(no subject)

[thies.livejournal.com]

I guess I'll just stick this in here as well...



was used as a reply to this gem in politicsforum.

Comments

[faylnncortez.livejournal.com]

LMAO!!! I Have now forwarded this to about a million other people :)

This is excellent :)

Unrelated to your polemical point, but...

[homais.livejournal.com]

Hey, the science part of the flowchart fails to include the important step:

Try to convince NSF or NIH that your idea has anything to do with cancer, terrorism, or something else equally trendy. If yes, then go on to the next step. If not, get denied funding and die in disgrace start over again.

Re: Unrelated to your polemical point, but...

[somnium-exciens.livejournal.com]

haha, so true

[xiquatic.livejournal.com]

Great chart. Reminds me of the "Christian" in college who started screaming at me that dinosaurs never existed, and that "God" planted fake dinosaur bones in the Earth's crust to "test our faith".

[thies.livejournal.com]

if you laugh you lose...

[firstashore.livejournal.com]

Yeah I've met a guy like that too. Not a good thing to say to a geologist.

[thebigbadbutch.livejournal.com]

If you move the boxes around a bit on the science side it looks like a swastika. Thus, if you don't believe in creative design you are a Nazi.

[thies.livejournal.com]

can do, Nazis made great scientific advances in rocketry, jet engine design and oven construction after all

[hittokiri-korru.livejournal.com]

Perhaps to expand on the faith side. "do other believe it"> yes or no> if yes continue forward > if no, kill then, return to "do others believe it"

[polyanarch.livejournal.com]

In theory, yes.

In practice, follow the money. You can prove anything, just like in the bible, merely by funding the right studies and the lubricating effect of cash.

Then when people dispute your theories you use your vast influence and cash reserves to label those who don't toe your line as "deniers."

Today's "science" leadership is the new Catholic Church.

Re: so I'm guessing you're talking about global warming

[polyanarch.livejournal.com]

Kill the heretic denier!!!!

[katie-alicyn.livejournal.com]

may i post this to lolscience?

[wight1984.livejournal.com]

Is not really accurate though. Religious philosophy does react to new data (often supplied by pesky science) and create (sometimes ludicrous) apologetics to account for it in an effort to maintain dogma. Sometimes the nature of the religion does alter.

You don't tend to get 'religious revolutions' in the way that you do with science but it's still more similar to the science flowchart than portrayed.

[latenightapathy.livejournal.com]

"maintain beliefs" and "create apologetics" would be about the same thing; the latter is merely a means to the former. have a few examples of where religion has fundamentally changed it's dogma and beliefs due to empirical evidence (not new philosophy) and thus altered its nature?

i mean, if you're talking about the formation of sects such as the UCC or Unitarian Universalists (or other moderate/liberal sects of any major religion), that's one thing. but the mainstream beliefs and actual dogma don't change too often. in such cases as those, it's more of a different interpretation of the text--such as regarding something as a parable or metaphor rather than literal truth--rather than a departure from core beliefs.

[wight1984.livejournal.com]

creating apologetics isn't that far away from altering the theory to cope with new evidence (as opposed to actual scientific revolution where the theory has to be discarded in favour of a new one).l

"have a few examples of where religion has fundamentally changed it's dogma and beliefs due to empirical evidence (not new philosophy) and thus altered its nature?"

Religion doesn't deliberately try to test itself in order to break it's theories and thus make new ones. That's the big difference and why science can be relied on more.

Yet, many religions (such as Christianity) do have a strong tradition of philosophical enquiry where logical problems with the religion (including those created by empirical evidence) are examined and solutions are sought. The short-term aim is to try to come up with a solution that maintains dogma but over the course of history it's quite clear that Christian beliefs have altered dramatically (well, for most Christians anyway).

Certainly with Anglican Christians, I think most you'd ask do not believe in the resurrection of the flesh (as opposed to immortality of the spirit). I'd also be surprised if the majority did not believe in evolution. These are two huge changes in dogma yet present in a very mainstream sect of Christianity.

I think the stumbling block here is that people want to criticise the religious for trying to maintain belief in spite of evidence, but that is exactly what a science does until forced not to (the main difference is science deliberately puts itself in that position). There are religious people who will outright ignore evidence but to try and pretend they represent all religion would be odd.

"it's more of a different interpretation of the text--such as regarding something as a parable or metaphor rather than literal truth--rather than a departure from core beliefs."

That's a huge departure from core beliefs.

[kgbman.livejournal.com]

That's how the science flowchart is supposed to work in theory, sure. If anyone thinks that's how it works in reality, then I must ask in all seriousness which human race you have been dealing with all of your life.