# Why God Never Received A P.H.D.



## superhorn

Here's why :

1. He had only one publication .

2. It was in Hebrew .

3. It had no references .

4. It wasn't published in a refereed journal .

5. Some doubt he even wrote it himself .

6. It may be true that he created the world ,
but what has he done since then ?

7. His cooperative efforts have been quite limited .

8. The scientific community has had a hard time replicating
his results .

9. He never applied to the ethics board to use human subjects .

10. When subjects didn't behave as predicted , he deleted them
from the sample .

11. When an experiment went awry , he tried to cover it up by drowning his
subjects .

12. He rarely went to class, and just told his students to read the book .

13. Some say he had his son teach the class .

14. He expelled his first two students for learning 

15. Although there were only ten course requirements,
most of his students failed his tests .

16. His office hours were infrequent and irregular , 
and usually held on a mountain top .





:lol: :lol: :lol: :lol:


----------



## Huilunsoittaja

That's actually very hilarious, taking it as a non-offensive joke.


----------



## kv466

So Jesus, Buddha and Allah walk into a bar....


----------



## Chi_townPhilly

Umm, yeah...

Anyone hear the one about how Adam & Eve had the ideal marriage...

_he_ didn't have to hear about the men she gave up for him- and...

_she_ didn't have to hear about how his mother made it---


----------



## science

It's true but it's a joke too - my father was a preacher, and at one point in his career a church he was at had a scene of the Garden of Eden painted. The painter put a belly button on Adam. The folks almost came to blows over it. They had to get out the old fig leaves to solve the problem.


----------



## Polednice

Adam was in the Garden of Eden, enjoying paradise as any man would, but he was feeling lonely.

Sensing something wasn't quite right, God said to Adam: "What's wrong? I know already, of course, but tell me anyway."

So Adam said to him: "It's hard to describe. I just have a feeling of emptiness, like I need someone to enjoy this paradise _with_."

"Well," said God, "I can do something about that. How would you like it if I created a special human companion for you? Someone with whom you could express your delight at this tantalising paradise. Someone with whom you could share all manner of profound thoughts and feelings, and be always reassured that they're nearby, able to understand you through shared experiences? Someone who, in their own way, would challenge you with their intellect as much as respect you for yours?"

Adam: "How much is that going to cost me?"

God: "Oh, an arm and a leg."

Adam: "What can I get for a rib?"


----------



## Ukko

science said:


> It's true but it's a joke too - my father was a preacher, and at one point in his career a church he was at had a scene of the Garden of Eden painted. The painter put a belly button on Adam. The folks almost came to blows over it. They had to get out the old fig leaves to solve the problem.


That reminded me that navels aren't preserved in the fossil record. But the odds of finding the fossilized Adam are, um, slim anyway.


----------



## Chris

superhorn said:


> Here's why :
> 
> 1. He had only one publication .


Not one but *66* books written over many centuries.



superhorn said:


> 2. It was in Hebrew .


I didn't know the New Testament was written in Hebrew.



superhorn said:


> 3. It had no references .


Buy yourself a Cambridge Reference Bible



superhorn said:


> 4. It wasn't published in a refereed journal .


God has no peers. 'As the heavens are higher than the earth, so are my ways higher than your ways and my thoughts than your thoughts' Isaiah 55:9



superhorn said:


> 5. Some doubt he even wrote it himself .


Such people have been around for a long time:

'When you [the disciples, sent by Jesus] enter a town and are not welcomed, go into its streets and say "Even the dust of your town that sticks to our feet we wipe off against you. Yet be sure of this: The Kingdom of God is near." I tell you, it will be more bearable on that day for Sodom than for that town.'



superhorn said:


> 6. It may be true that he created the world ,
> but what has he done since then ?


Fed you, for one thing:

'He causes his sun to rise on the evil and the good, and sends rain on the righteous and the unrighteous' Matthew 5:45

and

'The Son is the radiance of God's glory and the exact representation of his being, *sustaining all things* by his powerful word' Hebrews 1:3



superhorn said:


> 7. His cooperative efforts have been quite limited .


See 4



superhorn said:


> 8. The scientific community has had a hard time replicating
> his results .


'Clouds and thick darkness surround him; righteousness and justice are the foundation of his throne' Psalm 97:2



superhorn said:


> 9. He never applied to the ethics board to use human subjects .


'Who are you, O man, to talk back to God? "Shall what is formed say to him who formed it, 'Why did you make me like this?'" Does not the potter have the right to make out of the same lump of clay some pottery for noble purposes and some for common use?' Romans 9:21



superhorn said:


> 10. When subjects didn't behave as predicted , he deleted them
> from the sample .


The soul cannot be 'deleted':

'Multitudes who sleep in the dust of the earth will awake: some to *everlasting* life, others to shame and *everlasting* contempt' Daniel 12:2



superhorn said:


> 11. When an experiment went awry , he tried to cover it up by drowning his
> subjects .


The wicked do not thwart God. 'For the Scripture says to Pharaoh: I raised you up for this very purpose, that I might display my power in you and that my name might be proclaimed in all the earth"' Romans 9:17



superhorn said:


> 12. He rarely went to class, and just told his students to read the book .


That's because...

'All scripture is God-breathed and is useful for teaching, rebuking, correcting and training in righteousness' 2 Timothy 3:16



superhorn said:


> 13. Some say he had his son teach the class .


You may be face to face with that Son sooner than you think:

'We must all appear before the judgment seat of Christ, that each one may receive what is due to him for the things done while in the body, whether good or bad' 2 Corinthians 5:10



superhorn said:


> 14. He expelled his first two students for learning


Aposiopesis?



superhorn said:


> 15. Although there were only ten course requirements,
> most of his students failed his tests .


They all failed. 'For all have sinned and fall short of the glory of God' Romans 3:23



superhorn said:


> 16. His office hours were infrequent and irregular ,
> and usually held on a mountain top .


All of God is present in all places at all times:

'Where can I go from your Spirit? Where can I flee from your presence? If I go up to the heavens you are there; if I make my bed in the depths, you are there' Psalm 139:7


----------



## Art Rock

Oh and it is Ph.D., not P.H.D.


----------



## Fsharpmajor

God was having a discussion with a lawyer. God said, "I created the Heavens and the Earth from chaos, you know."

The lawyer replied, "Maybe so, but it was I who created the chaos."


----------



## regressivetransphobe

Reason 17: there has been some controversy over his followers' murder of millions.


----------



## Guest

regressivetransphobe said:


> Reason 17: there has been some controversy over his followers' murder of millions.


Wow, from innocent good-natured humor to the standard religion-bashing. Some people can't help themselves.


----------



## Ukko

regressivetransphobe said:


> Reason 17: there has been some controversy over his followers' murder of millions.


Technical question: should that 'murder' be plural? Non-technical statement: whoever those followers were following, it wasn't God.


----------



## Guest

Polednice said:


> Adam was in the Garden of Eden, enjoying paradise as any man would, but he was feeling lonely.
> 
> Sensing something wasn't quite right, God said to Adam: "What's wrong? I know already, of course, but tell me anyway."
> 
> So Adam said to him: "It's hard to describe. I just have a feeling of emptiness, like I need someone to enjoy this paradise _with_."
> 
> "Well," said God, "I can do something about that. How would you like it if I created a special human companion for you? Someone with whom you could express your delight at this tantalising paradise. Someone with whom you could share all manner of profound thoughts and feelings, and be always reassured that they're nearby, able to understand you through shared experiences? Someone who, in their own way, would challenge you with their intellect as much as respect you for yours?"
> 
> Adam: "How much is that going to cost me?"
> 
> God: "Oh, an arm and a leg."
> 
> Adam: "What can I get for a rib?"


I heard this one a while back, and will still tell it to my wife from time to time.


----------



## Huilunsoittaja

@Chris :clap::clap::clap:
:angel:


----------



## Polednice

The humourlessness of some people never ceases to amaze.


----------



## Chrythes

And the infinite blindness!


----------



## Ukko

Polednice said:


> The humourlessness of some people never ceases to amaze.


You are such an innocent. Religion is a serious matter; souls are at stake.

[_Chris_' response is an exercise in scholarship; a sense of humor _or the lack of it_ is not evident in his post.


----------



## Kopachris

Funny, as long as no one takes it seriously. Once people start taking it seriously, all I can say is: _And why does it matter that God never received a Ph.D?_


----------



## Polednice

Hilltroll72 said:


> You are such an innocent. Religion is a serious matter; souls are at stake.
> 
> [_Chris_' response is an exercise in scholarship; a sense of humor _or the lack of it_ is not evident in his post.


I like the fact that I am never sure with you when you're being serious. Keeps me on my toes!


----------



## Dodecaplex

*Reason 18*: He slept through   his biology and logic classes.


----------



## superhorn

One day, God decided that he was terribly exhausted from working too hard, so he decided to take a vacation. He went to Saint Peter at the Pearly Gates and asked for a suggestion on where he might go for some R& R.
Saint Peter said "How about the planet Mercury ?" God : "No, it's much too hot there and there's not enough gravity." "How about Jupiter?" "No, it's much too big, and the gravity is so strong it hurts my back".
"I know - how about hearth ? It's such a cool place with so many great things you could do". God : "Earth? Are you kidding ? 2,000 years ago I had an affair with a nice Jewish girl there, and they're still talking about it !" 






:lol: :lol: :lol: :lol:


----------



## Ukko

Polednice said:


> I like the fact that I am never sure with you when you're being serious. Keeps me on my toes!


Thanks. Ambiguity is my specialty. And your recognition of it indicates that your language studies have/are paying off. :devil:

My personal opinion - that organized religion is mostly good on the bottom and unrelievedly very bad on the top - doesn't play well in Des Moines. So I try to be extra ambiguous on the subject. If this practice results in  for the readers, at least the Stake & ******* are less likely.


----------



## Ukko

superhorn said:


> One day, God decided that he was terribly exhausted from working too hard, so he decided to take a vacation. He went to Saint Peter at the Pearly Gates and asked for a suggestion on where he might go for some R& R.
> Saint Peter said "How about the planet Mercury ?" God : "No, it's much too hot there and there's not enough gravity." "How about Jupiter?" "No, it's much too big, and the gravity is so strong it hurts my back".
> "I know - how about hearth ? It's such a cool place with so many great things you could do". God : "Earth? Are you kidding ? 2,000 years ago I had an affair with a nice Jewish girl there, and they're still talking about it !"
> 
> :lol: :lol: :lol: :lol:


Peter had a church built on top of him. I doubt that he's got a look at any planets.


----------



## HarpsichordConcerto

PhD is hard work. Writing the Bible is far, far easier - you don't need any education to write the Bible.


----------



## Kopachris

HarpsichordConcerto said:


> PhD is hard work. Writing the Bible is far, far easier - you don't need any education to write the Bible.


I respectfully disagree. You need an education to write anything.


----------



## Ukko

Kopachris said:


> I respectfully disagree. You need an education to write anything.


HC is right. The Bible is already written; translated into umpteen languages and several versions. All he need do is copy; no comprehension required. On the other hand, a doctorate in Basket Weaving requires independent study - and at least a modicum of dexterity. The culminating thesis must be a bitch.


----------



## Kopachris

Hilltroll72 said:


> HC is right. The Bible is already written; translated into umpteen languages and several versions. All he need do is copy; no comprehension required. On the other hand, a doctorate in Basket Weaving requires independent study - and at least a modicum of dexterity. The culminating thesis must be a bitch.


Someone had to write it (or some of its constituent books) originally, and that person needed some level of education. At the very least, he needed to know how to write Hebrew or Greek.


----------



## Ukko

Kopachris said:


> Someone had to write it (or some of its constituent books) originally, and that person needed some level of education. At the very least, he needed to know how to write Hebrew or Greek.


Fap. I am ambiguous even when I ain't trying. The significant 'he' here is HC.

[I realize that is also ambiguous, but t'hell with it.]


----------



## Couchie

God never got a PhD because he doesn't exist.


----------



## clavichorder

Couchie said:


> God never got a PhD because he doesn't exist.


Here's a new question just for Couchie. What are 10 reasons why Wagner never received a Ph.D?


----------



## Huilunsoittaja

Couchie said:


> God never got a PhD because he doesn't exist.


LOL way to say it bluntly!

But over all I'm actually surprised at seeing more negative responses to a God-degrading joke for once.


----------



## Couchie

clavichorder said:


> Here's a new question just for Couchie. What are 10 reasons why Wagner never received a Ph.D?


Wagner's disestablishmentarianism.


----------



## Sid James

Another reason why God doesn't have a Ph.D. is that he existed before the beginning of time, when there were no universities. & he knows everything anyway, so he doesn't have to have a piece of paper to prove it...


----------



## Sid James

clavichorder said:


> Here's a new question just for Couchie. What are 10 reasons why Wagner never received a Ph.D?


Don't tell Couchie that Wagner never got an Honorary Doctorate but Brahms most certainly did. I know it's different from a Ph.D., but close enough for our purposes here...


----------



## Kopachris




----------



## Polednice

^^ Just in case anybody is dumb enough to take that seriously (I have faith that Kopa posted it ironically, but just in case...  ), make sure you take a look at the history of the banana.


----------



## Ukko

Polednice said:


> ^^ Just in case anybody is dumb enough to take that seriously (I have faith that Kopa posted it ironically, but just in case...  ), make sure you take a look at the history of the banana.


Does this mean you don't believe that the fortuitous mutation was not subtly directed by God's pinky?


----------



## starthrower

Rumor has it every person who has starved to death in this world receives a banana upon entering the pearly gates!


----------



## Ravellian

Topic was hilarious until ruined by Chris. There was absolutely no need for that.


----------



## Ukko

Ravellian said:


> Topic was hilarious until ruined by Chris. There was absolutely no need for that.


If you are referring to his point-by-point response, I thought it was pretty clever. Those 'chapter and verse' things bother you?

The original post is hilarious? Well... if I were a high school sophomore, I might think so too. Not being one, I found Chris' response more amusing, in a sort of bibliotechnical way.

Just because I think the Bible would be a better read if it had been authored by C.S. Lewis doesn't mean there ain't some good stuff in the King James version.


----------



## Guest

I was assigned to read the Book of Job by a high school English teacher that was a vocal atheist and feminist. I think it is naive to suggest that there is nothing of value in the book. There is beautiful poetry, and imagery, if you take the time to understand the method in which the authors of the books (meaning the human ones) wrote.


----------



## Guest

Ravellian said:


> Topic was hilarious until ruined by Chris. There was absolutely no need for that.


You mean when it was simply ridiculing belief in God?


----------



## Klavierspieler

Creationists who know what they're talking about don't usually use the banana argument. 

Anyway, thread getting derailed.


----------



## Polednice

This thread did not set out in the least to devalue the Bible or ridicule belief in God. Insecurity issues, people! Get over it.


----------



## Ravellian

DrMike said:


> You mean when it was simply ridiculing belief in God?


Have you ever heard of comedy? Satire? Lighten up, people. No need to take offense.

And if you think this is ridiculing believers, you should watch George Carlin.


----------



## Ukko

Polednice said:


> This thread did not set out in the least to devalue the Bible or ridicule belief in God. Insecurity issues, people! Get over it.


More like unawareness 'issues', combined with sophomoric 'humor'.

Most coins have two sides. If you wish to pick a side, the callowness of youth is no protection, nor is yuck-yuck humor.

Somewhere back there in the mists of last month, there was some sort of gentleman's agreement to use a group forum for religious stuff; that's gone by the boards already?


----------



## Guest

Ravellian said:


> Have you ever heard of comedy? Satire? Lighten up, people. No need to take offense.
> 
> And if you think this is ridiculing believers, you should watch George Carlin.


Funny, I only remember Hilltroll speaking up when Regressive Transphobe made a comment that veered away from the comedy and satire of the thread, but in a direction that was aimed at religious-minded individuals. I had enjoyed the thread up until that point, especially Polednice's Adam joke.


----------



## Ukko

DrMike said:


> Funny, I only remember Hilltroll speaking up when Regressive Transphobe made a comment that veered away from the comedy and satire of the thread, but in a direction that was aimed at religious-minded individuals. I had enjoyed the thread up until that point, especially Polednice's Adam joke.


Yeah, I liked the Adam's rib thing too. Vaudeville with potential. Liked it enough to pass it on to a gay friend. OK, I eventually had to guide him to the interpretation I had in mind...


----------



## Polednice

DrMike said:


> Funny, I only remember Hilltroll speaking up when Regressive Transphobe made a comment that veered away from the comedy and satire of the thread, but in a direction that was aimed at religious-minded individuals. I had enjoyed the thread up until that point, especially Polednice's Adam joke.


So we can be playfully mean about women, but not God?


----------



## Klavierspieler

Polednice said:


> So we can be playfully mean about women, but not God?


Women are not such a touchy subject...


----------



## Ukko

Polednice said:


> So we can be playfully mean about women, but not God?


Well, it ain't like God gives a damn, but people do. So when you get 'playfully mean about God', you oughta do it so that those people ain't sure you're doing it. Otherwise there's that Religion Group. Of course if you post there, people are going to suspect something.


----------



## Polednice

I would have thought the opening idea of God _getting a PhD_ (ffs!) would make it extremely obvious that nothing was meant sincerely...


----------



## Guest

Polednice said:


> So we can be playfully mean about women, but not God?


No, not what I mean. I had no problem with the initial joke, or with most of the other jokes. But the example I cited from RT wasn't really a joke (unless my sense of humor is really screwed up). In fact, I was going to post one of my favorite religion jokes from Emo Phillips. My comment was related to the fact that RT posted a comment that turned a fun and light-hearted thread into a serious jab at religion, and only HillTroll (and I) said anything about it. But when Chris made a serious comment, then there are several comments that he should lighten up (again, with HillTroll speaking up in his defense). It is about hypocrisy, nothing more. I'm all for all the good-natured jokes.


----------



## Guest

A great joke, from Emo Phillips:


> Once I saw this guy on a bridge about to jump. I said, "Don't do it!" He said, "Nobody loves me." I said, "God loves you. Do you believe in God?"
> 
> He said, "Yes." I said, "Are you a Christian or a Jew?" He said, "A Christian." I said, "Me, too! Protestant or Catholic?" He said, "Protestant." I said, "Me, too! What franchise?" He said, "Baptist." I said, "Me, too! Northern Baptist or Southern Baptist?" He said, "Northern Baptist." I said, "Me, too! Northern Conservative Baptist or Northern Liberal Baptist?"
> 
> He said, "Northern Conservative Baptist." I said, "Me, too! Northern Conservative Baptist Great Lakes Region, or Northern Conservative Baptist Eastern Region?" He said, "Northern Conservative Baptist Great Lakes Region." I said, "Me, too!"
> 
> Northern Conservative†Baptist Great Lakes Region Council of 1879, or Northern Conservative Baptist Great Lakes Region Council of 1912?" He said, "Northern Conservative Baptist Great Lakes Region Council of 1912." I said, "Die, heretic!" And I pushed him over.


----------



## Polednice

DrMike said:


> No, not what I mean. I had no problem with the initial joke, or with most of the other jokes. But the example I cited from RT wasn't really a joke (unless my sense of humor is really screwed up). In fact, I was going to post one of my favorite religion jokes from Emo Phillips. My comment was related to the fact that RT posted a comment that turned a fun and light-hearted thread into a serious jab at religion, and only HillTroll (and I) said anything about it. But when Chris made a serious comment, then there are several comments that he should lighten up (again, with HillTroll speaking up in his defense). It is about hypocrisy, nothing more. I'm all for all the good-natured jokes.


Ah, I see. I actually didn't pay any attention to RT's response, as Chris posted first and I got caught up in the aftermath of that. But, yes, you're right!


----------



## Ukko

Polednice said:


> I would have thought the opening idea of God _getting a PhD_ (ffs!) would make it extremely obvious that nothing was meant sincerely...


_DrMike_ just now covered that point. I am not a God-protector, but the hypocrisy of accepting jabs in only one direction does annoy me, and turning a (very moderately) humorous thread into religious-bashing is just a backslide into last month's contretemps and even more annoying. I have set a limit on the population of my 'ignore' list. When it's exceeded, I figure TC is no better than RMCR, and I should resort to contemplating my navel for entertainment.

[My navel is an 'inner', so there aren't even any visible topographical irregularities to ponder. That future is therefor bleak.]


----------



## Guest

A Catholic, a Mormon, and a Southern Baptist are all discussing the upcoming college football season.

The Catholic says: Notre Dame is going to win the title. We have the pure, original game of football.
The Mormon says: Your versions of football have been perverted, we have restored it to its originally intended form, and therefore BYU will be the next national champion..
The Baptist says: Y'all are goin' to hell. SEC rules!


----------



## Guest

Hilltroll72 said:


> _DrMike_ just now covered that point. I am not a God-protector, but the hypocrisy of accepting jabs in only one direction does annoy me, and turning a (very moderately) humorous thread into religious-bashing is just a backslide into last month's contretemps and even more annoying. I have set a limit on the population of my 'ignore' list. When it's exceeded, I figure TC is no better than RMCR, and* I should resort to contemplating my navel for entertainment*.


Now that all depends on just how impressive your belly button lint collection is!


----------



## Igneous01

slightly off-topic, but its funny:

LISZT EFFECT: Child speaks rapidly and extravagantly, but never really says anything important.
BRUCKNER EFFECT: Child speaks very slowly and repeats himself frequently. Gains reputation for profundity.
WAGNER EFFECT: Child becomes a megalomaniac. May eventually marry his sister.
MAHLER EFFECT: Child continually screams - at great length and volume that he’s dying.
SCHOENBERG EFFECT: Child never repeats a word until he’s used all the other words in his vocabulary. Sometimes talks backwards. Eventually, people stop listening to him. Child blames them for their inability to understand him.
BABBITT EFFECT: Child gibbers nonsense all the time. Eventually, people stop listening to him. Child doesn’t care because all his playmates think he’s cool.
IVES EFFECT: the child develops a remarkable ability to carry on several separate conversations at once.
GLASS EFFECT: the child tends to repeat himself over and over and over and over and over and over and over and over and over and over and over and over and over again.
STRAVINSKY EFFECT: the child is prone to savage, guttural and profane outbursts that often lead to fighting and pandemonium in the preschool.
BRAHMS EFFECT: the child is able to speak beautifully as long as his sentences contain a multiple of three words (3, 6, 9, 12, etc). However, his sentences containing 4 or 8 words are strangely uninspired.
AND THEN OF COURSE, THE CAGE EFFECT — CHILD SAYS NOTHING FOR 4 MINUTES, 33 SECONDS. PREFERRED BY 9 OUT OF 10 CLASSROOM TEACHERS.


----------



## Guest

Two guys walk into a bar. The third guy ducks . . .


----------



## Ukko

DrMike said:


> Two guys walk into a bar. The third guy ducks . . .


 Well, I suppose _Igneous_ opened the door...


----------



## Guest

Did you hear about the dyslexic agnostic insomniac?

He would sit up all night wondering if there was a dog.


----------



## Klavierspieler

Typical Washingtonian joke:

God had been missing for a whole week and the angels couldn't figure out where he'd gone. Finally, Michael found him sitting on top of a mountain.

"Look at this world that I've made, Michael. It's a world of balance, order, and variety. Look around, I've made lush valleys, arid deserts and beautiful forests; vast oceans and strong rivers."

"It's beautiful, Lord!"

"But you haven't seen the best of it! Look here; this is Washington state, the most beautiful place on Earth. There's a bit of everything here."

"But Lord; I thought you said there was going to be balance in this world, how can that be with all this beauty compacted into just one little area?"

"Well, I did create another Washington..."


----------



## Igneous01

DrMike said:


> Did you hear about the dyslexic agnostic insomniac?
> 
> He would sit up all night wondering if there was a dog.


hmm, I could've sworn I heard him barking....


----------



## Ukko

DrMike said:


> Did you hear about the dyslexic agnostic insomniac?
> 
> He would sit up all night wondering if there was a dog.


 Better.


----------



## starthrower

A god and a dog are the only two beings you can turn to when you've made such a mess of your life that nobody else will listen to you!


----------



## Ukko

starthrower said:


> A god and a dog are the only two beings you can turn to when you've made such a mess of your life that nobody else will listen to you!


You can sometimes get them to listen, but when they start answering, lookout. The dog has a better chance of getting through the static than the god does, because you can see and hear him. That voice from the burning bush... ?


----------



## science

Or the still small voice - a Bible story that ought to be counted among the great ones.


----------



## jalex

Klavierspieler said:


> Creationists who know what they're talking about


In all seriousness, which ones are those?


----------



## superhorn

A priest is invited to dinner by a couple in his parish . When he meets their little boy he asks him "Young man, do you say your prayers at meals every day ?" 
The kid responds, "Nah, I don't have to . My Mom's a good cook !" 








:lol: :lol: :lol: :lol:


----------



## Ukko

jalex said:


> In all seriousness, which ones are those?


There are a host of them. They have carefully - and more than once - read the Bible. They _know_ what they are talking about. For them, the Bible and the scientific interpretation of the fossil record represent _belief systems_. By the Belief System standard, the Bible has more authority than a bunch of scientists.


----------



## jalex

Hilltroll72 said:


> There are a host of them. They have carefully - and more than once - read the Bible. They _know_ what they are talking about. For them, the Bible and the scientific interpretation of the fossil record represent _belief systems_. By the Belief System standard, the Bible has more authority than a bunch of scientists.


If they think science is just a belief system in the same sense that faith-based religions are belief systems then they don't know what they are talking about.


----------



## Ukko

jalex said:


> If they think science is just a belief system in the same sense that faith-based religions are belief systems then they don't know what they are talking about.


In order to understand the situation, you need to 'step outside' _your_ belief system. It's a fairly basic maneuver in philosophy; can you do it?


----------



## Polednice

Hilltroll72 said:


> In order to understand the situation, you need to 'step outside' _your_ belief system. It's a fairly basic maneuver in philosophy; can you do it?


But we're not dealing with alternate belief systems. Belief systems include: monotheisms, polytheisms, deisms, atheism. Belief systems do not include: the scientific method.


----------



## starthrower

C'mon folks, let's get back to some lighthearted joking around. This thread wasn't started to kick off a serious philosophical discussion.


----------



## Lunasong

Four Catholic ladies are having coffee together. The first one tells her friends, "My son is a priest. When he walks into a room, everyone calls him 'Father'. The second Catholic woman chirps, "My son is a bishop. Whenever he walks into a room, people say, 'Your Grace'." The third Catholic woman says smugly, "My son is a cardinal. Whenever he walks into a room, people say, 'Your Eminence'." The fourth Catholic woman sips her coffee in silence. The first three women give her this subtle "Well...?" She replies, "My son is a gorgeous, 6'2", hard-bodied stripper... Whenever he walks into a room, people say, 'Oh my God...'."


----------



## Ukko

Polednice said:


> But we're not dealing with alternate belief systems. Belief systems include: monotheisms, polytheisms, deisms, atheism. Belief systems do not include: the scientific method.


Sorry guy, you don't get the free pass. If you believe that the scientific method has The Answer, that's your belief system.


----------



## Polednice

Hilltroll72 said:


> Sorry guy, you don't get the free pass. If you believe that the scientific method has The Answer, that's your belief system.


I didn't say anything about what I think the scientific method 'has' or doesn't 'have'. I'm talking about _the method_, not human perception of it. Belief systems are human perceptions of the world, the scientific method is not.


----------



## Ukko

starthrower said:


> C'mon folks, let's get back to some lighthearted joking around. This thread wasn't started to kick off a serious philosophical discussion.


It's a common phenomenon known as 'thread drift', often caused by responses to stimuli.


----------



## Ukko

Polednice said:


> I didn't say anything about what I think the scientific method 'has' or doesn't 'have'. I'm talking about _the method_, not human perception of it. Belief systems are human perceptions of the world, the scientific method is not.


They are inseparable. Try to examine _scientific method_ without your quasi-religious faith in it.


----------



## Polednice

Hilltroll72 said:


> They are inseparable. Try to examine _scientific method_ without your quasi-religious faith in it.


I think it might be more fruitful for you to question your quasi-religious denial of its power when it is the scientific method that gives you technology and has the ability to keep you in good health. The scientific method has an innumerable manifestation of real-world results - transport, medicine, entertainment - belief systems have no such tangible qualities. A second's thought should allow you to see how they are entirely separable and necessarily so.


----------



## myaskovsky2002

18. God also created the pleasure...but He asked the man to take pleasure without annoying/disturbing others...the man is still thinking how can he do that.

Martin, daydreaming


----------



## Ukko

Polednice said:


> I think it might be more fruitful for you to question your quasi-religious denial of its power when it is the scientific method that gives you technology and has the ability to keep you in good health. The scientific method has an innumerable manifestation of real-world results - transport, medicine, entertainment - belief systems have no such tangible qualities. A second's thought should allow you to see how they are entirely separable and necessarily so.


Too bad my PM to you crossed this post in the ether. If you wish to copy it here, I understand; if you don't wish to, I understand.


----------



## Polednice

Hilltroll72 said:


> Too bad my PM to you crossed this post in the ether. If you wish to copy it here, I understand; if you don't wish to, I understand.


It's all right - I've responded by PM.

To our honourable members: Hilltroll and I are still good chums.


----------



## Almaviva

This thread and the way it's evolving would be a better fit for our Religion social group.


----------



## Ukko

Poley and I have ended our debate (I won), so maybe that drastic step will be unnecessary.


----------



## Lunasong

Jesus and Moses get together for a little reunion. Moses says, "I haven't parted a sea in a long time." So he raises his hands, and a sea parts. He looks at Jesus and says, "Damn, that was fun." So Jesus looks at Moses and says, "I haven't walked across water in a long time." Jesus starts to walk on water. He gets out about 10 feet and sinks, so he swims back in. "What the hell went wrong? I'm gonna try again." This time he gets out about 20 feet, and he sinks, so he swims back in. "I still don't know what happened; I'm gonna try one more time." He gets out about 30 feet and sinks, so he swims back in. He looks right at Moses and says, "I know why I can't do it. The last time I tried it, I didn't have holes in my feet."


----------



## Chrythes

And i thought Moses was trolling Jesus by parting the water under his feet.


----------



## Polednice

Chrythes said:


> And i thought Moses was trolling Jesus by parting the water under his feet.


Ditto! 

Textual fillingness.


----------



## science

Ok, another religion joke, this time from the Eastern Orthodox tradition. 


Two guys were crawling, starving and dehydrated, through a desert, on the verge of death. By luck, they happened upon a half-rotten corpse. 

"I don't know about you," one said, "But I'm just too hungry. I've got to eat something." 

The other said, "Not me. I'm going to wait longer. Hopefully we'll find something better before long."

So the first guy chowed down, and the second guy waited, and then they resumed their pathetic crawling through the desert. Predictably perhaps, the first guy got sick, threw up everything he'd eaten. 

"Oh, thank God!" the second guy said. "I really wanted a warm meal."

Ok, that's not particularly Eastern Orthodox, but it was told to me by a priest, so there's that. 

The best religion joke I know is Asimov's joke about the rabbi who skipped shabbat to go golfing, so God punished him by having him hit holes-in-one, stroke after stroke after stroke. Moses looked at God and said, "You call that punishment?" God replied, "Who can he tell?"


----------



## science

BTW as a friend of and believer in the scientific method, I would enjoy Hilltroll and Polednice posting their thoughts on one of the boards - perhaps the religion group, perhaps the politics group, maybe even the history group could be used for this purpose.


----------



## Ukko

science said:


> BTW as a friend of and believer in the scientific method, I would enjoy Hilltroll and Polednice posting their thoughts on one of the boards - perhaps the religion group, perhaps the politics group, maybe even the history group could be used for this purpose.


Our debate didn't produce agreement. I think my argument in the PM sailed over his head, _Poley_ thinks it was more of a pop fly over the backstop. Since I couldn't educate _Poley_, the thought of attempting to educate the masses is, is very tiring.

:devil:


----------



## Polednice

I'm afraid that, now it's Monday again, I'm back on my no-TC diet. Except for right now of course...

Maybe I'll enlighten you folks at the weekend.


----------



## Ukko

Polednice said:


> I'm afraid that, now it's Monday again, I'm back on my no-TC diet. Except for right now of course...
> 
> Maybe I'll enlighten you folks at the weekend.


Well, maybe I will join in at that time.

As a teaser: It is one thing to believe in the efficacy of the scientific method. It is very much another thing to _believe in_ the scientific method. The Method works very well as a _stiffener_ for Pure Logic. The Method doesn't work at all well if its first two steps can't be adequately formulated. If this inadequacy is not recognized, the Method becomes a belief system.

I don't consider this to be a religious debate, except peripherally. _Poley_ defines religions (and atheism) as belief systems, but rejects the proposition that the Method has taken on that characteristic. Hence the disagreement.


----------



## science

So what is the distinction between "to believe in the efficacy of" and "to believe in" - and is this a distinction that only applies to science / the scientific method or to things in general? 

Are we distinguishing between "science" and "the scientific method?" 

Is "the scientific method" the 6th-grade textbook version, or are we referencing some more subtle philosophy? 

Perhaps if I know all this, I'll be able to understand why "pure logic" and "the method" are capitalized.

If you think a PM is more appropriate, that's fine.


----------



## Polednice

Hilltroll72 said:


> Well, maybe I will join in at that time.
> 
> As a teaser: It is one thing to believe in the efficacy of the scientific method. It is very much another thing to _believe in_ the scientific method. The Method works very well as a _stiffener_ for Pure Logic. The Method doesn't work at all well if its first two steps can't be adequately formulated. If this inadequacy is not recognized, the Method becomes a belief system.
> 
> I don't consider this to be a religious debate, except peripherally. _Poley_ defines religions (and atheism) as belief systems, but rejects the proposition that the Method has taken on that characteristic. Hence the disagreement.


Why did you have to say anything? Now I'm forced to respond!

I just don't understand who you're accusing of having a 'belief' in the scientific method and when. As I said earlier, I have a 'belief' in the efficacy of the scientific method because it has brought me the laptop that sits in front of me. I do not have a 'belief' in other systems of thought because they are not evidence based and provide no tangible results.

I think perhaps that, fundamentally, you are being a bit hazy in your use of the word 'belief'. 'Belief' in the context of a religious discussion is 'faith in X despite a lack of evidence'. So what are you saying? That people have a faith in the scientific method despite a lack of evidence that.... what?

Until I understand quite what you're stating, I can't argue much more. I will repeat here what I said to you in a PM though that, with regards to the religious discussion, religions fundamentally make truth claims about the way the universe is and there is an overwhelming array of evidence that the scientific method is a million gazillion times better a way of working out how the universe works. It has no definitive answer, of course, but we would be wise to hold off on any answer at all rather than choose some arbitrary 'belief' on the basis of natal geography or some other chance event!


----------



## science

I suspect that Polednice and I are about 85% in agreement, so I'll withdraw my questions for awhile and see where this goes.


----------



## Guest

The scientific method is a method - nothing more. It is a means by which a thing can be tested for validity. Is it always 100% effective? No. It is as fallible as those who employ it.

I can be a firm believer in fermentation - but that doesn't mean that every bottle of wine is a keeper. Science has its limitations - usually those limitations are our capabilities for making scientific observations. Prior to the advent of lenses and our understanding of optics, our knowledge of the world that was smaller than what our naked eye could resolve was very limited. Prior to our capabilities of culturing microbes were developed, our knowledge of infectious diseases was limited.

The scientific method is fine in so far as what it is. I don't "believe" in the scientific method - I use it. It is a tool - like a calculator or a computer. Within the parameters for which it is designed, it is very effective. Outside of that, it is less effective.


----------



## Polednice

The scientific method may have its flaws, as does everything, but there is certainly no _better_ way of attempting to answer questions about the world that surrounds us. We may not always get the right answer, or even an answer at all, but you can be sure that if we use any other method, we're bound to be wrong.


----------



## Philip

your imagination is excellent.

www.google.com/search?q=Why+God+Never+Received+A+P.H.D.



superhorn said:


> Here's why :
> 
> 1. He had only one publication .
> 
> 2. It was in Hebrew .
> 
> 3. It had no references .
> 
> 4. It wasn't published in a refereed journal .
> 
> 5. Some doubt he even wrote it himself .
> 
> 6. It may be true that he created the world ,
> but what has he done since then ?
> 
> 7. His cooperative efforts have been quite limited .
> 
> 8. The scientific community has had a hard time replicating
> his results .
> 
> 9. He never applied to the ethics board to use human subjects .
> 
> 10. When subjects didn't behave as predicted , he deleted them
> from the sample .
> 
> 11. When an experiment went awry , he tried to cover it up by drowning his
> subjects .
> 
> 12. He rarely went to class, and just told his students to read the book .
> 
> 13. Some say he had his son teach the class .
> 
> 14. He expelled his first two students for learning
> 
> 15. Although there were only ten course requirements,
> most of his students failed his tests .
> 
> 16. His office hours were infrequent and irregular ,
> and usually held on a mountain top .
> 
> :lol: :lol: :lol: :lol:


----------



## Polednice

I don't think superhorn was professing authorship, was he?


----------



## Ukko

DrMike said:


> The scientific method is a method - nothing more. It is a means by which a thing can be tested for validity. Is it always 100% effective? No. It is as fallible as those who employ it.
> 
> I can be a firm believer in fermentation - but that doesn't mean that every bottle of wine is a keeper. Science has its limitations - usually those limitations are our capabilities for making scientific observations. Prior to the advent of lenses and our understanding of optics, our knowledge of the world that was smaller than what our naked eye could resolve was very limited. Prior to our capabilities of culturing microbes were developed, our knowledge of infectious diseases was limited.
> 
> The scientific method is fine in so far as what it is. I don't "believe" in the scientific method - I use it. It is a tool - like a calculator or a computer. Within the parameters for which it is designed, it is very effective. Outside of that, it is less effective.


You have expressed what I believe is the Sometimes Forgotten Point. The scientific method relies on the accuracy of its first steps. If Observation is unclear, or obscured by prejudice, then the Hypothesis suffers the same deficiencies. Many people who believe they follow scientific method then bung it up by attempting to _prove_ the hypothesis, rather than _disprove it_. In the act of so doing, they have warped a procedure into a belief system.

So... adulterated observation > flawed hypothesis > prejudiced 'proof' = bad science... and sophistry rather than clean logic... and scientific method as a belief system.

The scientific method as belief system has nothing to do with religion, _Poley_ and _Science_, except for the belief system thing.


----------



## Polednice

All you're saying is that the scientific method can be screwed up by people. The people are the problem, not the method itself, which is perfect if applied without mistake.

Again, 'belief' seems to have absolutely nothing to do with any of this...


----------



## Ukko

Polednice said:


> All you're saying is that the scientific method can be screwed up by people. The people are the problem, not the method itself, which is perfect if applied without mistake.
> 
> Again, 'belief' seems to have absolutely nothing to do with any of this...


Jeez, wrong again. The reason the Observation is unclear may be no fault of scientific method; there may be no useful way to make the Observation. Instead of continuing through the procedure, the method should be recognized as invalid. Only *belief* in the Method explains why the procedure is continued.

[In the specific case of religion/atheism there is another _belief_ involved, but that is beside the point I am trying to drive home. Try to put that issue aside.]


----------



## Guest

But I can see HillTroll's point and yours, Polednice. You are right - there shouldn't be anything to do with "belief" as far as the scientific method is concerned, but too often, there is, which, I believe, is HillTroll's point.

The scientific method is a tool to accomplish a task, and it is very effective at that task. Like a hammer, it is in itself, flawless. A hammer is a very effective tool at knocking nails into wood. You can be sure that, used properly, a hammer can be used to join two pieces of wood together through the intermediary of a nail. But a hammer is not the end-all, be-all tool. It cannot do everything. While it can be necessary to build a house, it is not sufficient to build the house. But sometimes people put too much faith in the ability of the scientific method, and do not look to see whether those who use it are using it properly. Just as not every man who wields a hammer is a carpenter, not every person who professes to use the scientific method is scientific. Too often, flawed hypotheses may be tested, incorrect information may be used, or the method itself may be distorted, with people seeking facts to match hypotheses, rather than hypotheses to match facts. And the problem with faith in this is that all too often, people will accept anything arrived at by the "scientific method" as unequivocal truth. True, the scientific method is a very effective method when used properly - perhaps the best we have. But that is what makes it much more dangerous when accepted by blind faith.


----------



## Polednice

I think these are just vague appeals to the notion of 'scientism', which is bunk. Give me an example of a person whose belief system is the scientific method, and I might understand you more.

Anyway, another joke:

I was walking across a bridge one day, and I saw a man standing on the edge, about to jump. I ran over and said: "Stop. Don’t do it."

"Why shouldn’t I?" he asked.

"Well, there’s so much to live for!"

"Like what?"

"Are you religious?"

He said, "Yes."

I said, "Me too. Are you Christian or Buddhist?"

"Christian."

"Me too. Are you Catholic or Protestant?"

"Protestant."

"Me too. Are you Episcopalian or Baptist?"

"Baptist."

"Wow. Me too. Are you Baptist Church of God or Baptist Church of the Lord?"

"Baptist Church of God."

"Me too. Are you original Baptist Church of God, or are you Reformed Baptist Church of God?"

"Reformed Baptist Church of God."

"Me too. Are you Reformed Baptist Church of God, Reformation of 1879, or Reformed Baptist Church of God, Reformation of 1915?"

He said: "Reformed Baptist Church of God, Reformation of 1915."

I said: "Die, heretic scum," and pushed him off.


----------



## Guest

^Ummmm, you might want to look back at post #55, posted by yours truly.


----------



## Ukko

There you go, _DrMike_. Language fluency does it again. My hillbilly approach to explaining the thing is a London fog compared to your exposition. If these guys don't get it now, I give up.


----------



## Polednice

Hilltroll72 said:


> There you go, _DrMike_. Language fluency does it again. My hillbilly approach to explaining the thing is a London fog compared to your exposition. If these guys don't get it now, I give up.


Either I get it and it's a completely useless observation, or I just don't get it.

DrMike, sorry I didn't notice yours - mine has slight differences though.


----------



## Guest

Polednice said:


> Either I get it and it's a completely useless observation, or I just don't get it.
> 
> DrMike, sorry I didn't notice yours - mine has slight differences though.


Either way, it belongs to neither of us, and doesn't have quite the same punch as with the delivery by Emo Phillips himself.


----------



## Polednice

DrMike said:


> Either way, it belongs to neither of us, and doesn't have quite the same punch as with the delivery by Emo Phillips himself.


I just came across on a website a moment ago without a citation. I'll look it up.


----------



## Polednice

Polednice said:


> I just came across on a website a moment ago without a citation. I'll look it up.


I wish I hadn't watched it. I certainly couldn't stand listening to him for more than those few minutes.


----------



## Guest

Polednice said:


> I wish I hadn't watched it. I certainly couldn't stand listening to him for more than those few minutes.


He is hilarious - just a very dry delivery. He looks much different now - spikey hair and goattee, but tsill the same voice.

A lot of his humor goes by very quickly, so you have to stay focused.


----------



## Polednice

DrMike said:


> He is hilarious - just a very dry delivery. He looks much different now - spikey hair and goattee, but tsill the same voice.
> 
> A lot of his humor goes by very quickly, so you have to stay focused.


Dry?! I love dry, and emo sure isn't dry by any account! Bill Hicks was usually dry; in the UK, Stewart Lee is a dry stand-up, as is Jimmy Carr. Emo is the very embodiment of overbearing caricature.

You Americans...


----------



## Ukko

Polednice said:


> Dry?! I love dry, and emo sure isn't dry by any account! Bill Hicks was usually dry; in the UK, Stewart Lee is a dry stand-up, as is Jimmy Carr. Emo is the very embodiment of overbearing caricature.
> 
> You Americans...


Colonials tend to have social deficiencies of that nature. Our culture is in petri dishes.


----------



## mmsbls

Hilltroll72 said:


> The scientific method relies on the accuracy of its first steps. If Observation is unclear, or obscured by prejudice, then the Hypothesis suffers the same deficiencies. Many people who believe they follow scientific method then bung it up by attempting to _prove_ the hypothesis, rather than _disprove it_. In the act of so doing, they have warped a procedure into a belief system.


As with Polednice and science, I probably don't really understand the point you are making. It seems you are saying that sometimes people make mistakes in doing science (for example, poor observations). In that case the results do not agree well with reality. This has happened in the past and will continue to happen in the future. This by itself says nothing about the method used. Hopefully, in the future other people will use the same tool (scientific method) to do better science and get results that help us understand reality better.

As DrMike says, the method is a tool. If one holds a hammer by the head, the tool may not work. That does not make the tool faulty. Luckily, part of science involves continually questioning our understanding and using the scientific method to further test that understanding.

I'm not sure in what sense you use the terms prove and disprove, but in science we never think in terms of proofs. We think in terms of developing more and more support for theories. They are never proved.



Hilltroll72 said:


> So... adulterated observation > flawed hypothesis > prejudiced 'proof' = bad science... and sophistry rather than clean logic... and scientific method as a belief system.


There is occasionally "bad science" done by scientists (cold fusion is an example). Sometimes it involves faulty observations, and often it involves failure to include known science in explaining results (e.g. cold fusion). I simply don't see how that leads to the conclusion that the scientific method has become a belief system. To go back to DrMike's example, a hammer may be used incorrectly, but it never becomes a belief system.


----------



## mmsbls

DrMike said:


> He is hilarious - just a very dry delivery. He looks much different now - spikey hair and goattee, but tsill the same voice.
> 
> A lot of his humor goes by very quickly, so you have to stay focused.


I once saw Emo Philips at an airport waiting to get on a flight. He walked to gate with no flight and no one sitting there, sat down, took out index cards, and started what clearly looked like rehearsing. He was incredibly focused and looked very serious. Obviously comics are very intelligent people who have to practice hard, but the disconnect between seeing Philips performing with the goofy look and voice and seeing him rehearse was striking.


----------



## Ukko

mmsbls said:


> As with Polednice and science, I probably don't really understand the point you are making. It seems you are saying that sometimes people make mistakes in doing science (for example, poor observations). In that case the results do not agree well with reality. This has happened in the past and will continue to happen in the future. This by itself says nothing about the method used. Hopefully, in the future other people will use the same tool (scientific method) to do better science and get results that help us understand reality better.
> 
> As DrMike says, the method is a tool. If one holds a hammer by the head, the tool may not work. That does not make the tool faulty. Luckily, part of science involves continually questioning our understanding and using the scientific method to further test that understanding.
> 
> I'm not sure in what sense you use the terms prove and disprove, but in science we never think in terms of proofs. We think in terms of developing more and more support for theories. They are never proved.
> 
> There is occasionally "bad science" done by scientists (cold fusion is an example). Sometimes it involves faulty observations, and often it involves failure to include known science in explaining results (e.g. cold fusion). I simply don't see how that leads to the conclusion that the scientific method has become a belief system. To go back to DrMike's example, a hammer may be used incorrectly, but it never becomes a belief system.


Never mind. It is becoming apparent that my thinking is in a universe far, far away. How I've survived so long in this one is a _mystery_ that will probably die with me.

There may be more of us out there - souls adrift in the cosmos, thinking weird thoughts - without the stimulus of peyote buttons.


----------



## Kopachris

Hilltroll72 said:


> Never mind. It is becoming apparent that my thinking is in a universe far, far away. How I've survived so long in this one is a _mystery_ that will probably die with me.
> 
> There may be more of us out there - souls adrift in the cosmos, thinking weird thoughts - without the stimulus of peyote buttons.


I know how you feel.

O Zarathustra, I know all: and that you were _lonelier_ among the crowd, you solitary, than you ever were with me!

"Loneliness is one thing, solitude another: you have learned _that_-now! And that among men you will always be wild and strange:

"wild and strange, even when they love you: for above all they want to be _indulged_!

*"But here you are at your own hearth and home; here you can utter everything and pour our every reason, nothing is here ashamed of hidden, hardened feelings.

"Here all things come caressingly to your discourse and flatter you: for they want to ride upon your back. Upon every image you here ride to every truth.

Here you may speak to all things straight and true: and truly, it sounds as praise to their ears, that someone should speak with all things-honestly!"*


----------



## science

The scientific method reminds me of creationist debate, and probably for a reason. Sometimes science (the talk of "method" makes me leery but "science" is safer ground) temporarily gives us incorrect information - a lot of that is more media nonsense than good science, but still, science is not infallible. That's a good point I suppose, except that no one has ever argued that science is infallible. So it's not a profound point really.

The profound point is this: all reliable knowledge ever acquired in the entire history of humanity was acquired with scientific principles (independent verifiability by any skeptical observer; i.e. a failure of the most rigorous skepticism, a failure of all attempts at disconfirmation). Supernatural revelations and arguments from authority have not cured diseases, not put people on the moon, not given us terabyte hard drives, not revealed the existence of galaxies or neutrinos or black holes; have not shown us anything about Sumer or Akhenaton or the Indo-Europeans or the Celts; have not shown us the origin of stars or of the larger chemical elements, or of our planet, or the history of landforms or the history of life. In fact, supernatural revelations and arguments from authority, besides failing to achieve any kind of agreement among themselves, have been consistently wrong about anything objectively verifiable, and have not contributed an ounce to our physical well-being. 

This is not something that fans of arguments from authority or of supernatural revelations - whether we refer to supernatural revelations in general or the particular supernatural revelations of particular traditions - like to admit or reflect on. So they accuse people who point it out of having bad attitudes of some sort, or try to shift back and forth between definitions of "belief" and "faith" so that they can pretend there's no difference between a failure of skepticism and any other belief.

In the end, religion (and any other field that cannot separate itself from supernatural revelations and arguments from authority - astrology and so on) will eventually have to quit trying to make claims that can be independently verified by skeptical observers. What they do for us psychologically and culturally will continue to be done by more careful traditions.


----------



## science

I don't know how we got this far in the thread without my favorite religion joke: 

A new guy walks into a bar somewhere in a highly combustible part of Ireland. The bartender, before serving him anything, asks, "Are you a Protestant or a Catholic?" 

"Atheist," the new guy says. 

The bartender smirks. "Yeah, but are you a Protestant atheist or a Catholic atheist?"

I love that joke because it points out something very important to understand about religion: prior to being about something doctrinal or intellectual, it is about identity.


----------



## Ukko

Kopachris said:


> I know how you feel.
> 
> O Zarathustra, I know all: and that you were _lonelier_ among the crowd, you solitary, than you ever were with me!
> 
> "Loneliness is one thing, solitude another: you have learned _that_-now! And that among men you will always be wild and strange:
> 
> "wild and strange, even when they love you: for above all they want to be _indulged_!
> 
> *"But here you are at your own hearth and home; here you can utter everything and pour our every reason, nothing is here ashamed of hidden, hardened feelings.
> 
> "Here all things come caressingly to your discourse and flatter you: for they want to ride upon your back. Upon every image you here ride to every truth.
> 
> Here you may speak to all things straight and true: and truly, it sounds as praise to their ears, that someone should speak with all things-honestly!"*


:tiphat:

I suppose I should change my avatar, now that I have been recognized


----------



## Chris

science said:


> I love that joke because it points out something very important to understand about religion: prior to being about something doctrinal or intellectual, it is about identity.


This sounds like 'I have convictions, you have opinions, they have prejudices'


----------



## Chris

science said:


> The profound point is this: all reliable knowledge ever acquired in the entire history of humanity was acquired with scientific principles (independent verifiability by any skeptical observer; i.e. a failure of the most rigorous skepticism, a failure of all attempts at disconfirmation). Supernatural revelations and arguments from authority have not cured diseases, not put people on the moon, not given us terabyte hard drives, not revealed the existence of galaxies or neutrinos or black holes; have not shown us anything about Sumer or Akhenaton or the Indo-Europeans or the Celts; have not shown us the origin of stars or of the larger chemical elements, or of our planet, or the history of landforms or the history of life. In fact, supernatural revelations and arguments from authority, besides failing to achieve any kind of agreement among themselves, have been consistently wrong about anything objectively verifiable, and have not contributed an ounce to our physical well-being.


This post puts me in mind of King Nebuchadnezzar gazing at his own achievements and so falling in love with his power and supremacy that he elevates himself to the level of a deity. The difference is that you have generously shared the glory with your fellow man.

You have observed that the Bible contains no instructions for constructing a moon rocket or a hard disk. Observe more closely, particularly in the first four chapters of Genesis, and you will discover why. Adam and Eve were given work to do - tending the Garden of Eden - and were also given a Creation Ordinance to fill the earth, subdue it and rule over it. These instructions were given to Adam and Eve in their innocence, before they introduced sin, death and misery into the world. But I still see implied in those original instructions something that God has built into the human spirit; a need to discover, to invent, to strive to overcome obstacles, and to be creative. It needs a poetic turn of phrase to express what I am trying to say. I can't oblige there, but I hope the meaning is clear. God has given man pretty well every raw material he could want to launch out on what we might call this grand voyage of building and discovery, to say nothing of maintaining fixed physical laws without which nothing would be possible.

It was never God's intention that man would seize on this graceful provision and puff himself up higher than his Creator. But praise God there have been, and still are, discoverers, achievers and creative geniuses who have given the glory to God. Even Nebuchadnezzar had a happy ending.


----------



## science

Chris said:


> This sounds like 'I have convictions, you have opinions, they have prejudices'


Does it?

Richard Dawkins often compares the idea of raising Christian children or Muslim children to ideas like raising Keynesian children or Neo-Ricardian children.

To him, the comparison makes sense, because to him "Christianity" and "Islam" are first of all theories describing the world.

But if we look at the way people of religions everywhere actually practice their religion, the overwhelming majority of them are almost completely unconcerned with doctrines. You can hardly find a Christian who knows what monothelitism, for instance, is; it's only a tiny bit easier to find some who might care a little if it were explained to them. And this is from the tradition that, of all the world's traditions, most highly elevates doctrine/dogma.

Religion is very obviously an identity, although it is tied up in very many other things - which is why Dawkins' comparison is ridiculous. Raising Christian or Muslim children is most directly comparable to raising English or French children.

Intuitively, I think we all know this.

If we could go far enough together, I'd ask you what your theory is about why religion evolved. I'm trying to work that out, and as I do so it is obvious to me that religion is not primarily an intellectual thing. The point is not that people really believe, say, that the wine they drink together has become human blood; the point is that the group of people affirm together that they share the belief - or ritual or whatever - and when it is a belief, it must be in an intrinsically unverifiable thing, so that only group members can experience it, so that the experience of it confirms your membership in the group.


----------



## science

Chris said:


> This post puts me in mind of King Nebuchadnezzar gazing at his own achievements and so falling in love with his power and supremacy that he elevates himself to the level of a deity. The difference is that you have generously shared the glory with your fellow man.
> 
> You have observed that the Bible contains no instructions for constructing a moon rocket or a hard disk. Observe more closely, particularly in the first four chapters of Genesis, and you will discover why. Adam and Eve were given work to do - tending the Garden of Eden - and were also given a Creation Ordinance to fill the earth, subdue it and rule over it. These instructions were given to Adam and Eve in their innocence, before they introduced sin, death and misery into the world. But I still see implied in those original instructions something that God has built into the human spirit; a need to discover, to invent, to strive to overcome obstacles, and to be creative. It needs a poetic turn of phrase to express what I am trying to say. I can't oblige there, but I hope the meaning is clear. God has given man pretty well every raw material he could want to launch out on what we might call this grand voyage of building and discovery, to say nothing of maintaining fixed physical laws without which nothing would be possible.
> 
> It was never God's intention that man would seize on this graceful provision and puff himself up higher than his Creator. But praise God there have been, and still are, discoverers, achievers and creative geniuses who have given the glory to God. Even Nebuchadnezzar had a happy ending.


My goal is never to be wrong about anything ever again. Failing that, to be wrong as rarely as possible.

If you have principles that will help me do so more reliably than those of science, I would be grateful to know of them.


----------



## Ukko

Chris said:


> This post puts me in mind of King Nebuchadnezzar gazing at his own achievements and so falling in love with his power and supremacy that he elevates himself to the level of a deity. The difference is that you have generously shared the glory with your fellow man.
> 
> You have observed that the Bible contains no instructions for constructing a moon rocket or a hard disk. Observe more closely, particularly in the first four chapters of Genesis, and you will discover why. Adam and Eve were given work to do - tending the Garden of Eden - and were also given a Creation Ordinance to fill the earth, subdue it and rule over it. These instructions were given to Adam and Eve in their innocence, before they introduced sin, death and misery into the world. But I still see implied in those original instructions something that God has built into the human spirit; a need to discover, to invent, to strive to overcome obstacles, and to be creative. It needs a poetic turn of phrase to express what I am trying to say. I can't oblige there, but I hope the meaning is clear. God has given man pretty well every raw material he could want to launch out on what we might call this grand voyage of building and discovery, to say nothing of maintaining fixed physical laws without which nothing would be possible.
> 
> It was never God's intention that man would seize on this graceful provision and puff himself up higher than his Creator. But praise God there have been, and still are, discoverers, achievers and creative geniuses who have given the glory to God. Even Nebuchadnezzar had a happy ending.


OK! It is (or should be) useful to pass the highlighter over what God did _not_ do. According to my personal religion He did considerably less than you propose - but that is 'neither here nor there'. It is in fact sufficient - except in some dark recesses in the mind - to observe that humans are a product of this world, evolved into it's dominant higher lifeform. Observations of god-like powers among us are the foundation of 'bad science', though. We are on the whole a beastly bunch.


----------



## Polednice

Chris said:


> You have observed that the Bible contains no instructions for constructing a moon rocket or a hard disk.


Given the context of this discussion, I ought to point out that science/the scientific method don't 'give instructions' on how to build a moon rocket or a hard disk. We're talking about alternative systems to understand the reality we find ourselves in, and science is overwhelmingly superior to anything else, as evidenced by its achievements.


----------



## Ukko

Polednice said:


> Given the context of this discussion, I ought to point out that science/the scientific method don't 'give instructions' on how to build a moon rocket or a hard disk. We're talking about alternative systems to understand the reality we find ourselves in, and science is overwhelmingly superior to anything else, as evidenced by its achievements.


Religion, even at its most intrusive (which is pretty damned intrusive), is only secondarily - maybe thirdly - concerned about understanding "the reality we find ourselves in". Religion has _always_, from the shaman on, been concerned with understanding the _purpose/sense_ of it all. The scientific method formula was probably understood by the talented shaman, but some fairly elementary 'facts of the matter' were unknown to him, and to everybody else then alive.

The shaman -and later the priest - had two main objectives: to get a handle on the truth of the things beyond the things, and to keep a handle on the people around them. Human nature being what it is, the 2nd handle tends to get priority.

Social hierarchies, both religious and secular, tend to become ends in themselves, so the first handle becomes less and less important; that's the way it goes out there, beyond Oxford's hallowed halls. The science community has hierarchies too. The scientific method has been slam-dunked into the midden way many more times than once. If you close one eye, it can look like a religion - _...ligion...ion._

:devil:

ps. _Sid_, how's that for long-winded?


----------



## Taneyev

About God and religion, I've strong principles. But if you don't like it, I can change them.


----------



## Igneous01

I think the easiest way to understand religion and belief systems is that it is a form of escapism. If theres one thing on this earth that separates human from other species is our profound ability to take up belief in faith, hope, and supernatural things. But we do so because we feel different from nature and other species. Tree's dont discriminate, preach, compliment or do any such things, they just are, neither do electrons or atoms or the earth, and we as a species feel confused and left out because of it. 

The original purpose of religion (as Hilltroll said with the beginning of Shamans and the early cults) was that it was to find our purpose of being in this universe, and stewardship for the Earth. It was believed we had a responsibility for this planet and the life on it because of our awareness and choice.

If you want examples of what religion has done for humans, it would have to be:
- escapism
- imagination (think: Greek Mythology)
- Philosophy
- Which ties in with - trying to find the answers for our purpose in life

Science does not look for answers to these things because thats not what it was intended to be. The purpose of science was to describe what is happening around us and why/how it works. Purpose of religion was to describe what our purpose of being on this planet is (atleast, the original intent of it).

So, while science has given us material and physical proofs and designs, it has not given us the reason for our existence and why we are different from all other species. Thats where religion comes in.


----------



## Chris

science said:


> Does it?
> 
> Richard Dawkins often compares the idea of raising Christian children or Muslim children to ideas like raising Keynesian children or Neo-Ricardian children.
> 
> To him, the comparison makes sense, because to him "Christianity" and "Islam" are first of all theories describing the world.
> 
> But if we look at the way people of religions everywhere actually practice their religion, the overwhelming majority of them are almost completely unconcerned with doctrines. You can hardly find a Christian who knows what monothelitism, for instance, is; it's only a tiny bit easier to find some who might care a little if it were explained to them. And this is from the tradition that, of all the world's traditions, most highly elevates doctrine/dogma.
> 
> Religion is very obviously an identity, although it is tied up in very many other things - which is why Dawkins' comparison is ridiculous. Raising Christian or Muslim children is most directly comparable to raising English or French children.
> 
> Intuitively, I think we all know this.
> 
> If we could go far enough together, I'd ask you what your theory is about why religion evolved. I'm trying to work that out, and as I do so it is obvious to me that religion is not primarily an intellectual thing. The point is not that people really believe, say, that the wine they drink together has become human blood; the point is that the group of people affirm together that they share the belief - or ritual or whatever - and when it is a belief, it must be in an intrinsically unverifiable thing, so that only group members can experience it, so that the experience of it confirms your membership in the group.


The difficulty I have answering this sort of post is that I always feel I'm being asked to answer for the pronouncements of anyone, anywhere, who has said something religious. Or maybe that's a touch of mild paranoia. I am a Calvinist evangelical. I have no sympathy with the Muslim religion. Even on the doctrine of transubstantiation, which I think you are alluding to, I can only pass you on to the Roman Catholics who adhere to it. Nothing to do with me guv'nor! No doubt there are people in the world who beam on everyone and imagine that every expression of any variety of religion is a little sparkling sliver in a great stained glass window of faith, with all these constituent panes fitted together in common cause to persuade an unbelieving world that there is _something_ there. But I suspect most of these people are in theology departments of universities.

But to answer your main point. I agree that evangelical Christianity is not primarily about the intellect. It is spiritual. It is about recognising that you have offended an unseen person (God the Father) and then trusting in the sacrificial death of God in order to obtain forgiveness. I might say that the believer's gratitude to God for his salvation is also spiritual. But this is not to say Christianity has no need of the intellect. Great minds, like those of John Calvin, Jonathan Edwards and C.S. Lewis have wrestled with issues such as human suffering, predestination, translation and Bible interpretation. I have read many of these men's works and I can assure you they did not have their brains switched off.


----------



## Chris

Polednice said:


> Given the context of this discussion, I ought to point out that science/the scientific method don't 'give instructions' on how to build a moon rocket or a hard disk. We're talking about alternative systems to understand the reality we find ourselves in, and science is overwhelmingly superior to anything else, as evidenced by its achievements.


Where is the either/or? Do you not know there are Christians engaged in scientific research? I studied pharmacy at Nottingham University for three years. For the first year I was an atheist. I took great delight in baiting a fellow student (also called Chris as it happens) who had an outsize Jesus Lives sticker on his briefcase. I became a Christian shortly into the second year. It made no difference to my studies. I ran IR specs as before. I operated the Soxhlet extractor as I had always done. I did my third year organic chemistry project using the same methods as my unbelieving colleagues. It's true that I didn't help myself from the enormous jar of cocaine hydrochloride that was left permanently on an open shelf in the pharmaceutical chemistry lab....but neither did anyone else.


----------



## mmsbls

science said:


> If we could go far enough together, I'd ask you what your theory is about why religion evolved. I'm trying to work that out, and as I do so it is obvious to me that religion is not primarily an intellectual thing.


There is a book by Robert Wright called The Evolution of God. It's actually about the evolution of religion, of course, and discusses Christianity, Islam, and Judaism. I have read roughly half and so far have found it fascinating. You have a much better understanding of scripture so you might get more out of it. This site gives more information.


----------



## Polednice

Hilltroll72 said:


> Religion has _always_, from the shaman on, been concerned with understanding the _purpose/sense_ of it all.


Thus proving that if you ask a silly question, you'll get a silly answer...

And I don't know why you have to keep referencing Oxford - so long as you're a normal person (like me!), it's as normal a place to be as any other. It doesn't get inside my mind.


----------



## Ukko

Polednice said:


> Thus proving that if you ask a silly question, you'll get a silly answer...
> 
> And I don't know why you have to keep referencing Oxford - so long as you're a normal person (like me!), it's as normal a place to be as any other. It doesn't get inside my mind.


Probably jealousy, envy, one of the green things - that isn't _Couchie_.


----------



## Kopachris

science said:


> My goal is never to be wrong about anything ever again. Failing that, to be wrong as rarely as possible.
> 
> If you have principles that will help me do so more reliably than those of science, I would be grateful to know of them.


Agnosticism.

That, and/or believe in something that can never be disproved.


----------



## Polednice

Hilltroll72 said:


> Probably jealousy, envy, one of the green things - that isn't _Couchie_.


Ah, green things are OK - I thought it was disdain.


----------



## science

mmsbls said:


> There is a book by Robert Wright called The Evolution of God. It's actually about the evolution of religion, of course, and discusses Christianity, Islam, and Judaism. I have read roughly half and so far have found it fascinating. You have a much better understanding of scripture so you might get more out of it. This site gives more information.


I like Robert Wright pretty well and I will look for that book. Thank you!


----------



## science

Hilltroll72 said:


> Religion, even at its most intrusive (which is pretty damned intrusive), is only secondarily - maybe thirdly - concerned about understanding "the reality we find ourselves in". *Religion has always, from the shaman on, been concerned with understanding the purpose/sense of it all. *The scientific method formula was probably understood by the talented shaman, but some fairly elementary 'facts of the matter' were unknown to him, and to everybody else then alive.
> 
> The shaman -and later the priest - had two main objectives: to get a handle on the truth of the things beyond the things, and to keep a handle on the people around them. Human nature being what it is, the 2nd handle tends to get priority.
> 
> Social hierarchies, both religious and secular, tend to become ends in themselves, so the first handle becomes less and less important; that's the way it goes out there, beyond Oxford's hallowed halls. The science community has hierarchies too. The scientific method has been slam-dunked into the midden way many more times than once. *If you close one eye, it can look like a religion - ...ligion...ion.*
> 
> :devil:
> 
> ps. _Sid_, how's that for long-winded?


The first part I highlighted in bold is an interesting assertion, because it feels so likely to be true, but from what I can tell, it isn't. I don't see a lot of evidence that people before the industrial revolution worried much about things like meaning and purpose. All the same, maybe they were worried about such things, but didn't use the words. It's hard to tell, but I'd like better evidence.

One thing I feel safer in saying is that most people have always felt that religion is really, really important. Your bolded statement, I think, is a modern way of expressing this.

I like your approach because it is not implicitly elevating one religious tradition, but trying to get a grip on the phenomenon of religion in general.

So I'll move on to the second thing I bolded. It's true - science has some similarities to the organized religions of agricultural states. For instance, there are things that look like rituals, things that look like sacred texts, things that look like temples. But it's not that interesting of a point; in this sense anything organized looks like a religion: baseball, classical music, movies, coffee shops, psychology, dieting. Perhaps pointing out the similarities to religion in all these cases leads to really profound insights, but I'd be surprised. More likely it's just that any two things have something in common.

it is the difference between science and most organized religions of agricultural states that makes science more effective as a way of figuring out what's true: there are no arguments from authority in the former, and everyone is allowed to attempt to disprove anything. If you prove that Einstein was wrong about relatively, you'll win a Nobel Prize and be the most famous scientist of your generation; if you prove that Mohammad didn't write the Koran, look out. Science elevates skepticism as its highest principle; most organized religions elevate belief as one of their highest, and sometimes the very highest, principles. That is the key difference that makes science more reliable as a way of figuring out what is true. In all other ways it can resemble religion or baseball or whatever, but it doesn't matter.


----------



## science

Chris said:


> The difficulty I have answering this sort of post is that I always feel I'm being asked to answer for the pronouncements of anyone, anywhere, who has said something religious. Or maybe that's a touch of mild paranoia. I am a Calvinist evangelical. I have no sympathy with the Muslim religion. Even on the doctrine of transubstantiation, which I think you are alluding to, I can only pass you on to the Roman Catholics who adhere to it. Nothing to do with me guv'nor! No doubt there are people in the world who beam on everyone and imagine that every expression of any variety of religion is a little sparkling sliver in a great stained glass window of faith, with all these constituent panes fitted together in common cause to persuade an unbelieving world that there is _something_ there. But I suspect most of these people are in theology departments of universities.
> 
> But to answer your main point. I agree that evangelical Christianity is not primarily about the intellect. It is spiritual. It is about recognising that you have offended an unseen person (God the Father) and then trusting in the sacrificial death of God in order to obtain forgiveness. I might say that the believer's gratitude to God for his salvation is also spiritual. But this is not to say Christianity has no need of the intellect. Great minds, like those of John Calvin, Jonathan Edwards and C.S. Lewis have wrestled with issues such as human suffering, predestination, translation and Bible interpretation. I have read many of these men's works and I can assure you they did not have their brains switched off.


Ok, that's interesting, but I did not assert that anyone had their brains switched off, that there were no intellectual religious traditions, etc...

You report on what evangelical Christianity says it is about. it is self-reporting. My description of religion is more about religion in general, and from an anthropological or sociological point of view, and from what I can tell evangelical Christianity is not an exception. Group membership is obviously very important in those traditions.


----------



## Ukko

science said:


> [...]
> So I'll move on to the second thing I bolded. It's true - science has some similarities to the organized religions of agricultural states. For instance, there are things that look like rituals, things that look like sacred texts, things that look like temples. But it's not that interesting of a point; in this sense anything organized looks like a religion: baseball, classical music, movies, coffee shops, psychology, dieting. Perhaps pointing out the similarities to religion in all these cases leads to really profound insights, but I'd be surprised. More likely it's just that any two things have something in common.
> [...]


Try bolding the entire paragraph. That way you get the context.

Other than that, your "I don't see a lot of evidence that people before the industrial revolution worried much about things like meaning and purpose", refers to 'People". 'People' don't do that now either. My subject was shaman; different concerns.


----------



## science

Hilltroll72 said:


> Try bolding the entire paragraph. That way you get the context.
> 
> Other than that, your "I don't see a lot of evidence that people before the industrial revolution worried much about things like meaning and purpose", refers to 'People". 'People' don't do that now either. My subject was shaman; different concerns.


I'll think about the shamanism point.

Since you're interested in shamanism, you might like to know the book by Ronald Hutton on shamanism. Excellent book, IMO.

Not sure how the context changes anything. Probably the key phrase was "if you close one eye." Still, I think the skepticism/belief point is the crucial one.


----------



## science

Kopachris said:


> Agnosticism.
> 
> That, and/or believe in something that can never be disproved.


Yup. Agnostic most of the time, skeptical always.

I used to be really religious, and worked very hard trying to defend my traditions' theologies. When I lost my faith it was so much easier. True, I was essentially kicked out of most of the communities I belonged to, but the good thing was I no longer had to work so hard intellectually. Now I can just sit back and passively accept whatever appears to be true, trying to proportion my assent to the strength of the evidence.


----------



## Ukko

science said:


> I'll think about the shamanism point.
> 
> Since you're interested in shamanism, you might like to know the book by Ronald Hutton on shamanism. Excellent book, IMO.
> 
> Not sure how the context changes anything. Probably the key phrase was "if you close one eye." Still, I think the skepticism/belief point is the crucial one.


You are actually pretty close to my intended message, I think. Thanks for the book recommendation. I am not much interested in shamanism though, except as an element in my understanding of 'the human condition'. I don't have a lot of time to gain understanding, so have to pick my focus points carefully.


----------



## science

Hilltroll72 said:


> You are actually pretty close to my intended message, I think. Thanks for the book recommendation. I am not much interested in shamanism though, except as an element in my understanding of 'the human condition'. I don't have a lot of time to gain understanding, so have to pick my focus points carefully.


I understand perfectly.

I'm not sure why you would take book recommendations from me - maybe you would if you knew me, depending on who else you know, but you don't know me - but if you want to understand religion and use your time efficiently, the books I'd recommend are

- _Patterns in Comparative Religion_ by Mircea Eliade: I used to be a big fan of Eliade, and for a moment I'd thought I detected his influence in your thoughts on shamans. Anyway, there are limits to the value of his thought, but this particular book is excellent. All the symbolism of religion - the foundation of all that intellectual work to come - explained clearly.

- _In Gods We Trust_ by Scott Atran - This book ought to be about 60 pages long, but by being endlessly redundant and chasing a lot of semi-relevant asides, he manages to turn it into a full monograph. I haven't seen a more poorly written book; like this: because of the endless redundancy and multitude of semi-relevant asides, Atran managed to stretch a very good article into a very bad book. That's too bad, because the analysis of religious experience offered here is the best that I know of. (Patterns of symbols, the concerns of Eliade's book, are not discussed here.)

Atran does a great job with religious experience in general, but my understanding of why particular experiences (rather than others) occur was influenced largely by two other books:

- _Burmese Supernaturalism_ by Melford Spiro - I shamefully confess I have not read Spriro's magnum opus, but this is pretty good. Although some of the psychoanalysis is IMO wrongheaded, I don't know of a book that better explores the relationships between emotional needs and religious experiences.

- _Lugbara Religion_ by John Middleton: Though the series is called something like "Classics in Anthropology" this is an all but forgotten book outside of the university. Too bad, because the relationship between supernatural experience and social status has never to my knowledge been more clearly shown. For that reason, to me, this is fundamental.

Now it's been at least ten years since I read any of these books, so _caveat lector_. In the past 3 years or so there has been an explosion of books that very likely are better than any of these or even all of them put together, such as _Supernatural Selection_ or _The Faith Instinct_ (both appear to be written at a popular level). One guy in the field, David Sloan Wilson, seems to me too ahistorical: he needs to do a better job of thinking about the differences between religion in a foraging community, religion in a hierarchical state, and religion in an industrial republic. So, though he's famous, I can't personally recommend his books to someone who values their time!


----------

