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.

 d-usa wrote:

 Kilkrazy wrote:
That "science" "works" despite the human foibles that individual scientists are prone to.

Science doesn't "work" when a scientist discards valid findings if they disagree with his personal dogma.

If a scientist sticks to theory A despite evidence that theory A is invalid and ignores all the evidence that theory B is correct then "science" won't work because it is based on faulty thinking.

And nothing in your statement counters the fact that there is documented evidence of dogmatic scientists clinging to outdated and wrong ideas, just like some non-scientists do.

It doesn't need to and it isn't meant to.

 Smacks wrote:
A lot of people are happy to lie and take advantage of other people's superstitions -- mediums are one particularly despicable example.

Having known several people who have worked as psychics or fortune tellers, I would hesitate to lump them all in one basket like that. Whether or not you or I believe that what they are doing is legit, at least some of them do.

 insaniak wrote:

 Smacks wrote:
A lot of people are happy to lie and take advantage of other people's superstitions -- mediums are one particularly despicable example.

Having known several people who have worked as psychics or fortune tellers, I would hesitate to lump them all in one basket like that. Whether or not you or I believe that what they are doing is legit, at least some of them do.

Most people who are religious have 0 issues reconciling a religious text with current scientific ones too, but that doesnt stop smacks stereotyping/judging them base on the outliers, so why not also judge mediums and psychics by their fringe members.



Simple fact is, most religious people dont go to their religious texts for scientific purposes, and dont go to science books for religious purposes.

But some people like to further the negative stereotype that religious=redneck conservatives who dont believe in evolution.

 easysauce wrote:
Most people who are religious have 0 issues reconciling a religious text with current scientific ones too

Poll numbers in the US disagree with you. As do a lot of politicians who keep trying to put creationist ideology into science classes, just as their voters want.

 Peregrine wrote:

 easysauce wrote:
Most people who are religious have 0 issues reconciling a religious text with current scientific ones too

Poll numbers in the US disagree with you. As do a lot of politicians who keep trying to put creationist ideology into science classes, just as their voters want.

no they dont, you dont know what you are talking about, you are just ignorantly repeating and furthering offensive stereotypes which simply are not true. They are based on fringe evangelicals, of only one religion, and only one small sect of that branch at that.

what you and smacks are doing is no different then judging any other group by its extremists. Well aside from lots of people thinking its ok to stereotype certain groups and not others. Its just as bad to further that kind of stereotype against religious people as it is to further stereotypes against gays/trans and so on.



feel free to paint all religious people with the same brush though, religious people generally do believe in evolution.

Edit - never mind - you changed the chart to a different one...

 easysauce wrote:
no they dont, you dont know what you are talking about, you are just ignorantly repeating and furthering offensive stereotypes which simply are not true.

If they aren't true then why does your own poll support them? If you look at that chart you see that, even when you only consider people who accept that evolution of some kind is true, you still get a roughly 50/50 split between people who accept science as-is and people who insist that their religion is more important. If you consider polls of the population as a whole instead of just the people who accept some aspects of evolution you find that support for evolution is even lower and young-earth creationism is at least a significant minority.

Edit: this was in response to your previous chart. Your new one says the same things, and even explicitly states that the percentage of the population that accepts science is only 48%. More than half the population rejecting science when it conflicts with religion is NOT something that can be described as "most people who are religious have 0 issues reconciling a religious text with current scientific ones".

They are based on fringe evangelicals, what you and smacks are doing is no different then judging any other group by its extremists.

If they're "fringe evangelicals" then how are they winning elections often enough that putting creationism in textbooks, insisting that schools "teach the controversy", etc, are actually issues getting a lot of debate? A tiny minority doesn't have the power to do that.

Edit: and, again, your new chart says it explicitly. 52% of the population is not a fringe group.

 insaniak wrote:
Edit - never mind - you changed the chart to a different one...

yes while the other pew research chart does lend evidence to religious people in general being accepting of evolution, it left out a lot of non christian subsets, and Christianity isnt the only game in town, so i grabbed one that went over non christian religions, and included non religious people as well for comparison.


either way, its not acceptable to stereotype all religious people in general as mouth breathing backwards rednecks who dont believe in science/evolution, when they clearly do for the most part.

 easysauce wrote:
either way, its not acceptable to stereotype all religious people in general as mouth breathing backwards rednecks who dont believe in science/evolution, when they clearly do for the most part.

Less than 50% accepting evolution is not "for the most part".

 easysauce wrote:

evolution and intelligent design dont conflict for most Christians so not sure what conclusions people want to draw from this unless they want to judge a whole group by its extremists/idiots

In my experience most Christians simply don't care very much one way or the other, at least not most of the time. They go to Church because they find it comforting, and want to be a part of a community of like-minded individuals; but they don't put much thought into the specific nature of their spirituality or religious beliefs.

Though, saying that, I grew up in a very liberal Protestant denomination.

 easysauce wrote:
what you and smacks are doing is no different then judging any other group by its extremists.

I did no such thing, and that is not my opinion. There are plenty of moderate religious people who are mostly benign. The only brush I tarred them all with is believing in a god, which is true by definition. This in itself is dangerous enough, as irrational beliefs lead to irrational actions.

 easysauce wrote:
Most people who are religious have 0 issues reconciling a religious text with current scientific ones too.

Yes, religious people like to pick and choose the parts that suit them, and quietly ignore the parts that are completely incompatible with modern science and morality. Which just shows how irrational these belief systems are. Why believe is something so strongly, while also admitting that you made up and changed parts yourself?

 insaniak wrote:
Having known several people who have worked as psychics or fortune tellers, I would hesitate to lump them all in one basket like that. Whether or not you or I believe that what they are doing is legit, at least some of them do.

Several no less? It's a shame none of them ever opted to prove their abilities under laboratory conditions. That would have put to rest so many of our questions about life and death in one easy sitting. I think deep down these people know they are (at best) deluding themselves, and at worst taking advantage of other people's gullibility and need for closure. If I had any doubt (reasonable doubt) then I might give them the benefit of it -- but I don't, so I won't.

 Peregrine wrote:

Edit: and, again, your new chart says it explicitly. 52% of the population is not a fringe group.

52% of all Americans. Not 52% of Christians, or religious people, but 52% of Americans. This is not a religious issue, but an American one. In Europe, that is no less christian, or religious, than the US, the results are rather diffrent:

http://news.nationalgeographic.com/news/bigphotos/21329204.html



You will also note that their is a big "Not Sure" group in there.

 Smacks wrote:

 easysauce wrote:
Most people who are religious have 0 issues reconciling a religious text with current scientific ones too.

Yes, religious people like to pick and choose the parts that suit them, and quietly ignore the parts that are completely incompatible with modern science and morality. Which just shows how irrational these belief systems are. Why believe is something so strongly, while also admitting that you made up and changed parts yourself?

Fun fact for you. A fundamental principal of the Catholic Church has always been that Catholics should investigate and understand the nature of God and the universe he has created. Through an understanding of nature we gain a greater insight to the nature of God. That is why the Catholic church has an observatory, and has been a major patron of science for over a thousand years.

Pope John Paul II summarised the Catholic view of the relationship between faith and reason in the encyclical Fides et Ratio, saying "Faith and reason are like two wings on which the human spirit rises to the contemplation of truth; and God has placed in the human heart a desire to know the truth—in a word, to know himself—so that, by knowing and loving God, men and women may also come to the fullness of truth about themselves." The present Papal astronomer Brother Guy Consolmagno describes science as an "act of worship" and a way of "a way of getting intimate with the creator."

Catholics, at least, see a conflict between religion and science not to be an issue with the science but a misunderstanding of the religion, which must be reassessed to reconcile it with the facts that are presented. This is true for many mainstream Christian denominations.

 Smacks wrote:
Yes, religious people like to pick and choose the parts that suit them, and quietly ignore that parts that are completely incompatible with modern science and morality.

Anyone who creates a set of beliefs for themselves from those that already exist among others will generally pick and choose the specific beliefs that suit them, that's how generating such a set of beliefs works.

You seem to be conflating not excoriating the beliefs that you, personally, don't like with support for them; which is wrong. A Catholic person does not necessarily support the treatment of Galileo by the Catholic Church because he doesn't attack it when stating his own position anymore than an atheist who doesn't attack the God Delusion necessarily supports the beliefs of Richard Dawkins while acting the same way.

 Steve steveson wrote:
In Europe, that is no less christian, or religious, than the US.

Well that's not true. Your chart reads like a top list of countries where religious adherence is waning. All the more liberal Scandinavian and western European countries are at the top, with all the conservative and catholic countries towards the bottom.

EDIT:

 dogma wrote:
Anyone who creates a set of beliefs for themselves from those that already exist among others will generally pick and choose the specific beliefs that suit them, that's how generating such a set of beliefs works.

Which would involve an admission that at least part of the source text is irreconcilably false. And yet the rest is somehow definitely true? I think reason starts to break down at this point.

EDIT 2:

 Steve steveson wrote:
Catholics, at least, see a conflict between religion and science not to be an issue with the science but a misunderstanding of the religion, which must be reassessed to reconcile it with the facts that are presented. This is true for many mainstream Christian denominations.

Yes, they've come a long way since the days of Copernicus -- because they have been forced to. Scientific discoveries, and modern attitudes towards morality and civil rights, have undermined the Catholic church to such a degree that they have now been forced to adopt this position of perpetual back peddling.

I'm going to take a swing for the "other team" here. Just because a book isn't 100% true doesnt necessitate that it is 100% false. For example, Darwin wasn't 100% correct in the Origin of Species , but that doesn't invalidate his theory.

Similarly, some forms of Christianity just think alot of what Jesus said about helping poor people is good and worthwhile, while rejecting his ideas that are immoral in the current moral zeitgeist. Not every form of religion adheres to bibliolatry as a core tenant.

Everyone down to Greece is over 50%, with a number of highly Christian countries being high up. Italy, Ireland and Spain are all high up the list. The vast majority fall within 60% to 80% regardless of Religion. The defining difference is conservative vs liberal rather than religious vs not.

 Smacks wrote:

 Steve steveson wrote:
Catholics, at least, see a conflict between religion and science not to be an issue with the science but a misunderstanding of the religion, which must be reassessed to reconcile it with the facts that are presented. This is true for many mainstream Christian denominations.

Yes, they've come a long way since the days of Copernicus -- because they have been forced to. Scientific discoveries, and modern attitudes towards morality and civil rights, have undermined the Catholic church to such a degree that they have now been forced to adopt this position of perpetual back peddling.

Now I see where your coming from here. Anything that does not fit your world view of "Religion is bad" you chose to ignore. You chose to ignore the fundamental force that the Catholic church has been in science, and the fact that I stated this. The amount of research they have done, and the reasons why. You chose to paint all religion as being backwards and only changing in the face of overwhelming evidence. You chose to completely ignore where I explain to you the principals of the Catholic church, that scientific discovery informs our understanding of faith. But then this does not fit the dogmatic rejection of faith you have.

 Steve steveson wrote:
Everyone down to Greece is over 50%, with a number of highly Christian countries being high up. Italy, Ireland and Spain are all high up the list. The vast majority fall within 60% to 80% regardless of Religion. The defining difference is conservative vs liberal rather than religious vs not.

Sure, and that would be a relevant counter-argument if the claim was that religion inevitably leads to rejecting science. But the original argument was that you can't dismiss "religious people who reject science because of their religion" as an irrelevant minority of extremists.

I'm arguing that a conservative viewpoint is at fault here. Religion is merely a lens through which people focus this closed minded view. It is the same force that drives the anti-climate change lobby, but they focus their close mindedness mostly through a lens of greed and capitalist dogma. It is not faith that is at fault, but close mindedness. It is not "religious people who reject science because of their religion" but "religious people who reject science because of their conservative view". Being open to new people, new ideas and new facts is what is needed, and people of all faiths or non are guilty of being close minded. The arguments they come out with may be different, but the basis is the same, and it's not religion.

 jasper76 wrote:
I'm going to take a swing for the "other team" here. Just because a book isn't 100% true doesnt necessitate that it is 100% false. For example, Darwin wasn't 100% correct in the Origin of Species , but that doesn't invalidate his theory.

But, Darwin wasn't writing a bible, and his word was never meant to be taken on faith. He discovered a natural phenomenon (that can be demonstrated mathematically), and proposed hypotheses based on that discovery. Whether those hypotheses panned out or not is beside the point.

When we are asked to take someones word on faith (for example a witness in court) then credibility becomes an important factor. If it can be shown that part of a testimony is false then it casts doubt over the whole thing.

I guess my point is, some forms of Christianity don't take the Bible much more seriously than you or I would take any other work of fiction..the literal truth of it isn't as important as the "life lessons" or whatever that are sprinkled there in. I know people like this. Why they wouldn't pick a better book is another question altogether, but there you have it.

 Steve steveson wrote:
I'm arguing that a conservative viewpoint is at fault here. Religion is merely a lens through which people focus this closed minded view. It is the same force that drives the anti-climate change lobby, but they focus their close mindedness mostly through a lens of greed and capitalist dogma. It is not faith that is at fault, but close mindedness. It is not "religious people who reject science because of their religion" but "religious people who reject science because of their conservative view". Being open to new people, new ideas and new facts is what is needed, and people of all faiths or non are guilty of being close minded. The arguments they come out with may be different, but the basis is the same, and it's not religion.

I think there are probably religious ideas feeding back into conservative viewpoints. But what you suggest sounds plausible to me, and echos some of what was said earlier in the thread.

Its the same thing that holds back nuclear energy, gave us the paranoia about mobile cell towers, stopped people getting their kids vaccinated with the MMR, and means some people refuse to have the flu jab. Fear, fear through close mindedness. The reasoning they give is different, but the background is the same. People will look to find "facts" that back up their fear rather than base fears on facts, wherever those facts come from.

 Steve steveson wrote:
Its the same thing that holds back nuclear energy, gave us the paranoia about mobile cell towers, stopped people getting their kids vaccinated with the MMR, and means some people refuse to have the flu jab. Fear, fear through close mindedness. The reasoning they give is different, but the background is the same. People will look to find "facts" that back up their fear rather than base fears on facts, wherever those facts come from.

So riddle me this: Why is the woman in the OP afraid of evolution. Its a triviality. Its not as though anyone thinks the concept causes radiation, gets you sick, leads to disease or unemployment. What is she afraid of?

 Steve steveson wrote:
You chose to completely ignore where I explain to you the principals of the Catholic church, that scientific discovery informs our understanding of faith.

I don't even know what that means to be honest.

From my point of view, this stuff was never true in the first place, which is why scientific discovery continually "informs" us that stuff we were supposed to take on faith was actually untrue. Adapting the lie to make it fit the current society doesn't make it any less of a lie.

EDIT: I think it might actually make it more of a lie...

 jasper76 wrote:

 Steve steveson wrote:
Its the same thing that holds back nuclear energy, gave us the paranoia about mobile cell towers, stopped people getting their kids vaccinated with the MMR, and means some people refuse to have the flu jab. Fear, fear through close mindedness. The reasoning they give is different, but the background is the same. People will look to find "facts" that back up their fear rather than base fears on facts, wherever those facts come from.

So riddle me this: Why is the woman in the OP afraid of evolution. Its a triviality. Its not as though anyone thinks the concept causes radiation, gets you sick, leads to disease or unemployment. What is she afraid of?

I'll answer my own question: religion has given her the extravagant promise of eternal life. She got this promise from a book that also lays out a theory of how life came to exist. The theory of evolution contradicts a literal interpretation of the Gensis theory, therefore the promise of eternal life is also called into question. She is afraid of death. Armchair psychiatry session free of charge

 Smacks wrote:

 Steve steveson wrote:
You chose to completely ignore where I explain to you the principals of the Catholic church, that scientific discovery informs our understanding of faith.

I don't even know what that means to be honest.

That's part of the problem.


Automatically Appended Next Post:

 jasper76 wrote:

 jasper76 wrote:

 Steve steveson wrote:
Its the same thing that holds back nuclear energy, gave us the paranoia about mobile cell towers, stopped people getting their kids vaccinated with the MMR, and means some people refuse to have the flu jab. Fear, fear through close mindedness. The reasoning they give is different, but the background is the same. People will look to find "facts" that back up their fear rather than base fears on facts, wherever those facts come from.

So riddle me this: Why is the woman in the OP afraid of evolution. Its a triviality. Its not as though anyone thinks the concept causes radiation, gets you sick, leads to disease or unemployment. What is she afraid of?

I'll answer my own question: religion has given her the extravagant promise of eternal life. She got this promise from a book that also lays out a theory of how life came to exist. The theory of evolution contradicts a literal interpretation of the Gensis theory, therefore the promise of eternal life is also called into question. She is afraid of death. Armchair psychiatry session free of charge

Which is really the stupidest conclusion possible on her part. The all or nothing interpretation of the Bible (that is, every single thing in the Bible must be literally true or else the whole thing is a pack of lies) is so weak it's embarrassing.

The degree to which people's belief in aspects of religion is fragile, and how that influences their behavior, is an interesting subject. Indeed, the degree to which anyone can believe (at least subconsciously) in things like God, eternal life, and other supernatural truth claims is also an interesting question.

Beliefs don't really require the kind of constant reinforcement that is frequently practiced in religions. I don't need to go to a community meeting on a weekly basis to reinforce my belief that fire is hot. I don't need to meditate daily on the hotness of fire. I certainly don't need to make youtube videos explaining to people that fire is hot. I just know its hot, its part of my operating system that I take for granted. I would imagine the people with the most deeply held, secure religious beliefs are the most quiet about it, and not the one's making angry youtube rant videos.

 Hordini wrote:

 Smacks wrote:

 Steve steveson wrote:
You chose to completely ignore where I explain to you the principals of the Catholic church, that scientific discovery informs our understanding of faith.

I don't even know what that means to be honest.

That's part of the problem.

No doubt I left myself open to that snappy quip. I'd be more impressed however if you were able to explain what it means, since you obviously understand it so well?

Also, what problem are you referring to?

 Smacks wrote:

 Hordini wrote:

 Smacks wrote:

 Steve steveson wrote:
You chose to completely ignore where I explain to you the principals of the Catholic church, that scientific discovery informs our understanding of faith.

I don't even know what that means to be honest.

That's part of the problem.

No doubt I left myself open to that snappy quip. I'd be more impressed however if you were able to explain what it means, since you obviously understand it so well?

Also, what problem are you referring to?

Without trying to speak for Steve steveson, my take on it is that scientific discovery can help to further one's understanding of the divine. If you believe that God created the universe, and gave humans the gift of a mind to think and reason with, then really, it's kind of your responsibility to think and reason and try to figure things out as much as you can. Theistic belief can help to explain the why, science can help to understand the how. That doesn't mean we always get everything right, but it certainly doesn't mean that we should shy away from things like science and thinking. For an example, there really isn't anything in the Bible that contradicts the theory of evolution. The biggest part of the issue is that a lot of anti-evolution Christians don't really have a grasp of what the theory is about, and don't really want to. If there is something that science is clearly showing us to be true that you feel contradicts your interpretation of a text, perhaps it is time to revisit that text. Perhaps your original interpretation of that text was flawed, or too hasty, and science can help you to discover a more nuanced, accurate understanding of the text in question, particularly if you use it as a catalyst to revisit the text.

And the problem that I was referring to in the previous post is the chronic misunderstanding that seems to occur between many theists and atheists.

 Hordini wrote:
For an example, there really isn't anything in the Bible that contradicts the theory of evolution.

But there is, and you don't have to get very far. The Bool of Genesis states that God created Adam and Eve as progenitors of the human race. But DNA and fossil evidence overwhelmingly indicates that the progenitor(s) of the human race, indeed all life on Earth from trees to bacteria to humans, was not a human at all. You have to "metaphor that story away" almost entirely in order to reconcile it with modern biology.