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

[leibowde84]

paarsurrey said: ↑
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
leibowde84 said: ↑
Evidence that is not only documented, but also is within reach of the common person. Verifiable just means that we don't have to take anyone's word for subjective experiences or anything. We can look at the evidence and verify the theory presented by an acedemic. Repeatable means that you can conduct a controlled experiment yourself and see the same results.
paarsurrey said: ↑
Now please fit them on history. Right?
Regards

Can one go back in time and verify the history of Greece say in the time of Socrates as it happened and repeat the events of his life? Please
Regards

Socrates is actually a very interesting example. We don’t know much about him, as he never wrote anything down. He comes up as sort of a literary character in the writings of Plato, so, obviously, much of what is claimed about him could have been invented. The vast majority of historians agree that Socrates was an actual person, but it isn’t known for sure. But, all in all, it is not important whether Socrates came up with the ideas attributed to him or even existed in the first place, as those ideas are what was important. And, no evidence is required to support the existence of ideas, as their existence is self-evident.


In regards to the spirit of your inquiry, you are correct in pointing out that history is almost impossible to prove. For more modern events and historical figures, we have a lot more evidence to work off of, but usually “the victors right history”, so, often, we realize our assumptions about them are flawed/incorrect. There is no certainty, but nothing should be assumed without verifiable evidence. That, obviously, doesn’t mean that we have to have been there to witness history or own a time-machine or anything. There is plenty of verifiable evidence that can be used to piece together historical events now. But, as I said, it surely isn’t perfect.


The point is that, while history cannot be perfectly proven, we do have evidence that should lead us to assumptions. If someone claims certain things about history, we should be skeptical up to the point of demanding support for those claims. With history, we can look at corroborating evidence like records, fossils, writings, newspaper articles, pictures, paintings, etc. With religious authorities making claims about the nature of God and such, there is an extreme lack of evidence that will support their claims and show us that they should be trusted.

 

[Parsimony]

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

(1) Religious scholars don't have anything remotely close to consensus. Some think Christianity is the right religion, others Judaism, still others Hinduism, and so on. You can't trust them all because they contradict each other. Accepting one automatically means rejecting many, many others.
(2) The kind of evidence that religious scholars rely on is different from that which scientists rely on. Scientists can perform repeatable, verifiable experiments to gain knowledge. Can religious scholars perform repeatable, verifiable experiments to discern the nature of God? If so, then why are there so many different views of Him in the different religions?

 

[Rick O'Shez]

I believe everything that Saint Dawkins says.

 

[paarsurrey]

No, I do not. But I believe there are other life forms in the universe. i need belief only in things that do not have evidence.
I think people would look funny at me if I solemnly state that I believe that the earth is not flat. Don't you think? If you do not believe me, try it at next cocktail party.

"Do you think that science is the only knowledge that exists in the world, except it there is no other knowledge? Do you, please?"

Yes, I think so. That does not entail that things inaccessible to science, if any, cannot be true. It just entails you cannot possibly acquire knowledge of them.

"Your generalization about the truthful religion is wrong. In almost all parts of the world it is spreading and people convert to it. Even yesterday I was introduced to two persons, on got converted to Islam from Christianity belonged to Canada and the other was a Hindu who got converted to Islam he belonged to Trinidad.
Regards"

Yes, and I met four people who turned Christians from being Jewish.
Come back to me when the whole world is Muslim. I will settle for full conversion of something as tiny as Switzerland. Good luck, lol.
Ciao
- viole

On what basis? Please
That does not prove that people are not converting to the Truthful Religion. Does it? Please
I did not say, that it will happen in your life-time and or mine. Did I? Please
It will happen within three hundred years after Mirza Ghulam Ahmad 1835-1908 though.

Regards

 

[Shadow Wolf]

You don't have to trust them, or accept what they say, but why wouldn't you go to an expert in a given field for knowledge and understanding in that field?

I don't think anyone can know anything for certain

Math proves this statement is false.

 

[Senseless]

You don't have to trust them, or accept what they say, but why wouldn't you go to an expert in a given field for knowledge and understanding in that field?

Math proves this statement is false.

This statement says that I think so. Math proves I don't think what I say I think?

Like I said, I'm an idiot. I wouldn't take what I say too seriously myself.

 

[Willamena]

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

One should respect their opinions. Respecting their opinions means also respecting that they have good reason for having those opinions.

 

[paarsurrey]

Socrates is actually a very interesting example. We don’t know much about him, as he never wrote anything down. He comes up as sort of a literary character in the writings of Plato, so, obviously, much of what is claimed about him could have been invented. The vast majority of historians agree that Socrates was an actual person, but it isn’t known for sure. But, all in all, it is not important whether Socrates came up with the ideas attributed to him or even existed in the first place, as those ideas are what was important. And, no evidence is required to support the existence of ideas, as their existence is self-evident.
In regards to the spirit of your inquiry, you are correct in pointing out that history is almost impossible to prove. For more modern events and historical figures, we have a lot more evidence to work off of, but usually “the victors right history”, so, often, we realize our assumptions about them are flawed/incorrect. There is no certainty, but nothing should be assumed without verifiable evidence. That, obviously, doesn’t mean that we have to have been there to witness history or own a time-machine or anything. There is plenty of verifiable evidence that can be used to piece together historical events now. But, as I said, it surely isn’t perfect.
The point is that, while history cannot be perfectly proven, we do have evidence that should lead us to assumptions. If someone claims certain things about history, we should be skeptical up to the point of demanding support for those claims. With history, we can look at corroborating evidence like records, fossils, writings, newspaper articles, pictures, paintings, etc. With religious authorities making claims about the nature of God and such, there is an extreme lack of evidence that will support their claims and show us that they should be trusted.

So you agree that scientific method does not apply on history.
Do you think as scientific method applies in physics, the same way it applies to Astronomy? If not why not? If yes, how could one have the same type of evidences , verifiable, repeatable in Astronomy as in physics.
Regards

 

[paarsurrey]

(1) Religious scholars don't have anything remotely close to consensus. Some think Christianity is the right religion, others Judaism, still others Hinduism, and so on. You can't trust them all because they contradict each other. Accepting one automatically means rejecting many, many others.
(2) The kind of evidence that religious scholars rely on is different from that which scientists rely on. Scientists can perform repeatable, verifiable experiments to gain knowledge. Can religious scholars perform repeatable, verifiable experiments to discern the nature of God? If so, then why are there so many different views of Him in the different religions?

One is simply making wrong comparisons.
The nature of science and religion is different, so they are not comparable.
Religion should be compared with irreligion or non-religion (Atheism/Agnosticism/Skepticism/Humanism). Right?
Regards

 

[Parsimony]

One is simply making wrong comparisons.
The nature of science and religion is different, so they are not comparable.

With that in mind, you should realize why it is flawed to say "If atheists believe scientific scholars, they should believe religious scholars too". I don't believe I've seen anyone on here, atheist or not, say that we should believe all scholars on all matters.

 

[leibowde84]

So you agree that scientific method does not apply on history.
Do you think as scientific method applies in physics, the same way it applies to Astronomy? If not why not? If yes, how could one have the same type of evidences , verifiable, repeatable in Astronomy as in physics.
Regards

The scientific method does apply to history. I never claimed otherwise. No one says that it has to give proof positive results. It is just a mother of using evidence, experimentation, and observation to come up with theories.

 

[icehorse]

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

Not astonishing at all. By definition, religious scholars are either analyzing scripture, which is by definition and by example subjective, or they are discussing faith, which by definition is evidence-free.

 

[icehorse]

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

Take the internet as an example. It runs on electricity, integrated circuits, and computer software. All of these manmade inventions were discovered and refined based on experiments. Initially the experiments failed, but those experiments that proved to be successful time after time became the ones we used. All of the internet is based on predictable, verifiable evidence.

 

[serp777]

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

Then get off your computer and stop using the internet. Clearly your computer shouldn't be functional since you shouldn't believe in the academics who formulated computer science and electrical engineering. Science improves and fixes itself via the scientific method which is the entire idea. It gets better over time as people learn more. But science has more predictive power and concrete results than ANYTHING. name one other things that is as powerful as science, which of course is constructed by the scientific academia.

I also bet you don't apply this rigor to your pastor or to Jesus. Its just special pleading where you need to be skeptical of academics but not your religion. I find your post entirely illogical.

 

[paarsurrey]

You don't have to trust them, or accept what they say, but why wouldn't you go to an expert in a given field for knowledge and understanding in that field?
Math proves this statement is false.

Is Mathematics covered under the scientific method? If not why not?
Regards

 

[serp777]

Is Mathematics covered under the scientific method? If not why not?
Regards

Mathematics and science are not the same thing. Mathematics is a language based on logic and operations. It has its own fundamental axioms and is based on deduction and induction rather than science which uses these things are confirms them with evidence. The effectiveness of mathematics should that much of the universe follows mathematical like constructs.

 

[Shadow Wolf]

Is Mathematics covered under the scientific method? If not why not?

That you would ask shows how much in need of educating yourself about the topics you are. Math and science are not the same thing, but rather they are different tools that work really well together. It's because of math that we can have certainty that some facts can be objectively known as true. When it is used by a scientist, the scientist first begins with the scientific method, but will later use mathematics and various formulas to aid in deducting a conclusion because the numbers don't lie.

 

[paarsurrey]

Mathematics and science are not the same thing. Mathematics is a language based on logic and operations. It has its own fundamental axioms and is based on deduction and induction rather than science which uses these things are confirms them with evidence. The effectiveness of mathematics should that much of the universe follows mathematical like constructs.

Mathematics is a language according to what? science?
Regards

 

[paarsurrey]

That you would ask shows how much in need of educating yourself about the topics you are. Math and science are not the same thing, but rather they are different tools that work really well together. It's because of math that we can have certainty that some facts can be objectively known as true. When it is used by a scientist, the scientist first begins with the scientific method, but will later use mathematics and various formulas to aid in deducting a conclusion because the numbers don't lie.

Science itself is a tool and without mathematics science can do nothing. Mathematics is not dependent on science or scientific method, it works irrespective of science.
So every knowledge has its own system. So is the truthful revealed religion, it has its own system to prove and disprove things in ethical, moral and spiritual realms.
Regards

 

[dust1n]

So you agree that scientific method does not apply on history.
Do you think as scientific method applies in physics, the same way it applies to Astronomy? If not why not? If yes, how could one have the same type of evidences , verifiable, repeatable in Astronomy as in physics.
Regards

Science is based on deductive reasoning from repeated observations. We aren't going to be around long enough to see a star's full life cycle. But given the little snippets of life of the billions of stars around us, and what we know about physics, we could postulate theories about what we are seeing. If it doesn't conflict with physics, or better yet, if it actually is supported by physics, we'd be like.. hey that looks pretty good. If we saw something that conflicted with the theory, or totally contradicted it, we'd investigate what it was or redo the entire theory to accommodate for the new facts.

People do the best with what they got.

Which is pretty impressive, considering we had ideas about Pluto being pretty dead, but when we sent satellites there to test things that would prove and/or disprove some of these theories, it was quickly discovered there is more going on there then we knew.

The more observations, the more experiments, the more data, the better we understand the phenomenon.

Experience is the premise for... learning...