Why fake understanding or knowledge?

[Zzyzx]

.
In many of these threads people pretend to know about nature but then demonstrate near total ignorance. How can one, in good conscience, act as though they know about extremely complex natural processes that take years or decades to master – and to dismiss legitimate scholarship, extensive research, years of study with a wave of their (arrogant) hand?

Case in point: After studying Earth science since the 1960s and teaching at university level, I have some command of the subject (but do not claim expert status). Even knowing that, people who have not studied the subject at all set out in debate to teach me about Earth science.

Many discuss evolution without even understanding what the term means, let alone the factors involved. Most mistakenly assume that evolution means the same as origin of life – totally different topics. An advanced geneticist need not have any concern about origin of life. However, many who read scripture or listen to sermons assume that they know all that is necessary to critique and criticize the conclusions of legitimate researchers.

Does it reflect on one's credibility when they pretend to have knowledge that they do not have?

Why would one do such a thing?

[dianaiad]

You are the one who claimed that religion and science are not in conflict. That they deal with "something altogether different; different purpose, different subject, different methods. " I have shown that claim as false with but one example of Mormon beliefs that are in conflict with science. Do you need more examples?

Science and religion do not conflict at every turn, but they do at some.

I don't think you have demonstrated this at all. At most, I believe that you have demonstrated that they may conflict when the methods of one are used to find 'truth' that the other is best fitted for.

In other words, when a young earth creationist tries to use a religious text (written by people who were making comparisons and observations based upon their understanding of how the world works) to override modern scientific observation, it can clash. You know, like using Genesis to carbon date the earth. However, given that the bible is not, and has never been, intended to be a science text, that is an improper use of it.

On the other hand, when a scientist decides that anything he cannot identify as factual by scientific means cannot, then, be true or have value (such as being unable to prove that love is anything more than hormones or that there is such a thing as a 'higher power' or 'god,') then it is therefore false and valueless. Both sides are cutting off half their information gathering abilities.

As to the Book of Mormon...frankly, I don't worry about the supposed scientific problems in it. Some of those (like cement cities, for instance) that were roundly criticised and ridiculed, have been found to be accurate. Some haven't, yet. It's not a problem for me, because, like the Bible, the Book of Mormon is meant as a spiritual guide, not a physics or biology textbook. MEN wrote both books, and the men who wrote them understood their worlds differently than we do. Big Whoop.

If I want to know how old the earth is, I'll use geology and astronomy. If I want to find out how to live an ethical and spiritual life, I'll go to the scriptures. I don't think that the two contradict each other.

As it happens, the state of Utah lead the way in producing solid scientists for most of the twentieth century--and Mormons comprised the vast majority of those numbers. I haven't seen the numbers for the last 14 years, but a sixty year run is a pretty solid indication that, even if you have a problem with mixing Mormonism and science, the Mormons don't....and given that in such a situation, it is what the believers do and think about their science/religion 'problem' that counts?

I mean, if we don't have a problem, why do you?

[dianaiad]

I guess what that means is...obviously it's possible for religious people to be good scientists...and pretty darned good ones, at that.

I agree 100% -- and have known several personally.

I respect those who make a clear distinction between their scientific work and their religious beliefs (and avoid, insofar as possible, allowing one to infringe upon the other).

As do I. It's never seemed sensible to me to try to figure out how to find spiritual meaning by measuring the amount of carbohydrates in a chocolate bar, nor how to objectively quantify the lovely childhood and romantic memories that eating one produces. I believe that God is the Creator of all things, and if He is, then our finding out how 'all things' work will certainly not disprove--or even ruffle--the His existence.

Just this morning in another context I was discussing Gregor Mendel, the "Father of Genetics" -- a Monk -- whose work (during the middle 1800s) and methods were quite scientific and whose observations and conclusions were groundbreaking.

That they were.

I think that those who discount the work of scientists who are religious wear blinders at least as limiting as those who use their scriptures as the only source of scientific knowledge.

[Joab]

I wonder could you respond to this WP?

That isn't what I said is it? I didn't say that Newtonian Physics was totally and completely wrong, I said it was inadequate. I chose my words very carefully, so please refrain from ascribing a false position to me. My position is that Newtonian physics (specifically Newton's conception of Gravity) is inadequate, NOT totally and completely wrong.

In that case what do you propose is the antecedent for this statement?
There are many more examples Extracted from this sentence:

There are many more examples of how the natural sciences were totally and completely wrong.

Immediately following this statement?

Similarly, Newtonian physics was shown to be inadequate with the inception of Einstein's general theory of relativity

[scourge99]

You are the one who claimed that religion and science are not in conflict. That they deal with "something altogether different; different purpose, different subject, different methods. " I have shown that claim as false with but one example of Mormon beliefs that are in conflict with science. Do you need more examples?

Science and religion do not conflict at every turn, but they do at some.

I don't think you have demonstrated this at all. At most, I believe that you have demonstrated that they may conflict when the methods of one are used to find 'truth' that the other is best fitted for.

That is a hopeless vague and obscure statement.

What are the "methods" of religion that are used to discover truth? What "truths" have they "discovered"?

In other words, when a young earth creationist tries to use a religious text (written by people who were making comparisons and observations based upon their understanding of how the world works) to override modern scientific observation, it can clash. You know, like using Genesis to carbon date the earth. However, given that the bible is not, and has never been, intended to be a science text, that is an improper use of it.

On the other hand, when a scientist decides that anything he cannot identify as factual by scientific means cannot, then, be true or have value (such as being unable to prove that love is anything more than hormones or that there is such a thing as a 'higher power' or 'god,') then it is therefore false and valueless. Both sides are cutting off half their information gathering abilities.

If a scientist has declared something is false just because there is no evidence, then he isn't doing sound science. But a scientist could declare that a claim is unlikely or false if it is supposed to manifest evidence and that evidence is found not be non-existent. For example, if the Book of Mormon claims that ancient Native Americans were using steel and iron, yet all known excavations and analysis of Native American cultures demonstrate that such technology was not present, then that lack of evidence would go against the Book Of Mormons claims.

As to the Book of Mormon...frankly, I don't worry about the supposed scientific problems in it. Some of those (like cement cities, for instance) that were roundly criticised and ridiculed, have been found to be accurate. Some haven't, yet. It's not a problem for me, because, like the Bible, the Book of Mormon is meant as a spiritual guide, not a physics or biology textbook. MEN wrote both books, and the men who wrote them understood their worlds differently than we do. Big Whoop.

So some things in the book of Mormon were claimed to be wrong and then shown to be right (i'll just take your word for it for the sake of argument).
And the things that are claimed to be wrong now will eventually be proven right? Is that the gist if you statements? That you contend that the Book of Mormon is without historical error? And if there are any errors its just a "mistranslation" or will eventually be vindicated?

As it happens, the state of Utah lead the way in producing solid scientists for most of the twentieth century--and Mormons comprised the vast majority of those numbers. I haven't seen the numbers for the last 14 years, but a sixty year run is a pretty solid indication that, even if you have a problem with mixing Mormonism and science, the Mormons don't....and given that in such a situation, it is what the believers do and think about their science/religion 'problem' that counts?

I know you desperately want to change the subject and put words in my mouth, but I won't let you.

Mormons and any other religious person can be scientists. Even great ones who invent/discover great things. I haven't said otherwise no matter how many times you try to put words in my mouth and insinuate otherwise. But that doesn't mean that there aren't legitimate conflicts between science and religion. Sometimes they are conflicts about the age of the earth. Sometimes they are about history. But there certainly are some conflicts. Pointing out examples where they don't conflict doesn't change that.