The Conspiracy Argument

[ConiectoErgoSum]

Let's for a moment assume that modern science and ancient religion are at odds. That they are in fact mutually exclusive. This seems to be a mentality that leads to one of the following arguments:

Creationist:
God's word is specific and perfect.
The bible is God's explicit word.
The bible says that God created all things in a week.
Modern science says that the universe took billions of years to develop.
The two are irreconcilable.
Modern science is wrong.
This argument ends up essentially concluding the following about science:
Modern science is a conspiracy. Modern science is a set of rumors, or memes, initiated by scientists and perpetrated by the gullible. Its medium consists of indoctrination through schools, universities, the media, and word of mouth. It survives because it builds credibility through truths readily observable by everyone - basic physics, the survival instinct, fossil records, animal behavior, etc - and then adds lies that are only observable by "the experts".

Scientist:
The bible, if God's word, if true, would be specific and perfect.
The bible says that God created all things in a week.
Modern science says that the universe took billions of years to develop.
The two are irreconcilable.
The bible is wrong.
This argument ends up essentially concluding the following about Judeo-Christian religion (henceforth referred to as "religion"):
Reliigon is a conspiracy. Religion is a set of rumors, or memes, initiated by ancient politicians/writers and perpetrated by the gullible. Its medium consists of indoctrination through churches, families, the media, and word of mouth. It survives because it builds credibility through truths readily observable by everyone - the often evil nature of humans, the desire to never die, the wisdom of loving your neighbor as yourself - and then adds lies that are only observable by "the priests".


Now I'm sure everyone who thinks this argument is black and white is gonna hate me for reducing it so. I'll just go ahead and admit I didn't get all the details of either argument right. I'm probably way off base. But MY conclusion, is that anyone who believes "Science vs Religion" to be an "either or" - that the two are irreconcilably, mutually exclusive - MUST arrive at the conclusion that there's a conspiracy out there somewhere.

My question is this: How can you say that the evidence you have is not just part of the massive conspiracy? How do you justify believing one conspiracy theory over another?

[Clownboat]

You really think that scientist know the truth, but would rather cover it up so they can promote a theory that they know is wrong, and they do this just because? Are they being controlled by demons do you think?

Would you by chance address my question now, and then explain why you feel the way you do? Inquiring minds want to know.

You miss the point. My dispute is over what is and isn't science to begin with.

For example, geology is the study of rock formations but guessing how those rock formations were generated is speculation, not science.

No I don't think 'scientist' know the truth. They don't even claim to know the truth but provide their best guess based on available evidence.

Genetics is a science but evolution for example isn't science. It is faith based on partial evidence.

Are there scientists that would cover up evidences that doesn't fit their personal bias? Absolutely, both on the religious side as well as the secular side. That is part of human nature.

Can scientist be under demonic influences? We all can be. The wisdom of man is as foolishness in the eyes of Yah. At one point, science taught that the world was flat and the sun revolved around the earth due to the limited knowledge base at the time. As we learn more, we have to change what we hold as truth.

So it all comes down to what you trust as truth, the word of Yah or the observations of man. I take the original Hebrew as absolute truth though the translations may be full of error.

As to how I came to my understanding, well you most likely wouldn't believe me if I told you.

It seems like you have issue with how they come up with some of their information. If that is your opinion, so be it.
If you are interested in learning about rock formation, here is one place you can start. http://www.rocksforkids.com/RFK/howrocks.html

So do you retract your statement?: "Yes, I believe there is a massive conspiracy behind scientific theories" or do you have support for it?

con·spir·a·cy   /kənˈspɪrəsi/ Show Spelled
[kuhn-spir-uh-see] Show IPA

–noun, plural -cies.
1. the act of conspiring.
2. an evil, unlawful, treacherous, or surreptitious plan formulated in secret by two or more persons; plot.
3. a combination of persons for a secret, unlawful, or evil purpose: He joined the conspiracy to overthrow the government.
4. Law . an agreement by two or more persons to commit a crime, fraud, or other wrongful act.
5. any concurrence in action; combination in bringing about a given result.

[Goat]

You really think that scientist know the truth, but would rather cover it up so they can promote a theory that they know is wrong, and they do this just because? Are they being controlled by demons do you think?

Would you by chance address my question now, and then explain why you feel the way you do? Inquiring minds want to know.

You miss the point. My dispute is over what is and isn't science to begin with.

For example, geology is the study of rock formations but guessing how those rock formations were generated is speculation, not science.

Please provide evidence that forming a hypothesis or a theory based on evidence is 'speculation not science'. Can you back up that claim??

Genetics is a science but evolution for example isn't science. It is faith based on partial evidence.

Please back up your claim, from something other than a religious website.

Can scientist be under demonic influences? We all can be. The wisdom of man is as foolishness in the eyes of Yah. At one point, science taught that the world was flat and the sun revolved around the earth due to the limited knowledge base at the time. As we learn more, we have to change what we hold as truth.

Please back up the claim that there are such things as 'demons' and 'demonic influences'. Show the objective and tangible evidence for that.

So it all comes down to what you trust as truth, the word of Yah or the observations of man. I take the original Hebrew as absolute truth though the translations may be full of error.

I have yet to see evidence that your more skilled at that than all the people disagree with are.

[ConiectoErgoSum]

Well, I guess this thread has made one statement: links to websites on the Internet don't constitute hard evidence. (See pages 2-4 as evidence of this claim... as neither party would consider the other party's links conclusive).

I'll take a moment to summarize things:

Elias thinks satan is the conspirator, not scientists. Notwithstanding, he believes modern science is in fact a conspiracy - just not one made of man.

Someone also mentioned that Religion is not a "conspiracy" as there was no malicious intent behind it.

So people don't want to go so far as to say there's a conspiracy out there. Let's open it up. I don't want to just focus on the intent behind the lie, but the lie itself (even if it arose out of ignorance, non-maliciously).

How do you justify saying that your belief is not a rumor, or a superstition? An accidental conspiracy? A lie that simply propagated because it was popular and believable? (Let's see more defense, less offense. Just defend your own beliefs for now).

[FrostyM288]

The whole point of conspiracy theories is that you can never definitively prove it wrong. You can always tack on something like "such and such could've been fabricated". It is impossible for a person to know the absolute truth about an event unrelated to the person and thus a story must form from a conglomeration of secondary sources.

A person's belief about a conspiracy theory thus boils down to how much "fudging" he's able to believe can take place.

This being applied to science:

Elias' belief about satan requires a some belief about Abrahamic religion to start with. Then, you have to believe that he's able to influence the world in a way to make the scientific institution act a certain way. Also, the world just happens to be in such a state that evolution seems to be unquestionably the correct answer (fossils, dating, genetics, plate tectonics, etc...)

versus:

My belief in the scientific community (specifically process of peer review) says that only good/solid work will be published. Evolution is so uniformly supported in all relevant fields that the conspiracy would have to encompass millions of scientists. It is also unlikely to be an accidental conspiracy since there are numerous examples in science of popular theories being overthrown (or modified) when more information or contradicting data comes to light. Science awards those who go against the current grain of thought (and end up being right) and thus makes people sticking to "popular trends" for the sake of doing so unlikely.

But obviously, all the conspiracy theories about science could be true, just like that theory that you're living in the Matrix.

[ConiectoErgoSum]

Ok Frosty, good post.

Let me see if I can restate your argument in my own words, to check understanding. You are saying that, with religion, there are a lot of assumptions you have to make, stacked on further assumptions, etc. It's belief on top of belief on top of belief.

some belief about Abrahamic religion to start with. Then, you have to believe that he's able to influence the world in a way... Also, the world just happens to be in such a state

Whereas science is not so stacked. Sure, you have to make a few assumptions, and trust some experts, but there are fewer leaps you have to make.

I am going to operate on the idea that your argument carries the following implication: "Recent information is more reliable than old information"


Let me lay the groundwork of a counter argument. I'm not sure if this could be taken as far as "science is a conspiracy" - but maybe someone can take it a step further.

Religion derives its credibility from traditional knowledge, passed on through the generations. We believe these things because they are not new ideas. I would argue that religion represents "time-tested" truths.

If we today are finding out new information that finally disproves beliefs that have been the held for thousands of years, then that's really something. Its quite phenomenal, in fact. In essence, we are making a statement about human intellect - we are assuming that the modern generation is smarter or more observant than all the previous generations. This could be, on a smaller scale, like a kid who doesn't understand why he needs an education, and thus flunks out of school because he is unable to simply trust those who came before him - people who know that it's necessary in the long run. (Now, it could also be a kid who really is smarter, and changes the system for the better - but I'm arguing that this is the less probable of the two possibilities.)

Under this argument, "older information is more reliable than new information." New information might be true - that's how change happens - but it's more probable that the old information is true.

[JohnPaul]

Religion derives its credibility from traditional knowledge, passed on through the generations. We believe these things because they are not new ideas. I would argue that religion represents "time-tested" truths.

Excuse me for jumping in here before I have read all the posts in this thread, but the above paragraph compels me beyond human endurance.

Religion derives from traditional BELIEFS, not from knowledge. These beliefs are "time-tested" only because they have been imposed on generations of helpless ignorant children by their parents, communities, established churches, etc. In past ages, anyone who expressed doubt was burned at the stake to compel others to believe.

The use of the word "knowledge" in place of the word "belief" has long been a "conspiracy" by believers to give the false impression that their ideas have some real objective validity.

Science, on the other hand, allows and encourages anyone interested to examine the evidence for himself, form his own conclusions, and publish them for examination and TESTING by an impartial community of experts. TESTING is the essential word here.

The difference here is that contrary beliefs are refuted by burning at the stake, while knowledge is only refuted by a more careful examination and testing of the evidence.

This brings up the question of the nature of evidence. If we are to accept ancient writings as evidence, we could easily "prove" that the world is a flat plate resting on the back of a giant turtle! Hearsay evidence is never acceptable as proof of anything. If you went into court with a Bible and claimed that it was true because someone told you it was written by God, it would be rejected until God came in and confirmed his authorship!

I am sure all this has been said in this thread before, and my blood pressure has gone down a little, so I will quit for now. Thanks for allowing me to blow off a little steam.

John

[FrostyM288]

John Paul basically summed up my views pretty well (though w/ some added harshness).

Science always has a standard to compare things to. It may be "new knowledge" but the world we live in is the present, so I don't see how that is the problem. Science always must have results that are reproducible. That is the ultimate standard. If some finding can't be reproduced, it's not accepted. In religion, there is no golden standard. Some may say it's the Bible (or Torah or Quran), but first off, these were all written, edited, and pieced together by men. Even if the original inspirations were from God's words, the actual words in religious texts are interpretations by human beings and thus aren't a solid standard. Secondly, across the religious spectrum, there is very little agreement on how to even interpret the texts. Which parts should be treated literally and which should be treated figuratively and to what degree?

Thus, as a knowledge base, what religion has to offer is very very poor. This doesn't detract from it's spiritual side however, which I feel is the only thing that religion should focus on.

[ConiectoErgoSum]

I'm gonna ask a few questions for the sake of discussion; though I doubt I'll be able to check back any time soon, or that anyone is still following this, maybe it will generate something. who knows?

Hearsay evidence is never acceptable as proof of anything.

Ooh somebody made an extreme statement. So if hearsay evidence is never acceptable proof, why do we trust the news? why do we trust scientists? why don't we literally gather all the hard facts ourselves and do experiments ourselves, and conclude things?

I'll save you the trouble. The above quote is an overstatement. Hearsay evidence, in the real world, is absolutely necessary. It is not foolproof, but nobody has time or reason to see everything first hand. You gotta accept it... so what's the standard for accepting hearsay?

This is the other side of the issue... the one I wanted to address from the get-go. Barring all discussion about religion, I want someone to defend accepting scientific evidence that you heard from someone else. That you read in an article. That you were taught in school. Evidence that the whole scientific community accepts, but you haven't seen it yourself.

Ask yourself: is it really the evidence you're trusting, or is it the scientific community, the universities, the internet?

And if you didn't do the experiments yourself, then what exactly is the standard for truth in evidence?

Cheers!

[nygreenguy]

Ooh somebody made an extreme statement. So if hearsay evidence is never acceptable proof, why do we trust the news? why do we trust scientists? why don't we literally gather all the hard facts ourselves and do experiments ourselves, and conclude things?

None of these are hearsay.

I'll save you the trouble. The above quote is an overstatement. Hearsay evidence, in the real world, is absolutely necessary. It is not foolproof, but nobody has time or reason to see everything first hand. You gotta accept it... so what's the standard for accepting hearsay?

No it is not. This is why it is rarely allowed in courts. This is more of a misunderstanding of what hearsay is.

This is the other side of the issue... the one I wanted to address from the get-go. Barring all discussion about religion, I want someone to defend accepting scientific evidence that you heard from someone else. That you read in an article. That you were taught in school. Evidence that the whole scientific community accepts, but you haven't seen it yourself.

I have no problem defending it, but someone must first pose a problem!

Ask yourself: is it really the evidence you're trusting, or is it the scientific community, the universities, the internet?

Can most individuals really understand the evidence enough to trust it?

And if you didn't do the experiments yourself, then what exactly is the standard for truth in evidence?

It depends of who is doing the evaluation.