General Discussion > The Speakeasy: OOG/Off-topic Discussion
Abolish blasphemy laws
Lyn Farel:
To be perfectly clear I don't know what to think of such blasphemy laws in Europe. Are we better without, or with them, as long as they protect every belief, and not just religion ? How does one draw the line between the right to satire and the rights of the offended ? The hell if I know, it's pretty much fucked up at both extremes either way.
I loathe some of those in a lot of third world countries, but as already discussed to death in the first pages of this topic, that petition looks ludicrous in that light, and even dangerous and counter productive.
Also, I won't continue to indulge in the current conversation as I do not hold the sufficient philosophical knowledge to do so, and for once do not have the time nor the patience to get more info about it just to be able to follow it as I did countless times already ICly on the IGS. I have always supported the right to religion and spiritual enlightenment if that's what make people happy, even scientists (considering that half of scientists in the world believe in a God). I can't grasp it, I find it utterly alien, silly, like a crutch, whatever you can call it, but I respect it, especially because I am totally devoid of it, and lack it myself. Religion (not organized) can probably offer other kinds of answers to spiritual venues. I of course find it sad to see some zealous atheists unleashing on religious people, especially on the internet, since IRL it's still exactly the opposite in most places. The only thing I see myself IRL are religious traditionalists that fight against progress and post modernism, and thus, are opposed to myself on the political landscape. However, I will never make the mistake to put them in the same basket with all believers of the world.
If some Scientist elite is these days controlling everything related to knowledge like the Church did in the past, why, maybe ? I don't see that, I can't verify that, and I honestly no sign of it. I just see science progressing everyday and bringing new things on the table.
As far i'm concerned, the probability that Earth is 4.54B years old because Carbon 14 said so, is infinitely higher than Earth being 5000y old. I couldn't care less about old religious answers on the matter. They have become obsolete. Someday probably, our own science of today will be proven obsolete too.
orange:
--- Quote from: Lyn Farel on 22 Jun 2014, 11:07 ---As far i'm concerned, the probability that Earth is 4.54B years old because Carbon 14 said so, is infinitely higher than Earth being 5000y old.
--- End quote ---
It is actually related to the radioactive decay of Uranium to Lead.
Carbon dating apparently does not work on materials more than a few tens of thousand years old.
--- Quote ---If some Scientist elite is these days controlling everything related to knowledge like the Church did in the past, why, maybe ? I don't see that, I can't verify that, and I honestly no sign of it. I just see science progressing everyday and bringing new things on the table.
--- End quote ---
There could be an argument that peer-reviewed scientific literature is controlled by the editors of prominent scientific journals, like Nature, Science.
This is actually an argument by the political right in the United States with regards to both evolution and climate change. In the case of climate change, they assert a politically-based conspiracy exists to shackle the economy and feed money to unprofitable alternative energy companies (who in turn donate to their opponents political campaigns).
One of the biggest hurdles is reading any of the articles really requires an understanding of the jargon used. Generally, the authors do not write the articles for general consumption, thus common definitions of words like proof, theory, etc, are misinterpreted by the layman*.
*Sadly, the use of layman here implies a relationship similar to that of religious institutions, in which trained experts (the clergy) is separate from the rest of the population.
So, like religion before it, a literate general population is necessary to break the holds of elites or powerful institutions on understanding the material provided. In the case of western religion, this occurred with the printing press, renaissance, localization of the Bible, etc - today there are numerous versions of Christianity, to include those with personal beliefs/interpretations since the clergy no longer has a monopoly on reading and interpreting the Bible.
In the case of science, either (1) the scientific community must work to reduce the presence of jargon in their work or (2) the general populous must be educated to be scientifically literate. The first case is likely the most straight-forward, since the population that needs to change its thought processes is smaller. Scientist must make the conscious effort to become communicators and not become a new clergy.
--- Quote from: Ernest Rutherford ---An alleged scientific discovery has no merit unless it can be explained to a barmaid.
--- End quote ---
Nicoletta Mithra:
--- Quote from: Lyn Farel on 22 Jun 2014, 11:07 ---As far i'm concerned, the probability that Earth is 4.54B years old because Carbon 14 said so, is infinitely higher than Earth being 5000y old.
--- End quote ---
Well, I wonder how you can give that probability assessment. Have you checked an infinite number of worlds by - as we now know - radioactive decay of Uranium to lead on said infinite numbers of worlds, where one half of them was 5000y old and the other 4.54B years to be able to calculate the probabilities?
What you really say here is that you trust science infinitely more than a counting of days in the bible in regard to the age of Earth. And while I think that is reasonable, I don't see how it is the option we need to embrace by necessity.
Also, I never said a scientist elite is 'controlling everything related to knowledge like the Church did in the past'. There is a hughe difference between a scientist and someone subscribing to Scientism. A scientist is someone doing science, which only implies that he has a methodological dedication to naturalism and therefore atheism. This is purely methodological, though. Someone subscribing to Scientism is of the opinion that Scientism is what can tell you about everything and that every question about things outside of the scope of science are meaningless and that the methodological dedication of science to naturalism therefore needs to be extended to an ontological naturalism of the type that only what science can show to be, exists.
And yes, those people would like to monopolize (I didn't say they did that already) determining what the meaning of all is and what truth is in their hands. Because they really think that they have figured it out. It's not malevolence, I think, but ignorance of their own ignorance. As Hannah Arendt said: The shocking truth about people that commit evil deeds is their mediocrity rather than that they are beasts soaked in evil to begin with. They are everyday men, just 'doing their job', as they understand it. And those people think that it is their job, as scientists, to determine what is true and the meaning of something.
I myself was - not subject,as I didn't say that I'm believeing in a 'God of the philosophers' but - witness to this: A Professor of mine told me that religious people can't be scientists and that they wouldn't take people who're religious for their PhDs.
That said, I agree with Orange: Scientist must make the conscious effort to become communicators and not become a new [medieval] clergy. (And I think the role of communicator is one that clergy befits as well.) There is the problem of a quite similar relationship of scientist to 'laymen' like with the medieval church. Alas, I am sceptic in regard to approach (1), as jargon does fill an essential role in science, I don't think it's reducible to 'everyday language', else no one would have much of a problem to a) understand the equasions of quantum physics in the first place and b) there wouldn't have been produced so many differing interpretations. The language of mathmatics seems better suited to express the aspects of nature physics describes there, than our everyday language.
Educating everyone to be scientifically literate isn't such an easy thing either. I don't think that one should be forcing this on people. Also, it would be quite like medieval theologians forcing everyone into studying theology at medieval universities... And that's leaving aside the question whether people actually all have the mental capacity to understand, say quantum physics on the level of a physics student (not to say graduate).
As to peer review: In the middle ages there was an institution founded to review clergy internally, just like scientists are reviewing scientists nowadays. Of course it has played a role in history of which mainly the grim parts resound in our collective memory, I daresay. Or who thinks the Inquisition was a good thing?
I myself was peer reviewed in my scientific writing and my 'peer' told me that I'd have to remove all (P.S.: Obviously overstating. Rather all the 'cutting edge math' diversity continua) the maths from my article, as no-one in said scientific community would understand such modern statistics anyway. Also, if I'd stick to the traditional descriptors, they'd show quite nicely what we were funded to show...
Nicoletta Mithra:
--- Quote from: Publius Valerius on 22 Jun 2014, 08:46 ---Why should be there a special law only for religion? Why should be there a "special snowflake for religion"?
--- End quote ---
Didn't say there should. If you read what I wrote I said that this isn't what modern 'blasphemy laws' are about. If you have problems with my english I'm sorry, it's not my first langage. If you want I certainly can send you a PM in german explaining what I meant.
Publius Valerius:
--- Quote from: Nicoletta Mithra on 22 Jun 2014, 13:23 ---I myself was peer reviewed in my scientific writing and my 'peer' told me that I'd have to remove all the maths from my article, as no-one in said scientific community would understand such modern statistics anyway. Also, if I'd stick to the traditional descriptors, they'd show quite nicely what we were funded to show...
--- End quote ---
What have you wrote.... and what human (out of which field) said you should take out the math and statistic? Not that Im hating just curious. :lol:
--- Quote from: Nicoletta Mithra on 22 Jun 2014, 07:02 ---Among them them is the axiom that inductive logic works.
--- End quote ---
A old question from ..... Where did you get this line? or Idea?
--- Quote from: Nicoletta Mithra on 22 Jun 2014, 13:23 ---I myself was - not subject,as I didn't say that I'm believeing in a 'God of the philosophers' but - witness to this: A Professor of mine told me that religious people can't be scientists and that they wouldn't take people who're religious for their PhDs.
--- End quote ---
This is so out of the left field that I cant believe this. Not that Iam hating but from which field was the guy? :lol:
--- Quote from: Nicoletta Mithra on 22 Jun 2014, 13:34 ---
--- Quote from: Publius Valerius on 22 Jun 2014, 08:46 ---Why should be there a special law only for religion? Why should be there a "special snowflake for religion"?
--- End quote ---
Didn't say there should. If you read what I wrote I said that this isn't what modern 'blasphemy laws' are about. If you have problems with my english I'm sorry, it's not my first langage. If you want I certainly can send you a PM in german explaining what I meant.
--- End quote ---
What ever you like... As I said I just Leroy Jenkins in to see if I see someone had done some errors again. :lol: Because you have a huge tendency to do inductive conclusions, as well as split of humans/choices/Braincells/tools/etc.... Like ones where you try to sell me that "officer of the army in the air/aka pilots are somehow special humans (to lazy to search for the link)... or the slavery discussion where you split choice along skin colors (to lazy to search for a link) or above about "much more open to debate and critique"... as I said in the slavery topic it lets my skin tickling as well as I have brought there the bad joke: That I have to apologize to Rebecca Black and here "friday" song after hearing "Hot Problems" from Double Take. The same feeling have I often here on this forum, that I have to apologize to TonyG, because most of the stuff here is even worse. And you are one of those persons (next to Gotti and Hellgremlin) which I thought, and still think is worse then tongy´s stuff. After that it got even worse. Later, where I thought (and still think) wait, those this "white-power-fanboy or moron"*** try to sell that Heinrich=Nazi?
As for "I certainly can send you a PM in german explaining what I meant." Nah... just post it here... I dont mind it if it is german... you can add a transcript in english if you so deeply care. Because I have to say.... As I already mention above.... That Iam still not sell on the whole Idea that this topic should be important to ME, neither from Bloodbird or you. As I mention above Bloodbird failded as "missionary" for me (as well as many others. In science: Darwkin or entertainment: Bill Maher). Sadly you too... but you dont need to answer if your goal isnt "missonary". :D
______
***This question is still open.
Navigation
[0] Message Index
[#] Next page
[*] Previous page
Go to full version