Any scientist welcomes criticism of his ideas, theories, and experiments. They expect it to be challenged. Even the late philosopher scientist Karl Popper was hesitant to have anyone believe him. He once taught a university class and I quote ” the aim of criticism is to eliminate our errors”. He not only expected it, he welcomed it! His scientific process went like this P1 >TT >EE > P2. Most science originates with a problem, then the scientist addresses it. That’s problem 1, or P1. Attempting a solution is TT, or tentative theory. EE is eliminate errors which brings us to fix any issues that arose in problem 1, and now we have P2, or problem 2. Little by little you find less and less problems with your going around in circles and come up with a sound solution. Sometimes the process is very slow, but the answers become real and tangible. Also his falsification methodology tried to prove everything false first and foremost. When I have an idea I like to bounce it off a few people I know are straight shooters to validate my ideas. Can we get the same from religion?
The other approach is the authoritarian approach. In the Mormon faith which is my area of de-expertise goes like this. “Do not speak evil against the lords anointed”. Church members that speak out about the hidden histories and falsehood that were propagated by the church are excommunicated. Even criticizing church leaders with known facts about doctrines and practices are excommunicated. Protesting for LGTB community and opposing any church doctrine openly will get you excommunicated. The only book that is fair game in the mormon faith is the inconsistencies in the Bible. Old prophets you can question. Current leadership, not so much. It’s a big problem all churches have- claiming infallibility. They all have the one authoritative source that is taught with that mindset. As if any church that is a “bible church” has a leg to withstand any scrutiny at all. And Popper finishes my day with some good wisdom. “We shouldn’t try to educate experts, but we should try to educate people who can distinguish between a charlatan and an expert. But I think that we have singularly failed even in this”.
Amen 🙂
TheCommonAtheist 
Religion started long ago as a means of control of the masses and like many governments, the rules must be followed and not questioned. Fear is used as a control method. If only critical thinking was taught more in education, especially to those in which it doesn’t come easily. And sometimes I think, bottom line is fear of death. In scientific endeavors, critique and looking for flaws and inconsistencies produces no fear of some punishment, while in religion for those that believe, it does.
LikeLiked by 3 people
Fear is our number one seller! We have a 2 for 1 deal right now! Lol. Religion creates the problem then offers the solution. But the ones making the rules don’t live by them. Look at our lawmakers! I think your right on that one. I ask my kids a lot, hey did you think it through? Step by step and line by line and poof! They can dismiss the santa. With religion we have about 35% up front that need to attach to something. Their innate insecurities drive them to give their minds away to another decision maker. Religion gets spotted 35 points before kickoff. And these people will always be with us. Good points Mary. Those comments would make a good post!!
LikeLiked by 2 people
YES, YES, YES!!! The very first step of the Historical Method! And this first step is further divided into 6-substeps! Jim, you may or may not be shocked by how few people are even familiar with this process/methodology, let alone that it even exists. This is a direct reflection of how powerful the Authoritarian and Fear-induced methodologies have been utilized by rulers, governments, churches, and religiously affiliated schools for at least the last 2-3 millenia.
Therefore Jim, if I may please, share from Wikipedia this very first step, or 6-steps to Information Evaluation, to perhaps enlighten any here reading that are not familiar with this Peer-reviewing process. The 6 Source Criticisms:
1. When was the source, written or unwritten, produced (date)?
2. Where was it produced (localization)?
3. By whom was it produced (authorship)?
4. From what pre-existing material was it produced (analysis)?
5. In what original form was it produced (integrity)?
6. What is the evidential value of its contents (credibility)?
Dr. Louis Gottschalk of Cornell University and University of Chicago explains that very rarely is ANY document accepted as totally reliable and thus gives an excellent general rule to apply to Information Evaluation:
I personally feel/think Gottschalk’s general rule is utterly CRITICAL to historical evaluation… it helps avoid bias and conflict of interests, which are sometimes RAMPANT within organizations, institutions, governments, and families.
Great post Jim!
LikeLiked by 2 people
When Popper taught this class in the 40’s there was no other course in the British empire teaching the process. Glad to see it caught on but still were behind the 8 ball. This should be junior high. Hell this should be taught kindergarten. Thank you again Prof for that added insights. Always a pleasure!
LikeLiked by 1 person
It absolutely should be part of at least secondary school curriculums! Why? Because of one glaring reason I (as an American) can attest to: obese hyper-consumerism!
Those American corporations with highly educated psychological marketing teams, departments, and research funding have created one of the most OBESE consumers in the entire world over the last 5-6 decades. We are a materialistic OBESE nation because the majority of “consumers” have no higher an education than a HS diploma or trade-school certificates that do NOT teach critical-thinking skills, or to put it another way, impulse management/control… which requires layers of critical-thinking skills. Care to guess what occupational or social sectors THRIVE in impulsive consumer environments!? 🤔⛪️
LikeLike
Is that a church in that teenie weenie picture?
LikeLiked by 1 person
Haha… yes. A tiny, TINY incy-weency church. 😈
LikeLiked by 1 person
I was so tired of lifting obese people. As a medic I was on the front lines of this epidemic. It’s bad!
LikeLiked by 1 person
Indeed Jim. And that is certainly the literal epidemic here in the U.S., but the cognitive or metaphorical epidemic (skills to scrutinize everything being SOLD to you) is rising too.
Not advocating paranoia, but certainly higher, regular impulse-control… especially within organizations, institutions, etc, where the Placebo-effect and Peer-assimilation/pressure panders to impulsiveness.
LikeLiked by 1 person
I focused on the point I had the most reference to. Lol. The other side of that is an even bigger problem. Nice work buddy. Excellent points!!
LikeLiked by 1 person
Taboo, thank you for reminding me of the “method” tool for historical research. Perfect way to start any day. Have a happy, healthy and prosperous new year. Yours in reason, Nationofnope.
LikeLiked by 2 people
Oh you are welcome Nationofnope. And I hope your New Year is a marvelous one as well! Here’s to higher critical-thinking skills around the world and MUCH MORE use of the Historical Method, eh!? 😉 🎉
LikeLiked by 1 person
Oh! Sorry, and btw… here’s the link to Wikipedia’s breakdown of the Historical Method:
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Historical_method
LikeLike
Hi everybody! I am the odd one out here. I have faith, not religion though. I want to understand how you think and your arguments. Scientific arguments as well. Love, Isabella
LikeLike
Thanks for checking in. There’s a bit of a time lag between here and there but feel free to browse around. You’ll see other names pop up and you might check them out too. You’ll get a good sampling Happy new year
LikeLiked by 1 person
Thank you so much Jim. Happy new year to you too<3 Yes, I think I will get a good sampling:-)
LikeLike
Hi Isabella
Just curious how you define faith for yourself. What do you have faith in? Can you define it? And can you say why you have it? If you have no religion does this mean you have no story line that goes along with your faith?
LikeLiked by 3 people
Mary, you took my questions for Isabella right out of my mouth/head! LOL 😉
LikeLike
For all of you, Isabella is working on a book and asked to follow along and see the other side. Her book is in the realm of religion vs atheism although her current leanings are a belief in god. There is a 12 hour time lag for her, so hang in there. She’ll be visiting your sites as well. Welcome again to her. And be nice! Lol
LikeLiked by 2 people
As a former educator, I love inquiring minds! And as far as internet etiquette, I ALWAYS treat strangers with utmost respect and patience, hoping all dialogue is kept courteous. If so, then there’s NO LIMITS to what humanity can accomplish!!! 😉 ❤
LikeLiked by 3 people
Dear Mary. Sorry for taking forever to respond. I did not feel very well yesterday, and I observed my ability to communicate adequately dropped substantially. I say that I have no religion because I do not belong to any specific group or congregation. As for time span, I think of the big bang, Einstein’s theory of relativity and dark energy. As for the story of time I think of entropy. Boltzmann equation. When it comes to God I think infinity beyond reality, facts and science. Truth and love basically. My main mission in life is to spread love. Nice to meet you Mary:-)
LikeLike
Thank you Jim for the comment and the nice welcome. Just to inform you all, yes there is a twelve hour time difference. In addition, this is a spare time project. Hopefully you are a patient bunch♡ ♡. Love, Isabella
LikeLike
Your welcome, Isabella. I enjoy finding out what others believe and why. Makes life interesting.😊
LikeLiked by 1 person
:-)<3
LikeLike
Isabella….since you are here to get some perspective on how atheists believe or not, I should give you my personal views on god.
I see four possibilities.
One of course is absolutely no god, no divine…no afterlife and no punishment…just pure science. Not something from nothing, but simply a state of something always and forever as for me, I believe the state of total absolute nothingness is an impossible state.
Two would be some sort of quantum mix with consciousness being somehow at some fundamental level and therefore continuing in some abstract way. But nonetheless science not mystical.
Three would be a god, but not a personal one. Just a creator outside of time that started the ball rolling, but totally not involved and any beings or life anywhere in the universe.
And fourth of course is the personal god that is suppose to be all good, all knowing, yet quite the lover of rules and expectations.
I personally could go with the first two but definitely not the fourth one. For in that one, I truly not only see no evidence, but I see not loving, but cruelty, horror and extreme judgementalism depending on the dogma that people have invented. But the strain in all religions seems to make this fourth version of god not a god I’d want to respect, mush less worship.
LikeLiked by 1 person
Thank you Mary for sharing your view:-)
LikeLike
The highlighted in blue word “quote ” will link you to the transcript of Poppers class. Thanks for stopping by
LikeLike