• 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!

The Big Bang Theory is dead.

ratiocinator

Lightly seared on the reality grill.
Dishonesty and/or ignorance lie at the heat of every creationist claim, I agree, but that is very different, of course.
Well, there is this guy:


"Evolution is not a theory in crisis. It is not teetering on the verge of collapse. It has not failed as a scientific explanation. There is evidence for evolution, gobs and gobs of it. It is not just speculation or a faith choice or an assumption or a religion. It is a productive framework for lots of biological research, and it has amazing explanatory power. There is no conspiracy to hide the truth about the failure of evolution. There has really been no failure of evolution as a scientific theory. It works, and it works well.
...
It is my own faith choice to reject evolution, because I believe the Bible reveals true information about the history of the earth that is fundamentally incompatible with evolution. I am motivated to understand God's creation from what I believe to be a biblical, creationist perspective. Evolution itself is not flawed or without evidence. Please don't be duped into thinking that somehow evolution itself is a failure. Please don't idolize your own ability to reason. Faith is enough. If God said it, that should settle it. Maybe that's not enough for your scoffing professor or your non-Christian friends, but it should be enough for you."​

Definitely bizarre, but I guess it's honest.
 

Little Dragon

Well-Known Member
"It is my own faith choice to reject evolution, because I believe the Bible reveals true information about the history of the earth that is fundamentally incompatible with evolution. I am motivated to understand God's creation from what I believe to be a biblical, creationist perspective."
Utterly unhinged. Interesting nonetheless.
 
Last edited:

ratiocinator

Lightly seared on the reality grill.
Please don't elevate reason above faith? If God said it, it's enough?

This is why I am not a theist and will never be one.
Well, yes, I agree. However to put things in a wider context, I also see the following, which is from Rationality by Steven Pinker. I've spoken to a few theists who would agree.
People divide their worlds into two zones. One consists of the physical objects around them, the other people they deal with face to face, the memory of their interactions, and the rules and norms that regulate their lives. People have mostly accurate beliefs about this zone, and they reason rationally within it. Within this zone, they believe there’s a real world and that beliefs about it are true or false. They have no choice: that’s the only way to keep gas in the car, money in the bank, and the kids clothed and fed. Call it the reality mindset.
The other zone is the world beyond immediate experience: the distant past, the unknowable future, faraway peoples and places, remote corridors of power, the microscopic, the cosmic, the counterfactual, the metaphysical. People may entertain notions about what happens in these zones, but they have no way of finding out, and anyway it makes no discernible difference to their lives. Beliefs in these zones are narratives, which may be entertaining or inspiring or morally edifying. Whether they are literally “true” or “false” is the wrong question. The function of these beliefs is to construct a social reality that binds the tribe or sect and gives it a moral purpose. Call it the mythology mindset.
Bertrand Russell famously said, “It is undesirable to believe a proposition when there is no ground whatsoever for supposing it is true.” The key to understanding rampant irrationality is to recognize that Russell’s statement is not a truism but a revolutionary manifesto. For most of human history and prehistory, there were no grounds for supposing that propositions about remote worlds were true. But beliefs about them could be empowering or inspirational, and that made them desirable enough.
Russell’s maxim is the luxury of a technologically advanced society with science, history, journalism, and their infrastructure of truth-seeking, including archival records, digital datasets, high-tech instruments, and communities of editing, fact-checking, and peer review. We children of the Enlightenment embrace the radical creed of universal realism: we hold that all our beliefs should fall within the reality mindset. We care about whether our creation story, our founding legends, our theories of invisible nutrients and germs and forces, our conceptions of the powerful, our suspicions about our enemies, are true or false. That’s because we have the tools to get answers to these questions, or at least to assign them warranted degrees of credence. And we have a technocratic state that should, in theory, put these beliefs into practice.
But as desirable as that creed is, it is not the natural human way of believing. In granting an imperialistic mandate to the reality mindset to conquer the universe of belief and push mythology to the margins, we are the weird ones—or, as evolutionary social scientists like to say, the WEIRD ones: Western, Educated, Industrialized, Rich, Democratic. At least, the highly educated among us are, in our best moments. The human mind is adapted to understanding remote spheres of existence through a mythology mindset. It’s not because we descended from Pleistocene hunter-gatherers specifically, but because we descended from people who could not or did not sign on to the Enlightenment ideal of universal realism. Submitting all of one’s beliefs to the trials of reason and evidence is an unnatural skill, like literacy and numeracy, and must be instilled and cultivated.
 

Little Dragon

Well-Known Member
Beliefs in these zones are narratives, which may be entertaining or inspiring or morally edifying. Whether they are literally “true” or “false” is the wrong question. The function of these beliefs is to construct a social reality that binds the tribe or sect and gives it a moral purpose. Call it the mythology mindset.
Which partly explains to me my innate disconnect with "article of faith". I have no tribe to belong to, nor moral objective to aspire to. I am a lone creature wandering the world in my own time and style with no particular place to go. I would say lone wolf, but that has connotations I don't wish to project! Hmm. Food for thought.
 

exchemist

Veteran Member
No in the slightest, imo.

Since every theological argument or claim. Is founded on article of faith not testable fact. Therefore in order to disseminate arguments not based on fact, by definition there must be some degree of misrepresentation involved. One must be aware that what they are promoting or defending, has no basis in testable fact. This is dishonest imo. Whether they have faith in it or not, whether they are well meaning or not. It's still a lie. It's still a betrayal of the determinable truth.
This is absurdly Gradgrindian. Most disciplines of thought are not about testable fact. It is only the sciences that are concerned with such things.
 

Little Dragon

Well-Known Member
This is absurdly Gradgrindian. Most disciplines of thought are not about testable fact. It is only the sciences that are concerned with such things.
Welcome to my mind.
I concentrate on what is testable. I make decisions on what is testable. I live by what is testable.
I do not dismiss secondary information (non testable) entirely, which is my reasoning for posting on this site. I am fascinated by the fact that others can and DO rely on it. Which I find to be absurdly alien. However I am here to learn or be reminded. As I just did in fact, thanks to another poster.
Such curious beliefs and aspirations I find here. Revealing, saddening and always interesting.
 

Little Dragon

Well-Known Member
This is absurdly Gradgrindian. Most disciplines of thought are not about testable fact. It is only the sciences that are concerned with such things.
I also leaned what Gradgrindian means today also. Thanks to you. ;)
That word did not appear in my lexicon!

I agree I could come across that way. My perspective however, I will defend to the hilt! Naturally.
 

exchemist

Veteran Member
Welcome to my mind.
I concentrate on what is testable. I make decisions on what is testable. I live by what is testable.
I do not dismiss secondary information (non testable) entirely, which is my reasoning for posting on this site. I am fascinated by the fact that others can and DO rely on it. Which I find to be absurdly alien. However I am here to learn or be reminded. As I just did in fact, thanks to another poster.
Such curious beliefs and aspirations I find here. Revealing, saddening and always interesting.
So you are a real life Gradgrind, then. How stultifying.
 

Little Dragon

Well-Known Member
So you are a real life Gradgrind, then. How stultifying.
I am what I am. As for stultifying, quite the opposite I assure you, when you trim away the untestable, you can concentrate on the testable, a more productive successful and profitable enterprise, and no less exciting, if you ask me. Overall, I find joy and enthusiasm in revealing order within chaos, separating fact from fiction, learning about the mechanics of reality, which all are above all, exercises in logical reduction. Fun stuff if you've a mind like mine.
 

Little Dragon

Well-Known Member
It is only the sciences that are concerned with such things.
Which is a good clue.

The scientific method is necessarily the most objective means of investigation, possible, into the physically quantifiable and measurable universe, at all levels. Microscopic to the macroscopic.

Blessed holy science... ;)

Mankind's greatest achievement and crowning glory.
 

Subduction Zone

Veteran Member
Why? That is not testable. Rather, the claims within, are not testable. So whatever secondary truth [that isn't really truth], it contains, is un verifiable.

Truth is verifiable, all else is opinion.
Parts are. Assuming that God does not lie it does not do very well when one tests it.
 
Top