The New Priesthood

[Theland]

In the days of the Latin Mass, only the priests understood the liturgy.
The people were told to listen to whatever interpretation was given them, and this meant a tremendous responsibility and authority on the clergy.
People were not encouraged to ask questions, and if they did, it bordered on heresy.
Now a new priesthood has arisen. The scientists.
Experts in one discipline now feel quite entitled to pontificate in other areas of science, and this affects everybody.
''Scientists say, Scientists believe, Scientists warn, Scientists fear,'' are just some of the news headlines that assault us on a regular basis.
Their views are unassailable, solely by virtue of the fact that they are scientists and we are not.
This or that food or drug is good / bad for us, global warming is true / false, and many more issues.
Its amazing how millions of people clamour for change because the High Priests have spoken.
How do you feel about the issues I have raised above?

[margarettom]

I take most things 'scientists' say with a pinch of salt (and even that is apparently not good for me), until such time as there is fairly overwhelming evidence. Much the same way as I have always felt about religion I'm afraid.

[Mamyalynne]

I regularly asked questions during the days of the Latin Mass and got replies and had good conversations.

[shoota]

How do I feel about the issues you have raised above?

I think you've wasted your time writing them out.

[Theland]

(Goes back to making things out of elastic bands.)

[tomus42]

I understand the point you're making, but it's flawed.

There's a fundamental difference between religion and science.

[JimF]

tomus42, you are correct of course, but you're wasting your time here. The OP is not only a total religious nutter but a seriously bigoted racist. Just have a look at some of his previous threads...

[Mozz71]

Absolute poppycock Theland. The teachings of the clergy are based on the belief of the words in a book. Blind faith, nothing less. The words of scientists are based on (sometimes) lifetimes of research and experimentation.

The only question is do you believe the honesty of the scientists or do you think they are lining their own pockets? That's a question of faith in humanity, and the same can be asked of preachers: are they truthful in their beliefs, or are they scamming us.

More preachers have proven to be dishonest (in recent years) than scientists.

[JimF]

https://www.theanswerbank.co.uk/ChatterBank/Question1689069-2.html

[woofgang]

The headlines are not written by the scientists but by the media. Scientists publish their research, you can find it online, read it and make up your own mind. I wouldn’t trust a scientist who didn’t publish their research

[Mozz71]

I never saw that thread until now Jim. I knew Theland was very prejudiced towards Muslims, but never realised he had full on racist tendencies. Ironic as a lot of Stormzy's music is highly religious, often falling about his faith and spirituality.

I guess Theland's beliefs are not colourblind. (Ironic, as Jesus, if he existed, would have definitely been darker skinned, given his location.)

[Mozz71]

Rapping* (nice one autocorrect, that wasn't even close)

[sevenOP]

It is a valid analogy as a lack in knowledge is applicable to both.

Honesty, peer review and resultant information is what we might interpret, then take associated action, decide we 'don't know', or err on the side of caution.

[rowanwitch]

Humans need something to believe, better they believe something that has at least a chance of being real.

[Old_Geezer]

The views of scientists are anything but unassailable. But challenges need to have supporting evidence.

Hardly the same thing as a situation where one is told things without evidence and made to accept them under fear of violence.

[Zacs-Master]

Reasonably intelligent people can do their own research to conclude whether scientists are telling the truth. That’s not possible with religious dogma which, as proven by your own comment‘ The people were told to listen to whatever interpretation was given‘.

[ToraToraTora]

what a load of old pony! Science is based on continual experimentation and theorising as data becomes available. Scientists are brutal with each other. If I put out a paper the whole science world attempts to disprove it. No scientist believes anything on face value and they certainly don't accept mumbo jumbo from the clergy.

[tomus42]

JimF, I see that now. Thanks.

[vulcan42]

And once again, Theland rises to the challenge of answering all the questions to the satisfaction of everybody. TIC

[sevenOP]

Science is perhaps harder to reach a 'conclusion' as it has probably more documented information ( whether true or false information) than religion and even more intellectually demanding/comprehensive intensive learning than religion.... though religion may try and increase its 'sphere'. (God forbid! )

Whether scientists or religionists are giving true information is debatable, but I think I can weigh preachers more easily.

[andy-hughes]

A hobby horse of yours Theland, and well known to regulars.

The simple fact is, there is no comparison between a priest and a scientist as has been pointed out already several times.

A scientist, by definition, works with evidence, a priest, by definition, works with belief, the two are not in the same universe - except in your mind of course.