Are you as critical of higher education and science as you are of religion?

by EndofMysteries 20 Replies latest watchtower beliefs

• 

  EndofMysteries

  I am beginning to see a complete unbalanced shift from one end of the spectrum to the other. I'll use JW's as the example but this would apply to any religion and any person.

  If you just accepted the JW teachings unquestionably from the governing body because you felt they were the highest authority on the matter and 'trusted' them before waking up to TTATT you may shift to the other end of the spectrum. You blindly just accept as fact things relating to religion and science from other books and 'experts' without ever seeing the physical evidence with your own eyes.

  You may read about discoveries, or the origin of things, etc, but these are also books, written by man, yet you are quick to accept them as fact. You have 'faith' in these so called experts and you have faith that whatever they are claiming to have discovered from their experiments if scientific or archaeological evidence if related to ancient history is absolutely correct.

  What is the difference then from where you started? I am not speaking about any specific topic, this is just a general observation. Here is one example, if you read that scientists have determined that a bone they found is 200,000 years old, are you going to believe it just because 'scientists' have claimed it and it's published in books? Have you physically watched the test? Have you physically investigated and learned about the test? Have you learned yourself without a doubt that all the variables in the test have been considered and whether it may be in error or not?

  Chances are, you won't have access nor the ability to do those tests yourselves, so you are putting faith in them.
• 

  LostGeneration

  False analogy.
• 

  cofty

  Utter nonsense.

  Scientific discoveries are provisional and subjected to scrutiny and criticism by other scientists.

  All the evidence is there for you to examine.
• 

  Bugbear

  Yes false analogy,

  We know so much more about this world today then the old greek, and we must believe that we really can see with our own eyes: here is some exampel:

  When it comes to evolution proof, it is easy to repudiate scientific proof of age measurement, such as C14 and other methods.

  The WBTS just say they cant proof that these methods are proof and true. This even if you drill a hole in the arctic ice, with rings for every year.

  But if you got in your hand, something written, calendars, kings reign, harvest counting. a.s.f and can connect these written layertables with other poeples written thing, you got proof that that they must have coexisted. WRITTEN proof much older then the bible itself. One of these claylayers(and there are several thousends of them) are named the Gilgamesh epos, about "The flood". The problem for the Bible schoolars are that these claylayers can be dated til about 5000 years b.ch. They often speek about Kings and reins much much older then "the flood", and therefore these claylayers from the sumerer (Irak), proof that Bible chronology is unfiasable. This also goes with Champolions cracking of the Egypt hieroglyfs. According to the WBTS chronology the flood must have happend about 4300 years ago. Imagine that only 100 hundred years aftert the Flood the Egyptians where able to build enourmus pyramids, and had kingdoms wide spread wich must have had much more then 1 million inhabitants. (Remember only eight humans survived the flood)....Not to mention the problems with Kangarous/Wallabies and other speciment in remote areas. For those who look deeply in this, it is very obvious that fundamentalists are not honest.

  Bugbear
• 

  xelder

  Science is limited by the progress of knowledge to this point. It is moving that barrier, sometimes two steps forward and one step back. For the most part, I have found science to be honest. At least people are free to challenge it, to expand their learning. The fact that theories are tested, challenged, mocked....then eventually demonstrated or shot down is what is important. The right to question.

  Religion can't progress.....it is stuck in old documents that old guys interpret and expect others to trust...."we said so"
• 

  Apognophos

  Your point is a good one as far as what you stated, but not what you implied on top of that (we'll come to that in my second paragraph). It's absolutely true that most people tend to accept what they read. They don't test it, or read further things which contradict it in order to arrive at a more well-tested "truth" for themselves. And they can absolutely tend to swing too far from believing only the Society to believing only scientists. It's very easy to rest on the laurels of scientists and repeat what they say confidently as if one personally discovered and tested those findings. Unfortunately we are all prone to this kind of mental laziness.

  Fortunately, there's a big difference between religionists and scientists, which is that science tends to produce concrete results. Your implication is that faith in scientists is not better than faith in religion, but this is a false equivalence. Although most people do not see the direct result of discovery X leading to technology Y, so they underestimate the importance of basic research and its findings, the fact is that the seemingly obscure things that scientists often learn about the world around us are what gave rise to the technologies that surround us. So if you like your digital wristwatch, and your tablet computer, etc. etc., then you are appreciating evidence that the scientific process works.

  In a nutshell, people can believe the right things for the wrong reasons. It would be great if we all investigated the findings of science before putting faith in them (though who has the time for that?). But I'd much rather see people lazily accept scientists at their word than lazily accept religionists at their word, because the latter have not produced a lot of clear evidence that shows that they should be trusted, whereas scientists have brought our civilization to where it is today, saving countless lives and making those lives more comfortable and secure.
• 

  Viviane

  You may read about discoveries, or the origin of things, etc, but these are also books, written by man, yet you are quick to accept them as fact. You have 'faith' in these so called experts and you have faith that whatever they are claiming to have discovered from their experiments if scientific or archaeological evidence if related to ancient history is absolutely correct.

  Why is it people are so quick to try to tell others what they think and believe? What's with the "so called"? Many of these people ARE experts, yet their work is held to the same scrutiny as anyone elses. Why do you re-define "knowing science works because of the evidence" by suggesting it's the same as religious faith in the unprovable? Why is that last sentence I quoted so poorly constructed?
• 

  designs

  Science is by its very nature self criticizing while Religion is for the gullible.
• 

  prologos

  I am not critical of science, it and it's practioners have a proven track record. it is self-correcting, almost like the universe.

  religion? and it's practioners? parishioners? you critisize them at your own risk, for any critisim will prove to be valid.
• 

  villagegirl

  I think religion, or spirituality is simple, it says in the Bible "true religions is

  taking care of widows and orphans" or in other words its how you treat others.

  Spiritual connection, kindness, compassion, joy, humor, peace, fulfillment of whats inside you,

  using your gifts, its beauty, art, the universe, the oceans and mountains and seeing the

  this beauty and the various intelligences in animals as eveidence of spirit and mind everywhere.