Re: Why do you believe what you believe?

VoiceOfReason wrote:

Pulse wrote:
By its very nature, this newsgroup (all newsgroups?) encourages people
to pour forth their knowledge, beliefs, and opinions. Every now and
then, a courageous soul will actually cite some sources. It is these
sources that I am most interested in. For some reason, the conclusions
are less interesting to me than the steps that lead up to those
conclusions. What qualifies a worthy and reliable source of knowledge?

(I understand that this is bordering on being off topic, but I'm
particularly interested in hearing the thoughts of many personalities I
regularly see here.)

Some specific examples:

What makes an individual an expert in a field and worthy of quoting or
believing? Bonus points for defending Richard Dawkins, Michael Cremo, or
any specific active poster to talk.origins.

Anybody who has been through the crucible of peer review, and had
their work supported by it, has a great deal of credibility for their
work. Of course, while I take a respected biologist's word on matters
of biology, I make not take his advice on auto care. Similarly, when
it comes to religion, I might take a respected religious leaders word
on matters of their own religion, but not in other fields where they
at not recognized experts. Also, the appearance of a hidden agenda
can cast serious doubt on someone's credibility.

How can a hidden agenda be identified? I've seen that claims of hidden agendas are thrown in all directions around here. They can't all be true.

What makes specific religious texts more reliable than other
contradictory texts, contemporary or otherwise? I would love to see a
defense of the Bible, the Vedas, or especially any of All-seeing-I's
other ancient texts.

Religious texts are quite reliable at describing the mythology,
values, beliefs, etc, of a given society at a given time. It must be
understood that these were written hundreds, maybe thousands of years
ago, in different languages, addressing social and societal situations
very different from each other society, and different from today's.
It would be pointless to compare an ancient Egyptian creation myth to
a Mayan creation myth with the goal of deciding which was "right" or
"wrong." Each one is correct in its own setting for its own society.

Also, given the fact that they are ancient religious texts, it would
be equally pointless to compare them to contemporary science or
history. They are not science or history books as we understand the
topics today.

Why not? What separates a religious text from a science or history book?

What makes specific secular texts more reliable than other contradictory
texts? Here I'm mostly interested in understanding why many consider
peer review journals so valuable as well as which (if any) other texts
can be considered of equal merit.

Again, a great deal of reliability comes from peer review. If a
knowledgeable biologist, chemist, geologist, etc, can convince equally
knowledgeable people in their field that an idea has evidence to
support it, then that idea is much more credible. This not only
enhances one person's credibility, but the credibility of science as a
whole. Science cannot embrace "kooks" and expect its credibility to
remain intact.

Taking what you said above about experts, is it analogous to say that if a religious leader can convince equally knowledgeable people in their religion that an idea has evidence to support it, then that idea is much more credible? I'm still assuming as you do that he is presenting ideas relevant to his religion, like the properties of angels or demons, for example.

If I'm going to make an airplane, or a skyscraper, or a vaccine, I
want to know that it's based on credible information, especially when
people's lives are at stake.

You see why I am more interested in the blueprint than in the skyscraper.

.

Relevant Pages

  • Re: Why do you believe what you believe?
    ... it comes to religion, I might take a respected religious leaders word ... can cast serious doubt on someone's credibility. ... If some one posts "Science disproves God," and they're a self-avowed ... other ancient texts. ...
    (talk.origins)
  • Re: Why do you believe what you believe?
    ... it comes to religion, I might take a respected religious leaders word ... can cast serious doubt on someone's credibility. ... If some one posts "Science disproves God," and they're a self-avowed ... other ancient texts. ...
    (talk.origins)
  • Re: Why do you believe what you believe?
    ... it comes to religion, I might take a respected religious leaders word ... can cast serious doubt on someone's credibility. ... other ancient texts. ...  They are not science or history books as we understand the ...
    (talk.origins)
  • Re: Why do you believe what you believe?
    ... it comes to religion, I might take a respected religious leaders word ... can cast serious doubt on someone's credibility. ... They are not science or history books as we understand the ... Many religious texts do make reference to historical events for which there is ample objective evidence. ...
    (talk.origins)
  • Re: Why do you believe what you believe?
    ... it comes to religion, I might take a respected religious leaders word ... can cast serious doubt on someone's credibility. ... other ancient texts. ... They are not science or history books as we understand the ...
    (talk.origins)