Fundamentalists are hypocrites
Post Reply
 
Thread Rating:
  • 0 Votes - 0 Average
  • 1
  • 2
  • 3
  • 4
  • 5
07-11-2013, 08:51 PM
RE: Fundamentalists are hypocrites
(07-11-2013 08:36 PM)jaguar3030 Wrote:  
(07-11-2013 08:10 PM)Heywood Jahblome Wrote:  Here is a link to the study.

http://www.pewforum.org/2010/09/28/u-s-r...-religion/

Atheist got 4.4 questions right, while the average was 4.1. Christians as a category got 4.2

Protestants, Jews, and Mormons all out scored atheists on biblical knowledge. Catholics(and there are ton of them) dragged down the score for Christians as a category. Catholics are not "into the bible" as much as Protestants or Mormons so I don't find this unexpected.

However, on the total religious knowledge survey, no group scored higher than atheists/agnostics. Bowing

But there is nothing in the survey which suggests a correlation between really reading the bible and atheism. Relevant77x anecdote is just that....an anecdote.
Find all posts by this user
Like Post Quote this message in a reply
07-11-2013, 09:39 PM
RE: Fundamentalists are hypocrites
I'll quickly say hello to everyone again as I am still very new...
(Drum roll) Smile hello! Smile
My 2p is this I am an atheist but not a scientist. Some contention seems to be hung on the term 'backflip'.

My understanding (admittedly that of a layman) of this discussion goes like this:-

Science (GR) It doesn't work for everything (black holes) but does it work for most of it's prescribed application? Obviously yes as we have observable tangible results. Assumption is clearly a dangerous game to play on a forum like this but I feel comfortable to state that probably in most cases if I asked a scientist about it they would agree. If it was their field, I think it's fair to say they would be striving to refine the formula to make it work in ALL applications instead of most. This to my view is not a backflip but a willingness instead to move forward. Maybe some of you sciency types could explain it better or elaborate further for me?

A man blames his bad childhood on leprechauns. He claims they don't exist, but yet still says without a doubt that they stole all his money and then killed his parents. That's why he became Leprechaun-Man

Im_Ryan forum member
Find all posts by this user
Like Post Quote this message in a reply
[+] 1 user Likes Monster_Riffs's post
07-11-2013, 10:50 PM
RE: Fundamentalists are hypocrites
(07-11-2013 09:39 PM)Monster_Riffs Wrote:  I'll quickly say hello to everyone again as I am still very new...
(Drum roll) Smile hello! Smile
My 2p is this I am an atheist but not a scientist. Some contention seems to be hung on the term 'backflip'.

My understanding (admittedly that of a layman) of this discussion goes like this:-

Science (GR) It doesn't work for everything (black holes) but does it work for most of it's prescribed application? Obviously yes as we have observable tangible results. Assumption is clearly a dangerous game to play on a forum like this but I feel comfortable to state that probably in most cases if I asked a scientist about it they would agree. If it was their field, I think it's fair to say they would be striving to refine the formula to make it work in ALL applications instead of most. This to my view is not a backflip but a willingness instead to move forward. Maybe some of you sciency types could explain it better or elaborate further for me?

GR is incompatible with quantum mechanics so its not just those pesky black holes were talking about it. One or both of these models are wrong. Back flipping happens all the time in science....its not exclusive to religion.

Welcome to the forum
Find all posts by this user
Like Post Quote this message in a reply
07-11-2013, 11:03 PM
RE: Fundamentalists are hypocrites
Heywood Jahblome.
Thanks for the info. It gives the pseudo scholar in me something to read up on.Smile It seems like an interesting topic. ... And thanks for the warm welcome!

A man blames his bad childhood on leprechauns. He claims they don't exist, but yet still says without a doubt that they stole all his money and then killed his parents. That's why he became Leprechaun-Man

Im_Ryan forum member
Find all posts by this user
Like Post Quote this message in a reply
07-11-2013, 11:23 PM (This post was last modified: 07-11-2013 11:27 PM by EvolutionKills.)
RE: Fundamentalists are hypocrites
(07-11-2013 10:50 PM)Heywood Jahblome Wrote:  GR is incompatible with quantum mechanics so its not just those pesky black holes were talking about it. One or both of these models are wrong. Back flipping happens all the time in science....its not exclusive to religion.

Welcome to the forum

Quantum mechanics doesn't work outside the quantum scale, so?

You know that's like claiming epicycles don't work because they don't explain the expansion of the universe, right? Both models are limited, and no one model explains everything. It seems like you are adding an extra qualifier to what the OP said, requiring that there be a single perfect scientific model with no limitations or mathematical flaws.

(07-11-2013 01:51 PM)natachan Wrote:  If you believe ANY of these things the math SIMPLY DOESN'T WORK. I'm a math person. In order for me to accept something, the math has to be there. Our model of the universe is accepted because the math works. All the fundamentalists have to say is that if their theories are right their qualitative observations about the present world can be accepted. I don't care about qualitative observations, the math DOES NOT WORK.


Epicycles worked within it's much more limited scope, and that's because it was built upon flawed premises (that the Earth was the center of rotation). You could use it to predict the position of the visible planets in the night sky, and that was it. But now that we clearly know that the universe is not geocentric, the model is obsolete. It's simply not a accurate model beyond it's original application. Newton's calculus allowed us to throw the Voyage probe outside the solar system and arrive at Neptune within a second of prediction made by the model, but it fails to account for some discrepancies in the orbit of Mercury; that problem requires the application of Einstein's theory of relativity.

Our models work within the limitations of our models. Quantum mechanics is accurate to eleven decimal places, even if it's model only applies at the quantum scale. Our models are limited, but the math does work.

And when it doesn't work, when we've reached the limitations of our mathematics and our predictive models; science admits that. Science is a method, and it will change and adapt to find an answer, rather than assume it has the answer. How much sooner would epicycles been dismissed if not for religious insistence that the Earth was the center of everything? Would they even have bothered, or would we have arrived even sooner at the much simpler (and as far as we can observe, correct) observation that we revolve around the Sun?

[Image: GrumpyCat_01.gif]
Find all posts by this user
Like Post Quote this message in a reply
[+] 1 user Likes EvolutionKills's post
07-11-2013, 11:55 PM
RE: Fundamentalists are hypocrites
(07-11-2013 11:23 PM)EvolutionKills Wrote:  
(07-11-2013 10:50 PM)Heywood Jahblome Wrote:  GR is incompatible with quantum mechanics so its not just those pesky black holes were talking about it. One or both of these models are wrong. Back flipping happens all the time in science....its not exclusive to religion.

Welcome to the forum

Quantum mechanics doesn't work outside the quantum scale, so?

You know that's like claiming epicycles don't work because they don't explain the expansion of the universe, right? Both models are limited, and no one model explains everything. It seems like you are adding an extra qualifier to what the OP said, requiring that there be a single perfect scientific model with no limitations or mathematical flaws.

(07-11-2013 01:51 PM)natachan Wrote:  If you believe ANY of these things the math SIMPLY DOESN'T WORK. I'm a math person. In order for me to accept something, the math has to be there. Our model of the universe is accepted because the math works. All the fundamentalists have to say is that if their theories are right their qualitative observations about the present world can be accepted. I don't care about qualitative observations, the math DOES NOT WORK.


Epicycles worked within it's much more limited scope, and that's because it was built upon flawed premises (that the Earth was the center of rotation). You could use it to predict the position of the visible planets in the night sky, and that was it. But now that we clearly know that the universe is not geocentric, the model is obsolete. It's simply not a accurate model beyond it's original application. Newton's calculus allowed us to throw the Voyage probe outside the solar system and arrive at Neptune within a second of prediction made by the model, but it fails to account for some discrepancies in the orbit of Mercury; that problem requires the application of Einstein's theory of relativity.

Our models work within the limitations of our models. Quantum mechanics is accurate to eleven decimal places, even if it's model only applies at the quantum scale. Our models are limited, but the math does work.

And when it doesn't work, when we've reached the limitations of our mathematics and our predictive models; science admits that. Science is a method, and it will change and adapt to find an answer, rather than assume it has the answer. How much sooner would epicycles been dismissed if not for religious insistence that the Earth was the center of everything? Would they even have bothered, or would we have arrived even sooner at the much simpler (and as far as we can observe, correct) observation that we revolve around the Sun?

Our models don't work, but they arrive at approximations which are close enough to find useful. A true model of the universe would be accurate to more than 11 decimal places in every instance(GR isn't always that accurate). Should we dismiss them? Not until something better comes along. Should we claim they are true? No because they are not. Should we claim they are useful? Yes...they are very useful. GPS is a great example of relativity being a useful model.

My problem with the OP is that he holds the position the math has to work before a model can be relied upon. In our current models the math sometimes works...and sometimes it doesn't...yet he relies upon those models anyways.

I don't have a problem with him relying on those models. I have a problem with his claim that the math has to work before a model can be relied upon. As you point out every model to date has its limitations.
Find all posts by this user
Like Post Quote this message in a reply
08-11-2013, 12:05 AM
RE: Fundamentalists are hypocrites
(07-11-2013 11:55 PM)Heywood Jahblome Wrote:  Our models work within the limitations of our models. Quantum mechanics is accurate to eleven decimal places, even if it's model only applies at the quantum scale. Our models are limited, but the math does work.


My problem with the OP is that he holds the position the math has to work before a model can be relied upon. In our current models the math sometimes works...and sometimes it doesn't...yet he relies upon those models anyways.

I don't have a problem with him relying on those models. I have a problem with his claim that the math has to work before a model can be relied upon. As you point out every model to date has its limitations.

But the math DOES WORK, within the limitation of the model.... Dodgy

Algebra, geometry, evolution, statistics, geometry, thermodynamics, aeronautics, and organic chemistry are not all invalid because they can't also explain black holes.

Once again, you are adding extra prerequisites and qualifiers that the OP did not state.

[Image: GrumpyCat_01.gif]
Find all posts by this user
Like Post Quote this message in a reply
[+] 1 user Likes EvolutionKills's post
08-11-2013, 12:16 AM
RE: Fundamentalists are hypocrites
(08-11-2013 12:05 AM)EvolutionKills Wrote:  
(07-11-2013 11:55 PM)Heywood Jahblome Wrote:  Our models work within the limitations of our models. Quantum mechanics is accurate to eleven decimal places, even if it's model only applies at the quantum scale. Our models are limited, but the math does work.


My problem with the OP is that he holds the position the math has to work before a model can be relied upon. In our current models the math sometimes works...and sometimes it doesn't...yet he relies upon those models anyways.

I don't have a problem with him relying on those models. I have a problem with his claim that the math has to work before a model can be relied upon. As you point out every model to date has its limitations.

But the math DOES WORK, within the limitation of the model.... Dodgy

Algebra, geometry, evolution, statistics, geometry, thermodynamics, aeronautics, and organic chemistry are not all invalid because they can't also explain black holes.

Once again, you are adding extra prerequisites and qualifiers that the OP did not state.

Algebra, geometry, etc. are branches of mathematics and you are conflating branches of mathematics with mathematical models.
Find all posts by this user
Like Post Quote this message in a reply
08-11-2013, 01:24 AM
RE: Fundamentalists are hypocrites
(08-11-2013 12:16 AM)Heywood Jahblome Wrote:  
(08-11-2013 12:05 AM)EvolutionKills Wrote:  But the math DOES WORK, within the limitation of the model.... Dodgy

Algebra, geometry, evolution, statistics, geometry, thermodynamics, aeronautics, and organic chemistry are not all invalid because they can't also explain black holes.

Once again, you are adding extra prerequisites and qualifiers that the OP did not state.

Algebra, geometry, etc. are branches of mathematics and you are conflating branches of mathematics with mathematical models.

How about economics? It's all about using mathematical models to predict the reactions of economies and predict their reactions. Are economic models invalid if they were unable to predict a solar flare that destroyed part of a nation's power grid, throwing a monkey wrench into that nation's economy?

Are meteorological mathematical models invalid if they predict rain and it doesn't?

Is thermodynamics invalid because it can't account for black holes?

Are aeronautical models invalid because they can't account for traveling through dirt?

Is atomic theory invalid because it can't account for earthquakes?

Is quantum mechanics invalid because it can't account for effects of moving at relativistic speeds?


My point being, it seems you are trying to make a case for dismissing a model as invalid because it has limits; and that seems fundamentally absurd.

[Image: GrumpyCat_01.gif]
Find all posts by this user
Like Post Quote this message in a reply
[+] 1 user Likes EvolutionKills's post
08-11-2013, 01:49 AM
RE: Fundamentalists are hypocrites
(08-11-2013 01:24 AM)EvolutionKills Wrote:  My point being, it seems you are trying to make a case for dismissing a model as invalid because it has limits; and that seems fundamentally absurd.

Again I am not dismissing quantum mechanics or GR. I think they are flawed but nevertheless provide a lot of utility. My beef isn't with the models but with the guy who claims the math has to work....he should realize that sometimes it don't....and that's just the way it is.

He should accept or reject the model not on the basis that the math works or doesn't. Instead he should accept or reject the model on the amount of utility it provides.
Find all posts by this user
Like Post Quote this message in a reply
Post Reply
Forum Jump: