IDoNotGetIt

42. Albert Einstein said; “A legitimate conflict between science & religion cannot exist. Science without religion is lame; religion without science is blind”.

Here we go again with more Argument from Authority.

There are, as usual, many problems with this “proof”.  We’ve got cherry picking, quoting out of context and appeal to misleading authority all rolled up in one.

Lets address the cherry picking first.  I remembered the second part of this quote but hadn’t heard the first part.  Although they are presented as one quote here, they are actually two different quotes from a symposium Einstein did called “The Conference on Science, Philosophy and Religion” in 1941.  They (Christians) have cherry picked these quotes from this symposium because they seem to support their claims.  However here is the first sentence of that quote in context.

Though I have asserted above that in truth a legitimate conflict between religion and science cannot exist, I must nevertheless qualify this assertion once again on an essential point, with reference to the actual content of historical religions. This qualification has to do with the concept of God.

I especially like that he specifically said, hey the rest of this is “essential” to the point and they still left it out of the quote.  This kind of thing leads me to believe that they are intentionally being deceptive.

So he’s saying, essentially, that the concept of god is outside the realm of science and therefore there is no conflict.  Now lets look at the next part of the quote, here is the quote in the context of the paragraph it was pulled from.

Now, even though the realms of religion and science in themselves are clearly marked off from each other, nevertheless there exist between the two strong reciprocal relationships and dependencies. Though religion may be that which determines the goal, it has, nevertheless, learned from science, in the broadest sense, what means will contribute to the attainment of the goals it has set up. But science can only be created by those who are thoroughly imbued with the aspiration toward truth and understanding. This source of feeling, however, springs from the sphere of religion. To this there also belongs the faith in the possibility that the regulations valid for the world of existence are rational, that is, comprehensible to reason. I cannot conceive of a genuine scientist without that profound faith. The situation may be expressed by an image: science without religion is lame, religion without science is blind.

I disagree with this paragraph, only on some insignificant points.  There, most definitely, is not a “dependency” between religion and science.  Religion may be “that which determines the goal” but it isn’t necessary for it to be so.  Also having science being filtered through religion only hampers our advancement in science, it isn’t necessary or helpful.  “Science can only be created by those who are thoroughly imbued with the aspiration toward truth and understanding”, damn straight.  I disagree with his assertion that “this source of feeling… springs from the sphere of religion”.  That is his opinion and I don’t have a problem with him, or anyone else believing that, but I, personally, disagree with it.

But here is where the “quoting out of context” comes in to play again.  Look at “there also belongs the faith in the possibility that the regulations valid for the world of existence are rational, that is, comprehensible to reason. I cannot conceive of a genuine scientist without that profound faith.”  The next sentence is where the quote is pulled from.  Based on the context of this paragraph, I sincerely believe that he misspoke and should have use the word “faith” in place of “religion”.  It would make sense compared to everything he said previously.  He is defining faith as the belief that the laws of the universe are rational and comprehensible to reason.  In this case “science without faith is lame, faith without science is blind.” is absolutely true.  If faith is the belief that the universe obeys laws and is comprehensible to reason, then science IS lame without faith!

41. There are many skeptics who didn’t believe in Jesus before his crucifixion, and who were opposed to Christianity, yet turned to the Christian faith after the death of Jesus. Just as the many who continue to do so today.

Hmmm, lets see.  This looks, suspiciously, like the Bandwagon Fallacy.  Hey everyone else is doing it, you must be wrong if you aren’t doing it also.

I’m not a sheep, you’re going to have to do better than than if you want to change my mind.

40. Think about Near Death Experiences. It’s naive to believe that they all are induced by chemicals or drugs. How do we account for a blind person having this experience, coming back to describe what they had never before seen, a person telling the Doctor that there is a blue paperclip on top of the high cabinet, which they couldn’t have otherwise known, an african man being dead in his coffin for 3 days, coming back to life to tell of much the same events which took place as those of many others? We never hear of the witnesses describing “a dream”. We’re not silly – we know the difference between even the most vivid of dreams to that of reality.

Ok, I’ll concede that not ALL NDEs are induced by chemicals or drugs.  But that doesn’t give her the right to lie.  I see no reason a blind person couldn’t have a NDE.  Perhaps she is confused at why a blind person would “see” anything in their NDE.  A blind person can see in real life if you count all of their other senses.  For instance, a blind person can know what I look like by feeling my face with their hands.

But then the lies come out.  And it should also be pointed out that she is describing an out of body experience and not a near death experience.  Closely related and similar phenomenon but not the same, NDEs come in the absence of OOBEs and OOBEs come in the absence of NDEs.  Studies have been done to determine if OOBEs are real.  The conclusion… [drum roll and pause for dramatic effect] they are dreams or hallucinations.  Stories about people seeing things that they couldn’t have otherwise known about are not true.

The next part is the best one of all… A man being dead in his coffin for three days and coming back to tell any story at all would be an amazing in and of itself.  It wouldn’t matter if he told me the story about the three little pigs or who won last years Super Bowl or what happened while he was dead, it would be indescribably amazing because HE WAS DEAD and now he’s telling me a story!  All I can say is that if you believe stories like that, you are already lost.  Your train has jumped the track of reason and fallen down the chasm of nuttyness, taking you with it.

As for the “We’re not silly” remark, I’ve got my own opinion about that!

39. The two people who discovered Jesus’ empty tomb were women. Women were so low on the social scale in first century Palestine, so in order to make the story fit, it would have made far more sense to claim that it were male disciples who had entered the tomb. But it wasn’t – we’re left with the historical & Biblical truth.

I’m almost speechless over this one.  This argument basically follows this pattern.  Claim A has a detail that is unlikely to be true.  People believe Claim A anyway.  Therefor Claim A is true.

Can you say Argument from Ignorance?  What a sucker you must be to fall for this.  Con artist must be all over this woman!

38. Evolution describes the way life possibly started, yet doesn’t explain what made life start & why. Scientific questions fail to do that. Even if evolution were proved, it would still not disprove God.

Nope, wrong again and again.  Evolution does not describe the way life possibly started.  And it never will.  Evolution describes how life evolved.  Evolution didn’t exist until after life existed.  Abiogenesis is the study of the origin of life.

“Scientific questions fail to do that.”  This is just more nonsensical rhetoric.

Evolution is proved, it is a fact.  But amazingly, in the midst of these ignorant ramblings and lies, she got something right!  “[evolution] would still not disprove God”.  That is correct, evolution does not disprove god.  But it does disprove the creation story in the bible.

37. Science is constantly recorrecting its findings. Past theories contradict certain beliefs which are held today. Our present ‘discoveries’ may change again in the future to rediscover how we originally came into existence.

This one is pretty much correct.  I can’t exactly argue with this item as it is written but I can argue with the “spirit” of the argument.  Once again she is trying to “demonize” science by pointing out what she thinks is a weakness.  Science is self-correcting.  As we learn more, we expand scientific theories and eliminate mistakes.  This is the strength of science, not a weakness.

Religions, especially Christianity, resist change.  This is why the bible is full of errors.  Because it didn’t change to reflect our expanding knowledge.  This is religions weakness.

36. Science can explain ‘how’ something works, but not ‘why’ something works.

What kind of nonsensical crap is this?  Science explains how and why things work.  Don’t try to add some spiritual attributes to a things workings and say “science can’t explain that”.

35. From the birth of science through to today, there is no evidence to claim that Christianity & science are in opposition. Many first scientists were Christians; Francis Bacon, Issaac Newton, Robert Boyle, to name a few, along with the many who stand by their work & faith today.

Really, NO EVIDENCE?  I can give you some evidence that much of Christianity DOES conflict with science.  Christianity makes some specific claims that do not fit within the realm of reality which science seeks to explain.  You can’t believe the story of Adam and Eve, Noah, the creation, Jesus’ virgin birth, magical abilities or rise from death, etc (this list could go on and on) and say that that those aren’t in opposition to science.  They are in direct opposition to science.

Interestingly, I wonder what would have happened to Bacon, Issaac Newton and Robert Boyle if they had claimed to be an atheist.  I suspect they would have been murdered so it is a good thing they weren’t atheist.

34. The evidence from liturature & historical studies claim that Biblical statements are reliable details of genuine events.

Ok, once again a repeat of the last two points.  So this time I’m not going to be nice.  It is obvious that this author isn’t arguing a reasonable stance that some of the minor historical facts in the bible are in fact real.  No reasonable person discounts those anyway.  The parts of the bible that reasonable people discount are the parts that she believes and thinks that I should believe.  So stop lying, I know that you aren’t arguing that the mundane parts of the bible are true, you are using the true mundane parts to prove that the ridiculous fairytale parts are true also. This is a fallacy.

Saying a pink elephant with wings and carrying Elton John, flew around the streets of New York isn’t believable just because New York is a real city and Elton John is a real person!

If she is going to continue repeating this crap, she should give the specific examples so we can show her where she is mistaken.  Otherwise, STOP LYING!

33. Not one single Biblical prediction can be shown as false, and the Bible contains hundreds.

That’s because the bible doesn’t make any specific predictions.  The bible makes vague symbolic predictions that could mean anything.  It also, conveniently, leaves out any dates.  This way, it has the added advantage of having the rest of time for something to happen that someone can shoehorn into fitting this vague prediction they found in the bible.  These predictions come true multiple times for different events over the centuries.

If you want to impress me with predictions, make it specific… “On a partly cloudy day in Carlos Ray Park in Albuquerque, New Mexico at 13:20 on July 11, 2045  a dark blue bike manufactured by Murray and being piloted by a boy of the age 9 years, 10 months and 21 days will have a catastrophic failure in the .5 inch nut that holds the front wheel on.  This failure will cause the front wheel to break off and throw the boy from the bike.  He will, however, be uninjured.”  That would be awesome.  That would be a useful prediction.  What the bible, or any other source of predictions gives us is more like this.  “In the new land a tadpole falls from grace.”  Then some nut job in New Mexico happens to see a kid fall, says, hey New Land = New Mexico, tadpole = little boy… this was a prediction of this boy falling. WOW!