╌>

Correlation between religiosity and scientific illiteracy or hostility

  
By:  Gordy327  •  3 years ago  •  438 comments


Correlation between religiosity and scientific illiteracy or hostility
Science is a way of thinking much more than it is a body of knowledge. – Carl Sagan

Leave a comment to auto-join group Religious and not News Chat

Religious and not News Chat


Back in 2017, Dr. Neil deGrasse Tyson gave a presentation in South Carolina where he addressed the issue of scientific illiteracy. The summary of his presentation is below:

Americans overall are bad at science. Scared of math. Poor at physics and engineering. Resistant to evolution. This science illiteracy, is a threat to the nation. The consequence of that is that you breed a generation of people who do not know what science is nor how and why it works. You have mortgaged the future financial security of your nation. Innovations in science and technology are the (basis) of tomorrow’s economy. America’s decline isn’t unprecedented. Just look back 1,000 years ago at the Middle East, where math and science flourished in Baghdad. Algebra and algorithms were invented in the Middle East. So were Arabic numerals, the numbers we still use today. But when a new cleric emerged during the 12th century, he declared math and science to be earthly pursuits, and good Muslims should be concerned about spiritual affairs. The scientists drifted away, and scientific literacy faded from that part of the world. Of 655 Nobel Prizes awarded in the sciences since 1900, Tyson said, only three have been awarded to Muslims. Things that seem harmless can have devastating effects. 

Dr. Tyson is correct too! Back in the first half of the 20th century, America was a scientific and technological powerhouse. We knew how to innovate, to create and improve on technologies. But as time went on, our scientific and technological innovation waned. To the point where other countries are matching or exceeding us in science and scientific education. There are many factors which may have contributed to this. But a significant cause can be attributed to religious influence, especially when it pervades politics and law or otherwise filters down to other areas of society and culture. Interest and general knowledge in science has decreased. It makes sense too. For many, religion is introduced early on in one's formative intellectual years, most likely due to family influence. People are taught (or indoctrinated) from an early age to accept god and the bible as factual or "truth" on various issues and that anything which challenges or contradicts it is not to be accepted or tolerated. For example, according to a 2019 gallup poll , 40% of American adults believe in creationism over evolution. This is more prevalent in more religious and/or less educated individuals. It boggles the mind that in the present day, with scientific information and evidence easily available, that people accept religious myths over established science based on evidence or facts. Many people flat out reject sound scientific theories like evolution or the Big Bang in favor of something along the lines of "God did it." There is not evidence to support their position (much less refute science) and no critical thinking involved in such claims. It's a case of belief over fact.

Essentially, the greater one's religiosity is, the more scientifically illiterate and/or hostile towards science they become. This has also been demonstrated in four studies published in the Public Library of Science (PLOS). All 4 studies reached and affirmed similar findings, which generally stated:

The findings from these four studies show that religiosity is negatively related to science knowledge and is associated with more negative attitudes towards science. Importantly, these results were obtained while controlling for a large number of demographic variables, and after deleting contested portions of science knowledge. All four studies are correlational. However, the relation of parents’ reports of their religiosity and the religious upbringing of their children with (some 20 years later) their children’s attitudes toward science (Study 2) implies that religiosity may impact attitudes towards science, and thus science knowledge, later in life (General Discussion Section, Para 1). 

There are other studies demonstrating this as well. One study published in Social Science Quarterly (Vol. 92, Vol. 5, Dec 2011, pp  1134-1150), also found " Religion plays a sizeable role in the low levels of scientific literacy found in the United States, and the negative impact of religious factors is more substantial than gender, race, or income ." Science and religion both try to perform the same function, to provide an explanation of the world around us. The difference is, science tries to provide explanations based on evidence and the process of the scientific method. Religion tries to provide explanations based on religious beliefs or "authorities." And religion may become quite hostile towards science when religion perceives science encroaching on what they feel is its turf. This is historically demonstrated too, gong back centuries when religion branded people heretics and even imprisoned or had them killed. Remember Galileo (just 1 example)?

Again, the correlation between religiosity and scientific illiteracy/hostility is just a general trend that is observed and demonstrated. Individuals themselves may vary. But it is a trend that should have us all very worried, especially in regards for the future of our nation, scientifically, intellectually, and technologically.


Tags

jrGroupDiscuss - desc
[]
 
Gordy327
Professor Expert
1  author  Gordy327    3 years ago

We need more science to stay competitive with the rest of the world. And to keep us from becoming total dumb-a$$es. 

 
 
 
goose is back
Sophomore Guide
1.1  goose is back  replied to  Gordy327 @1    3 years ago
We need more science to stay competitive

In deed we do but, religion isn't the problem, it's the social engineering. 

 
 
 
Gordy327
Professor Expert
1.1.1  author  Gordy327  replied to  goose is back @1.1    3 years ago

Religion is likely part of the problem.  Not the only problem. 

 
 
 
mocowgirl
Professor Quiet
1.1.2  mocowgirl  replied to  goose is back @1.1    3 years ago
religion isn't the problem

Maybe not all, but one certainly has horrendous messages for mothers.  This is not a woman, or child, friendly religion by any means.

Psalm 137:9 Blessed is he who seizes your infants and dashes them against the rocks. (biblehub.com)

New International Version
Happy is the one who seizes your infants and dashes them against the rocks.

Hosea 13:16
Samaria shall become desolate; for she hath rebelled against her God: they shall fall by the sword: their infants shall be dashed in pieces, and their women with child shall be ripped up.
 
 
 
epistte
Junior Guide
1.1.3  epistte  replied to  goose is back @1.1    3 years ago

What social engineering are you referring to? Is that a euphemism for the idea that people other than white conservative males have equal rights and that wealth isn't a right?  Most conservatives haven't gotten over the Magna Carta or the 1865 US Civil War.  It will be another century before they get over VE Day or the 1964 Civil Rights Act.

 
 
 
goose is back
Sophomore Guide
1.1.4  goose is back  replied to  epistte @1.1.3    3 years ago
males have equal rights and that wealth isn't a right? 

You just proved my point!

 
 
 
epistte
Junior Guide
1.1.5  epistte  replied to  goose is back @1.1.4    3 years ago

 You did not answer the question with your attempted selection. What is the social engineering that you speak of? Try not to defect this time.

 
 
 
Sparty On
Professor Principal
1.1.6  Sparty On  replied to  epistte @1.1.5    3 years ago

I can give you one.   Gender jambalaya ....... like allowing male born athletes to compete in female sports.

How is that working out for all you title 9 fans out there?

 
 
 
cjcold
Professor Quiet
1.1.7  cjcold  replied to  Sparty On @1.1.6    3 years ago

This liberal also has a problem with that.

 
 
 
epistte
Junior Guide
1.1.8  epistte  replied to  Sparty On @1.1.6    3 years ago

1. ) trans females are also female.

2,) would you rather that trans guys who were born biologically female compete as female despite their gender identity and male levels of testosterone, or would you rather just deny that trans people exist and go back to your Mayberry RFD attitudes?

 3)How many NCCA or professional athletic records are held by trans women?

 
 
 
Jack_TX
Professor Quiet
1.1.9  Jack_TX  replied to  epistte @1.1.8    3 years ago
1. ) trans females are also female.

They still shouldn't be playing women's sports.

2,) would you rather that trans guys who were born biologically female compete as female despite their gender identity and male levels of testosterone, or would you rather just deny that trans people exist and go back to your Mayberry RFD attitudes?

The only reasonable option is for all trans athletes to compete exclusively in men's sports.

 3)How many NCCA or professional athletic records are held by trans women?

The correct question is "how many women will be kept from competing because their place is taken by somebody who used to be a man?"  

 
 
 
Sparty On
Professor Principal
1.1.10  Sparty On  replied to  epistte @1.1.8    3 years ago

Biologically born males have NO business competing in biologically born female sports.   Period.

If biological females want to compete in male sports?   Go for it, knock yourself out but the other way around?  

That dog don't even begin to hunt.

 
 
 
Gordy327
Professor Expert
1.1.11  author  Gordy327  replied to  Sparty On @1.1.10    3 years ago

To epistte too:

Hey guys, you're getting off topic with talk of trans and all that. I let it slide thus far. But can we get back on the topic pertaining to the article? Thanks.

 
 
 
Sparty On
Professor Principal
1.1.12  Sparty On  replied to  Gordy327 @1.1.11    3 years ago

No problem

 
 
 
Gordy327
Professor Expert
1.1.13  author  Gordy327  replied to  Sparty On @1.1.12    3 years ago

Much appreciated 

 
 
 
mocowgirl
Professor Quiet
1.2  mocowgirl  replied to  Gordy327 @1    3 years ago
We need more science to stay competitive with the rest of the world.

Totally.

And to keep us from becoming total dumb-a$$es. 

And to quit justifying violence and oppression, inside our country and the world stage, to "save" souls for a being that does not exist.  It is past time to quit spreading the "word" at the sword point that was required to keep it in existence for the last 2000 years.

We need to teach the world history of the men/rulers of the ancient world to understand why they created and used violent gods to maintain control over the masses.   Understanding the men, who populated the ancient world, would explain why the gods were just as violent and cruel as the men who created them.  

The 5 Most Terrifying Civilizations In The History of the World | Cracked.com

 Yahweh should be relegated to classes that teach about the mythical gods of the ancient world.   

Yahweh - Wikipedia In the earliest Biblical literature Yahweh is a storm-god typical of ancient Near Eastern myths, marching out from a region to the south or south-east of Israel with the heavenly host of stars and planets that make up his army to do battle with the enemies of his people Israel: [42]

 
 
 
sandy-2021492
Professor Expert
2  sandy-2021492    3 years ago

One of the last times I attended a Sunday church service with my mom was when one of the deacons declared that all any of us needed to know was contained in the Bible.

Pretty sure his cardiologist didn't agree.

 
 
 
Gordy327
Professor Expert
2.1  author  Gordy327  replied to  sandy-2021492 @2    3 years ago
all any of us needed to know was contained in the Bible.

I've heard the same thing before. I find that to be so intellectually limiting. 

Pretty sure his cardiologist didn't agree.

I doubt the bible explains how to perform CPR or heart surgery.

 
 
 
Trout Giggles
Professor Principal
2.2  Trout Giggles  replied to  sandy-2021492 @2    3 years ago

LOL!

 
 
 
epistte
Junior Guide
2.3  epistte  replied to  sandy-2021492 @2    3 years ago

When people such as that deacon get sick the EMS should take them to the parson's house or whoever organizes the prayer circle, so they can test the courage of their convictions. Modern medicine is keeping far too many willfully stupid people alive. There is nothing wrong with being ignorant, as long as they are grateful for the assistance of others but when they are willfully ignorant and ungrateful is where I start to draw the line.

 IMVHO.

 
 
 
Buzz of the Orient
Professor Expert
3  Buzz of the Orient    3 years ago

NT has its share of those described by the author.

"...our scientific and technological innovation waned. To the point where other countries are matching or exceeding us in science and scientific education."

China has won AI battle with U.S., Pentagon's ex-software chief says (link ->) 

.

 
 
 
Gordy327
Professor Expert
3.1  author  Gordy327  replied to  Buzz of the Orient @3    3 years ago
NT has its share of those described by the author.

Indeed it does. 

"...our scientific and technological innovation waned. To the point where other countries are matching or exceeding us in science and scientific education.

The scary thing is, I think the US is in a scientific and intellectual decline like the ancient Arab world was when it became more religious, as explained by Dr. Tyson. We're seeing a parallel between the US now to the Arab world then. And the Arab world has never fully recovered since then. The question is, will the US?

 
 
 
Dismayed Patriot
Professor Quiet
3.1.1  Dismayed Patriot  replied to  Gordy327 @3.1    3 years ago
We're seeing a parallel between the US now to the Arab world then.

So true. I don't see much difference between right wing conservative Christian extremists and the Taliban. They distrust science, distrust secular society, put their religious beliefs before the constitution and laws of the government, put all their trust in an unfounded unproven faith even when many of their beliefs are demonstrably false, stockpile weapons and ammunition, teach that their God will soon come and defeat their enemies and are preparing themselves for fighting along side their God in an upcoming war against non-believers.

 
 
 
Sean Treacy
Professor Principal
3.1.2  Sean Treacy  replied to  Dismayed Patriot @3.1.1    3 years ago
I don't see much difference between right wing conservative Christian extremists and the Taliban

Imagine admitting that in public. It's good you don't care about looking credible. 

 
 
 
Gazoo
Junior Silent
3.1.3  Gazoo  replied to  Dismayed Patriot @3.1.1    3 years ago

“I don't see much difference between right wing conservative Christian extremists and the Taliban.”

so true. Both groups target and kill civilians, kill teachers, abduct aid workers, burn school buildings, treat women like second class humans, plant roadside bombs, employ the use of suicide bombers, etc. The list of commonalities between the two groups goes on and on.

jrSmiley_88_smiley_image.gif

 
 
 
TᵢG
Professor Principal
3.1.4  TᵢG  replied to  Sean Treacy @3.1.2    3 years ago

Maybe others will read beyond his first sentence to understand the specific point he is making.

 
 
 
Gordy327
Professor Expert
3.1.5  author  Gordy327  replied to  Sean Treacy @3.1.2    3 years ago
Imagine admitting that in public. It's good you don't care about looking credible.

You seem to have ignored the similarities made between the two. Maybe because you cannot refute it?

 
 
 
bugsy
Professor Participates
3.1.6  bugsy  replied to  Gazoo @3.1.3    3 years ago
so true. Both groups target and kill civilians, kill teachers, abduct aid workers, burn school buildings, treat women like second class humans, plant roadside bombs, employ the use of suicide bombers, etc. The list of commonalities between the two groups goes on and on.

Gazoo, you forgot something...

Receiving US taxpayer money for "humanitarian relief".

 
 
 
bugsy
Professor Participates
3.1.7  bugsy  replied to  Gordy327 @3.1.5    3 years ago
ou seem to have ignored the similarities made between the two

How about YOU show the fake perceived "similarities". Just something else by you for us to ridicule.

 
 
 
Dismayed Patriot
Professor Quiet
3.1.8  Dismayed Patriot  replied to  Sean Treacy @3.1.2    3 years ago
Imagine admitting that in public. It's good you don't care about looking credible.

Imagine being so deluded and indoctrinated that you can't see the obvious similarities.

 
 
 
Gordy327
Professor Expert
3.1.9  author  Gordy327  replied to  bugsy @3.1.7    3 years ago
How about YOU show the fake perceived "similarities".

Why? DP did that himself. 

Just something else by you for us to ridicule.

Do you plan to engage in trolling?

 
 
 
Dismayed Patriot
Professor Quiet
3.1.10  Dismayed Patriot  replied to  Gazoo @3.1.3    3 years ago
Both groups target and kill civilians, kill teachers, abduct aid workers, burn school buildings, treat women like second class humans, plant roadside bombs, employ the use of suicide bombers, etc.

I've heard the religious zealots proclaim what they would do to non-believer citizens when their hoped for holy war begins. Just because Muslim extremists believe that war has already started doesn't exonerate the Christian religious extremists that are just stockpiling their ammo and weapons in expectation of their own war starting any time. They're already threatening teachers, treat women as second class citizens, have attacked mosques and unbelievers and planned on using explosives to ignite the next civil war. Only deluded indoctrinated half-wits wouldn't be able to see the obvious similarities.

 
 
 
XXJefferson51
Senior Guide
3.1.11  XXJefferson51  replied to  TᵢG @3.1.4    3 years ago

There were no valid points after an asinine statement like that one.  

 
 
 
XXJefferson51
Senior Guide
3.1.12  XXJefferson51  replied to  Gordy327 @3.1.5    3 years ago

Because there are no similarities between American conservative Christians and the Taliban.  

 
 
 
XXJefferson51
Senior Guide
3.1.13  XXJefferson51  replied to  bugsy @3.1.6    3 years ago

Biden gives that to the Taliban not to dissenting Americans…

 
 
 
XXJefferson51
Senior Guide
3.1.14  XXJefferson51  replied to  Dismayed Patriot @3.1.8    3 years ago

There are no similarities, obvious or otherwise.  

 
 
 
TᵢG
Professor Principal
3.1.15  TᵢG  replied to  XXJefferson51 @3.1.11    3 years ago

When writing, one typically starts one's paragraph with a general sentence ... somewhat of a summary.   The rest of the paragraph is included because the author determined that a single sentence cannot capture the idea.   The remainder of the paragraph would provide a clearer understanding of the author's intended message.

Those who ignore everything past the first sentence will be as misguided as those who simply read the title of an article but skip the article body.

 
 
 
Gordy327
Professor Expert
3.1.16  author  Gordy327  replied to  XXJefferson51 @3.1.12    3 years ago
Because there are no similarities between American conservative Christians and the Taliban.  

It seems you didn't bother reading DP's post.

There are no similarities, obvious or otherwise.  

Your denial doesn't change the facts. 

Biden gives that to the Taliban not to dissenting Americans…

Don't derail the discussion!

 
 
 
XXJefferson51
Senior Guide
3.1.17  XXJefferson51  replied to  Gordy327 @3.1.16    3 years ago

Just showing a difference between the Taliban and us religious Americans!  

 
 
 
Gordy327
Professor Expert
3.1.18  author  Gordy327  replied to  XXJefferson51 @3.1.17    3 years ago
Just showing a difference between the Taliban and us religious Americans!  

Seems to be very little difference.

 
 
 
Duck Hawk
Freshman Silent
3.1.19  Duck Hawk  replied to  Sean Treacy @3.1.2    3 years ago

I do say that in public to anyone who will listen. There isn't much difference between the two groups. Both are religious extremists who advocate for violence and suppression of human rights to achieve their goal of a theocratic state.

 
 
 
Gordy327
Professor Expert
3.1.20  author  Gordy327  replied to  Duck Hawk @3.1.19    3 years ago

One easily visible example of a similarity between the 2 is their objection to certain groups enjoying the same rights. In the US, certain religious groups object to guys have the same rights as everyone else. The Taliban limit women's rights and religious groups here want to limits certain rights of women.

 
 
 
epistte
Junior Guide
3.1.21  epistte  replied to  XXJefferson51 @3.1.17    3 years ago

 They are about the same. Both group reject objective facts, critical thinking skills, equal rights for others and the strict separation of church and state.  Its just a different religious idiocy that gets enforced.  The world will be a better place when both groups disappear, so hurry up with Rapture because I'm tired of your vuiolent religious idiocy and ignorance holding everyone else back to the 16th century.

 
 
 
epistte
Junior Guide
3.1.22  epistte  replied to  Sean Treacy @3.1.2    3 years ago

 
 
 
Veronica
Professor Guide
3.1.23  Veronica  replied to  epistte @3.1.22    3 years ago

Amazing, right?

 
 
 
TᵢG
Professor Principal
4  TᵢG    3 years ago

Religious beliefs and critical thinking certainly are at odds.   For someone to take a truth based on faith requires the suppression of critical thinking.    Yet it is critical thinking that drives science.

I am confident that people like Ken Ham who spend their lives trying to downplay science and claim the Bible is the answer to all (and thus any science that contradicts the Bible is wrong) do indeed influence people.   The fact that ⅓ of US citizens do not accept evolution as the origin of our species, given the abundance of cross-discipline evidence, seems best explained by religious influence.

There are exceptions of course (there are plenty of people who can hold religious beliefs and not dismiss science when there are conflicts) but a faith-based force that teaches people to put the Bible (or any other semi-fictional product of human beings) as the dominant explanation is a threat to the healthy expansion of knowledge.

 
 
 
Gordy327
Professor Expert
5  author  Gordy327    3 years ago
Religious beliefs and critical thinking certainly are at odds.   For someone to take a truth based on faith requires the suppression of critical thinking.    Yet it is critical thinking that drives science.

And that's why religion in general is hostile towards science. Always has been historically too.

The fact that ⅓ of US citizens do not accept evolution as the origin of our species, given the abundance of cross-discipline evidence, seems best explained by religious influence.

I agree. Religion is probably the only thing that opposes evolution. I certainly have not heard of a rational or non-religious argument against evolution, much less a better alternative based on evidence proposed.

There are exceptions of course

I'd say more far and few in between.

but a faith-based force that teaches people to put the Bible (or any other semi-fictional product of human beings) as the dominant explanation is a threat to the healthy expansion of knowledge.

Exactly! And this too is socially and historically demonstrated. Well said! jrSmiley_81_smiley_image.gif

 
 
 
charger 383
Professor Silent
6  charger 383    3 years ago

Religion did not make sense to me as a little boy and less sense now.  Stuff just does not add up  and no real evidence 

 
 
 
JBB
Professor Principal
6.1  JBB  replied to  charger 383 @6    3 years ago

The absence of evidence of magic is unavoidable.

 
 
 
Gordy327
Professor Expert
6.1.1  author  Gordy327  replied to  JBB @6.1    3 years ago
The absence of evidence of magic is unavoidable.

But some some people will swear "magic" is real.

 
 
 
Dismayed Patriot
Professor Quiet
6.1.2  Dismayed Patriot  replied to  Gordy327 @6.1.1    3 years ago
But some some people will swear "magic" is real.

It's because they're so heavily invested in it that to simply admit it's all horse shit feels like a sunk cost. If children had a few hundred thousand fellows who also also rejected the truth that Santa isn't real they would continue believing until they died. They'd just come up with some excuse as to why Santa delegated the responsibility of presents to their parents instead of admitting that they believed something that was total bullshit simply because their parents told them Santa was real for the first 5 or 6 years of their life.

 
 
 
Gordy327
Professor Expert
6.1.3  author  Gordy327  replied to  Dismayed Patriot @6.1.2    3 years ago

What's funny is children will believe Santa is real and accept that as truth. Adults do the same with God. But children at least outgrow the belief in Santa. Adults seem to retain a child like mentality in that regard. 

 
 
 
Dismayed Patriot
Professor Quiet
6.1.4  Dismayed Patriot  replied to  Gordy327 @6.1.3    3 years ago
children at least outgrow the belief in Santa

Only because the group around them have discarded their belief in Santa. If only the few non-believers told them it wasn't true, but the other 75+% said Santa was still real, he just delegated the gift buying to parents who would hear from Santa through prayer what their kids wanted each year for gifts, there would still be tens of millions of believers in America.

The Asch conformity experiments were a series of psychological experiments conducted by Solomon Asch during the 1950s. The experiments revealed the degree to which a person's own opinions are  influenced by those of groups . Asch found that people were willing to ignore reality and give an incorrect answer in order to conform to the rest of the group.

If religious belief isn't groupthink then I'm a sperm whale hurtling towards the surface of an alien planet.

"Ah … ! What’s happening? Er, excuse me, who am I? Hello? Why am I here? What’s my purpose in life? What do I mean by who am I? Calm down, get a grip now … oh! this is an interesting sensation, what is it? It’s a sort of … yawning, tingling sensation in my … my … well I suppose I’d better start finding names for things if I want to make any headway in what for the sake of what I shall call an argument I shall call the world, so let’s call it my stomach. Good. Ooooh, it’s getting quite strong. And hey, what’s about this whistling roaring sound going past what I’m suddenly going to call my head? Perhaps I can call that … wind! Is that a good name? It’ll do … perhaps I can find a better name for it later when I’ve found out what it’s for. It must be something very important because there certainly seems to be a hell of a lot of it. Hey! What’s this thing? This … let’s call it a tail – yeah, tail. Hey! I can can really thrash it about pretty good can’t I? Wow! Wow! That feels great! Doesn’t seem to achieve very much but I’ll probably find out what it’s for later on. Now – have I built up any coherent picture of things yet? No. Never mind, hey, this is really exciting, so much to find out about, so much to look forward to, I’m quite dizzy with anticipation … Or is it the wind? There really is a lot of that now isn’t it? And wow! Hey! What’s this thing suddenly coming towards me very fast? Very very fast. So big and flat and round, it needs a big wide sounding name like … ow … ound … round … ground! That’s it! That’s a good name – ground!" - Douglas Adams

 
 
 
Gordy327
Professor Expert
6.1.5  author  Gordy327  replied to  Dismayed Patriot @6.1.4    3 years ago
If only the few non-believers told them it wasn't true, but the other 75+% said Santa was still real,

Quite possibly.

If religious belief isn't groupthink

Groupthink and self delusion.

 
 
 
epistte
Junior Guide
6.1.6  epistte  replied to  Gordy327 @6.1.5    3 years ago

 Has this quote by Asimov been posted yet?

“There is a cult of ignorance in the United States, and there has always been. The strain of anti-intellectualism has been a constant thread winding its way through our political and cultural life, nurtured by the false notion that democracy means that 'my ignorance is just as good as your knowledge.”


Issac Asimov
 
 
 
Gordy327
Professor Expert
6.1.7  author  Gordy327  replied to  epistte @6.1.6    3 years ago

It has not, but I'm glad you posted it. It is quite profound and accurate.

 
 
 
Gordy327
Professor Expert
6.2  author  Gordy327  replied to  charger 383 @6    3 years ago
Religion did not make sense to me as a little boy and less sense now. 

It never made sense to me either.

Stuff just does not add up  and no real evidence 

Even as a child, I understood that. And when I mentioned that or challenged religious claims, I was met with anger and hostility and even warnings that I would go to Hell if I questioned or didn't believe in God or the bible.

 
 
 
XXJefferson51
Senior Guide
6.2.1  XXJefferson51  replied to  Gordy327 @6.2    3 years ago
warnings that I would go to Hell if I questioned or didn't believe in God or the bible.

Those warnings are still globally valid…

 
 
 
Gordy327
Professor Expert
6.2.2  author  Gordy327  replied to  XXJefferson51 @6.2.1    3 years ago

Merely your own belief. Based on fear no less.

 
 
 
SteevieGee
Professor Silent
6.3  SteevieGee  replied to  charger 383 @6    3 years ago

When I was young I tried really hard to be a Christian.  It didn't make sense to me.  I was told to just have faith and that "everybody can't be wrong."  Everybody can be wrong.  I don't know all the answers but I do know that Christianity, along with all other religions that I've read up on, is wrong and anybody who needs a threat of hellfire in order to behave himself is weak.

 
 
 
charger 383
Professor Silent
6.3.1  charger 383  replied to  SteevieGee @6.3    3 years ago

I agree

 
 
 
zuksam
Junior Silent
7  zuksam    3 years ago

What a bunch of crap. Religious belief and math/science scores have all been in decline for 50 years in America. If Religion was the problem the NYC and LA school systems would be the best in the country, but they are not. We do have plenty of Media Opium for the Masses, TV, TV Sports, Social Media, Celebrity Worship, Video Games, etc. Every year there are more and more mind numbing ways to waste time and life but lets blame the decline on a thing that's been present through the entire rise of western civilization. Go find some Kids and tell me what they're doing instead of studying Math and Science, are they reading the Bible and worshipping God or are they watching TV, playing on their phones or doing some other equally useless activity ?

 
 
 
Gordy327
Professor Expert
7.1  author  Gordy327  replied to  zuksam @7    3 years ago
Religious belief and math/science scores have all been in decline for 50 years in America.

And yet, the large majority of people in the US are religious, to varying degrees. About 40-50 years ago is when religion also become more intertwined with politics.

If Religion was the problem

Religion is not the only problem, as I mentioned in the article. But it is a significant one. Especially in regards to scientific illiteracy and hostility, which the linked studies show.

the NYC and LA school systems would be the best in the country, but they are not.

Some of the most educated states are also some of the least religious. The New England states largely fall under that umbrella. NY ranks 15 in the best educated. California is near the median at 26th. 

Every year there are more and more mind numbing ways to waste time and life but lets blame the decline on a thing that's been present through the entire rise of western civilization.

Historically, religion has been the consistent thing holding back or resisting science to varying degrees.

 
 
 
zuksam
Junior Silent
7.1.1  zuksam  replied to  Gordy327 @7.1    3 years ago
About 40-50 years ago is when religion also become more intertwined with politics.

Actually Religion was always part of politics, it was about 60 years ago that anti-religion entered politics. 

 
 
 
zuksam
Junior Silent
7.1.2  zuksam  replied to  Gordy327 @7.1    3 years ago
NY ranks 15 in the best educated

The average education of the entire population of NY State is not representative of the NYC public school system.

 
 
 
Gordy327
Professor Expert
7.1.3  author  Gordy327  replied to  zuksam @7.1.1    3 years ago
Actually Religion was always part of politics,

Does that not seem like a problem? 

it was about 60 years ago that anti-religion entered politics. 

No such thing ever happened. People are still free to believe and worship whatever they want.

The average education of the entire population of NY State is not representative of the NYC public school system.

But the school system affects the average education.

 
 
 
zuksam
Junior Silent
7.1.4  zuksam  replied to  Gordy327 @7.1.3    3 years ago
But the school system affects the average education.

Yes but given the competition with well funded suburban schools, private schools and college educated adults who move there for work the NYC public school system affects the average negatively.

 
 
 
Gordy327
Professor Expert
7.1.5  author  Gordy327  replied to  zuksam @7.1.4    3 years ago
Yes but given the competition with well funded suburban schools, private schools and college educated adults who move there for work the NYC public school system affects the average negatively.

I suppose that's why it only ranks 15.

 
 
 
XXJefferson51
Senior Guide
7.1.6  XXJefferson51  replied to  zuksam @7.1.1    3 years ago

And when math and science scores began their decline…

 
 
 
Trout Giggles
Professor Principal
7.1.7  Trout Giggles  replied to  Gordy327 @7.1    3 years ago
Some of the most educated states are also some of the least religious.

The most uneducated states are in the South...aka The Bible Belt

 
 
 
Gordy327
Professor Expert
7.1.8  author  Gordy327  replied to  Trout Giggles @7.1.7    3 years ago

That reinforces the correlation. I think Alabama or Mississippi rank the lowest in education. Not coinincidentally, they rank among the highest in religiosity.

 
 
 
Freewill
Junior Quiet
7.2  Freewill  replied to  zuksam @7    3 years ago
Every year there are more and more mind numbing ways to waste time and life but lets blame the decline on a thing that's been present through the entire rise of western civilization.

Some good points and a very good observation. Western civilization, the industrial revolution, and scientific advancement has taken place in a world, and in our country specifically, in a time when religion was much more a part of our lives and societal fabric than it is today.  Indeed religion and science have hardly been at odds when it comes to scientific research and education but rather worked hand in hand as is evidenced by the origins of our most revered universities like Harvard, Yale, Rutgers, College of William and Mary, Princeton, Dartmouth, Boston College, Georgetown, Notre Dame, Vanderbuilt, Brigham Young, Brown, Pepperdine, Duke, Emory, USC, Morehouse and many others.

It is true that while interest and proficiency in science in our country has waned, so too has interest in religion.  So blaming religion or religious beliefs in the US for the decline of our scientific academic standing in the world, or equating it to the fall of science and mathematics in the middle-east to theocratic tyranny, seems somewhat over the top or irrational.   

Certainly there are other societal changes or cultural shifts that have contributed to a waning interest in science and education in general.  Even at the elementary level there has been a shift away from a core focus on mathematics and science as other curricula have slowly displaced it at the elementary and high school level.  Certainly we boomers have seen this in our lifetimes if we paid any attention to what our kids were being taught, or not taught, in the public schools.  

In some ways our scientific advancements have become the very thing that has distracted us from learning and gaining proficiency in math and science.  Social media, “smart” phones, the internet, video games, the decline of real journalism, have all become a massive time suck that trains our mind to accept what we are being fed without question and leaves us with little time and no desire to seek the truth for ourselves.  It robs us of the drive for scientific inquiry that fueled our advancements of the past 100 years.  We need to put away the distractions and refocus if we want to regain our standing in the world in education and producing the worlds best and brightest in all the sciences.  Religion has never been the problem in that regard, at least not in this country.

 
 
 
Nerm_L
Professor Expert
8  Nerm_L    3 years ago

Dr. Neil deGrasse Tyson is theologically illiterate.  That's so obvious that it shouldn't need to be pointed out.  Dr. Tyson making claims from illiteracy isn't persuasive that he knows what he is talking about.

Science is not religion.  And religion is not science.  They're completely different; there's no comparison between the two.  Science and religion do not even perform their functions in the same sphere of reality experienced by humans.  Religion isn't about developing the next whiz bang gizmo.  And science isn't about giving comfort to the grieving.  

 
 
 
TᵢG
Professor Principal
8.1  TᵢG  replied to  Nerm_L @8    3 years ago
Science is not religion.  And religion is not science.

Glad you realize that.

Dr. Neil deGrasse Tyson is theologically illiterate. 

jrSmiley_90_smiley_image.gif


Do you hold that religion is a form of knowledge?   That believing something true sans any supporting evidence somehow means it is true?

 
 
 
Nerm_L
Professor Expert
8.1.1  Nerm_L  replied to  TᵢG @8.1    3 years ago
Do you hold that religion is a form of knowledge?   That believing something true sans any supporting evidence somehow means it is true?

That is a linguistically trite argument.  Anything that humans can experience is knowledge.  And what humans experience will obviously be true.

The heartfelt grief over the death of a beloved pet is true knowledge.  That true knowledge is real.

 
 
 
TᵢG
Professor Principal
8.1.2  TᵢG  replied to  Nerm_L @8.1.1    3 years ago

You are dodging.

Religions, such as Christianity, claim to have specific knowledge of a single sentient creator.   Not only of its existence but of attributes such as omniscience, omnipotence and of direct communications from said creator which include directions on how people are to behave and promises of life after death (to name just a tiny few).

Do you hold that these are not mere claims by human beings but are actually known (not merely believed, but justified) to be true

 
 
 
Gordy327
Professor Expert
8.1.3  author  Gordy327  replied to  Nerm_L @8.1.1    3 years ago
Anything that humans can experience is knowledge.  And what humans experience will obviously be true.

So if someone has an hallucination, is that hallucination actually true? After all, the person hallucinating "experienced" it.

The heartfelt grief over the death of a beloved pet is true knowledge.  That true knowledge is real.

That's not knowledge. That's emotion. The knowledge is the pet dying. The response to that is emotion.

 
 
 
Nerm_L
Professor Expert
8.1.4  Nerm_L  replied to  TᵢG @8.1.2    3 years ago
Religions, such as Christianity, claim to have specific knowledge of a single sentient creator.   Not only of its existence but of attributes such as omniscience, omnipotence and of direct communications from said creator which include directions on how people are to behave and promises of life after death (to name just a tiny few).

Christianity has accumulated the independent experiences of many people as specific knowledge of a single sentient creator.  Christianity is not based upon one observation or experience but is based upon multiple observations and experiences by many people over vast periods of time.  Religious knowledge is based upon an accumulation of observations and experiences by many people of singular events that cannot be replicated.

Do you hold that these are not mere claims by human beings but are actually known (not merely believed, but justified) to betrue

Human observation and experience of singular events that cannot be replicated are always mere human claims.  One person's observation and experience of an UFO is a mere claim.  An accumulation of observations and experiences by many people are more than a mere claim.

An accumulation of observations of UFOs supports the idea that UFOs are real - but - doesn't explain UFOs.

Christianity is based upon an accumulation of observations and experiences that support the idea that God is real - but - doesn't explain God.

 
 
 
Gordy327
Professor Expert
8.1.5  author  Gordy327  replied to  Nerm_L @8.1.4    3 years ago
Christianity has accumulated the independent experiences of many people as specific knowledge of a single sentient creator. 

Christianity (and other religions) only makes claims of a sentient creator. It offers no evidence for one. The "knowledge" of a sentient creator is only what ancient men with pens wrote down. It's basically like writing a story of fiction. One can have "knowledge" of the story, but that doesn't mean the story itself is non-fiction.

Christianity is not based upon one observation or experience but is based upon multiple observations and experiences by many people over vast periods of time.

That is considered to be the weakest form of "evidence." It still amount to little more than what someone says, but still no evidence to collaborate what is said.

Religious knowledge is based upon an accumulation of observations and experiences by many people of singular events that cannot be replicated.

Then it cannot be taken seriously or as fact.

Human observation and experience of singular events that cannot be replicated are always mere human claims.  One person's observation and experience of an UFO is a mere claim.  An accumulation of observations and experiences by many people are more than a mere claim.

They are all still empty claims sans evidence.

An accumulation of observations of UFOs supports the idea that UFOs are real - but - doesn't explain UFOs.

No, it supports the idea that some people do not know or understand what they saw. Everyone could claim something different. Evidence is what best explains it.

Christianity is based upon an accumulation of observations and experiences that support the idea that God is real - but - doesn't explain God.

It doesn't prove god is real. It just makes a claim that god is real. No evidence to support the notion that god is real to begin with. It's basically wishful thinking coupled with a mob mentality and/or emotional appeal of belief.

 
 
 
TᵢG
Professor Principal
8.1.6  TᵢG  replied to  Nerm_L @8.1.4    3 years ago
Christianity has accumulated the independent experiences of many people as specific knowledge of a single sentient creator.  Christianity is not based upon one observation or experience but is based upon multiple observations and experiences by many people over vast periods of time.  Religious knowledge is based upon an accumulation of observations and experiences by many people of singular events that cannot be replicated.

Christianity, over the past 2000 years for the NT and ~3,000 years for the OT (disregarding the ancient lore the preceded the OT), has accumulated stories about a single sentient creator.   Tales told by mere human beings without any supporting evidence provide no factual basis for the belief.

 
 
 
Nerm_L
Professor Expert
8.1.7  Nerm_L  replied to  Gordy327 @8.1.5    3 years ago
Christianity (and other religions) only makes claims of a sentient creator. It offers no evidence for one. The "knowledge" of a sentient creator is only what ancient men with pens wrote down. It's basically like writing a story of fiction. One can have "knowledge" of the story, but that doesn't mean the story itself is non-fiction.

The evidence may be anecdotal but, nevertheless, is evidence.  The story consists of anecdotal evidence concerning singular events that cannot be independently replicated without God.

Circumstantial evidence based on the observations and experiences of witnesses is recognized as valid evidence.  The evidence of a singular event is anecdotal and cannot be replicated.  The circumstantial 'proof' is obtained by accumulating anecdotal evidence from a number of witnesses.  The anecdotal evidence of one witness is merely a claim.  But the anecdotal evidence of a number of witnesses is more than a mere claim while still being less than proof.

It doesn't prove god is real. It just makes a claim that god is real. No evidence to support the notion that god is real to begin with. It's basically wishful thinking coupled with a mob mentality and/or emotional appeal of belief.

No, a circumstantial proof is still a proof.  Since the proof is circumstantial then the proof cannot be independently replicated and verified.

 
 
 
sandy-2021492
Professor Expert
8.1.8  sandy-2021492  replied to  Nerm_L @8.1.7    3 years ago
The story consists of anecdotal evidence concerning singular events that cannot be independently replicated without God.

Nor can it be verified.

 
 
 
Nerm_L
Professor Expert
8.1.9  Nerm_L  replied to  TᵢG @8.1.6    3 years ago
Christianity, over the past 2000 years for the NT and ~3,000 years for the OT (disregarding the ancient lore the preceded the OT), has accumulated stories about a single sentient creator.   Tales told by mere human beings without any supporting evidence provide no factual basis for the belief.

A single sentient creator or a trinity?  Is worshipping Christ the same as worshipping God?  To whom do Christians pray?

The scientific judgement of Christianity is based upon religious illiteracy.

 
 
 
TᵢG
Professor Principal
8.1.10  TᵢG  replied to  Nerm_L @8.1.7    3 years ago
The evidence may be anecdotal but, nevertheless, is evidence. 

That is why science does not use anecdotal (" not necessarily true or reliable, because based on personal accounts rather than facts or research . ") evidence to help ascertain truth (or falsehood).

Since any human being can invent anything s/he wishes and then claim it to be true, anecdotes provide no foundation for truth. 

It is one thing for a court to use anecdotal evidence (with plenty of restrictions) for our human matters (with pretty rigorous vetting of the source).   Even then this is typically used to support hard evidence.    But we are talking about likely the grandest possible claim ... that of a sentient creator.   A claim that magnificent is in no way supported by mere human anecdotes.

 
 
 
Nerm_L
Professor Expert
8.1.11  Nerm_L  replied to  sandy-2021492 @8.1.8    3 years ago
Nor can it be verified.

Yep, that's what I said.

 
 
 
TᵢG
Professor Principal
8.1.12  TᵢG  replied to  Nerm_L @8.1.9    3 years ago
A single sentient creator or a trinity?  Is worshipping Christ the same as worshipping God?  To whom do Christians pray?

Don't like the current focus so you divert to a debate on the singularity of the Trinity?   Note, that even with the Christian Trinity, the Father is seen as the creator and is often referred to as God.   But the Christian God is the Trinity with three individual hypostases:  Father, Son and Holy Spirit.


Tales told by mere human beings without any supporting evidence provide no factual basis for the belief.

 
 
 
Nerm_L
Professor Expert
8.1.13  Nerm_L  replied to  TᵢG @8.1.10    3 years ago
Since any human being can invent anything s/he wishes and then claim it to be true, anecdotes provide no foundation for truth. 

But a thousand humans, over a thousand years, won't invent the same thing.  Religion, particularly Christianity, is not the invention of any one human being.

 
 
 
TᵢG
Professor Principal
8.1.14  TᵢG  replied to  Nerm_L @8.1.13    3 years ago
Religion, particularly Christianity, is not the invention of any one human being.

True, it was the result of an uncountable number of imaginations and editorial efforts spanning thousands of years.   And all those imaginations eventually produced what some people consider to be truth yet this belief of truth varies per individual.   Funny how that happens.

The beliefs are not grounded in anything.   There is no foundation.   The beliefs are simply accepted as true based solely on what other human beings have merely claimed.   And the contradictions of these beliefs are ignored as irrelevant.

 
 
 
sandy-2021492
Professor Expert
8.1.15  sandy-2021492  replied to  Nerm_L @8.1.11    3 years ago

No, it's not.  You said it can't be replicated without God.

Most people reading are well aware that my implication is that it never happened, with or without God.

 
 
 
sandy-2021492
Professor Expert
8.1.16  sandy-2021492  replied to  TᵢG @8.1.10    3 years ago

It honestly doesn't even rise to the level of anecdotal evidence.  It's hearsay anecdote, at best.

 
 
 
Gordy327
Professor Expert
8.1.17  author  Gordy327  replied to  Nerm_L @8.1.7    3 years ago
The evidence may be anecdotal but, nevertheless, is evidence. 

As I said, anecdotal evidence is the weakest for of "evidence." Science tries not to use anecdotal evidence. It's little more than claiming something is true because someone, somewhere, at some time, said so. Science is not satisfied with such weak "evidence."

Circumstantial evidence based on the observations and experiences of witnesses is recognized as valid evidence.

Not in science.

The evidence of a singular event is anecdotal and cannot be replicated. 

Then it cannot be deemed factual or true.

The anecdotal evidence of one witness is merely a claim.  But the anecdotal evidence of a number of witnesses is more than a mere claim while still being less than proof.

Whether it's 1 or a million, it's still anecdotal and not established as factual.

No, a circumstantial proof is still a proof.  Since the proof is circumstantial then the proof cannot be independently replicated and verified.

No, it's not! If proof cannot be replicated or verified,  then by definition it is not proven. Your statement exemplifies the term "scientific illiteracy." Replication and verification of results is part of the scientific method in establishing proof, or at least a high degree of certainty. Science does not accept a conclusion if the results are not verified or replicated. 

 
 
 
sandy-2021492
Professor Expert
8.1.18  sandy-2021492  replied to  Nerm_L @8.1.4    3 years ago

Your low bar for "evidence" illustrates why so many witches were convicted during the witch trials in Europe and the US.

It boils down to "Well, some people we've never met said it, and other people we've never met agreed with them, so it must be true."

 
 
 
Gordy327
Professor Expert
8.1.19  author  Gordy327  replied to  sandy-2021492 @8.1.18    3 years ago
Your low bar for "evidence" illustrates why so many witches were convicted during the witch trials in Europe and the US.

It also perfectly demonstrates why the US is becoming scientifically illiterate. Some people do not care about quality. Low quality evidence yields low quality results. It's like intellectual Walmart: it's cheap, but it's also crap!

 
 
 
Veronica
Professor Guide
8.1.20  Veronica  replied to  Gordy327 @8.1.5    3 years ago
The "knowledge" of a sentient creator is only what ancient men with pens wrote down. It's basically like writing a story of fiction. One can have "knowledge" of the story, but that doesn't mean the story itself is non-fiction.

I find it telling that these people will denigrate people like myself who spend our time worshiping and devoting our time to Mother Nature, but expect all to accept their belief in this "invisible" god as truth.

 
 
 
Gordy327
Professor Expert
8.1.21  author  Gordy327  replied to  Veronica @8.1.20    3 years ago

Indeed. They can't prove their god is real, but want to pass it off as fact and expect to not be challenged on that or otherwise have their claim accepted sans evidence.

 
 
 
Veronica
Professor Guide
8.1.22  Veronica  replied to  Gordy327 @8.1.21    3 years ago

Their answer is always the same "cuz God".

 
 
 
Gordy327
Professor Expert
8.1.23  author  Gordy327  replied to  Veronica @8.1.22    3 years ago

Indeed, as if that explains anything. It's a cop out and failure to explain.  

 
 
 
Nerm_L
Professor Expert
8.1.24  Nerm_L  replied to  sandy-2021492 @8.1.15    3 years ago
No, it's not.  You said it can't be replicated without God. Most people reading are well aware that my implication is that it never happened, with or without God.

Which is correct; the evidence cannot be replicated without God.  That's no different than evidence concerning UFOs cannot be replicated without UFOs.

You can't do science on potatoes without a potato.  Tomatoes aren't a useful substitute.

 
 
 
Veronica
Professor Guide
8.1.25  Veronica  replied to  Gordy327 @8.1.23    3 years ago
It's a cop out and failure to explain. 

I agree totally.  Can you imagine if we offered up an answer like that?

 
 
 
Gordy327
Professor Expert
8.1.26  author  Gordy327  replied to  Veronica @8.1.25    3 years ago

It would likely be challenged too.

 
 
 
Veronica
Professor Guide
8.1.27  Veronica  replied to  Gordy327 @8.1.26    3 years ago

Yep, it would be.  

 
 
 
Gordy327
Professor Expert
8.1.28  author  Gordy327  replied to  Veronica @8.1.27    3 years ago

And it should be too. Claims of certainty invites challenge. 

 
 
 
Nerm_L
Professor Expert
8.1.29  Nerm_L  replied to  Gordy327 @8.1.17    3 years ago
As I said, anecdotal evidence is the weakest for of "evidence." Science tries not to use anecdotal evidence. It's little more than claiming something is true because someone, somewhere, at some time, said so. Science is not satisfied with such weak "evidence."

Science uses anecdotal evidence quite often to start a scientific inquiry.  'Why did it do that?' or 'how did it do that?' are fairly common questions concerning observations (anecdotal evidence) that lay the foundation for scientific research.

Anecdotal evidence is quite the strongest for prompting a scientific inquiry because it is not an abstraction.  Anecdotal evidence is direct observation or experience of an event or thing in reality.

No, it's not! If proof cannot be replicated or verified,  then by definition it is not proven. Your statement exemplifies the term "scientific illiteracy." Replication and verification of results is part of the scientific method in establishing proof, or at least a high degree of certainty. Science does not accept a conclusion if the results are not verified or replicated. 

Isaac Newton's laws of gravity are based on circumstantial proof because gravity cannot be directly observed.  Einstein's GTR was based on circumstantial proof because it could not be tested and verified at the time.

Correlation is not causation.  Correlation can only provide a circumstantial proof.  Your opinion piece depends upon circumstantial proof.

 
 
 
Veronica
Professor Guide
8.1.30  Veronica  replied to  Gordy327 @8.1.28    3 years ago

I do not mind honest challenges, it is the ones that even when provided with facts still challenge.  And those are the same people that see challenges to their assertions as persecution.

 
 
 
Nerm_L
Professor Expert
8.1.31  Nerm_L  replied to  sandy-2021492 @8.1.18    3 years ago
Your low bar for "evidence" illustrates why so many witches were convicted during the witch trials in Europe and the US. It boils down to "Well, some people we've never met said it, and other people we've never met agreed with them, so it must be true."

I've never met Dr. Neil deGrasse Tyson.  Dr. Tyson is only a celebrity on the TV that tells a good story.  Dr. Tyson tells stories about science that I cannot test, replicate, or verify.  And I am expected to accept what Dr. Tyson says as true because other people I've never met agree with him.

Science for public consumption isn't very different than religion for public consumption.    

 
 
 
Gordy327
Professor Expert
8.1.32  author  Gordy327  replied to  Nerm_L @8.1.31    3 years ago

Dr Tyson is an astrophysicist and Director of the Hayden Planetarium. He has published scientific works and books and he provides lectures to raise understanding of science. He has been awarded the Public Welfare Medal by the National Academy of Sciences. Your post demonstrates a profound ignorance and bias against Dr. Tyson.

 
 
 
Nerm_L
Professor Expert
8.1.33  Nerm_L  replied to  Gordy327 @8.1.32    3 years ago
Dr Tyson is an astrophysicist and Director of the Hayden Planetarium. He has published scientific works and books and he provides lectures to raise understanding of science. He has been awarded the Public Welfare Medal by the National Academy of Sciences. Your post demonstrates a profound ignorance and bias against Dr. Tyson.

And Pope Francis is the head of the Roman Catholic Church.  Should we compare the credentials of Dr. Tyson to Pope Francis?

I've never met Pope Francis either.  And I'm expected to accept what Pope Francis says based on his credentials the same way I am expected to accept what Dr. Tyson says based on his credentials.

From my lowly perspective, Pope Francis and Dr. Tyson represent the same type of authority; people I don't know, who have convincing credentials, supported by other people that I've never met, who have convincing credentials, agreeing with them.

Science literacy and religious literacy won't change my place in that equation.  I am not expected to be literate; I'm only expected to accept authority based on credentials.

 
 
 
Gordy327
Professor Expert
8.1.34  author  Gordy327  replied to  Nerm_L @8.1.33    3 years ago

If you choose to be scientifically illiterate and not educate yourself, then that's on you. Your posts effectively demonstrate what the article is about. But if you don't know Dr. Tyson, as you claim, then how can you speak about him or what he does? Especially when you are speaking from a position of ignorance. 

 
 
 
Gordy327
Professor Expert
8.1.35  author  Gordy327  replied to  Nerm_L @8.1.29    3 years ago

Your post demonstrates a profound lack of understanding regarding science or the scientific process. Scientific inquiries asks questions. Questions are not evidence, anecdotal or otherwise. Questions get the Scientific process started, from which actual evidence is collected. Science deems anecdotal evidence to be the weakest form of evidence, as it is easily prone to error or bias. 

Einstein and Newton's ideas are objectively and quantifiably observed and mathematically predictable or calculable.  

 
 
 
Nerm_L
Professor Expert
8.1.36  Nerm_L  replied to  Gordy327 @8.1.34    3 years ago
If you choose to be scientifically illiterate and not educate yourself, then that's on you. Your posts effectively demonstrate what the article is about.

My science literacy seems adequate for discussing and debating the issues.

But if you don't know Dr. Tyson, as you claim, then how can you speak about him or what he does? Especially when you are speaking from a position of ignorance.

Dr. Tyson has not met me, either.  Yet Dr. Tyson seems comfortable making generalized claims about a lot of people he has not met.  And those generalized claims do impact me directly even if not directed at me specifically.

The obvious response would be that Dr. Tyson is making generalized claims from evidence.  But Dr. Tyson making claims is also evidence for my opinions and discussion of Dr. Tyson's claims and use of credentials for authority. 

 
 
 
Sparty On
Professor Principal
8.1.37  Sparty On  replied to  Nerm_L @8.1.36    3 years ago
Yet Dr. Tyson seems comfortable making generalized claims about a lot of people he has not met.  And those generalized claims do impact me directly even if not directed at me specifically.

Exactly.

 
 
 
Nerm_L
Professor Expert
8.1.38  Nerm_L  replied to  Gordy327 @8.1.35    3 years ago
Your post demonstrates a profound lack of understanding regarding science or the scientific process. Scientific inquiries asks questions. Questions are not evidence, anecdotal or otherwise. Questions get the Scientific process started, from which actual evidence is collected. Science deems anecdotal evidence to be the weakest form of evidence, as it is easily prone to error or bias. 

The questions are not based on evidence?  As I stated, a well formulated question is the foundation for scientific inquiry.  Anecdotal evidence is far superior for formulating a question than is an abstraction.

 
 
 
Dismayed Patriot
Professor Quiet
8.1.39  Dismayed Patriot  replied to  Nerm_L @8.1.33    3 years ago
And I'm expected to accept what Pope Francis says based on his credentials the same way I am expected to accept what Dr. Tyson says based on his credentials.

Of course not. If you want to accept what the Pope says as fact, you can join the Catholic church and research their doctrines and you may or may not find the proof you're looking for, that journey of faith is not something that can be repeatedly tested, observed and have the same outcome every time.

With Dr. Tyson you can also go to school, join the scientific community through study and understanding, and then test the words of Dr. Tyson for yourself because he's not making claims that aren't rooted in the scientific method. You can verify his words with repeated tests that have the same results as others in the scientific fields have done. Science invites challenge, it wants to be proven wrong, because only through the process of repeated testing and observation can science present its results.

If some new way of testing and observation is invented to give us a clearer picture of the universe science is open and willing to change their conclusions based on the evidence, something religion has been defiantly resistant to throughout history because they claim their beliefs come from some all knowing deity so changing conclusions is almost impossible for many faiths.

From my lowly perspective, Pope Francis and Dr. Tyson represent the same type of authority

Only if you're using the term "lowly" to mean ignorant or uninformed. If you took the time to study the scientific discoveries and did the experiments yourself and looked at the data collected you would almost certainly come to the same conclusions as virtually every other astrophysicist. It's not something you have to accept on faith as are the doctrines of the Catholic Church.

 
 
 
Nerm_L
Professor Expert
8.1.40  Nerm_L  replied to  Dismayed Patriot @8.1.39    3 years ago
Of course not. If you want to accept what the Pope says as fact, you can join the Catholic church and research their doctrines and you may or may not find the proof you're looking for, that journey of faith is not something that can be repeatedly tested, observed and have the same outcome every time.

Read that again.  I am expected to accept what Pope Francis and Dr. Tyson says as fact.  By now we should be well aware of the consequences of not conforming to that expectation.

With Dr. Tyson you can also go to school, join the scientific community through study and understanding, and then test the words of Dr. Tyson for yourself because he's not making claims that aren't rooted in the scientific method. You can verify his words with repeated tests that have the same results as others in the scientific fields have done. Science invites challenge, it wants to be proven wrong, because only through the process of repeated testing and observation can science present its results.

So, all I need to discuss Dr. Tyson's claims is a government grant and 4 years.  $50 million ought to do it.

And after that investment of time and money I cannot prove anything because there is always uncertainty in the results.  The best I could achieve would be to refute Dr. Tyson's claims.  And my results would be peer reviewed by credentialed scientists, who haven't done the research, before a refutation would be accepted.  That's how science works.

Only if you're using the term "lowly" to mean ignorant or uninformed. If you took the time to study the scientific discoveries and did the experiments yourself and looked at the data collected you would almost certainly come to the same conclusions as virtually every other astrophysicist. It's not something you have to accept on faith as are the doctrines of the Catholic Church.

I use the term 'lowly' to mean I have no authority.  Even if I replicate the last 2,000 years of science and religion, in their entirety, I have no authority.  I can make an informed claim, backed by copious amounts of evidence, and that claim would be rejected because I have no authority.  I am just a lowly guy on the street; what can I possibly know?

 
 
 
mocowgirl
Professor Quiet
8.1.41  mocowgirl  replied to  Nerm_L @8.1.9    3 years ago
A single sentient creator or a trinity? 

It depends on the interpretation by the head honcho of the religious sect whether Yahweh is single or triple.

I will note that the trinity is pagan in origin.  Yahweh began as a single and morphed into a triple during the council of Nicene in the 4th century.

How Ancient Trinitarian Gods Influenced Adoption of the Trinity | United Church of God (ucg.org)
 
 
 
sandy-2021492
Professor Expert
8.1.42  sandy-2021492  replied to  Nerm_L @8.1.31    3 years ago

Dr. Tyson is an astrophysicist.  His claims do not rest on divine revelations denied to the rest of us, and he does not expect us to have blind faith in him.  Anybody can study astrophysics and arrive at the same understanding that he does.  Very telling that Moses went on his own to talk to a burning plant, don't you think?

Your shallow view of science is a problem, but it's not science's problem.

 
 
 
Gordy327
Professor Expert
8.1.43  author  Gordy327  replied to  sandy-2021492 @8.1.42    3 years ago
Very telling that Moses went on his own to talk to a burning plant, don't you think?

Maybe the burning plant was actually burning weed or something like it? That would explain Moses' "experience" with god. Basically, the monotheistic religions came about because an old dude got high. jrSmiley_18_smiley_image.gif

 
 
 
Gordy327
Professor Expert
8.1.44  author  Gordy327  replied to  Nerm_L @8.1.36    3 years ago
My science literacy seems adequate for discussing and debating the issues.

Clearly not!

Yet Dr. Tyson seems comfortable making generalized claims about a lot of people he has not met. 

What generalized claims? Have you actually seen any of his talks and presentations?

The obvious response would be that Dr. Tyson is making generalized claims from evidence. 

No, he makes scientific claims based on evidence.

The questions are not based on evidence?

What "evidence?"

Anecdotal evidence is far superior for formulating a question than is an abstraction.

Science would disagree. Science does not hold anecdotal in the high regard you seem to.

 
 
 
Gordy327
Professor Expert
8.1.45  author  Gordy327  replied to  Nerm_L @8.1.29    3 years ago
Science uses anecdotal evidence quite often to start a scientific inquiry. 

Both anecdotal and empirical evidence can be used to start a line of inquiry. But science does not use anecdotal evidence to answer the inquiry. It uses empirical evidence.

 
 
 
Nerm_L
Professor Expert
8.1.46  Nerm_L  replied to  sandy-2021492 @8.1.42    3 years ago
Dr. Tyson is an astrophysicist.  His claims do not rest on divine revelations denied to the rest of us, and he does not expect us to have blind faith in him.  Anybody can study astrophysics and arrive at the same understanding that he does.  Very telling that Moses went on his own to talk to a burning plant, don't you think? Your shallow view of science is a problem, but it's not science's problem.

Dr. Tyson puts his socks on one foot at a time, like anyone else.  Dr. Tyson is only star stuff.  Dr. Tyson is nothing more than minerals, fluids, and gases.  Dr. Tyson exists because determinism failed.  Dr. Tyson, like the rest of us, are only here because physics and chemistry went wrong.

Maybe the shallow view by science is the problem.

 
 
 
Nerm_L
Professor Expert
8.1.47  Nerm_L  replied to  Gordy327 @8.1.44    3 years ago
What generalized claims? Have you actually seen any of his talks and presentations?

Yes.

 
 
 
Gordy327
Professor Expert
8.1.48  author  Gordy327  replied to  Nerm_L @8.1.46    3 years ago

How exactly does physics & chemistry go wrong?

 
 
 
Nerm_L
Professor Expert
8.1.49  Nerm_L  replied to  Gordy327 @8.1.45    3 years ago
Both anecdotal and empirical evidence can be used to start a line of inquiry. But science does not use anecdotal evidence to answer the inquiry. It uses empirical evidence.

Anecdotal evidence IS empirical.

 
 
 
Nerm_L
Professor Expert
8.1.50  Nerm_L  replied to  Gordy327 @8.1.48    3 years ago
How exactly does physics & chemistry go wrong?

That's what the search for the origin of life is about.  The search for the origin of life is to discover why determinism failed.

 
 
 
Gordy327
Professor Expert
8.1.51  author  Gordy327  replied to  Nerm_L @8.1.50    3 years ago

Why do you make an assumption of determinism?

 
 
 
Gordy327
Professor Expert
8.1.52  author  Gordy327  replied to  Nerm_L @8.1.49    3 years ago

No, it is not. Science does not regard anecdotal & empirical as equals. Not by a long shot!

 
 
 
Veronica
Professor Guide
8.1.53  Veronica  replied to  mocowgirl @8.1.41    3 years ago
I will note that the trinity is pagan in origin.

Yep.  In my area of paganism there are a variety of triple goddesses (maiden, mother & crone).  I follow the Morrigan (Macha, Anu & Badb).  

 
 
 
Nerm_L
Professor Expert
8.1.54  Nerm_L  replied to  Gordy327 @8.1.51    3 years ago
Why do you make an assumption of determinism?

The universe of inanimate matter and energy is determinate.  That's why physics works.

 
 
 
sandy-2021492
Professor Expert
8.1.55  sandy-2021492  replied to  Nerm_L @8.1.46    3 years ago
Dr. Tyson puts his socks on one foot at a time, like anyone else.

That's actually my point.  Thanks for reiterating it.  He does not have, nor does he claim to have, exclusive knowledge revealed only to himself, which is how the Abrahamic religions got started.  Anybody capable of the work can study astrophysics.  God apparently chooses to reveal himself to very few people, and only in private.

 
 
 
Gordy327
Professor Expert
8.1.56  author  Gordy327  replied to  Nerm_L @8.1.54    3 years ago

Where do you get the idea that energy is deterministic? That makes no sense.

 
 
 
Gordy327
Professor Expert
8.2  author  Gordy327  replied to  Nerm_L @8    3 years ago
Dr. Neil deGrasse Tyson is theologically illiterate. 

Dr. Tyson has not (to my knowledge) spoken much about his religious knowledge. But he is a scientist and speaks largely on scientific matters.

Dr. Tyson making claims from illiteracy isn't persuasive that he knows what he is talking about.

He talks about science. That is at the very least what he knows.

Science is not religion.  And religion is not science.  They're completely different

At least you understand that. Some apparently do not.

Science and religion do not even perform their functions in the same sphere of reality experienced by humans. 

We experience reality as it is. That reality is what science examines.

Religion isn't about developing the next whiz bang gizmo.  And science isn't about giving comfort to the grieving.  

In other words, religion is emotionally based (or appealing) and science is empirically based.

 
 
 
Nerm_L
Professor Expert
8.2.1  Nerm_L  replied to  Gordy327 @8.2    3 years ago
Dr. Tyson has not (to my knowledge) spoken much about his religious knowledge. But he is a scientist and speaks largely on scientific matters.

And yet Dr. Tyson is being used to claim that religiosity correlates with science illiteracy.  But the argument works both ways.  An emphasis on science literacy correlates with religious illiteracy.  

In other words, religion is emotionally based (or appealing) and science is empirically based.

At present our society is divided.  Concerns are being voiced about meanness in society and a lack of empathy, sympathy, compassion, and understanding.  How will science literacy address those concerns?

Will understanding the intricacies of physics make people more empathetic and understanding?  Or will an emphasis on science literacy objectify people and attempt to address those concerns as simply a cause/effect relationship?  What are the mathematics of empathy?

Emotions are just as real as solar radiation.  Attempting to objectify people into animate masses of matter and energy won't alter the experience of emotions.

 
 
 
Gordy327
Professor Expert
8.2.2  author  Gordy327  replied to  Nerm_L @8.2.1    3 years ago
And yet Dr. Tyson is being used to claim that religiosity correlates with science illiteracy. 

The studies back that assertion up. He also elaborates on religion and scientific illiteracy in some of his presentations, which can be found on YouTube. I highly recommend them, as they are quite interesting. 

But the argument works both ways.  An emphasis on science literacy correlates with religious illiteracy.  

But we're not seeing religious illiteracy. Quite the opposite.

Concerns are being voiced about meanness in society and a lack of empathy, sympathy, compassion, and understanding.  How will science literacy address those concerns?

Science does not address those things. Those are societal concerns. But the issue is about scientific literacy, not sociology. It's funny how religion doesn't seem to address or have much impact on those issues either. But one does not need religion to have empathy, compassion, ect..

Will understanding the intricacies of physics make people more empathetic and understanding?

You seem to miss the point entirely and try to make false equivalencies.

Emotions are just as real as solar radiation.  Attempting to objectify people into animate masses of matter and energy won't alter the experience of emotions.

Emotions are a product of brain function. "Experience" is also subjective. But that has nothing to do with the crux of the matter, namely the growing scientific illiteracy that we are seeing. You seem to be trying to conflate the two.

 
 
 
XXJefferson51
Senior Guide
8.2.3  XXJefferson51  replied to  Nerm_L @8.2.1    3 years ago

So very well said.  

 
 
 
mocowgirl
Professor Quiet
8.2.4  mocowgirl  replied to  Gordy327 @8.2    3 years ago
religion is emotionally based (or appealing)

It seems to be to some people.

Personally, I don't understand what is (or ever has been) emotionally appealing about any of the Abrahamic religions that I am acquainted with.  

I wonder if religions were created to justify human sacrifice that was used to keep the masses in check?  If so, it would be logical that any knowledge/education that refuted belief in the mystical would be opposed by the men at the head of the societal food chain.

According to the Bible, Yahweh found the smell of burning flesh "pleasing".

Why Did Early Human Societies Practice Violent Human Sacrifice? | Ancient Origins (ancient-origins.net)

According to one theory, human sacrifice actually did serve a function in early human societies. The Social Control Hypothesis suggests human sacrifice was used by social elites to terrorize underclasses, punish disobedience and display authority. This, in turn, functioned to build and maintain class systems within societies.

The overlap between religious and secular systems in early human societies meant that religion was vulnerable to being exploited by those in power. The use of human sacrifice as a means of social control provides a grisly illustration of just how far this can go.

 
 
 
TᵢG
Professor Principal
8.2.5  TᵢG  replied to  mocowgirl @8.2.4    3 years ago
Personally, I don't understand what is (or ever has been) emotionally appealing about any of the Abrahamic religions that I am acquainted with.  

I think it boils down to fear.   Religions, especially the Abrahamic religions, offer comfort for the faithful.   Follow our rules and you will have everlasting life.   The greatest fear of most people —death— is nullified.   Very comforting.   And of course the religions offer more such as the assurance that a supreme entity ultimately 'has our backs' and that everything is going to turn out just fine.   Very comforting.

 
 
 
Gordy327
Professor Expert
8.2.6  author  Gordy327  replied to  mocowgirl @8.2.4    3 years ago

I suppose the idea that an omnipotent deity that loves you and promises a heavenly afterlife once you die can appeal to those who cannot deal with reality or loss and such. It's an emotional comfort mechanism, kind of like a drug.

Ancient religions did practice human sacrifices because god/s needed to be appeased, lest they grow angry or vengeful. Christianity is based on human sacrifice and God has been known to commit genocide. 

 
 
 
mocowgirl
Professor Quiet
8.2.7  mocowgirl  replied to  Nerm_L @8.2.1    3 years ago
Emotions are just as real as solar radiation. 

Let's review where Christian "law" ruled.  Do you really consider any of this logical or is it emotion based?

burning at the stake | History & Facts | Britannica

burning at the stake , a method of  execution  practiced in Babylonia and ancient Israel and later adopted in Europe and  North America .

Spanish heretics suffered this  penalty  during the  Inquisition , as did French disbelievers and heretics such as  St. Joan of Arc , who was condemned and burned in 1431 in Rouen, France. In 1555 the Protestant bishops  Hugh Latimer Nicholas Ridley , and John Hooper were condemned as heretics and burned at the stake in Oxford, England. Burning at the stake was a traditional form of execution for women found guilty of  witchcraft . Most accusations of witchcraft, however, did not originate in the church but resulted from personal rivalries and disputes in small towns and villages.

In some cases of burning at the stake, mechanisms were provided to shorten the victim’s suffering. These included attaching a container of gunpowder to the victim, which would explode when heated by the fire and kill the victim instantly, and placing the victim in a noose, often made of chain, so that death occurred by  hanging . In England, the burning of heretics ended in 1612 with the death of Edward Wightman; the country’s last execution for heresy (by hanging) occurred in 1697. Burning at the stake for crimes other than heresy continued into the 18th century.
 
 
 
mocowgirl
Professor Quiet
8.2.8  mocowgirl  replied to  Gordy327 @8.2.6    3 years ago
Christianity is based on human sacrifice and God has been known to commit genocide. 

God is ruled by petty human emotions - jealousy, wrath and vengeance.

Maybe, that is why God is not good at science (creation) and had to destroy his creations and start over?  Were humans just a lab experiment that he couldn't get right?

 
 
 
mocowgirl
Professor Quiet
8.2.10  mocowgirl  replied to  TᵢG @8.2.5    3 years ago
supreme entity ultimately 'has our backs' and that everything is going to turn out just fine.   Very comforting.

I see.  So the supreme entity is their baby blanket or pacifier (when they can ignore the eternal torture that awaits them and/or their loved ones for not following rules set in stone thousands of years ago.  Rules that are in dispute among the tens of thousands of sects/various denominations/various religions). 

Ignorance can be bliss, or if you are a believer, ignorance can be eternal damnation and torture.

I find it very illogical what some people find "comforting".

 
 
 
Gordy327
Professor Expert
8.2.11  author  Gordy327  replied to    3 years ago

It's funny how a supposedly "perfect" omnipotent deity possesses all the emotional failings as mere mortals.

 
 
 
mocowgirl
Professor Quiet
8.2.12  mocowgirl  replied to    3 years ago
The ‘primitive’ societies understood the relationship between their creator and their environment.

In all fairness, many primitive societies (throughout the world) practiced human sacrifice and committed atrocities to please their "creator".  

There are probably still documentaries on various web sites about various barbaric religious practices throughout the history of our species.  Thankfully, some of us have evolved enough to stand against the oppressors instead of with them.

I believe I watched "Out of Egypt" and it had a segment on the evolution of religions in the ancient world.  

 
 
 
Gordy327
Professor Expert
8.2.13  author  Gordy327  replied to  mocowgirl @8.2.12    3 years ago

Some Christian myths are borrowed from Egyptian myths.

 
 
 
mocowgirl
Professor Quiet
8.2.14  mocowgirl  replied to  Gordy327 @8.2.13    3 years ago
Some Christian myths are borrowed from Egyptian myths.

Yep.

Just found an amusing site called "Godchecker" that you might like.  The privacy policy requested that permission was granted "to quote" so I will just share the link.

YAHWEH - the Jewish God of Creation (Middle Eastern mythology) (godchecker.com)
 
 
 
Gordy327
Professor Expert
8.2.16  author  Gordy327  replied to  mocowgirl @8.2.14    3 years ago
Just found an amusing site called "Godchecker" that you might like.

Ok , that was a good one! jrSmiley_86_smiley_image.gif

I wish I had known about that site when I wrote my Fallacy of Biblical Stories series.

 
 
 
Nerm_L
Professor Expert
8.2.17  Nerm_L  replied to  mocowgirl @8.2.7    3 years ago
Let's review where Christian "law" ruled.  Do you really consider any of this logical or is it emotion based?

Jesus of Nazareth was tortured and crucified.  God did not intervene.  Why the hell should the rest of us be so damned special?

Show in the Bible where God created thermonuclear weapons, Sarin gas, and aerosolized anthrax.  Show in the Bible where God commanded that we extract nutrients from food and sell the waste as some sort of commercial food product.  Show in the Bible where belief in God justifies mutilating animals for some scientific experiment and then killing and discarding those animals when our curiosity is satisfied.

Show in the Bible where God decreed that humans use science to destroy the planet, kill multitudes of people, make ourselves sick, and satisfy our self indulgent greed.  Show in the Bible where Dr. Tyson's description of progress and innovation is 'good'.

Science was used to immolate 100,000 people in the flash of an artificial sun.  Science was used to sear the lungs of tens of thousands so they drowned in their own bodily fluids.  

People will defend science by claiming that science has been misused for evil.  That same argument holds for religion.  Science is used to do evil the same way religion is used to do evil.   Humans are vile, cruel creatures who do evil.  That's why there is a need for morality to control the human capacity to do evil.  What is the morality of science?  What is the morality of religion?  Which one, science or religion, has any chance of controlling the human capacity to do evil?

 
 
 
mocowgirl
Professor Quiet
8.2.18  mocowgirl  replied to  Nerm_L @8.2.17    3 years ago
Jesus of Nazareth was tortured and crucified. 

Zero proof that this happened.  Yeshua was a common name back in the day.  So a Yeshua of Nazareth, who was a preacher, could have existed. 

Yeshua And The History Behind The Real Name Of Jesus (allthatsinteresting.com)  

Jesus and his followers were all Jewish and so they had Hebrew names — although they would likely have spoken Aramaic. The “J” sound used to pronounce Jesus’ name does not exist in Hebrew or Aramaic, which is strong evidence that Jesus was called something entirely different by his contemporaries.

Most scholars, therefore, believe that the Christian Messiah’s name was actually “Yeshua,” a fairly common Jewish name around the time Jesus was alive. Archaeologists have actually found the name carved into  71 burial caves  in Israel, dating from the time the historical Jesus would have been alive. This leads to the question of why, if there were evidently so many men named “Yeshua” running around at the time, the name “Jesus” came to be unique.

Since not every language shares the same sounds, people have historically adopted their names so as to be able to pronounce them in various languages.

The New Testament authors decided to use the Greek “s” sound in place of the “sh” in Yeshua and then added a final “s” to the end of the name to make it masculine in the language. When, in turn, the Bible was translated into Latin from the original Greek, the translators rendered the name as “Iesus.”

In John 19:20, the disciple writes that the Romans nailed to Jesus’ cross a sign stating “The King of the Jews” and that “it was written in Hebrew, and Greek, and Latin.” This inscription has been a standard part of depictions of the crucifixion in Western Christianity for centuries as “INRI,” an abbreviation for the Latin Iesus Nazarenus Rex Iudaeorum, or “Jesus the Nazarene King of the Jews.”

Since Latin was the preferred language of the Catholic Church, the Latin version of “Yeshua” was the name for Christ throughout Europe. Even the 1611 publication of the King James Bible used the “Iesus” spelling.

How Yeshua Became Jesus

It’s hard to pinpoint exactly where the “Jesus” spelling came from, although some historians speculate that version of the name originated in Switzerland.

In Swiss, the “J” is pronounced more like an English “Y”, or the Latin “Ie” as in “Iesus”. When the Catholic Queen,  “Bloody” Mary I  took the Engish throne in 1553, droves of English Protestant scholars fled, and many ultimately found refuge in Geneva. It was there that a team of some of the brightest English minds of the day produced  the Geneva Bible  that used the “Jesus” Swiss spelling.

God did not intervene. 

Zero proof that Yahweh exists.

Why the hell should the rest of us be so damned special?

According to some religious sects that worship Yahweh, they believe that they are special because they were individually created by Yahweh.  Yahweh "knew" them in the womb and knows how many hairs on their head and will supply feed for them like he does the birds.

 
 
 
mocowgirl
Professor Quiet
8.2.19  mocowgirl  replied to  Nerm_L @8.2.17    3 years ago
Show in the Bible where God decreed that humans

According to the Bible, Yahweh is a jealous, wrathful and vengeful being that is directly responsible for ordering his followers to commit atrocities against their fellow human beings.  I don't understand how anyone would consider Yahweh as moral, or a moral guide,  on any level.

Evil Bible .com – Fighting Against Immorality in Religion

 The so called God of the Bible makes Osama Bin Laden look like a Boy Scout. This  God, according to the Bible, is directly responsible for many mass-murders, rapes, pillage, plunder, slavery, child abuse and killing, not to mention the killing of unborn children.  I have included references to the Biblical passages, so grab your Bible and follow along.

It always amazes me how many times this  God orders the killing of innocent people even after the Ten Commandments said Thou shall not kill. For example,  God kills 70,000 innocent people because David ordered a census of the people (1 Chronicles 21).

God also orders the destruction of 60 cities so that the Israelites can live there.  He orders the killing of all the men, women, and children of each city, and the looting of all of value (Deuteronomy 3).  He orders another attack and the killing of all the living creatures of the city: men and women, young, and old, as well as oxen sheep, and asses (Joshua 6).  In Judges 21 He orders the murder of all the people of Jabesh-gilead, except for the virgin girls who were taken to be forcibly raped and married. When they wanted more virgins, God told them to hide alongside the road and when they saw a girl they liked, kidnap her and forcibly rape her and make her your wife!

Just about every other page in the Old Testament has  God killing somebody!  In 2 Kings 10:18-27, God orders the murder of all the worshipers of a different god in their very own church!  In total God kills 371,186 people directly and orders another 1,862,265 people murdered

The God of the Bible also allows slavery, including selling your own daughter as a sex slave (Exodus 21:1-11), child abuse (Judges 11:29-40 & Isaiah 13:16), and bashing babies against rocks (Hosea 13:16 & Psalms 137:9).  This type of criminal behavior should shock any moral person.

Murder, rape, pillage, plunder, slavery, and child abuse can not be justified by saying that some god says it’s OK.  If more people would actually sit down and read the Bible there would be a lot more atheists like myself.  Jesus also promoted the idea that all men should castrate themselves to go to heaven:  For there are eunuchs, that were so born from their mother’s womb: and there are eunuchs, that were made eunuchs by men: and there are eunuchs, that made themselves eunuchs for the kingdom of heaven’s sake. He that is able to receive it, let him receive it (Matthew 19:12).  I don’t know why anyone would follow the teachings of someone who literally tells all men to cut off their privates.

The  God of the Bible also was a big fan of  ritual human sacrifice  and animal sacrifice.

And just in case you are thinking that the evil and immoral laws of the Old Testament are no longer in effect, perhaps you should read where Jesus makes it perfectly clear: It is easier for Heaven and Earth to pass away than for the smallest part of the letter of the law to become invalid (Luke 16:17). There are many more quotes on this topic at my  Do Not Ignore the Old Testament  web page.

 
 
 
Gordy327
Professor Expert
8.2.20  author  Gordy327  replied to  mocowgirl @8.2.19    3 years ago

I tend to agree. The Bible is chock full of immoral things God has supposedly done.

 
 
 
Veronica
Professor Guide
8.2.21  Veronica  replied to  Gordy327 @8.2.20    3 years ago

Job comes to mind.  Ruin a man for a bet?

 
 
 
Gordy327
Professor Expert
8.2.22  author  Gordy327  replied to  Veronica @8.2.21    3 years ago

Biblical Vegas, right? jrSmiley_7_smiley_image.png

 
 
 
Veronica
Professor Guide
8.2.23  Veronica  replied to  Gordy327 @8.2.22    3 years ago

Now that is good....jrSmiley_10_smiley_image.gif

 
 
 
mocowgirl
Professor Quiet
8.2.24  mocowgirl  replied to  Nerm_L @8.2.17    3 years ago
 Humans are vile, cruel creatures who do evil. 

Some are, but it is not because a talking snake convinced a woman to eat a piece of fruit so a supernatural being could play hide and seek with its creations.

That's why there is a need for morality to control the human capacity to do evil. 

Psychopaths, sociopaths, narcissists, etc., have personality disorders that are worshipped by some societies and despised by other societies.  We label personality disorders because they are the exception to the norm. 

Most people have no desire to do "evil" to anyone or anything.  In fact, religious trauma is now being recognized as causing mental distress/illness.

Religious Trauma Syndrome – Journey Free

Religious Trauma Syndrome is the condition experienced by people who are struggling with leaving an authoritarian, dogmatic religion and coping with the damage of indoctrination. They may be going through the shattering of a personally meaningful faith and/or breaking away from a controlling community and lifestyle.  RTS is a function of both the chronic abuses of harmful religion and the impact of severing one’s connection with one’s faith.  It can be compared to a combination of PTSD and Complex PTSD (C-PTSD). This is a summary followed by a series of  three articles  which were published in Cognitive Behaviour Therapy Today.

Religious Trauma Syndrome has a very recognizable set of symptoms, a definitive set of causes, and a debilitating cycle of abuse. There are ways to stop the abuse and recover.

Symptoms of Religious Trauma Syndrome:

•  Cognitive:  Confusion, poor critical thinking ability, negative beliefs about self-ability & self-worth, black & white thinking, perfectionism, difficulty with decision-making

• Emotional:  Depression, anxiety, anger, grief, loneliness, difficulty with pleasure, loss of meaning

• Social:  Loss of social network, family rupture, social awkwardness, sexual difficulty, behind schedule on developmental tasks

• Cultural:  Unfamiliarity with secular world; “fish out of water” feelings, difficulty belonging, information gaps (e.g. evolution, modern art, music)

Causes of Religious Trauma Syndrome:

Authoritarianism coupled with toxic theology which is received and reinforced at church, school, and home results in:

•  Suppression of normal child development  – cognitive, social, emotional, moral stages are arrested

•  Damage to normal thinking and feeling abilities -information is limited and controlled;  dysfunctional beliefs taught; independent thinking condemned; feelings condemned

•  External locus of control – knowledge is revealed, not discovered;  hierarchy of authority enforced; self not a reliable or good source

•  Physical and sexual abuse – patriarchal power;  unhealthy sexual views; punishment used as for discipline
What is the morality of science? 

Understanding humans.

What is the morality of religion? 

What is moral about religion?

Which one, science or religion, has any chance of controlling the human capacity to do evil?

Science.  Therapy, drugs, chemical therapy,  and even brain surgery to remove lesions/tumors that may be effecting thoughts/actions.

 
 
 
mocowgirl
Professor Quiet
8.2.25  mocowgirl  replied to  Gordy327 @8.2.20    3 years ago
The Bible is chock full of immoral things God has supposedly done.

I lucked upon Yale Courses that give the history of the people who are responsible for writing down the oral stories of their ancestors and their god.  The course is not about validating or poking holes in the Bible, but explaining the people and the events that shaped the stories.  

I really wish that the people who reference the Bible would research about its origins.  Maybe, it would put things in better perspective about how the "word" of Yahweh came into existence.

 
 
 
Gordy327
Professor Expert
8.2.26  author  Gordy327  replied to  Veronica @8.2.23    3 years ago

Thank you jrSmiley_16_smiley_image.gif

 
 
 
Sparty On
Professor Principal
9  Sparty On    3 years ago

As a degreed Engineer in practice for nearly 40 years, I find this comment to be a ridiculous generalization.

Essentially, the greater one's religiosity is, the more scientifically illiterate and/or hostile towards science they become.

I find the insinuated correlation between illiteracy or more hostility and religion to be ridiculous.     Some of the most hostile people I know are atheist know it all’s.    Some of them reside right here on NT.

 
 
 
Gordy327
Professor Expert
9.1  author  Gordy327  replied to  Sparty On @9    3 years ago
  Some of the most hostile people I know are atheist know it all’s.    Some of them reside right here on NT.

Funny, the same can be said of some theists too.

 
 
 
Sparty On
Professor Principal
9.1.1  Sparty On  replied to  Gordy327 @9.1    3 years ago

It's not really funny .... it's life.

Each side of this coin has it's share of crackpots yet the fact remains most are not.   On both sides.   

So i'm not really sure what the point of this article is except to sown more hatred and divisiveness.

Good times!

 
 
 
Gordy327
Professor Expert
9.1.2  author  Gordy327  replied to  Sparty On @9.1.1    3 years ago

If that's your takeaway, then you missed the point of the article. 

 
 
 
Sparty On
Professor Principal
9.1.3  Sparty On  replied to  Gordy327 @9.1.2    3 years ago

Yep, opinions do vary and mine is that i didn't miss the point and/or result of such work.   [deleted]

 
 
 
Gordy327
Professor Expert
9.1.4  author  Gordy327  replied to  Sparty On @9.1.3    3 years ago

You think the article is about hatred or divisiveness. That is clearly not the point of the article. The fact that you see it that way shows you did miss the point, which you admitted, and probably had a knee jerk emotional based response. 

 
 
 
Sparty On
Professor Principal
9.1.5  Sparty On  replied to  Gordy327 @9.1.4    3 years ago

I've been very clear here and your interpretation of my response is wrong.   Dead wrong.

 
 
 
Gordy327
Professor Expert
9.1.6  author  Gordy327  replied to  Sparty On @9.1.5    3 years ago

Did you or did you not say "I'm not really sure what the point of this article is...." That statement shows the point of the article eluded you. So stop trying to pretend otherwise, especially since your analysis that it sows "hatred & divisiveness" is flat out wrong! You only come off looking dishonest! Try reading it again and looking at it objectively and rationally rather than emotionally. 

 
 
 
Sparty On
Professor Principal
9.1.7  Sparty On  replied to  Gordy327 @9.1.6    3 years ago

As i've said here several times, i've been very clear from the start what i thought the result of this article is.   I see no constructive point to it really.  

It attempts to blame religion as a main cause of the current lack of scientific literacy and a higher level of hostility towards science in our country.   And while i don't doubt that is true for some folks it's a ridiculously sweeping generalization to make for most of us.   What then could be causing the problem?   I say simple laziness is a greater cause.   I've seen it first hand working in schools the last 15 years promoting STEM education.

Kids view science and math as "hard" and tend to look for an easier way out.   That's what i saw.   Can't say i ever heard a student say they didn't want to go into science or engineering because of religion but i regularly heard them say because it was hard.   Our goal was always to prove to them that with a little effort it wasn't that hard.   Proud to say it even worked sometimes.

I don't care what the studies said.   That is not what i've seen the last 15 years.

 
 
 
Gordy327
Professor Expert
9.1.8  author  Gordy327  replied to  Sparty On @9.1.7    3 years ago
As i've said here several times, i've been very clear from the start what i thought the result of this article is.   I see no constructive point to it really.  

And several times I have said your analysis of the article is wrong. Especially since you do not understand the point of the article, as you previously claims. 

It attempts to blame religion as a main cause of the current lack of scientific literacy and a higher level of hostility towards science in our country. 

It does no such thing. It simply shows a correlation. It doesn't claim "Scientific illiteracy is all religion's fault" nor does it cite religion as the "main cause." 

What then could be causing the problem?   I say simple laziness is a greater cause.   I've seen it first hand

As the article noted, there could be many causes. Religion is not identified as the sole cause.

Kids view science and math as "hard" and tend to look for an easier way out.  

All the more reason to promote science and get kids interested in it.

I don't care what the studies said.   That is not what i've seen the last 15 years.

Subjective and anecdotal. 

 
 
 
Sparty On
Professor Principal
9.1.9  Sparty On  replied to  Gordy327 @9.1.8    3 years ago
And several times I have said your analysis of the article is wrong. Especially since you do not understand the point of the article, as you previously claims.

Meh, my analysis isn't wrong.   You just think it's wrong.   Two very different things.   As usual, I stand by all my comments here.

It does no such thing. It simply shows a correlation. It doesn't claim "Scientific illiteracy is all religion's fault" nor does it cite religion as the "main cause."

Again, opinions do vary and yours is wrong imo

As the article noted, there could be many causes. Religion is not identified as the sole cause.

Laziness is a major cause.   No doubt about it.

All the more reason to promote science and get kids interested in it.

Which is why i've been proactive with promoting STEM in our schools.   I find that actual action does more good in that regard than opinion pieces and internet pontification.

Subjective and anecdotal.

You've got this article and i have 15+ years of real experience.   I'll take real experience over an opinion piece any day.

 
 
 
Gordy327
Professor Expert
9.1.10  author  Gordy327  replied to  Sparty On @9.1.9    3 years ago

Considering you said you didn't understand the point, it's unlikely your conclusion regarding the article is accurate or reasonable. As for blaming religion, go ahead and point out where the studies "blame religion." I'll wait.

Its also been noted that other causes can have an effect. The studies even address this. So the idea that blameis being foisted on religion is merely your own erroneous opinion. The studies  are hardly opinion. They are valid scientific studies. Considering you offer mere opinion without even understanding the point or the studies involved, I'll go with scientific studies over subjective experience, thank you.

 
 
 
Sparty On
Professor Principal
9.1.11  Sparty On  replied to  Gordy327 @9.1.10    3 years ago
Considering you said you didn't understand the point,

I said or implied no such thing so stop making this personal and trying to put words in my mouth.

Once again, your "opinions" on this matter are all wrong.

 
 
 
Gordy327
Professor Expert
9.1.12  author  Gordy327  replied to  Sparty On @9.1.11    3 years ago

Now you're lying! You explicitly said in your post 9.1.1, "I'm not really sure what the point of this article is...." Then you proceeded to draw an assessment of the article without understanding the point to begin with. Followed by an empty accusation of getting personal.Such tactics are dishonest and slimy and only damages your credibility. 

 
 
 
Sparty On
Professor Principal
9.1.13  Sparty On  replied to  Gordy327 @9.1.12    3 years ago
Now you're lying!

Again, with the ad hominem attacks.  

First, i don't lie and you saying that i do reeks of desperation.   The selective quoting and parsing of words is a rather sophomoric attempt to win whatever you think you are winning here.   Therefore I have shown the whole comment below and think its intended meaning is quite clear to the most casual of observers.

So i'm not really sure what the point of this article is except to sown more hatred and divisiveness.

Let me know what part of that you don't understand and i'll be happy to elucidate further.

 
 
 
Gordy327
Professor Expert
9.1.14  author  Gordy327  replied to  Sparty On @9.1.13    3 years ago

I used your own words and called you out in a lie, plain and simple. Now you're trying to deflect. Just more slimy, dishonest tactics.

 
 
 
Sparty On
Professor Principal
9.1.15  Sparty On  replied to  Gordy327 @9.1.14    3 years ago

Lol ..... as usual, i stand by everything i've posted here and once again you are completely off base.  

Sophomoric ad hominem attacks and all

 
 
 
Gordy327
Professor Expert
9.1.16  author  Gordy327  replied to  Sparty On @9.1.15    3 years ago

And as usual, you are completely wrong!

 
 
 
Sparty On
Professor Principal
9.1.17  Sparty On  replied to  Gordy327 @9.1.16    3 years ago

Yes, opinions do vary ......

 
 
 
Gordy327
Professor Expert
9.1.18  author  Gordy327  replied to  Sparty On @9.1.17    3 years ago

You can go by opinion if you want. I'll stick to facts.

 
 
 
Sparty On
Professor Principal
9.1.19  Sparty On  replied to  Gordy327 @9.1.18    3 years ago

Nah, what you call "facts" are just your opinion.  

Nothing more.

 
 
 
Tessylo
Professor Principal
9.1.20  Tessylo  replied to  Sparty On @9.1.19    3 years ago

All you ever spew is your opinion.  Never a fact to be found.  

 
 
 
Gordy327
Professor Expert
9.1.21  author  Gordy327  replied to  Sparty On @9.1.19    3 years ago

Pee Wee Herman retorts like that only further damages your credibility.

 
 
 
Gordy327
Professor Expert
9.1.22  author  Gordy327  replied to  Tessylo @9.1.20    3 years ago

Now there's a fact!

 
 
 
Sparty On
Professor Principal
9.1.23  Sparty On  replied to  Gordy327 @9.1.21    3 years ago

See 9.1.15

Repeat as necessary.

 
 
 
Gordy327
Professor Expert
9.1.24  author  Gordy327  replied to  Sparty On @9.1.23    3 years ago

9.1.16

 
 
 
XXJefferson51
Senior Guide
9.2  XXJefferson51  replied to  Sparty On @9    3 years ago

Bingo, especially the very last part.  

 
 
 
Dismayed Patriot
Professor Quiet
9.3  Dismayed Patriot  replied to  Sparty On @9    3 years ago
As a degreed Engineer in practice for nearly 40 years, I find this comment to be a ridiculous generalization.

The comment in question does not claim all people with high religiosity are automatically scientifically illiterate. It says there is a correlation between the level of religiosity and scientific illiteracy.

Correlation: noun - a mutual relationship or connection between two or more things.

Just because there might be a scientifically literate person who also has high religiosity, it does not disprove the premise which was based on Gallup polls which are by definition meant to show general trends and are not based on singular anecdotal experiences.

I find the insinuated correlation between illiteracy or more hostility and religion to be ridiculous.

Why? Because of your anecdotal experiences? Because you don't personally know any scientifically illiterate people of faith? If you want to reject the premise of the seed then provide some research that shows how scientifically literate and non-hostile large groups of people of faith are. In general, the premise of the seed rings true based on the polls and research, not gut feelings and personal grudges against supposed "know-it-all" atheists.

 
 
 
Sparty On
Professor Principal
9.3.1  Sparty On  replied to  Dismayed Patriot @9.3    3 years ago
Why? Because of your anecdotal experiences?

Lol .... you love falling back that don't you.   Yes, life is a stream of anecdotal experiences for most of us.   Atheists included.   And yes, empirical evidence from my anecdotal experiences have shown me that atheists do tend to be an angry lot.

That said, i'm likely much more scientifically literate than many of you here.   The fact that some can't accept the fact that one can be religious at the same time just shows their bigotry.

Nothing more.

 
 
 
Dismayed Patriot
Professor Quiet
9.3.2  Dismayed Patriot  replied to  Sparty On @9.3.1    3 years ago
The fact that some here can't accept the fact that one can be religious at the same time just shows your bigotry.

When did anyone make that claim? I can fully accept that a person can be religious and scientific, but the facts show that, in general, how devout and/or obsessed with religion i.e. ones level of "religiosity" has a correlation to scientific illiteracy. It doesn't claim that if someone is religious they cannot be scientifically literate, it just says they are less likely to be. Are you claiming that everyone with high religiosity is scientifically literate? Or can you at least admit that there may be many who put more time and effort into their faith and tend to ignore scientific evidence and data thus making them more likely to be scientifically illiterate?

I've read the bible cover to cover at least three times in my life, I studied and became a pastor by the age of 23, I spent the next decade studying and teaching the bible to others, I had a very high level of religiosity and was at that time, for the most part, scientifically illiterate. I rejected the evidence that supports evolution, I rejected the geological record that showed no evidence of a global flood, I even doubted the age of the earth and used the weak excuses provided by my church claiming radio-carbon dating shouldn't be trusted because they can't give exact dates.

Then I left my church, moved to CA, went back to college, studied half a dozen other faiths as well as read everything I could on the natural world and scientific discoveries. While I found just about every faith I studied lacking and unable to provide any evidence on which to base their faith, science was the one thing that made sense. Science follows the evidence instead of simply trying to interpret the visions of bronze age shepherds in ways that better align with church doctrine. From my personal anecdotal experiences I did find that many who have high levels of religiosity tended to be less informed of scientific discoveries and, in general, were more hostile towards science.

Admitting the correlation doesn't in any way present any bigotry towards religious persons. It isn't bigotry to say that someone who only took six weeks of a French language course is still mostly French illiterate. They might know a few words and can reply to a few greetings, but they certainly don't have a deep understanding of the language, and that's not an insult, it's simply pointing out the obvious.

 
 
 
TᵢG
Professor Principal
9.3.3  TᵢG  replied to  Dismayed Patriot @9.3.2    3 years ago
From my personal anecdotal experiences I did find that many who have high levels of religiosity tended to be less informed of scientific discoveries and, in general, were more hostile towards science.

And that should not surprise anyone.   I use the YECs as a fine example of this.   If someone is indoctrinated to believe that the Bible (literally) is a higher authority on reality than scientific findings then what will be the net effect of this?    If they are told that the planet is 6,000 years old, that all scientific dating methods are a scam, that evolution is a worldwide conspiracy, that dinosaurs were taken onto Noah's ark to survive a worldwide flood and then mass speciated only to have all dinosaur species go extinct in a cosmological instant, that does not lead to a mind open to science.

 
 
 
Sparty On
Professor Principal
9.3.4  Sparty On  replied to  Dismayed Patriot @9.3.2    3 years ago
Are you claiming that everyone with high religiosity is scientifically literate?

Never.   That would be just as silly of a sweeping generalization

Or can you at least admit that there may be many who put more time and effort into their faith and tend to ignore scientific evidence and data thus making them more likely to be scientifically illiterate?

Already have if you read back.   Honestly, in my experience, i'm not sure it's "many" but certainly they exist.   I'm not of fundamentalist mind on either side of this topic.   I could care less what one believes as long as they aren't hammering on others NOLM.

That said, these religion discussion almost always turn into a CF in here.   Once again, i'm sorry i responded at all.

 
 
 
Drakkonis
Professor Guide
10  Drakkonis    3 years ago

This opinion piece is pretty much pure fantasy and doesn't make any logical sense, let alone be supportable by evidence. 

Dr. Tyson is correct too! Back in the first half of the 20th century, America was a scientific and technological powerhouse. We knew how to innovate, to create and improve on technologies. But as time went on, our scientific and technological innovation waned. To the point where other countries are matching or exceeding us in science and scientific education. There are many factors which may have contributed to this. But a significant cause can be attributed to religious influence, especially when it pervades politics and law or otherwise filters down to other areas of society and culture.

It is incontestable that during that same "first half of the 20th century" America was more religious than it is now by quite a bit, yet even though it is also incontestable that America is less religious than it was then, somehow religion is a "significant factor" in the decline of scientific literacy today. What rational person is going to ascribe a negative correlation in the decrease in scientific literacy with a decline in religiosity? If anything, the data would suggest that because people are abandoning religion, scientific literacy suffers. 

Interest and general knowledge in science has decreased. It makes sense too. For many, religion is introduced early on in one's formative intellectual years, most likely due to family influence. People are taught (or indoctrinated) from an early age to accept god and the bible as factual or "truth" on various issues and that anything which challenges or contradicts it is not to be accepted or tolerated.

No, actually, it doesn't make sense as presented. Again, the nation is becoming less religious, not more. If your premise were correct, scientific literacy should be increasing in relation to the decrease in religiosity. Further, there's plenty of evidence of people with religious faith making important contributions to science. Further, without appealing to history no longer relevant to present day practices, your reference to challenges or contradictions are nothing more than hyperbole. 

For example, according to a 2019 gallup poll , 40% of American adults believe in creationism over evolution.

Which has no practical relevance. Nothing in society or in the functioning of the world is affected by it. No one is forced to believe one way or another. People can still balance their checkbooks, internal combustion engines still function, satellites still orbit the earth, science still gets done. 

The findings from these four studies show that religiosity is negatively related to science knowledge and is associated with more negative attitudes towards science. Importantly, these results were obtained while controlling for a large number of demographic variables, and after deleting contested portions of science knowledge. All four studies are correlational. However, the relation of parents’ reports of their religiosity and the religious upbringing of their children with (some 20 years later) their children’s attitudes toward science (Study 2) implies that religiosity may impact attitudes towards science, and thus science knowledge, later in life (General Discussion Section, Para 1).

Again, one must necessarily explain how religion, which is becoming less influential rather than more, can be responsible for the increase in scientific illiteracy. The culprit seems more likely to to be the current public education system, which seems to emphasize validating the feelings of students over actually teaching them traditional subjects or how to think critically. Teaching them what to think seems more important than how to think. Science doesn't seem to be a great factor in that. 

Science and religion both try to perform the same function, to provide an explanation of the world around us.

This is where so many  on both sides get it completely wrong. They do not try to perform the same function and anyone who thinks they do does not understand either one. Science explains how a car works, religion explains why a car exists. 

And religion may become quite hostile towards science when religion perceives science encroaching on what they feel is its turf. This is historically demonstrated too, gong back centuries when religion branded people heretics and even imprisoned or had them killed. Remember Galileo (just 1 example)?

A lot of that history is misrepresented. It paints it as science vs religion when in reality it was not anything so simple. The reality was closer to one political faction vs another. That is, the RCC was more a political entity than it was a religious one and what occurred was more political than religious. To reduce it to simply religion vs science is disingenuous. 

Again, the correlation between religiosity and scientific illiteracy/hostility is just a general trend that is observed and demonstrated. Individuals themselves may vary. But it is a trend that should have us all very worried, especially in regards for the future of our nation, scientifically, intellectually, and technologically.

Again, you have to provide the reasoning behind a reduction in religiosity and an increase in scientific illiteracy. Logically, one would expect an increase in scientific literacy according to your argument. 

My opinion is that scientific illiteracy is increasing because we are becoming less religious. We are replacing God with whatever we want to be true. Postmodernism to be specific. Everyone gets to "speak their truth" and the truth is whatever you want it to be. We are becoming scientifically illiterate because our children are being taught in the public education system that their feelings trump all else. Trying to blame religion is simply an effort to blame religion for failed policies. 

 
 
 
sandy-2021492
Professor Expert
10.1  sandy-2021492  replied to  Drakkonis @10    3 years ago
We are replacing God with whatever we want to be true.

Boy, that's ironic.  Religion is the one who answers tough questions with "God did it."  Science demands evidence, not assertion.

 
 
 
Drakkonis
Professor Guide
10.1.1  Drakkonis  replied to  sandy-2021492 @10.1    3 years ago
Religion is the one who answers tough questions with "God did it."

Can you give an example of one of those "tough questions"? 

 
 
 
TᵢG
Professor Principal
10.1.2  TᵢG  replied to  Drakkonis @10.1.1    3 years ago

What is the source of absolute morality?

What triggered the universe (in the Planck epoch) to come into existence?

Why does our universe work the way it does (with the seeming 'fine-tuning' of forces)?

What is the source of existence?


Gonna just declare this 'off topic'?

 
 
 
sandy-2021492
Professor Expert
10.1.3  sandy-2021492  replied to  Drakkonis @10.1.1    3 years ago

How about our origins?

Christianity says the Earth was made in a week, and God put Adam and Eve in the Garden of Eden about 6,000 years ago.

It has no evidence for such a history.  Some of it is downright laughably incorrect, such as separating day from night before creating the sun.

But lots of folks believed it because they didn't know any better.  And that was pretty much their evidence - somebody said so, and their audience didn't know any better.

Science says the Earth has been here longer that 6,000 years (by a long shot) and took longer to form (by a long shot), and was home to life much earlier than 6,000 years ago (by a long shot).

And science gives evidence to back up those claims.  Radioisotope dating.  The fossil record.  The knowledge that the Earth's rotation determines night and day, depending on which side is facing the sun (which didn't exist until after night and day in the religious version).

 
 
 
TᵢG
Professor Principal
10.1.4  TᵢG  replied to  sandy-2021492 @10.1.3    3 years ago

I predict that you will be accused of misinterpreting the Bible and/or general Christian teachings.

 
 
 
sandy-2021492
Professor Expert
10.1.5  sandy-2021492  replied to  TᵢG @10.1.4    3 years ago

Most likely.

Some folks like Biblical literalism, until they don't.

 
 
 
Gordy327
Professor Expert
10.1.6  author  Gordy327  replied to  sandy-2021492 @10.1.5    3 years ago
Some folks like Biblical literalism, until they don't.

And if they don't, they just cherry pick or pretzel logic things until they do. But what you won't hear them say is that the bible or their beliefs might be wrong, which is the epitome of bias and intellectual dishonesty.

 
 
 
TᵢG
Professor Principal
10.1.7  TᵢG  replied to  Gordy327 @10.1.6    3 years ago

It is funny how Ken Ham's hard-core biblical literalism is arguably a more honest way of holding the belief.   Ken Ham establishes as his two founding premises:

  1. the Bible is 100% divine — the perfect word of the God that it defines.
  2. any interpretation other than literal is presumptuous and that 'the Lord should be taken at His word'.

With those two premises, he is arguably consistent.   When he rejects science he does so under the notion that anything that contradicts the Bible is necessarily wrong.

It is obvious why most people argue that the Bible was never meant to be taken literally and that it requires a very sophisticated, learned mind to properly interpret the Bible.   That provides a buffer of ambiguity (as well as a layer of authority) to dismiss all arguments as: 'misinterpreted' and/or 'you are not smart enough to understand the Bible' or equivalent.

 
 
 
Nerm_L
Professor Expert
10.1.8  Nerm_L  replied to  TᵢG @10.1.2    3 years ago
What is the source of absolute morality?

That's a malformed question because the source is not the important question.  Why is morality needed in a determinate universe?

What triggered the universe (in the Planck epoch) to come into existence?

Why does our universe work the way it does (with theseeming 'fine-tuning' of forces)?

What is the source of existence?

Better questions but still avoids asking the more important question.  What is the purpose of existence?

 
 
 
sandy-2021492
Professor Expert
10.1.9  sandy-2021492  replied to  Nerm_L @10.1.8    3 years ago

Copouts.

 
 
 
TᵢG
Professor Principal
10.1.10  TᵢG  replied to  Nerm_L @10.1.8    3 years ago
What is the purpose of existence?

Add that to the list of questions but note that Drakk asked for tough questions which have 'God did it' as the answer.

 
 
 
Gordy327
Professor Expert
10.1.11  author  Gordy327  replied to  TᵢG @10.1.10    3 years ago

Which isn't really an answer. Just another cop out. 

 
 
 
Drakkonis
Professor Guide
10.1.12  Drakkonis  replied to  sandy-2021492 @10.1.3    3 years ago
Christianity says the Earth was made in a week, and God put Adam and Eve in the Garden of Eden about 6,000 years ago.

About what I thought you'd say. Hardly a monolithic belief. 

 
 
 
sandy-2021492
Professor Expert
10.1.13  sandy-2021492  replied to  Drakkonis @10.1.12    3 years ago

Yup, TiG called it.  I'm accused of misinterpreting the fairy tale.

About what I thought you'd say.

Ditto.

Which interpretation has evidence to support it, Drakk?

 
 
 
TᵢG
Professor Principal
10.1.14  TᵢG  replied to  sandy-2021492 @10.1.13    3 years ago

And he ignored my four answers to the question he asked.  

 
 
 
Gordy327
Professor Expert
10.1.15  author  Gordy327  replied to  TᵢG @10.1.7    3 years ago
It is funny how Ken Ham's hard-core biblical literalism is arguably a more honest way of holding the belief.  

Honest, maybe. But still suspect.

With those two premises, he is arguably consistent.

Consistency might be the only thing going for him.

   When he rejects science he does so under the notion that anything that contradicts the Bible is necessarily wrong.

A false presumption to begin with too.

It is obvious why most people argue that the Bible was never meant to be taken literally and that it requires a very sophisticated, learned mind to properly interpret the Bible. 

Yes, but we're not always dealing with "learned" minds, are we?

 
 
 
Nerm_L
Professor Expert
10.1.16  Nerm_L  replied to  sandy-2021492 @10.1.9    3 years ago
Copouts.

Copouts?  The science literate understand that science is about asking the proper questions.

 
 
 
Gordy327
Professor Expert
10.1.17  author  Gordy327  replied to  Nerm_L @10.1.16    3 years ago

Science askes questions, but it also seeks answers based on evidence. It doesn't make things up.

 
 
 
sandy-2021492
Professor Expert
10.1.18  sandy-2021492  replied to  Nerm_L @10.1.16    3 years ago

And you've named yourself the arbiter of that?  You don't think the question of how we came to be is one of the tougher questions we ask about existence?  I do, but then I don't just accept a glib "God did it" as the answer.

 
 
 
Nerm_L
Professor Expert
10.1.19  Nerm_L  replied to  TᵢG @10.1.10    3 years ago
Add that to the list of questions but note that Drakk asked for tough questions which have 'God did it' as the answer.

Why is claiming 'God did it' any different than claiming 'physics did it'?  Or claiming that 'Nature did it'?

The functioning of the universe is very, very predictable.  The predictability of the universe of inanimate matter and energy is why science has value.  The inanimate universe we observe today was created very early in the history of the universe; the universe is that predictable.

The cosmology of the universe is really a rather trivial question because the inanimate universe is so very predictable.  The tough questions concern intent and purpose.  Was the universe designed to be as it is?  Does the universe serve a purpose?  Was the universe intended to be amenable to life?  Does life, itself, have a purpose?  Does the existence of humans have a greater meaning than the culmination of physics, chemistry, and random chance?

 
 
 
Nerm_L
Professor Expert
10.1.20  Nerm_L  replied to  sandy-2021492 @10.1.18    3 years ago
And you've named yourself the arbiter of that?  You don't think the question of how we came to be is one of the tougher questions we ask about existence?  I do, but then I don't just accept a glib "God did it" as the answer.

The universe is so predictable that how we came to be is a rather trivial question.  And the answer to that rather trivial question is 'physics did it'.

How is claiming 'physics did it' any different than claiming 'God did it'?  Calling God by the name Physics doesn't really change anything.  

 
 
 
TᵢG
Professor Principal
10.1.21  TᵢG  replied to  Nerm_L @10.1.19    3 years ago
Why is claiming 'God did it' any different than claiming 'physics did it'?  Or claiming that 'Nature did it'?

Ask Drakk.   My answer should be obvious to anyone who has read me over the years.   God, when defined as the Christian god, is in no way equivalent to nature / physics.   The Christian God is that which would create nature / physics.

The tough questions concern intent and purpose.  Was the universe designed to be as it is?  Does the universe serve a purpose?  Was the universe intended to be amenable to life?  Does life, itself, have a purpose?  Does the existence of humans have a greater meaning than the culmination of physics, chemistry, and random chance?

Well then provide those to Drakk in answer to his request for tough questions (@10.1.1) that have 'God did it' as the religious answer.   Why you continue to direct your comments to me is curious.  

However, I will again note that 'God did it' is supposed to be the answer (per Drakk).

Also, none of the questions you have posed have answers by any means.   All that human beings have been able to do is speculate and opine.

 
 
 
sandy-2021492
Professor Expert
10.1.22  sandy-2021492  replied to  Nerm_L @10.1.20    3 years ago
How is claiming 'physics did it' any different than claiming 'God did it'?

One has evidence.  The other is an unsubstantiated claim.

 
 
 
Gordy327
Professor Expert
10.1.23  author  Gordy327  replied to  Nerm_L @10.1.19    3 years ago
Why is claiming 'God did it' any different than claiming 'physics did it'?

Because it starts with an assumption there's a god and said god actually "did it." But there is nothing to support such an assertion. It's an empty and intellectually lazy claim or explanation. Physics is how the universe works. 

  Or claiming that 'Nature did it'?

"Nature" in this context is reality itself. The reality driven by physics.

The functioning of the universe is very, very predictable.

Because physics.

The tough questions concern intent and purpose.  Was the universe designed to be as it is?  Does the universe serve a purpose?  Was the universe intended to be amenable to life?  Does life, itself, have a purpose?  Does the existence of humans have a greater meaning than the culmination of physics, chemistry, and random chance?

Those are philosophical questions which we have no answer for and there may not be answers to. 

How is claiming 'physics did it' any different than claiming 'God did it'?

There is no difference if one views physics as "god." Outside of that though, there's a whopping big difference.

 
 
 
Nerm_L
Professor Expert
10.1.24  Nerm_L  replied to  sandy-2021492 @10.1.22    3 years ago
One has evidence.  The other is an unsubstantiated claim.

If 'physics did it' then you have endowed physics with godlike abilities.  You have only replaced God with Physics.

 
 
 
Gordy327
Professor Expert
10.1.25  author  Gordy327  replied to  Nerm_L @10.1.24    3 years ago

At least we know physics is real.

 
 
 
Nerm_L
Professor Expert
10.1.26  Nerm_L  replied to  Gordy327 @10.1.23    3 years ago
Because it starts with an assumption there's a god and said god actually "did it." But there is nothing to support such an assertion. It's an empty and intellectually lazy claim or explanation. Physics is how the universe works. 

And that assumption is really that there was a purpose for creating the universe; God has a purpose.

Yes, physics describes how the universe works.  But physics does not describe a purpose for a universe.  There was some sort of event that created spacetime and caused its expansion.  So, what?  Why should anyone care?

According to science we just exist.  So the only the thing we need to do is exist.  Everything else is superfluous nonsense that interferes with the determinate functioning of the universe.

 
 
 
Nerm_L
Professor Expert
10.1.27  Nerm_L  replied to  Gordy327 @10.1.25    3 years ago
At least we know physics is real.

Physics is not a thing, in and of itself.  Physics is a body of observations, experiences, and explanations accumulated over time; just like a religion.

 
 
 
Gordy327
Professor Expert
10.1.28  author  Gordy327  replied to  Nerm_L @10.1.27    3 years ago

No, physics is the study of matter, motion, energy, force, and the interactions between them as they pertain to the observable universe. It's about as far from religion as something can get.

 
 
 
Gordy327
Professor Expert
10.1.29  author  Gordy327  replied to  Nerm_L @10.1.26    3 years ago

Why does the universe need a purpose? Did it occur to you that there may be no purpose at all? That it just exists and operates according to the laws of physics? You're just making the assumption that there must be a purpose or that there must be a God. While that makes for interesting philosophical discussions, there's also nothing to suggest that being the case. 

 
 
 
Nerm_L
Professor Expert
10.1.30  Nerm_L  replied to  Gordy327 @10.1.29    3 years ago
Why does the universe need a purpose? Did it occur to you that there may be no purpose at all? That it just exists and operates according to the laws of physics? You're just making the assumption that there must be a purpose or that there must be a God. While that makes for interesting philosophical discussions, there's also nothing to suggest that being the case. 

Without purpose, the universe is pointless.  It's like a clock with no hands.  It's like a giant Newton's cradle.  The mechanism functions simply to function.  The mechanism will function whether or not we know anything about the mechanism; there isn't any need to know anything about the mechanism.  Knowledge of the mechanism and its functioning would be as pointless as the mechanism itself.

 
 
 
sandy-2021492
Professor Expert
10.1.31  sandy-2021492  replied to  Nerm_L @10.1.24    3 years ago
If 'physics did it' then you have endowed physics with godlike abilities.

Have I?

Do most religions hold that their gods are sentient?  That they have intelligence, intentions, and the ability to act on those intentions?

Does physics have intelligence?

 
 
 
sandy-2021492
Professor Expert
10.1.32  sandy-2021492  replied to  Nerm_L @10.1.30    3 years ago
Without purpose, the universe is pointless.  It's like a clock with no hands.  It's like a giant Newton's cradle.  The mechanism functions simply to function.  The mechanism will function whether or not we know anything about the mechanism; there isn't any need to know anything about the mechanism.  Knowledge of the mechanism and its functioning would be as pointless as the mechanism itself.

That sounds a bit disappointing, but declaring that there must be a purpose does not manufacture a purpose.

 
 
 
Gordy327
Professor Expert
10.1.33  author  Gordy327  replied to  Nerm_L @10.1.30    3 years ago

For all we know, the universe is pointless. It's just here and we evolved within it. I'm not seeing why that would be a big deal. 

 
 
 
Nerm_L
Professor Expert
10.1.34  Nerm_L  replied to  sandy-2021492 @10.1.31    3 years ago
Have I?

Do most religions hold that their gods are sentient?  That they have intelligence, intentions, and the ability to act on those intentions?

Does physics have intelligence?

Yes, you have whether you realize it or not.

It's no different than the 'guns did it' argument.  The argument is that banning guns means people cannot use guns to do evil.  That's obviously true.  Without guns, people cannot use guns to do evil.

That's the basis for the arguments to ban God.  Banning God means people cannot use God to do evil.  Also obviously true.  God occupies the same position in the argument as guns.

But physics is also used to do evil.  So it follows that banning physics means people cannot use physics to do evil.  That would be as obviously true as banning guns and banning God.

In these arguments guns, God, and physics have been endowed with godlike qualities.  Guns, God, and physics are being cited as motivating people to do evil.  People do evil because guns, God, and physics made them do evil.

However, those are illiterate arguments.  Correlation is not causation.  People have an innate capacity to do evil and will use anything available to do evil.  Banning whatever people use to do evil will not stop people doing evil.

 
 
 
sandy-2021492
Professor Expert
10.1.35  sandy-2021492  replied to  Nerm_L @10.1.34    3 years ago

So, you're saying I've claimed that physics is intelligent, has intent, and acts to achieve those intentions?

You may have said that, Nerm, but I have not.

 
 
 
Nerm_L
Professor Expert
10.1.36  Nerm_L  replied to  Gordy327 @10.1.33    3 years ago
For all we know, the universe is pointless. It's just here and we evolved within it. I'm not seeing why that would be a big deal. 

Then astrophysics is a pointless activity.  Why waste our limited temporal existence pursuing pointless activities?

Science literacy would be as pointless as the universe itself.  We simply live to live.  That's all there is and there is no more.  And we don't need to know any more than that.

 
 
 
sandy-2021492
Professor Expert
10.1.37  sandy-2021492  replied to  Nerm_L @10.1.36    3 years ago

Some of us find knowledge and the pursuit of knowledge to be its own reward.

Some of us also believe that a pleasant, fairly easy life, such as what most of us have now, is preferable to a hard, short, malnourished, violent life we'd likely have if we and our ancestors hadn't worked to achieve knowledge and improve the conditions in which we live.

 
 
 
TᵢG
Professor Principal
10.1.38  TᵢG  replied to  Nerm_L @10.1.36    3 years ago

Now that is a weak argument:  "If there is no God then the universe is pointless thus there is no point in learning about it."

How about:  

We have much to learn about the universe so we should continue to do so.   If there is no sentient creator there might be something else that we have not even considered thus far.  

In short, life is a journey where we seek to learn more about ourselves and our environment.   Outside of satisfying curiosity, we use our knowledge to help improve the quality of life and to help ensure our survival.

 
 
 
Nerm_L
Professor Expert
10.1.39  Nerm_L  replied to  sandy-2021492 @10.1.32    3 years ago
That sounds a bit disappointing, but declaring that there must be a purpose does not manufacture a purpose.

Hence the search for purpose.  Science and religion are searching for purpose in different ways.

Trying to understand God is really about understanding the purpose of the universe.  Science is searching for the same thing. 

We are born, we live, we die.  What's the point?  If we live just to live then we don't need to know anything else.

 
 
 
Gordy327
Professor Expert
10.1.40  author  Gordy327  replied to  Nerm_L @10.1.36    3 years ago

So your sense of "purpose" or worth, or the pursuit of those things, is tied into the "purpose" of the universe? Or maybe the universe has no purpose and we humans make our own purpose, including engaging in intellectual pursuits like astrophysics to better understand the universe as it is?

And yes, some of us do  "just live." Born, work, die. And that's it. Some of us engage in things beyond that. Some just die and don't even make it that far. 

 
 
 
Nerm_L
Professor Expert
10.1.41  Nerm_L  replied to  TᵢG @10.1.38    3 years ago
Now that is a weak argument:  "If there is no God then the universe is pointless thus there is no point in learning about it."

Using barroom tricks is the weak argument.  I did not say 'if there is no God'; that's your attempt to concoct a phony argument.

We have much to learn about the universe so we should continue to do so.   If there is no sentient creator there might be something else that we have not even considered thus far.   In short, life is a journey where we seek to learn more about ourselves and our environment.   Outside of satisfying curiosity, we use our knowledge to help improve the quality of life and to help ensure our survival.

You are making the argument that we survive just to survive.  That's all there is and there is no more.  And that's all we need to know.

 
 
 
TᵢG
Professor Principal
10.1.42  TᵢG  replied to  Nerm_L @10.1.39    3 years ago

Philosophy searches for purpose.   Religion, strictly speaking, simply makes claims (centered around supreme beings) that are to be believed.    Believing that which human beings have simply speculated is of no value.

Philosophy, however, is valuable.   Philosophy, strictly speaking, will process established facts and apply logic to offer insight.    It will also, when formally applied, take facts and produce conclusions.   

Don't conflate believing ancient speculation and fiction with " the rational, abstract, and methodical consideration of reality as a whole or of fundamental dimensions of human existence and experience. "  

Further, philosophy that takes place within the auspices of religion is philosophy itself;  not religion.

 
 
 
Gordy327
Professor Expert
10.1.43  author  Gordy327  replied to  Nerm_L @10.1.39    3 years ago

Yes, we're born, we live, and then we die. That's the basics of our life cycle. Anything else in between we pursue of our own accord. I don't need to know anything about the universe. But I choose to study and take interest in it for my own fulfillment. I don't need the universe to have some grand purpose to do that. I'm sad for anyone who does. 

 
 
 
TᵢG
Professor Principal
10.1.44  TᵢG  replied to  Nerm_L @10.1.41    3 years ago
I did not say 'if there is no God'; that's your attempt to concoct a phony argument.

That was a paraphrase.   The weak tactic is from you:  claiming that a paraphrase does not match your exact wording and thus is wrong.

So explain yourself Nerm.   Pretend that in this thread the assumption is that there is a sentient creator.   Explain why you are arguing about life being pointless with the assumption that a sentient creator exists.

Clearly you are protesting against the notion of no God.   This 'if there is no God' is spot on.

 
 
 
JohnRussell
Professor Principal
10.1.45  JohnRussell  replied to  Nerm_L @10.1.36    3 years ago

Interesting speculations. It is impossible to prove that the universe has any meaning, so then the question becomes now what? This is the question that philosophy has always sought to answer. 

You could take the most famous conqueror the world has ever known, let's say Alexander The Great. When you step back and back and back his achievements are quite insignificant to the universe, even though he was quite the thing at the time. 

In a world where everything is determined by "physics" nothing matters . The question is, is that the truth or just one perspective? 

 
 
 
JohnRussell
Professor Principal
10.1.46  JohnRussell  replied to  TᵢG @10.1.38    3 years ago
We have much to learn about the universe so we should continue to do so.  

So what?  If everything is just physical process all the knowledge in the world doesnt mean anything. 

 
 
 
Veronica
Professor Guide
10.1.47  Veronica  replied to  Gordy327 @10.1.43    3 years ago
Anything else in between we pursue of our own accord.

I find it sad that so many people pursue the perfection while they are living so they can be in heaven with god that they fail to live at all.  And they fight with all their might things like euthanasia and abortion even though in their believe those saouls will be in heaven with god which is the goal of their lives.  So sad.

On the path I have chosen after leaving the church I try to spend each day finding ways to be happy and make others happy.  Sometimes that is difficult here.  Those ways of being happy for me can be very small - petting my fur babies, looking at flowers, listening to bird song or even sipping a good wine or a shot of Jack.  To me it has come down to "live each day as if may be your last"  because none of knows what if anything lies beyond.

 
 
 
TᵢG
Professor Principal
10.1.48  TᵢG  replied to  JohnRussell @10.1.46    3 years ago
So what?  If everything is just physical process all the knowledge in the world doesnt mean anything. 

So do you propose we just sit on our thumbs until we die?

 
 
 
TᵢG
Professor Principal
10.1.49  TᵢG  replied to  JohnRussell @10.1.45    3 years ago
In a world where everything is determined by "physics" nothing matters .

What a sad perspective to hold.

The question is, is that the truth or just one perspective? 

It is perspective.   The evidence suggests that all of reality is a large machine operating under the rules that we call physics (and we have yet to discover all the rules of physics).   But there likely is more to this than what we currently understand.

 
 
 
JohnRussell
Professor Principal
10.1.50  JohnRussell  replied to  TᵢG @10.1.49    3 years ago
It is perspective.   The evidence suggests that all of reality is a large machine operating under the rules that we call physics (and we have yet to discover all the rules of physics). 

Big deal. Imagine someone enters a huge room where a giant machine is humming away . At the delivery end of the machine empty white boxes are produced which are then scooped up and delivered back to the loading end of the machine where the process is begun again. 

No one would say this machine has any meaning or purpose. It just works. 

You can say from now until the cows come home that science increases our understanding of the universe and the physical processes. So what? 

 
 
 
TᵢG
Professor Principal
10.1.51  TᵢG  replied to  JohnRussell @10.1.50    3 years ago
Big deal.

Geez, constant curmudgeon level negativity from you John.

Imagine someone enters a huge room where a giant machine is humming away . At the delivery end of the machine empty white boxes are produced which are then scooped up and delivered back to the loading end of the machine where the process is begun again.  No one would say this machine has any meaning or purpose. It just works. 

Our reality does seem to produce, dismantle and repurpose atoms in a machine-like fashion.   That is, our reality could be seen as a machine which creates and destroys forms.   But the forms are numerous and varied so reality is substantially more complex and varied than your example but, like your example, we cannot state the reason it exists.   You take this to mean that we should assert:  pointless.   I, in contrast, take this to mean that we have more to learn.

You can say from now until the cows come home that science increases our understanding of the universe and the physical processes. So what? 

Someone with that perspective is unreasonable.   IMO, nobody will get through to you.

 
 
 
JohnRussell
Professor Principal
10.1.52  JohnRussell  replied to  TᵢG @10.1.51    3 years ago
You take this to mean that we should assert:  pointless.   I, in contrast, take this to mean that we have more to learn.

The conclusion that learning is its own reward is a perspective. There are other valid perspectives. You talk about physical processes as if they are something people should get excited about. I would suggest that most people would see physical processes as a means to an end, not as the end. 

 
 
 
TᵢG
Professor Principal
10.1.53  TᵢG  replied to  JohnRussell @10.1.52    3 years ago
The conclusion that learning is its own reward is a perspective.

Indeed.   Did you think I suggested otherwise?

There are other valid perspectives.

Yes, such as?

You talk about physical processes as if they are something people should get excited about.

Actually I was surprised that you categorically dismiss all physical processes as meaningless.

I would suggest that most people would see physical processes as a means to an end, not as the end. 

Of course.   But you deem the means to be meaningless.   I do not (not by a long shot).   Not knowing the end does not make the journey meaningless.

 
 
 
Nerm_L
Professor Expert
10.1.54  Nerm_L  replied to  TᵢG @10.1.42    3 years ago
Philosophy searches for purpose.   Religion, strictly speaking, simply makes claims (centered around supreme beings) that are to be believed.    Believing that which human beings have simply speculated is of no value.

Philosophy, however, is valuable.   Philosophy, strictly speaking, will process established facts and apply logic to offer insight.    It will also, when formally applied, take facts and produce conclusions.   

Don't conflate believing ancient speculation and fiction with " the rational, abstract, and methodical consideration of reality as a whole or of fundamental dimensions of human existence and experience. "  

Further, philosophy that takes place within the auspices of religion is philosophy itself;  not religion.

Christianity, at least, attempts to understand God's purpose for us.  The concept of Christ gives purpose and meaning to life beyond death; death is not the end.  We live to continue beyond death.

The concept of God and the theological attempt to understand God is a philosophical activity for understanding God's purpose for creating the universe and God's purpose for creating humans.  The religious illiterate misconstrue religion just as the science illiterate misconstrue science.

Those who adhere to a strict, literal reading of the Bible are religiously illiterate.  Obviously that religious illiteracy translates to science illiteracy, too.  

 
 
 
TᵢG
Professor Principal
10.1.55  TᵢG  replied to  Nerm_L @10.1.54    3 years ago
Christianity, at least, attempts to understand God's purpose for us. 

Religion declares the purpose.   Commonly the purpose is:  'to serve / be close to God'.

There are plenty of theologians (and secularists) who engage in philosophy considering questions such as our existence and purpose.    Don't conflate philosophy (an intellectual process) with religion (a set of beliefs).  

 
 
 
Gordy327
Professor Expert
10.1.56  author  Gordy327  replied to  Veronica @10.1.47    3 years ago

I like your philosophy and own approach to living. Simple, succinct, and most importantly, it's what make you happy and enjoy life itself.

 
 
 
Veronica
Professor Guide
10.1.57  Veronica  replied to  Gordy327 @10.1.56    3 years ago

I figured out a long time ago that we are all terminal, so why spend so much time being miserable. Our time here is finite - let's enjoy.

 
 
 
Gordy327
Professor Expert
10.1.58  author  Gordy327  replied to  Veronica @10.1.57    3 years ago

"Life is an inherently depreciating asset."

Best to enjoy it before it loses all value.

 
 
 
Nerm_L
Professor Expert
10.1.59  Nerm_L  replied to  TᵢG @10.1.44    3 years ago
That was a paraphrase.   The weak tactic is from you:  claiming that a paraphrase does not match your exact wording and thus is wrong.

So explain yourself Nerm.   Pretend that in this thread the assumption is that there is a sentient creator.   Explain why you are arguing about life being pointless with the assumption that a sentient creator exists.

Clearly you are protesting against the notion of no God.   This 'if there is no God' is spot on.

A clock's purpose does not require God.  By the same token, the universe's purpose does not require God. 

I happen to believe that the universe was intentionally created with a purpose, so my belief logically requires some sort of God.  But that's not what I said in my comment.

What I said is that a universe without purpose would be pointless.  Whether or not anyone believes there is a God, a universe without purpose would be pointless.

 
 
 
Veronica
Professor Guide
10.1.60  Veronica  replied to  Gordy327 @10.1.58    3 years ago
Best to enjoy it before it loses all value.

Kind of hard to enjoy it when we are dead....jrSmiley_18_smiley_image.gif

 
 
 
TᵢG
Professor Principal
10.1.61  TᵢG  replied to  Nerm_L @10.1.59    3 years ago

How then, in your mind, does the universe have a purpose without a sentient entity to give it purpose?

 
 
 
Gordy327
Professor Expert
10.1.62  author  Gordy327  replied to  Nerm_L @10.1.59    3 years ago

Pointless for whom or what? Humans are capable of finding or deciding heir own purpose. So what difference does it make if the universe has a "purpose" or not? Our purpose or the fulfillment we find in any purpose or even in life in general is independent of any "purpose " of the universe. 

 
 
 
Gordy327
Professor Expert
10.1.63  author  Gordy327  replied to  Veronica @10.1.60    3 years ago

Exactly. 

 
 
 
Nerm_L
Professor Expert
10.1.64  Nerm_L  replied to  JohnRussell @10.1.45    3 years ago
Interesting speculations. It is impossible to prove that the universe has any meaning, so then the question becomes now what? This is the question that philosophy has always sought to answer. 

You could take the most famous conqueror the world has ever known, let's say Alexander The Great. When you step back and back and back his achievements are quite insignificant to the universe, even though he was quite the thing at the time. 

In a world where everything is determined by "physics" nothing matters . The question is, is that the truth or just one perspective? 

Yeah, there's more involved than just sticks, stones, and broken bones.  If we live just to live then all we need do is eat, defecate, and copulate.  That's all we really need to know.

What's the purpose of morality?  Why do we need morality if we are just physics?  What's the physics equation for morality?

 
 
 
Nerm_L
Professor Expert
10.1.65  Nerm_L  replied to  TᵢG @10.1.55    3 years ago
Religion declares the purpose.   Commonly the purpose is:  'to serve / be close to God'.

Yes, that's correct.  But that declaration is based upon the logic I explained elsewhere.  The belief is that the universe was intentionally created for a purpose which logically requires a God (or many gods or nature with godlike abilities or the universe as a giant intelligence or a science as religion).

The functioning of the universe is exquisitely precise.  And the odds of that precision being happenchance approaches infinity.  So the idea that the universe was intentionally designed and created for a purpose is not illogical.  But that belief also logically requires a God.  The declaration is that the universe was intentionally designed and created for a purpose; God is a logical conclusion of that declaration.  And the intentional creation of humans for a purpose is a logical extension of that declared belief.

 
 
 
TᵢG
Professor Principal
10.1.66  TᵢG  replied to  Nerm_L @10.1.65    3 years ago
The belief is that the universe was intentionally created for a purpose which logically requires a God

Thus you hold that without a God (sentient creator) there can be no purpose.   So why deny it @10.1.41 and claim I am using tricks?:

Nerm  @10.1.41 ☞ Using barroom tricks is the weak argument.  I did not say 'if there is no God'; that's your attempt to concoct a phony argument.

Clearly I was on solid grounds when I paraphrased your argument as:

TiG @10.1.38Now that is a weak argument:  "If there is no God then the universe is pointless thus there is no point in learning about it."

Don't just argue for the sake of argument; it is annoying and makes you look bad.

 
 
 
Nerm_L
Professor Expert
10.1.67  Nerm_L  replied to  TᵢG @10.1.66    3 years ago
Thus you hold that without a God (sentient creator) there can be no purpose.   So why deny it @10.1.41 and claim I am using tricks?:

You're still trying to do origami with bar napkins.

If you do not believe that the universe was intentionally designed and created for a purpose then God is not needed.  The universe's purpose would be an intrinsic property of the universe.  (I left the door wide open for you.)

If you do not believe the universe has a purpose then the universe would be pointless and seeking knowledge of a pointless universe would be a pointless activity.

Do you need me to point out anything else that should be obvious?

 
 
 
TᵢG
Professor Principal
10.1.68  TᵢG  replied to  Nerm_L @10.1.67    3 years ago

I am truly sick of your (et. al.) stupid games.  

Nerm @10.1.26And that assumption is really that there was a purpose for creating the universe; God has a purpose.

Here you establish God as giving purpose.   Then you continue to discuss a universe that is pointless (without God).

Gordy @10.1.33For all we know, the universe is pointless. It's just here and we evolved within it. I'm not seeing why that would be a big deal. 

Nerm @10.1.36 ☞ Then astrophysics is a pointless activity.  Why waste our limited temporal existence pursuing pointless activities?  Science literacy would be as pointless as the universe itself.  We simply live to live.  That's all there is and there is no more.  And we don't need to know any more than that.

TiG @10.1.38Now that is a weak argument:  "If there is no God then the universe is pointless thus there is no point in learning about it."

The beauty of a comment history.   Bullshit can be exposed simply with quotes.


Here is your chance to redeem yourself:

If there is no God, do you consider the universe pointless and if pointless do you hold that there is no point in learning about it?

Answer the question the way you want us all to understand you.   I will take your answer as your position and ignore the history.

 
 
 
Nerm_L
Professor Expert
10.1.69  Nerm_L  replied to  TᵢG @10.1.68    3 years ago
Here is your chance to redeem yourself:

If there is no God, do you consider the universe pointless and if pointless do you hold that there is no point in learning about it?

Answer the question the way you want us all to understand you.   I will take your answer as your position and ignore the history.

According to my belief, a universe intentionally created for a purpose logically requires a God.

But I was talking about purpose.  You are talking about God.  As I pointed out, if you do not believe the universe was intentional created for a purpose then you do not need God.  The universe could still have a purpose but that purpose would logically be an intrinsic property of the universe.  A purpose that is an intrinsic property of the universe suggests that ultimately physics would discover that purpose.

The universe is pointless if the universe has no purpose.  If the universe has no purpose then becoming literate in the study of the universe would be a pointless activity; just something to pass the time.

If science is attempting to discover the purpose of the universe then science literacy has value.  If science is attempting to 'prove' the universe has no purpose then religion becomes a viable alternative to science literacy. 

 
 
 
Ender
Professor Principal
10.1.70  Ender  replied to  Nerm_L @10.1.69    3 years ago

Why does the universe have to have a purpose.

Sometimes things just are.

 
 
 
Gordy327
Professor Expert
10.1.71  author  Gordy327  replied to  Ender @10.1.70    3 years ago

Another question would be, what difference does it make if there is or is not a purpose? It doesn't change how things are now or the discoveries we've made. 

 
 
 
TᵢG
Professor Principal
10.1.72  TᵢG  replied to  Nerm_L @10.1.69    3 years ago
According to my belief, a universe intentionally created for a purpose logically requires a God.

That was my understanding of your belief.

But I was talking about purpose.  You are talking about God. 

Looks like now you are not just answering the question I asked but trying to debate the sequence of comments I just listed.  

So let's just see if we can secure a stable position from you.  You believe:

  • "a universe intentionally created for a purpose logically requires a God" (a sentient creator)
  • "The universe is pointless if the universe has no purpose"
  • "If the universe has no purpose then becoming literate in the study of the universe would be a pointless activity; just something to pass the time"

Thus my question ...

If there is no God, do you consider the universe pointless and if pointless do you hold that there is no point in learning about it?

... would be answered by you with the word "yes".  

Thus my paraphrase was indeed correct.

 
 
 
Nerm_L
Professor Expert
10.1.73  Nerm_L  replied to  TᵢG @10.1.72    3 years ago
If there is no God, do you consider the universe pointless and if pointless do you hold that there is no point in learning about it?

That depends upon what you believe. 

If you believe the universe was intentionally created for a purpose (as I do) then, yes, a God is necessary for the universe to have purpose.  Intentional creation does require a creator.  According to my belief, yes, a universe without God to create that universe would be pointless.

The universe could also have a purpose if the universe was not intentionally created.  And that purpose would not require a creator or a God.  I only reject the idea that a purpose could emerge from inanimate matter and energy through a determinate process described by physics.  But I allow for that possibility as an 'agnostic' (or whatever label properly applies). 

So, the universe could have a purpose with or without God.  I have only focused on purpose to allow for both possibilities.

 
 
 
Gordy327
Professor Expert
10.2  author  Gordy327  replied to  Drakkonis @10    3 years ago
This opinion piece is pretty much pure fantasy and doesn't make any logical sense, let alone be supportable by evidence. 

Did you even bother reading the article or cited links?

It is incontestable that during that same "first half of the 20th century" America was more religious than it is now by quite a bit, yet even though it is also incontestable that America is less religious than it was then, somehow religion is a "significant factor" in the decline of scientific literacy today.

As was pointed out, the pervasiveness of religion in politics, law, education, ect., is 1 factor that led to the increase in scientific illiteracy. This is easily demonstrated by people rejecting sound scientific theories like evolution, the Big Bang, ect., in favor of dogma. Overall national religiosity has not changed significantly over the last century. Perhaps the cause of scientific illiteracy is due to some people becoming more religiously "die hard" in their thinking?

What rational person is going to ascribe a negative correlation in the decrease in scientific literacy with a decline in religiosity?

That's why I provided studies on the matter.

If anything, the data would suggest that because people are abandoning religion, scientific literacy suffers. 

How do you come to that conclusion?

Again, the nation is becoming less religious, not more.

If anything, not by much. Nearly half of adults support creationism as a valid explanation over evolution. Now carry that over to the children of such individuals and so on. 

If your premise were correct, scientific literacy should be increasing in relation to the decrease in religiosity.

I also noted that other factors could be contributing to that too.

Further, there's plenty of evidence of people with religious faith making important contributions to science. 

No one ever said religious people were not making scientific contributions. Dr. Francis Collins, head of the Human Genome Project, is a perfect example.

Which has no practical relevance.

On the contrary, it shows a trend and supports the idea that the majority of people are religious to various degrees. 

People can still balance their checkbooks, internal combustion engines still function, satellites still orbit the earth, science still gets done. 

You miss the point. It's scientific knowledge and understanding that is suffering. Some people use faith based explanation over actual science and/or outright deny valid science in favor of dogma. That promoted scientific illiteracy. It's gotten to the point where the US is losing its scientifically competitive edge against other countries.

Again, one must necessarily explain how religion, which is becoming less influential rather than more, can be responsible for the increase in scientific illiteracy.

See previous statement! Some people are supplanting science with religion. Intelligent Design is an example of that.

The culprit seems more likely to to be the current public education system,

Educational quality is both a cause and victim, like a snowball effect.

which seems to emphasize validating the feelings of students over actually teaching them traditional subjects or how to think critically. Teaching them what to think seems more important than how to think. Science doesn't seem to be a great factor in that. 

Science education and information needs to be advocated and promoted. Religion historically does not do that. If anything, religion resists it.

This is where so many  on both sides get it completely wrong. They do not try to perform the same function and anyone who thinks they do does not understand either one. Science explains how a car works, religion explains why a car exists. 

Science tries to explain the origin of the universe or the human species, for example. Religion does the same. But the means with which they do so are completely different.

It paints it as science vs religion when in reality it was not anything so simple. The reality was closer to one political faction vs another. That is, the RCC was more a political entity than it was a religious one and what occurred was more political than religious. To reduce it to simply religion vs science is disingenuous. 

You only prove my point that scientific illiteracy is (for 1 reason) caused by religion pervading politics. Your historical example only reinforces that.

Again, you have to provide the reasoning behind a reduction in religiosity and an increase in scientific illiteracy.

The argument is not about the reduction of science correlating with an increase in scientific literacy. Just that opposite.

My opinion is that scientific illiteracy is increasing because we are becoming less religious. We are replacing God with whatever we want to be true.

Your opinion is noted. But using god as an explanation or saying "god did it" does not make it true. People want god to be true or be the answer for everything when there is nothing to support such a notion. Likewise, science does not profess "truth" without supporting empirical evidence. It's not about what one wants to be true. It's about what the evidence shows and following it to where it leads. Scientific illiteracy comes about when people blindly follow belief or what they prefer to be true over actual scientific inquiry and evidence.

Everyone gets to "speak their truth" and the truth is whatever you want it to be.

Then that is the wrong approach. Religion conspicuously claims to know "truth." And people hook onto that. 

Trying to blame religion is simply an effort to blame religion for failed policies. 

Religion is just 1 cause, albeit a significant one. How many people believe humans coexisted with dinosaurs? Or God magically "poofed" everything into existence as is? How many people reject science in favor of belief or dogma? That's all religion. Maybe theists should examine their own "feelings" first regarding science and religion!

 
 
 
Drakkonis
Professor Guide
10.2.1  Drakkonis  replied to  Gordy327 @10.2    3 years ago

Sorry, Gordy.  Until you can do a better job of explaining how religiosity can explain scientific illiteracy, especially in the face of declining religiosity, the rest of what you have to day doesn't matter much. 

 
 
 
zuksam
Junior Silent
10.2.2  zuksam  replied to  Drakkonis @10.2.1    3 years ago

The Articles Theory only works in Vacuum ignoring history and every other modern distraction that has negatively effected academic achievement.

 
 
 
Gordy327
Professor Expert
10.2.3  author  Gordy327  replied to  Drakkonis @10.2.1    3 years ago
Sorry, Gordy.  Until you can do a better job of explaining how religiosity can explain scientific illiteracy, especially in the face of declining religiosity, the rest of what you have to day doesn't matter much. 

The studies cited explains it. The numbers don't lie. You haven't offered anything to refute the studies with anything other than your own opinion and a "nuh-uh" type response.

 
 
 
Drakkonis
Professor Guide
10.2.4  Drakkonis  replied to  Gordy327 @10.2.3    3 years ago
The studies cited explains it. The numbers don't lie. You haven't offered anything to refute the studies with anything other than your own opinion and a "nuh-uh" type response.

The refutation of this is in the very quote you responded to. Whatever you think your presented studies represent, they don't explain how dwindling religiosity is significantly responsible for dwindling scientific literacy. To link one to the other suggests that if we eliminate religion entirely would mean we would abandon scientific literacy entirely as well. That is how such correlations work, if you're going to make such. 

 
 
 
Gordy327
Professor Expert
10.2.5  author  Gordy327  replied to  Drakkonis @10.2.4    3 years ago
Whatever you think your presented studies represent,

They represent what the title of the article says.

they don't explain how dwindling religiosity is significantly responsible for dwindling scientific literacy.

They explain how one's religiosity correlates to scientific illiteracy. Basically, the greater the religiosity, the greater the scientific illiteracy. If you want to examine how reducing religiosity explains increased scientific literacy, feel free to conduct and publish your own research study on that particular correlation.

To link one to the other suggests that if we eliminate religion entirely would mean we would abandon scientific literacy entirely as well.

Eliminating religion is supposed to eliminate scientific literacy? I'm not sure how you draw that conclusion, especially since that is not what the studies were about.

 
 
 
Drakkonis
Professor Guide
10.2.6  Drakkonis  replied to  Gordy327 @10.2.5    3 years ago

Do you actually bother to think about what you write before writing it? Seriously. Nothing in this post makes any sense whatsoever. You write one thing and in the very next sentence, contradict yourself. 

They explain how one's religiosity correlates to scientific illiteracy. Basically, the greater the religiosity, the greater the scientific illiteracy.

And then say...

If you want to examine how reducing religiosity explains increased scientific literacy, feel free to conduct and publish your own research study on that particular correlation.

The first sentences literally states there is a correlation between religiosity and scientific illiteracy, even clearly saying that the more religiosity there is the greater the scientific illiteracy there is. Then, in the last sentence, deny the correlation. If there is an actual correlation between increased religiosity and increasing scientific illiteracy (which isn't true) then necessarily for there to be an actual correlation, decreasing religiosity would necessarily increase scientific literacy. That is what a correlation is. 

Worse, you take my argument stating your whole premise is a fantasy concerning the subject and turn it into a straw man. My point isn't that the dwindling religiosity of the American population explains increasing scientific illiteracy. The point I've made is that if there is an actual correlation then for religiosity to be an explanation for scientific illiteracy it would necessarily have to be increasing, not decreasing to explain it. 

Put another way, if religiosity is correlated to decreasing scientific literacy, which is your claim, not mine, the data would actually suggest a decline in religiosity is what is responsible for the decline of scientific literacy and not the other way around, as you are stating. This isn't opinion. This is simply stating how correlations work.

Eliminating religion is supposed to eliminate scientific literacy? I'm not sure how you draw that conclusion, especially since that is not what the studies were about.

Do you recall this is all about the blog you wrote? You know, that thing titled "Correlation Between Religiosity And Scientific Illiteracy Or Hostility?" I would hope so since you apparently wrote it. Do you recall writing the following? 

Back in the first half of the 20th century, America was a scientific and technological powerhouse. We knew how to innovate, to create and improve on technologies. But as time went on, our scientific and technological innovation waned. To the point where other countries are matching or exceeding us in science and scientific education.

The explanation you give for this is the whole point of your blog. 

There are many factors which may have contributed to this. But a significant cause can be attributed to religious influence, especially when it pervades politics and law or otherwise filters down to other areas of society and culture. Interest and general knowledge in science has decreased. It makes sense too. For many, religion is introduced early on in one's formative intellectual years, most likely due to family influence. People are taught (or indoctrinated) from an early age to accept god and the bible as factual or "truth" on various issues and that anything which challenges or contradicts it is not to be accepted or tolerated.

Let's recall, at this point, that it isn't myself suggesting the correlation or how it correlates. It is you yourself that makes the correlation. What I have done is point out that your own words show how wrong your premise is when you state that, back in the first half of the 20th century, a time when we were more religious, not less, we were more scientifically literate, we were more of a powerhouse than we are now, when we are demonstrably less religious. For there to be an actual correlation, that would necessarily mean that correlating a decrease in scientific literacy to religiosity would mean that if, during the same period religiosity also declined, the correlation would be that decreasing religiosity would be responsible for decreased scientific literacy. 

This isn't simply my opinion. It is simply how correlations work. I didn't suggest there is a correlation between religiosity and scientific literacy. You did. All I have done is point out the fallacy with what you think the correlation is using your own argument. For there to be a correlation, affecting one element necessarily affects the other. If there is a correlation between religiosity and scientific literacy then the argument you make concerning what that correlation is doesn't make sense at all. It's that simple. 

 
 
 
TᵢG
Professor Principal
10.2.7  TᵢG  replied to  Drakkonis @10.2.6    3 years ago
The first sentences literally states there is a correlation between religiosity and scientific illiteracy, even clearly saying that the more religiosity there is the greater the scientific illiteracy there is. Then, in the last sentence, deny the correlation.

I see you do this a lot lately Drakk.   You intentionally (it seems) misinterpret your interlocutor and then accuse your interlocutor of being confused.

Gordy has consistently offered the correlation:  increasing/decreasing religiosity will increase/decrease scientific illiteracy.    His article, however, focuses on increasing religiosity and does not dwell on decreasing religiosity.   In particular, the notion that an individual who is deeply religious is more likely to be less scientifically literate by virtue of believing the religious explanation over the scientific explanation when in conflict.   Case in point, evolution.

You claim that this sentence denies the correlation:

They explain how one's religiosity correlates to scientific illiteracy. Basically, the greater the religiosity, the greater the scientific illiteracy. If you want to examine how reducing religiosity explains increased scientific literacy, feel free to conduct and publish your own research study on that particular correlation.

This sentence still correlates increasing/decreasing religiosity with increased/decreased scientific illiteracy.   His comment states that his article does not offer details on how reduced religiosity explains scientific literacy and he invited you to write your own article on that aspect.   He did not deny the base correlation.

Go ahead and ask Gordy if he thinks that scientific literacy would increase if religiosity decreased.   Worse still, you already know his answer (common sense and history) yet you intentionally chose to misread and attack.   Not impressive.


Now let's look at your 10.2.4

Drakk @10.2.4 ☞ Whatever you think your presented studies represent, they don't explain how dwindling religiosity is significantly responsible for dwindling scientific literacy. To link one to the other suggests that if we eliminate religion entirely would mean we would abandon scientific literacy entirely as well. That is how such correlations work, if you're going to make such. 

Instead of using illiteracy you use the word literacy.   That states the opposite of what Gordy states in this article.

The correlation (let's assume it is true) stated by Gordy means that eliminating religion would decrease scientific illiteracy.   Or, clearer, less religion correlates with an increase in scientific literacy.

Here, I assume you just poorly stated your point about religiosity diminishing in the USA and inadvertently made it look as though you were incorrectly restating Gordy's correlation.   Hard to say, you should clear this up.    Maybe this suggests that you should not leap to pretend your interlocutor is a moron.

The problem is not with Gordy.  

 
 
 
TᵢG
Professor Principal
10.3  TᵢG  replied to  Drakkonis @10    3 years ago
Science explains how a car works, religion explains why a car exists. 

If explanation were the end of religion then that would not be an issue (except that I would be curious as to the logic underlying this explanation).   That is, if religions simply claim:  'we believe, just because we believe, that human beings were created by a sentient creator in His image' (as one example) then they would be offering an admitted speculation ... a speculation to fill in the gaps in our knowledge.

But that is not the case.   Religions, such as Christianity, declare as truth not only the existence of a sentient creator but definitive attributes, stories, personality, promises and threats.   

 
 
 
Drakkonis
Professor Guide
10.3.1  Drakkonis  replied to  TᵢG @10.3    3 years ago

How predictable. Maybe you should post your own article on the this subject rather than derail Gordy's? 

 
 
 
Gordy327
Professor Expert
10.3.2  author  Gordy327  replied to  Drakkonis @10.3.1    3 years ago
How predictable.

Predictable, maybe because it's true.

Maybe you should post your own article on the this subject rather than derail Gordy's? 

TiG is not derailing the article. 

 
 
 
TᵢG
Professor Principal
10.3.3  TᵢG  replied to  Drakkonis @10.3.1    3 years ago

Responding to a post by you is not derailing (unless you derailed the subject).   Besides, Gordy determines whether of not something is off topic in his article.

You tried to equate the explanation of science (i.e. a bonafide theory) which must pass a high bar and is based on falsifiability, solid evidence, predictablity, repeatability and has been challenged in an adversarial system with the explanations provided by religion.   

That is like comparing the scientific explanation of earthquakes with the ancient religious explanations of an angry god.

Making things personal (especially right off the bat) speaks to the weakness of your position.

 
 
 
Drakkonis
Professor Guide
10.3.4  Drakkonis  replied to  TᵢG @10.3.3    3 years ago
Besides, Gordy determines whether of not something is off topic in his article.

No, actually. The topic Gordy brings up determines the topic, which happens to be the correlation between religiosity and scientific literacy. He doesn't get to simply decree it to be some other subject. 

 
 
 
sandy-2021492
Professor Expert
10.3.5  sandy-2021492  replied to  Drakkonis @10.3.4    3 years ago

If Gordy were to determine that the conversation had been derailed, he would have to declare your comment the start of the derail, as TiG was responding directly to it.

So, can we stop with the meta?

 
 
 
Gordy327
Professor Expert
10.3.6  author  Gordy327  replied to  Drakkonis @10.3.4    3 years ago

Actually,  I will decide if someone or a particular post or line of discussion is on topic or not, thank you very much. That said, TiG has been on topic and I've only deemed  1 comment to be off topic in this entire discussion thus far. 

 
 
 
Drakkonis
Professor Guide
10.3.7  Drakkonis  replied to  Gordy327 @10.3.6    3 years ago
Actually,  I will decide if someone or a particular post or line of discussion is on topic or not, thank you very much.

No, actually, you won't. The subject you brought up will determine that. But of course, when someone brings up an irrefutable objection to your original claim you and TiG will do what you always do. Attempt to shift the argument. Sorry, not playing that game any more.  

 
 
 
Gordy327
Professor Expert
10.3.8  author  Gordy327  replied to  Drakkonis @10.3.7    3 years ago
No, actually, you won't.

Uh yeah, actually I will. If you have a problem with that, bring it up with the mods.

. But of course, when someone brings up an irrefutable objection to your original claim you and TiG will do what you always do.

You've offered nothing irrefutable and your accusation is without merit.

Attempt to shift the argument.

That's ironic coming from you.

Sorry, not playing that game any more.  

Good! I prefer serious discussions over games anyway.

 
 
 
Drakkonis
Professor Guide
10.3.9  Drakkonis  replied to  Gordy327 @10.3.8    3 years ago
You've offered nothing irrefutable and your accusation is without merit.

Do you mean I've offered nothing other than the definition of what correlation means? For instance, correlation means "if this then that". If "this" changes, then "that" necessarily has to change as well or there is no correlation.

Your blog suggests that, at least in part, religiosity correlates to scientific literacy. That would mean a change in one necessarily means a change in the other or there is no correlation. The only objective correlation that can possibly be made concerning religiosity and scientific literacy that can be logically made is that a decrease in religiosity would be the explanation for the decrease in scientific literacy, since historically, both are in decline.  In other words, the opposite correlation your blog suggests. 

 
 
 
Gordy327
Professor Expert
10.3.10  author  Gordy327  replied to  Drakkonis @10.3.9    3 years ago

The article is focusing on the correlation between religiosity and scientific illiteracy, namely the greater the religiosity, the greater the illiteracy. But you are trying to draw a conclusion to the opposite without having studies or data to support your conclusion. Basically, you're making an assumption.

 
 
 
TᵢG
Professor Principal
10.3.11  TᵢG  replied to  Drakkonis @10.3.9    3 years ago
The only objective correlation that can possibly be made concerning religiosity and scientific literacy that can be logically made is that a decrease in religiosity would be the explanation for the decrease in scientific literacy, since historically, both are in decline.  In other words, the opposite correlation your blog suggests. 

That is not the ONLY objective correlation.   It is one.   One could write an article that looks only at the big picture (your view) and correlate a decrease in religiosity with a decrease in scientific literacy.

One can also take a more nuanced look and find a correlation between increased religiosity and increased scientific illiteracy.   That is what Gordy did.   If you think that his correlation is wrong then simply citing another potential correlation is insufficient.

You are aware that context is everything in statistics and that the more abstract (and less particular) one gets the less accuracy in the correlation.   For example, I could correlate a decrease in religiosity with an increase in quality of life, an increase in technological advancements, an increase in average surface temperature on the planet, etc.

You recognize how the above 'big picture' correlations are flawed, right?

Now, imagine a person indoctrinated that evolution is bullshit, that the planet is 6,000 years old,  that scientific dating is a scam, etc.   Would that tend to promote or dissuade that person's scientific literacy?

 
 
 
TᵢG
Professor Principal
10.3.12  TᵢG  replied to  Drakkonis @10.3.7    3 years ago
Attempt to shift the argument.

Bullshit, that seems like sour grapes speaking.   Worse, it is projection;  you clearly are not objectively analyzing what you write.

 
 
 
Drakkonis
Professor Guide
10.3.13  Drakkonis  replied to  TᵢG @10.3.11    3 years ago
That is not the ONLY objective correlation.   It is one.   One could write an article that looks only at the big picture (your view) and correlate a decrease in religiosity with a decrease in scientific literacy.

It's the only one possible based on the point Gordy is attempting to sell in his blog. The big picture isn't mine in the least. It is the one Gordy presents us. As evidence, I present the blog Gordy wrote. That simple, TiG. 

One can also take a more nuanced look and find a correlation between increased religiosity and increased scientific illiteracy.   That is what Gordy did.   

There was no nuance in Gordy's post. As you stated elsewhere...

The correlation (let's assume it is true) stated by Gordy means that eliminating religion would decrease scientific illiteracy.   Or, clearer, less religion correlates with an increase in scientific literacy.

Nope. Not a lot of nuance there, TiG. 

If you think that his correlation is wrong then simply citing another potential correlation is insufficient.

Agreed, which is why I didn't present it as such, or are you denying that religiosity in this country is decreasing? See how that works? If one understands the definition of "correlation" and then presents a fact like the decreasing religiosity in this country then it isn't a potential correlation, is it? If one is going to present a correlation between religiosity and scientific literacy, the only correlation that can be made is that if both are decreasing then necessarily it is the same as stating a decrease in one means a decrease in the other. That is what a correlation based on observable facts means. To state what Gordy does in his blog ignores objective facts. 

To put it another way, if X is decreasing and Y is decreasing, one can't claim that Y is decreasing because X is increasing. That is simply ignoring the fact of X. 

You are aware that context is everything in statistics and that the more abstract (and less particular) one gets the less accuracy in the correlation.   For example, I could correlate a decrease in religiosity with an increase in quality of life, an increase in technological advancements, an increase in average surface temperature on the planet, etc.

Nice, but completely irrelevant to the conversation and is in fact simply an attempt to divert. As you yourself said, the issue is...

The correlation (let's assume it is true) stated by Gordy means that eliminating religion would decrease scientific illiteracy.   Or, clearer, less religion correlates with an increase in scientific literacy.

This is the context. It isn't mine. It's Gordy's. Deal with that and stop trying to divert. 

Now, imagine a person...

No, thank you. I'd rather deal with the subject. If you want to talk about something else, do your own blog and see if anyone is interested. 

 
 
 
Drakkonis
Professor Guide
10.3.14  Drakkonis  replied to  Gordy327 @10.3.10    3 years ago
The article is focusing on the correlation between religiosity and scientific illiteracy, namely the greater the religiosity, the greater the illiteracy. But you are trying to draw a conclusion to the opposite without having studies or data to support your conclusion. Basically, you're making an assumption.

Um, no. I don't have to "try" to do anything. I just have to look at the facts. Both religion and scientific literacy are in decline. It's that simple. For the correlation you are "trying" to make, religion would have to be increasing. It clearly isn't, so your correlation fails. 

 
 
 
TᵢG
Professor Principal
10.3.15  TᵢG  replied to  Drakkonis @10.3.13    3 years ago
It's the only one possible based on the point Gordy is attempting to sell in his blog. The big picture isn't mine in the least. It is the one Gordy presents us. As evidence, I present the blog Gordy wrote. That simple, TiG. 

No it is not.   You conveniently ignore that Gordy stated in his article that religiosity is not the ONLY factor.   You insist that it must be the ONLY factor.

Nope. Not a lot of nuance there, TiG. 

I gave an example of nuance in my comment yet you go outside of my comment to cherry-pick where I am NOT speaking of nuance. 

To put it another way, if X is decreasing and Y is decreasing, one can't claim that Y is decreasing because X is increasing. That is simply ignoring the fact of X. 

One can, however, claim that Y is decreasing in part due to X.   I explained this right in this comment.   Let's see what you do with the explanation:

TiG @10.3.11You are aware that context is everything in statistics and that the more abstract (and less particular) one gets the less accuracy in the correlation.   For example, I could correlate a decrease in religiosity with an increase in quality of life, an increase in technological advancements, an increase in average surface temperature on the planet, etc.
Drakk @10.3.13Nice, but completely irrelevant to the conversation and is in fact simply an attempt to divert. As you yourself said, the issue is...

You deem my explanation irrelevant, diversion.   If a rebuttal is uncomfortable, just deem it irrelevant and a diversion.


Your latest tactic of deeming everything that you cannot address a diversion / off-topic should be obvious to readers.   It is slimy, Drakk.   Do better.

Bottom line, religiosity AND scientific literacy can both be declining in the large and Gordy's correlation could also be correct.   To explain this again, I will quote myself:

TiG @10.3.11You are aware that context is everything in statistics and that the more abstract (and less particular) one gets the less accuracy in the correlation.   For example, I could correlate a decrease in religiosity with an increase in quality of life, an increase in technological advancements, an increase in average surface temperature on the planet, etc. TiG @10.3.11 ☞ You recognize how the above 'big picture' correlations are flawed, right?   Now, imagine a person indoctrinated that evolution is bullshit, that the planet is 6,000 years old,  that scientific dating is a scam, etc.   Would that tend to promote or dissuade that person's scientific literacy?

You refuse to acknowledge that Gordy's article recognizes that other factors are likely involved.  So as you increase the size of the 'big picture' you will include more of these factors.

Gordy focused on findings backed by evidence such as:  "Religion plays a sizeable role in the low levels of scientific literacy found in the United States, and the negative impact of religious factors is more substantial than gender, race, or income ."

Using a little common sense, one should be able to comprehend the findings that even if religiosity is decreasing, those with strong religious beliefs are less likely to be scientifically literate.

 
 
 
TᵢG
Professor Principal
10.3.16  TᵢG  replied to  Drakkonis @10.3.14    3 years ago
It's that simple.

Just close your eyes and ears and chant 'nuh uh' when anyone explains the nuance and shows why it is not that simple.

Very few things in life are so simple.   To intelligently discuss most topics one must be willing to deal with nuance such as:  "those with strong religious beliefs are less likely to be scientifically literate."

 
 
 
Drakkonis
Professor Guide
10.3.17  Drakkonis  replied to  TᵢG @10.3.15    3 years ago
No it is not.   You conveniently ignore that Gordy stated in his article that religiosity is not the ONLY factor.   You insist that it must be the ONLY factor.

Horseshit, TiG. I'm dealing with the factor Gordy focused on. I ignore the other factors because he didn't bring them into the discussion. That simple. 

I gave an example of nuance in my comment yet you go outside of my comment to cherry-pick where I am NOT speaking of nuance. 

Yes, I did, except it isn't cherry picking. It is simply refusing to be diverted from the actual subject. What you want to do is claim if we stand over here, contort ourselves into this position and ignore a bunch of stuff, then Gordy is right. Not going to happen. Deal with the actual subject or simply don't bother. 

One can, however, claim that Y is decreasing in part due to X.  

Which is what Gordy does, only the data doesn't support it. Why in the hell can't you address that? Because you can't and instead, attempt to divert from this fact by introducing irrelevancies? 

I explained this right in this comment.   Let's see what you do with the explanation:

I ignore it because they aren't relevant. They aren't relevant because they aren't what is being discussed. 

You deem my explanation irrelevant, diversion.   If a rebuttal is uncomfortable, just deem it irrelevant and a diversion.

Okay, then. Explain how your postulated increase in the quality of life with the decrease in religiosity actually supports the idea that documented decrease in religiosity explains a decrease in scientific literacy in the manner Gordy claims. 

You refuse to acknowledge that Gordy's article recognizes that other factors are likely involved.  So as you increase the size of the 'big picture' you will include more of these factors.

No, I don't. In fact I address what I think is the most relevant factor in the decrease in scientific literacy in my very first post on this subject.

Again, one must necessarily explain how religion, which is becoming less influential rather than more, can be responsible for the increase in scientific illiteracy. The culprit seems more likely to to be the current public education system, which seems to emphasize validating the feelings of students over actually teaching them traditional subjects or how to think critically. Teaching them what to think seems more important than how to think. Science doesn't seem to be a great factor in that.

So, care to try again?

You refuse to acknowledge that Gordy's article recognizes that other factors are likely involved.  So as you increase the size of the 'big picture' you will include more of these factors.

As I just proved the falsity of this statement, let's get back to truth. The truth is that Gordy presents a false correlation between religiosity and scientific literacy. It isn't my fault that was his subject. I didn't make him write what he did. I didn't force him to leave out these other "big picture" items you now want to include in an attempt to somehow fix Gordy's error. 

Correlation, TiG. That's the subject. It's even in the title of the blog. Either you don't understand the term or you are ignoring it for the sake of your trolling. There is simply no way to suggest religion, which is declining, correlates to a decrease in scientific literacy in the manner Gordy claims. In fact, if one has to make a correlation between the two, the only logical correlation that can be made is that because one is decreasing the other is necessarily decreasing as well. That is what the data forces the correlation to be. There's no amount of other additional factors that you could add that could make that claim true. 

 
 
 
TᵢG
Professor Principal
10.3.18  TᵢG  replied to  Drakkonis @10.3.17    3 years ago
I'm dealing with the factor Gordy focused on.

I keep noting that you ignore the fact that Gordy's article states that religiosity is not the ONLY factor.   Your entire post was nothing but denial of this fact and a blind insistence that only your simplistic correlation is valid.   I made this crystal clear and expressed it in a manner consistent with the study:

Using a little common sense, one should be able to comprehend the findings that even if religiosity is decreasing, those with strong religious beliefs are less likely to be scientifically literate.

You keep ignoring the posit that strong religious beliefs dissuade scientific literacy.   Those who hold, for example, that evolution is bullshit have dismissed the foundation of modern biology.   The 'evolution is bullshit' notion comes from religious teachings.

We could see religiosity reduce to a mere fraction of what it is today and still see a correlation between strong religious beliefs and scientific illiteracy.   Don't pretend that you cannot comprehend that.   Don't pretend that such a posit means that religiosity is the ONLY factor in scientific illiteracy.

 
 
 
Drakkonis
Professor Guide
10.3.19  Drakkonis  replied to  TᵢG @10.3.16    3 years ago
ust close your eyes and ears and chant 'nuh uh' when anyone explains the nuance and shows why it is not that simple.

2 + 2 = 5. Nuance that into being true, TiG. The unspoken assumption is that religion retards scientific literacy. If that is so, then one can't claim that something that is in decline, as religious belief is, is therefore responsible for a decrease in scientific literacy. If religious belief retards scientific literacy then the only possibility is that if religious belief declines then it can only have the effect of increasing scientific literacy. There is nothing in that statement that prevents other factors from also being relevant to the increase/decrease of scientific literacy. It simply deals with religion as the factor being considered. 

All you are doing is ignoring the subject Gordy introduced because it is indefensible and trying to introduce other subjects in an attempt to hide this fact. 

To intelligently discuss most topics one must be willing to deal with nuance such as:  "those with strong religious beliefs are less likely to be scientifically literate."

Another diversion. We aren't talking about individuals, we are talking about a national trend. I didn't decide that, Gordy did in his blog. Accordingly, what an individual may or may not believe is irrelevant, since what one individual believes or doesn't believe can't explain the trend. 

 
 
 
Drakkonis
Professor Guide
10.3.20  Drakkonis  replied to  TᵢG @10.3.18    3 years ago
We could see religiosity reduce to a mere fraction of what it is today and still see a correlation between strong religious beliefs and scientific illiteracy.   Don't pretend that you cannot comprehend that.   Don't pretend that such a posit means that religiosity is the ONLY factor in scientific illiteracy.

Total straw man, TiG. The subject isn't about what factors contribute to scientific illiteracy. The subject is about the correlation between religious belief and scientific literacy. You know, the blog Gordy posted??? But that's okay. I know you're going to go right on with your straw man. It's nearly Halloween, after all. 

 
 
 
TᵢG
Professor Principal
10.3.21  TᵢG  replied to  Drakkonis @10.3.19    3 years ago
2 + 2 = 5. Nuance that into being true, TiG.

Theatrics.

The unspoken assumption is that religion retards scientific literacy.

That is the posit.    You are pretending to not comprehend how indoctrination that evolution is wrong (and many other examples) retards scientific literacy?

If that is so, then one can't claim that something that is in decline, as religious belief is, is therefore responsible for a decrease in scientific literacy.

Good grief you continue to pretend that Gordy explicitly stated that religious belief is not the only factor.   You pretend as though you cannot comprehend that:  " Using a little common sense, one should be able to comprehend the findings that even if religiosity is decreasing, those with strong religious beliefs are less likely to be scientifically literate. "

There is no reasoning with you Drakk.  You stubbornly stick with the way you choose to interpret Gordy's point and ignore all explanations to the contrary.   That is a perfect example of not being even remotely objective.

We aren't talking about individuals, we are talking about a national trend.

The statistical studies are based on individuals; you understand that, right?  

And there is not a single, unique national trend.   The national trend of both religion and scientific literacy dropping is one trend.   The national trend of those with strong religious views being less scientifically literate is another national trend.   The former is what you stubbornly insist is the point of this article;  the latter is the actual point.   I doubt Gordy will disagree with me here.

Also, the two can both be simultaneously true.   Just open your mind a tiny bit.

Here is a little from the study:

The potential conflicts between science and religion can be viewed as limited or general. The limited version is that the conflict exists only for a few topics where science contradicts religious assertions, such as the origin of the Earth and the origin of humans [ 5 , 9 ]. Additionally, some scientific research—such as stem cell research—may have moral and ethical implications to which religious people object [ 5 , 10 , 11 ]. Outside of these specific epistemological and moral contentions, according to the limited view, we would not expect religious teachings or believers to oppose science. However, a number of research findings suggest that the conflict between science and religion is more general, at least within the US. For example, greater religiosity is related to less favorable views toward scientific innovations and nanotechnology [ 11 , 12 ], and religious people are less likely to choose careers in science [ 13 , 14 ]. Survey data also shows that religious beliefs are negatively correlated with scientific consensus on a number of issues (e.g., vaccinations [ 15 ], climate change [ 16 ],) even when such issues do not directly challenge religious claims. While some researchers posit that objections towards nanotechnology and vaccinations may be driven by concerns about morality and scientists “playing God” [ 17 , 18 ], the fact remains that these topics do not conflict with religious teachings per se—that is, we are not aware of religious texts which speak directly about nanotechnology, vaccinations, or climate change. Thus, religious people justify their opposition to some scientific concepts in terms of moral and religious beliefs in the same way that holders of a particular political ideology will oppose an idea in terms of economic or social justification. In contrast, Christian religious texts do discuss the creation of the world (versus evolution) and the sanctity of life (versus stem cell research). Viewed in this light, the conflict appears to address a more general epistemological dispute about whether science or religion is a better tool for understanding and explaining the world [ 19 ]. Thus, the general conflict hypothesis implies that religious people have more negative attitudes and possibly less trust towards science as a source of information. In the present studies, we tested whether this general conflict results in more negative attitudes towards science and in lower levels of scientific literacy.

The above holds regardless of whether religiosity is increasing or decreasing in the USA.   If there were only 10 religious people left in the USA, those individuals could very well hold that their religious views of creation vs. evolution, origin of the Earth and the universe, etc. are true and that the contradicting science is wrong.

 
 
 
TᵢG
Professor Principal
10.3.22  TᵢG  replied to  Drakkonis @10.3.20    3 years ago

More theatrics.  

 
 
 
Drakkonis
Professor Guide
10.3.23  Drakkonis  replied to  TᵢG @10.3.21    3 years ago
That is the posit.    You are pretending to not comprehend how indoctrination that evolution is wrong (and many other examples) retards scientific literacy?

No, TiG, I'm dealing with the actual subject as presented by Gordy. It's clear that you aren't going to, so, see ya : )

 
 
 
TᵢG
Professor Principal
10.3.24  TᵢG  replied to  Drakkonis @10.3.23    3 years ago

More theatrics and a continued stubborn refusal to even acknowledge that your uber-simplistic view is not the only way to interpret Gordy's point.   You demonstrably refuse to acknowledge that a trend of decreasing religiosity AND decreasing scientific literacy can be true even when there is a correlation of strong religious beliefs and scientific illiteracy (the latter being Gordy's point).    Read the supporting material;  it is crystal clear.

Using a little common sense, one should be able to comprehend the findings that even if religiosity is decreasing, those with strong religious beliefs are less likely to be scientifically literate.

 
 
 
Gordy327
Professor Expert
10.3.25  author  Gordy327  replied to  Drakkonis