Christianity could be a higher order way of organizing lives

[Poopadoop]

This describes science, too.

But with science, the beliefs being replaced are also based on evidence. It's not like Newton pulled the theory of gravity out of his ass, the way the Bible's theories of many things are.

Edit: Further, with science, they don't keep telling people to go learn about the theory that's been discredited, unless it has some sort of practical application like Newton's theories have to engineering for example.

The religious equivalent to what science does would be to go back and re-edit the Bible every few years to toss out whatever's been proven to be complete bullshit.

[MadMojoMonkey]

Historically, they only seem to cave on things when the evidence is overwhelming and generally can't be argued against any more.

This describes science, too.

But with science, the beliefs being replaced are also based on evidence. It's not like Newton pulled the theory of gravity out of his ass, the way the Bible's theories of many things are.

What?

[Poopadoop]

What?

I just gave an example of a theory based on evidence (Newton), being replaced by a theory that better explained anomalies in that evidence (Einstein). What do you object to about that argument?

If you can show there was a scientific theory that was based on just whatever storybook the scientist read the previous night, and everyone blindly accepted that theory until it was overwhelmingly proven false, then please do.

[MadMojoMonkey]

I just gave an example of a theory based on evidence (Newton), being replaced by a theory that better explained anomalies in that evidence (Einstein). What do you object to about that argument?

Nothing. Check the underscores in those quotes I quoted.

If you can show there was a scientific theory that was based on just whatever storybook the scientist read the previous night, and everyone blindly accepted that theory until it was overwhelmingly proven false, then please do.

Wait... isn't that your whole profession up to about 20 years ago?


You're gonna have to pin that down, 'cause "the scientist" could cover a toddler jumping in puddles, experimenting on the concept of wetness.


After a brief google search, I couldn't find any direct evidence to corroborate the tales I was told in school, not even the dates of the "era of armchair philosophers," I was told about, so I got nothing.

[Poopadoop]

Wait... isn't that your whole profession up to about 150 years ago?

fyp. Modern psychology was born before Freud was around. Around about the time Broca met Tan.

https://blogs.scientificamerican.com...ed-psychology/

[MadMojoMonkey]

fyp. Modern psychology was born before Freud was around. Around about the time Broca met Tan.

https://blogs.scientificamerican.com...ed-psychology/

A) This means jk.
B) Damn that article's amazing. When they started talking MRI, I was lost for a second, then I was amazed. They still have the brains? And they're still fully intact and scannable?

I'm feeling spiritually awakened by the science!

[Poopadoop]

They still have the brains? And they're still fully intact and scannable?

Yup.

[MadMojoMonkey]

Edit: Further, with science, they don't keep telling people to go learn about the theory that's been discredited, unless it has some sort of practical application like Newton's theories have to engineering for example.

PShh. I wish.
I had to learn about the Dirac sea of electrons, and the Bohr atomic model as well as plenty of physics history.
You still have to learn about Freud's nonsense?

The religious equivalent to what science does would be to go back and re-edit the Bible every few years to toss out whatever's been proven to be complete bullshit.

Sounds like you're trying to make religion and science somehow be similar or do the same thing, and they just don't. There's no reason religion should be updating their stories. Those stories are parables of human nature. The only reason to change them is if human nature changes. I'm not saying it never will, but everything I've learned about anthropology sounds pretty relate-able. The stories in the Bible are often outlandish, but still totally relatable.

[Poopadoop]

PShh. I wish.
I had to learn about the Dirac sea of electrons, and the Bohr atomic model as well as plenty of physics history.
You still have to learn about Freud's nonsense?

At the same time they teach Freud they also teach that it's nonsense. The teaching of his theories is not provided because they want you to accept those theories; it's done because they want you to understand how the field originated and developed. Big difference.

I have yet to see a Bible where it says 'and Noah put two of each animal on his ark (But not really, it's just a story). The Earth is the centre of the universe (except now we know it isn't)', and so on.

Sounds like you're trying to make religion and science somehow be similar or do the same thing, and they just don't.

No, I'm trying to hold them to the same standard of evidence for their claims about things that can be studied.

There's no reason religion should be updating their stories. Those stories are parables of human nature. The only reason to change them is if human nature changes. I'm not saying it never will, but everything I've learned about anthropology sounds pretty relate-able. The stories in the Bible are often outlandish, but still totally relatable.

Aesop's fables are also relatable. But they're constructed in a way so as to make it clear that they're not to be taken as true events that ever happened. Did you ever wonder why they're all about animals? If the Bible were simply a set of parables not meant to be taken literally there are many literary ways to make that abundantly clear to the reader.

[MadMojoMonkey]

At the same time they teach Freud they also teach that it's nonsense. The teaching of his theories is not provided because they want you to accept those theories; it's done because they want you to understand how the field originated and developed. Big difference.

Wasn't everything Freud said "a scientific theory that was based on just whatever storybook he read the previous night, and everyone blindly accepted that theory until it was overwhelmingly proven false?"

I have yet to see a Bible where it says 'and Noah put two of each animal on his ark (But not really, it's just a story). The Earth is the centre of the universe (except now we know it isn't)', and so on.

No, I'm trying to hold them to the same standard of evidence for their claims about things that can be studied.

We have science to do those things. That's not what religion does.

Religion isn't about facts and evidence and measurable things. Religion is about ethics and morals and parables.

Aesop's fables are also relatable. But they're constructed in a way so as to make it clear that they're not to be taken as true events that ever happened. Did you ever wonder why they're all about animals? If the Bible were simply a set of parables not meant to be taken literally there are many literary ways to make that abundantly clear to the reader.

Again, you're asserting that the readers want a different story than the one they have, or that the story they like is the wrong one.

Telling people what they like is folly.

[Poopadoop]

Wasn't everything Freud said "a scientific theory that was based on just whatever storybook he read the previous night, and everyone blindly accepted that theory until it was overwhelmingly proven false?"

No. It was entirely conjecture and understood as such. The fact that some accepted it was because they had no evidence for anything better. Once that evidence was obtained, Freud hit the garbage pail.

[Poopadoop]

Religion isn't about facts and evidence

Not to you, because you're a scientist. To many religious people it is.