Why one must believe the "Academia" or the "scholars"?

[paarsurrey]

It is the religious-forums, religion, every one of them has experts of religion, they do qualify from their institutions; why the Atheists/Agnostics/Skeptics/Humanists don't believe them? If they think following of the academia or the accredited scholars is a must; they should be the first to follow them. Yet they don't. Why? Please
Regards

 

[paarsurrey]

I agree that a lot of technical terminology, a lot of knowledge, etc. are not needed in life. I could get by with zero scientific knowledge and zero religious knowledge just fine.

I agree with your first part that I have coloured in magenta as science deals is only a portion of life, by not knowing much of a portion, one could dispense with. But religion deals with the whole human life, even the life after this life, there it will be wrong not to believe in G-d and the truthful scriptures and the truthful prophets, it may entail irreparable loss. Sorry, I cannot agree with later part of your post.
Regards

 

[paarsurrey]

Sure there is no requirement to believe in the studies of professionals. But a rational person should be able to provide examples and evidence of why they choose to disavow the knowledge of just professionals. Simply saying that you disagree is not a good enough answer in a reasoned discussion. Simply saying that you "feel differently", for example, is not sufficient evidence to undermine a scientific study.


Who is advocating for following anyone blindly? That's usually a religious mandate, not a scientific one.

If a claim, by anyone, cannot be soundly supported with evidence, then it's a worthless claim. It doesn't matter if that claim comes from Ablert Einstein or from a Holy Book. If it cannot be supported with sufficient evidence, or it's only source of validation comes from someone's gut feeling, then it's not a worthwhile claim. The only way to know for sure is it to test it. Test everything and see if it can stand up to scrutiny. If it cannot stand up to scrutiny, then it needs to be rejected until a better claim can be made or until more evidence surfaces. It's quite simple, really.

"Evidence" OK for it, please do provide the evidence that scientists or its scholars are 100% correct. Right?
Regards

 

[paarsurrey]

Sure there is no requirement to believe in the studies of professionals. But a rational person should be able to provide examples and evidence of why they choose to disavow the knowledge of just professionals. Simply saying that you disagree is not a good enough answer in a reasoned discussion. Simply saying that you "feel differently", for example, is not sufficient evidence to undermine a scientific study.

Who is advocating for following anyone blindly? That's usually a religious mandate, not a scientific one.

If a claim, by anyone, cannot be soundly supported with evidence, then it's a worthless claim. It doesn't matter if that claim comes from Ablert Einstein or from a Holy Book. If it cannot be supported with sufficient evidence, or it's only source of validation comes from someone's gut feeling, then it's not a worthwhile claim. The only way to know for sure is it to test it. Test everything and see if it can stand up to scrutiny. If it cannot stand up to scrutiny, then it needs to be rejected until a better claim can be made or until more evidence surfaces. It's quite simple, really.

Please read the following Posts in the thread:
Today at 8:38 AM#36,Today at 8:49 AM#37,Today at 8:52 AM#38 and Today at 9:03 AM#39
Regards

 

[jonathan180iq]

"Evidence" OK for it, please do provide the evidence that scientists or its scholars are 100% correct. Right?

.....
Are we having a conversation or are we not?

I did not say that scientists or scholars are 100% correct 100% of the time. I am asking you where we should get information from if not from the best possible sources?
I've already read that thread that you linked me to. Are you a professional or an expert in the chemical or biological study of carcinogenic substances? I know I'm not. So if I have a question about which consumer products are carcinogenic, and which ones are not, I will refer to the best possible sources of information to answer that question; in this case, it's going to be peer reviewed material written by the people and organizations who dedicate their entire professional lives to answering those questions. I think we would both agree that some dude's opinion on Religious Forums is not the best possible source of information, right?

Saying "Best possible sources" does not mean that those sources are flawless.

If there is a claim, and that claim is not supported with evidence, then that claim is pretty useless. The quality of any claim is directly related to how well it is supported. Simply saying that " I don't like that claim because it came from someone I don't like" is a really crappy argument, wouldn't you agree? If you don't think the conclusions of any peer-reviewed study are accurate, you are free to dissect their information, follow their test to the letter, and see if you reach the same results. That's precisely what "peer-reviewed" mean. Assuming you have the scientific know-how to have any idea what it is that you are reading, you can perform the exact same tests that the other researchers performed and detail your findings. There is no better method for discerning unbiased information than putting it to the test before all of the other professionals in a field.

We answer questions about life to the best of our ability. That is not to say that those answers are perfect and should never be questioned. In fact, they should constantly be questioned - and that's my whole point. If your conclusions are only backed by your personal opinion, then it's ultimately of lesser weight than a conclusions that is supported by evidence.

 

[Unification]

I agree with your first part that I have coloured in magenta as science deals is only a portion of life, by not knowing much of a portion, one could dispense with. But religion deals with the whole human life, even the life after this life, there it will be wrong not to believe in G-d and the truthful scriptures and the truthful prophets, it may entail irreparable loss. Sorry, I cannot agree with later part of your post.
Regards

I'm content and at peace and rest in this life by following a path and way of peace and purity for myself and with all humans and the environment. That is the truth and way to a whole mind, heart, and life. Thinking ahead and worrying about an afterlife is unnecessary for me, takes away the present. If there is an afterlife, so be it. I trust that nature will be just with me by the path and way that I currently lead by not worrying about it.

Religion primarily deals with what mankind wants to control you to do and deals with conforming you to how they want you to be by following their exoteric laws and rules that they've created in the name of "God" and have created "God" in their own false images. Takes away contentment, peace, by living in the past and future.

 

[paarsurrey]

.....
Are we having a conversation or are we not?

I did not say that scientists or scholars are 100% correct 100% of the time. I am asking you where we should get information from if not from the best possible sources?
I've already read that thread that you linked me to. Are you a professional or an expert in the chemical or biological study of carcinogenic substances? I know I'm not. So if I have a question about which consumer products are carcinogenic, and which ones are not, I will refer to the best possible sources of information to answer that question; in this case, it's going to be peer reviewed material written by the people and organizations who dedicate their entire professional lives to answering those questions. I think we would both agree that some dude's opinion on Religious Forums is not the best possible source of information, right?

Saying "Best possible sources" does not mean that those sources are flawless.

If there is a claim, and that claim is not supported with evidence, then that claim is pretty useless. The quality of any claim is directly related to how well it is supported. Simply saying that " I don't like that claim because it came from someone I don't like" is a really crappy argument, wouldn't you agree? If you don't think the conclusions of any peer-reviewed study are accurate, you are free to dissect their information, follow their test to the letter, and see if you reach the same results. That's precisely what "peer-reviewed" mean. Assuming you have the scientific know-how to have any idea what it is that you are reading, you can perform the exact same tests that the other researchers performed and detail your findings. There is no better method for discerning unbiased information than putting it to the test before all of the other professionals in a field.

We answer questions about life to the best of our ability. That is not to say that those answers are perfect and should never be questioned. In fact, they should constantly be questioned - and that's my whole point. If your conclusions are only backed by your personal opinion, then it's ultimately of lesser weight than a conclusions that is supported by evidence.

I will comment on your post after one has read Post #41 (not addressed to you specifically though).
Also kindly let us know as to what one understands from the "evidence", your own understanding not from a lexicon. Please
Regards

 

[SkepticThinker]

They may be respected for their achievements in their respective fields but why should an ordinary man believe in them? They are so often wrong, have no consensus even among themselves, keep on changing their opinions. Their opinions are not facts, and facts existed/exist/will exist irrespective of their opinions.
Not a must to believe in them. Right?
The Atheists should Quote for any claims and or reasons in this connection from a text book of science, a peer reviewed article published in a science journal of repute in support of their ideas.
Regards

Isn't this like asking, why see a doctor when you need medical advice?

 

[paarsurrey]

I'm content and at peace and rest in this life by following a path and way of peace and purity for myself and with all humans and the environment. That is the truth and way to a whole mind, heart, and life. Thinking ahead and worrying about an afterlife is unnecessary for me, takes away the present. If there is an afterlife, so be it. I trust that nature will be just with me by the path and way that I currently lead by not worrying about it.

Religion primarily deals with what mankind wants to control you to do and deals with conforming you to how they want you to be by following their exoteric laws and rules that they've created in the name of "God" and have created "God" in their own false images. Takes away contentment, peace, by living in the past and future.

I don't agree with what I have coloured in magenta in one's post.
One has got simply wrong information about the truthful religion. Please prove it with evidences.
Regards

 

[paarsurrey]

Isn't this like asking, why see a doctor when you need medical advice?

I never said anything like that in the post one replied. Did I? Please
Regards

 

[jonathan180iq]

I will comment on your post after one has read Post #41 (not addressed to you specifically though).
Also kindly let us know as to what one understands from the "evidence", your own understanding not from a lexicon. Please
Regards

That post is a flawed question. If I, as an atheist, had a question about what Muslims believed, I would seek out a Muslim to answer that question. If I had a question about what Christians believed, I would ask a Christian. That same logic follows in that when I have a question about Biology, I ask a biologist.

What should be made very clear is that Biologists are not specialists in religion, they are specialists in biology. As such, Muslim Scholars are experts in Muslim theology. They are not experts in Biology, or Chemistry, or Archaeology. They can only sufficiently be trusted to answer questions about Muslim Theology. While their worldviews might give them reason to attempt to answer questions in areas of study that they know little about, their answers in those fields are not going to be as trustworthy as a professional from another field because of their biased worldview. (Note, this is not a post picking on Muslim Scholars. The same rules apply to everyone, everywhere.)

 

[icehorse]

Don't you know how pseudo scientists flout the peer review and published articles that were fake? There were fake doctors who made their name in the medical profession. Right?
If one man being a human could make one mistake, the same could be done by two because even two together would be humans never becoming perfect , not error-free and the mistake could be added, so on an so forth to infinity. One cannot follow any number of humans blindly.
I am sceptic of the Skeptics.
Regards

I'll quickly reiterate what jonathan said so eloquently a few posts back:

It all boils down to verifiable, repeatable evidence.

Yes, I agree that there are fakers in the world. Fakers can't produce verifiable, repeatable evidence.

 

[paarsurrey]

That post is a flawed question. If I, as an atheist, had a question about what Muslims believed, I would seek out a Muslim to answer that question. If I had a question about what Christians believed, I would ask a Christian. That same logic follows in that when I have a question about Biology, I ask a biologist.

What should be made very clear is that Biologists are not specialists in religion, they are specialists in biology. As such, Muslim Scholars are experts in Muslim theology. They are not experts in Biology, or Chemistry, or Archaeology. They can only sufficiently be trusted to answer questions about Muslim Theology. While their worldviews might give them reason to attempt to answer questions in areas of study that they know little about, their answers in those fields are not going to be as trustworthy as a professional from another field because of their biased worldview. (Note, this is not a post picking on Muslim Scholars. The same rules apply to everyone, everywhere.)

One' argument is flawed. One has pitched science against religion which is wrong. Science deals in one aspect of life, not the whole of it, and religion deals the whole of human life. The comparison should be made with the Theists and the Atheists. On one side is the religion (any religion) one the other side are the Atheists (whatever hues they might have adopted). Different knowledges overlap one another from the point of view of an ordinary human being. He is not bound by the watertight demarcations of knowledge done by the academia or the scholars, just for their own convenience.
Regards

 

[paarsurrey]

Not always.

I have healed myself better than any doctor ever could. If I trusted what every doctor has ever told me, I'd have had a few unrequired surgeries, and boatloads of medical bills from unnecessary tests to guzzle insurance money and my money. It would almost be like paying triple tithe to medical professionals.

A point to ponder.
Regards

 

[blueyboy]

You don't understand research, evidence, theory or disciplinary norms. There is no more honest approach to facts, beliefs, truth than one finds in academia. I assume you're a student. You can question your teachers (you can also ask the historian who in history won you that right). You can research something and find another angle of view on it. You can refuse to believe what you're taught, since it conflicts with what your parents, culture told you. However, that is usually invented, mythical, senseless and bigoted. Compare that to the least able academic on earth, and you're better off going with the academic.

1. They are not wrong. They have posited the latest understanding in their field from their analysis of evidence. This changes over time. They then honestly reassess.
2. Depending on the field, they are expressing opinions, based on facts. Fact's don't change, but they are amended. Germany did invade Belgium in 1914. That fact won't change. But we could find evidence that Belgium asked Germany to invade them, for fun. That would change what you're taught, with more facts.

 

[viole]

Do you trust a Muslim scholar if he told you that i see that Islam is the right path to heaven ?

Yes. Since your are a Muslim, everyone can reliably say that you see that Islam is the right path to heaven. i do not even need to be a Muslim scholar to infer that.

Ciao

- viole

 

[viole]

Well, I am not a doctor. My son is a doctor though.
They never insist on anything. They know that they cannot cure a person with 100% accuracy, so they are humble people. I also know that they are never 100% sure to cure. I never believe them blindly. I take my own decisions with the consultation of my near and dear and friends.
My trust is in Allah, He is the Curer.
Prayer and medicine; a mix of them cures the diseases.
Regards

Prayer and medicine? Better safe then sorry, I guess

Ciao

- viole

 

[FearGod]

Yes. Since your are a Muslim, everyone can reliably say that you see that Islam is the right path to heaven. i do not even need to be a Muslim scholar to infer that.

Ciao

- viole

Will you trust his words and be a Muslim just because he's a professional ?

 

[dust1n]

They may be respected for their achievements in their respective fields but why should an ordinary man believe in them? They are so often wrong, have no consensus even among themselves, keep on changing their opinions. Their opinions are not facts, and facts existed/exist/will exist irrespective of their opinions.
Not a must to believe in them. Right?
The Atheists should Quote for any claims and or reasons in this connection from a text book of science, a peer reviewed article published in a science journal of repute in support of their ideas.
Regards

How many bridges have you built? How many heart surgeries have you performed? How many diseases have you eliminated from the Earth? How many computers have you built and taken apart? How many farms have you operated? How many times have you had to control air traffic? How many people's lives were you able to save successfully predicting a natural disaster? How many books have you translated? Etc....

Ah, what's even the point of education if everyone already agrees about everything?

 

[viole]

Will you trust his words and be a Muslim just because he's a professional ?

If I did, I would flip my religion all the time depending on the professional I am talking to.

If I ask different physicists about gravity, it is plausible I would get the same explanations. Explanations that do not depend on where they were born or what their parents know about physics.

Can you say the same about religion?

Ciao

- viole