Are religious descriptions of science deliberately deceiving?

Discussion in 'Religion' started by Seattle, May 11, 2019.

  1. sideshowbob Sorry, wrong number. Valued Senior Member

    Messages:
    5,767
    It had the outcome that it had. We have the present situation that we have. There is no way of re-winding history to determine whether or not it could have been "better" or "worse". So I see no point in declaring whether or not the outcome was "good" or "bad".
    Well, it is a given. It's what we've got. If we don't sustain it, what are we going to do? Just watch millions die because it coulda/woulda/shoulda been done better?
     
  2. Google AdSense Guest Advertisement



    to hide all adverts.
  3. Jeeves Valued Senior Member

    Messages:
    3,551
    You defended the bad agricultural practice initially on the basis of its having enabled humans to overpopulate. It wasn't foreordained or given: it's the situation we created and continue to create with the practices you advocate on the basis that it's the only way to perpetuate the bad outcome.

    Don't you get it? We cannot sustain it. The millions are going to die. This is a fact - they're already dying. Whether you watch or not.
    Thole system of unsustainable agriculture/unsustainable population has already begun to collapse. If you continue destructive farming practice, more millions are going to die than if you replaced it with flexible practices that respond to varied, changing terrain and climate.
     
  4. Google AdSense Guest Advertisement



    to hide all adverts.
  5. sideshowbob Sorry, wrong number. Valued Senior Member

    Messages:
    5,767
    If you replace the destructive practices with flexible practices, it still has to be on an industrial basis. More industrial, not less.
     
  6. Google AdSense Guest Advertisement



    to hide all adverts.
  7. Jeeves Valued Senior Member

    Messages:
    3,551
    Except that industrial is the exact opposite of flexible and site-sensitive. Industrial agriculture has never been aimed at sustainability or good nutrition; it's geared to profit. Once it stops being profitable, corporations pull out, let the land go to hell, and local farmers can't carry on that kind of practice: they don't have the equipment, the shipping capability or the money for chemicals.
     
  8. sideshowbob Sorry, wrong number. Valued Senior Member

    Messages:
    5,767
    I said industrial, not corporate. "Family farms" today in developed countries are certainly operating on an industrial scale.
     
  9. Jeeves Valued Senior Member

    Messages:
    3,551
    'Developed' countries are not where the millions are starving; it's where the starving millions are headed.
    Okay... we have a different notion of family and industrial.
     
  10. sideshowbob Sorry, wrong number. Valued Senior Member

    Messages:
    5,767
    It's where the food is produced.

    And the starvation is partly because they're using the inefficient farming methods that you advocate.
     
  11. Jeeves Valued Senior Member

    Messages:
    3,551
    and efficiency
     
  12. James R Just this guy, you know? Staff Member

    Messages:
    33,248
    The evangelistic ones tend to follow that pattern, in my experience. For example, Jehovah's Witnesses knock on my front door every now and then and provide me with complimentary copies of their "Watchtower" magazines, which I believe are mostly produced and edited in the United States. The articles that discuss scientific concepts are almost invariably full of errors and half-truths. The people who knock on the door and attempt to evangelise me are usually friendly people who seem sincere in their beliefs. I understand that they are not experts in science. Maybe they don't know any better. But the people who write those articles must surely know what they are doing.

    It always puzzles me how, on the one hand, one can go about espousing "Christian values" such as honesty, and to preach on topics such as "sin", including sermons on how one should not deliberately set out to deceive others, and at the same time knowingly disseminate lies. I suppose they think that attracting new followers - or keeping the current ones - is more important than acting with integrity and honesty.

    Absolutely. Evolution has always been a thorn in the side of the fundamentalists. I think that many of them are taught a kind of superficial parody version of the science and that is what they come to believe is the real thing. There are those in the various churches who know better, of course, but who choose to continue to lie rather than face up to the reality.

    As for the Big Bang, mostly I seem to see arguments from incredulity based on the most superficial understanding of the theory. The most common argument goes "It is not our lived experience that things come from nothing. Therefore, the big bang theory must be wrong. QED." In other words "I can't imagine (and I don't really want to investigate) how the universe came to be how it is, so I'll pretend it couldn't have happened the way scientists say it happened."

    As in all pseudoscience, I always chuckle at that line when it appears, because here is a writer implicitly asking the reader to trust him as an expert in these matters, but simultaneously warning the reader to disregard all better-qualified experts who might have insights to offer on the topic.

    ---
    The less fundamentalist religious denominations generally aren't as worried about science as the fundamentalist evangelicals. They still make mistakes in the science, but on the whole they tend to be honest errors rather than deliberate attempts to deceive.
     
  13. James R Just this guy, you know? Staff Member

    Messages:
    33,248
    The thing to bear in mind with the Discovery Institute is that there would be no reason for it to exist at all if only there was no separation of church and state in the United States. Without the pesky Constitution getting in the way, those guys would be out there preaching their religion to their little hearts' content in schools across the nation, including their nutty fundamentalist Creationist ideas. Instead, they find themselves stuck in this situation where they have to try to pretend that Creationism is Science, so they can sneak the religion into schools under the radar. They've been trying for years.

    The Discovery Institute has never actually discovered anything, because it doesn't do any scientific research as such. It only exists to attempt to throw doubt on established science, and to advocate for the "alternative science" that is really a religious wolf in sheep's clothing.
     
  14. James R Just this guy, you know? Staff Member

    Messages:
    33,248
    Ironically, the "Ark Encounter" theme park run by Ken Ham in Kentucky is suing its insurance company over ... wait for it... uninsured water damage to the property. Ham's ark, by the way, is only five stories high and not remotely sea-worthy.

    Another interest tit-bit: as a condition of employment, the museum and ark staff of 900 have to sign a statement of faith rejecting evolution and declaring that they regularly attend church and view homosexuality as a sin.
     
    davewhite04 likes this.
  15. James R Just this guy, you know? Staff Member

    Messages:
    33,248
    Maybe some of them thought that was acceptable. I know, however, that some of them were worried that Hitler would get an atomic bomb before the Allies, so they considered it a necessity to build the bomb as insurance and as a deterrent. Such was the rationale in Einstein's letter to Roosevelt that started the ball rolling on the whole project.
     
  16. Hapsburg Hellenistic polytheist Valued Senior Member

    Messages:
    5,179
    Depends on the religion. Most modern Pagan books and Pagan studies academic journals are pretty up on scientific accuracy. Granted, the only science they really get into are the social sciences: anthropology, archaeology, history, sociology, psychology, et al. Though things were...very different before Ronald Hutton came along.
     

Share This Page