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

[FearGod]

If I did, I would flip my religion all the time depending on the professional I am talking to.

If I ask different physicists about gravity, it is plausible I would get the same explanations. Explanations that do not depend on where they were born or what their parents know about physics.

Can you say the same about religion?

Ciao

- viole

So speaking about religion, the scholars don't necessarily know the truth but they only
express their own thoughts and views which you're free to reject.

 

[viole]

So speaking about religion, the scholars don't necessarily know the truth but they only
express their own thoughts and views which you're free to reject.

Well, scientists do not only express their thoughts. i do not say that the speed of light in vaccum is constant because I was born in Sweden or in Timbuktu or because my parents told me that this is the truth, or because this is just my personal thought.

We need hard evidence before accepting such an outlandish claim like asserting that some speeds do not add up in different reference frames. Personal thoughts have no scientific value if not supported by any evidence.

They are just, well, personal. No different than having the personal thought that Elvis is alive and well.

Ciao

- viole

 

[leibowde84]

They may be respected for their achievements in their respective fields but why should an ordinary man believe in them? They are so often wrong, have no consensus even among themselves, keep on changing their opinions. Their opinions are not facts, and facts existed/exist/will exist irrespective of their opinions.
Not a must to believe in them. Right?
The Atheists should Quote for any claims and or reasons in this connection from a text book of science, a peer reviewed article published in a science journal of repute in support of their ideas.
Regards

Laymen in any field should study and refer back to experts in said field. Until the layman does enough research and learns enough to consider themselves as knowing better, the experts should be respected as understanding a whole lot more in a given field of study.

If I wanted to learn about Islamic Theology, I would refer to Imams and such. If I want to know about evokutuon, I would refer to evolutionary biologists. For physics, physicists, etc. Any other way would be self-reighteous, imho.

And, scientists aren't afraid of changing their theories to better adhere to new evidence. Religious teachers are most often too stubborn for this, which should lead us to be skeptical of their beliefs.

 

[FearGod]

Well, scientists do not only express their thoughts. i do not say that the speed of light in vaccum is constant because I was born in Sweden or in Timbuktu or because my parents told me that this is the truth, or because this is just my personal thought.

We need hard evidence before accepting such an outlandish claim like asserting that some speeds do not add up in different reference frames. Personal thoughts have no scientific value if not supported by any evidence.

They are just, well, personal. No different than having the personal thought that Elvis is alive and well.

Ciao

- viole

Yes, the religious views and thoughts can be debated and hence we can't trust the views of the scholars unless
we investigate it ourselves then we can accept it or reject it, that's different than a concrete science.

 

[viole]

Yes, the religious views and thoughts can be debated and hence we can't trust the views of the scholars unless
we investigate it ourselves then we can accept it or reject it, that's different than a concrete science.

I wonder what epistemology you use. How do you decide that a scholar is wrong? Do you make some experiments at home?

In other words, before analyzing the claims of a scholar you should check that what she is talking about exists. How do you do that?

Ciao

- viole

 

[FearGod]

I wonder what epistemology you use. How do you decide that a scholar is wrong? Do you make some experiments at home?

In other words, before analyzing the claims of a scholar you should check that what she is talking about exists. How do you do that?

Ciao

- viole

Right, hence we can't trust the scholars then we have to search for the truth ourselves, God existence is another issue.

 

[viole]

Right, hence we can't trust the scholars then we have to search for the truth ourselves, God existence is another issue.

Ergo, your professional scholars are stealing their money, if you have to do the work yourself. They are basically useless.

i have no doubt you can afford that with religion, but I find it challenging for me to get a degree in medicine when I get sick so that I can evaluate what my doctor tells me.

Right?

Ciao

- viole

 

[FearGod]

Ergo, your professional scholars are stealing their money, if you have to do the work yourself. They are basically useless.

i have no doubt you can afford that with religion, but I find it challenging for me to get a degree in medicine when I get sick so that I can evaluate what my doctor tells me.

Right?

Ciao

- viole

No, you don't have to, but you can ask for the opinion of one other doctor and then investigate
it yourself, doctors can do mistakes too.

 

[viole]

No, you don't have to, but you can ask for the opinion of one other doctor and then investigate
it yourself, doctors can do mistakes too.

And what do I do if all doctors and all my further investigations agree with her?

Ciao

- viole

 

[FearGod]

And what do I do if all doctors and all my further investigations agree with her?

Ciao

- viole

If you're sure then you have to agree with them of course.

 

[viole]

If you're sure then you have to agree with them of course.

Do you think religion possibly shares the same sort of agreements among all those scholars? Muslims, Christians and what not.

If not why not?

Ciao

- viole

 

[FearGod]

Do you think religion possibly shares the same sort of agreements among all those scholars? Muslims, Christians and what not.

If not why not?

Ciao

- viole

There're different views among the scholars, they may agree in some points and disagree in some others.

 

[viole]

There're different views among the scholars, they may agree in some points and disagree in some others.

So, what do you do? and what makes you think that your further investigations led you to something they obviously missed?

Ciao

- viole

 

[FearGod]

So, what do you do? and what makes you think that your further investigations led you to something they obviously missed?

Ciao

- viole

Logic,knowledge and science.

 

[viole]

Logic,knowledge and science.

That scholars do not use. Right?

Ciao

- viole

 

[Ponder This]

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.

The importance of whether or not you should trust someone isn't dependent solely on their qualifications as an academic or a professional.
Trust is a matter of integrity and friendship not intellectual achievement. You shouldn't just go to someone because that person is smart.
You ought to consider both whether the person is competent and whether he has your best interests in mind.
Degrees are supposed to represent a certain degree of competence, but degrees do not denote integrity or compassion.

I'll quickly reiterate what jonathan said so eloquently a few posts back:

It all boils down to verifiable, repeatable evidence.

Yes, I agree that there are fakers in the world. Fakers can't produce verifiable, repeatable evidence.

This is all well and good if you have the time and patience to verify and repeat absolutely every claim made. But if you did that, then you would be the academic professional that the rest of us would be wondering if we could trust...

and fakers can produce evidence that gives the appearance of being verifiable and repeatable. And people can also use facts (that are verifiable and repeatable) in misleading ways to support their claims.

 

[Parsimony]

Right, hence we can't trust the scholars then we have to search for the truth ourselves

About what? Anything? Are you doubtful of a claim if you can't verify it personally? Would that mean you would have to be doubtful when astronomers say they've found a new extrasolar planet or particle physicists saying they've discovered a new nuclear isotope or biologists a new virus and so on? How would you even begin to investigate things like this personally?

 

[icehorse]

Hey Ponder,

What Emergence said.

 

[paarsurrey]

Well, those who favour that one should believe in the academia and the scholars have not commented on the following point given in my post #41:

It is the religious-forums, religion, every one of them has experts of religion, they do qualify from their institutions; why the Atheists/Agnostics/Skeptics/Humanists don't believe them? If they think following of the academia or the accredited scholars is a must; they should be the first to follow them. Yet they don't. Why? Please​

Isn't it astonishing?
Regards

 

[paarsurrey]

I'll quickly reiterate what jonathan said so eloquently a few posts back:
It all boils down to verifiable, repeatable evidence.
Yes, I agree that there are fakers in the world. Fakers can't produce verifiable, repeatable evidence.

Please let us know as to what one understands from the words "evidence", "verifiable" and "repeatable". One's own understanding not of the lexicon, please.
Regards