Why one must believe the "Academia" or the "scholars"?

[paarsurrey]

When making any argument, wouldn't you agree that the best source of information in defense of that argument probably comes from professionals in the respective field that you're arguing about?
I mean, you wouldn't ask an English professor to teach you Physics, would you? You would most likely ask a Physics professor to teach you Physics, right? And an English professor to teach you English.
Let's simplify it even more... You wouldn't ask a Hindu guru to teach you about Islam, right? You'd ask am Imam, or at least someone with vast experience and knowledge of Islam to teach you about Islam.
So you'd follow these rules in other aspects of your life. But you seem to have a problem with doing that when it comes to scientific studies because.... Why?
What other option is there? If you don't think we should rely on the findings of professionals, then who do you think we should rely on for information?

Professionals advice is for the professional, others are not bound by it, they may believe in it or not, there is no compulsion. Professional never insist others to believe in their opinions, they know their limitations, only their eulogizers tell such things. The professionals are not 100% correct, so why believe in them blindly.
As for Islam, Islam does not bind one to scholars, if they are wrong, we don't have to follow them. Quran is our Imam, available live always, and it never fails in providing the essential guidance. I don't have to ask a Hindu, but if a Hindu is right, I must accept the Truth, I am not biased, I am an open mind.
Nobody is my teacher here, I am student of my life.
Regards

 

[paarsurrey]

It is not whether you believe in them that matters, but rather why you don't.

If they are right and correct, I could believe them, but if they use too technical terms, I need not. It is there outlook, if they think, they are useful for the public good, than they should explain things in very easy, understandable language.
Regards

 

[paarsurrey]

Suppose you are not a doctor.
When you are sick and go to a doctor. Do you trust what she tells you?
Ciao
- viole

Well, I am not a doctor. My son is a doctor though.
They never insist on anything. They know that they cannot cure a person with 100% accuracy, so they are humble people. I also know that they are never 100% sure to cure. I never believe them blindly. I take my own decisions with the consultation of my near and dear and friends.
My trust is in Allah, He is the Curer.
Prayer and medicine; a mix of them cures the diseases.
Regards

 

[paarsurrey]

Hey paarsurrey,
How about if we ALL need to supply the same level of evidence? Of course, you'd have to understand that we atheists don't think scripture counts as evidence.

Your point is not clear enough. Please illustrate.
Regards

 

[Unification]

Do you trust a Muslim scholar if he told you that i see that Islam is the right path to heaven ?

No. Islam means peace and purity. Heaven sounds like bliss and joy.

The path to bliss and joy are peace and purity.

No lies, religion, hate and divide, texts, inequality, dogma, deities, scholars, experts, professionals, guru's, scientists, etc. needed. All that's required is the individual believing in this way and path, and dying to everything that is not peace and pure.

 

[icehorse]

Your point is not clear enough. Please illustrate.
Regards

For me, it almost comes down to evidence. If someone claims to be an expert, they should be able to show evidence of their expertise. For example, an expert plumber should be able to supply names of people for whom he's done great plumbing. So here's where most religious folks have a problem. I've never seen or heard of good evidence for heaven or hell. The fact that some dusty old books claim the existence of heaven and hell is not evidence.

 

[Unification]

For me, it almost comes down to evidence. If someone claims to be an expert, they should be able to show evidence of their expertise. For example, an expert plumber should be able to supply names of people for whom he's done great plumbing. So here's where most religious folks have a problem. I've never seen or heard of good evidence for heaven or hell. The fact that some dusty old books claim the existence of heaven and hell is not evidence.

There is a lot of evidence for those that are blissful and happy, and those that are miserable and suffer.

The minds of man claim the existence of exoteric realms elsewhere of heaven and hell.

 

[Unification]

If they are right and correct, I could believe them, but if they use too technical terms, I need not. It is there outlook, if they think, they are useful for the public good, than they should explain things in very easy, understandable language.
Regards

I agree that a lot of technical terminology, a lot of knowledge, etc. are not needed in life. I could get by with zero scientific knowledge and zero religious knowledge just fine.

 

[Unification]

Suppose you are not a doctor.

When you are sick and go to a doctor. Do you trust what she tells you?

Ciao

- viole

Not always.

I have healed myself better than any doctor ever could. If I trusted what every doctor has ever told me, I'd have had a few unrequired surgeries, and boatloads of medical bills from unnecessary tests to guzzle insurance money and my money. It would almost be like paying triple tithe to medical professionals.

 

[FearGod]

If she has evidence. But what evidence could she possibly provide?

Why asking for an evidence, he's an expert.
Do we ask the doctor for an evidence if he describes a medicine for us ?
I'm saying so based on the opinions of some here in this thread that we should believe the experts.

 

[icehorse]

There is a lot of evidence for those that are blissful and happy, and those that are miserable and suffer.

The minds of man claim the existence of exoteric realms elsewhere of heaven and hell.

Statistically, the world's happiest nations are also the most atheistic.

 

[icehorse]

Why asking for an evidence, he's an expert.
Do we ask the doctor for an evidence if he describes a medicine for us ?
I'm saying so based on the opinions of some here in this thread that we should believe the experts.

What experts are you talking about?

 

[icehorse]

I agree that a lot of technical terminology, a lot of knowledge, etc. are not needed in life. I could get by with zero scientific knowledge and zero religious knowledge just fine.

But you rely on what science has built for you.

 

[FearGod]

What experts are you talking about?

Some said that we shouldn't argue with the professionals, the scholars, the experts in a one specific field.

 

[jonathan180iq]

Professionals advice is for the professional, others are not bound by it, they may believe in it or not, there is no compulsion.

Sure there is no requirement to believe in the studies of professionals. But a rational person should be able to provide examples and evidence of why they choose to disavow the knowledge of just professionals. Simply saying that you disagree is not a good enough answer in a reasoned discussion. Simply saying that you "feel differently", for example, is not sufficient evidence to undermine a scientific study.

Professional never insist others to believe in their opinions, they know their limitations, only their eulogizers tell such things. The professionals are not 100% correct, so why believe in them blindly.

Who is advocating for following anyone blindly? That's usually a religious mandate, not a scientific one.

If a claim, by anyone, cannot be soundly supported with evidence, then it's a worthless claim. It doesn't matter if that claim comes from Ablert Einstein or from a Holy Book. If it cannot be supported with sufficient evidence, or it's only source of validation comes from someone's gut feeling, then it's not a worthwhile claim. The only way to know for sure is it to test it. Test everything and see if it can stand up to scrutiny. If it cannot stand up to scrutiny, then it needs to be rejected until a better claim can be made or until more evidence surfaces. It's quite simple, really.

 

[Revoltingest]

I saw something relevant in the news.....
http://www.geneticliteracyproject.o...g-conclusions-glyphosate-risk-may-stem-mixed/
Over decades, I've watched the luster of glyphosate wax & wane as it's tested & re-tested.
Is it a carcinogen or not?

 

[Sees]

I saw something relevant in the news.....
http://www.geneticliteracyproject.o...g-conclusions-glyphosate-risk-may-stem-mixed/
Over decades, I've watched the luster of glyphosate wax & wane as it's tested & re-tested.
Is it a carcinogen or not?

Depends on where the money is being thrown and how much

 

[Revoltingest]

Depends on where the money is being thrown and how much

In this case, I think glyphosate is relatively at worst mildly carcinogenic, which can be a difficult thing to verify.

I use it for groundskeeping.
It works well, is safer than alternatives, saves labor, & cuts down on my burning fossil fuel.

 

[FearGod]

I saw something relevant in the news.....
http://www.geneticliteracyproject.o...g-conclusions-glyphosate-risk-may-stem-mixed/
Over decades, I've watched the luster of glyphosate wax & wane as it's tested & re-tested.
Is it a carcinogen or not?

Exactly, and Aspirin is one other example of many.

http://articles.mercola.com/sites/articles/archive/2014/08/04/daily-aspirin-side-effects.aspx

 

[paarsurrey]

For me, it almost comes down to evidence. If someone claims to be an expert, they should be able to show evidence of their expertise. For example, an expert plumber should be able to supply names of people for whom he's done great plumbing. So here's where most religious folks have a problem. I've never seen or heard of good evidence for heaven or hell. The fact that some dusty old books claim the existence of heaven and hell is not evidence.

Don't you know how pseudo scientists flout the peer review and published articles that were fake? There were fake doctors who made their name in the medical profession. Right?
If one man being a human could make one mistake, the same could be done by two because even two together would be humans never becoming perfect , not error-free and the mistake could be added, so on an so forth to infinity. One cannot follow any number of humans blindly.
I am sceptic of the Skeptics.
Regards