Originally posted by Adam_PoE
[list=1][*]A mainstream scientist does not engage a marginal scientist, because doing so undermines his work and lends legitimacy to marginal views.[*]Aidon Dodson is not simply critically responding to the work of others; he is contribution his own work.[/list]
Unlike many marginal scientists, mainstream scientists do not do this.
1. Who's to say what's a marginal scientist and what a mainstream scientist. That doesn't sound like a very objective stance. The arguments and delivered evidence to support the arguments should be reason enough. You create a picture as if scientists are at war with each other. They are not.
2. Did you read ALL Dodson's work? Did you hear eevrything he has to say about it? I doubt it, because if you did, you'd know he's quite critical about the matter. But there are topics where there's little evidence to doubt the biblical narratives because a) they sound plausible in te time frame they were set in and b) there's not always strong evidence to say it all BS.
3) All scientists work for themselves: they need money to research and there's a huge lack of it. Publishing your work is a way to make money and keep the debate going.
You present it as if your Copenhagen Idols are the only scientists who are doing real scientific work in the area. Such arrogance makes no sense at all and again shows you are extremely biased in your vehement quest to show that everything to do with religion or the Bible is wrong. That makes you just as bad as un uncritical religious fanaticist that doesn't want to see anything that doesn't fit his picture.
If you say the Copenhagen minimalists are the only true scientists in this field, I feel you should be ashamed for your lack of knowlegde in the field of near east archaeology. I can only say, you're on some kind of idealistic crusade. Scary stuff.
Originally posted by Quiero Mota
Isn't the point of science to ascertain the truth?Who cares what his motive is?
Because one has a motive and the others do not.
Only people who want to ignore their own agenda create factoids that suppoort an effort that doesn't exist.
Are we to assume that every scientist obtained his degree or doctorate to disprove god? This is a position that can only be understood out of motivation, which is why sme people want to claim science has an agenda. The actual problem often arises because the findings discovered are contrary to bibical subscription. This is why so many want to point their finger at the actual scientific method and call it the devil, as opposed to the published results of the scientist that refutes that methodology, no matter how corrupt is has been made by those with the "agenda". Perhaps the devil is in the details, but that implies that god doesn't stand up to the scrutiny provided by those who actually use the method. "God" and his subscribers often quote the bible or religious texts, but how often do they realize that one of the first tenants laid down by those beliefs are concepts that imply that logic and understanding run contrary to godliness? How do they counter that accusation; by claiming that god wants us to be ignorant; that it works out better for him because of that desire. And how do they counter it? By claiming their methods are congruent with the methods of their peers. It isn't a new or revolutionary concept. It goes back as far as virgin births and resurrections in regards to recycled reglious ideas. Why would god not want to have followers that can't recognize or appreciate logic or reason? God isn't in question here, it's the idea that he want's idiot followers espousing a made up ideology; a MAN MADE ideology. I don't doubt the existence of a god or a force or a mantra or a universal truth: I question how willing or able "god" is to intervene. And, according to his followers it's only when it serves his interests; to further his self agrandizing motives. That relegates god to a childish, petty role in the over all scheme of things. And if god is relegated to such a position, then why hasn't he spoken up during all this modern debate if he has such a vested interest? It's likely because he doesn't exist or he doesn't give a shit. And if god is apathetic, then he doesn't need scientists manipulating their research or knee-bent followers.
I'll believe in god as he is proposed by so many as soon as those people remove themselves from his worship. Once I no longer see the very clear abuse of god by his self-appointed mouth pieces, I'll consider him viable. But an all-powerful and interested being that allows others to use and abuse him gets no respect from me. And that might strike others as an inablity to "GET IT" but I have recieved far more biblical and spiritual guidance than do most, and I haven't "gotten it". All I see is hypocrisy and manipulation, of both facts and human need and desperation.
What far too many people refuse is the concept that god is the unknown. But the disconnect comes when people assume that what they don't understand can be applied to what they do understand: which is what they experience in this life. The unknown hasn't changed in the last 10,000 years, despite what Jesus or Moses or Abraham or Mohammad or Jospeh Smith or Horus or Ghandi or Confuscious decided to write down.
The idea that the religion of one person needs to be the same as the next is one of the greatest lies purpetrated by those who seek control and reverence, as though they some how exist outisde of it.
Originally posted by Devil King
Because one has a motive and the others do not.Only people who want to ignore their own agenda create factoids that suppoort an effort that doesn't exist.
Are we to assume that every scientist obtained his degree or doctorate to disprove god? This is a position that can only be understood out of motivation, which is why sme people want to claim science has an agenda. The actual problem often arises because the findings discovered are contrary to bibical subscription. This is why so many want to point their finger at the actual scientific method and call it the devil, as opposed to the published results of the scientist that refutes that methodology, no matter how corrupt is has been made by those with the "agenda". Perhaps the devil is in the details, but that implies that god doesn't stand up to the scrutiny provided by those who actually use the method. "God" and his subscribers often quote the bible or religious texts, but how often do they realize that one of the first tenants laid down by those beliefs are concepts that imply that logic and understanding run contrary to godliness? How do they counter that accusation; by claiming that god wants us to be ignorant; that it works out better for him because of that desire. And how do they counter it? By claiming their methods are congruent with the methods of their peers. It isn't a new or revolutionary concept. It goes back as far as virgin births and resurrections in regards to recycled reglious ideas. Why would god not want to have followers that can't recognize or appreciate logic or reason? God isn't in question here, it's the idea that he want's idiot followers espousing a made up ideology; a MAN MADE ideology. I don't doubt the existence of a god or a force or a mantra or a universal truth: I question how willing or able "god" is to intervene. And, according to his followers it's only when it serves his interests; to further his self agrandizing motives. That relegates god to a childish, petty role in the over all scheme of things. And if god is relegated to such a position, then why hasn't he spoken up during all this modern debate if he has such a vested interest? It's likely because he doesn't exist or he doesn't give a shit. And if god is apathetic, then he doesn't need scientists manipulating their research or knee-bent followers.
I'll believe in god as he is proposed by so many as soon as those people remove themselves from his worship. Once I no longer see the very clear abuse of god by his self-appointed mouth pieces, I'll consider him viable. But an all-powerful and interested being that allows others to use and abuse him gets no respect from me. And that might strike others as an inablity to "GET IT" but I have recieved far more biblical and spiritual guidance than do most, and I haven't "gotten it". All I see is hypocrisy and manipulation, of both facts and human need and desperation.
What far too many people refuse is the concept that god is the unknown. But the disconnect comes when people assume that what they don't understand can be applied to what they do understand: which is what they experience in this life. The unknown hasn't changed in the last 10,000 years, despite what Jesus or Moses or Abraham or Mohammad or Jospeh Smith or Horus or Ghandi or Confuscious decided to write down.
The idea that the religion of one person needs to be the same as the next is one of the greatest lies purpetrated by those who seek control and reverence, as though they some how exist outisde of it.
I didn't read any of that.
You are wrong if you think that Quiero Moto is wrong.
He is right.
Show me one scientist is isn't biased in his or her research. 😐
Of COURSE they are biased. That shit has to interest them in order for them to want to pursue the results. Maybe money is a motivator. Maybe they have a hunch. Maybe they want to discover something new. Maybe fame is the motivator. Regardless, they are looking for specific results or have a specific motivation that, when it comes down to it, someone somehow could classify them as having a "pollutive biased".
If the scientist in question is looking for answers to validate his religion, who the f*** cares if his motivation is obviously biased? If the results are peer reviewed(I don't know if they do that in archeology...but I know they do it in the medical field) and found accurate, why would it matter? If the results are tainted...they can be thrown out. There are plenty of atheists that would be quick to throw out results.
Originally posted by dadudemonI didn't read any of that.
I didn't read any of that.You are wrong if you think that Quiero Moto is wrong.
He is right.
Show me one scientist is isn't biased in his or her research. 😐
Of COURSE they are biased. That shit has to interest them in order for them to want to pursue the results. Maybe money is a motivator. Maybe they have a hunch. Maybe they want to discover something new. Maybe fame is the motivator. Regardless, they are looking for specific results or have a specific motivation that, when it comes down to it, someone somehow could classify them as having a "pollutive biased".
If the scientist in question is looking for answers to validate his religion, who the f*** cares if his motivation is obviously biased? If the results are peer reviewed(I don't know if they do that in archeology...but I know they do it in the medical field) and found accurate, why would it matter? If the results are tainted...they can be thrown out. There are plenty of atheists that would be quick to throw out results.
There is a difference between being biased about your area of research and being bent on proving something of which there is no scientific backing whatsoever. Yes, scientists might love their theories, but if they are true scientists, they will give them up once they realize there is no evidence or that there is evidence to the contrary. They also surely won't make up any as some Christian "scientist" are prone to.
Very few serious scholars are 'bent' on proving anything. Every scientist works from a model and believes that model is the best.
Originally posted by dadudemon
If the results are peer reviewed(I don't know if they do that in archeology...but I know they do it in the medical field) and found accurate, why would it matter? If the results are tainted...they can be thrown out. There are plenty of atheists that would be quick to throw out results.
This is what is done in all fields, otherwise it's not science. It's one thing to publish on the net and preach in Chruches about your 'scientific evidence', it's another to get publish in scientific papers and magazines that are read by your peers. Because there your article has to be approved by the editors and then your finds and conclusions can be read by others and weighed. The argument from a peer saying: oh you're a Christian, everything you write is bullocks anyway, so I don't read it, is not only scientifically immoral, it's also dogmatic. Like some in here respond to anything that smells like religion.
Originally posted by Devil King
Because one has a motive and the others do not.Only people who want to ignore their own agenda create factoids that suppoort an effort that doesn't exist.
Are we to assume that every scientist obtained his degree or doctorate to disprove god? This is a position that can only be understood out of motivation, which is why sme people want to claim science has an agenda. The actual problem often arises because the findings discovered are contrary to bibical subscription. This is why so many want to point their finger at the actual scientific method and call it the devil, as opposed to the published results of the scientist that refutes that methodology, no matter how corrupt is has been made by those with the "agenda". Perhaps the devil is in the details, but that implies that god doesn't stand up to the scrutiny provided by those who actually use the method. "God" and his subscribers often quote the bible or religious texts, but how often do they realize that one of the first tenants laid down by those beliefs are concepts that imply that logic and understanding run contrary to godliness? How do they counter that accusation; by claiming that god wants us to be ignorant; that it works out better for him because of that desire. And how do they counter it? By claiming their methods are congruent with the methods of their peers. It isn't a new or revolutionary concept. It goes back as far as virgin births and resurrections in regards to recycled reglious ideas. Why would god not want to have followers that can't recognize or appreciate logic or reason? God isn't in question here, it's the idea that he want's idiot followers espousing a made up ideology; a MAN MADE ideology. I don't doubt the existence of a god or a force or a mantra or a universal truth: I question how willing or able "god" is to intervene. And, according to his followers it's only when it serves his interests; to further his self agrandizing motives. That relegates god to a childish, petty role in the over all scheme of things. And if god is relegated to such a position, then why hasn't he spoken up during all this modern debate if he has such a vested interest? It's likely because he doesn't exist or he doesn't give a shit. And if god is apathetic, then he doesn't need scientists manipulating their research or knee-bent followers.
I'll believe in god as he is proposed by so many as soon as those people remove themselves from his worship. Once I no longer see the very clear abuse of god by his self-appointed mouth pieces, I'll consider him viable. But an all-powerful and interested being that allows others to use and abuse him gets no respect from me. And that might strike others as an inablity to "GET IT" but I have recieved far more biblical and spiritual guidance than do most, and I haven't "gotten it". All I see is hypocrisy and manipulation, of both facts and human need and desperation.
What far too many people refuse is the concept that god is the unknown. But the disconnect comes when people assume that what they don't understand can be applied to what they do understand: which is what they experience in this life. The unknown hasn't changed in the last 10,000 years, despite what Jesus or Moses or Abraham or Mohammad or Jospeh Smith or Horus or Ghandi or Confuscious decided to write down.
The idea that the religion of one person needs to be the same as the next is one of the greatest lies purpetrated by those who seek control and reverence, as though they some how exist outisde of it.
You ask if we're to assume that every scientist is out there to disprove god(s)? Well my answer is that it depends on their field of science. It usually doesn't apply to physicists or chemists, but it does to a lot of biologists. The one that immediately comes to my mind is Richard Dawkins. He's a world-renown evolutionary biologist who's the department chair of Oxford's biology department, has an award named after him by the American Atheists, and is even a New York Times best seller. Do you wanna take a stab at what his books are about? He hates religion much more than he likes science, and all his research about dinosaurs and cavemen are a platform for him to write books where he rants about his beef with religion.
"Knowledge for the sake of knowledge" my ass.
Originally posted by Quiero Mota
You ask if we're to assume that every scientist is out there to disprove god(s)? Well my answer is that it depends on their field of science. It usually doesn't apply to physicists or chemists, but it does to a lot of biologists. The one that immediately comes to my mind is Richard Dawkins. He's a world-renown evolutionary biologist who's the department chair of Oxford's biology department, has an award named after him by the American Atheists, and is even a New York Times best seller. Do you wanna take a stab at what his books are about? He hates religion much more than he likes science, and all his research about dinosaurs and cavemen are a platform for him to write books where he rants about his beef with religion."Knowledge for the sake of knowledge" my ass.
Good scientists can have options. They can even be advocates for or against whatever, and write books on whatever. That does not mean they are going to do bad science.
If Dawkins did crappy science, I don't think he would have the position he has. Competition is what keeps science on track. There is hundreds of scientists who would love to have Dawkins job. If he put his beliefs before science on any of his real work, don't you think that someone would call him on it in public?
Originally posted by Quiero Mota
Do you wanna take a stab at what his books are about? He hates religion much more than he likes science, and all his research about dinosaurs and cavemen are a platform for him to write books where he rants about his beef with religion.
actually, prior to the God Delusion, Dawkins' books contain few, if any, references to God outside of brief mentions of the cultural context in which he writes his books.
I would agree with you that Dawkins' non-scientific work is anti-theist, but to contend that he is more about disproving god than about science is ridiculous. Maybe now that he has established his career as one of the worlds pre-eminent evolutionary scientists he has decided to expand into the religious debate, but his earliest works were either in the field of evolution (where he a Gould argued about punctuated equilibrium, something entirely unrelated to religion, and where he earned his fame) or as a science popularizer, with books like unweaving the rainbow.
Any scientists who wrote real scientific papers (as opposed to books which are not traditional science publications, although the general public seems to see them as such) about the non-existence of God would be laughed out of the field. It'd be like me writing a paper in psychology about how the soul doesn't exist. How the **** could I publish that? what is my null hypothesis going to be? How am I going to generate any for of statistic to analyze? Real science cannot be published about how something doesn't exist.
Originally posted by Shakyamunison
If he put his beliefs before science on any of his real work, don't you think that someone would call him on it in public?
Look at any of his work, and you'll see that it's a legitimate vehicle for him to push his own agenda. And that agenda is to stamp out religion.
I've been reading him for about ten years now.
Originally posted by inimalist
actually, prior to the God Delusion, Dawkins' books contain few, if any, references to God outside of brief mentions of the cultural context in which he writes his books.I would agree with you that Dawkins' non-scientific work is anti-theist, but to contend that he is more about disproving god than about science is ridiculous. Maybe now that he has established his career as one of the worlds pre-eminent evolutionary scientists he has decided to expand into the religious debate, but his earliest works were either in the field of evolution (where he a Gould argued about punctuated equilibrium, something entirely unrelated to religion, and where he earned his fame) or as a science popularizer, with books like unweaving the rainbow.
Any scientists who wrote real scientific papers (as opposed to books which are not traditional science publications, although the general public seems to see them as such) about the non-existence of God would be laughed out of the field. It'd be like me writing a paper in psychology about how the soul doesn't exist. How the **** could I publish that? what is my null hypothesis going to be? How am I going to generate any for of statistic to analyze? Real science cannot be published about how something doesn't exist.
So The Selfish Gene, The Blind Watchmaker and Viruses of the Mind all have nothing to do with refuting god? Ay guey, of course they do. That's his lot in life.
His book The God Delusion and his documentary The Root of all Evil? (as if the titles themselves don't give it away) are all an accumulation of his 25+ years work and all peak to a climax of his purpose in research: trying to disprove god. They are more about bashing religion than talking about how cool dinosaurs are, or science period.
And you're right about one thing; he had to establish a career as a respected scientist first, then rant. "In order to get what you want, who have to work for it first." By 2006 he had enough money and fame as a teacher/scientist to do what he's always wanted. He actually wanted to release a book back in the 80's that attacked religion, but his publisher at the time advised against it, because even he knew that Dawkins wasn't famous enough (and respected enough) yet, and would just come off as another random Atheist who thinks religious people are mindless sheep and a threat to the future of humanity.
Originally posted by Quiero Mota
Look at any of his work, and you'll see that it's a legitimate vehicle for him to push his own agenda. And that agenda is to stamp out religion.I've been reading him for about ten years now.
If you are talking about his books, that is not his work. Science is not published in books. Science is published is scientific journals. Books are a way to get ideas out to the public. Notice I said ideas, not science.
Originally posted by Quiero Mota
So The Selfish Gene, The Blind Watchmaker and Viruses of the Mind all have nothing to do with refuting god? Ay guey, of course they do. That's his lot in life.
The selfish gene is about how evolution works best at the gene level. He brings up memes, which is a field I would agree with you, goes out of its way to challange religion (which is a valid criticism of the field), although he spent little time on it.
Originally posted by Quiero Mota
His book The God Delusion and his documentary The Root of all Evil? (as if the titles themselves don't give it away) are all an accumulation of his 25+ years work and all peak to a climax of his purpose in research: trying to disprove god. They are more about bashing religion than talking about how cool dinosaurs are, or science period.And you're right about one thing; he had to establish a career as a respected scientist first, then rant. "In order to get what you want, who have to work for it first." By 2006 he had enough money and fame as a teacher/scientist to do what he's always wanted. He actually wanted to release a book back in the 80's that attacked religion, but his publisher at the time advised against it, because even he knew that Dawkins wasn't famous enough (and respected enough) yet, and would just come off as another random Atheist who thinks religious people are mindless sheep and a threat to the future of humanity.
I think you are confusing people publishing books under their freedom of speech and real scientific work. Many scientists publish book about UFOs or other ridiculous things, which have nothing to do with their research, because they CAN and people will read them.
Books are not real scientific publications. They can be well written, but are not subject to any peer-review process and are subject to freedom of speech.
The best example I can think of is Noam Chomsky. He is famous, scientifically, for his work on linguistics and grammar. To people unfamiliar with scientific work, they know him as a leftist philosopher and critic of American foreign policy. None of Chomsky's science shows influence from his political ideas, which he publishes in his free time.
You have to understand this EXTREMELY important distinction between scientific writing and book writing. In his personal time, Dawkins has published lots of books about things he is interested in. In his time as a scientist, he is not publishing anything related, else he would be highly criticized.
Any ideology in science, with the exception of methodological empiricism, is antithetic to the whole process. Nobody should get away with those publications in peer-reviewed journals. There are lots of cases where this isn't true (and not just about religion, many other ideologies seep into scientific interpretations), but they are very quickly called out for what they are.
Books, not scientific publication, can't be used as a criticism of a person's scientific work.
Peer-reviewed work published in a scientific journal, sure, if you find bias there, you would have a real criticism.
I dunno... earlier Adam_Poe just wrote off a well established Egyptologist with a long body of work, just co-operating/commenting on a biblical topic. He claimed it made him unbelievable. I guess, if Poe's standards are applied, Dawkins is the ultimate example of bad science. Strange how that goes one way and not the other.
I think Dawkins has a good reputation and he's cashing in on the God Delusion.
Originally posted by queeq
I dunno... earlier Adam_Poe just wrote off a well established Egyptologist with a long body of work, just co-operating/commenting on a biblical topic. He claimed it made him unbelievable. I guess, if Poe's standards are applied, Dawkins is the ultimate example of bad science. Strange how that goes one way and not the other.
I think Dawkins has a good reputation and he's cashing in on the God Delusion.
Originally posted by Shakyamunison
Good scientists can have options. They can even be advocates for or against whatever, and write books on whatever. That does not mean they are going to do bad science...
Not every body agrees with Adam_Poe on everything he writes.
Originally posted by queeq
I dunno... earlier Adam_Poe just wrote off a well established Egyptologist with a long body of work, just co-operating/commenting on a biblical topic. He claimed it made him unbelievable. I guess, if Poe's standards are applied, Dawkins is the ultimate example of bad science. Strange how that goes one way and not the other.
I think Dawkins has a good reputation and he's cashing in on the God Delusion.
PoE's standards are not that of science then.
People are allowed to choose who they believe as a valid source, but failing any methodological concerns, people cannot be excluded from science because they believe things that are not scientifically accurate.
EDIT: The "that applies one way and not the other" remark is ridiculous. I've heard EXTREME athiest scientists critisize Dawkins for trying to use his scientific credentials as a way to talk about God, or for not explainaing to people that his religious work is not his science.
Sure, most people only see the way they believe, but science is too competative to let stuff alone if it is clearly biased, ESPECIALLY if it is by a famous author who proving wrong would establish a career.
Originally posted by dadudemon
I didn't read any of that.
Then I'll return the favor.
Originally posted by Quiero Mota
You ask if we're to assume that every scientist is out there to disprove god(s)? Well my answer is that it depends on their field of science. It usually doesn't apply to physicists or chemists, but it does to a lot of biologists. The one that immediately comes to my mind is Richard Dawkins. He's a world-renown evolutionary biologist who's the department chair of Oxford's biology department, has an award named after him by the American Atheists, and is even a New York Times best seller. Do you wanna take a stab at what his books are about? He hates religion much more than he likes science, and all his research about dinosaurs and cavemen are a platform for him to write books where he rants about his beef with religion."Knowledge for the sake of knowledge" my ass.
Well, then he's found a new religion to replace "God" with, hasn't he? I never said that every christian scientist has an agenda or that every scientist is out to disprove god. I said that was the assumption made by many pople in this thread and in this forum. What they do it tout the findings of particuar scientists as long as they support the existence of god. Then they turn around and say all non-christian scientists are trying to disprove god. Well, they aren't. God doesn't enter into their methods nor are they altering facts and intentionally ignoring contrary evidence to support their desire to soundly prove god. Many of the scientists on the christian side do so, and when their bad science is pointed out by their peers, their peers are being told they are souless bastards with an agenda; like they're the ones ignoring facts and reseach!
It's a tactic that many people use in many different debates. The tactic is to imply the other side claims a contrary position to your own; which in this case isn't what's happening. Science doesn't support god, but dadudemon and queeq and feceman all want to say that it does out of default because all scientists who aren't christians are trying to disprove god. Which, you'll notice is the opposite of the very reasonable concern expressed over that one scientist feceman posted about. Science isn't trying to disprove god. It's like many people who deny evolution aren't bright enough to realize that we aren't on some evolutionary path that is clearly defined. We aren't on our way to becoming beings of pure energy, you know? That's not how it works. But every christian out there that condemns it misunderstands it to mean as much.