Another Big Big Thread of Religious Discussion

[Sithdarth]

One must remember to separate science itself as a method of thinking and a collection of information from scientists. While science itself is generally beyond reproach once a body of evidence is accumulated scientists are always just as flawed and biased as the rest of us.

[Elminster_Amaur]

Scientific theory doesn't require faith, just an acknowledgment that something is currently the best explanation given the available evidence.

While science itself is generally beyond reproach once a body of evidence is accumulated scientists are always just as flawed and biased as the rest of us

So, are you agreeing that scientific theory is not always the best explanation given available evidence? Because it seems that you're not saying anything different. I was merely pointing out to Fifth that science theory does require faith that the scientists are not acting in their own best interests instead of the interests of seeking Truth.

I can understand that scientists are imperfect people just like you and me. What I cannot accept is that theories that they back are ALWAYS going to be the most likely to be correct. A group of scientists under the pay of the tobacco industry will come up with statistics favorable to the tobacco industry, just as a group of scientists under the pay of global warming advocates will find statistics that support global warming. Because they're not always being asked impartial questions, they're not always going to come up with impartial answers. Medical scientists can be payed far more for coming up with new chemotherapy treatments than if they did a study and found that qigong was in a completely different league in terms of curing chronic illnesses. They'd be killing most of their industry, and as a group, I know they would never do such a thing. That is why you cannot always trust what is known as accepted scientific theory. The people who accept the theories are the imperfect scientists, and if something would adversely effect an entire group of them, they'd oppose it as much as the String theorists originally opposed the 11th dimension.

[Sithdarth]

Scientific theory is always the most likely answer. One just has to be careful because not everything presented as a scientific theory by scientist is one. There is a big difference between a well rounded theory that considers all evidence and one that only considers the evidence that supports its claims. Its rather easy to tell the difference because you'll pretty easily be able to find dissenting opinions floating around. At that point you either refrain from endorsing either, get a degree and do the research yourself, or try and determine which one has the most convincing case. That last one shouldn't be a matter of faith but a matter of logic.

Also, you make it sound as if no main stream scientists are looking into ancient Asian remedies and that's just not true. Indeed it isn't big news but neither is the minutia of most science. There are hundreds or maybe even thousands of drug trials every year for all sorts of things and we here about maybe 3 if we're lucky. Those are either ones billed as wonder drugs or ones with horrible side effects that should have never made it as far as drug trials in the first place. But again it should be stressed that conclusions should only be drawn from available data and that is not faith. It would only be faith if they assumed they had all the data and weren't doing any more research and that isn't happening or they'd be out of a job. So again science as a process has nothing at all to do with faith but trusting a person unequivocally is now and always will be a matter of faith.

Also, the string theory comparison is rather ridiculous. As evidenced by the appearance of M-theory. The very same scientists that didn't think they needed the dimension have now added it in and you know what no one lost their jobs. No one was fired and it didn't negatively impact the field in anyway which is the nature of theoretical research. If a theory ends up being wrong you just retool and go after another one. Scientific research is the safest line of work ever because it'll never come to an end. Well at least not in the foreseeable future.

[I_Like_Swordchucks]

Originally Posted by Elminster_Amaur

That's 40% have temporarily killed off the cancerous cells. It's also commonly accepted that those that fight off cancer will inevitably get it again. Why then, isn't anyone even bothering to look at my Sifu's art, which has helped at least 40% of the cancer sufferers who have come to him for help become healthy permanently. You read that correctly, at least 40% have cured themselves of cancer, and have never gotten cancer again.

Not to be trite here, but that 40% value is only correct if taken as a long standing value. Its an average of the past so many years, however the survival rate 15 years ago was much lower than it is today. I can guarantee the survival rate this year will be much higher than 40%. The problem with this number is that it isn't taking improvements in time into consideration.

EDIT: Just for fun, I ran across this video about one of the world's top contender for atheism, Dawkins, versus one of the world's top contender for theism, McGrath. This was intended as an interview for an anti-religion documentary produced by Dawkins, but it was cut from the aired version mainly because they only showed the extremists. Having seen the actual documentary, its not really fair because they only show the looneys of the religious background (like guys who believe its okay to murder abortionists...). I think we pretty much all agree its a minority that are that bad.

Check it here, but it is quite long.

[Elminster_Amaur]

Its an average of the past so many years, however the survival rate 15 years ago was much lower than it is today. I can guarantee the survival rate this year will be much higher than 40%. The problem with this number is that it isn't taking improvements in time into consideration.

We're still talking about 2 different things here. You're talking about a survival rate while I'm talking about a return to full health. Completely different things. Conventional western medicine doesn't even have a way to measure that.

Also, the string theory comparison is rather ridiculous. As evidenced by the appearance of M-theory. The very same scientists that didn't think they needed the dimension have now added it in and you know what no one lost their jobs

My point was that they argued for the better part of a decade, because they didn't want to be wrong about there only being 10 dimensions. Had they merely looked at the M-theorists evidence objectively in the first place, they could have completely avoided it, because it was the only way to unify their multiple superstrings without drastically altering the entire theory itself.

Also, you make it sound as if no main stream scientists are looking into ancient Asian remedies and that's just not true. Indeed it isn't big news but neither is the minutia of most science.

That second statement is most telling. If they were truly looking into it, you can be sure the media would pick up on scientists looking into a treatment that claims at least a 40% cure rate within a year for cancer and a near 100% cure rate for virtually every chronic disease I've seen, as long as the patient does the treatment. (Spend an extra 10-15 minutes a day and not have arthritis, depression or back pain ever again? I think it's worth the effort)

[Sithdarth]

My point was that they argued for the better part of a decade, because they didn't want to be wrong about there only being 10 dimensions. Had they merely looked at the M-theorists evidence objectively in the first place, they could have completely avoided it, because it was the only way to unify their multiple superstrings without drastically altering the entire theory itself.

See if you had actually been aware of the origins of string theory you would know how off base that is. There weren't multiple string theories back then and there wasn't any M-theory. It was between Super Gravity and string theory and string theory had a lot more evidence going for it than Super Gravity. In fact, Super Gravity never really came back its still string theory just with an extra dimension. There was absolutely no indication what so ever in the beginning of string theory that it needed an extra dimension. In fact, it works perfectly fine with 10 its just there are five different versions of it that all work. There was no subjective bias preventing string theorists from accepting an 11th dimension there just wasn't any objective evidence it was needed. Oh and string theory hasn't been drastically altered. The only change was that strings went from 1D to 2D and only when you got really really super close does it actually matter. (Like closer than most things normally get in string theory anyway.)

That second statement is most telling. If they were truly looking into it, you can be sure the media would pick up on scientists looking into a treatment that claims at least a 40% cure rate within a year for cancer and a near 100% cure rate for virtually every chronic disease I've seen, as long as the patient does the treatment. (Spend an extra 10-15 minutes a day and not have arthritis, depression or back pain ever again? I think it's worth the effort)

I've seen several spots about this on the science channel actually. Now its been mostly overrun by energy stuff but its there. Beyond Tomorrow and a few other serial shows have run spots on it. I think even the SciFi channel had a bit of objective scientific research into it. You just have to pretty religiously (I tune in the Science Channel about 80% of the time for background noise) watch these channels to catch these things. There is certainly a stigma attached which is why main stream news sources don't usually pick it up but as soon as one of these scientists comes through with lots of objective data it'll hit the news.

[Elminster_Amaur]

I tune in the Science Channel about 80% of the time for background noise

Really? 80% of the time, your tv is tuned to the Science Channel? What a waste of money for advertisers. XD

I think even the SciFi channel had a bit of objective scientific research into it.

I think that's more of a problem than no one saying anything about it at all. I mean, the SciFi channel is about science-fiction. Emphasis on the fiction. I mean, it's an okay channel, with Eureka! and Dr. Who a-half-year-later-than-Britain, and other shows that I used to watch but can't for the life of me remember. But when it comes to looking for an informative bit of viewing, it's definitely the second-to-last place I look, with Fox being the last.

But it was on Beyond Tomorrow? I'll have to catch a rerun sometime.

There weren't multiple string theories back then and there wasn't any M-theory. It was between Super Gravity and string theory and string theory had a lot more evidence going for it than Super Gravity.

I know, that's not what I meant to say. I recall the episode of whatever show it was that was on M-Theory that said just that. And I'm going to take my own advice and not argue physics with Sith. XD

[Torque]

http://seattlepi.nwsource.com/local/...ap_Pastor.html

The gist of the article being that yet ANOTHER of god's men of the cloth have taken it upon themselves to destroy the lives of more underaged followers..

WOW.
and people wonder why I don't go to church.

[42PETUNIAS]

I'm pretty sure it's unfair to judge christianity in general because some of the people are corrupt. Same goes for doctors, lawyers, politicians, etc.

Especially since this is a non-denominational church, so even if you tried, there's no larger body that you could blame.

[Torque]

I would agree with you, except that the enormous number of them has my mind baffled.
also, I don't care if you're protestant, catholic, lutheran, methodist, baptist, or jehovah's witness...
if you believe in God, and christ that pretty much makes you christian...