Science and Religion are the same.

[billydkid]

Something dawned on me watching CNN this lunchtime - they were talking about challenges to the evolution across the country. Listening to the various people interviewed it ocurred to me that for many, many people science and religion are virtually identical. For those people who do not understand science it is identical in character and mysteriousness to religion - so for these people you are essentially asking them to choose between two religions - the science religion with which they are unacquainted and the Christianity on which they were spoonfed from birth. Before I didn't have a clue what was going on with these people. To my mind they were wilfully choosing superstitious stupidity over factual reality. I think a large part of the problem is that people generally do not remotely understand what science is. They think it is a kind of supernatural alchemy. I think that science fiction has tended to reinforce that notion. For these people it is not fantasy on the one hand and reality on the other. It is the choice between two fantasies and they are going to choose the one that seems most user friendly. Maybe not a very profound or unique insight, but it is not something that had specifically dawned on me before.

[Brown]

We are very familiar with the phenomenon in which some folks loudly assert that any science or scientific finding that conflicts with scripture must be wrong.

But there are some other religious folks who see things differently. In their view, making sense of scripture necessarily involves interpretation. They hold that any interpretation of scripture that is inconsistent with principles of science is a wrong interpretation of scripture. (Some say that this is the currently prevailing view of the Catholic Church. Needless to say, literalists disagree with this view because they have already decided that the literal interpretation of scripture is the correct interpretation, regardless of the actual facts.)

[Skeptical Greg]

I think you may be on to something..

We also here stuff all the time like " Scientists believe that ..... Scientists hope to prove... etc."..


A lot of people also do not understand what a ' theory ' is..

They have no problem with the story of ' Noah's Ark ', while poo-pooing the theory of evolution... :rolleyes:

[Bikewer]

It is one of the failings of the scientific community; that of properly communicating basic principals and methods to the general public. There are notable exceptions, of course, both Isaac Asimov and Carl Sagan spring to mind.
But the level of scientific illiteracy is appalling.

I'm on a couple of BBS that are populated by a lot of Euros, and it seems there's a generally higher level of understanding across the pond. Most seem to understand that science is a method, and have some grasp of it's principals.

[billydkid]

But then I got thinking about my boss - actually my boss twice removed - an associate director. Now he is a smart guy - PhD in chemistry. Certainly, you can't get much more knowledgeable about the scientific process than he is. He is a devout Christian and several times during lunch table conversation he has brought up arguments against evolution. Generally his arguments center around the "too much complexity" issue - the old, the bee had to evolve complimentarily and in tandem with the flower thing. I don't really know enough about evolution to make effective counter arguments. The only arguments I can make is the vast expanse of time, innumerable number of mutations and inevitably you would come up with complimentary relationships. I'm sure there are better ones.

His thing is that it is all faith. Facts are secondary to faith. What makes it faith is that you believe it in spite of the evidence. He admits that he can not make a reasoned argument for his faith, but that is not significant to him. So, I guess, I'm thinking that there are a whole bunch of people who will believe what they believe come hell or high water, whether they understand science or not.

[RussDill]

Originally posted by billydkid
But then I got thinking about my boss - actually my boss twice removed - an associate director. Now he is a smart guy - PhD in chemistry. Certainly, you can't get much more knowledgeable about the scientific process than he is. He is a devout Christian and several times during lunch table conversation he has brought up arguments against evolution. Generally his arguments center around the "too much complexity" issue - the old, the bee had to evolve complimentarily and in tandem with the flower thing. I don't really know enough about evolution to make effective counter arguments. The only arguments I can make is the vast expanse of time, innumerable number of mutations and inevitably you would come up with complimentary relationships. I'm sure there are better ones.


The pollen/bee thing is easy to understand, its a positively reinforcing loop that was bound to happen at some point.

Plants make pollen, whether the pollen was supposed to go to the same plant (asexual) or another plant (sexual), it doesn't matter.

Pollen contains some energy and nutrients, otherwise, the pollen "dies" and cannot perform its function.

Bugs eat the pollen, wandering from plant to plant.

Some pollen gets stuck to the bugs, the bugs end up spreading the pollen. More and more sexual vs asexual reproduction.

The easier it is for the bugs to find the pollen, the faster it spreads.

Add a substance that the bug would rather eat than the pollen, so the pollen just gets stuck to the bug, and you get even faster spreading.

Bugs can evolve along with this process.


The stage at which necter came into play can be moved up and down. I'm sure your PhD friend could come up with such a process on his own, but he'd rather not.

[Jellby]

Originally posted by RussDill
Bugs can evolve along with this process.

That could be one of the main reasons some people attack evolution: it's filled with bugs! :p

(computer-related intended pun)

[Skeptical Greg]

Originally posted by RussDill
The pollen/bee thing is easy to understand, its a positively reinforcing loop that was bound to happen at some point.

Plants make pollen, whether the pollen was supposed to go to the same plant (asexual) or another plant (sexual), it doesn't matter.

Pollen contains some energy and nutrients, otherwise, the pollen "dies" and cannot perform its function.

Bugs eat the pollen, wandering from plant to plant.

Some pollen gets stuck to the bugs, the bugs end up spreading the pollen. More and more sexual vs asexual reproduction.

The easier it is for the bugs to find the pollen, the faster it spreads.

Add a substance that the bug would rather eat than the pollen, so the pollen just gets stuck to the bug, and you get even faster spreading.

Bugs can evolve along with this process.


The stage at which necter came into play can be moved up and down. I'm sure your PhD friend could come up with such a process on his own, but he'd rather not.

One might suggest, that if the symbiotic relation is all that exists, it would indicate lack of intelligent design. i.e. Nothing to fall back on, if the system breaks down. Not very smart, huh?

[c4ts]

If people can't tell science from religion, I blame the schools.

[carpe_annum]

Originally posted by billydkid
For those people who do not understand science it is identical in character and mysteriousness to religion - so for these people you are essentially asking them to choose between two religions - the science religion with which they are unacquainted and the Christianity on which they were spoonfed from birth. Before I didn't have a clue what was going on with these people. To my mind they were wilfully choosing superstitious stupidity over factual reality.

I'm new to this board so patience appreciated - hey, maybe I can try fawning to get it: I've learned a ton from reading through past forums over the last couple of days; thanks for all the insights and ideas!
**********************
Man, I do go on! I've written a lot on this post (see below... and below... and below...). I know some (most?) of you prefer a concise post, so let me summarize and you can ignore the rest (I can't bear to delete it 'cause it took so long to write it!):

I think that religion dominates for many people not only because of its familiarity and stability (relatively speaking), but because it provides community and a sense of safety. "The Human Race in general and my family in particular will be safe, at least over eternity, because God will take care of me." Compare that to the idea that arbitrarily bad and good things can happen to you because there is no grand plan and that science at least appears to shift constantly (thanks to contradictory studies and bizarre media priorities) and I think it's easier to see why, given the choice, many prefer to believe in the simpler, safer conception of reality.

OK, still not concise but at least shorter and I think it captures most of what I was trying to explore below.
************************

I started reading this site as a result of my efforts to educate groups of lay people about oil security and climate change issues. In doing so, I've met a number of people who I respect but who have unshakeable ideas about the limitations of science. Not that it doesn't have limitations, of course, but the extent of the misunderstanding about the differences between science and religion is quite breathtaking.

The arguments brought to me are typically of the "science is just another belief system" type, with occasional "science doesn't explain everything" (as if that were the issues) and, most depressing, "scientists just aren't willing to investigate things that don't fit their current view of the world". So I think you are on to something when you say that uninformed people think they are choosing among belief systems. Ironically, many of the same people making these statements also believe that technology will somehow save us from ourselves, as has apparently happened in the past.

I think that fear is another big motivator. Science is complex, requires thinking and is constantly evolving in the public eye ("this causes cancer"; "actually, it may be good for your heart!"; "well, the studies had problems in them so we aren't sure about either of those claims"). While religious types will tell me that religion is constantly evolving (and it is in some ways), it is basically constant: one God responsible for everything; one set of immutable rules to follow that you can get forgiven for breaking; safety from complete extinction with death.

If religion explains everything, then you can be sure of your world from one day to the next. Excitement comes in the form of defeating perceived evil rather than in discovery of new ideas. Belonging to a church or other religious organization provides a sense of community, which often provides the additional benefit of allowing members to feel superior, or at least more right.

In fact, we see some of this same behavior in groups of scientists. Bjorn Lomborg, love him or hate him for his writing about misleading data on the environment, was roundly condemned by the scientific community - but I don't believe anyone has found substantial error in his book, The Skeptical Environmentalist. A large group of people believed in cold fusion when it first came out and a much larger group was against it - I saw them voting against its existence at an American Physical Society meeting. While I think the latter had it right, I don't think one decides science by voting.

My point is just that I think that it is natural for humans to want to belong and to believe. The benefit of being a scientist (I do have a PhD, in case you were wondering, in Materials Science) is that the community sooner or later does test and validate (or refute) new ideas. Solid science is built on repeated, independently tested evidence. But when a layperson looks at the news, he doesn't see that, he sees confusion and disagreement. This is partly the media's fault (and don't get me started on this administration) but it's also intrinsic to science in an open society where we still have First Amendment rights and the need to publish or perish.

The world is so scary in so many ways and science offers scant comfort to people who want security. It offers only explanation, prediction and a greater degree of appreciation for the incredible wonders of the universe than may be possible without it. That's enough for me, especially since I can't make myself believe in God. But I can appreciate why others want there to be something else out there making the world safe for humankind.

I find that framing the oil and climate change issues in terms of the world their children will live in is helpful (how 1960's of me!). While believing in a Supreme Being to take care of their own lives, many (especially women) seem more pragmatic about the fate of their children. While they may want those kids to believe in Creationism, they sure don't want them living in a world with a destroyed ecosystem or no gasoline available.

I wonder if this is something worth exploring further. Surely people should be able to care as much about themselves as their children (of course, I don't have any, so that's a pretty bold statement to make). Maybe it has something to do with personal empowerment so that the world doesn't seem so scary. Maybe it has to do with forming some other type of community that is neither steeped in religion nor flaky as in New Age stuff nor unapproachable as in the various scientific communities. Find an answer to the question "Why do I matter?" in the absence of a Creator, because people (in general) need to believe that they do.

All right, enough babbling for my inaugural post. If any of you are still with me, I'll buy you a cup of coffee next time I see you...

[carpe_annum]

Originally posted by billydkid
For those people who do not understand science it is identical in character and mysteriousness to religion - so for these people you are essentially asking them to choose between two religions - the science religion with which they are unacquainted and the Christianity on which they were spoonfed from birth. Before I didn't have a clue what was going on with these people. To my mind they were wilfully choosing superstitious stupidity over factual reality.

I'm new to this board so patience appreciated - hey, maybe I can try fawning to get it: I've learned a ton from reading through past forums over the last couple of days; thanks for all the insights and ideas!
**********************
Man, I do go on! I've written a lot on this post (see below... and below... and below...). I know some (most?) of you prefer a concise post, so let me summarize and you can ignore the rest (I can't bear to delete it 'cause it took so long to write it!):

I think that religion dominates for many people not only because of its familiarity and stability (relatively speaking), but because it provides community and a sense of safety. "The Human Race in general and my family in particular will be safe, at least over eternity, because God will take care of me." Compare that to the idea that arbitrarily bad and good things can happen to you because there is no grand plan and that science at least appears to shift constantly (thanks to contradictory studies and bizarre media priorities) and I think it's easier to see why, given the choice, many prefer to believe in the simpler, safer conception of reality.

OK, still not concise but at least shorter and I think it captures most of what I was trying to explore below.
************************

I started reading this site as a result of my efforts to educate groups of lay people about oil security and climate change issues. In doing so, I've met a number of people who I respect but who have unshakeable ideas about the limitations of science. Not that it doesn't have limitations, of course, but the extent of the misunderstanding about the differences between science and religion is quite breathtaking.

The arguments brought to me are typically of the "science is just another belief system" type, with occasional "science doesn't explain everything" (as if that were the issues) and, most depressing, "scientists just aren't willing to investigate things that don't fit their current view of the world". So I think you are on to something when you say that uninformed people think they are choosing among belief systems. Ironically, many of the same people making these statements also believe that technology will somehow save us from ourselves, as has apparently happened in the past.

I think that fear is another big motivator. Science is complex, requires thinking and is constantly evolving in the public eye ("this causes cancer"; "actually, it may be good for your heart!"; "well, the studies had problems in them so we aren't sure about either of those claims"). While religious types will tell me that religion is constantly evolving (and it is in some ways), it is basically constant: one God responsible for everything; one set of immutable rules to follow that you can get forgiven for breaking; safety from complete extinction with death.

If religion explains everything, then you can be sure of your world from one day to the next. Excitement comes in the form of defeating perceived evil rather than in discovery of new ideas. Belonging to a church or other religious organization provides a sense of community, which often provides the additional benefit of allowing members to feel superior, or at least more right.

In fact, we see some of this same behavior in groups of scientists. Bjorn Lomborg, love him or hate him for his writing about misleading data on the environment, was roundly condemned by the scientific community - but I don't believe anyone has found substantial error in his book, The Skeptical Environmentalist. A large group of people believed in cold fusion when it first came out and a much larger group was against it - I saw them voting against its existence at an American Physical Society meeting. While I think the latter had it right, I don't think one decides science by voting.

My point is just that I think that it is natural for humans to want to belong and to believe. The benefit of being a scientist (I do have a PhD, in case you were wondering, in Materials Science) is that the community sooner or later does test and validate (or refute) new ideas. Solid science is built on repeated, independently tested evidence. But when a layperson looks at the news, he doesn't see that, he sees confusion and disagreement. This is partly the media's fault (and don't get me started on this administration) but it's also intrinsic to science in an open society where we still have First Amendment rights and the need to publish or perish.

The world is so scary in so many ways and science offers scant comfort to people who want security. It offers only explanation, prediction and a greater degree of appreciation for the incredible wonders of the universe than may be possible without it. That's enough for me, especially since I can't make myself believe in God. But I can appreciate why others want there to be something else out there making the world safe for humankind.

I find that framing the oil and climate change issues in terms of the world their children will live in is helpful (how 1960's of me!). While believing in a Supreme Being to take care of their own lives, many (especially women) seem more pragmatic about the fate of their children. While they may want those kids to believe in Creationism, they sure don't want them living in a world with a destroyed ecosystem or no gasoline available.

I wonder if this is something worth exploring further. Surely people should be able to care as much about themselves as their children (of course, I don't have any, so that's a pretty bold statement to make). Maybe it has something to do with personal empowerment so that the world doesn't seem so scary. Maybe it has to do with forming some other type of community that is neither steeped in religion nor flaky as in New Age stuff nor unapproachable as in the various scientific communities. Find an answer to the question "Why do I matter?" in the absence of a Creator, because people (in general) need to believe that they do.

All right, enough babbling for my inaugural post. If any of you are still with me, I'll buy you a cup of coffee next time I see you...

[H3LL]

I don't mean this in an insulting way, but religion and faith offer the easy option. Faith starts where thinking and reasoning ends.

There are people on this board that show a huge grasp of a wide spectrum of very complex and intricate scientific ideas, laws, theories and principles. This takes a considerable effort and expenditure of time. My own knowledge is comparable to a large lake, but mostly shallow and only deep in a few places.

Faith demands very little effort and for many, probably just passive absorption (church, TV etc.).

I'm suspicious that many people with a deep knowledge of their own faith (whatever that may be) also are quite aware of the glaring holes but just say "well it just IS", or "[insert deity here] says so, so it must be true". Thinking and reasoning have consciously been given the back seat.

I think it is wrong for anyone to condemn a person for their faith or lazy thinking. It is part of the human condition and should be accepted as such.

However, the areas that deserve the most contempt and derision are the parasitic organisations that prey upon this condition for no other end than money, power, control and suppression to enrich their own position, maintaining a facade of love while practicing division, hate and distrust.

Religious organisations should function purely as a support mechanism for those that want it. Period. Other activity should be considered on a par with similar political methods that justly deserve loathing.

How this can be achieved? I have no practical solution. My only thought is that so many religious organisations appear to be so strongly against education, it must be the thing they fear most and is the only way.

Challenge the parasite, not the host. Swat the mosquito, don’t beat the victim for being bitten.

[carpe_annum]

Originally posted by H3LL
I don't mean this in an insulting way, but religion and faith offer the easy option. Faith starts where thinking and reasoning ends.
...
I'm suspicious that many people with a deep knowledge of their own faith (whatever that may be) also are quite aware of the glaring holes but just say "well it just IS", or "[insert deity here] says so, so it must be true". Thinking and reasoning have consciously been given the back seat.

I think it is wrong for anyone to condemn a person for their faith or lazy thinking. It is part of the human condition and should be accepted as such.


Hmmmmm. A religious friend of mine would say the opposite. From his perspective, atheists are lazy because we are not willing to think about things greater than science, i.e., we limit ourselves to just those things we can measure.

He does not want to live in a universe that does *not* have a God. He is one of the few people that I have known to get more joy than guilt out of religion. For him, belief in God opens his mind up and science closes mine down.

So I'm not sure I'd call him mentally lazy (actually, I'm sure I would not). But I do believe he is (subconsciously) afraid of an uncontrolled reality, one guided only by natural, not supernatural, law. And I believe he will do his best to save me from myself for the rest of my life. We had a 1.5 hour discussion on the phone tonight along those lines during which I let him off of no hooks until he gave up in the end - needs more data to counter my arguments, I guess. :-)

[H3LL]

Originally posted by carpe_annum
Hmmmmm. A religious friend of mine would say the opposite. From his perspective, atheists are lazy because we are not willing to think about things greater than science, i.e., we limit ourselves to just those things we can measure.

He does not want to live in a universe that does *not* have a God. He is one of the few people that I have known to get more joy than guilt out of religion. For him, belief in God opens his mind up and science closes mine down.

So I'm not sure I'd call him mentally lazy (actually, I'm sure I would not). But I do believe he is (subconsciously) afraid of an uncontrolled reality, one guided only by natural, not supernatural, law. And I believe he will do his best to save me from myself for the rest of my life. We had a 1.5 hour discussion on the phone tonight along those lines during which I let him off of no hooks until he gave up in the end - needs more data to counter my arguments, I guess. :-)

An interesting point of view.

Having once been a believer (as many atheists, agnostics and sceptics here were/are) I can see his point, but taking a quick comparison, it takes very little effort to grasp the tenets of creationism compared to the effort to grasp evolution. In addition, it does not take long to get the basic grasp of creationism whereas I feel it takes more effort to understand the basics of evolution.

For me, it was too easy to believe. I wanted more and further inquiry took effort and in many ways a certain strength of character to fly in the face of surrounding faith and credulity.

IMHO faith comes to an end very quickly once you start to question. Science and critical thinking opens up a wonderland of fascinating information, each leading to other paths and thoughts for inquiry.

A personal anecdote was that reading "Mother Tongue" led me directly to "The Language Instinct" which led me to "The Blind watchmaker". One of my most memorable reading experiences, and it hasn't ended yet. At which point would a fundie stop?

Faith = comfortable certainty
Science = adventure with no certainty

I like the adventure. Maybe I was a little unfair saying lazy, perhaps mentally unadventurous would have suited better.

[carpe_annum]

Originally posted by H3LL

A personal anecdote was that reading "Mother Tongue" led me directly to "The Language Instinct" which led me to "The Blind watchmaker". One of my most memorable reading experiences, and it hasn't ended yet. At which point would a fundie stop?

For some reason, I haven't been able to get him to read "The Blind Watchmaker". ;)
Faith = comfortable certainty
Science = adventure with no certainty

Hence the fear that I think lies behind the death grip on faith regardless of evidence to the contrary, and the need to be convinced that all others are wrong.

I like the adventure. Maybe I was a little unfair saying lazy, perhaps mentally unadventurous would have suited better.
'sOK. I thought you were talking about me! ;)

[hgc]

Originally posted by carpe_annum
...

He does not want to live in a universe that does *not* have a God. ... The heart of the matter. Conflating reality with your most fervent desires is the essense of faith, but has little to do with understanding reality.

[Dr Adequate]

Originally posted by RussDill
The pollen/bee thing is easy to understand, its a positively reinforcing loop that was bound to happen at some point.

Plants make pollen, whether the pollen was supposed to go to the same plant (asexual) or another plant (sexual), it doesn't matter.

Pollen contains some energy and nutrients, otherwise, the pollen "dies" and cannot perform its function.

Bugs eat the pollen, wandering from plant to plant.

Some pollen gets stuck to the bugs, the bugs end up spreading the pollen. More and more sexual vs asexual reproduction.

The easier it is for the bugs to find the pollen, the faster it spreads.

Add a substance that the bug would rather eat than the pollen, so the pollen just gets stuck to the bug, and you get even faster spreading.

Bugs can evolve along with this process.


The stage at which necter came into play can be moved up and down. I'm sure your PhD friend could come up with such a process on his own, but he'd rather not.
You can also see in the fossil record how the shape of pollen progressively evolves to make it better at clinging to the bugs.

And yes, the creation cranks are lazy. If he couldn't be bothered to think about it, he could at least have looked it up. But research is hard, fifteen minutes is a long time, and he wouldn't have got the answer he wanted anyway.

[Mojo]

Originally posted by carpe_annum
He does not want to live in a universe that does *not* have a God.
This, really, is the important point about faith-based systems, whether it's a belief in God or a belief in, for example, homeopathy. It's about how he wants the universe to be rather than how it actually is.

The universe often does not work the way we would like it to, so people find it more comforting to believe in a fiction, for example that there really is some big bloke up in the sky looking out for us. After all, most of us spend our formative years being looked after by people (our parents) who care about us, so this is a familiar and comforting concept.

[carpe_annum]

Originally posted by Mojo
The universe often does not work the way we would like it to, so people find it more comforting to believe in a fiction, for example that there really is some big bloke up in the sky looking out for us. After all, most of us spend our formative years being looked after by people (our parents) who care about us, so this is a familiar and comforting concept.

All right, so what motivates *us*? I don't mean that facetiously - whatever it is that makes truth so much more important to us (even when we can't know the 'whole' truth, since there is much we do not understand) than comfort and safety *ought* to be something that we can translate to others in language that is meaningful to them. I can't (or don't want to - oops!) believe that there isn't a basic human desire to *know* and an ability to take comfort from the beauty of the system without needing a Watchmaker for it to seem beautiful.

So how does one express the beauty and comfort of truth and logic in a way that is (more or less) universally appealing? Or flip side, how does one make the unquestioning belief in a Supreme Being seem less satisfactory than more rational explanations?

If you can get back to me on that in the next ten minutes, I could use the info for my next presentation! ;)

[Dr Adequate]

Originally posted by carpe_annum
Hmmmmm. A religious friend of mine would say the opposite. From his perspective, atheists are lazy because we are not willing to think about things greater than science, i.e., we limit ourselves to just those things we can measure.
Some questions to ask him:

What is a boddhisatva?
What are the Five Pillars of Islam?
Who founded the Sikh religion?
What are the principal differences between Jainism and Buddhism?
Who was Apolonius of Tyana?
What is the Riddle of Epicurus?
What is the central teaching of Zoroastrianism?
What was the name and subject of Buddha's first sermon?

Of course, he may be too "lazy" to have found out these things, which this particular atheist could tell you off the top of his head.

Not only am I not lazy, I am not lazy enough to settle for the first thing I hear. I wonder if your smug friend has done just that?

[carpe_annum]

Originally posted by Dr Adequate
Some questions to ask him:

What is a boddhisatva?
...

Of course, he may be too "lazy" to have found out these things, which this particular atheist could tell you off the top of his head.

Not only am I not lazy, I am not lazy enough to settle for the first thing I hear. I wonder if your smug friend has done just that?

You are a much better educated atheist than I! I will, in fact, ask him. He considers himself well-educated in religion (he attended Wheaton College in IL) but does believe that Christianity is far superior to the others. By the same token, he doesn't think that any one religion encompasses everything about God because we are too limited as humans to be able to truly appreciate everything about him.

OTOH, he also considers himself a very skeptical person. Apparently he had quite the rep for it among the religious in his community. If I had any doubts about it, though, he lost that credibility with me when he told me about buying into the "Signs and Wonders" of the Vineyard Church.

What I should do is get him to join this board. He's a lot more thoughtful and less vitriolic than, e.g., 1inchrist and, who knows, maybe we'll get some insights out of him instsead of invective that will help with the ongoing dialog. And we may even gain a new real skeptic if he really participates.

[Eleatic Stranger]

Hmmmmm. A religious friend of mine would say the opposite. From his perspective, atheists are lazy because we are not willing to think about things greater than science, i.e., we limit ourselves to just those things we can measure.

I would think your friend would be missing the entire point in arguing that, though.

Certainly it takes a great amount of effort to resolutely believe that which makes you feel better despite all available evidence to the contrary - why, the sheer amount of effort I put into believing I am attractive to the opposite gender is shocking! That it takes a lot of effort, however, doesn't mean it isn't intellectual laziness.

[Mojo]

Originally posted by carpe_annum
So how does one express the beauty and comfort of truth and logic in a way that is (more or less) universally appealing? Or flip side, how does one make the unquestioning belief in a Supreme Being seem less satisfactory than more rational explanations?
Now that is the question! I don't think there is likely to be a simple answer to this, as a significant proportion of children are indoctrinated into religions at a young age. Perhaps if we could substitute a better science education from a young age for filling children's heads with imaginary fears of hellfire or whatever?

[Ipecac]

Carpe_annum, welcome to the board! Good first posts.

[jimmygun]

Compare the results of science with the results of religion and you will soon see that they are not only not the same but are directly opposite each other.

[hgc]

Originally posted by jimmygun
Compare the results of science with the results of religion and you will soon see that they are not only not the same but are directly opposite each other. Makes me mad. People are kind of like fish, unaware of the water they swim in. All the technology that touches every corner of their lives is the result of science process, and they some how think that science is aloof or not relevant to them! Religion is a freeloader in the advancement of civilization.

[SezMe]

Originally posted by carpe_annum
So how does one express the beauty and comfort of truth and logic in a way that is (more or less) universally appealing?
Sagan's Cosmos series is a good example. Have your friend watch the CD, then have him come here for a stimulating discussion of it. Should be fun!

[Iacchus]

Originally posted by billydkid

Something dawned on me watching CNN this lunchtime - they were talking about challenges to the evolution across the country. Listening to the various people interviewed it ocurred to me that for many, many people science and religion are virtually identical. For those people who do not understand science it is identical in character and mysteriousness to religion - so for these people you are essentially asking them to choose between two religions - the science religion with which they are unacquainted and the Christianity on which they were spoonfed from birth. Before I didn't have a clue what was going on with these people. To my mind they were wilfully choosing superstitious stupidity over factual reality. I think a large part of the problem is that people generally do not remotely understand what science is. They think it is a kind of supernatural alchemy. I think that science fiction has tended to reinforce that notion. For these people it is not fantasy on the one hand and reality on the other. It is the choice between two fantasies and they are going to choose the one that seems most user friendly. Maybe not a very profound or unique insight, but it is not something that had specifically dawned on me before. Yes, very interesting! So, what does that suggest? ... except that man is none other than a creature of belief.

[BillHoyt]

Originally posted by Iacchus
Yes, very interesting! So, what does that suggest? ... except that man is none other than a creature of belief.

Post hoc ergo propter hoc :rolleyes:

[Iacchus]

Bama Pecan. ;)

[roger]

Originally posted by billydkid
But then I got thinking about my boss - actually my boss twice removed - an associate director. Now he is a smart guy - PhD in chemistry. Certainly, you can't get much more knowledgeable about the scientific process than he is. He is a devout Christian and several times during lunch table conversation he has brought up arguments against evolution. Generally his arguments center around the "too much complexity" issue - the old, the bee had to evolve complimentarily and in tandem with the flower thing. I don't really know enough about evolution to make effective counter arguments. The only arguments I can make is the vast expanse of time, innumerable number of mutations and inevitably you would come up with complimentary relationships. I'm sure there are better ones. Pollens are dispersed by wind. There was originally no need for insect dispersal at all. Of course, as insects visit plants for the stray bit of food or nectar, a symbiotic relation will quickly form. Some species now rely on insects for pollination, but many still use wind pollenation.

[Elind]

Originally posted by billydkid
Something dawned on me watching CNN this lunchtime - they were talking about challenges to the evolution across the country. Listening to the various people interviewed it ocurred to me that for many, many people science and religion are virtually identical.

True, and it's not just applicable to mainstream religions. This is a strong facet of "New Age" type thinking and the power of crystals, magnets, dowsers etc., not to mention philosophies that essentially say that truth is in the eye of the beholder.

[Ladewig]

Originally posted by hgc
Makes me mad. People are kind of like fish, unaware of the water they swim in. All the technology that touches every corner of their lives is the result of science process, and they some how think that science is aloof or not relevant to them! Religion is a freeloader in the advancement of civilization.

If you mean religion is getting a free ride, I'd say no. If you mean it is not pulling its own weight, I'd say yes.

Architecture is now in the realm of science, but for thousands of years, people have wanted to make temples and churches the biggest and tallest buildings they could. It was the church that helped civilization figure out how tall a wall could be made or how wide a dome could be made.

Art is another area in which the church's contributions should be noted. The Jesuits and their committment to education is another example.

But even as religion was moving civilization forward in some areas it was holding civilization back in other areas; or worse, destroying some cultures.


Actually, the more I think about it, the more I think your statement is an underestimation. In the 21st century, religion is not just a freeloader in the advancement of civilization, it is an anchor slowing down the advancement of civilization.

[hgc]

Originally posted by Ladewig
If you mean religion is getting a free ride, I'd say no. If you mean it is not pulling its own weight, I'd say yes.

Architecture is now in the realm of science, but for thousands of years, people have wanted to make temples and churches the biggest and tallest buildings they could. It was the church that helped civilization figure out how tall a wall could be made or how wide a dome could be made.

Art is another area in which the church's contributions should be noted. The Jesuits and their committment to education is another example.

But even as religion was moving civilization forward in some areas it was holding civilization back in other areas; or worse, destroying some cultures.


Actually, the more I think about it, the more I think your statement is an underestimation. In the 21st century, religion is not just a freeloader in the advancement of civilization, it is an anchor slowing down the advancement of civilization. I've given this problem some thought, with no solid conclusion. With so much enduring achievement built in the service of religion, does religious belief deserve credit for great contributions to our culture? With the prevelance and standing of the Catholic Church in mideival and rennaissance Europe, and other monolithic religious institutions in other far-flung cultures, much creative energy was directed toward the cause which was paying the commission or footing the bill, be it Michelangelo's David or Cistine Chapel, or Rubens' tryptics for the cathedral alcove chapels of wealthy Antwerp merchants.

Would these great devotional art and architecture achievements have been accomplished for secular purposes? Would something just as valuable taken their place? I think probably so.

[BillHoyt]

Originally posted by Iacchus
Bama Pecan. ;)

I wasn't enquiring about your pie preference. I was pointing out your logical fallacy.