• Welcome to Religious Forums, a friendly forum to discuss all religions in a friendly surrounding.

    Your voice is missing! You will need to register to get access to the following site features:
    • Reply to discussions and create your own threads.
    • Our modern chat room. No add-ons or extensions required, just login and start chatting!
    • Access to private conversations with other members.

    We hope to see you as a part of our community soon!

Just Making **** Up

Samantha Rinne

Resident Genderfluid Writer/Artist
It struck me today looking at all the faith descriptions of various posters how religion is completely subjective. People can just make up religions to suit their personalities and desires.

And you think science types are any different?

In order to preserve a worldview (thar is sometimes false), we come up with justifications for how things are how they are. Some subatomic particles are so tiny that they cannot be seen by any means we currently have, but must exist to explain the components of larger components. I am not sure anyone has has actually seen strings (what quarks are supposed to be made of), but they have to be there because otherwise scientists are unable to resolve their ideal of being able to split quarks (since scientists want to destroy the universe by bashing its building blocks apart, since they don't respect what God pieced together ❤ ). If you subscribe to heliocentrism, you have to add .986 to the degrees of the Earth I think it was, because otherwise the rotation of the Earth at certain times of year makes it dark at noon. That number was made up just to adjust for the theory being off, as was the leap year date. Or coming up with missing links to explain why birds evolved from dinosaurs (even though dinosaurs should clearly be reptiles or amphibians).

There are 13 (or more) things that don't make sense in science.

13 things that do not make sense
 

Wandering Monk

Well-Known Member
And you think science types are any different?

In order to preserve a worldview (thar is sometimes false), we come up with justifications for how things are how they are. Some subatomic particles are so tiny that they cannot be seen by any means we currently have, but must exist to explain the components of larger components. I am not sure anyone has has actually seen strings (what quarks are supposed to be made of), but they have to be there because otherwise scientists are unable to resolve their ideal of being able to split quarks (since scientists want to destroy the universe by bashing its building blocks apart, since they don't respect what God pieced together ❤ ). If you subscribe to heliocentrism, you have to add .986 to the degrees of the Earth I think it was, because otherwise the rotation of the Earth at certain times of year makes it dark at noon. That number was made up just to adjust for the theory being off, as was the leap year date. Or coming up with missing links to explain why birds evolved from dinosaurs (even though dinosaurs should clearly be reptiles or amphibians).

There are 13 (or more) things that don't make sense in science.

13 things that do not make sense
14355740_1104460802973387_4777917570342879253_n.jpg
 

Koldo

Outstanding Member
It also reflects consumerism.

Select your brand, model and options. Select a payment plan. Buy some merch like coffee mugs, car stickers etc to reinforce your look and identity, and ... Rock it !

A round of applause for this man, please.
This short post contains a huge insight.
 

icehorse

......unaffiliated...... anti-dogmatist
Premium Member
Hmmm. Disagree.

I'ld rather say that all this "making stuff up" is actually fine for kids and NOT for grown ups.

Grown ups are supposed to know better then just making stuff up.... Grown ups are supposed to inform their kids, at some appropriate point, that the stuff the kids are making up, is not how the real world works.

In general I agree. But for some reason, a lot of people make religion an exception to the rule.
 

dianaiad

Well-Known Member
I'm more concerned with people thinking that it was the religion that was the cause of these things perhaps rather than an individual having the critical thinking skills who might have done whatever in any suitable environment, religious or not. That is all. And from what I understand, religions have not been outstanding promoters of (independent) science, especially if it were to contradict the religion quite markedly.

Neither has science....when the new people come up with ideas that conflict with 'what we all know."

For instance....Here. Ridiculed science mavericks vindicated

This isn't so much a 'religious' thing as it is a 'people' thing....especially if one happens to be a non-believer and thinks that all religion is man-made. I mean, really...if religion is man-made, then the 'man-made" part would simply apply this tendency to something other than religion.

Science is great...the scientific method is, I believe, the way we mere humans are supposed to learn about what and how God did things.

Don't cringe; the brand new super nova out there remains the same whether the discoverer of it believes in a deity or not.

ANY way...don't go figuring that science and scientists are immune to this. Especially, don't go thinking that science and scientists are SO immune to this that they can turn their noses up at anybody else. Science is SUPPOSED to be open to new ideas and expect changes in knowledge and understanding, and we STILL pull stuff like, oh, driving Semmelweis crazy because the established medical field, in spite of the PROOF that his methods saved lives, still refused to wash hands between delivering babies.
 

Mock Turtle

Oh my, did I say that!
Premium Member
Neither has science....when the new people come up with ideas that conflict with 'what we all know."

For instance....Here. Ridiculed science mavericks vindicated

This isn't so much a 'religious' thing as it is a 'people' thing....especially if one happens to be a non-believer and thinks that all religion is man-made. I mean, really...if religion is man-made, then the 'man-made" part would simply apply this tendency to something other than religion.

Science is great...the scientific method is, I believe, the way we mere humans are supposed to learn about what and how God did things.

Don't cringe; the brand new super nova out there remains the same whether the discoverer of it believes in a deity or not.

ANY way...don't go figuring that science and scientists are immune to this. Especially, don't go thinking that science and scientists are SO immune to this that they can turn their noses up at anybody else. Science is SUPPOSED to be open to new ideas and expect changes in knowledge and understanding, and we STILL pull stuff like, oh, driving Semmelweis crazy because the established medical field, in spite of the PROOF that his methods saved lives, still refused to wash hands between delivering babies.

New ideas in science are expected to be criticised - it is part of the negative feedback required to ensure that such ideas have enough scrutiny to pass muster. But the criticism coming from fellow scientists is rather different than from elsewhere (hopefully). And of course there are always new ideas that can appear so outrageous as to be rejected quite often. I'm hardly going to refute that. I think that religions differ in that they do already (in many cases) have a story describing whatever aspect and are not that keen to have this disproved. Scientists might do so too, where reputations are at stake for example (or where some are just too allied to some theory), but usually there will be enough honest scientists willing to look at any evidence, and there are usually no repercussions for any proposer - unlike perhaps where religion has any power.
 

dianaiad

Well-Known Member
New ideas in science are expected to be criticised - it is part of the negative feedback required to ensure that such ideas have enough scrutiny to pass muster. But the criticism coming from fellow scientists is rather different than from elsewhere (hopefully).

A hope seldom, if ever, realized. While I am not myself a 'scientist,' I belong to a family of them, and I am quite aware of what REALLY goes on and the level of vituperation that is indulged in when some 'crackpot' comes up with a new idea.

I mean, really. Semmelweis (sorry to use him as my constant example..) PROVED that simply washing one's hands between delivering babies made a huge difference in the death rate from 'child bed fever.' the evidence was right there, compiled and presented...and he was quite literally driven mad by the doctors who threw him out and went back to killing new mothers.

I can give you many other examples, but I do know this: NO new idea from science is greeted without insult from the folks who like the way things are. Remember: the 'Big Bang' was not named that as a COMPLIMENT.

What I"m saying here is that this is very much a 'mote and beam' thing. For 'science' to criticize RELIGION for not allowing new ideas is, to me, ludicrous. And hypocritical.

Mind you, I'm not claiming that religions are at all fond of new ideas. They are mostly called 'heresies' for a reason. Old beliefs do not like new beliefs, at all What I AM saying is that this isn't a property of religion only..or even mostly of religion. PEOPLE do it. We all do, all the time, and I, personally, fail to see that when some non-believer criticizes religions for doing that even as they claim that science seldom if ever does, it irritates me.

And of course there are always new ideas that can appear so outrageous as to be rejected quite often. I'm hardly going to refute that. I think that religions differ in that they do already (in many cases) have a story describing whatever aspect and are not that keen to have this disproved. Scientists might do so too, where reputations are at stake for example (or where some are just too allied to some theory), but usually there will be enough honest scientists willing to look at any evidence, and there are usually no repercussions for any proposer - unlike perhaps where religion has any power.

Uh huh. Tell that (again) to Semmelweis. ....or any number of scientists who have published theories that go against the current consensus...and end up teaching at a jr. college somewhere, or selling insurance...who end up proven right and/or being given the equivalent of the Nobel prize postumously (since the Nobel prize itself is NOT awarded postumously...just, more often that it should be, fifty years too late.)
 

TagliatelliMonster

Veteran Member
Neither has science....when the new people come up with ideas that conflict with 'what we all know."

For instance....Here. Ridiculed science mavericks vindicated

Here's the thing. The reason why people who were first "mocked" or who's ideas were initially rejected, later on were "vindicated", is because they came up with more and better evidence and then succeeded in convincing their peers and collegues.

Do you know where the name "big bang theory" came from?
It was a deragotary name given to the hypothesis when it was first proposed, by the mainstream which held consensus on steady state theory, that the universe was static.

The name stuck in the end, after the evidence in support of the model convinced the community.

What this means is that science works. It means that good and well supported ideas will prevail.

This isn't so much a 'religious' thing as it is a 'people' thing....especially if one happens to be a non-believer and thinks that all religion is man-made. I mean, really...if religion is man-made, then the 'man-made" part would simply apply this tendency to something other than religion.

It's actually an evidence thing. If you have an accurate new model of some phenomenon and can't support it properly, it won't get accepted. If you later on can support it properly, it will be accepted. That's just how it works.

Higgs had to wait for several decades before his theoretical model could be confirmed in the LHC and a lot of prominent physicist didn't buy into the higgs boson before that. Evidence convinced them. As it should be.

ANY way...don't go figuring that science and scientists are immune to this. Especially, don't go thinking that science and scientists are SO immune to this that they can turn their noses up at anybody else. Science is SUPPOSED to be open to new ideas
And it clearly IS open to new ideas, as long as those new ideas are sound and supportable by rational testable evidence.

If you come up with a "new idea" that offers an alternative explanatory model for some phenomenon and this new idea does a worse job at explaining the data then the prevailing idea does... why on earth would any scientist then adopt that new idea and replace the current one with it? That makes no sense obviously.

New ideas that do a BETTER job then current ideas, is what all scientists strive for. It's what wins nobel prizes. It's how you get famous as a scientist and have villages, streets, statues, buildings and universities named after you.

and expect changes in knowledge and understanding, and we STILL pull stuff like, oh, driving Semmelweis crazy because the established medical field, in spite of the PROOF that his methods saved lives, still refused to wash hands between delivering babies.

No idea what you are talking about here.
 

Wandering Monk

Well-Known Member
Here's the thing. The reason why people who were first "mocked" or who's ideas were initially rejected, later on were "vindicated", is because they came up with more and better evidence and then succeeded in convincing their peers and collegues.

Do you know where the name "big bang theory" came from?
It was a deragotary name given to the hypothesis when it was first proposed, by the mainstream which held consensus on steady state theory, that the universe was static.

The name stuck in the end, after the evidence in support of the model convinced the community.

What this means is that science works. It means that good and well supported ideas will prevail.



It's actually an evidence thing. If you have an accurate new model of some phenomenon and can't support it properly, it won't get accepted. If you later on can support it properly, it will be accepted. That's just how it works.

Higgs had to wait for several decades before his theoretical model could be confirmed in the LHC and a lot of prominent physicist didn't buy into the higgs boson before that. Evidence convinced them. As it should be.


And it clearly IS open to new ideas, as long as those new ideas are sound and supportable by rational testable evidence.

If you come up with a "new idea" that offers an alternative explanatory model for some phenomenon and this new idea does a worse job at explaining the data then the prevailing idea does... why on earth would any scientist then adopt that new idea and replace the current one with it? That makes no sense obviously.

New ideas that do a BETTER job then current ideas, is what all scientists strive for. It's what wins nobel prizes. It's how you get famous as a scientist and have villages, streets, statues, buildings and universities named after you.



No idea what you are talking about here.

Another interesting bit demonstrating that it can take a long time before a hypothesis can be falsified.

The existence of atoms was first suggested by a Greek philospher Leucippus in the 5th century BCE. We haven't actually had the tools to see an atom until the advent of the Tunneling Electron Microscope.

Just because a hypothesis is unfalsifiable NOW does not mean it will always be so.

On the other hand, the existence of God will ALWAYS be unfalsifiable because by Jewish and Christian definition he is not material; his existence is not contingent on what he is supposed to have created. The existence of God will NEVER be proven or disproven by science.
 

Howard Is

Lucky Mud
And you think science types are any different?

Absolutely
‘Science types’ are why you aren’t living the rough life of a primitive.

Every piece of technology that makes your physical life comfortable, including medicine, is thanks to the ‘science types’, and that is all the evidence we need that their theories work in the real world.

You have to ignore all of that to make your puerile assertions.

The ideas of ‘science types’ are demonstrably valid because your computer works, your heating and cooling systems work, your car, mobile phone, your pacemaker if you have heart problems, illnesses can be observed internally with x-ray and MRI machines, ..the list is...basically everything you use and need.

What has belief created that is practically useful ?

Nada. Zero.
 

Twilight Hue

Twilight, not bright nor dark, good nor bad.
Another interesting bit demonstrating that it can take a long time before a hypothesis can be falsified.

The existence of atoms was first suggested by a Greek philospher Leucippus in the 5th century BCE. We haven't actually had the tools to see an atom until the advent of the Tunneling Electron Microscope.

Just because a hypothesis is unfalsifiable NOW does not mean it will always be so.

On the other hand, the existence of God will ALWAYS be unfalsifiable because by Jewish and Christian definition he is not material; his existence is not contingent on what he is supposed to have created. The existence of God will NEVER be proven or disproven by science.

Atoms only meant the smallest thing that can't be divided. It doesn't mean the ancient Greeks had some magical way of detecting elemental atoms themselves.
 

TagliatelliMonster

Veteran Member
Another interesting bit demonstrating that it can take a long time before a hypothesis can be falsified.

The existence of atoms was first suggested by a Greek philospher Leucippus in the 5th century BCE. We haven't actually had the tools to see an atom until the advent of the Tunneling Electron Microscope.

Just because a hypothesis is unfalsifiable NOW does not mean it will always be so.

Falsifiability is a principle though.
It is not dependend on current technology or capabilities.

When we say that an idea is falsifiable, we mean falsifiable in principle.
Take idd the Higgs boson. Before the LHC was build, there were no particle accelerators powerfull enough to make this boson detectable.

But that didn't mean that the higgs hypothesis was unfalsifiable. It's always been falsifiable in principle. We simply didn't have the appropriate equipment yet. But it WAS falsifiable, because it made testable predictions. It just took a long time for the machinery to exist to be able to conduct the experiment. But this experiment was always possible in principle.

Unfalsifiable ideas are ideas that make NO testable predictions. Like when you posit a supernatural entity that is entirely undetectable, doesn't exist "in" the universe, has no detectable manifestation whatsoever,... etc.

Such ideas can't be tested. There is nothing you can say, not even in principle, which says something like "if we would find this or that, THEN this idea would be false".

Unfalsifiable ideas are thus unfalsifiable in principle. It can't be tested. Not even with technology that won't be available for another million years.

On the other hand, the existence of God will ALWAYS be unfalsifiable because by Jewish and Christian definition he is not material; his existence is not contingent on what he is supposed to have created. The existence of God will NEVER be proven or disproven by science.


Exactly. It's unfalsifiable in principle. Regardless of current or future capabilities.


(I'm sure you were aware of all this, but I felt like it could use some extra clarification for others who might not be so aware of these concepts)
 

Martin

Spam, wonderful spam (bloody vikings!)
Where is the line between making stuff up, and coming up with explanations?
For example, people used to think that the weather was controlled by gods. It was their way of explaining the weather, so it wasn't really just making stuff up.
 
Last edited:

Mock Turtle

Oh my, did I say that!
Premium Member
A hope seldom, if ever, realized. While I am not myself a 'scientist,' I belong to a family of them, and I am quite aware of what REALLY goes on and the level of vituperation that is indulged in when some 'crackpot' comes up with a new idea.

I mean, really. Semmelweis (sorry to use him as my constant example..) PROVED that simply washing one's hands between delivering babies made a huge difference in the death rate from 'child bed fever.' the evidence was right there, compiled and presented...and he was quite literally driven mad by the doctors who threw him out and went back to killing new mothers.

I can give you many other examples, but I do know this: NO new idea from science is greeted without insult from the folks who like the way things are. Remember: the 'Big Bang' was not named that as a COMPLIMENT.

What I"m saying here is that this is very much a 'mote and beam' thing. For 'science' to criticize RELIGION for not allowing new ideas is, to me, ludicrous. And hypocritical.

Well I do know that this occurs all too often, and I suppose one could see much the same between others trying to protect their interests or intellectual endeavours and religions doing so. In many cases, scientific discoveries have been made and left on the shelf for years, decades, or longer, but they do usually get a fair hearing and recognised if they are reflecting of reality - eventually. Much depends on what is occurring in other fields or what might be accepted at the time. Scientists are human after all.
Mind you, I'm not claiming that religions are at all fond of new ideas. They are mostly called 'heresies' for a reason. Old beliefs do not like new beliefs, at all What I AM saying is that this isn't a property of religion only..or even mostly of religion. PEOPLE do it. We all do, all the time, and I, personally, fail to see that when some non-believer criticizes religions for doing that even as they claim that science seldom if ever does, it irritates me.

I think the difference is - religions have a message rooted in the past (origins of that religion), whilst science is just rooted in bad ideas until something better comes up, and hopefully reflecting reality.
Uh huh. Tell that (again) to Semmelweis. ....or any number of scientists who have published theories that go against the current consensus...and end up teaching at a jr. college somewhere, or selling insurance...who end up proven right and/or being given the equivalent of the Nobel prize postumously (since the Nobel prize itself is NOT awarded postumously...just, more often that it should be, fifty years too late.)

As above - life isn't fair - but religions often make it even worse in many ways when they prescribe or proscribe what others should do.
 
Last edited:

Milton Platt

Well-Known Member
It struck me today looking at all the faith descriptions of various posters how religion is completely subjective. People can just make up religions to suit their personalities and desires.

They do....it is rampant, and grows all the time. That is what religion is.
 

dfnj

Well-Known Member
It struck me today looking at all the faith descriptions of various posters how religion is completely subjective. People can just make up religions to suit their personalities and desires.

Over the years I've worked very hard trying to understand many different religions, mythologies, philosophies, and different ways of spirituality and being. And I've seen this sentiment expressed several times every year. And that is the idea "religion is completely subjective" and that this idea itself is somehow a shocking revelation.

The only reason this is shocking is because people do not realize how indoctrinated they are in the belief of philosophical materialism. People who are philosophical materialists believe in an objective reality. And these people also hold in the highest esteem the idea of "being objective" as opposed to the lesser esteemed idea of being subjective. It the strangest thing to witness two philosophical materialists arguing with each other over who is being more objective in their thinking.

Sometimes philosophical materialism is called realism. But the opposite of realism is idealism. With philosophical idealism, the subjective mind is held in a higher esteem than the objective mind. For me, since I think evidence from experiments in quantum mechanics debunks philosophical materialism, based on the scientific evidence therefore, choosing idealism over realism and raising the value of subjective experience is the only objective choice.

So I would not make a derogatory statement, or what seems to be derogatory, as in the OP. I would argue each of us having our own unique subjective experience of how we experience God and God's creation is a positive not a negative.
 
Top