River

Are you calling me stupid?

Demigawd

You receive what you venture to give. As you said to Kat_Somm_Faen in the Koran science thread, "what are you like slow in the head or sumthin."

simian

Referring to River as stupid is a bit harsh, and likely uncalled for (not that I am innocent of such comments). It is very possible he is intelligent, but does not apply critical thinking to his religion.

We all hold ideas that do not reflect reality. One only need to look at the threads on smoking to see that one side or the other is holding onto a false concept - perhaps both sides.

In my own life, I have the working assumption that knowledge and skill will be recognized, despite the fact I know that a managers feelings (is this person a good worker/good fit here, etc - not necessarily based on reality) about you have a much large impact on your career growth. But I hold onto the concept that knowledge and skill matter because, well, it should (in my opinion).

That River seems unable to apply critical thinking to his religion should not imply he is "stupid". Of course, on his interpretations of what the Koran says, I still feel he is wrong.

Simian

emotional

River simply begins from the conclusion that the Qur'an is true and fit all facts around that theory. It's no different from what creationists do. Once you let go of thinking that the Bible is true, you realise all the evidence points to millions of years and common descent; and once you let go of thinking the Qur'an is true, you realise all these statements have nothing whatsoever to do with modern scientific discoveries.

Lobstrosity

(a) My post didn't refer to River specifically, it referred to people who do what WinAce does in the OP and mean it to be taken seriously.

(b) I said such people lack critical thinking skills (this does not mean they are devoid of them as a whole, just that they lack them in key areas or with regard to key subjects) and that:"All that's needed is someone who sees the word "expand" somewhere and is willing to assert 'look, proof the author knew of the Big Bang eons before science discovered it!' That's not craftiness, that's just stupidity." It is possible for someone to do stupid things without being stupid in general.

Wyz_sub10

Note to all - Please do not turn this, or any thread, into a topic about a specific poster. That is entirely inappropriate.

Also to everyone - refrain from the little jibes and verbal backhands. This isn't what we do here, especially not in the upper fora.

If you want to call someone out on a given topic, do so directly and without antagonism.

Wyz_sub10,
S&S Moderator

echidna

To an extent I disagree with Lobstrosity. It goes beyond intent in my book. With a broad interpretation of “scamming”, I imagine that the majority of scammers do so quite honestly & selectively choose their scenarios to fit their various hypotheses : the Qu'ran makes scientific predictions, astrology is scientifically valid, spirits of the dead can be channeled by the occult, Life is ruled by Karma, etc etc etc.

While “scamming” implies deliberate fraud, shoehorning itself doesn't require guile or craftiness, it only requires passionate belief at the expense of fact. It’s a human quality independent of belief system.

Shoehorning in the Occult
I've known several channelers who I would say actually believed their power to talk to the dead, but such was their desire to believe that they could even convince themselves to create random messages & then interpret them as being generated externally.

Shoehorning in Religion
Apart from the examples at hand here (Quranic and Biblical Codes), other examples are belief in miracles which defy scientific scrutiny, belief in religious fundamentalism which defies all physical evidence.

Shoehorning in Sociology
Just take racism as the simplest of examples. The stereotypical racist will start with the premise that another race is inferior, then, having identified people of that race, will carefully select and manipulate interpretations of events, to “prove” said inferiority.

Shoehorning in Politics
No need to go any further than Iraq, where the US administration apparently became so convinced of its belief that WMD’s existed, that all evidence, both tenuous and often fraudulent, suddenly became concrete reason to support the base assumption.

Shoehorning in Science
Science itself is far from immune & scandals occur with frustrating regularity, some deliberate, some accidental, but all possessing a pre-conceived notion & then manipulating data to suit that preconception. Just run a search for “science”, “fraud” and “scandal” and you’ll find thousands of hits. Such is the value of peer review that to be discovered to have engaged in scientific fraud is likely to permanently exile one in shame from the scientific community. Just watch any contentious scientific debate, global warming, environmentalism, genetic research, and you’ll see a degree of shoehorning from all sides.

I daresay that the majority of people who shoehorn facts to suit their false beliefs, do so quite honestly & in my experience a good proportion of them are quite intelligent as well. Yes, deliberately disingenuous scammers, con artists and liars require guile and craftiness to perform their fraud, but their methodology of shoehorning is relevant to all people and can only be addressed by acknowledging criticism honestly & by basing concepts on facts, not by shoehorning the facts to suit the premise as religion persistently does.

Witness that science does not claim absolute knowledge, and over history dramatically changes its model of the universe to suit new discoveries. Religion OTOH, does claim absolute knowledge and is therefore forced into shoehorning facts to suit its preconceptions, just as your “evidence” does, River.

Lobstrosity

This is precisely what I colloquially and hence ineloquently dub "stupidity," and you're right, stupidity is a human quality independent of belief system. When you reject objective facts because of passionate, unsupported, subjective beliefs, you're being believing what you want, not what's reasonable--you're being stupid. The ability for a person to engage in stupidity does not characterize that person as stupid, however. Brilliant people do stupid things all the time (Einstein and his as hoc cosmological constant comes to mind).