Why do we doubt science?

Dion,
I believe we are talking about Adam and Eve, at least as either historic people or as DNA and mitochondrial ancestors. The currect science seems to say there is a man from which we are commonly descended. We don't know his name, so the scientific community calls him 'Adam' borrowing from religious language. Same thing for 'Eve' aka 'mitochondrial Eve.'
I was throwing out the possibilty (not sure if I believe) that maybe the science could concievable line up with religion in some ways. Both certainly comment on the history of humanity.
 
I concur with you GT. I think that you and I are people who are genuinely concerned for the truth and finding it. We actually are both people willing to have our minds changed about things, instead of just dogmatically passing off what we heard someone else say.
I am the first to admit that my beliefs don't always find complete coherence. I am not schooled in the sciences as some are, and while I am interested and have read some things, I am no expert. I do try to remain interested. I remember several years ago reading a Brian Green work and thinking how much it pointed to God, to me. I don't think that was the intent of his writing, but it is the result in me, because I approached reading it, with God in mind. I don't think I had to 'force' God onto or into his text, or read it in such a way as to try to disprove what he was saying. Just read it to learn and be fascinated by the complexity and beauty of nature, and our natural world.
That is something that I think we can dialogue about.
 
The only goal of science is truth - that goal requires letting one's studies be unfettered by preconceived and personally valued ideas.
_________________________________________________-

This may be the text book definition but unfortunately, man is corruptible. As such, both science and religion have faced politicized results throughout history.
 
I am so embarrassed that I was throwing rocks from the outside of one of the most thoughtful and civil discussions about science and religion had around here in years.

Please continue the discourse!
 
GT,
I wonder about your definition of 'science' as being unfettered and free of any preconcieved notions. Not that I am challenging science as not being a noble pursuit; I most definately think that it is. I just don't think it is quite as pure as you think it might be. I think the sciences start with a fairly strict method. Science is not able to study anything outside of those bounds. For instance (and this may be a horrible example, but one that came to mind)... Science can tell us all about how the heart pumps blood and how it uses electricity to do so, but science is unable to speak intelligently on 'matters of the heart.'
Obviously love and relationships are not truly matters of the physical heart, but a methaporical heart. I still find matters of love to be real. Why is that? Is life and emotion and purpose merely matters of living out a biologically encoded chemical reaction? How does science account for compassion?
There is, I believe, a place among the sciences for theology proper. I agree with you that it must include more than one set institution or religious belief. I am a Christian, not because I was born in Texas, or because my parents believe (because quite frankly I am a fairly strong non conformist, and rebelled against much of their teaching). I am one because I was convinced of the veracity of the claims of Jesus. I studied more about Him and them as was at UT doing what basically was a religious studies major before there was one at UT. (History major with emphasis in religious histories, and a minor in Classics). I am a Christian because I stand convinced that Jesus is the Truth. I am convinced that the created world points to the Creator, and that all things were made through Jesus, which is why I adore science. Because I adore Jesus, and not inspite of my adoration for Him.
 
Theology may be a social science, but certainly nothing beyond that. At least not at this point in time.

And as far as Jesus being the "truth", that's all fine and good but those sentiments are woefully out of place when discussing "hard" science. Jesus can be the "truth", but then so can Buddha or any other religious figure or deity of one's choice.
 
...but science is unable to speak intelligently on 'matters of the heart.'

I don't think that is true. Science can speak intelligently of emotions, hormones, regions of the brain that elicit emotional responses, etc.

I am a Christian, not because I was born in Texas, or because my parents believe (because quite frankly I am a fairly strong non conformist, and rebelled against much of their teaching). I am one because I was convinced of the veracity of the claims of Jesus.

This is a more than a bit disengenuous. One cannot be raised in this country in this time period and make the claim that one's environment/upbringing had nothing to do with one's reasons to become Christian. In my opinion, these statements (excluding any effect at all of one's environment) are done so more in order to bolster and fortify some perceived inherent notion of "truth" (there we go again with that word) in that particular religion, i.e., Christianity.

Not to say that the poster's intentions aren't pure or sincere, but it seems that he is taking some rather obvious liberties (liberties that we all take) in how he chooses to interpret and understand the world and how and why he belives what he does, and also that he is quite unaware of this cognitive biases in doing so. Not surprisingly, he attributes "veracity" to the teachings of his chosen deity, Jesus. It is quite clear that there is little to no "veracity" to some (many?) of Jesus' teachings, but then that is religion. One believes because one chooses to believe. That's fine.
 
The only goal of science is truth ....

No, that is not the goal of science. Imo, science does not deal in "truths" but in explaining the world in the best way it can at the moment. And if science should ever absolutely, completely, finally explain some certain natural phenomena then that's all it has done, explained it. It hasn't found a "truth".

I'm not religious in any recognizable sense but I do think religion has a role to play in government. I think it is important to have someone articulate moral concerns. For instance I'm glad that Dietrich Bonhoeffer stood up against the crimes of the Nazi government in Germany. Religion shouldn't be the only voice influencing government but it shouldn't be silent either.

I'm not following you here. I don't think religion has a place in government so much as one's religious views, particulary as they guide one's moral/ethical views do. Bonhoeffer standing up against the government is not the same thing as religion having a role IN government.

But then, since religion is deeply embedded in the cultural and social fabric, we really can't exclude the effects of religion from how government is run. But that's not the same thing as saying that religion has a role in government. Should the local Muslim mosque have a role in government? The RCC? PCA? LC-MS? The people belonging to those entities should have a role if they choose, but that doesn't mean their organized religious entities should have a role.
 
Faith in a supreme being or, rather, an afterlife is nothing more than a fear of death.

Not true at all. There can be much more involved than merely a fear of death to cause one to believe in a supreme being or heaven. The evolutionary urge to believe in god, for one. The social benefits accruing to groups who choose to group themselves based on a common belief, for another. The desire to see one's loved ones metaphorically live on, for yet another (and this desire need not be spurred by a fear of death).

Can this faith be caused by a fear of death? Certainly. Is it nothing more than that? Of course it's more involved than that.
 
Much like THEU, I too am a christian, but I also believe in the scholarly pursuits of well-practiced science (I've got an engineering degree from Texas
hookem.gif
). I believe God created order in the universe, and science is the study and application of this order. Things like photosynthesis, gravity, chemical reactions can be proven, reproduced, etc ... and is good science.

If we talk about the Big Bang theory, it is a theory, and possibly a good one. However, I don't think it's a proveable science, because we can't truly reproduce it. We can take steps back so far but scientists always hit a wall at which point, they can't explain what's next. Could it be an extension of what is mentioned in Genesis 1, when God created light? It's possible theology and science could meet here in some manner.

Evolution is also another theory, created by Darwin, who didn't have the tools to prove his theory in his time. His theory was based on many asumptions, rather than completely on facts. I find evolution troubling because there are no fossils proving intermediary forms between two forms of life. It's strange that so many educational systems embrace this theory, especially when we can't really prove it. Is that good science?

In reply to:
Click to expand...
 
Evolution is also another theory, created by Darwin, who didn't have the tools to prove his theory in his time. His theory was based on many asumptions, rather than completely on facts. I find evolution troubling because there are no fossils proving intermediary forms between two forms of life. It's strange that so many educational systems embrace this theory, especially when we can't really prove it. Is that good science?


Oh my god.

First, please, please, please learn what is meant by "scientific theory". To discount evolution as science merely because it is a theory is supremely ignorant. And Darwin didn't "create" the theory of evolution. Scientific theories aren't "created". A theory like evolution is formulated based on available evidence.

From Tufts: The statement that evolution is "a theory, not a fact" is based on the belief that a theory is something that can not be proven, and therefore is not a "fact." This view grossly distorts the meanings of the words "theory" and "fact," and diverts attention from the large amount of factual evidence supporting evolution. In addition, it fails to make a clear distinction between theory and fact.

The Link

And there are intermediary fossils. To not believe evolution because of a "missing link" argument is also extremely ignorant. I don't mean to use "ignorant" in a pejorative sense, merely a literal sense. And it is just that: ignorance.

To also wonder if evolution is good science? How are there so many people right here in the US of A who are so lacking in science/evolution? How is that possible? How did we get so, pardon the term, stupid? Recent polls show that a significant number of Americans (is it 25% or 40%?) don't believe in evolution and the prime reason for this is their fundamentalist/literalist religious beliefs.

There are some good books out there that would behoove the above poster to read. One by Jerry Coyne, "Why Evolution is True", and another by Kenneth Miller, "Only a Theory" (the Miller of the butterfly high-school science textbook fame).
 
Perham,
I was not attempting to be dsingenuous. Do I know that I grew up in a culture much more steeped in Christian belief and identity than say Hinduism, and that this has played a large impact in my life? Yes. Without a doubt and so obvious I didn't even think it worth mentioning. I think the opposite could be said of someone who grew up in India for instance. In India you can hardly say your life has been greatly impacted by Hinduism, whether you are a Hindu or not.
I stated the reason I was a Christian was not because my parents are, or because I grew up in Texas. I am a Christian because as an adult I studied the truth claims of Jesus, along with the truth claims of Muhammad, and Buddha, and Unitarianism, and Jainism, and Hinduism, and Shintoism, and Doaism, and Judaism (at least to name a few).
I formally studied those, not just academically, but as belief systems. That is what I meant. I am sorry if you took at all that I was saying the general Christian influence of this culture didn't influence me. Of course it did.


Also, your statement that I will rephrase as 'many or most of Jesus' teachings' are false(no veracity), is one that is of interest to me. That is probably a discussion for a different thread however.

To get back to doubting of science of religion... to me it goes back to my first post on this thread. If we mention doubt, we are implicitly mentioning belief. In what, or upon what do we place our trust and faith? For us to place our trust in science we have to have a great deal of trust in our rational mind, and in our abilities of observance. For us to place our trust in any religion means placing our trust in a holy book, or prophet(or holy person), or within a codified set of doctrines (many handed down in traditions)...
In what do or who do we place our trust? Ultimately, trust is determined by the trustworthiness of the object trusted.
 
Also, your statement that I will rephrase as 'many or most of Jesus' teachings' are false(no veracity), is one that is of interest to me. That is probably a discussion for a different thread however.


That is a topic for another thread to be sure. But there are two ways of answering that: one, the lack of eye-witnesses who recorded Jesus' claims, and two, the lack of scientific veracity.

If we mention doubt, we are implicitly mentioning belief.

No. Stop right there. In terms of science that is absolutely not true especially when you seem to be saying that science requires a kind of "faith" similar to that required by religion. People just do not seem to understand science. And I find that to be very sad.
 
I see that buckhorn's traditional use of "explanatory cache" has now been modified to "explanatory power". I swear that's the only original thing I've seen in the entire thread.
 
There's a simpler theory: religious people generally are not known to be intellectually curious. Claims of divine revelation are so appealing partly because they mitigate the need for critical thought and the uncertainties that naturally go with it.
 
Dion,
your comment about religious people not being intellectually curious is nearly laughable. Do you know who founded Harvard and Yale Universities? Boston College? Boston University? Duke University? The list would be too long to list.. but those are a few. Oldest University in Texas? Baylor/UMHB... 2 of the highest ranked small liberal arts Universities in Texas? Trinity and Southwestern....
All religious. Galileo? Des Cartes? Di Vinci? Francis Collins?

Sorry, I don't mean to rant, but that is one of the most unfounded statements I have ever heard on HF. Are their ignorant religious folks who believe just whatever their 'pastor' tells them, no matter how bad rationally or theologically it is? SURE. No doubt about it. No doubt there are MASSES of these people. But that statemen is just not rational.
 
Dion,
when you say generally, I take that differently than many. Many or even most are just the masses trying to scrape along in life, and aren't really interested in intellectual pursuits. Think about people who go to University. Most go not to learn or become more educated, but to get a job that pays more money. Nothing wrong with that, but it is just that learning is not their goal; money is.
Christianity in the western world has made tremendous contributions to intellectual pursuits and it seemed that you were dismssing them out of hand. I wonder if you have read 'How the Irish Saved Civilization.' Fantastic book and details just one instance of the way that Christians, and Christianity have impacted all of Western culture precisely because they were intellectually curious.
I know I flew off the handle a little bit last night when I posted. I apologise to you personally, because I know you as a poster who doesn't tend to make inflammatory statements, and I was inflamed by your comment, and that was my fault and not your intent.
 
Some religious people are not curious, that is true, but so are a lot of non-religious types. It's just that the religious seem to justify their lack of science curiosity to their religion.

And what happens when the religous are scientifically curious? Look at Darwin and the abuse he and his legacy have suffered.

There definitely seems to be a rise in science ignorance that is directly tied to religious fundamentalism and this also seems to have gotten worse in the past few decades. It has been interesting to observe.

And while this is a sample of one, there was a recent film (either Religious or For The Bible Tells Me So, can't remember) where a youngish mother explains that she tells her daughter the earth is 10,000 years old and that dinosaurs walked with man (typical biblical literalist anti-science dogma) in part because she just doesn't understand "science" and it's easier for her (the mother) to stick with a simplistic story line when answering her daughter's questions.
 
this exchange is hilarious. i actually laughed out loud at how in the context of a discussion about what is provable and what is ignorant you all would trot out these gems:
______________________________________________
There's a simpler theory: religious people generally are not known to be intellectually curious. Claims of divine revelation are so appealing partly because they mitigate the need for critical thought and the uncertainties that naturally go with it.



I don't exactly buy this. I get it, but it seems to go too far.

I think their curiosity is up to averages, which isn't saying much. It's just that the process is dominated by the unobservable, so the scientific method is to be subservient to the unobservable.
______________________________________________

what percentage of people who have ever existed do you think you just labeled with "religious people generally..."? 99.3%? 99.8%?
 
You must log in or register to reply here.

Weekly Prediction Contest

* Predict TEXAS-KENTUCKY *
Sat, Nov 23 • 2:30 PM on ABC

Recent Threads

Prediction Results Threads

2024 Schedules

Back
Top