The General Religion, Mythology, and Theology Thread

Well, a theory is less a fact and more a humongous pile of facts networked into a giant reality-prediction engine.

yeah, but like, the theory of gravity is a thing. if the theory of gravity were to be adjusted or corrected according to new information, apples wouldn't suddenly fall up.

Most of the theories aren't laws is because some of them are really hard to observe in a small time frame.

Like, the a theory that has a lot of facts and observable evidence to support it but you'd need to wait a few million years to see it working.

Gravity is also a theory, but mostly because even though we can measure it and observe it we don't know why mass attracts matter or why after a certain scale the current understanding of gravity works differently.

They're more like giant cherries...

Basically, theory =/= hypothesis.

Hypothesis is "Hey guys, what if X is Y? Mind blown, right?"

Theory is "Ok, there facts show that X is Y. Let's treat X as Y until new facts show otherwise."

edited 25th Nov '15 8:17:32 AM by Luminosity

In what context will non-religious views be taught? In the context of how they respond and connect with religious views or as their own view set? Because if it's their own view set then I'd agree that they belong in philosophy, but if it's in how they interact with religious view sets and respond to it in then I'd say fair enough. But likewise I'd also say fair enough to briefly touching on how certain segments of society have responded to evolution and other facts of biology, in a biology class.

If I'm going to learn about atheists responding to religion in RE I can see a logic in learning about evolution deniers responding to revolution in biology.

That or they're just going to turn RE into a general "study of expansive moral frameworks and ideas of how life should be lived" thing.

There is not and need not be some presumption of an "objective neutral stance" between science and religion. Science is not a matter of faith. However, those who choose no religion are a legitimate subject of study in a class that is about religion in general.

I would certainly consider religious objections a reasonable thing to study in a science history class, for example.

edited 25th Nov '15 1:02:33 PM by Fighteer

Thing is I don't believe humans evolved from monkeys Now I'm not saying evolution doesn't exist, but I'm saying I don't believe in the entirety of The Theory of Evolution.

And I'm sure there are a lot of people who believe the same thing, that's why if things like secularism are discussed in RE then I think evolution should be able to be discussed in Biology.

We have a law of Gravity, but we don't have a law of Evolution, which is a key difference.

Well, tough for you. We're primates, no matter how you slice it — from the genetics to the physical comparisons.

Suggestion: mosey around physical anthropology. Fun stuff. And, educational. Sediba is a cutie, for example... and a possible candidate for a direct ancestor! Say hello to your great-great-who-knows-how-many-granduncles and aunts.

edited 25th Nov '15 1:33:37 PM by Euodiachloris

I don't believe that people are actually stupid enough to keep giving Trump money. But, shit, reality is another.

Damn, I mistook this thread for a place I could express my opinion without being directly told 'you're wrong'.

Fact is, the theory of evolution is something that is widely debated today which shows it's not something that is set in stone. If we talk about gravity, we don't say 'I don't believe in gravity' because we know Gravity is a thing that exists, or else we'd all be floating into space.

I wish people would take more care in throwing around terms like law and theory....

Ok, here's the short primer:

A LAW is an observed, (relatively) consistent relationship about a phenomenon and is often expressed as a mathematical equation. eg. Y = 2X is observed everywhere so we'll call it a law.

A HYPOTHESIS is an educated guess about the reason behind an observed phenomenon. eg. I think Y=2X because X is unstable by itself.

A THEORY is a comprehensive explanation for a whole bunch of related phenomenons. eg. letters have tiny locks on their outside which need to match other locks in other letters to make new letters, which is why you get a Y from two X or a Z from 4 A etc.

So in science, a LAW is actually one of the weakest, simplest, most basic thing you can have because it's just an observed relationship without any explanation involved. For the stats type, it's just an observed (though very reliable) correlation with no attempt to even establish a causation.

Evolution has plenty of law-like relationships under its overarching umbrella. All sorts of equations describing heredity, genetic response to selection pressure, genetic drift etc. could be called "laws". Of course, by the time a lot of math is historically applied to biology (as opposed to the more tractable physical sciences), scientists have learned a bit of humility and shied away from naming everything a LAW coz they found the world to be a messy place with lots of corner cases and exceptions. Instead of calling something a XYZ law, nowadays we would call it a XYZ model or XYZ equation.

Gravity? Gravity is fucking simple compared to the complicated mess that is evolutionary biology. The Law of Gravity is one single equation, which if discovered in modern times would be called Newton's Gravitation Model or some such. Besides, while the fact you fall is pretty well described, why you fall is up for debate. Is it mass curving space? Is it tiny little gravitons pulling you closer? You can find plenty of debate about gravitational theory if you look into the scientific literature.

Similarly, any scientific debate about evolution is not about if it occurs. Scientific debates about evolution is about the specific mechanisms, the relative importance of mechanisms, the speed of various phenomenons, nitty gritty details about various factors etc.

think you missed an arrow there, Handle.

edited 25th Nov '15 3:27:06 PM by nightwyrm_zero

There's no place on this wiki where you're safe from being told your opinion is wrong. There's no place anywhere where anyone's safe from being told their opinion is wrong.

Tvtropes probably has a really liberal bias though.

edited 25th Nov '15 2:56:50 PM by Keybreak

The whole point of places like this is that you can get told straight on that you're wrong. As for evolution being widely debated, last I checked, scientific consensus was essentially unanymous. Also, humans didn't evolve from monkeys; they have a common ancestor with them. Not quite the same thing.

Also, please drop the smileys, they don't soften your words, they just make you seem fake and cringey, like Steve Fleming from The Thick of It. It's unnerving, really.

edited 25th Nov '15 3:06:02 PM by TheHandle

I know scientists who don't believe in evolution.

And I'm sorry if my use of smileys offends you, but arguing on the internet isn't something I'm used to (I prefer the term debating) and it seems this debate is quite one sided. And I'm tired so I think I'm going to leave this one for tonight anyway.

Why on earth would you want a place like that?

Not to pile on you, but....

Were any of those scientists biologists? Not doctors, biologists. Coz apparently people don't actually need a brain to become a brain surgeon.

Anyways, digs at Ben Carson aside, even highly intelligent people can hold wrong beliefs. A bunch of people deny global climate change, or vaccinations, or the moon landing....

I mean, I can go about my everyday life and job even if I don't believe in the atomic theory and nothing I encounter in my everyday life would correct that mistaken belief.

edited 25th Nov '15 3:34:36 PM by nightwyrm_zero

I'm happy for the scientists you know. They're vastly outnumbered and refusing the great, big piles of evidence, but that's OK. Scientists can be idiots and fools along with the rest of humanity.

Nobody is immune to inner bias. The only real problem is when you ignore reality when the reality you can't accept can kill you without permission. As a lot of people who believe climate change is just a hoax perpetrated by atheist, commie liberals to destroy their freedom are going to find out when they get inundated or blown away by something people have been trying to warn them about for decades.

By the by... what's wrong with smilies? <_<

Like actual facial expressions, it depends on how you use them.

Question, what does ;( even mean?

a winking frowny? That's a thing? Maybe it's just someone who's got sand in one of his eyes and is now sad...

Even though you don't agree with me I appreciate the smileys, I think there's nothing wrong with them and they make the world a nicer place

edited 25th Nov '15 3:51:31 PM by chinese_peanut

, It's supposed be a crying face, if I remember correctly.

edited 25th Nov '15 3:51:29 PM by DrunkenNordmann

@chinese_peanut: We aren't here to reinforce your wrong beliefs, if that's what you mean. "I'm entitled to believe what I want," is a facile evasion for, "I don't want to have my beliefs challenged."

If you believe in the divine origin of mankind, that's your business. None of us can change what's inside your mind. However, in a place where intellectually honest discussions are mandated by the rules, you are not going to get away with claiming your belief-space as real-world truth in the absence of any objective evidence.

I won't go crazy with the details here, because we have a separate topic specifically for holding evolution vs. creationism debates. There's also a topic for discussion of the detailed science underpinning the theory of evolution by natural selection. In that thread, Best Of (also one of our moderators) has been really great about digging into the details with people and giving them solid reference material to help them educate themselves.

edited 25th Nov '15 4:20:50 PM by Fighteer

Anywaaaaaaay- It seems to me that including non-religious views in a a class on religions seems like it waters down the subject matter. In academia, narrow specialized topics are a thing. For a good reason.

Nah, a crying face is :'(.

edited 25th Nov '15 4:29:42 PM by Elfive

If you want to take a "general religions" or "religious history" class, it seems kind of irresponsible to exclude the growth of atheism and agnosticism as a topic. If you want to discuss advanced Hinduism, then sure, it's not in scope.

edited 25th Nov '15 4:32:55 PM by Fighteer