Comments on: A War on Science

By: Philonous

Philonous — Sun, 14 Mar 2010 06:47:28 +0000

Charles B,
I think that your argument that we should “trust” first and then understand is a horrible one because it begs the question. In other words it sets out to prove what it already assumes, or that It assumes that something is true in the first place without leaving room for error, and understanding becomes extremely restricted. Something should be accepted because it is justified with good explanations and evidence,but if a body of knowledge has no justification of that sort then we do not have to accept it. The faith you present is precisely what people are criticizing because its subversive to scientific epistemology that has proven itself to work and improve.

By: Hua

Hua — Thu, 04 Mar 2010 03:22:48 +0000

I can’t believe that in this day and age that something like intelligent design would even be considered part of any learning curriculum.
With all the available information, to grasp onto bronze age myths and legends is just bizarre.

By: Julian

Julian — Sat, 30 Jan 2010 19:04:11 +0000

I’ve read all the posts above, and I would have something to say…
First, I don’t think that religion is about control of the masses and manipulation. The vast majority of religious people have no connection with authority, and they have no reason to impose religion based on that. Also, a great deal of clergymen really believe what they teach. It’s not that they want to manipulate the public. No one is as indoctrinated as the one who indoctrinates…
Then, the Bible DID suffer changes along the history, contrary to what the Church claims. Even the fact that languages to which is translated are so different yelds many different interpretations. I often find myself laughing at the minister when he preaches intimate meanings of what Jesus said here and there, because I know those meanings are absolutely nonsense in English for example.
To what Charles B said, “god of the gaps” means that less and less things are explained by the existence of God. Thousands of years ago the occurence of pregnacies were explained as miracles, the lightnings, the rain, the floods, plants growing, the Sun setting and then rising again in the morning, everything was explained by “the works of God”. Nowadays we understand many of these things as natural fenomena.
As for the metaphores in the Bible, who decides what is metaphore and what is literally true? Along the history, less and less things were held as biblical FACTS. One can only wonder, is ANY of the things described in the Bible true? A thing to remember, the Bible was written in the Bronze Age. By people with limited knowledge. An all knowing God would have given a more interesting and more understandable message, that could reach ALL the humans. And by the way, God showing in the clouds, waving to people and shouting here and there would make, I think, a more compelling evidence that he exists.

By: lallu

lallu — Fri, 15 Jan 2010 04:21:14 +0000

Most people look at what they want to see, subconsciously they are always thinking of what they want to see. There is much that happens in our environment which we fail to notice, although minute, but significant. Now in order to be better en lighted we need good observational skills which will help us look at thinks that we fail to see. Science provides us with such a skill, not the bible,qoran, torah, geeta….etc. So please get rid of all these books and lets embark on a journey of enlightenment.

By: Benjamin

Benjamin — Mon, 11 Jan 2010 14:03:25 +0000

Just an observation… with these types of documentaries, it’s always hard to find an actual review of the documentary and not just personal opinions on the matter or heated debate. I love the site though, I haven’t watched one I didn’t enjoy yet.

By: Karen

Karen — Mon, 28 Dec 2009 10:43:22 +0000

The scientist was right in the documentary, science is objective and religion is subjective. Therefore, in the public spheres we will go with what we know to be true and observable; for example that the earth is very old as exemplified by the grand canyon, and in the private sphere you can guide your life by your own personal subjective beliefs, aka your chosen religion or unchosen religion. Everyone, can admit that some things are left to be explained, for example on the Global Calgary News recently they showed footage of a tranparent entity crossing a room that was captured by the security cameras. Something that is not supposed to happen by Christian views or by the views of atheists. The search for truth is slowed down by people holding on to the status quo like a child holds on to their blanky when mom figures it is time for them to give it up and grow up. Whether there is a creator or not people can still choose to be kind, good, and moral. And by the way, the bible has no answers for the presence of Dinosaurs on the earth but I think we have proven without a shadow of a doubt that they existed and anthropologists have still to find the missing link if there is one.

By: Yavanna

Yavanna — Sat, 26 Dec 2009 22:13:48 +0000

Thanks God, but now we know all know you are real! So what is the right religion? Is it like you said on South Park – The Mormons?

By: Eric Howe

Eric Howe — Thu, 24 Dec 2009 00:12:00 +0000

@God, you forgot to include this clarification of your rules:

http://www.theonion.com/content/node/28151

By: God

God — Wed, 23 Dec 2009 23:54:37 +0000

Please stop believing in Me! That was useful when you were all savages – you don’t need it anymore! You can now start thinking by yourselves!

By: Charles B

Charles B — Thu, 10 Dec 2009 04:49:46 +0000

Thanks Kelly K. and Mr. Razor. Sorta.

I do get passionate, don’t I?

I don’t know what “new thing” would qualify for an effective argument, to be honest. I really do believe that there is a God and He inspired the Bible and therefore it litterally has an anwer for everything if you look for it.

At least the Bible or Torah or the Quran can be referred to by all as a “standard”. Something “new” like Mr. Razor wants just doesn’t seem possible as an “athoritative” text unless he’s thinking of a new scientific discovery, say a big rock uncovered in New Jersey that says, “God was here and you were not! Ha! Ha! P.S. I, God, wrote this 4.5359305020 billion years in advance before the day it will be discovered New what you will call “New Jersey” on October 8th 2011! Do you like my big rock that I just made? Check for Plotonium halos, please!”

I’m totally joking, by the way, but wouldn’t that be a nice big rock to find? I could see the New York Times headlines now: “God’s Graffitti Found in NJ Farmer’s Field! Hoax Suspected.”

By: Achems Razor

Achems Razor — Thu, 10 Dec 2009 02:44:02 +0000

Kelly K:

Yes Charles B. is persistent, which is good. All us Atheist’s and other Religions got to him once. But I told him not to throw in the towel.
because he, one man alone was holding his own, against all of us. So yes, I do have respect for Charles.

By: Kelly K.

Kelly K. — Thu, 10 Dec 2009 02:33:09 +0000

Achems Razor: Ok. Understood. You always seem to be consistently logical but not “unemotional” which mirrors how I like to view myself.

Charles B. and others like him are trying to “play ball” outside of their main experience in life. You can’t blame them for using the old “stand by” as they don’t feel it is old or outdated, but cherrished. Something new is not “new,” but a threat.

Like anyone, take the truth where you find it, but not the rest if it doesn’t help you. I heard a philosopher say, “In some way, every man is my teacher”. He’s trying very hard to give life questions outside the “box” of his religion I think while still being consistent in his own right. He is persistent, isn’t he?

By: Achems Razor

Achems Razor — Thu, 10 Dec 2009 02:08:39 +0000

Kelly K:

Thank you for pointing that out to me. Yes you are right, I do use Science as my logic. So then I am consistent in my viewpoints also.
But you did scare me, I thought you were going to say I used circular logic until I read further.

What I meant by circular logic, for religion, there is no new avenues for them to discuss, they have no recourse except what is written in the Bible which is static, unchanging. so they go around and around. They cannot offer anything new that people have not heard before.

Regards.

By: Kelly K.

Kelly K. — Thu, 10 Dec 2009 01:39:45 +0000

Eric Howe: Religious people oppose evolution because without a god they have to admit their hopes and dreams and heaven and hell are all mythology.

Evolutionists passionately oppose religion becuase if if religion is correct and evolution not correct, they there is a god and therefore accountability to that god for our actions. There is no mystery here to either groups actions.

Achems Razor: Charles B. is a Christian. Chrisitans use the Bible for their life questions. He is consistent, not circular in his logic. Buddhist, Hindu, Muslims, and even atheists us thier own theories and concepts to address life problems. Charles B. was trying to answer Eric Howe’s quesiton from his base of understanding.

Should we say your logic is “circular” when you use quatum theory consistently, as you have done several times to address issues and questions? No. You are consistent also.

By: Achems Razor

Achems Razor — Wed, 09 Dec 2009 16:03:41 +0000

I agree with, Eric Howe:

Circular Logic, and more circular logic.

It is so redundant! Any thing you ask of religious people, they refer to the Bible. With due respect, but this is all they have. Al least if there was something “new” they could offer, people might sit up and take notice!
Instead, parables from thousands of years ago. That they can not change to keep up with the times. All they can due is to interpret them in different ways, to mean different things. And add more fancyfull tales.