Yeah, I know. That's why I said it was naive. Most people construct their ethics to minimize or maximize variables as a result of your choices. But a naive system that asserts that it's impossible to see all conclusions, and thus only takes responsibility for direct consequences of your own actions does indeed suggest complete nonviolence.
We're not raised atheist, most of us, you know, right?
And your brain doesn't morphologically change much after early development. I mean, I won't say you're wrong with certainty, but it seems less plausible.
Counterpoint: divine right of kings followed Christianity around for thousands of years.
Counterpoint 2: "Slaves, Obey your masters." Not a notion exactly extolling equality.
Counterpoint 3: Christianity definitely and clearly makes Jesus out to be better than other people.
N.B. "Love thy enemy" is probably a better citation for the argument you're trying to make.
On the other hand, evolution almost certainly selected for its existence in the first place as a means of causing eusocial behavior, a claim I lightly corroborate with the fact that that region of the brain is activated by communal experiences.
But now we're getting into lazy evo psych where I come up with ad-hoc explanations for things and use it to justify my biases. So I don't think I'm going to go out of my way to defend the claim.
A. The pope, in line with Catholic Orthodoxy, is not creationist. Not in the totally nutter, young earth science denialism sense, anyways.
B. Everyone believes at least a few objectively wrong things. Getting on religion for the grandiosity of the incorrect claims it makes just seems silly. In the end, big things matter less to be wrong about, not more.
C. It doesn't all come from "believing what they're told." It comes from personal feelings, intuition, common sense, and a host of other inputs as well. This is coming from a neurological perspective, not just hypothetical counter-argument. For example, there's a part of the brain responsible for causing religious experiences. Atheists tend to have much smaller brain regions for that.
D. If I should instead appeal to your ego: religiosity and intelligence both predict many of the same positive life outcomes, even though they, themselves, are inversely correlated. That's good reason to believe that religion is filling an important role for people who might be worse off without it. You can imagine yourself getting its benefits elsewhere.
Honestly the young earth creationist types(who are the only anti-science conservatives relevant in this case) don't pay that much attention to hard data and observational methodology at all. Certainly light that was moved magnetically over the course of billions of years of travel is not evidence that they'd be particular inclined to use, even in that case.
Their objections fall more into the category of dismissing things with "common sense" objections that reflect very little understanding of the idea being challenged.
Well, even the summary makes it complicated. The dust can account for 100% of the signal, and occam's razor suggests that's the best assumption for explaining their measurements. But dust can also cause other signals, and what science calls for here is an experiment that can differentiate the two hypotheses. Which sounds hard, because what can you measure changes in besides the light, which would be affected by magnetic dust?
Maybe neutrons? Or neutrinos(good luck)? The distinction might still be measurable.
Okay, this time I was being sarcastic.
Oh sure, everything I say is sarcastic. That's totally believable.
I think I see it now. Grandiosity as interchangeable with sarcastic hyperbole. Interesting.
Because absolutely any of what you just attributed to me is something I've ever said in any context whatsoever. Christ.
The more that people like you claim that God is made obsolete by science, the more that everyone else thinks that science is just like another religion.
Let's focus on this, because I think you have me confused with a certain German philosopher. That's never been a sentiment I've expressed. Look at what you're trying to say: "Because you don't uncritically accept my religion, you're clearly religious." It makes no sense.
Like your sig says it's hard to reply meaningfully to your "questions" because they're built on implied assumptions that are so clearly contradictory, it's a bit like proving a square has 4 sides.
The only point I actually made in the post you're replying to is that people claim the systems of science are somehow discriminatory, and that they tend to be crazy. You didn't even begin to address that. Instead you addressed some imagined evil atheist you thought you could just rhetoric bomb. It's silly.
How is being scientific at all comparable to nihilism, such that you ceded that point in your head?
I believe in a variety of things for a variety of reasons, with science merely being one of the most useful tools for separating the true from the false.
I think you misunderstood.
The primary thesis is that failing to live up to standards and practices is allowed, but it also tends to suggest or hint that you're not doing your job well. So user Chris Mattern was arguing a technicality that overlooks the importance of the items.
I'm not trying to deal in absolutes.
You're the second person to think I was complaining. What gives? Did you take the "I like how science works like that" as sarcasm?
Not as opposed to anything. I'm saying this is how science is supposed to work. We take new observations and use them to classify the properties of things according to the hypotheses that best predict the new information.