religion

[Glenzig]

Originally Posted by RobotElvis [You must be logged in to view images. Log in or Register.]

In many ways, epistemology is like an economic system. With all the right theoreticians in all the right places, one can arbitrarily bestow epistemological primacy upon those paradigms that are most socially and politically expedient. In such a climate of epistemological suppression, academic and institutional barriers prevent competitors from accessing the ideational marketplace. Meanwhile, a self-proclaimed cognitive elite monopolizes the economy of popular thought. This oligopoly of knowledge, in short, amounts to an epistemological cartel, promoting its anointed ideologues and squelching cognitive dissenters.

[You must be logged in to view images. Log in or Register.]

[RobotElvis]

Originally Posted by paulgiamatti [You must be logged in to view images. Log in or Register.]

I can tell Robot and Glenzig have at least taken into consideration the other side of the argument, but that doesn't excuse the absurdity of confusing evolutionary studies with religious theology and atheism with belief. No one needs to point out the fundamentally flawed thinking that leads to this, it's so painfully obvious that it warrants no further speculation or comment from anyone with even the faintest whiff of rationality.

As the ruling elite’s religious institutions began to lose credibility with the masses, it became apparent that the oligarchs would have to adopt a more secular system of control. The result of this transformation was the emergence of what Aldous Huxley called a “scientific dictatorship.” Huxley explains:


The older dictators fell because they could never supply their subjects with enough bread, enough circuses, enough miracles, and mysteries.

Under a scientific dictatorship, education will really work with the result that most men and women will grow up to love their servitude and will never dream of revolution. There seems to be no good reason why a thoroughly scientific dictatorship should ever be overthrown. (Brave New World Revisited 116)

In essence, the scientific dictatorship is merely a theocracy premised upon the religion of scientism. Scientism is epistemological imperialism. It stipulates the ecumenical imposition of science upon all fields of study. No doubt, a majority of contemporary thinkers would regard this universal extrapolation of science as desirable. After all, science has contributed to the technological advancement of human society. It harnessed electricity through the light bulb, cured illnesses through inoculations, and traversed space through rockets. Surely, such a force could equally enhance the human condition if applied to questions of history, morality, and governance.

However, the contemporary mind, blinded as it is by its own chronocentricism, has failed to recognize a significant shortcoming in the investigational methods of science. Michael Hoffman reveals this shortcoming:

The reason that science is a bad master and dangerous servant and ought not to be worshipped is that science is not objective. Science is fundamentally about the uses of measurement. What does not fit the yardstick of the scientist is discarded. Scientific determinism has repeatedly excluded some data from its measurement and fudged other data, such as Piltdown Man, in order to support the self-fulfilling nature of its own agenda, be it Darwinism or “cut, burn and poison” methods of cancer “treatment.” (49)

[Eliseus]

Originally Posted by paulgiamatti [You must be logged in to view images. Log in or Register.]

Ah yes, the unfaithful will not have their prayers answered, so in this case we would simply adjust the experiment to make sure the one doing the praying is committed to whichever deity it is that's being prayed to. I can assure you though, this is actually a testable subject. I don't need to try to do it, because it's already been done and repeated by real scientists. And just in case you're wondering, the success rate doesn't get any better than the mock-results I gave. In fact it gets much, much worse.



I'm not denying this, and no one who understands anything about scientific methodology would either.



Again, I don't know why this needs to be pointed out. I'm not denying this, and this is not an accurate representation of the scientific method.

I know, what I mean is, let us say the science claims to know how life was formed. Other scientists disagree, Christians disagree, etc. There stands an issue where we must believe the ones that claim they know how life was formed, no matter how inaccurate it may be, we have to assume that is how it is and it's a disgusting though, it really is, especially when there isn't a lot of supporting evidence, except all them agreeing with each other based off knowledge we have (I'm not literally referring to how life was formed, just using as an example). It is also one reason scientist in the past could get away with a lot more things, same with religion, but now we have access and tools capable of creating our own opinions on the matters. So it really assists in the minorities ideas of what was correct.

Another issue I feel that just raised in my head while thinking this though is how do you even prove something like evolution is wrong? You can't, it almost stands in the same ground as belief in God. You can't prove he is wrong. What I'm saying is, we can base that fossils are correct, or w/e of the sorts to say Evolution is wrong, but how do you truly even go about trying to prove it's wrong. I would have the wait the same amount of time it would take for something to actually evolve to prove it wrong. So ultimately you are stuck with it must be correct. People can take notes in and stuff to contradict what science may say, which in turn makes it seem they are wrong, but there is no legit proof you can give you prove it's wrong. Maybe someone can correct here, because I honestly don't know.

Anyways, so these people are supposedly suppose to be some of the most intelligent people on the planet, which helps their cause even more. That is one reason I was pointing out the vast amount of theories commonly accepted among not just scientists, but the population, that are later not just proven wrong, but completely destroyed.

[paulgiamatti]

Originally Posted by Eliseus [You must be logged in to view images. Log in or Register.]

Something that just popped into my head is I think the issue I personally have is you can almost never claim science to be false, because science claims it is always evolving and since we don't know everything, we must accept the knowledge we have till a later date. For example, evolution could be completely 100% fabricated, but we have to accept that is what it is that this time, even more so if you don't believe in God. Maybe the belief in God extends to that people need something else to believe in because science is false at time.

This is actually fairly similar to my beef with creationism. It's an unfalsifiable argument; no matter what the advancement in science reveals, no matter how heavy the hammer blows of scrupulous experimentation and hard, scientific results, the creationist can always attribute it to a supreme creator of the universe. An argument such as this, an argument which can always explain away any new discovery by saying it was made by a grand, unfaltering creator, no matter how ignorant we were of said new discovery's existence before we discovered it, is absolutely unfalsifiable and therefore unsound.

Evolution on the other hand makes no claims without due evidence. Evolution doesn't even claim to be right - everything within the purview of evolution and science is completely falsifiable. You are free to go conduct any experiment you so desire in order to achieve results that fall contrary to the consensus, and in doing so you also have the opportunity to debunk the consensus. And scientists would love that. Scientists love new evidence, they absolutely love it when the consensus changes and they are proven wrong, because this is the unfailing sign that humanity has progressed and our minds have expanded.

[paulgiamatti]

I'm done, not out of disrespect but because I've said enough. I might still post a response to Toofliss though, as I thought his posts were very honest and it would pain me to turn down the chance to dissuade a deist from creationism altogether.

[RobotElvis]

Originally Posted by Eliseus [You must be logged in to view images. Log in or Register.]

Here's a question, if God doesn't exist, do you think man would create him? This might need to be explained further.

Man is inherently spiritual. What I mean by that is that thoughts of philosophy, epistemology, ontology, scientific curiosity, et cetera, stem from a core in our humanity.

Everyone who has asked the why and how of something has had a spiritual thought.
Not to be confused with religious thought.

We are like this because we are made this way by a creator.
I honestly cannot say if man would invent a God if a God did not exist because we are all products of special creation by God so any gods that are falsely invented are from the spiritually ingrained curiosity that we are encoded with.

Animals lack this quality, as they do not worship gods.

So I guess the answer would lie in the animal kingdom, where abstract spiritual curiosity is not present.

[iruinedyourday]

[You must be logged in to view images. Log in or Register.]

[RobotElvis]

Originally Posted by paulgiamatti [You must be logged in to view images. Log in or Register.]

I'm done, not out of disrespect but because I've said enough. I might still post a response to Toofliss though, as I thought his posts were very honest and it would pain me to turn down the chance to dissuade a deist from creationism altogether.

You're taking your scientist and going home?

Man I was about to show the deep rooted spiritual nature of the ideology of Darwinism.
Oh well.

[iruinedyourday]

[You must be logged in to view images. Log in or Register.]

[RobotElvis]

Darwinism itself was always a social theory, not a scientific one. It was designed according to Darwin’s presuppositions, which were already oligarchical in character. Darwin was surrounded by aristocrats, technocrats, and other elitists. Freemason T.H. Huxley, who was involved in the establishment of the oligarchical Round Table groups, is just one case in point. The influence of such elements is evident in the Darwinian concept of natural selection itself. Ian Taylor observes that:

the political doctrine implied by natural selection is elitist, and the principle derived according to Haeckel is “‘aristocratic in the strictest sense of the word'” (411).

Darwinism facilitates the revolutionary dialectic of “[f]reedom followed by Draconian control.” First, it appropriates currency to moral relativism, an economy of thought already bankrupted by self-refuting logical contradictions. H.G. Wells reiterates:

If all animals and man evolved, then there were no first parents, no paradise, no fall. And if there had been no fall, then the entire historic fabric of Christianity, the story of the first sin, and the reason for the atonement collapses like a house of cards. (The Outline of History 616)

Subsequently, the architects of revolution establish their “sociocracy” over the thoroughly demolished “house of cards.” Jane H. Ingraham explains:

“His [Darwin's] shattering “explanation” of the evolution of man from the lower animals through means excluding the supernatural delivered the coup de grace to man’s idea of himself as a created being in a world of fixed truth. Confronted with the “scientific proof” of his own animal origin and nature, Western man, set free at last from God, began the long trek through scientific rationalism, environmental determinism, cultural conditioning, perfectibility of human nature, behaviorism, and secular humanism to today’s inverted morality and totalitarian man.” (Qutd. In Jasper, Global Tyranny. . .Step by Step 262-63)

William Jasper eloquently synopsizes this observation:

The rejection of Divine revelation and the sovereignty of God has resulted in the enthronement of man’s “reason” as the ultimate source of truth and the apotheosis of the State as the supreme authority. (Global Tyranny. . .Step by Step 263)