1. 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!

Featured The Popular Science Faith

Discussion in 'General Religious Debates' started by Jim, Oct 9, 2018.

  1. Jim

    Jim Active Member

    Joined:
    Apr 7, 2004
    Messages:
    912
    Ratings:
    +486
    Religion:
    learning to follow Baha'u'llah
    (edited to add the following)
    What I mean by "popular science" is media and faction interpretations of research reports, that people cite as proof of what they think about religion and social issues.
    (end edit)

    It substitutes the word “science” in the place of “God,” and reports of academic and industry research in the place of scriptures. In debates between followers of religions and followers of the Popular Science Faith, just like religious believers, Popular Science believers consider their scriptures as incontestable proof of their views. Just like religious believers, Popular Science believers mostly never actually read their scriptures, and instead rely on others (journalists and identity factions) to tell them what their scriptures say. Just like religious believers, Popular Science believers act like the presumed infallibility of their scriptures (reports of research) makes them infallible.
     
    #1 Jim, Oct 9, 2018
    Last edited: Oct 9, 2018
    • Like Like x 2
    • Creative Creative x 2
    • Winner Winner x 1
  2. SomeRandom

    SomeRandom Still learning to be wise

    Joined:
    Apr 20, 2014
    Messages:
    4,909
    Ratings:
    +3,754
    Uhh what? The very first thing one learns about science, even at primary (elementary) schooling level, is that everything in science is to be questioned. Hell the knowledge of dinosaurs has changed within my own school life even.When I was in primary school it was accepted that reptiles were brethren with dinos. By the time I hit High School they were considered cousins and therapods extended its definition to include birds. That's just one example. Talk to the older gen about what they learned in their schooling years and you'll find all sorts of updates.
    To question a sacred text is usually akin to blasphemy. To question scientific research is just another day at the office.
     
    • Like Like x 4
  3. icehorse

    icehorse Well-Known Member
    Premium Member

    Joined:
    Feb 5, 2014
    Messages:
    7,510
    Ratings:
    +3,679
    Religion:
    spiritual anti-theist : )
    The OP appears very much like it was written by someone who clearly knows almost nothing about science.
     
    • Like Like x 4
  4. adrian009

    adrian009 Well-Known Member

    Joined:
    Aug 5, 2014
    Messages:
    6,148
    Ratings:
    +4,018
    Religion:
    Baha'i
    Science in my experience doesn't work that way. I have three university science degrees and work in a field that relies heavily on scientific research as a medical doctor. None of my peers view research with the kind of infallibility that some faith adherents would view their religion. We are all cognisant that medical science is a rapidly changing field. What constitutes good medical practice now, may not be so in another ten years.

    Did you have a particular group in mind when you wrote this?
     
    • Like Like x 1
    • Informative Informative x 1
  5. Jim

    Jim Active Member

    Joined:
    Apr 7, 2004
    Messages:
    912
    Ratings:
    +486
    Religion:
    learning to follow Baha'u'llah
    I'm talking about people using "scientifically proven" as an argument in debates about religion and social issues, and people being stigmatized as "unscientific" or against science if they don't accept media and faction interpretations of research reports as proof of anything.
     
    #5 Jim, Oct 9, 2018
    Last edited: Oct 9, 2018
  6. adrian009

    adrian009 Well-Known Member

    Joined:
    Aug 5, 2014
    Messages:
    6,148
    Ratings:
    +4,018
    Religion:
    Baha'i
    That makes more sense. Whereas we can do double blinded randomised control trials to test the efficacy of a medication, the type of quality research that's required to answer the important social issues of our day is much more difficult. The best studies are long term studies where we follow a large cohort of people for decades and then make provide both qualitative and quantitative analysis. A good example of this kind of research is the Dunedin longitudinal study that has been running for over 45 years and well regarded internationally.

    Dunedin Multidisciplinary Health and Development Study - Wikipedia

    Even with this kind of quality research there are usually limits to how certain we can be in regards the findings.
     
    • Like Like x 2
    • Informative Informative x 1
  7. Jim

    Jim Active Member

    Joined:
    Apr 7, 2004
    Messages:
    912
    Ratings:
    +486
    Religion:
    learning to follow Baha'u'llah
    I'm talking about people citing media and faction interpretations of research reports as proof of what they think about religion and social issues.
     
    • Useful Useful x 1
  8. Revoltingest

    Revoltingest Ignorant Heathen Libertarian Capitalist
    Premium Member

    Joined:
    Mar 25, 2010
    Messages:
    132,426
    Ratings:
    +34,054
    Religion:
    Bokononism
    I have a subscription to Popular Science.
    Is Popular Mechanics a religion too?

    I find that research is far too often misunderstood, & twisted to suit an agenda.
    One trap is that people think that if a number is given for something, then that
    something is quantified, & therefor beyond question. Then the number is cited
    without being incorporated into a cogent argument....as though the number
    prove's one's larger claim all by itself.
     
    #8 Revoltingest, Oct 9, 2018
    Last edited: Oct 9, 2018
    • Like Like x 2
    • Useful Useful x 1
  9. adrian009

    adrian009 Well-Known Member

    Joined:
    Aug 5, 2014
    Messages:
    6,148
    Ratings:
    +4,018
    Religion:
    Baha'i
    That makes sense. Its always useful to look at the original research and what it says. Research that has been published in a scientific journal has been peer reviewed so gives it more weight. Its easy to take research conclusions out of context and assign more certainty that the authors intended.
     
    • Like Like x 1
  10. adrian009

    adrian009 Well-Known Member

    Joined:
    Aug 5, 2014
    Messages:
    6,148
    Ratings:
    +4,018
    Religion:
    Baha'i
    If you build your own god it could be.:)

    upload_2018-10-10_13-33-25.jpeg
     
    • Funny Funny x 2
  11. Revoltingest

    Revoltingest Ignorant Heathen Libertarian Capitalist
    Premium Member

    Joined:
    Mar 25, 2010
    Messages:
    132,426
    Ratings:
    +34,054
    Religion:
    Bokononism
    That's a good one.
     
    • Funny Funny x 1
  12. Subduction Zone

    Subduction Zone Veteran Member

    Joined:
    Nov 7, 2017
    Messages:
    15,231
    Ratings:
    +8,334
    Religion:
    Atheist
    Certain concepts can be proven wrong far beyond a reasonable doubt. We know that there was never a worldwide flood, unless you claim that God.is a liar. We know that there were never only two people.


    We cannot say that science disproves God. If people make that claim they are mistaken. We can claim that there does not appear to be any need for a God.
     
  13. Brickjectivity

    Brickjectivity simple man
    Staff Member Premium Member

    Joined:
    Dec 8, 2012
    Messages:
    21,726
    Ratings:
    +6,049
    Religion:
    Liberal Christian almost quaker
    There are religious people like that, too; people who will try to tell you about a religion they have not studied. Its everywhere not just in pop sci.
     
  14. Subduction Zone

    Subduction Zone Veteran Member

    Joined:
    Nov 7, 2017
    Messages:
    15,231
    Ratings:
    +8,334
    Religion:
    Atheist
    One that does not understand the sciences can never refute them.

    Edit: I had to correct the strangest autocorrect error that I have seen here. It was almost correct. Somehow the above post was changed to:

    One that does not understand the sciences can underwrite them.

    Weird.
     
    #14 Subduction Zone, Oct 9, 2018
    Last edited: Oct 9, 2018
    • Funny Funny x 1
  15. Brickjectivity

    Brickjectivity simple man
    Staff Member Premium Member

    Joined:
    Dec 8, 2012
    Messages:
    21,726
    Ratings:
    +6,049
    Religion:
    Liberal Christian almost quaker
    Probably not as good, although they do have potluck dinners.
     
    • Like Like x 1
  16. Jim

    Jim Active Member

    Joined:
    Apr 7, 2004
    Messages:
    912
    Ratings:
    +486
    Religion:
    learning to follow Baha'u'llah
    Exactly. That was my whole point. That's why I said "just like religious believers."
     
    • Like Like x 1
  17. Brickjectivity

    Brickjectivity simple man
    Staff Member Premium Member

    Joined:
    Dec 8, 2012
    Messages:
    21,726
    Ratings:
    +6,049
    Religion:
    Liberal Christian almost quaker
    Oops, sorry I missed it.
     
  18. sayak83

    sayak83 Well-Known Member
    Staff Member Premium Member

    Joined:
    May 7, 2012
    Messages:
    7,797
    Ratings:
    +7,092
    Religion:
    Pluralist Hindu
    [​IMG]
     
    • Winner Winner x 4
    • Like Like x 1
    • Useful Useful x 1
  19. Hubert Farnsworth

    Hubert Farnsworth Well-Known Member

    Joined:
    Nov 21, 2016
    Messages:
    1,965
    Ratings:
    +1,316
    Religion:
    Devout Agnostic
    Science is much different from religion in that it works in the opposite way by revising failed ideas and creating new empirically verified theories. But I agree that many of the liberal politicians who love to proclaim that they "believe in science" don't actually have a clue about what science is or how it works. If they did, they wouldn't even use the words "believe" and "science" in the same sentence.
     
    • Like Like x 1
    • Friendly Friendly x 1
  20. Jim

    Jim Active Member

    Joined:
    Apr 7, 2004
    Messages:
    912
    Ratings:
    +486
    Religion:
    learning to follow Baha'u'llah
    Part of what I'm thinking is that in public debates about religion and social issues, what people are doing when they cite research reports as proof of what they think, is exactly the same, psychologically and socially, as what people are doing when they cite their scriptures as proof of what they think. Most of what people are saying on all sides is just singing along with their faction's bouncing ball, and citing as incontestable proof some writings that they never actually read, relying on others to tell them what the writings say. The writings of scripture-infallibility factions are cherry-picked religious scriptures, with the presumed authority of a falsely imagined God behind them, and the writings of science-infallibility factions are cherry-picked reports of research, with the presumed authority of a falsely imagined science behind them, but the psychological and social dynamics are exactly the same. I see exactly the same attitudes and behavior on all sides. For example, people on the scripture-infallibility side accuse their adversaries of being enemies of God, and people on the science-infallibility side accuse their adversaries of being enemies of science. I see all the allegations of all factions against the others, about bad attitudes and behavior, as happening just as much in their own factions, including ignoring, denying and excusing it when it's in their own faction.
     
Loading...