Forum adverts like this one are shown to any user who is not logged in. Join us by filling out a tiny 3 field form and you will get your own, free, dakka user account which gives a good range of benefits to you: No adverts like this in the forums anymore. Times and dates in your local timezone. Full tracking of what you have read so you can skip to your first unread post, easily see what has changed since you last logged in, and easily see what is new at a glance. Email notifications for threads you want to watch closely. Being a part of the oldest wargaming community on the net. If you are already a member then feel free to login now.

The scientific method is perfectly valid, and I am not denying it. I am a scientist. The scientific method is how I make my living. (I work for a pharmaceutical company).

Faith is defined as believing something without proof.

However the vast majority of people treat science as a faith. For example, do most people believe in atoms? Yes. Of the people that do believe in atoms, what percentage do you think have done an experiment proving that atoms exist? Very very few, yet people still believe in atoms. They accept ON FAITH, the view of the scientists that have performed the experiments, but have not personally found the information themselves.

Most people will assume that because so many people believe in atoms, that enough people have done the research, that thier existence must be true.

The only major difference, is that with training, access to the necessary equipment, a person could replicate the experiment. However, they do not, which again puts their view as a FAITH. Faith in the knowledge and ability and reason of someone else, Faith that the existence of the evidence exists, but faith nonetheless.

sebster wrote:
If there is a significant majority willing to deny the science of the age of the Earth, that goes beyond personal belief. That's a significant amount of ignorance and something that needs to be addressed.

I agree that it does. However, going after the entire belief system, which if often how such matters are approached, accomplishes nothing. Someone who legitimately believes that the world is 6,000 years old will not be convinced by any statement to the contrary. Its also unlikely that any amount of science is going to convince them, as they clearly do not accept it as capable of producing valid evidence. The most likely way of inducing change is through evangelical action by the more liberal denominations. Unfortunately, very few of those denominations believe in evangelism.

whatwhat wrote:I didn't say "one guy on the internet" is causing all the problems did I, it's his self rightous atitude which a lot of other people have which does. And you fit perfectly into that category.

If this thread is going to devolve into 'people who harbour beliefs which contradict with scientific fact have no say in politics, are ignorant, stupid etc. etc.' which is basicly what it was from the off. imo it deserves to be locked to be honest regardless of who is wrong or right, it's just plane inflammatory to anyone who is of the opposite belief. (and i'm not saying I am either)

I've always been happy to tell people when they're wrong. Never made any secret of that. I don't think I'm self righteous, but I accept opinions will vary. But I will factcheck, and I will admit when I'm wrong.

I've read the arguments of people who claim the scientific establishment is wrong and the history of the Earth is really just like the Bible says. The better ones are just confused, the bad ones are disingenuous.

People can have any opinion they want, but they should know the facts around their argument and be honest in their opinions. Once a Young Earther is capable of such they'll get due credit.

Faith is defined as belief in something for which there is no proof.

Everyone in the developed world is taught scientific thinking from primary school by simple experiments such as growing beans without light or water.

Obviously everyone can't go on to perform all the experiments ever done, so there comes a point after which people make the rational decision that the proof provided by science is of an acceptable standard without personally experiencing it, by extrapolating from the science they already know.

Mango wrote:The scientific method is perfectly valid, and I am not denying it. I am a scientist. The scientific method is how I make my living. (I work for a pharmaceutical company).

Faith is defined as believing something without proof.

However the vast majority of people treat science as a faith. For example, do most people believe in atoms? Yes. Of the people that do believe in atoms, what percentage do you think have done an experiment proving that atoms exist? Very very few, yet people still believe in atoms. They accept ON FAITH, the view of the scientists that have performed the experiments, but have not personally found the information themselves.

I don't have to see an experiment done personally to know that it was performed. People don't have to personally be part of the scientific community to follow the debate.

Most people will assume that because so many people believe in atoms, that enough people have done the research, that thier existence must be true.

That isn't faith, or anything like faith. It's an assement of the most likely of three things;
That there are atoms
That scientists have made one or more collosal blunders that no-one has figured out
That the whole atom thing is a giant scientific conspiracy undertaken by millions of scientist over a large period of time to trick the population into... something.

It doesn't much of a leap to consider the first option the most likely. The second option is always a possibility, although at this point not so much with atoms.

The only major difference, is that with training, access to the necessary equipment, a person could replicate the experiment. However, they do not, which again puts their view as a FAITH. Faith in the knowledge and ability and reason of someone else, Faith that the existence of the evidence exists, but faith nonetheless.

Actually, I don't think you're giving proper credit to faith. It's a lot more meaningful than believing scientists know something.


And none of that has anything to do with rejecting science and saying the Earth is a few thousand years old. So I'll say it again, personal faith is great. Rejecting science to accept a literal interpretation of the Bible is bad.

dogma wrote:I agree that it does. However, going after the entire belief system, which if often how such matters are approached, accomplishes nothing. Someone who legitimately believes that the world is 6,000 years old will not be convinced by any statement to the contrary. Its also unlikely that any amount of science is going to convince them, as they clearly do not accept it as capable of producing valid evidence. The most likely way of inducing change is through evangelical action by the more liberal denominations. Unfortunately, very few of those denominations believe in evangelism.

I don't think you need to go after the whole belief system. I think you can convince people of faith that their faith is not dependent on a yooung Earth. That they can accept the Earth is very ancient and that God is the creator.

I have no problem with belief, and no desire to convince anyone not to believe. But if people take a very narrow understanding of faith that stops them from finding out about the world, that's ignorance and ignorance is always bad.

I am not sure it is the job of scientists to go around proselytizing against religion.

Richard Dawkins is so vehemently anti-religion that he comes across as a bit of a swivel-eyed frother. Everything about religion isn't that bad.

I think science should confine itself to issues of public science policy, such as homeopathic medicine, the MMR vaccine, power generation, and so on.

sebster wrote:I've always been happy to tell people when they're wrong. Never made any secret of that. I don't think I'm self righteous, but I accept opinions will vary.

If the first part of that paragraph was written "I've always been happy to tell people when I think they're wrong. " I might have believed the second part.

Kilkrazy wrote:
Richard Dawkins is so vehemently anti-religion that he comes across as a bit of a swivel-eyed frother. Everything about religion isn't that bad.

It also doesn't help that he isn't a terribly gifted philosopher. The way he uses Theism is incorrect, and his understanding of the word God is simply woeful. When you argue philosophically you are bound to the minimal definitions of all terms in question unless you offer additional substantiation. He doesn't do this. He simply says 'Only these nutty people are really religious, the rest are lying.'

Non of these polls are interesting as all they really show is that America is more literal in their religion than other European countries (And Japan for some reason). It would be far more useful a poll if Lebanon, Israel, Jordan, Egypt etc etc was there too.

I think you'd find that the idea that the middle east is full of Rampant Muslims is false. The vast majority of them, have much less literal views of religion than Righty Americans

I guess I just don't see the problem with clinging to some sort of creationism. I think it's incorrect, but I fail to see how believing in a young earth hurts oneself or others or society as a whole. What parts of daily life are affected by an understanding of geology, paleontology, or cosmology?

Now, clearly belief in the historical truth of the bible more strongly implies a belief in the ethical truth of the bible than vice versa. For a lot of liberals and social progressives (including myself), the reliance on the bible for creating the law of the land is frightening, but I think believing in adam and eve is just fine.

It's also hard to say that you support faith but then point out parts of a persons faith and say "that's wrong and you're wrong to believe that." It's a complete misunderstanding of the way faith works to even attempt that.

Kilkrazy wrote:Faith is defined as belief in something for which there is no proof.

Everyone in the developed world is taught scientific thinking from primary school by simple experiments such as growing beans without light or water.

Obviously everyone can't go on to perform all the experiments ever done, so there comes a point after which people make the rational decision that the proof provided by science is of an acceptable standard without personally experiencing it, by extrapolating from the science they already know.

Using your very own argument. Have any events described in the Bible actually occurred that has historical records backing them up? When corroborating evidence is found in Egyptian writings and Hittite writings and Babylonian writings to say that certain events occurred, and later archeological evidence surfaces again corroborating the bible, enough in the bible is true, then extrapolating from what they believe from what they know without personally experiencing it. Or put it another way. People see trees. People see plants. People see people. They believe they exist because they have seen proof. The Bible say god created all of them. They extrapolate and believe everything in the bible. I reiterate. For most people, Science is a FAITH.

For centuries people believed the Sun was the source of life on this planet. We now know that without the sun, life could not exist on this planet. We have a lot better explanation of why that is the case, but the end result is that people still believe that the sun is responsible for the continued existence of life on this planet. Faith is Faith. Faith in god is faith. Faith in science is faith.

With that being said. I am an agnostic as well as a scientist. Why, because you cannot prove that God does not exist anymore than you can prove that a God does exist. THAT is based on the scientific method.

I have been reminded that this topic is potentially highly inflammatory and liable to lead to trolling and flames.

So far everyone has behaved well -- good work -- let's try to keep it that way.

Mango wrote:

Kilkrazy wrote:Faith is defined as belief in something for which there is no proof.

Everyone in the developed world is taught scientific thinking from primary school by simple experiments such as growing beans without light or water.

Obviously everyone can't go on to perform all the experiments ever done, so there comes a point after which people make the rational decision that the proof provided by science is of an acceptable standard without personally experiencing it, by extrapolating from the science they already know.

Using your very own argument. Have any events described in the Bible actually occurred that has historical records backing them up? When corroborating evidence is found in Egyptian writings and Hittite writings and Babylonian writings to say that certain events occurred, and later archeological evidence surfaces again corroborating the bible, enough in the bible is true, then extrapolating from what they believe from what they know without personally experiencing it. Or put it another way. People see trees. People see plants. People see people. They believe they exist because they have seen proof. The Bible say god created all of them. They extrapolate and believe everything in the bible. I reiterate. For most people, Science is a FAITH.

For centuries people believed the Sun was the source of life on this planet. We now know that without the sun, life could not exist on this planet. We have a lot better explanation of why that is the case, but the end result is that people still believe that the sun is responsible for the continued existence of life on this planet. Faith is Faith. Faith in god is faith. Faith in science is faith.

With that being said. I am an agnostic as well as a scientist. Why, because you cannot prove that God does not exist anymore than you can prove that a God does exist. THAT is based on the scientific method.

The bits in the Bible which have been proved from records and archaeology have been proved by science.

While most people believe in science by faith, they are probably the same people who believe in acupuncture.

It remains the fact that scientific experiments (a) logically progress from proven existing knowledge and (b) are repeatable.

Science makes nuclear weapons and internet porn.

Before religion man rarely lived past 30, and lived in small family groups.

Though that's not to say we haven't developed beyond religion (the next step is internet porn).

@ Gitzbitah, I'm also a Pastafarian, all praise His Noodliness.

Ahtman wrote:More grist for the mill. Enjoy.

Now this is interesting reading. Some of the more surprising results include only 50% of Americans belive homosexuality should be accepted; and 74% believe in Heaven, but only 59% belive in Hell, seems there's some optimists in the US!

Polonius wrote:I guess I just don't see the problem with clinging to some sort of creationism. I think it's incorrect, but I fail to see how believing in a young earth hurts oneself or others or society as a whole.

How about school curriculum? Geology class would be a lot different if it were taught by Young Earthers.

Greebynog wrote:@ Gitzbitah, I'm also a Pastafarian, all praise His Noodliness.

Ahtman wrote:More grist for the mill. Enjoy.

Now this is interesting reading. Some of the more surprising results include only 50% of Americans belive homosexuality should be accepted; and 74% believe in Heaven, but only 59% belive in Hell, seems there's some optimists in the US!

Yes that is very interesting. It says something like 31% of people claim to have received a "specific" answer from god about a question "this week"!! It doesn't say whether the answer was "yes", "no," or "maybe/not yet."

olympia wrote:

Polonius wrote:I guess I just don't see the problem with clinging to some sort of creationism. I think it's incorrect, but I fail to see how believing in a young earth hurts oneself or others or society as a whole.

How about school curriculum? Geology class would be a lot different if it were taught by Young Earthers.

Why would they be teaching geology? I doubt any university would hire a young earther geology prof, and at the lower levels how much geology is actually taught? How much is taught that actually requires knowledge of scientific cosmology? I"m not being trite, I honestly think that there would be little impact under a worst case scenario in which science curriculum were utterly based on religious doctrine. I think the worst we would have is a bunch of Petro-geologists looking for oil in the places god likes to hide oil, instead of in the geological layers where experience has shown them more likely to form. Same thing for different reasons.

That said, it's most likely not going to happen. You can't teach any specific religion in public schools, and the evidence for an older earth is far more convincing than the evidence for evolution, which in itself is pretty convincing.

I'm not saying we allow these people to dictate public policy, I'm just saying I don't' see what the problem is with people believing that.

Greebynog wrote:@ Gitzbitah, I'm also a Pastafarian, all praise His Noodliness.

Ahtman wrote:More grist for the mill. Enjoy.

Now this is interesting reading. Some of the more surprising results include only 50% of Americans belive homosexuality should be accepted; and 74% believe in Heaven, but only 59% belive in Hell, seems there's some optimists in the US!

I've actually had interesting debates with evangelicals on the issue. I'm Catholic, and I don't believe in a hell as such. The original bargain was if you followed Jesus, you got eternal life instead of death. Hell isn't death, it's eternal torment. Hell, if anything, is defined as total separation from the divine, which to me sounds a lot like oblivion, and not Dante's Inferno.

Polonius wrote:

olympia wrote:

Polonius wrote:I guess I just don't see the problem with clinging to some sort of creationism. I think it's incorrect, but I fail to see how believing in a young earth hurts oneself or others or society as a whole.

How about school curriculum? Geology class would be a lot different if it were taught by Young Earthers.

Why would they be teaching geology? I doubt any university would hire a young earther geology prof, and at the lower levels how much geology is actually taught? How much is taught that actually requires knowledge of scientific cosmology? I"m not being trite, I honestly think that there would be little impact under a worst case scenario in which science curriculum were utterly based on religious doctrine.

This was tried in Europe during a period that is known as the "Dark Ages."

olympia wrote:

Polonius wrote:

olympia wrote:

Polonius wrote:I guess I just don't see the problem with clinging to some sort of creationism. I think it's incorrect, but I fail to see how believing in a young earth hurts oneself or others or society as a whole.

How about school curriculum? Geology class would be a lot different if it were taught by Young Earthers.

Why would they be teaching geology? I doubt any university would hire a young earther geology prof, and at the lower levels how much geology is actually taught? How much is taught that actually requires knowledge of scientific cosmology? I"m not being trite, I honestly think that there would be little impact under a worst case scenario in which science curriculum were utterly based on religious doctrine.

This was tried in Europe during a period that is known as the "Dark Ages."

And society didn't crumble, did it? people still mined minerals, planted crops, and went about their merry lives. Actually, it wasn't really tried during the Dark Ages (a term few, if any historians still use, btw), as there was almost no formal schooling outside of the religious groups. There is a growing body of evidence that suggests technology and agricultural savvy increased after the fall of rome, not regressed.

So again, I ask, what is the problem?

Kilkrazy wrote:

Mango wrote:

Kilkrazy wrote:Faith is defined as belief in something for which there is no proof.

Everyone in the developed world is taught scientific thinking from primary school by simple experiments such as growing beans without light or water.

Obviously everyone can't go on to perform all the experiments ever done, so there comes a point after which people make the rational decision that the proof provided by science is of an acceptable standard without personally experiencing it, by extrapolating from the science they already know.

Using your very own argument. Have any events described in the Bible actually occurred that has historical records backing them up? When corroborating evidence is found in Egyptian writings and Hittite writings and Babylonian writings to say that certain events occurred, and later archeological evidence surfaces again corroborating the bible, enough in the bible is true, then extrapolating from what they believe from what they know without personally experiencing it. Or put it another way. People see trees. People see plants. People see people. They believe they exist because they have seen proof. The Bible say god created all of them. They extrapolate and believe everything in the bible. I reiterate. For most people, Science is a FAITH.

For centuries people believed the Sun was the source of life on this planet. We now know that without the sun, life could not exist on this planet. We have a lot better explanation of why that is the case, but the end result is that people still believe that the sun is responsible for the continued existence of life on this planet. Faith is Faith. Faith in god is faith. Faith in science is faith.

With that being said. I am an agnostic as well as a scientist. Why, because you cannot prove that God does not exist anymore than you can prove that a God does exist. THAT is based on the scientific method.

The bits in the Bible which have been proved from records and archaeology have been proved by science.

While most people believe in science by faith, they are probably the same people who believe in acupuncture.

It remains the fact that scientific experiments (a) logically progress from proven existing knowledge and (b) are repeatable.

I am not disputing that it was science that had proven bits of the Bible. I am not disputing that scientific experiments logically progress and are repeatable. I am saying that Science for most people IS a faith, faith that everything the scientist say is true because the Scientists must have done experiments. But scientists have been and will be fallible. I am reminded of the ridicule that sailors until very recently were subjugated to when they said that they believed in Giant Squid because they had seen them. Reputable scientists called them ignorant superstitious fools for believing in Giant Squid. Then some Japanese fisherman caught a giant squid. Belief in something without proof is belief in something without proof. A lot of my colleagues are atheists. They believe god does not exist because there is no proof that god does. Yet they cannot prove that god does not exist. These are rational people with Phd's in Biochemsitry, chemistry and Biology. Yet they cannot prove that god does not exist. They however have FAITH that does god does not exist. Why? Because they believe in something without proof.



.

Polonius wrote:

olympia wrote:

Polonius wrote:

olympia wrote:

Polonius wrote:I guess I just don't see the problem with clinging to some sort of creationism. I think it's incorrect, but I fail to see how believing in a young earth hurts oneself or others or society as a whole.

How about school curriculum? Geology class would be a lot different if it were taught by Young Earthers.

Why would they be teaching geology? I doubt any university would hire a young earther geology prof, and at the lower levels how much geology is actually taught? How much is taught that actually requires knowledge of scientific cosmology? I"m not being trite, I honestly think that there would be little impact under a worst case scenario in which science curriculum were utterly based on religious doctrine.

This was tried in Europe during a period that is known as the "Dark Ages."

And society didn't crumble, did it? people still mined minerals, planted crops, and went about their merry lives. Actually, it wasn't really tried during the Dark Ages (a term few, if any historians still use, btw), as there was almost no formal schooling outside of the religious groups. There is a growing body of evidence that suggests technology and agricultural savvy increased after the fall of rome, not regressed.

So again, I ask, what is the problem?

I was flippant because I wasn't taking you seriously. This has been studied to death. The decline of science and a concomitant loss of competitive economic and military power in Catholic countries following the persecution of Galileo is well known. I'll PM some references.

I also seem to recall that several research in the U.S. left for Europe and Asia after Bush II put the religiously-inspired limitations on stem cell research.

olympia wrote:

I was flippant because I wasn't taking you seriously. This has been studied to death. The decline of science and a concomitant loss of competitive economic and military power in Catholic countries following the persecution of Galileo is well known. I'll PM some references.

And you're missing the point. This isn't a discussion about if religion should be allowed to push out science, it's a question of if science should be able to push out religion. Feel free to PM me your references, but I'm well aware that societies that devalue science to promote tradition or religion suffer.

It's highly unlikely that the legal situation in the US will change to allow for theocratic public schools, so my example was a bit extreme, but the roadblocks to scientific inquiry at the beginning of the scientific revolution go beyond fundamentalist readings of the bible. The writings of Aristotle were considered virtually relgious canon, and anything that disagreed with that was going to offend. At the same time the reformation had made the Church feel vulnerable, and so it was working overtime to return itself to power. The very idea of the scientific method was new and controversial.

I don't' think it'd be a good thing to teach creationism or young earth geology in schools. I just don't think it would result in a collapse in our scientific power. There would be too many areas that choose to stick to secular education, or schools run by religions that encourage scientific inquiry (like jesuit schools, ironically, as well as jewish, anglican, and most mainline protestant). And that's assuming school districts getting taken over.

On the issue of "is it bad for society that people simply disbelief in evolution," I just can't really think of good reason to be afraid of it. I'm more afraid of Christians that hate others (in clear violation of basically the whole point of Christianity), or of anybody that chooses to use religion and dogma to control others, regardless of the faith and purpose. A persons actions can hurt me, their words can offend me, but their beliefs can't affect me.

olympia wrote:I also seem to recall that several research in the U.S. left for Europe and Asia after Bush II put the religiously-inspired limitations on stem cell research.

That's true. That's a problem, and one that we'll recover from, I'm hoping. I'm not sure that was so much religiously based as it was simply stupid though.

There was a reason I've voted against evangelical candidates in every race in which they appear: I don't agree with their politics. That said, I'm not sure how people believing in creationism led to a stem cell research restriction.

On a lighter note, I like the pastafarian view of things. All hail the Flying Spaghetti Monster!! I also am beginning to agree with some of the other posts that this thread should probably be moved to PM or stopped. I know I have been one of the guilty party in keeping the thread going. I apologize. I am willing to continue on the PM side of things however.

olympia wrote:
I was flippant because I wasn't taking you seriously. This has been studied to death. The decline of science and a concomitant loss of competitive economic and military power in Catholic countries following the persecution of Galileo is well known. I'll PM some references.

Correlation does not imply causation. In those days science was a matter of patronage, and with the revival of Ottoman expansionist designs very few of the wealthy were willing to indulge the whims of scientists in studying the universe. When it comes to spending money in the course of holding on to property, or spending money to learn, the property will always win out.

Most Europeans are atheists. It is a by product of socialism... Schism.

G