Split from Can you be a scientist and still believe in religion?

[John Cuthber]

9 hours ago, Asheekay said:

Another, very dangerous trend I have observed is that laymen treat scientific theories and postulates as hard and undeniable facts.In gray areas of uncertainty, they will always, without an exception, take the postulates which run antiparallel with religious teaching

Could you show us an example?

(quote expanded by mod to add context)

[Asheekay]

4 hours ago, John Cuthber said:

Could you show us an example?

About the fate of the universe, there are multiple theories. Although dark energy appears to be winning over gravity and with the increasing velocities of the galaxies, it is quite likely that dark energy will end up ripping apart galaxy clusters, then galaxies themselves, down to solar/planetary systems and ultimately down to the dominions of electromagnetism (intermolecular bonds), strong nuclear force (atomic structure) and weak nuclear force (protons and neutrons).

Quite fair and unbiased. But if I quote a scripture verse of the essence "And the heavens and Earth were wrapped, and We tore them apart. And if We desire, We may return them to that state again", most atheists get triggered. My statement at this point is that we do not know the outer cosmic structure of our universe (since we live inside of it, our existence being confined to the spacetime dimensions), it is quite possible that the rending apart of spacetime from our perspective might as well be wrapping them back together to pre-bigbang state. The ugly part is, if I present this possibility (remember, I am not saying it is so, I am saying it may be so) without the reference to the scripture, I get unbiased, neutral analysis of this possibility. However, if I announce that I got this idea from a scripture verse, most laymen instantly denounce it as an erratic assumption simply because whatever is in a scripture can "obviously" not be scientifically valid.

Thankfully I get this attitude mostly from uninformed laymen. Proper scientists and researchers mostly analyse my postulates without bias, without caring the least where I got the idea from. Some Dawkins fans get triggered though, regardless of how well informed and educated they may be.

[MSC]

17 hours ago, John Cuthber said:

Another, very dangerous trend I have observed is that laymen treat scientific theories and postulates as hard and undeniable facts.In gray areas of uncertainty, they will always, without an exception, take the postulates which run antiparallel with religious teaching

Laymen are like any student. They are arguably more passionate than most undergrads, in being so self directed. 

I have a question for you. How many of the individuals you speak to online, have personally self identified themselves to you, as either a layman or an expert in a given field? How are you judging and determining who is who?

Really? Without an exception? 

12 hours ago, Asheekay said:

The ugly part is, if I present this possibility (remember, I am not saying it is so, I am saying it may be so) without the reference to the scripture, I get unbiased, neutral analysis of this possibility. However, if I announce that I got this idea from a scripture verse, most laymen instantly denounce it as an erratic assumption simply because whatever is in a scripture can "obviously" not be scientifically valid.

Thankfully I get this attitude mostly from uninformed laymen. Proper scientists and researchers mostly analyse my postulates without bias, without caring the least where I got the idea from. Some Dawkins fans get triggered though, regardless of how well informed and educated they may be.

That doesn't sound like Laymen at all. It sounds like atheists, with zero appreciation for the literary arts and the power of writing. I've met plenty of researchers from Atheistic, Theistic to Agnostic, who had the same lack of appreciation. 

Let's say you are right, as a little thought experiment. So some Laymen behave in the way you initially described. So do some scientists and other formally educated scholars. 

What truly frustrates you is that so many students either do not reach or leave the stage of student development, Educational Psychologists would describe as Contextual and committed Relativism. 

The growth of understanding

You might enjoy reading this. Perrys original work is also a good read, but this summarises it nicely enough. 

12 hours ago, Asheekay said:

Thankfully I get this attitude mostly from uninformed laymen. Proper scientists and researchers mostly analyse my postulates without bias, without caring the least where I got the idea from. Some Dawkins fans get triggered though, regardless of how well informed and educated they may be.

How do you know they aren't viewing it personally, as something they acknowledge they don't know, but something potentially worth their time debating as if it is true? I've been in a debate team, sometimes you get given something to argue for, you might not agree with it but it's helpful and educational to take part in. Forces you to step into another's shoes by making it competitive and it is just one of many tools at a teachers disposal to help educate their students. 

Hell, if we wanted we could agree right now to switch who debates for your claims and who debates for mine. I could take a turn at coming up with arguments as to why all Lay people are uninformed buffoons. 

I personally think there is nothing wrong with identifying meaningful and pragmatic insights from scripture or literature. Bible, Qur'an, Torah etc. Hell, the reason I politically identify as a contextual centrist is because of the Story of Prophet Joseph. I took deep political meaning from that and I've read every version.

Edited October 10, 2020 by MSC

[John Cuthber]

On 10/9/2020 at 5:49 PM, Asheekay said:

About the fate of the universe, there are multiple theories. Although dark energy appears to be winning over gravity and with the increasing velocities of the galaxies, it is quite likely that dark energy will end up ripping apart galaxy clusters, then galaxies themselves, down to solar/planetary systems and ultimately down to the dominions of electromagnetism (intermolecular bonds), strong nuclear force (atomic structure) and weak nuclear force (protons and neutrons).

Quite fair and unbiased. But if I quote a scripture verse of the essence "And the heavens and Earth were wrapped, and We tore them apart. And if We desire, We may return them to that state again", most atheists get triggered. My statement at this point is that we do not know the outer cosmic structure of our universe (since we live inside of it, our existence being confined to the spacetime dimensions), it is quite possible that the rending apart of spacetime from our perspective might as well be wrapping them back together to pre-bigbang state. The ugly part is, if I present this possibility (remember, I am not saying it is so, I am saying it may be so) without the reference to the scripture, I get unbiased, neutral analysis of this possibility. However, if I announce that I got this idea from a scripture verse, most laymen instantly denounce it as an erratic assumption simply because whatever is in a scripture can "obviously" not be scientifically valid.

Thankfully I get this attitude mostly from uninformed laymen. Proper scientists and researchers mostly analyse my postulates without bias, without caring the least where I got the idea from. Some Dawkins fans get triggered though, regardless of how well informed and educated they may be.

It's not clear how that is an example of this
  

On 10/9/2020 at 12:51 PM, John Cuthber said:

In gray areas of uncertainty, they will always, without an exception, take the postulates which run antiparallel with religious teaching

 

If you say "And if We desire, We may return them to that state again", I'm going to laugh at you.

Not because the statement is religious, but because it is absurd.

We simply do not have that ability or anything like it, no matter hat we may "desire".
There are statements in various religious works that forecast an end to the universe.
With a bit of care, you may be able to "interpret" them so that they coincide with either a Universe ripped apart by dark energy or a "heat death" as the universe expands and cools.

So it does not matter much what view I take, Big  Crunch; Big Rip or heat death, there will be a religious text that seems to agree with it.

It is therefore impossible for me to "take the postulates which run antiparallel with religious teaching" because religious teachings contradict themselves so frequently.

 

As for " it is quite possible that the rending apart of spacetime from our perspective might as well be wrapping them back together to pre-bigbang state. The ugly part is, if I present this possibility (remember, I am not saying it is so, I am saying it may be so) without the reference to the scripture, I get unbiased, neutral analysis of this"

there's a problem.

We don't know what (if anything) happened before the BB, but we can make predictions- based in science, albeit rather uncertain science- about what the debris from the "Big Rip" would do.

And forming another universe isn't a credible outcome, so you say "it is quite possible" that it might happen.

Well, not according to physics, it isn't.

 

And thus, when you say " if I announce that I got this idea from a scripture verse, most laymen instantly denounce it as an erratic assumption simply because whatever is in a scripture can "obviously" not be scientifically valid."

Well, the layman might say all sorts of things.

But the physicists are likely to say that it's wrong, given the laws of physics.; and it doesn't matter where you got the idea.

[Asheekay]

17 hours ago, John Cuthber said:

If you say "And if We desire, We may return them to that state again", I'm going to laugh at you.

Not because the statement is religious, but because it is absurd.

We simply do not have that ability or anything like it, no matter hat we may "desire".

How do you know what God is able to do? Science is a study of "how" things work. It cannot explain "why" it is so.

For example, tigers and jaguars, both live in jungles. But tigers have stripes while jaguars have spots. Both markings serve to camouflage them in the thick undergrowth. So, why do tigers have stripes while jaguars have spots? Yes, science can help explain how the genotypical variations in these felines resulted in the different phenotypical results, but then again: why stripes for tigers and spots for jaguars?

When you discuss religion (specially revelation based) you discuss metaphysics, or things beyond science. Only at occasions when a religious instruction or claim is visibly opposite to scientific facts (and I repeat, facts), you can argue against it.

17 hours ago, John Cuthber said:

There are statements in various religious works that forecast an end to the universe.

With a bit of care, you may be able to "interpret" them so that they coincide with either a Universe ripped apart by dark energy or a "heat death" as the universe expands and cools.

So it does not matter much what view I take, Big  Crunch; Big Rip or heat death, there will be a religious text that seems to agree with it.

It is therefore impossible for me to "take the postulates which run antiparallel with religious teaching" because religious teachings contradict themselves so frequently.

You are partly right about the first point. There are indeed religious zealots who would go about claiming "Oh, but this scientific principle had already been narrated in the scripture". My answer to them is always "So if that is so, why didn't you announce that as a scientific claim already, before the scientists discovered it?" That usually shuts them up. At least until the next scientific discovery.

That being said, i don't think you have a valid point criticizing me here, since I am presenting the possibility of spacetime return into a singularity before any such confirmed discovery by the researchers. If anything, it is you who is being self contradictory here.

You would have had a point if I had tried to spin a scientific discovery or a scripture verse to imply each other. But that is clearly not the case. I am making a prediction that cosmology will accept the possibility of the return of spacetime into a singularity, despite dark energy gradually overtaking all the other forced of nature and ripping apart even the most basic of all subatomic particles.

[John Cuthber]

2 hours ago, Asheekay said:

How do you know what God is able to do?

I didn't comment on what God can do.
I commented on what WE can do.

20 hours ago, John Cuthber said:

And if We desire, We may return them to that state again"

 

2 hours ago, Asheekay said:

. So, why do tigers have stripes while jaguars have spots?

I have no idea.

Perhaps it's just a random event ages ago.

It's hard to see how it has any relevance here.

[dimreepr]

2 hours ago, Asheekay said:

How do you know what God is able to do?

Why would I care?