect.

Edited March 14, 2019 by Moronium

[Moronium]

Yeah, I agree, Flum.  The greatest obstacle to understanding is dogmatism:

 

“The whole problem with the world is that fools and fanatics are always so certain of themselves, but wiser people so full of doubts.” (Bertrand Russell)

 

 

 

It ain't what you don't know that gets you into trouble. It's what you know for sure that just ain't so. (Mark Twain)

 

 

 

Faith does not move mountains.  On the contrary, it erects mountains where none existed (F. Nietzsche)

 

 

 

 

"Education, n.: That which discloses to the wise and disguises from the foolish their lack of understanding." (Ambrose Bierce)

 

 

There is no fool quite like an educated fool, eh?

Edited March 14, 2019 by Moronium

[Moronium]

Absolute faith in "general relativity" leads to dark matter, which is likely not matter at all, but an effect of how space works. I absolutely agree, some believe in the absolute correctness of relativity, like a religion :) You have to admit its predictions are pretty accurate, but then so are quantum mechanics, and the two theories are not currently compatible, although one day it might emerge that they are eh !

 

 

In QM time is absolute and there are only 3 dimensions of space.

 

GR tries to make time a 4th dimension, perpetuating the atrocious concoction which Minkowski called "spacetime."

 

As convenient as the "spacetime" concept may be for mathematical purposes, it makes no physical sense.

 

This difference is at the heart of what makes them incompatible.

 

John Stuart Bell, Karl Popper, and many other preeminent theoretical physicists have stated that the notion of spacetime has to be abandoned.  I agree.

 

If only one or the other could be right, then the obvious choice is to pick QM over GR (which creates enough problems all on it's own to begin with).

 

Entire books (not to even mention innumerable academic papers) have been written which demonstrate that the "spacetime" concept is by no means necessary to completely explain relativity.  For example:

 

Relativity without spacetime.

Author:  Cosgrove, Joseph K. 

From a book review by Enzo Bonacci (2018)

 

...the author challenges a centennial vast consensus on Minkowski’s theory as essential for Einstein’s General Relativity trying to explain why it was so successful although not giving a faithful description of the physical world.

 

The validity of Minkowski’s mathematical “merging” of space and time has rarely been questioned by either physicists or philosophers since Einstein incorporated it into his theory of gravity.  Physicists often employ Minkowski spacetime with little regard to whether it provides a true account of the physical world as opposed to a useful mathematical tool in the theory of relativity. Philosophers sometimes treat the philosophy of space and time as if it were a mere appendix to Minkowski’s theory.

 

The mathematician Hermann Minkowski introduced his four-dimensional “spacetime” interpretation of the theory. Einstein initially dismissed Minkowski’s theory, remarking that “since the mathematicians have invaded the theoryof relativity I do not understand it myself anymore.” Yet Minkowski’s theory soon found wide acceptance among physicists...

 

In this critical study, Joseph Cosgrove subjects the concept of spacetime to a comprehensive examination and concludes that Einstein’s initial assessment of Minkowksi was essentially correct.

 

Edited March 15, 2019 by Moronium

[montgomery]

Moronium, IQ tests have to be changed to include questions on religion in order to more closely assess intelligence. The problem that now needs to be dealt with is allowing somebody who's been indoctrinated into believing at childhood and is therefore devoid of intelligence on that topic alone. Just how much it should influence a person's final score is the big question. But all else being equal between two people of equal intelligence on current tests, the one who is not a believer should come out being rated higher. Wouldn't you agree?

 

Can you think of it in terms of a well-rounded aptitude being more important than a very limited aptitude? Did Stephen Hawking have a well-rounded aptitude to go along with his very high IQ? I think so. He certainly was well above the level of any others who were striken with religious beliefs. 

[Moronium]

But all else being equal between two people of equal intelligence on current tests, the one who is not a believer should come out being rated higher. Wouldn't you agree?

 

 

I'm not an adherent of any revealed religion myself, but, no, I wouldn't agree.  People can associate themselves with various religious organizations (catholic, baptist, buddhist, whatever) and still have wide differences in what parts they belive.  Flum mentioned Jefferson, for example.  Jefferson was, and considered himself to be, a "christian."  But he had his own version of the Bible, where he had cut out all references to miracles and the supernatural in general (look up "Jefferson Bible") on google.

 

It's really not a matter of cognitive thinking.  People associate themselves with a religion for a variety of "spiritual" reasons.  It's not designed to be a logic class. Much of it can be understood as metaphorical and/or interpreted as an ethical values system. Many extremely brilliant men have also been very "religious." Newton, for example.

 

As Flum also noted, there are innumerable aspects of modern physics which could only be categorized as "supernatural" speculation and essentially metaphysical in character.  The acceptance of many "mainstream" beliefs of physicists requires huge "leaps of faith."

Edited March 15, 2019 by Moronium

[Moronium]

 

Are atheists discriminated against in America in their working lives especially in the Law, Politics, and the Forces? I think so.  The ones who are not believers are unlikely to progress in their careers, as well as believers  :shocked:

 

 

I don't buy this.  If anything the opposite is probably true these days.  The atheists are among the most intolerant and authoritarian groups that can be found, and their "discrimination" against religious types is quite apparent and often quite passionate. Take Stalin as a prototype for this.

Edited March 15, 2019 by Moronium

[Moronium]

Yeah, I agree, Flum.  The greatest obstacle to understanding is dogmatism:  There is no fool quite like an educated fool, eh?

 

 

The story goes that the Oracle in ancient Greece declared that Socrates was the wisest man in the land.  Upon hearing this, Socrates at first said that the Oracle could never have said such a thing.  He didn't believe it.

 

After being constantly assured that is was an official pronouncement he finally said:

 

"If I am the wisest man in Greece, it could only be for one reason.  I know that I know nothing."

 

Human nature being what it is, the average bear just cannot be satisfied unless he thinks that he KNOWS something very important that few others know.  This type of hubris is regularly displayed at this site, and every other similar site I've ever been to.

Edited March 15, 2019 by Moronium

[montgomery]

Let me put it to you this way: Religious believers must be excluded from being among the ranks of the world's most intelligent. Can you dispove that? 

 

High intelligence within the ranks of the believers is limited. Religious beliefs is nothing more than a childhood indoctrination that can't be discarded when one comes of age to understand that organized religion is all suprestitious hocus-pocus. For the same reason that the baby duckling can never understand that the fox that wants to eat him is not its protecting mother. But I say that childhood indoctrination can be escaped from by the super intelligent such as Hawking. Or, the other possibility is, super intelligent people were never indoctrinated into religious beliefs at childhood. Therefore, to become a Stephen Hawking or his equivalent, the child couldn't have been indoctrinated. I perfer the former but add the latter for your consideration.

 

That nonsense which was accepted as rational beliefs in Thomas Jefferson's time is no longer an issue that needs to be considered in any conversation such as this.Unless you have difficulty discarding bullshit such as the Noah's ark story? If that's the case then I'll duck out of this topic, with you at least.

I'm not an adherent of any revealed religion myself, but, no, I wouldn't agree.  People can associate themselves with various religious organizations (catholic, baptist, buddhist, whatever) and still have wide differences in what parts they belive.  Flum mentioned Jefferson, for example.  Jefferson was, and considered himself to be, a "christian."  But he had his own version of the Bible, where he had cut out all references to miracles and the supernatural in general (look up "Jefferson Bible") on google.

 

It's really not a matter of cognitive thinking.  People associate themselves with a religion for a variety of "spiritual" reasons.  It's not designed to be a logic class. Much of it can be understood as metaphorical and/or interpreted as an ethical values system. Many extremely brilliant men have also been very "religious." Newton, for example.

 

As Flum also noted, there are innumerable aspects of modern physics which could only be categorized as "supernatural" speculation and essentially metaphysical in character.  The acceptance of many "mainstream" beliefs of physicists requires huge "leaps of faith."

[Moronium]

I say that childhood indoctrination can be escaped from by the super intelligent

 

The usual dogmatism from you, eh, Monty?  And you think you're super-intelligent.  No surprise there, either.  As I just said:

 

Human nature being what it is, the average bear just cannot be satisfied unless he thinks that he KNOWS something very important that few others know.  This type of hubris is regularly displayed at this site, and every other similar site I've ever been to.

 

You represent the consummate "average bear," I'm afraid.

Edited March 16, 2019 by Moronium

[Moronium]

As far as your hero, Hawking, goes, if he was so damn smart, then he wouldn't be losing so many scientific bets, eh?

 

On December 10, 1974, Hawking made a bet with Caltech theoretical physicist Kip Thorne over whether Cygnus X-1, a massive x-ray source in our galaxy, was a black hole...when push came to shove, Hawking bet against Cygnus X-1.  Nowadays, the object is widely accepted to be a black hole.

 

...Years later, Hawking entered another black hole-related bet with Thorne and Caltech theoretical physicist John Preskill. In 1997, the trio wagered over whether a black hole destroys the information encoded in the objects it gravitationally devours. Thorne and Hawking bet that black holes do in fact destroy information—seemingly breaking a tenet of quantum mechanics. Preskill disagreed.  In 2004, Hawking conceded the bet, buying Preskill a baseball encyclopedia as a prize.

 

...Black holes weren’t the only targets of Hawking’s scientific gambles.   “About a decade ago, I was in a conference in Korea, and Stephen was there,” Kane said in a 2012 interview with NPR. “And Stephen said, I'll bet you that there is no Higgs boson. So, I immediately said, I'll take that bet.  Then when we arranged the details a little bit and settled on $100.”

 

In 2012, scientists at CERN’s Large Hadron Collider made history when they discovered hints of the Higgs boson—the long-sought missing piece of the standard model of particle physics.  When news broke of the Higgs boson’s discovery, Hawking praised Higgs for his work—and noted that he had lost the bet.

 

 

https://news.nationalgeographic.com/2018/03/stephen-hawking-controversial-physics-black-holes-bets-science/

 

I don't know, but it probably says somewhere in the Bible that you shouldn't bet.  He would have been better off consulting it than his own "brilliance," it seems.

Edited March 16, 2019 by Moronium

[montgomery]

I didn't comment on the question of whether or not atheists are held back by American society but I'm extremely interested in hearing you make your case on it. With politicians, and as you contend with the Scotus, you didn't need to make the point because it's very easy to see for even outsiders like this Canadian.

 

Can you make the point on professionals. For example, is there evidence of school teachers being screened in order to keep out the atheists?

 

I would assume that it's a difficult question on which to determine the truth because atheists obviously have to stay in the closet when applying for jobs in many fields. This leads one to believe that declaring oneself to be an atheist would lessen a person's chances of being hired as a teacher. While in the real world it should definitely enhance the applicants chances. 

"

Article Two of the United States Constitution requires the President of the United States to nominate Supreme Court Justices and, with Senate confirmation, requires Justices to be appointed. " https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Appointment_and_confirmation_to_the_Supreme_Court_of_the_United_States

 

The current president appears to surround himself with religious nuts, it is highly unlikely he will nominate an Atheist as one quick example of prejudice at the highest levels. 

 

The republican party has no atheist senators, perhaps an example of selection based on religious beliefs, again discrimination.

 

Are atheists just as likely to get promoted through the ranks, as religious nuts, for example why are foundations needed https://www.military.com/daily-news/2018/08/13/religious-website-triggers-complaint-against-air-force-general.html if regular abuses do not take place. 

[montgomery]

The science is established on the age of the earth to within a few million years. It wasn't in Thomas Jefferson's time. So for that reason it would be reasonable to include a question on IQ tests such as:

 

A. Do you believe that the earth is close to 4.5 billion years old?

or

B. Do you believe that the earth is closed to 10,000 years old?

 

Choose A or B.

 

There's no opportunity to waffle on the question and to choose the wrong answer would influence the person's final score. And IQ tests don't allow time to think it out! The degree to which it would influence the final score would be important to establish. 

 

Let's assume the person doing the IQ test is applying for a job in some professional field where honesty and clear thinkink are important considerations.

 

How would a religious believer answer the question? Would he compromise his faith in order to gain the points on the IQ test? I think it would put believers in the same position as atheists face when they have to lie in order to be accepted by American society. To what degree, I'm hoping can be established by Flummoxed?

 

The example of the question I chose might not be the best question to ask. Maybe a question on Noah's ark would be a better one? The whole point is, religious believers need to start paying a price for their superstitious beliefs.

Edited March 16, 2019 by montgomery

[montgomery]

In a religious school teaching creationism as opposed to evolution, would the student doing the IQ test KNOW to question his/her teacher? Equally would the student being taught evolution, think to ask questions, about alternative ideas.

 

The IQ of the person involved especially kids is based on their ability to absorb information and use it. They are not required to question what they are told, unless perhaps something does not make sense to them. 

 

Regarding teaching religion in schools, a religion based school is highly unlikely to select an atheist to teach creationism. The following is an interesting article on the subject of religion in schools https://religionandpolitics.org/2014/01/07/the-dangers-of-religious-instruction-in-public-schools/

 

ref the IQ test to level the playing field, perhaps the person being giving the test should be asked were they taught creationism/evolution and do they believe what they were taught. Part of the IQ test might involve rating how gullible a person is, as well as testing what they have learned.

Thanks for you comments! The one thing I have to question is your idea of a child having the ability to question his teacher. At least in the way I read you. I think it would be an example of a child's considerably higher intelligence if he/she were capable of sorting out the wheat from the chaff, so to speak.

I say this because of my understanding that religion in the mind of an intelligent person can't stand, if not for the factor of childhood indoctrination. So I'm saying that even moderately intelligent persons of IQ of 100 or even 90 can't be fooled by religious superstition, if not for the early childhood imprinting on their minds by their parents. This happens essentialled before they get to the influence of the schools. It's too late for the teachers! 

 

That's why religious indoctrination by parents is child abuse.

 

Otherwise, you haven't answered the question I asked on whether or not atheists are held back to much of a degree by American society. To start with, I'm asking the question on how it influences the chances of the atheist who is applying for a job as a professional. My opinion for now at least is that for a technician of most sorts, the question would't apply. But that's just my wild guess which I would love to hear proved wrong?

 

I understand that there is a very considerable move on in the US to save religion. This in contrast to the rest of the world taht is gradually moving away from religious beliefs and superstitions.

 

I would suggest that little harm can be done to society if people are allowed to backslide back to sky fairy beliefs when nearing death. That's the crutch religion provides to weaker people. And it's likely the only saving grace for religious beliefs in general. 

[montgomery]

Thanks for you comments! The one thing I have to question is your idea of a child having the ability to question his teacher. At least in the way I read you. I think it would be an example of a child's considerably higher intelligence if he/she were capable of sorting out the wheat from the chaff, so to speak.

I say this because of my understanding that religion in the mind of an intelligent person can't stand, if not for the factor of childhood indoctrination. So I'm saying that even moderately intelligent persons of IQ of 100 or even 90 can't be fooled by religious superstition, if not for the early childhood imprinting on their minds by their parents. This happens essentialled before they get to the influence of the schools. It's too late for the teachers! 

 

That's why religious indoctrination by parents is child abuse.

 

Otherwise, you haven't answered the question I asked on whether or not atheists are held back to much of a degree by American society. To start with, I'm asking the question on how it influences the chances of the atheist who is applying for a job as a professional. My opinion for now at least is that for a technician of most sorts, the question would't apply. But that's just my wild guess which I would love to hear proved wrong?

 

I understand that there is a very considerable move on in the US to save religion. This in contrast to the rest of the world taht is gradually moving away from religious beliefs and superstitions.

 

I would suggest that little harm can be done to society if people are allowed to backslide back to sky fairy beliefs when nearing death. That's the crutch religion provides to weaker people. And it's likely the only saving grace for religious beliefs in general. 

 

It's worth saying here that the only thing that holds Moronium to his religious beliefs is his childhood indoctrination. He's an example of fairly highly intelligent person being trapped by religious beliefs for most likely the rest of his life. (I'm judging Moronium as falling somewhere between 120 and 130 on an IQ test.) I claim to be able to do that because I'm either 130 or sometimes slightly over myself.

[montgomery]

 

Thanks for you comments! The one thing I have to question is your idea of a child having the ability to question his teacher. At least in the way I read you. I think it would be an example of a child's considerably higher intelligence if he/she were capable of sorting out the wheat from the chaff, so to speak.

I say this because of my understanding that religion in the mind of an intelligent person can't stand, if not for the factor of childhood indoctrination. So I'm saying that even moderately intelligent persons of IQ of 100 or even 90 can't be fooled by religious superstition, if not for the early childhood imprinting on their minds by their parents. This happens essentialled before they get to the influence of the schools. It's too late for the teachers! 

 

That's why religious indoctrination by parents is child abuse.

 

Otherwise, you haven't answered the question I asked on whether or not atheists are held back to much of a degree by American society. To start with, I'm asking the question on how it influences the chances of the atheist who is applying for a job as a professional. My opinion for now at least is that for a technician of most sorts, the question would't apply. But that's just my wild guess which I would love to hear proved wrong?

 

I understand that there is a very considerable move on in the US to save religion. This in contrast to the rest of the world taht is gradually moving away from religious beliefs and superstitions.

 

I would suggest that little harm can be done to society if people are allowed to backslide back to sky fairy beliefs when nearing death. That's the crutch religion provides to weaker people. And it's likely the only saving grace for religious beliefs in general. 

 

It's worth saying here that the only thing that holds Moronium to his religious beliefs is his childhood indoctrination. He's an example of fairly highly intelligent person being trapped by religious beliefs for most likely the rest of his life. (I'm judging Moronium as falling somewhere between 120 and 130 on an IQ test.) I claim to be able to do that because I'm either 130 or sometimes slightly over myself. And I'm suggesting that one would have to be closer to the 170 or 180 range in order to rise above childhood indocrination most of the time.

 

Will you tell us what your acore on an IQ test Moronium?

 

Edited March 16, 2019 by montgomery