Posts: 1765
Threads: 225
Joined: February 18, 2015
Reputation:
16
Science is just testemony apparently? How would you respond?
July 2, 2015 at 6:35 am
Apparently saying that good science is repeatable/testable (and by extension the peer review system) isn't good enough for Hammy Hamza. I am really confused by this video. I would probably counter by saying what the Sahabah, and all of the Hadith, have said is testimony. We can't go back in time and check their accuracy so your entire religion is based on the say-so of others. History is always what people have said has happened. Obviously, they will have arguments against the Chinese Whispers narrative, because, they've heard it before from Christians, but the general idea is to show the hypocrisy of the Muhammadan position.
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=RXAjYt5LdXI
P.S. Any recommended reading material to more effectively refute this absurd narrative?
Posts: 9147
Threads: 83
Joined: May 22, 2013
Reputation:
45
RE: Science is just testemony apparently? How would you respond?
July 2, 2015 at 7:45 am
(This post was last modified: July 2, 2015 at 7:49 am by bennyboy.)
Most of what they are saying is true. The problem is the value they apply to that truth. It is true that science is malleable and imperfect-- that it KNOWS this and has a system for compensating and correcting imperfections is what makes it so strong. Yes, we accept scientific results on a testimonial level, usually without checking experiments or results ourselves. However, we accept this testimony not on faith in a self-proclaimed authority, but on an understanding of how the process works. There IS not religious process in which we can all participate in-- there are religious clerics, followers, and blasphemers.
Posts: 18544
Threads: 131
Joined: January 19, 2014
Reputation:
90
RE: Science is just testemony apparently? How would you respond?
July 2, 2015 at 7:55 am
(This post was last modified: July 2, 2015 at 7:55 am by Alex K.)
My doctor doesn't allow me to watch Hamza Tsortzis videos.
The fool hath said in his heart, There is a God. They are corrupt, they have done abominable works, there is none that doeth good.
Psalm 14, KJV revised edition
Posts: 1765
Threads: 225
Joined: February 18, 2015
Reputation:
16
RE: Science is just testemony apparently? How would you respond?
July 2, 2015 at 8:11 am
(July 2, 2015 at 7:55 am)Alex K Wrote: My doctor doesn't allow me to watch Hamza Tsortzis videos. I should probably do the same. Your doctor is a very sensible person.
But something that struck me is that Hamza asks two question at the end and no one. The questions have different answers yet he implied he only asked one question afterwards. But look, the way I know Muhammad, assuming he existed, is a liar has nothing to do with science or scientists. Simply reading the Quran and listing all of the crazy things it says is enough.
To expand on the video in the original post, Hamza doesn't believe that the average person can demonstrate the Earth is round and therefore the deity he grovels to is real. This is clearly nonsense.
https://m.youtube.com/watch?v=w4WFy6k4UTA
Posts: 19670
Threads: 178
Joined: July 31, 2012
Reputation:
91
RE: Science is just testemony apparently? How would you respond?
July 2, 2015 at 8:49 am
1. Science is immoral - actually, science is amoral. It just doesn't care about morality.
I don't see how anyone can say that "science informs morality"... but one can think of archeology and sociology and psychology as informing our current picture of how morality can have come about in human populations.
2. Science does not lead to all truths - loaded, what does that mean "all truths"? Oh, you need math, reason and logic before you have science, huh?... duh.
Also, the "say so of others"... "no one person does all the research to arrive at all the scientific conclusions - you must believe in what others tell you"... It's like these guys' sole purpose is to lend credence to their own way of getting conclusions: the say so of a particular other.... but wait, peer review - still the say so of others attesting the say so of some guy... They skim the part where we can repeat the experiments of others... unlike what happens with their favorite prophet's experiences...
3. Science is limited to what is observable - What else is there but the observable? Oh, you want to put a god in the mix.... a god that is unobservable by any scientific means... This is a way of saying that this god has no real properties...
OH, but they go on with the fact that science is always advancing, sometimes changing previously held conclusions. Which is the intellectually honest position... should we pick an answer to something and write it in stone, like religions do?
Posts: 18544
Threads: 131
Joined: January 19, 2014
Reputation:
90
RE: Science is just testemony apparently? How would you respond?
July 2, 2015 at 9:40 am
(July 2, 2015 at 8:49 am)pocaracas Wrote: I don't see how anyone can say that "science informs morality"...
Learning about nature can give us hints which actions have which consequences/significance. Think abortions and learning about nervous systems.
The fool hath said in his heart, There is a God. They are corrupt, they have done abominable works, there is none that doeth good.
Psalm 14, KJV revised edition
Posts: 19670
Threads: 178
Joined: July 31, 2012
Reputation:
91
RE: Science is just testemony apparently? How would you respond?
July 2, 2015 at 9:42 am
(July 2, 2015 at 9:40 am)Alex K Wrote: (July 2, 2015 at 8:49 am)pocaracas Wrote: I don't see how anyone can say that "science informs morality"...
Learning about nature can give us hints which actions have which consequences/significance. Think abortions and learning about nervous systems.
ok, I see... but it can only apply to a few points of the whole moral landscape.
I mean, I can't see how science informs people not to be cunts.
Posts: 2985
Threads: 29
Joined: October 26, 2014
Reputation:
31
RE: Science is just testemony apparently? How would you respond?
July 2, 2015 at 9:43 am
(July 2, 2015 at 7:45 am)bennyboy Wrote: Most of what they are saying is true. The problem is the value they apply to that truth. It is true that science is malleable and imperfect-- that it KNOWS this and has a system for compensating and correcting imperfections is what makes it so strong.
I always LOLfacepalmWTF when some dude's like "If science is so great, how come it's changing all the time?! You know what hasn't changed? THE BIBLE."
How will we know, when the morning comes, we are still human? - 2D
Don't worry, my friend. If this be the end, then so shall it be.
Posts: 18544
Threads: 131
Joined: January 19, 2014
Reputation:
90
RE: Science is just testemony apparently? How would you respond?
July 2, 2015 at 9:55 am
(July 2, 2015 at 9:42 am)pocaracas Wrote: (July 2, 2015 at 9:40 am)Alex K Wrote: Learning about nature can give us hints which actions have which consequences/significance. Think abortions and learning about nervous systems.
ok, I see... but it can only apply to a few points of the whole moral landscape.
I mean, I can't see how science informs people not to be cunts.
No, indeed, I don't think it can justify morality or even define what is moral and what not. I'd say you first have to decide what's moral and what not, and then science can tell you what's compatible with those notions.
The fool hath said in his heart, There is a God. They are corrupt, they have done abominable works, there is none that doeth good.
Psalm 14, KJV revised edition
Posts: 19789
Threads: 57
Joined: September 24, 2010
Reputation:
85
RE: Science is just testemony apparently? How would you respond?
July 2, 2015 at 10:12 am
(July 2, 2015 at 8:49 am)pocaracas Wrote: 1. Science is immoral - actually, science is amoral. It just doesn't care about morality.
I don't see how anyone can say that "science informs morality"... but one can think of archeology and sociology and psychology as informing our current picture of how morality can have come about in human populations.
2. Science does not lead to all truths - loaded, what does that mean "all truths"? Oh, you need math, reason and logic before you have science, huh?... duh.
Also, the "say so of others"... "no one person does all the research to arrive at all the scientific conclusions - you must believe in what others tell you"... It's like these guys' sole purpose is to lend credence to their own way of getting conclusions: the say so of a particular other.... but wait, peer review - still the say so of others attesting the say so of some guy... They skim the part where we can repeat the experiments of others... unlike what happens with their favorite prophet's experiences...
3. Science is limited to what is observable - What else is there but the observable? Oh, you want to put a god in the mix.... a god that is unobservable by any scientific means... This is a way of saying that this god has no real properties...
OH, but they go on with the fact that science is always advancing, sometimes changing previously held conclusions. Which is the intellectually honest position... should we pick an answer to something and write it in stone, like religions do?
All morality appeals to consequence, whether they admit to it or not. Science informs whether the specific allegation of the consequence is bullshit or not.
|
