Point of Hot Debate : Scientists (or Historians) specialists in their fields might be quacks in Religion?

Post #37

Augustus said: ↑

Religion:none

Depends what you mean by ‘religious matters’?
When you are talking about theology, spirituality, religious ethics, etc. then they frequently don’t have a clue and their opinions are largely uninformed.
If you are talking about certain religious claims being scientifically/historically true or not then they might well be specialists on the issue. If I want to know how old the Earth is, a scientist knows more than a priest. When looking at historical events, a historian has every right to point out if religious dogma refers to events that didn’t happen.
When religion overlaps with other areas of knowledge, then of course specialists in these areas of knowledge can offer valuable insights.

Paarsurrey wrote:

Every religion has a core of the teachings, nothing of that belongs to the physical and or material domains of sciences (the temporal realm), so in fact, religion gives a free hand to the people of sciences to explore things for the benefit humans beings. The founders of revealed religion did not speak anything against the scientists, they need not, as they deal the ethical, moral and spiritual realms the source of which is Word of Revelation based on their experiences (not experiments).
If there is an overlapping, if the specific religious system set by the founders of religion is intact , they do accept it, if it is not intact it may take sometime for acceptance.

Regards

Post #38

Spiny Norman said: ↑

A lot of religious people have quacky views on religion undeniably.

George-ananda said: ↑

I’ll agree with that too.

Paarsurrey wrote:

The eulogizers of science (e.g. Atheists etc) are the quacks of science, the terrorists/extremists are the quacks in religion. The former use science as a tool to fulfil their agenda while the later commit wrongs in the name of religion. Both have nothing to do with science and or religion.

Regards

George-ananda likes this

http://www.religiousforums.com/threads/scientists-or-historians-specialists-in-their-fields-might-be-quacks-in-religion.181936/page-2#post-4516935

Point of Hot Debate : Scientists (or Historians) specialists in their fields might be quacks in Religion?

Post #35

Mindmaster said: ↑

Druidic Animist

Just to say, I concur with @Skwim on the fact that given the choice of any god you could follow why pick the spoiled brat?
As far as the hard-line skeptics go — some people need to remember the concept of evidence is subjective and even material facts are often subject to our understanding of others. For most people of faith the word of someones family and friends + a few holy books is sound enough evidence. It would serve you better to be a bit more tolerant and understanding in the case where someone hasn’t fully signed up for the church of Dawkins. Find the middle ground and educate.
As far as these atheist talking-head types none of them are involved in any research along those lines (Dawkins included) which in my view would make them full of **** and completely incapable of rendering even a scientific opinion. They do not research the myths, methods, or practices of any group or try them out. They do not collect data from people that do — they just assume things. It is a precarious position we are in when propaganda is more important than exploration. There is no evidence our ancestors were any less intelligent than we are now, so put that into your pipe and ask yourself why no one does that work other than from an academic or data gathering standpoint? They do realize that most of the stories in ancient religions are metaphorical right? I mean people don’t have flying horses… I doubt the ancients did either… Think of it as old school “Michael Bay Treatment” and then stop using these things as an excuse to not properly investigate the subject. The religions complain that science doesn’t properly investigate the truth of these matters, and I tend to agree — you would have to find some sort of rogue scientist who would be willing to suffer financial hardship for even seriously entertaining the idea. In essence, the modern day scientific schools bully people along a line of thought…. It had become a dogma of sorts, and like all cases where someone assumes they know it all… They are merely waiting the cliff at the end of the road.
I value scientific thinking and reasoning greatly, but I despise these sorts of intolerable people who I can do nothing but detest as a result of their ridiculous amount of hubris. My opinion is — if you call yourself a scientist and don’t actually explore the practical sides of a subject such as this you need to shut the hell up… I don’t ask my dentist about my foot pain…
All that being said, I feel some religions are “fake” and don’t actually involve any sort of practice… I think you have to be a monk or a magician to have a path — joining a cheer team doesn’t mean you are doing anything in actuality — attending a service, reading a book, etc… Sorry, not enough… they mimic spiritual practices, but actually involve none of the processes just the appearance of them. (Most Christian practices are absorbed from pagans, but they don’t even know why they do them… Go ahead and ask.. lol)

Paarsurrey wrote:

I like many of your points in the post.
Regards

http://www.religiousforums.com/threads/scientists-or-historians-specialists-in-their-fields-might-be-quacks-in-religion.181936/page-2#post-4516889

Point of Hot Debate : Scientists (or Historians) specialists in their fields might be quacks in Religion?

Post #1

Paarsurrey opened the topic and  wrote:

Scientists (or Historians ) specialists in their fields might be quacks in Religion, therefore, their opinion about religious matters have no value.
Regards

BlueTuna likes this.

Post #34

Skwim said: ↑

Religion:Agnostic

I don’t think Einstein has said much religion-related stuff to focus on. However, Richard Dawkins (I assume this is whom you meant) has had a lot to say, much of it quite insightful, or at least of interest to those who’ve never given his subject matter much thought, which is why it’s drawn interest. That this amounts to “too much focus” would depend on one’s point of view. Personally, I found his “calling a spade a spade” refreshing, and worthy of keeping in mind. Far, far too often religious comments made by those professionally involved in religion is just regurgitated religious doctrine or religious attitudes; stuff everyone, even the nonreligious, has heard before. As for Dawkins in particular, I think the following are fairly thought provoking.

“We are all atheists about most of the gods that humanity has ever believed in. Some of us just go one god further.”
― Richard Dawkins, The God Delusion“The God of the Old Testament is arguably the most unpleasant character in all fiction: jealous and proud of it; a petty, unjust, unforgiving control-freak; a vindictive, bloodthirsty ethnic cleanser; a misogynistic, homophobic, racist, infanticidal, genocidal, filicidal, pestilential, megalomaniacal, sadomasochistic, capriciously malevolent bully.”
― Richard Dawkins, The God Delusion

“We are going to die, and that makes us the lucky ones. Most people are never going to die because they are never going to be born. The potential people who could have been here in my place but who will in fact never see the light of day outnumber the sand grains of Arabia. Certainly those unborn ghosts include greater poets than Keats, scientists greater than Newton. We know this because the set of possible people allowed by our DNA so massively exceeds the set of actual people. In the teeth of these stupefying odds it is you and I, in our ordinariness, that are here.We privileged few, who won the lottery of birth against all odds, how dare we whine at our inevitable return to that prior state from which the vast majority have never stirred?”
― Richard Dawkins, Unweaving the Rainbow: Science, Delusion and the Appetite for Wonder

“A child is not a Christian child, not a Muslim child, but a child of Christian parents or a child of Muslim parents. This latter nomenclature, by the way, would be an excellent piece of consciousness-raising for the children themselves. A child who is told she is a ‘child of Muslim parents’ will immediately realize that religion is something for her to choose -or reject- when she becomes old enough to do so.”
― Richard Dawkins, The God Delusion

“Do not indoctrinate your children. Teach them how to think for themselves, how to evaluate evidence, and how to disagree with you.”
― Richard Dawkins, The God Delusion

“…when two opposite points of view are expressed with equal intensity, the truth does not necessarily lie exactly halfway between them. It is possible for one side to be simply wrong.”
― Richard Dawkins

All the above are taken from HERE​

Paarsurrey wrote:

Does any of this stuff has got anything to do with Biology? Please
Regards

Post #27

Skwim said: ↑

Religion:Agnostic

However, Richard Dawkins (I assume this is whom you meant)

George-ananda wrote :

I meant Stephen Hawkin (typo that I said Hawkins). But anyway, quotes and opinions from non-scientists are aplenty too. But back to the OP question, science people can have quacky views on religion undeniably.

Post #39

paarsurrey said: ↑

Does any of this stuff (mentioned in post #34 above consisting on quotes from Richard Dawkins) has got anything to do with Biology? Please
Regards

Skwim said :

Not directly.

http://www.religiousforums.com/threads/scientists-or-historians-specialists-in-their-fields-might-be-quacks-in-religion.181936/

science (concept), science (practice), scientists, scientific publications-One must differentiate between

<www.religiousforums.com>Thread:”When science goes gibberish; what does it indicate?”

Please click the post # below to view,comments and or join discussion on the topic.

Post #1

paarsurrey started the Topic ” When science goes gibberish; what does it indicate?”  :

 Open for discussion for the Theists and the Atheists alike.

Regards

Post #62

jojom said: ↑

Not that the reader is wrong, but doesn’t understand what’s being said. No reason to to overstate the situation, Augustus.

Boy, if this isn’t a pile of manufactured crap. Thing is, just by your juvenile renunciation here its evident you’ve never read an “academic journal” in your life, much less understood one enough to pass judgment.

Augustus wrote

I assume you are highly familiar with academic journals if you can see through my paper thin charade so easily. My ‘juvenile renunciation’ certainly deserves a rapid chastisement from a more learned individual, one so wise in the ways of science. Consider me humbled

jojom said: ↑

. . . . . . . At least you’re keeping true to character. Assassination by contrived failings this time. It wouldn’t be hard to concluded you actually believe this baloney, but in as much as you’ve strung so many distortions on one line it’s clear you’ve given your imagination free rein to its bias. Thing is, Augustus, when you overstate your case it quickly looses all veracity. The mark of a truly rank amateur. Sad, but also amusing.

Augustus wrote

What’s wrong with many ‘rationalists’ (apart from the fact that they vastly overstate their own rationality), is that they feel the need to get caught up in wanky ‘science’ fanboyism. “Oh no! Somebody has tainted the honour of science by claiming it isn’t the omnipotent and omniscient god that I believe it is, stand back whilst I give the scoundrel who defamed her a stern verbal rebuke!”.

The problem is people like you can’t actually differentiate between science (concept), science (practice), scientists, scientific publications, etc. and get themselves into a fankle when anything with some connection to ‘science’ is criticised in any way.

Automatically you jump to the conclusion that this person is either an imbecile or some science-hating Taliban fundamentalist type who wants to ban books and insist the world is flat. “Oh No! Augustus is trying to ‘asassinate’ science. He must be stopped!”.

The biggest danger with playing the pompous, wanky fanboy card though is that you end up looking like a bit of a trumpet if you are wrong.

The points I made are frequently raised by more enlightened people involved with sciences and academia and have been mentioned in scientific journals and discussion for a long time. You can read up on it if you want to know more, it’s an interesting, but worrying, topic.

Now, as a ‘truly rank amateur’, a ‘truly rank amateur’ that has ‘evidently never read an academic journal in my life’ ‘let alone understood one’, how long do you think it would take me to find support for what I said from within an actual scientific journal? [Hint: I already did it, took me about 6 seconds].

Now I wouldn’t want to patronise someone as knowledgable as yourself by posting a link. I assume you will be able to find one far more easily than a truly rank juvenile amateur such as myself. Please let me know if you enjoyed the read though and if your views have changed as a result of it.

If you can’t find anything though and would like a helping hand all you need to do is ask: “Hi Augustus. Sorry, it seems I was wrong in saying you were a ‘sad but amusing truly rank juvenile amateur who speaks manufactured crap’. It has come to my attention that you have read at least 1 academic journal article. Would you be kind enough to share with me the article so I can understand why my pompous, wanky fanboyism was misguided? Thanks in advance. Jojom xx”

Just to remind you of my claims:

In many areas termed ‘science’ much if not most published material is wrong… frequently due to things such as poor methodology, poor maths, deliberate misrepresentation for professional or financial advancement and wishful thinking.

Happy hunting!

paarsurrey liked the above post.

“Do you believe you exist?” Atheists to answer

I have written a post on the following blog of uncleE; the viewers could add their valuable comments here even if they differ.
“Is there a God?”
“How can we know if God exists? Do philosophical arguments help?”
http://www.is-there-a-god.info/blog/clues/how-can-we-know-if-god-exists-do-philosophical-arguments-help/

“Is there a God?”
“How can we know if God exists? Do philosophical arguments help?”

http://www.is-there-a-god.info/blog/clues/how-can-we-know-if-god-exists-do-philosophical-arguments-help/
http://www.is-there-a-god.info/blog/clues/how-can-we-know-if-god-exists-do-philosophical-arguments-help/#comment-8843

paarsurrey
MAR 16, 2014 @ 15:34:53

@ Howie
MAR 14, 2014 @ 20:11:55, MAR 15, 2014 @ 01:48:29:

I quote your words:
“Looks like you are arguing that the existence of God is self-evident or as some like to say a “properly basic” belief”
“Have you ever worked through your thoughts on what criteria make up a belief that as you say is “very natural” or as others say self-evident? I have worked through this and can’t say I am right, but I’m interested in your thoughts.”

I submit my response.

I believe that the philosophers with all their wisdom could only conclude to the maximum to the level that “there should be a god”; or “there should not be a god”. They cannot go to high level of “God exists”. Their maximum is the minimum of belief that is required in religion.

Hence I don’t make their thoughts as basis of my belief. It is right my belief in God is one of the basics of my beliefs rather it is the prime belief under which my all other beliefs must follow. This is also true that God is self-evident; no doubt about it but I don’t subscribe to the philosophical terms in vogue in this connection.

But my statement is not a “discussion killer”; it is rather a discussion opener.

When I say one for instance; “Do you believe you exist”? Please prove.

The type of reasons that one will provide that may form a practical genre or basis of our further discussion in the topic.

Please keep in mind that God is not for the scientists or philosophers alone that it is vital for us to follow them and their reasons, approaches and their explorations. They are not on the norm of life; that is why they are called genius; they might be experts in their respective fields but in our topic in hand “Existence of God” they are just laymen; equipped with no tools in this field. God is for everybody.

God is not being invented; that we must need them. He does not need to be invented; He would rather abhor this thought. God is not dependent on their finding Him; humans are dependent on Him, whatever their status.

Anybody searching for Him with the methods of philosophy or tools of science will never find Him:

[6:104] Eyes cannot reach Him but He reaches the eyes. And He is the Incomprehensible, the All-Aware.
[6:105] Proofs have indeed come to you from your Lord; so whoever sees, it is for his own good; and whoever becomes blind, it is to his own harm. And I am not a guardian over you.

http://www.alislam.org/quran/search2/showChapter.php?ch=6&verse=103

The One-True-God (I don’t mean here Jesus or Krishna; they were not gods) never claimed that one could find Him with the methods of philosophy or tools of science; rather their failure with their tools to find him is a proof that He exists.
They have no say in it except for their own selves. God is more or most for the ordinary and or common people, they need Him most.

Please, therefore, answer this little and innocent question.

Do you believe that you exist?

Science vs Scientists’ Philosophies

Paarsurrey says:
Hi friend Daniel Silas

Sorry, I don’t get you; who made these responses and where?
Please elaborate
Thanks

Hold the Line

In response to my previous post, “Evolution vs God.”

Response #1: “There is a plethora of evidence for common descent. Abiogenesis is an infant science however, but evolution doesn’t explain origin of life, just diversity of life.”

There is a plethora of evidence that can be interpreted in various ways by different scientists and observers.

Common descent can not be observed or tested, therefore it is not science.

Abiogenesis can not be observed or tested, therefore it is not science.

Yes, you are right, Darwinian Evolution is one possible explanation for the diversity of life. But, as we can not test or observe the principles of Macroevolution that take place over millions of years, it is not science.

View original post 370 more words

scientists have no business to speak on existence of God

I contributed following post on the discussion forum <http://www.religiousforums.com/forum/> under the thread < What do leading scientists believe about the existence of God?>. I give below the post for the viewers of this blog.

Paarsurrey wrote:

#23 This is not a field of science; so there is no value of any scientist speaking on it; it is as good as a lay man.

#41   Again it is not a valid scientific study to probe into the existence or non-existence of the one true God; science is not equipped to that end; so are the scientists.

It is a matter of religion not of science.

Large Hadron Collider (LHC)

 

The LHC: or how the world’s largest experiment can investigate matter’s smallest constituents

The Royal Society, London

http://royalsociety.org/events/2007/lhc/?gclid=CIn06PGmnrACFdEDQAod2UAdaQ

 

 

I am much fascinated by the experiments being made by the scientists of the world to understand the Work of the one true God; as I am fascinated by the Word of Him revealed on the hearts of perfect human beings like Buddha, Krishna, Zoroaster, Moses, Jesus, Muhammad and Mirza Ghulam Ahmad.

 

I laud the efforts of the scientists be they atheists or theists.

 

Thanks scientists!

Those who don’t repeat scientific experiments themselves have blind faith in science and scientists

I am not against science; I am against those who eulogize science beyond its limit. Science is sought by experiments in the lab; yet how many people among the eulogizers who are not themselves the real scientists repeat those experiments? They don’t repeat them; so their faith in science or the scientists is a blind faith.

I think it is not difficult to understand.

I deny deity to Science and the Scientists; if any

http://forum.richarddawkins.net/viewtopic.php?f=3&t=109230&p=2719722#p2719722

paarsurrey wrote:

Hi friends

I am an ordinary man in the street. I don’t have any claim to scholarship or any piety. I respect scientists; they are intelligent people; they discover and invent things and I am thankful to them. I buy things from the market discovered and invented by them and I am entitled to use those things as I have paid for them. I am grateful to the technicians and other artisans who make things convenient for me and I pay them for their services. I enjoy sports and I pay for that. I enjoy artists; they paint beautiful paintings; and I do pay for their paintings if I like to buy them. They are my partners in my life; but I don’t think I have any reason to prefer one for the other. Why should I consider a Scientist to have any hegemony over me? Science is not the whole of human life; it is only a part of it. The Scientists never create anything from nothing; they only discover things that are very much already in existence in the Universe. I respect the Scientists but I admire, thank and gratify the Creator- God Allah YHWH who had in fact created everything in me and around me. I think I have a right to do so. Am I right?

Thanks

I am an Ahmadi peaceful Muslim

the PC apeman wrote :

Yes, science is just a way of knowing and knowing isn’t the whole of human life. More to the purposes of this forum, do you claim to have a way of knowing other than science?

paarsurrey wrote:

Hi friend the PC apeman

I think science is a product of philosophy; rather it is one branch of philosophy, please correct me if I am wrong. Knowledge could be acquired by many means never ever limited by Science or patented by the Scientists. I consider this Universe as the Work of the Creator -God Allah YHWH; yes science is a good faculty of human beings; but it exists only as the Universe has a system in its creation which alludes to a Creator of it, in my opinion. Had the Universe not been created / evolved in a natural system; the Scientists would have not been able to bring it in a system or create a system in it? Science, therefore, presupposes things in a system and not chaotic.

Another source of knowledge, to me, rather a superior source is Revelation from the Creator- God Allah YHWH.

When I pay the customary fees to my Physician for the treatment he has given to me; what more morally I am supposed to do or feel about him? After all the Physician is not my god; he gives treatment to me not from anything created by him; but from things already in existence; courtesy the Creator- God Allah YHWH.

I deny deity to Science and the Scientists; if any

Thanks

I am an Ahmadi peaceful Muslim