Some Important Facts for the Religious (and Everybody Else)

[atrib]

If you're going to evangelize for "sciencey-ness", you should at least learn the important habit of citing your sources.

You don't need to cite sources for information that is widely known and well established. For example, I would not include a citation to demonstrate that the unit weight of water is about 1 gm/cc at room temperature or that acceleration due to gravity at MSL is about 32.2 ft/sec^2 in a paper or research report that relied on this information. At least not in the engineering and physics communities - it may be different in the arts.

Sure. But I would make the same sardonic comment if someone was running around the forum shaming people for not knowing that the unit weight of water is about 10 gm/cc at room temperature. The offense is not that the poster was informal, but that they quite wrong about most of their claimed "facts". If any of the false statements in the OP are in fact "widely known", they are nevertheless wrong, and certainly not well-established. The arts have no relevance to this conversation, the age of the earth is not a question to pose to an artist unless you need a textbook illustration.

The estimates presented in the OP for points 1 through 4 are close enough for purposes of this present discussion. I don't think the OP was intended to provoke a discussion on the precise estimate of the universe's or the solar system's age, or the precise age of the common ancestor to modern humans and chimpanzees. The OP goes on to state:

There are many more such facts, but my point is that if you know what's going on, then you know better than to believe what religion claims.

which is what I believe he wants to talk about. I don't understand why you choose to derail this discussion by nitpicking at small inconsistencies in the OP's post when the precision of these estimates are clearly not the focus of the post.

I also don't see anything in the OP and his subsequent posts that attempt to shame anyone. That is purely a figment of your imagination in my opinion.

 

[Unknown Soldier]

So you're getting it wrong two different ways here. First, cosmologists can only estimate the age of the cosmos

Which you call a "fact", and get angry if anyone checks your numbers against the current consensus.

Estimates do vary, of course.

I'm not questioning the credentials of the physics community; they're scientists, and more than capable of self-correction or model adjustment as needed.

Then you should ask them if I'm wrong about the age of the cosmos and the earth.

In the real world, that is how the sciences function. I'd be less annoyed by your preaching if it were backed by practice. Science isn't an arcane art, anyone can engage in it. But it requires humility and clear thinking.

It's also a good idea to understand the role of approximations which are very commonly used in science and in other disciplines like engineering. In fact, exact values may be impossible to employ in practice or even to know. Moreover, rough approximations are just fine to use when making general points to popular audiences.

Again, you are splitting hairs. Do you know what that means?

So at least Genesis 1 is derived from Babylonian mythology just like I said in the OP.

You have a quote that doesn't match what you're saying, at all. Both the Tolkien mythos and the local legends of Barbarossa returning in the end times reflect the "king under the mountain" archetype widespread in Germanic cultures of Europe. Does this mean that Lord of the Rings must be "derived from" the story of Barbarossa?

That's interesting. Tolkien was obviously influenced by myths and folklore which are very popular and influential in his native England and most parts of Europe. So yes, the Lord of the Rings may well have been influenced or directly derived at least in part by the story you mention. In the same way the Bible writers were no doubt influenced by the myths and legends of their time and their part of the world.

Blair does not in fact write that either document was the originator of the motifs in question, which almost certainly existed as oral literary genres for centuries before either manifested as an extant written document. The honest answer to the question is that the social origin of origin myths, in any culture, is usually preliterate and thus outside the realm of fact, for any historian working in any time period.

Blair also mentions other stories in Genesis that were obviously influenced by Mesopotamian mythology including the Tower of Babel and the story of Abraham. The former being a close copy of an earlier Babylonian legend and the latter featuring a mythological figure from Mesopotamia, Abraham. These facts demonstrate that much of Genesis if not all of it is fiction based on the mythology of pagans living long before the Bible was written.

But the biggest problem here is that I know we aren't about to have an honest discussion of the issues at hand.

We can have an honest discussion. The ball is in your court.

Rather, you're going to double down and insist that either you're right or the ways you might be wrong are unimportant...

I never insisted that I'm right. I don't need to. I just post the facts and my reasoning, and they speak for themselves.

...and moreover I'm a stuck-up ivory tower prig or a clandestine evangelist or both for daring to question you.

I never said that either. Do you feel that way?

It doesn't so much bother me that you're wrong about all these things as that you don't seem to care rather you are or not.

We're at an impasse here both of us disagreeing over my list of facts in the OP. Would you like to take a vote?

Science deserves better spokespersons.

Such spokespersons have already spoken. They include Richard Dawkins, Sean B. Carroll, Lawrence Krauss, Sean M. Carroll, Isaac Asimov, Stephen Jay Gould, and Carl Sagan, of course. What they've written forms the basis of the list or at least the list items regarding science in the OP.

 

[steve_bank]

Spokespersons?

Young Earth Creationism is refuted by basic science.

Cultural origin myths are refuted by genetic histories.

The question of the OP as I understood it was should those with beliefs and myths know some basic facts of science, history, and archeology.

The short answer is a yes or ano.

The usual Christian response to discredit science in one way or another.

Nitpicking does seem to be an evasion of answering the OP. Whether something is actually 20 million years ago instead of 30 million is irrelevant to the OP. Unless you want to argrue that something does notserve refute a beilf or myth.

 

[T.G.G. Moogly]

If something is right enough to support a point, then yes, it's sufficient.

No, it's not. You're doing a piss poor job of arguing a point, if you know there are flaws in your own argument but refuse to address or correct them. Doubly worse if you're trying to portray yourself as a brave defender of rationality, while engaging in the worst sort of lazy thinking and blind acceptance of authority. If you're not doing your homework enough to present the clearest and most accurate argument you can, why should anyone take you seriously?

As stated, perfection is not only not necessary it is a mythical impossibility. Perfection is a product of our emotions and we should recognize when our emotions are getting the better of us. The OP is a good argument, not a perfect argument.

 

[Unknown Soldier]

The question of the OP as I understood it was should those with beliefs and myths know some basic facts of science, history, and archeology.

My main point in the OP is that knowledge is anathema to religious faith. Oddly, one member here seems to think that I was trying to post numerical measurements that can be proved to be exactly right. It would be like my denouncing a serial killer saying he murdered one hundred people only to be told I'm wrong because another source estimates that he killed ninety nine!

 

[Unknown Soldier]

The OP is a good argument, not a perfect argument.

If only I knew exactly when humans and chimps diverged, and I could prove it. That way nobody could tell me I'm making a "piss poor argument," their way of diverting attention away from the fact that Eve and Adam are myths created by the religious.

Laying all jokes aside, I've been in this situation before. I post a devastating critique of somebody's religion, and I find myself in a wrestling match with a defender of that religion who goes off on a tangent refusing to be reasoned with.

 

[steve_bank]

Politesse used to identify as Pagan-Christian and would not provide any details of what that means. So, he may be senstive to isuues with scince.

I believe he said he teaches college.

Such spokespersons have already spoken. They include Richard Dawkins, Sean B. Carroll, Lawrence Krauss, Sean M. Carroll, Isaac Asimov, Stephen Jay Gould, and Carl Sagan, of course. What they've written forms the basis of the list or at least the list items regarding science in the OP.

I would not call them spokespersons. I read Gould's books except that last tome and saw him speak in Seattle not too long before he died. One of his prized possessions was an autographed Yankees baseball from when he was a kid. As he put it takes a lot of time to get a PHD and get started. After that you hvae a limited time for yiur work, who hs the time to deal with issues like religion?

Dawkins is a popular writer and Sagan was a terrible face on science IMO. Pop science.

There are no spokespersons, there are peole with views on science.

 

[T.G.G. Moogly]

The OP is a good argument, not a perfect argument.

If only I knew exactly when humans and chimps diverged, and I could prove it. That way nobody could tell me I'm making a "piss poor argument," their way of diverting attention away from the fact that Eve and Adam are myths created by the religious.

Laying all jokes aside, I've been in this situation before. I post a devastating critique of somebody's religion, and I find myself in a wrestling match with a defender of that religion who goes off on a tangent refusing to be reasoned with.

That's a very common emotional dynamic and it produces conflict between individuals that are united on larger matters. We're not rational creatures, at least not entirely. Most people never think rationally about what they wish for in terms of future human society. I think your OP illustrates that quite well. For whatever reasons it's quite natural to enjoy conflict. Much of human behavior is unrecognized insanity.

I'm reminded of my years in manufacturing where quality was king. The overarching lesson learned was "We have met the enemy and they are us."

 

[Politesse]

If something is right enough to support a point, then yes, it's sufficient.

No, it's not. You're doing a piss poor job of arguing a point, if you know there are flaws in your own argument but refuse to address or correct them. Doubly worse if you're trying to portray yourself as a brave defender of rationality, while engaging in the worst sort of lazy thinking and blind acceptance of authority. If you're not doing your homework enough to present the clearest and most accurate argument you can, why should anyone take you seriously?

As stated, perfection is not only not necessary it is a mythical impossibility. Perfection is a product of our emotions and we should recognize when our emotions are getting the better of us. The OP is a good argument, not a perfect argument.

What argument is it even making? Facts are important, but it's not important to get them right?

 

[Politesse]

Politesse used to identify as Pagan-Christian and would not provide any details of what that means. So, he may be senstive to isuues with scince.

I believe he said he teaches college.

Such spokespersons have already spoken. They include Richard Dawkins, Sean B. Carroll, Lawrence Krauss, Sean M. Carroll, Isaac Asimov, Stephen Jay Gould, and Carl Sagan, of course. What they've written forms the basis of the list or at least the list items regarding science in the OP.

I would not call them spokespersons. I read Gould's books except that last tome and saw him speak in Seattle not too long before he died. One of his prized possessions was an autographed Yankees baseball from when he was a kid. As he put it takes a lot of time to get a PHD and get started. After that you hvae a limited time for yiur work, who hs the time to deal with issues like religion?

Dawkins is a popular writer and Sagan was a terrible face on science IMO. Pop science.

There are no spokespersons, there are peole with views on science.

When did I ever "not provide any details of what that means"? It's no mystery or secret, I was practicing with two religious groups at the time, one Anglican and the other Wiccan. These days I hang out with some cool Jedi folks in the city and turn up for church every now and then. Belief-wise I am and always have been a resolute agnostic, the only philosophy I'll defend to the death. And yes, I'm a professor of anthropology at a community college, which has a lot more with why people misrepresenting the sciences pisses me off. I'm also queer and prefer jazz to pop. But so what? If you can't think of any argument except to vaguely attack the poster for being too weird, you probably don't have much of a point to begin with.

 

[Politesse]

That's interesting. Tolkien was obviously influenced by myths and folklore which are very popular and influential in his native England and most parts of Europe. So yes, the Lord of the Rings may well have been influenced or directly derived at least in part by the story you mention. In the same way the Bible writers were no doubt influenced by the myths and legends of their time and their part of the world.

Which is in no way controversial, or objectionable to observe. But what you have written was not that, nor was it correct.

The question of the OP as I understood it was should those with beliefs and myths know some basic facts of science, history, and archeology.

My main point in the OP is that knowledge is anathema to religious faith. Oddly, one member here seems to think that I was trying to post numerical measurements that can be proved to be exactly right. It would be like my denouncing a serial killer saying he murdered one hundred people only to be told I'm wrong because another source estimates that he killed ninety nine!

It would be like if you posted a thread titled, "some important facts about serial killers for the public to understand", and proceeded to post a list of things that were not, in fact, facts about serial killers.

 

[Politesse]

I post a devastating critique of somebody's religion, and I find myself in a wrestling match with a defender of that religion who goes off on a tangent refusing to be reasoned with.

I'm sure you truly believe that's what's going on.

Seriously, who's on a tangent here? You're the one refusing to discuss the content of your own OP.

 

[T.G.G. Moogly]

If something is right enough to support a point, then yes, it's sufficient.

No, it's not. You're doing a piss poor job of arguing a point, if you know there are flaws in your own argument but refuse to address or correct them. Doubly worse if you're trying to portray yourself as a brave defender of rationality, while engaging in the worst sort of lazy thinking and blind acceptance of authority. If you're not doing your homework enough to present the clearest and most accurate argument you can, why should anyone take you seriously?

As stated, perfection is not only not necessary it is a mythical impossibility. Perfection is a product of our emotions and we should recognize when our emotions are getting the better of us. The OP is a good argument, not a perfect argument.

What argument is it even making? Facts are important, but it's not important to get them right?

For me it's making the argument that given the present state of human knowledge to maintain religious beliefs that are unambiguously and clearly contradicted by observation is dopey. We could extrapolate that to volumes but that's the gist.

That's not difficult for me to grasp mainly because I've come to accept the bipolar condition of the human organism, generally speaking.

 

[steve_bank]

Politesse used to identify as Pagan-Christian and would not provide any details of what that means. So, he may be senstive to isuues with scince.

I believe he said he teaches college.

Such spokespersons have already spoken. They include Richard Dawkins, Sean B. Carroll, Lawrence Krauss, Sean M. Carroll, Isaac Asimov, Stephen Jay Gould, and Carl Sagan, of course. What they've written forms the basis of the list or at least the list items regarding science in the OP.

I would not call them spokespersons. I read Gould's books except that last tome and saw him speak in Seattle not too long before he died. One of his prized possessions was an autographed Yankees baseball from when he was a kid. As he put it takes a lot of time to get a PHD and get started. After that you hvae a limited time for yiur work, who hs the time to deal with issues like religion?

Dawkins is a popular writer and Sagan was a terrible face on science IMO. Pop science.

There are no spokespersons, there are peole with views on science.

When did I ever "not provide any details of what that means"? It's no mystery or secret, I was practicing with two religious groups at the time, one Anglican and the other Wiccan. These days I hang out with some cool Jedi folks in the city and turn up for church every now and then. Belief-wise I am and always have been a resolute agnostic, the only philosophy I'll defend to the death. And yes, I'm a professor of anthropology at a community college, which has a lot more with why people misrepresenting the sciences pisses me off. I'm also queer and prefer jazz to pop. But so what? If you can't think of any argument except to vaguely attack the poster for being too weird, you probably don't have much of a point to begin with.

So, you do believe in the supernatural of some kind? That would explain your sciencey comment. Science does not support magic spells at least not yet

 

[Politesse]

Politesse used to identify as Pagan-Christian and would not provide any details of what that means. So, he may be senstive to isuues with scince.

I believe he said he teaches college.

Such spokespersons have already spoken. They include Richard Dawkins, Sean B. Carroll, Lawrence Krauss, Sean M. Carroll, Isaac Asimov, Stephen Jay Gould, and Carl Sagan, of course. What they've written forms the basis of the list or at least the list items regarding science in the OP.

I would not call them spokespersons. I read Gould's books except that last tome and saw him speak in Seattle not too long before he died. One of his prized possessions was an autographed Yankees baseball from when he was a kid. As he put it takes a lot of time to get a PHD and get started. After that you hvae a limited time for yiur work, who hs the time to deal with issues like religion?

Dawkins is a popular writer and Sagan was a terrible face on science IMO. Pop science.

There are no spokespersons, there are peole with views on science.

When did I ever "not provide any details of what that means"? It's no mystery or secret, I was practicing with two religious groups at the time, one Anglican and the other Wiccan. These days I hang out with some cool Jedi folks in the city and turn up for church every now and then. Belief-wise I am and always have been a resolute agnostic, the only philosophy I'll defend to the death. And yes, I'm a professor of anthropology at a community college, which has a lot more with why people misrepresenting the sciences pisses me off. I'm also queer and prefer jazz to pop. But so what? If you can't think of any argument except to vaguely attack the poster for being too weird, you probably don't have much of a point to begin with.

So, you do believe in the supernatural of some kind? That would explain your sciencey comment. Science does not support magic spells at least not yet

What part of agnostic was unclear?

If you think science is a belief system, or a club that only card-carrying atheists belong to, you do not understand science. Science is a method, not a religion. If a scientific conclusion cannot be objectively demonstrated through reprodcible experiment or observation regardless of the observere's personal ideoogy, it either isn't science or it isn't correct.

And no, what someone believes about Jesus or karma or whatever has nothing to do with why the OP was wrong or misleading about nearly every one of their "facts". Their own sources contradicted them. Do you believe that Wikipedia is willfully misrepresenting the current consensus age of the cosmos for the sake of religious apologetics?

Your logic here just fails me, dude. Like, I really just I don't grasp this argument. Since I am (I guess?) a secret evangelical, I would want the OP to say that the universe was somewhere between 13.787±0.020 billion yeas old, with some as yet unexplained data that appear to contradict this with respect to the local galactic neighborhood. But, if I loved science and atheism, and maybe sucked a dildo the shape of Richard Dawkin's cock every night, I'd be fine with the OP "approximating" it at 13.6 and refusing to further discuss the matter.

Is the idea that only religious people care about accuracy, whereas atheists are sloppy/lazy with their facts and therefore superior to those annoying, pretentious, ivory tower Christians due to being more polite, or more approachable or something? If so, this is accomplishing the opposite of convincing me to want to convert to your worldview. I'll keep the science and dump the social malformation, thanks.

I'm glad I know some other atheists, and thus that this is not actually a common perspective among atheists. If all I knew were you and Unknown Soldier, I would not be impressed! But, like, lpetrich on this forum would never have posted lazy slop like the OP. Actually, he did start a thread on the age of the cosmos, and it's a very good read. Follow his lead, and you'll be on a much more sturdy path in terms of apologetics.

 

[Unknown Soldier]

That's interesting. Tolkien was obviously influenced by myths and folklore which are very popular and influential in his native England and most parts of Europe. So yes, the Lord of the Rings may well have been influenced or directly derived at least in part by the story you mention. In the same way the Bible writers were no doubt influenced by the myths and legends of their time and their part of the world.

Which is in no way controversial, or objectionable to observe.

If the Bible writers got their ideas from pagan mythology, and many of them including the writers of Genesis clearly did get their ideas from pagan mythology, then Yahweh's supposed creation never really happened.

But what you have written was not that, nor was it correct.

The Babylonians were but one group of pagans whose mythology was reworked by the Bible writers to create their own creation mythology. None of this plagiarism is possible if the God of the Bible is real.

My main point in the OP is that knowledge is anathema to religious faith. Oddly, one member here seems to think that I was trying to post numerical measurements that can be proved to be exactly right. It would be like my denouncing a serial killer saying he murdered one hundred people only to be told I'm wrong because another source estimates that he killed ninety nine!

It would be like if you posted a thread titled, "some important facts about serial killers for the public to understand", and proceeded to post a list of things that were not, in fact, facts about serial killers.

In that case my estimate might be off by one percent if the alternate estimate is correct. What idiot would make a fuss over a report of a serial killer's murders by insisting the report's estimate is supposedly off by such a small and trivial amount?

But wait--that person making the fuss might be no idiot if she has a stake in defending the serial killer. If she loves and admires the serial killer, then she could try to discredit the report by finding some flaw in it. As she sees it, any flaw no matter how small and immaterial will be useful to her achieving her goal of discrediting the report and getting her beloved serial killer off the hook.

Defending religion appears to work the same way.

 

[Unknown Soldier]

I post a devastating critique of somebody's religion, and I find myself in a wrestling match with a defender of that religion who goes off on a tangent refusing to be reasoned with.

I'm sure you truly believe that's what's going on.

Seriously, who's on a tangent here? You're the one refusing to discuss the content of your own OP.

LOL. Who do you think is going to believe that I haven't discussed the OP? Maybe they are the same people who dismiss the OP because estimates vary.

 

[Unknown Soldier]

So, you do believe in the supernatural of some kind? That would explain your sciencey comment. Science does not support magic spells at least not yet

What part of agnostic was unclear?

If it quacks like a duck...

 

[Politesse]

The Babylonians were but one group of pagans whose mythology was reworked by the Bible writers to create their own creation mythology. None of this plagiarism is possible if the God of the Bible is real.

You getting your facts wrong in no way advances this point.

What idiot would make a fuss over a report of a serial killer's murders by insisting the report's estimate is supposedly off by such a small and trivial amount?

Because you're calling things facts when they aren't. Are you actually arguing that the murder of a human being is an unimportant fact? I assure you, to the victim and their family, the idea that it not only isn't certain but doesn't matter whether or not the victim's murder is ever solved would be pretty damn upsetting. No, a murder is not a trivial matter by any reasonable definition of trivial.

And though it is perhaps of less immediate import, the study of the origins of the universe is still an important topic, or the study of human evolution, or just about any of the topics you raised. Being wrong about any of it could potentially degrade the utility of any theories using those conclusions as a starting assumption. For instance, the divergence point of chimpanzees and humans has considerable importance in genomics studies and epidemiology; it isn't just "trivia". And throwing contradictory information out there without explanation if throwing fuel to the fire for people who are trying to take down science for real.

 

[Politesse]

I post a devastating critique of somebody's religion, and I find myself in a wrestling match with a defender of that religion who goes off on a tangent refusing to be reasoned with.

I'm sure you truly believe that's what's going on.

Seriously, who's on a tangent here? You're the one refusing to discuss the content of your own OP.

LOL. Who do you think is going to believe that I haven't discussed the OP? Maybe they are the same people who dismiss the OP because estimates vary.

I don't consider "yes I'm wrong but I don't care" to be a very substantive form of discussion.