Why do we doubt science?

Perham,
I don't know if there is a rise in it, or just that there is better advertsing so to speak about it. Just like I don't know that there is any more of a 'war' or attack on Christmas than 50 years ago, but you sure hear more about it these days.

Also, I wonder what that youngish mom would tell her daughter at what age? If she is youngish is the daughter like K-3 age? How do you begin to explain some of the more complex scientific theories to young kids? There is a difficulty in explaining all types of things, including moral issues to young kids. I just wonder sometimes about how we teach kids in age appropriate ways about science. I am NOT saying I agree with this woman interviewed. Just a curious thought I had.
 
I find it impossible to teach science properly without putting theories and evidence in their proper context within the scope of the scientific method. I see this as a problem with younger students that see the world concretely and are not really ready to deal with abstractions. It is a problem for teachers too, who want black and white answers on tests. We end up teaching that reasonable theories for their time are absolute fact, when that is not what science is saying at all. Science is often reduced to dogma, and then it is no longer science.
 
I think RayDog makes an excellent point.

I also think that it's important to remember that science can afford to leave behind the ignorant and the intellectually challenged. There are people who are simply incapable of grasping many of the abstractions that RayDog mentions, not merely because they're too young, but instead, in many cases, because they just aren't equipped with the ability to process that sort of information, no matter how long they live.

Science can simply discard such people. But religion is meant to bring people into a relationship with God, regardless of their intellectual abilities. Christianity cannot say, "Sorry Mr. 80 IQ, you don't have the ability to grasp the metaphorical nature of the early parts of Genesis, and therefore you cannot be saved." Because grasping the metaphorical nature of the early parts of Genesis is hardly essential to either salvation or a relationship with God.

In short, Christianity works perfectly well for smart people; but it's also for dumb people too. Science is more of an exclusive club, where a certain level of cognitive ability is required.

I think this is probably the distinction that accounts for the statistics that are the subject of the thread.
 
In short, Christianity works perfectly well for smart people....

It does? That's quite a broad statement.
 
There are plenty of smart people who aren't Christians, but it's not their intelligence that prevents them from being Christians.
 
I don't know if that response was for me but there's no way in hell that Christianity works "perfectly well" for intelligent people. It may work very well for some, not quite as well for others, not at all for a few. But perfectly, as in perfectly well? Give me a break.

And there are some people whose intelligence prevents them being a member of an organized religion, including being Christian.

Are you just making stuff up now?
 
I'm merely saying that it's not a person's intelligence (or lack thereof) that determines their faith.
 
And I'm saying that yes, a person's intelligence can be the element that determines one's faith. Just because Christians are (mostly) into the Holy Ghost giving people faith does not mean that all religions adhere to that methodology when explaining how one acquires faith, i.e, a sub-deity conferring "the spirit".

Intelligence can be, but is not necessarily, the factor that determines one's faith.

You're going way beyond what is necessary to make your point and you seem to be stuck in viewing faith/religion through the Christian perspective, i.e., you don't get faith on your own, but only through the Holy Spirit.
 
Perham1: my 2 posts before the last one were clearly discussing Christianity. When I said "faith" in my most recent post, it was (or so I thought) pretty clear that it was the Christian faith that I was speaking of. If that wasn't clear, then I apologize.

I make no claim, either general or specific, about the comparative determinacy of intelligence for other, non-Christian faiths.
 
The OJ case is a bad example.... the DNA evidence was shotty..... thats why it wasnt taken seriously. And, some of it appeared days after the same area had already been screened once without finding anything. The bloody socks are a good example. They actually did "magically" appear after the fact.

OJ could have committed the murder, but it certainly wasnt proven. Dont blame it on jurors not believing bad DNA evidence. Blame it on the prosecution not being able to bring a convincing case.
 
Wow Theu....

I have never heard of Hoge or the quote you paraphrased, but that has been my basic premise for years.

Science exists. It explains the way the world works. God made science so that it works. Just because there is science and we are able to understand the physical nuts and bolts of the Universe doesnt mean there isnt a God.

Science is not the reason to be Atheist. It doesnt prove there is no God. It simply shows us the way things operate. It is mutually exclusive of supernatural beliefs.
 
Dionysius, I don't think your ancient people believed natural phenomena to the work of gods directly. They did believe that gods were in control of natural phenomena but I don't think a naturalistic explanation would have prevented the existence of religion.

For example, in the bible Judah was conquered by the Babylonians in 605 BC and the first exile occurred. The Hebrew writer in different points of the Bible described the event as the Babylonians defeating Judah and God giving Judah over to Babylon. They understood that they were natural explanations for things and at the same time supernatural explanations, influences, sources, etc.
 
Science is not the reason to be Atheist.

I agree, in a technical way.

But science definitely is a reason for not being a Christian biblical literalist, aka fundamentalist. And for many, Christianity and religion are one and the same, i.e., there is no other religion than Christianity.

It's like Julia Sweeny (sp) railing againg God in her HBO special. She's not really against God; she's against the version of god that her church (RCC) projects and is against her ex-church's rules regarding god.

One can definitely be a person of science and believe in a supreme being. The problem comes when the religion/sect in question (fundamentalist Christianity) says that to be "truly" religious one must believe in the bible in a literal sense. In that case the educated/intelligent people will for the most part be driven away.
 
Rex, I agree with you. There's no requisite conflict between creationism and Darwinian evolution by natural selection.

Francis Collins is a geneticist who ran the Human Genome Project, and he's also a Christian. In his book The Language of God he says that Darwin was right, and that "science is not threatened by God, it is enhanced."

I think the major disconnect happens with people who say it's not believable that life arose billions of years ago from primitive organic processes and evolved into the many life forms we have on earth today, yet they find it easy to believe that an invisible magic man in the sky just commanded it all into existence from nothing.
 
There's no requisite conflict between creationism and Darwinian evolution by natural selection.

There most certainly is a conflict between creationism and evolution.
 
Perham, I'm guessing your comment points to the idea of creationism meaning that everything that exists today was originally created in that same form and has not changed, in which case you're right, of course. I'm thinking of the distinction between the origins of life and its changes over time, i.e., it could be true that a deity created life originally and that it has since evolved by natural selection.

I should have clarified that distinction, but you're correct that 'creationism' as normally understood is in conflict. Rex used the word 'creation' in his post and that's what I was addressing.
 
Rex, I think my description of 'creationism' is the norm among Christians, but maybe that's just anecdotal based on my experience and observations. I do think it's a popular Christian view of creation that humans, specifically, were made by god in their current form and that major evolutionary changes have not occurred with our species.

To your point that life's complexity suggests a creator: how do you get around the complexity, if not improbability, of a supernatural entity? The question of complexity doesn't get a free pass with the god hypothesis.
 
Would an accidental world not be complex as well? There's no way to know, and I don't see how complexity necessarily has to point to supernaturalism.

But your question sets up a contrast between the opposing ideas of design vs chance (accident). Richard Dawkins proposes that these are not the correct candidates to resolve the riddle of improbability, but rather that the real question under debate is design vs natural selection. The latter has enormous amounts of evidence in support of it while the former has none.
 
Accidents are what causes evolution. Natural selection only explains how beneficial accidents are preserved in subsequent generations.
 
Rex, I'm not sure I understand your question about events of chance being more probable. As for who 'created' the environment and who 'provided' the ability to adapt - if you need to postulate a creator/provider for all that then I suppose the god hypothesis is where you go. Some people are satisfied with that, others are not.
 
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