Science Trump's Religious Practices

[_The Nehor]

Post Reference

No response to misquotes and mischaracterizations, Nehor.

JAK

Please show me a misquote.

[_richardMdBorn]

When I attended a Protestant seminary, I often discussed with other students that God uses means to bring about his ends.

Ex 17:8 Then Amalek came and fought against Israel at Rephidim. 9 So Moses said to Joshua, “Choose men for us and go out, fight against Amalek. Tomorrow I will station myself on the top of the hill with the staff of God in my hand.” 10 Joshua did as Moses told him, and fought against Amalek; and Moses, Aaron, and Hur went up to the top of the hill. 11 So it came about when Moses held his hand up, that Israel prevailed, and when he let his hand down, Amalek prevailed. 12 But Moses’ hands were heavy. Then they took a stone and put it under him, and he sat on it; and Aaron and Hur supported his hands, one on one side and one on the other. Thus his hands were steady until the sun set.

God gave the people victory as long as the means he had chosen, Moses holding his hand up, was fulfilled.

2 Ki 5 1Now Naaman, captain of the army of the king of Aram, was a great man with his master, and highly respected, because by him the LORD had given victory to Aram. The man was also a valiant warrior, but he was a leper.
2Now the Arameans had gone out in bands and had taken captive a little girl from the land of Israel; and she waited on Naaman's wife.
3She said to her mistress, "I wish that my master were with the prophet who is in Samaria! Then he would cure him of his leprosy."
4Naaman went in and told his master, saying, "Thus and thus spoke the girl who is from the land of Israel."
5Then the king of Aram said, "Go now, and I will send a letter to the king of Israel." He departed and took with him ten talents of silver and six thousand shekels of gold and ten changes of clothes.
6He brought the letter to the king of Israel, saying, "And now as this letter comes to you, behold, I have sent Naaman my servant to you, that you may cure him of his leprosy."
7When the king of Israel read the letter, he tore his clothes and said, "Am I God, to kill and to make alive, that this man is sending word to me to cure a man of his leprosy? But consider now, and see how he is seeking a quarrel against me."
8It happened when Elisha the man of God heard that the king of Israel had torn his clothes, that he sent word to the king, saying, "Why have you torn your clothes? Now let him come to me, and he shall know that there is a prophet in Israel."
9So Naaman came with his horses and his chariots and stood at the doorway of the house of Elisha.
10Elisha sent a messenger to him, saying, "Go and wash in the Jordan seven times, and your flesh will be restored to you and you will be clean."
11But Naaman was furious and went away and said, "Behold, I thought, 'He will surely come out to me and stand and call on the name of the LORD his God, and wave his hand over the place and cure the leper.'
12"Are not Abanah and Pharpar, the rivers of Damascus, better than all the waters of Israel? Could I not wash in them and be clean?" So he turned and went away in a rage.
13Then his servants came near and spoke to him and said, "My father, had the prophet told you to do some great thing, would you not have done it? How much more then, when he says to you, 'Wash, and be clean'?"
14So he went down and dipped himself seven times in the Jordan, according to the word of the man of God; and his flesh was restored like the flesh of a little child and he was clean.

Naaman expected a spectacular healing and was disappointed. God chose to heal him quietly. The religious people in the WTC fled like everyone else. Were they mistaken or lacking faith? No, they saw the danger and acted.

[_marg]

We avoid the flu by avoiding being contaminated by the flu virus. God is no protector as most who subscribe to some religious myth would like to believe. “Good hygiene” IS a protector against the flu. “Faith in God” is irrelevant. The ancients didn’t know that. Many today don’t know that.

Good hygiene is not something modern invented either. Read about Rome? Greece? Know how close the Greeks were to the germ theory of disease? Even when they believed in Zeus?

You seem to have a jaundiced view of history where science fixed everything and all religious people were deluded fools, that rational thought is a recent development, and it saved us all from those horrible 'religions'. I encourage you to read good history.

But you haven't countered JAK's point. Let's just say there were some ancient Greek philosophers who came close to the germ theory of disease and let's say they believed in Zeus, the point is of those few intellectuals (who certainly do not represent the majority of people in their day) they did not rely upon the superstitious belief in a magical entity as being a cause of illness, instead they looked for and theorized naturalistic causes which ignored superstitious belief in the supernatural. That is the case for example with Hippocrates. If one does assume the supernatural is the cause of illness, or of any phenomenon there is no reason to look for naturalistic explanations. It is the naturalistic explanations which have increased historically which have diminished God explanations. The majority today of the educated in the theory of evolution no longer assume that diversity of life indicates God's work instead they appreciate diversity of life is a function of naturalistic causes, mainly natural selection.

So JAK's points stands that "faith in God" and using God for explanatory purposes for observed phenomenon such as illness is irrelevant to avoiding illness, in explaining illness and in treating it. As far as your other comments on what you assume JAK "thinks" you are making assumptions which he hasn't expressed.

[_moksha]

This is the case of religion echoing scientific wisdom, nothing was trumped except for easy vectors in transmitting infection.

[_marg]

JAK, you might find PZ Myers' criticism of Karen Armstrong's recent article, written in defense of religion, to be interesting. The comments given to her article at the link for it are also interesting.

http://scienceblogs.com/pharyngula/2009/10/the_zombies_will_sup_on_karen.php

[_JAK]

JAK, you might find PZ Myers' criticism of Karen Armstrong's recent article, written in defense of religion, to be interesting. The comments given to her article at the link for it are also interesting.

http://scienceblogs.com/pharyngula/2009/10/the_zombies_will_sup_on_karen.php

There is a considerable amount of material at the website highlight. You might be interested in Wikipedia on PZ Myers. In addition, there are numerous links on PZ Myers with a Google search.

JAK

[_marg]

I like reading PZ Myers' stuff. I currently have him on Twitter and often check it to see what his latest comments are.

[_JAK]

marg,

Yes of course. You’re correct here.

In (Post Reference) Nehor’s post the feeble attempt at ad hominem in his first comment fails to address any point made. Second, the word “Sure” sarcastic or otherwise fails to address the point. Third, the phrase, “Oh PLEASE” is hardly a discussion of the point made.

Fourth, It is not I who makes “ancients” look like “putzes.” The ancients did as well as they could with the level of knowledge they had. In addition, they learned. We have modern science because people learned over time. Sometimes that was a long time and sometimes there were sparks of dramatic insight in those who observed and were far ahead of their time. They were not well received. Religious superstition is displaced over time and often painfully in those who resist new discoveries. We could cite many examples of this even in modern times. I’ll reference Charles Darwin later as example.

Nehor’s allusion to pregnancy is non sequitur to the points in my post regarding the perception that “illness and disease” were attributed to the supernatural for which prayer was the only recourse for those who knew nothing about germs and disease. Pregnancy was not the same mystery that a plague, famine, disease, or earthquake was. Hence, Nehor’s reference to pregnancy fails to address the points made.

Nehor fails to refute that God notions were/are irrelevant to what I described. He is also misinformed regarding religious dogma on “sin” and “forgiveness” as a means to restored health from death-threatening realities. Many today are still misinformed.

The post “Science Trump's Religious Practices” focused on just how religion bows to science today over “prayer” or attempts through prayer to manipulate their perception of God to intervene in the matter of germs and science which “Trump's” religious notions of the past. There was no refutation.

Nehor is also wrong in his argument from ignorance: “science does not change the equation.” Of course science does, indeed, change our understanding of nature down to the invisible germs (to the naked eye) as well as to the visable (via the Hubble Telescope) into the vastness of space. And before that, powerful telescopes were invented and located on the surface of the earth. They opened human understanding to vast distances which were entirely unknown to ancient people. That’s not a criticism of ancient people, it’s a recognition of what their limited field of knowledge was compared with what we enjoy today many hundreds of years later.

That ancient people believed in miracles is evidence that they were lacking in knowledge about the realities of nature. Nehor’s example of “Joseph” is no refutation of the points made in this post.

Absent one ounce of evidence, Nehor continues to assume God in statements such as this: Nehor: “That I understand gravity does not mean it is not possible God created it. That I understand intercourse does not mean I don't believe God sent a child. That we understand the cause of disease does not mean a supreme being can't heal it.”

That’s not evidence for the implicit claim in Nehor’s comment, nor is it any address or refutation of the points made in this post.

Notice the continued assumptions made as Nehor states: “It does not follow that God can't manipulate events to provide someone food.” What evidence does he present for the claim? He presents NONE. Nor does he establish that his notion of God has any relevance or that it can or does “manipulate events.”

Failure to establish the specificity of a claim for God (Nehor’s notion) makes the statement meaningless and irrelevant to my analysis in this post.

Nehor’s digression to “work ethic” is equally irrelevant as a response to this post.

While he is partially correct that: “Progress was halted in the Dark Ages for a time…” the remainder of the statement requires analysis. What is “rediscovery of the old wisdom”? In fact, that is not what occurred. What transpired were new discoveries which carried knowledge forward in spite of the repressive “Dark Ages” and in spite of religious dogma.

Nehor claims: “Religious groups have almost always yielded to 'good sense'. This is not some new modern development.”

It’s not as he describes. Rather, religious dogma “religious groups” is/are dragged kicking and screaming into “new modern developments.” Religious dogma is the last to change in the face of new evidence which has science documenting that new evidence. There are many modern-day examples which would could be made.

*Here is a misquote and misinterpretation which Nehor asked be given.

Nehor states: You say that about the organization (Catholics) most responsible for the preservation of accumulated knowledge through the last two millenia. You might want to learn a little history instead of spouting off this "We Smart, Ancestors Know Nothing" garbage.

In quotation marks as a direct response to my post, Nehor states what I never stated. He also misrepresents what I stated in this post.

I’ll address the misrepresentation. Religion relies on doctrine and dogma from ancient time. The Roman Catholic Church was interested in “education” only to the extent that it perpetuated Roman Catholic dogma and doctrine and Roman Catholicism itself. It was not “most responsible…” as Nehor claims. As soon as genuine thinkers began to describe the world with evidence in a way which was contrary the Roman Catholic dogma and doctrine, the Roman Catholic Church from the Pope down was intent on cutting off the expansion of knowledge which thinkers such as Newton, Galileo and others expressed. Some were imprisoned. Some were killed. Pope Pius XII “maintained a public front of indifference and remained silent while German atrocities were committed.”

Today, the Roman Catholic Church opposes any form of artificial birth control. It opposes any artificial form of family planning which involves contraceptives. It opposes all abortions. There is not one shred of evidence that this planet needs a growing population. There is overwhelming evidence that population needs to be contained if, if starvation and malnutrition is to be diminished. We have knowledge about how to reduce the number of unwanted births. Artificial birth control (contraceptives) is the most effective way for heterosexuals engaged in sexual relations. The Roman Catholic Church is unwilling and unable to absorb “accumulated knowledge” on this and many other issues involving knowledge in medical science. Abortions even for a 13 year-old raped by her father are prohibited in Roman Catholic hospitals. Nehor is uninformed.

JAK previously:
The point previously made is that belief contrary to fact or belief in spite of fact is dangerous and places people at risk who rely on God notions as opposed to established, applied science.

Nehor’s response:
Okay, I live by my "God notions". How am I in danger?

Poor reading on his part. What he takes personally was not written about Nehor’s God notions. Any reliance on God notions which are contrary to established, applied science present danger.

Nehor states:
You (JAK) seem to have a jaundiced view of history where science fixed everything and all religious people were deluded fools, that rational thought is a recent development, and it saved us all from those horrible 'religions'. I encourage you to read good history.

*Another misrepresentation. “Rational thought” has been marbleized throughout the evolution of the human species. No argument was made that “science fixed everything…” It’s a misrepresentation of my analysis. It was not my statement as the quotation marks imply.

Some “religious” individuals thought and discovered beyond and outside their religious background. Darwin is a relatively recent historical figure who did that. He understood that his views would not be well received by “religious people.” Recently, PBS presented a documentary on the life of Charles Darwin. He was a humble man who had both insight and accumulated information which clearly threatened “religious people” and religious dogma. “History” is far more comprehensive than is understood by one who makes such a comment.

Nehor states:
Again, what mental problems do you (JAK) have that lead to this kind of thinking? You've dodged that question repeatedly. Autism?

A clear example of ad hominem and failure to address the analysis in this post.

JAK