KWED
Scratching head, scratching knee
No debate. It's "sceptic".
No one else needs to pay any attention to them. You got this!
Last edited:
-
Welcome to Religious Forums, a friendly forum to discuss all religions in a friendly surrounding.
Your voice is missing! You will need to register to get access to the following site features:- Reply to discussions and create your own threads.
- Our modern chat room. No add-ons or extensions required, just login and start chatting!
- Access to private conversations with other members.
We hope to see you as a part of our community soon!
Credulous skeptics
- Thread starter Hop_David
- Start date
KWED
Scratching head, scratching knee
A good question, that more people should have been asking these last few thousand years.
However, if you accept that god has spoken, then surely it is his words you should listen to, not a random person's version of what they wanted god to have said?
The whole concept of "The omniscient, omnipotent god has revealed his infallible message to humanity - but we won't know what he meant until countless (usually) men have argued endlessly over it, and fail to reach agreement", is utterly incoherent.
Ella S.
Well-Known Member
I did not argue anywhere in this thread that the Catholic Church stifled scientific progress. It's not my claim, so I don't have to provide any evidence for it.
In fact, I think it makes no sense to argue whether the Church helped or hindered scientific progress in the West, if I'm being honest, because the Church is a massive institution that has existed for over a thousand years. Any universal statements we make about it might be a bit questionable.
However, the Church's doctrines are certainly antagonistic towards science, asserting the existence of an afterlife, the resurrection of Jesus, and original sin, for instance, all of which are demonstrably false. And there's been particular backlash against the Catholic Church from ex-Catholics and Protestant Reformers alike for the Church's stringent dogmatism, which is scientifically agnostic at best and anti-intellectual at its worst.
The reason that the charge is even being made against the Catholic Church to begin with is because it's so believable, but it's also the easier argument to defend against as a Catholic because it doesn't involve actually addressing any of the problems with Catholic doctrine or how they're used to justify systemic abuses by the Church.
The whole argument, in my opinion, seems more like a smokescreen.
Hop_David
Member
Your claim was "I find it interesting that the only people I ever see passionately arguing about how the Catholic Church didn't stifle scientific progress are Catholics."
Which is likely a correct claim. I am guessing you live in a very narrow reality bubble. Step out of your echo chambers and you will find many non-Catholics trashing Tyson's ridiculous stories.
You don't have to be Catholic to notice his claims are nonsense. All you need is a clue.
The "skeptics" who are reposting Tyson's addled histories do not need to pay attention? You are fine with Tyson's following making so called skeptics look foolish?
You are okay with Tyson spreading falsehoods to attack religion?
Augustus
…
You do know you can find out information rather than simply assuming it, don't you?
Try it sometime.
Augustus
…
Yes, of course they are.
Anyone who thinks we should be sceptical of anti-religious polemics based on falsehoods is obviously just an apologist for Islam.
Augustus
…
Translation always requires interpretation, but:
If you are saying the general meaning is unchanged, then it doesn't matter. It doesn't change him saying maths and science are useful and that it's stupid to deny what can easily be proved in the "exact sciences".
If you are saying the translator may have, for ideological purposes, deliberately affected a substantial change away from the original author's intent, then one can call it mistranslation.
What do you think may be "softened" in this?
Again, the eye sees a star and believes it as large as a piece of gold, but mathematical
calculations prove, on the contrary, that it is larger than the earth. These notions, and all others
which the senses declare true, are subsequently contradicted and convicted of falsity in an
irrefragable manner by the verdict of reason...
The second evil comes from the sincere but ignorant Muslims who thinks the best
way to defend religion is by rejecting all the exact sciences. Accusing their
professors of being astray, he rejects their theories of the eclipses of the sun and
moon, and condemns them in the name of religion. These accusations are carried
far and wide, they reach the ears of the philosopher who knows that these theories
rest on infallible proofs; far from losing confidence in them, he believes, on the
contrary, that Islam has ignorance and the denial of scientific proofs for its basis,
and his devotion to philosophy increases with his hatred to religion.
It is therefore a great injury to religion to suppose that the defense of Islam
involves the condemnation of the exact sciences. The religious law contains
nothing which approves them or condemns them, and in their turn they make no
attack on religion.
Explaining information in context is somehow cause for concern?
Not at all. Not even sure why it would be "defending Islam" to say AG didn't end the Golden Age. He's just a scholar with no official status who lived nearly a millennium ago, he's not like the Pope or anything, any Muslim can just reject his views if they want. You could even find both him and Islam reprehensible and still believe AG didn't end the Golden Age.
Isn't it possible you simply want Tyson to be correct, so despite not seeing any evidence that AG was anti-maths you just assume he was fundamentally correct that AG believed maths was the work of the devil? You say both that you don't know the truth, but also that Tyson was basically right. Seems incongruous to me.
exchemist
Veteran Member
I can't see how the existence of an afterlife, or original sin can, be said to be demonstrably false, as neither idea has any observable consequences in the physical world. There is nothing anti-science about either. they are simply unscientific ideas, like so many others. I agree the resurrection would require a miracle, i.e. a suspension of the normal order in nature - but that is what the church teaches anyway. Someone of a scientific cast of mind might be sceptical about the possibility of miracles, but there is nothing in it that attacks or stifles science.
Hop_David
Member
What holy scripture says this?
Tyson has said there's a Ghazali text containing this assertion. Odd, but nobody can seem to find this text.
I will call your hypothetical religion "The religion that sprang forth from Tyson's pipe". This religion comes from the same place as Tyson's Bush and Star Names story.
Maybe Tyson was tripping when he came up with his Newton stories as well.
Hop_David
Member
I will give credit to Dr. Novella for calling out Tyson's schtick on idiot doctors: Doctor Bashing
I also talk about this: Idiot Doctors is an item on my list.
However Novella also calls it an excellent skeptical lecture, aside from the doctor bashing:
Novella was evidently perfectly fine with the Bush and Star Names story, Tyson's fiction regarding Ghazali and Tyson's fiction regarding Newton.
If the false stories seem to support his prejudices, this "skeptic" evidently doesn't bother to check them.
Where? This is the only statement I see from Myers on the sexual allegations against Neil.
I've seen Myers complain about Neils pronouncements regarding biology: Some days, it's very had to defend Neil deGrasse Tyson
I've seen Myers groan at Neil's thoughts on simulation theory: We have a term for that Neil deGrasse Tyson: Intelligent Design
Both of which are valid criticisms.
However I've never seen Myers complain about Neil's false histories. Like Novella, he seems cool with Tyson's addled ramblings so long as they bash religion.
Can you point me to talks were his Bush and Star Names story was questioned? So far as I know Sean Davis was the first to notice in 2014. And the story had been a standard part of Neil's routine since 2006.
LIkewise can you show these skeptics complaining about Tyson's fictions regarding Newton? Or Ghazali?
If they have, why haven't they given Tyson a heads up? So far as I know Tyson has made zero effort to correct the misinformation he's spread regarding Newton and Ghazali.
KWED
Scratching head, scratching knee
It was a hypothetical example, to show that a religion can be anti-science if its scripture contains anti-science pronouncements.
Did you do that all by yourself?
exchemist
Veteran Member
Yes, we can all come up with such fictional examples. Holy scripture might, for instance, contain the phrase "Quantum mechanics is ballocks". Or "Einstein was Beelzebub", or "There is no such thing as electric charge". Such a holy scripture would be anti-science.
But so what?
(Mathematics is not science, by the way).
KWED
Scratching head, scratching knee
From the OED...
Dogma: A principle or set of principles laid down by an authority as incontrovertibly true.
Sounds like the definition of revealed scripture.
On the other hand, "teaching" can involve interpretation and opinion.
And don't leave it aside. If it is absurd, explain why.
But an omniscient god would necessarily know about any future science, so it certainly could claim it to be the work of the devil in his revelation. And he wouldn't have to call it "science".
No. If a revealed scripture said (for example) "Do not investigate the nature of My Works, for down that path lies the devil. All things happen only by My Will and Decree, do not doubt this" - that would very likely stifle science directly through scripture.
Last edited:
KWED
Scratching head, scratching knee
So, hypotheticals can be used to demonstrate a point. Kinda the point.
Maths is a part of science, so saying "Maths is the work of the devil" is anti-science in the same way that saying "Voting is the work of the devil" is anti-democracy.
BTW, there are mathematicians and scientists who consider that maths is a science, so it's not a black and white issue.
Hop_David
Member
It is somewhat more than your hypothetical example. Tyson has been claiming the existence of a Ghazali text containing the assertion that math is the work of the devil. Strangely enough, nobody has been able to find this text.
But texts can be found where Ghazali says pretty much the opposite. See Augustus' posts in this thread.
We can invent all sorts of hypothetical examples. Let's imagine a religion that encourages the pursuit of knowledge. Might that religion help push the frontiers of human knowledge?
Well, this is also more than a hypothetical example. It has actually happened in various times and places. See The Islamic Era and Its Importance to Knowledge and the Development of Libraries. There are other examples.
This?
No, I had some help from Neil.
As you may know by now, Neil came up with his Bush and Star Names story by confusing Bush's 9-11 speech with his eulogy for the Space Shuttle Columbia astronauts. Which conjures the bizarre image of the Space Shuttle Columbia crashing into The Twin Towers. I don't think I could have come up with this surreal image on my own.
As for Bush bragging that his God was the God that named the stars so as to distinguish we from they? That came from Neil's preconceived notions.
For eight year years Tyson delivered this fantasy made from his confirmation bias, poor memory and powerful imagination. Yet this guy has the brass to lecture us on confirmation bias. Or on the unreliability of eye witness accounts.
Here is Tyson's Bush and Star Names story:
Rewatching I have to say I can smell the bovine excrement from a mile away. The tale is ridiculous.
And yet Tyson delivered this story for eight years, often to large audiences of self proclaimed skeptics. No complaints whatsoever from Dawkins, Novella, Druyan, Plaitt, Novella, Harris, Shermer, Hitchens, Randi et al. Rather they respond with enthusiastic applause -- time after time after time.
Even to this day the aalewis crowd is reposting Tyson's addled fantasies, passing them off as devastating critiques of religion. It's hilarious.
Let The New Atheists become known as the credulous buffoons that they are.
exchemist
Veteran Member
At risk of repeating myself, scripture can only become a source of authority for inconvertibly true principles if it is adopted as such without qualification by the teaching of a religion. To start with, a religion has to lay down (i.e. teach) what writings are to be considered scripture and then in what spirit they should be read (literally, figuratively and so forth).
Your example is absurd since no scripture says any such thing and is not likely to. It's an Aunt Sally.
Let's confine ourselves firstly to what scriptures actually say and, secondly, to what religions interpret them to mean. Only then can we have a discussion that can lead somewhere.
(The thing about maths and the devil was not said by anyone and certainly not in any scripture. So it's not a helpful example.)
Last edited:
exchemist
Veteran Member
Hypotheticals that are untethered to reality don't make a useful point at all.
The issue here, which for some reason you are going to inordinate lengths to avoid, is that almost no religion in existence tries to apply the words of the scriptures it has chosen without interpreting their meaning in some way. This has always been the case. It has to be, since scriptures tend to contain both obscure passages and internal contradictions - or apparent contradictions - that have to be reconciled and resolved in some way. (A famous example is the contradiction in the accounts of creation between the first two chapters of Genesis, in the bible.)
Anyone who knows much about the history of religions is aware that there have been many arguments over how various passages are to be interpreted and much theology has been written in an attempt to clarify matters or express a particular point of view. That theology often becomes part of the teaching of various branches of the religion - and the identity of different branches is often to do with disputes over interpretation.
Last edited:
Yazata
Active Member
Tyson has a PhD in Astrophysics and actually did some work in the subject when he was a graduate student and the years immediately after. That's his area of expertise, the area in which he was professionally trained. Today he's a planetarium director and a writer of popular science titles (some of them rather good).
My point is that Tyson is not an historian of science. And he isn't someone with philosophical training. Yet many of things that he's quoted as saying concern the relationship between science and religion, or the place of science in human life and among other intellectual activities. Areas in which he's just an opinionated layman, like pretty much everyone else. The problem here is probably taking him as an authority on matters such as these.
My own reservations about Tyson concern how he seems to think of 'science' not as the contents and varied methods of physics, biology, chemistry and all the rest, but more broadly as the exercise of reason generally, in any aspect of life. Which to me threatens a sort of scientistic imperialism in which history, philosophy, and (yes) religious thought are forced into the steel embrace of the physical sciences.
In some (most?) cases, they might have been rather historically ignorant themselves and already believed what he was telling them, nodding in agreement.
And most of them probably knew Tyson personally. Even if they recognized some historical errors, they might have wanted to be polite and not show up their friend.
Tyson's errors were probably examples he used, employed by him in the service of some larger point that he was trying to make. And his audience almost certainly agreed with his larger point, even if they might privately have thought that his argument for it wasn't all that good. And many of them probably didn't even notice his errors.
Perhaps the bottom line here is that people are willing to accept far worse arguments in favor of things they already believe than for things they oppose. That's as true for "skeptics" as for the ufo or paranormal "nuts" they fight incessantly. We see it every day in our hyper-partisan politics. It's a human failing I guess that can be found in everyone.
I'd say 'yes'. (As most of us are.)
As for me, I'm hugely skeptical about movement "skepticism". I do agree with them much of the time and they have many good things to say. But they are promoting a line: their own very scientistic and physicalistic worldview.
And I strongly oppose what I perceive as movement "skepticism's" authoritarianism, the idea that laypeople are somehow obligated to believe whatever they are told in the name of Science, at risk of being denounced as "anti-science" or as a "denier", todays revivals of "heathen" and "heretic".
The answer to movement "skepticism" is perhaps to be a real skeptic. Have some sliding-scale of doubt about everything you are told. Treat everything you are told as data-points to be considered, not revealed inerrant truth to be cravenly believed for fear of attack and ostracism.
Last edited:
Hop_David
Member
There is a subreddit on the Mandela Effect. It's about people who have memories of things that never happened.
One of the explanations is that we live in a multi-verse. And sometimes, for one reason or another, people are pushed into a parallel plane of existence. So their memories are actual memories but just from a different time line.
So maybe there actually is a neighboring universe where Bush slammed the Arabs after 9-11 by bragging it was his God that named the stars. It wasn't just Tyson remembering this event. Legions of Tyson's fans were insisting Tyson gave a correct account. That Sean Davis was a liar.
Maybe the same parallel dimension where the Islamic Golden Age came to a screeching halt when Ghazali proclaimed math is the work of the devil.
The Bizarro Land where Newton stopped working on n-body mechanics. He just stopped! And said nobody would ever figure it out because our solar system is intelligently designed. And in this place Newton is a super human who accomplished in two months what it took many people decades to do in our universe.
How to reach this universe? Smoke a combination of bath salts and DMT to enter a receptive state. And then say Mr. Mxyzptlk backwards.
exchemist
Veteran Member
See post 67. I think Andrew Dickson White has a lot to answer for.