Christian Persecution vs Persecuted Christians

[billd91]

It's hypocrisy for people to slam religions for believing religious things based on observations, but support themselves for believing things based on observations.

No, it's not. Believing religious things based on observations means that you're observing something and then imparting or creating some divine creature-based action or motive behind it. When the ancient Greeks saw the sun pass across they sky, they fabricated the story that it was Helios driving a solar chariot across the sky - anthropomorphizing the whole affair. And that's key to believing religious things - that there's an influenceable intelligence behind things that could be propitiated with sacrifices, offerings, or prayers or that things unfold according to some important being's plan. Building up knowledge through observation in scientific inquiry isn't about that. It's about understanding the way things work without assuming any sort of divine will to make things happen. We observe that the sun travels across the sky and, with other observations, conclude that the earth is rotating on its axis and that causes our view on any particularly point on the planet to change throughout that rotation. No intelligent being is necessary for this to occur. There are no quirky personalities, foibles, jealousies, or beings to worship for fear that the process may stop because some god's got a burr up his butt again.

 

[Maxperson]

No, it's not. Believing religious things based on observations means that you're observing something and then imparting or creating some divine creature-based action or motive behind it. When the ancient Greeks saw the sun pass across they sky, they fabricated the story that it was Helios driving a solar chariot across the sky - anthropomorphizing the whole affair. And that's key to believing religious things - that there's an influenceable intelligence behind things that could be propitiated with sacrifices, offerings, or prayers or that things unfold according to some important being's plan. Building up knowledge through observation in scientific inquiry isn't about that. It's about understanding the way things work without assuming any sort of divine will to make things happen. We observe that the sun travels across the sky and, with other observations, conclude that the earth is rotating on its axis and that causes our view on any particularly point on the planet to change throughout that rotation. No intelligent being is necessary for this to occur. There are no quirky personalities, foibles, jealousies, or beings to worship for fear that the process may stop because some god's got a burr up his butt again.

Correct. Science assumes scientific reasons rather than religious ones. It assumes them because it cant prove them. Assumption is assumption and it's hypocrisy to tell religions that they are bad for assuming while scientists are not bad for assuming. That scientists say they have better reasons for their assumptions does not absolve them of their hypocrisy.

 

[Ryujin]

Correct. Science assumes scientific reasons rather than religious ones. It assumes them because it cant prove them. Assumption is assumption and it's hypocrisy to tell religions that they are bad for assuming while scientists are not bad for assuming. That scientists say they have better reasons for their assumptions does not absolve them of their hypocrisy.

That's like saying that j-walking and murder are both crimes, and so are equal.

 

[Maxperson]

That's like saying that j-walking and murder are both crimes, and so are equal.

Who said anything about equal? Not me. I'm saying that a thief calling a murderer bad for being a criminal is a hypocrite, and he is. Both are bad for being criminals. Equality isn't a part of it.

 

[Ryujin]

Who said anything about equal? Not me. I'm saying that a thief calling a murderer bad for being a criminal is a hypocrite, and he is. Both are bad for being criminals. Equality isn't a part of it.

And there's a little thing that enters into such issues that is referred to as "scale." There's a big difference between examining all available evidence and formulating, and then testing a hypothesis, or immediately leaping to the conclusion that the sun rises because the Great God Steve opens the cosmic refrigerator door. One is a best estimate based or observable and repeatable phenomena, while the other is blind faith. You are equating the two, using a disingenuous premise.

 

[Nagol]

Correct. Science assumes scientific reasons rather than religious ones. It assumes them because it cant prove them. Assumption is assumption and it's hypocrisy to tell religions that they are bad for assuming while scientists are not bad for assuming. That scientists say they have better reasons for their assumptions does not absolve them of their hypocrisy.

No, science builds models that work according to observation; they are called theories. If the model doesn't work well enough to properly explain/predict all the observations, science looks for a new model or a modification of the current one to better match observation. If observations can best be modelled by intelligent meddling, you can bet that will be one of the competing models science will look at.

 

[Umbran]

Correct. Science assumes scientific reasons rather than religious ones.

What is a "scientific reason"?

It assumes them because it cant prove them.

Science does not generally assume reasons - a scientist posits a hypothesis, and then *tests* it to see if it holds up under scrutiny. And then they test some other way. And then other people find yet more ways to test. Putting something to a barrage of tests to see if hit holds water is pretty much the opposite of assuming a thing to be true.

And even when something seems to pass all the barrage of tests, it is still subject to revision later - see Newton and Einstein as an example.

If there is a "belief" at in all of this, it is in the idea that this process of testing, revising, and testing again eventually gets you closer and closer to a accurate picture of what's going on. A belief that has the result of all the technology that is part of your life seems like a pretty reasonable thing to hold, rather than something hypocritical

Assumption is assumption and it's hypocrisy to tell religions that they are bad for assuming while scientists are not bad for assuming.

While a particular scientists may become dogmatic about a given theory or hypothesis, science, overall and in the long run, is not. You are mis-characterizing science.

 

[Dannyalcatraz]

The fundamental differences between religious beliefs and the scientific process isn't the assumptions, it is in the standard of proof & testability/falsifiability.

If a scientist's assumptions are not provable from observable, repeatable tests, they're tossed.

Religious beliefs do not face that kind of scrutiny. They don't get tossed.

That fundamental difference is why Catholicism does not teach that science and religion are incompatible: science derives from the rational testing, faith is a gift from the divine.

(See also Thomas Aquinas's teachings.)

 

[Umbran]

Religious beliefs do not face that kind of scrutiny. They don't get tossed.

Moreover, they *cannot* be given that kind of scrutiny. If you posit an omnipotent, omniscient deity, then when dealing with a religious belief, any potential evidence contradicting the belief can be dismissed with, "That's what God wants it to look like." Religious beliefs are fundamentally non-falsifiable - there is no test or data that can disprove them because one can always, "play the God card."

 

[Maxperson]

And there's a little thing that enters into such issues that is referred to as "scale." There's a big difference between examining all available evidence and formulating, and then testing a hypothesis, or immediately leaping to the conclusion that the sun rises because the Great God Steve opens the cosmic refrigerator door. One is a best estimate based or observable and repeatable phenomena, while the other is blind faith. You are equating the two, using a disingenuous premise.

Scale is irrelevant when it comes to hypocrisy. Either you are being hypocritical or you are not. You don't get to make assumptions, even if those assumption are based on rigorous testing and then call others out for assumptions of any kind. You can disagree with them, but if you put them down for assuming you are a hypocrite.