Correlation between religiosity and scientific illiteracy or hostility
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
Who is online
199 visitors
We need more science to stay competitive with the rest of the world. And to keep us from becoming total dumb-a$$es.
In deed we do but, religion isn't the problem, it's the social engineering.
Religion is likely part of the problem. Not the only problem.
Maybe not all, but one certainly has horrendous messages for mothers. This is not a woman, or child, friendly religion by any means.
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.
You just proved my point!
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.
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?
This liberal also has a problem with that.
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?
They still shouldn't be playing women's sports.
The only reasonable option is for all trans athletes to compete exclusively in men's sports.
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?"
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.
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.
No problem
Much appreciated
Totally.
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.
Yahweh should be relegated to classes that teach about the mythical gods of the ancient world.
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.
I've heard the same thing before. I find that to be so intellectually limiting.
I doubt the bible explains how to perform CPR or heart surgery.
LOL!
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.
NT has its share of those described by the author.
China has won AI battle with U.S., Pentagon's ex-software chief says (link ->)
.
Indeed it does.
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?
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.
Imagine admitting that in public. It's good you don't care about looking credible.
“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.
Maybe others will read beyond his first sentence to understand the specific point he is making.
You seem to have ignored the similarities made between the two. Maybe because you cannot refute it?
Gazoo, you forgot something...
Receiving US taxpayer money for "humanitarian relief".
How about YOU show the fake perceived "similarities". Just something else by you for us to ridicule.
Imagine being so deluded and indoctrinated that you can't see the obvious similarities.
Why? DP did that himself.
Do you plan to engage in trolling?
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.
There were no valid points after an asinine statement like that one.
Because there are no similarities between American conservative Christians and the Taliban.
Biden gives that to the Taliban not to dissenting Americans…
There are no similarities, obvious or otherwise.
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.
It seems you didn't bother reading DP's post.
Your denial doesn't change the facts.
Don't derail the discussion!
Just showing a difference between the Taliban and us religious Americans!
Seems to be very little difference.
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.
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.
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.
Amazing, right?
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.
And that's why religion in general is hostile towards science. Always has been historically too.
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.
I'd say more far and few in between.
Exactly! And this too is socially and historically demonstrated. Well said!
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
The absence of evidence of magic is unavoidable.
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.
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.
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.
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
Quite possibly.
Groupthink and self delusion.
Has this quote by Asimov been posted yet?
It has not, but I'm glad you posted it. It is quite profound and accurate.
It never made sense to me either.
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.
Those warnings are still globally valid…
Merely your own belief. Based on fear no less.
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.
I agree
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 ?
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.
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.
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.
Historically, religion has been the consistent thing holding back or resisting science to varying degrees.
Actually Religion was always part of politics, it was about 60 years ago that anti-religion entered politics.
The average education of the entire population of NY State is not representative of the NYC public school system.
Does that not seem like a problem?
No such thing ever happened. People are still free to believe and worship whatever they want.
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.
I suppose that's why it only ranks 15.
And when math and science scores began their decline…
The most uneducated states are in the South...aka The Bible Belt
That reinforces the correlation. I think Alabama or Mississippi rank the lowest in education. Not coinincidentally, they rank among the highest in religiosity.
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.
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.
Glad you realize that.
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.
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?
So if someone has an hallucination, is that hallucination actually true? After all, the person hallucinating "experienced" it.
That's not knowledge. That's emotion. The knowledge is the pet dying. The response to that is emotion.
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.
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.
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.
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.
Then it cannot be taken seriously or as fact.
They are all still empty claims sans evidence.
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.
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.
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.
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.
No, a circumstantial proof is still a proof. Since the proof is circumstantial then the proof cannot be independently replicated and verified.
Nor can it be verified.
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.
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.
Yep, that's what I said.
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.
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.
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.
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.
It honestly doesn't even rise to the level of anecdotal evidence. It's hearsay anecdote, at best.
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."
Not in science.
Then it cannot be deemed factual or true.
Whether it's 1 or a million, it's still anecdotal and not established as factual.
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.
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."
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!
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.
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.
Their answer is always the same "cuz God".
Indeed, as if that explains anything. It's a cop out and failure to explain.
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.
I agree totally. Can you imagine if we offered up an answer like that?
It would likely be challenged too.
Yep, it would be.
And it should be too. Claims of certainty invites challenge.
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.
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.
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.
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.
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.
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.
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.
My science literacy seems adequate for discussing and debating the issues.
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.
Exactly.
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.
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.
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.
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.
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.
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?
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.
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.
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.
Clearly not!
What generalized claims? Have you actually seen any of his talks and presentations?
No, he makes scientific claims based on evidence.
What "evidence?"
Science would disagree. Science does not hold anecdotal in the high regard you seem to.
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.
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.
Yes.
How exactly does physics & chemistry go wrong?
Anecdotal evidence IS empirical.
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.
Why do you make an assumption of determinism?
No, it is not. Science does not regard anecdotal & empirical as equals. Not by a long shot!
Yep. In my area of paganism there are a variety of triple goddesses (maiden, mother & crone). I follow the Morrigan (Macha, Anu & Badb).
The universe of inanimate matter and energy is determinate. That's why physics works.
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.
Where do you get the idea that energy is deterministic? That makes no sense.
Dr. Tyson has not (to my knowledge) spoken much about his religious knowledge. But he is a scientist and speaks largely on scientific matters.
He talks about science. That is at the very least what he knows.
At least you understand that. Some apparently do not.
We experience reality as it is. That reality is what science examines.
In other words, religion is emotionally based (or appealing) and science is empirically based.
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.
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.
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 we're not seeing religious illiteracy. Quite the opposite.
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..
You seem to miss the point entirely and try to make false equivalencies.
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.
So very well said.
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".
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.
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.
Let's review where Christian "law" ruled. Do you really consider any of this logical or is it emotion based?
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?
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".
It's funny how a supposedly "perfect" omnipotent deity possesses all the emotional failings as mere mortals.
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.
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.
Ok , that was a good one!
I wish I had known about that site when I wrote my Fallacy of Biblical Stories series.
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?
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.
Zero proof that Yahweh exists.
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.
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.
I tend to agree. The Bible is chock full of immoral things God has supposedly done.
Job comes to mind. Ruin a man for a bet?
Biblical Vegas, right?
Now that is good....
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.
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.
Understanding humans.
What is moral about religion?
Science. Therapy, drugs, chemical therapy, and even brain surgery to remove lesions/tumors that may be effecting thoughts/actions.
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.
Thank you
As a degreed Engineer in practice for nearly 40 years, I find this comment to be a ridiculous generalization.
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.
Funny, the same can be said of some theists too.
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!
If that's your takeaway, then you missed the point of the article.
Yep, opinions do vary and mine is that i didn't miss the point and/or result of such work. [deleted]
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.
I've been very clear here and your interpretation of my response is wrong. Dead wrong.
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.
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.
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 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."
As the article noted, there could be many causes. Religion is not identified as the sole cause.
All the more reason to promote science and get kids interested in it.
Subjective and anecdotal.
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.
Again, opinions do vary and yours is wrong imo
Laziness is a major cause. No doubt about 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.
You've got this article and i have 15+ years of real experience. I'll take real experience over an opinion piece any day.
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.
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.
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.
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.
Let me know what part of that you don't understand and i'll be happy to elucidate further.
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.
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
And as usual, you are completely wrong!
Yes, opinions do vary ......
You can go by opinion if you want. I'll stick to facts.
Nah, what you call "facts" are just your opinion.
Nothing more.
All you ever spew is your opinion. Never a fact to be found.
Pee Wee Herman retorts like that only further damages your credibility.
Now there's a fact!
See 9.1.15
Repeat as necessary.
9.1.16
Bingo, especially the very last part.
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.
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.
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.
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.
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.
Never. That would be just as silly of a sweeping generalization
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.
This opinion piece is pretty much pure fantasy and doesn't make any logical sense, let alone be supportable by evidence.
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.
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.
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.
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.
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.
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, 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.
Boy, that's ironic. Religion is the one who answers tough questions with "God did it." Science demands evidence, not assertion.
Can you give an example of one of those "tough questions"?
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'?
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).
I predict that you will be accused of misinterpreting the Bible and/or general Christian teachings.
Most likely.
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.
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:
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.
That's a malformed question because the source is not the important question. Why is morality needed in a determinate universe?
Better questions but still avoids asking the more important question. What is the purpose of existence?
Copouts.
Add that to the list of questions but note that Drakk asked for tough questions which have 'God did it' as the answer.
Which isn't really an answer. Just another cop out.
About what I thought you'd say. Hardly a monolithic belief.
Yup, TiG called it. I'm accused of misinterpreting the fairy tale.
Ditto.
Which interpretation has evidence to support it, Drakk?
And he ignored my four answers to the question he asked.
Honest, maybe. But still suspect.
Consistency might be the only thing going for him.
A false presumption to begin with too.
Yes, but we're not always dealing with "learned" minds, are we?
Copouts? The science literate understand that science is about asking the proper questions.
Science askes questions, but it also seeks answers based on evidence. It doesn't make things up.
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.
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?
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.
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.
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.
One has evidence. The other is an unsubstantiated claim.
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.
"Nature" in this context is reality itself. The reality driven by physics.
Because physics.
Those are philosophical questions which we have no answer for and there may not be answers to.
There is no difference if one views physics as "god." Outside of that though, there's a whopping big difference.
If 'physics did it' then you have endowed physics with godlike abilities. You have only replaced God with Physics.
At least we know physics is real.
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.
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.
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.
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.
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?
That sounds a bit disappointing, but declaring that there must be a purpose does not manufacture a purpose.
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.
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.
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.
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.
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.
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.
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.
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.
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.
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.
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.
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.
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.
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?
So what? If everything is just physical process all the knowledge in the world doesnt mean anything.
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.
So do you propose we just sit on our thumbs until we die?
What a sad perspective to hold.
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.
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?
Geez, constant curmudgeon level negativity from you John.
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.
Someone with that perspective is unreasonable. IMO, nobody will get through to you.
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.
Indeed. Did you think I suggested otherwise?
Yes, such as?
Actually I was surprised that you categorically dismiss all physical processes as meaningless.
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.
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.
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).
I like your philosophy and own approach to living. Simple, succinct, and most importantly, it's what make you happy and enjoy life itself.
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.
"Life is an inherently depreciating asset."
Best to enjoy it before it loses all value.
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.
Kind of hard to enjoy it when we are dead....
How then, in your mind, does the universe have a purpose without a sentient entity to give it purpose?
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.
Exactly.
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?
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.
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?:
Clearly I was on solid grounds when I paraphrased your argument as:
Don't just argue for the sake of argument; it is annoying and makes you look bad.
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?
I am truly sick of your (et. al.) stupid games.
Here you establish God as giving purpose. Then you continue to discuss a universe that is pointless (without God).
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.
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.
Why does the universe have to have a purpose.
Sometimes things just are.
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.
That was my understanding of your belief.
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:
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.
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.
Did you even bother reading the article or cited links?
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?
That's why I provided studies on the matter.
How do you come to that conclusion?
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.
I also noted that other factors could be contributing to that too.
No one ever said religious people were not making scientific contributions. Dr. Francis Collins, head of the Human Genome Project, is a perfect example.
On the contrary, it shows a trend and supports the idea that the majority of people are religious to various degrees.
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.
See previous statement! Some people are supplanting science with religion. Intelligent Design is an example of that.
Educational quality is both a cause and victim, like a snowball effect.
Science education and information needs to be advocated and promoted. Religion historically does not do that. If anything, religion resists it.
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.
You only prove my point that scientific illiteracy is (for 1 reason) caused by religion pervading politics. Your historical example only reinforces that.
The argument is not about the reduction of science correlating with an increase in scientific literacy. Just that opposite.
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.
Then that is the wrong approach. Religion conspicuously claims to know "truth." And people hook onto that.
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!
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 Articles Theory only works in Vacuum ignoring history and every other modern distraction that has negatively effected academic achievement.
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.
They represent what the title of the article says.
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.
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 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.
And then say...
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.
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?
The explanation you give for this is the whole point of your blog.
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.
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:
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
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.
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.
How predictable. Maybe you should post your own article on the this subject rather than derail Gordy's?
Predictable, maybe because it's true.
TiG is not derailing the article.
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.
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.
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?
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.
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.
Uh yeah, actually I will. If you have a problem with that, bring it up with the mods.
You've offered nothing irrefutable and your accusation is without merit.
That's ironic coming from you.
Good! I prefer serious discussions over games anyway.
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.
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.
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?
Bullshit, that seems like sour grapes speaking. Worse, it is projection; you clearly are not objectively analyzing what you write.
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.
There was no nuance in Gordy's post. As you stated elsewhere...
Nope. Not a lot of nuance there, TiG.
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.
Nice, but completely irrelevant to the conversation and is in fact simply an attempt to divert. As you yourself said, the issue is...
This is the context. It isn't mine. It's Gordy's. Deal with that and stop trying to divert.
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.
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.
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.
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.
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:
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:
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.
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."
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.
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.
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 ignore it because they aren't relevant. They aren't relevant because they aren't what is being discussed.
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.
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.
So, care to try again?
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.
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.
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.
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.
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.
Theatrics.
That is the posit. You are pretending to not comprehend how indoctrination that evolution is wrong (and many other examples) retards 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.
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 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.
More theatrics.
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 : )
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.
The example given about religion viewing evolution as wrong is a perfect example of how religiosity correlates to scientific illiteracy and is quite on subject. In that case, religion causes one to ignore a well established and supported scientific principle in favor of dogma. So TiG is right on point and it seems you want to ignore that and play games.
sure, Gordy, whatever you say. Taking a specific example concerning a general trend is completely legit. The fact that fewer and fewer people, even among those claiming to be religious, believe evolution is wrong completely validates your claim that religion is a relevant factor in the increasing scientific illiteracy in this country. It totally makes sense that a decrease in the opposition to evolution, even among the religious, would account for increasing scientific illiteracy. How could I have been so blind? Well done!
Does it makes sense to you that an individual indoctrinated into believing that evolution is a fraud would be unlikely to attempt to understand the science? Especially if they believed (based on the indoctrination) that doing so would represent a weakness of faith and that such a weakness is giving in to the devil?
LOL. Keep on pretending the blog was addressing individuals. You're just too funny.
Instead of honestly dealing with rebuttals, lately you more often than not just leap to dishonest games (delivered with an ugly attitude). Here, instead of dealing with my question, you deflect and pretend that my speaking in terms of individuals so as to make a clear point (the stats are based on individuals) somehow means I am misrepresenting Gordy's point.
Note that I have acknowledged your posit of a macro correlation of a decline in religion with a decline in scientific literacy. That hypothetical correlation exists and so does the hypothetical correlation between a decline in religion and an increase in technology. As well as a decline in religion and a stronger economy. Might as well correlate a decline in religion to an increase in greenhouse gases, or increased economic globalization.
See, one can claim correlations on anything. A mere claim does not advance a coincidence into a valid correlation. It is the underlying facts that matter; facts that give the correlation substance (more than mere coincidence). Gordy has provided studies underlying his posit that there is a valid correlation (not just a coincidence) between the average individual's religiosity (because the studies are about people) and their scientific literacy. In simple terms (repeating myself yet again): "those with strong religious beliefs are less likely to be scientifically literate".
You obviously do not like that correlation. No surprise. You then engage in a Saul Alinsky tactic of reducing Gordy's point into an over simplistic macro correlation of religiosity and scientific illiteracy (ignoring the details of his article and the supporting studies). You then stubbornly stick (per Alinsky) to that simplistic facade while ignoring any attempts by others (including the author) to explain how you are missing the point.
Unless you can provide supporting facts, your correlation of a decline in religiosity and a decline in scientific literacy is coincidence. It does not rebut the posit of this article ("those with strong religious beliefs are less likely to be scientifically literate") and I hope that nobody is fooled by your tactic.
I see you fail to take into account the degree of one's religiosity as it pertains to scientific illiteracy. The studies addressed that. TiG summarized it best when he said, "those with strong religious beliefs are less likely to be scientifically literate". That is precisely what the studies show.
TiG has addressed the topic and posts made quite well.
I'm not making the correlation. The correlation has already been made. The cited studies show it. I'm simply presenting it.
It's simple, really. I don't tolerate your pretzel logic any longer. Rather than simply admit Gordy's blog is wrong you do what you always do.
Turn it into something it doesn't actually say. For instance...
Complete and total horseshit. The goal of Gordy's blog is to explain how religion is, in his words, "a significant cause" in the decline of scientific literacy of the country as a whole. You can continue to waste your time convincing me it says other than what it plainly says but it won't change what it says nor my reading comprehension skills.
Um, yeah. My correlation. Right. Seriously, it simply amazes me that you have the balls to talk about critical thinking at all, let alone accuse the lack of it in others.
It isn't my correlation. It isn't rocket science, either. If one is going to suggest a correlation between religiosity and scientific literacy as a trend in this country (as Gordy, not I, does), the only one that can logically be made, since both are in decline, is that a decrease in religiosity must therefore account for the decrease in scientific literacy.
But that isn't what Gordy does. He is claiming that something that is becoming less, not more, influential is responsible (on a level he describes as significant) for the decline in scientific literacy. That simply doesn't work, mathematically. Sorry. Not my opinion. Not my wish. It's simply math.
You do realize where we are, don't you, TiG? In this place I could literally start talking about how chickens are responsible for the letter E and it wouldn't make a difference in anyone's opinion. No one in here is going to be convinced by what we say. They are simply going to base their opinions on who we are. You are on one side of an ideological line and I am on the other. Almost no one in here sees beyond that.
TiG seems to understand it far better than you do.
The cited studies show that. Other factors were also taken into consideration.
The studies also show the numbers. You can't refute that.
Your projection only applies to you. Rational minded individuals will not automatically adopt a defensive or emotional stance. Rather, they will look at the evidence presented and how it is broken down and discussed.
But that doesn't help your argument. Your blog is blaming religion as a significant factor for the decline in scientific literacy as a country. It doesn't matter a whit about an individual's beliefs and how it affects their scientific literacy. What matters are numbers. For what you claim in your blog to work, religious belief that rejects science would have to be shown to be increasing to explain a decrease in scientific literacy. That is, to claim the correlation you do, it would have to be shown that because X is increasing, Y is decreasing. While you do claim that, you provide no evidence for its truth.
What I have done is state the obvious fact that religious belief is declining rapidly so cannot be the, or even an, explanation for declining scientific literacy. What any individual believes, religiously, doesn't matter. It's the numbers that matter.
Wow. You have quite the talent for self-deception. The studies don't show what you claim they do. If an increase in X means a corresponding decrease in Y, then a decrease in X would mean an increase in Y. X, being religiosity is decreasing, yet you claim that it somehow means it's responsible for the decrease in Y anyway. As evidence, you present individual beliefs rather than national trends as evidence, as if they are the same thing. I must not know what critical thinking is.
I do not expect to convince you of anything. Your emotional, venomous tone alone makes it obvious that you are not even close to being reasonable. Your obvious ignoring of points made by me and others confirms it. I am, as usual, rebutting your allegations and dealing with your tactics because I dislike intellectual dishonesty.
Yet again, the decline of religiosity and scientific literacy is a coincidence until factually substantiated as a valid correlation. You have offered no substantiation and instead simply repeat your simplistic recasting of Gordy's point. It remains a coincidence. You can stomp your feet and protest all you want, but that does not advance coincidence into correlation.
On top of that, if there were such a valid correlation (and there might be) you are still logically in error to simply proclaim that this contradicts the correlation made by Gordy. Gordy's correlation between religious belief and scientific literacy is that "those with strong religious beliefs are less likely to be scientifically literate". That correlation is not contradicted by the decline of both religiosity and scientific literacy. Even if religiosity decreases to 10% of its current level, those remaining 10% would, per Gordy's correlation, be more on the scientifically illiterate end of the scale.
That might be true but that is never my concern. I care about facts, reason and ultimately getting as close to truth as possible. But, that said, I give people more credit than you do. When people are not engaged in a debate (when they are spectators) they are substantially more objective. While preconceived notions are extremely difficult to influence even for spectators, I think there are plenty who have the intellectual maturity to grow in their viewpoints.
Wrong Drak! It's showing a correlation between religiosity and scientific illiteracy. How many times does that need to be explained to you?
Yes, it does matter. The level of religious belief can affect one's religious literacy. Die-hard religious believers will dismiss science like evolution n favor of creationism (i.e. "God did it). That's an example of scientific illiteracy. Someone who believes but is less hard core will acknowledge evolution as a valid scientific explanation, while "god" is relegated to a more background character in that regard. Individual beliefs can make a huge difference.
It's not just about the numbers. You focus on quantity but ignore quality.
The studies themselves shows the correlation. I'm thinking you didn't bother to actually look at them fully.
As I explained, that is clearly false and a misrepresentation of what the studies show.
Did you actually examine them?
And you ignore the degree of one's religiosity, as if that does not have ay effect. You're arguing with half information at best Drak.
You have made that abundantly obvious!
Now, this is only conjecture on my part, but I think the moment you see anything which even remotely casts religion in a bad or negative light, you immediately become defensive and argue in vehement defense of religion, regardless of what information or facts is brought to bear. It seems you will not seriously consider anything which challenges religion or beliefs on any level. Am I in the ballpark here?
He refuses to understand that you are saying: "those with strong religious beliefs are less likely to be scientifically literate". Instead he is telling you that you are arguing that the sole reason the USA is falling behind in scientific literacy is because of religiosity. Once he has that established, he then argues that since religiosity is falling, our scientific literacy should be increasing as a consequence. Since that is not the case, he deems that a contradiction of your point.
He refuses to acknowledge (will not even consider) that the degree of religiosity in the USA does not change the correlation your article argues: "those with strong religious beliefs are less likely to be scientifically literate".
Your summation of the situation is spot on.
LOL. You guys are your own worst enemy.
If it was looked at scientifically that would be the obvious conclusion. If there was a cause and effect it would clearly be less Religion equals less Scientific literacy. What I think is Tommy failed Math because he was looking at Porn on the internet.
Actually, that does explain a lot, Lol
A strange opinion. Scientific literacy would increase (?) if we became more religious??? The following ⇣ does not explain this ⇡ opinion:
If that were the case then that is just as bad as simply accepting the words of ancient men as truth.
Your hypothesis (not going to debate it at the moment) does not explain your opening opinion that by being less religious we are increasing scientific illiteracy.
In short, how would being MORE religious promote an increase in scientific literacy?
There has been a decline in religion and math/science scores over the last 50-60 years. Through our history when religious beliefs and religion were strong so was our scientific achievement.
That is clearly not the case. Or are you saying religion is significantly weaker now than in the past?
Quite nice of you to preface your opinion with such a disclaimer to let everyone know the illogical and unsupported horse shit it contains. That is very big of you.
What we've seen is a declining number of religious zealots but an increase in religious zealotry. You could liken it to a bonfire before being lit. One could say that the pile of unlit wood was larger in the past and may have posed a greater risk, but that doesn't take away the serious risk of still causing a forest fire once the smaller bonfire is lit. A massive unlit bonfire is still far less dangerous than a smaller lit bonfire with half the fuel. Right wing extremists have lit the fuse, they have attacked America and our ideals, they are a serious threat whether you want to admit it to yourself or not.
The claim isn't whether more Americans are religious or not, it said "the greater one's religiosity is, the more scientifically illiterate and/or hostile towards science they become".
Religiosity: noun - strong religious feeling or belief.
Does that claim there are "more religious people"? No, of course not, only a half-witted dipshit would infer such a ridiculous premise. Obviously it has everything to do with how some right wing conservative Christian extremists have doubled down on their religiosity, they have become stronger believers with the invent of social media where they can get that confirmation bias they so desire and share their unproven ridiculous erroneous beliefs with each other.
While it's true, claiming Santa is real doesn't have much effect on the real world, it does pretty much identify those who are fucking insane.
The seed claims that "other countries are matching or exceeding us in science and scientific education", that doesn't mean that there has been a significant decrease in religiosity in America, or even claim it's due to a rise in religiosity, it's saying we used to lead, now we're no better than other nations, even Islamic countries, in our scientific education. So as other nations ditch their religiosity they are outpacing America that now lags behind. So it's not a comparison between how many religious folk there were in America 50 years ago vs how many there are now, it's a comparison between ourselves and other nations who are now embracing science and technology in larger numbers. We've always had the indoctrinated right wing religious conservatives in our country, and at higher numbers in the past, it's just now that other nations are passing us that the anchor of ignorance right wing religious conservatives represent is exposed.
Boring.
Uh, sure. That makes sense. And we're seeing a decline in the wetness of water but the water that is wet is extra wetty. Sure.
which is about as stupid a claim as could be made. Essentially, it's akin to saying the ocean isn't salty because of the amount of salt in it but because of specific instances of salt. No individual's religious belief can account for the decline of scientific illiteracy. To claim such is nothing more than propaganda, not fact.
Total horseshit. Whether or not what you consider right wing conservative Christian extremists have doubled down on, their religiosity doesn't matter unless what they think influences enough of the population to explain the decrease in scientific literacy. Since religiosity is demonstrably decreasing you obviously can't make this claim.
Ah, yes. Based on what you've said so far, I guess I shouldn't be surprised you thing this is a valid argument.
Are you cognitively impaired? Do you struggle with reading comprehension? If so, allow me to help you out.
These are not my words. They are Gordy's. They also allude to Tyson's words. Both suggest that, in part at least, religiosity is a significant factor in the reduction of scientific literacy within the population as a whole, in spite of the indisputable fact that not only has religiosity been decreasing over the decades but that secular ideas have been infecting belief.
So, here's the truth of the matter. Gordy's post is nothing but fantasy based on his hatred of religion and nothing else. Worse, it doesn't even logically make sense. It's basic logic that you can't blame something that is declining in influence for the decline of something else in the manner Gordy attempts. For Gordy's argument to work, religiosity (as Gordy imagines religiosity) would have to be increasing in the general population for it to be a factor in the decrease in scientific literacy. Since religiosity is inarguably decreasing, it cannot be the factor Gordy presents it to be concerning scientific illiteracy. Sorry, but unless you are trying to redefine the word "correlation" there simply isn't any other truthful or factual way to regard this.
That's only your fantasy!
You continue to ignore a key part, even though it's been explained to you already: The level of religiosity.
See previous statement.
I am watching you pretend to not understand DPs points too. For example, DP wrote this:
your response was:
That is a non sequitur.
Read what DP wrote. Do you disagree that, in general, the more religious persons tend to be more scientifically illiterate? Back to what should be a very easy example: YECs. About 10% of the nation are YECs. YECs believe the planet is ~6,000 years old, that dinosaurs coexisted with humans, that evolution is a scam, that all scientific dating methods are bogus, that the entire planet was engulfed in water, that mass speciation occurred within 6,000 years which produced all the species on the planet (extant and extinct), etc. When an individual holds religious beliefs that contradict science, will they be inclined to objectively learn more about what they have been taught is bullshit?
Take the Gallup poll cited in the article. Look at the Church attendance section. Do you see where the weekly attendees (consider that a strong religious belief) hold at a 68% level that humans are NOT the result of evolution? Even monthly attendees hold at a 47% level. Only 3% of the weekly and 6% of the monthly reflect the science (no evidence of a sentient entity guiding evolution; in fact, evidence to the contrary).
Religions historically have provided explanations for that which was unknown. Over time, especially with the advent of science, we learned that thunder and lightning really are not the result of an angry Zeus. And in modern times we have learned that human beings, and all other life on this planet, are (almost certainly) the result of billions of years of evolution.
As science advances, religious explanations become obsolete. Some religions adapt and change their position (e.g. the Catholic church recognized evolution as legitimate science in the 1950s) yet others do not. Those who cling to biblical explanations over science are, as a whole, more scientifically illiterate and/or hostile towards science.
The fact that both religiosity and scientific literacy are decreasing in the USA does not change the correlation of 'holding religious beliefs over science' and scientific illiteracy detailed in the studies underlying this article.
You have stubbornly argued your simplistic interpretation of the title of this article and have refused, repeatedly, to consider its contents. That is on you.
[deleted]
TiG isn't the one trolling here. It's also clear you are unable to refute what he says and instead storm off in a huff as a result.
Incredible. I point out how Drakk misrepresented DP's point, provide a clear, logical, fact-based explanation and he calls that trolling.
Like throwing a tantrum.
Um, okay, but why are you addressing me rather than DP, who made it? How does that make sense?
Or are you unaware of the blog Gordy posted? Gordy's post concerns the downward trend of scientific literacy in this country. Do you deny this?
I was stating that your reply to DP was a non sequitur.
Of course I do not deny that. Have I not repeatedly acknowledged to you and others that both religiosity and scientific literacy are declining?
I have also reminded you that Gordy's article notes that religiosity is significant but is one of many factors contributing to the decline in scientific literacy. Such as this:
Plus I have noted (with detailed explanation) that the decline in religiosity and the decline in scientific literacy are a coincidence until elevated, with facts, to that of a correlation.
Finally, I have repeatedly summarized Gordy's position into a sound-bite to be crystal clear: "those with strong religious beliefs are less likely to be scientifically literate" and repeated it many times to ensure you saw it.
Gordy agrees that the words in blue represent his point.
You keep arguing, in effect, that this is not Gordy's point. I think I will go with Gordy as the authority on his point.
You should too. If an author clarifies his/her point when misinterpreted it is common courtesy to accept that clarification and then engage in debate / discussion based on the clarification. Refusing to accept clarification and insisting that your 'read' is correct is not only rude, but it screams ill intent.
Monumental eyeroll...
Which is completely irrelevant and the basis of your horseshit. The blog deals with the trend of decreasing scientific literacy among the population as a whole. That is the purpose and point of the blog. Your attempt to illustrate what an individual may or may not believe about the subject having relevance is both pitiful and disingenuous. In your attempt to present such as a valid argument you necessarily have to demonstrate how any one individual can account for the decrease in scientific literacy. Not only have you not done so, it is impossible. If one is going to suggest a correlation to account for it, the only logical, possible correlation would be that for scientific literacy to decline due to religiosity, religiosity would necessarily have to be increasing.
This is undeniable, yet your counter is to present individual belief rather than trends, as if what any particular individual believes can account for the decrease in scientific literacy. Individual belief can only be a factor as a trend. That is, there has to be an increase in the number of people with beliefs that account for the decrease of scientific literacy. That is what correspondence means, TiG. Yet it is undeniable that religious belief is decreasing, not increasing. So, if one is going to insist on a correlation, the only one that can logically be made is that a decrease in religiosity means a decrease in scientific literacy. There is no other conclusion to be made.
But that isn't what you and Gordy are doing. You're effectively claiming that the more water you put in a bucket the lighter it becomes.
The statistics show a trend based on individuals. This is obvious, but I explained it to you anyway:
You keep making the same argument as if nothing sinks in.
And here you go again with this individual crap. The stats show the trend that Gordy noted: "those with strong religious beliefs are less likely to be scientifically literate" .
Gordy's point is in blue. You refuse to speak to his point and instead want to argue an interpretation that you probably got from reading the title alone and now stubbornly stick with it.
Another monumental eyeroll.
Of course you have. Since you refuse to recognize that Gordy's blog is wrong, what else can you do but do what you always do. Claim that what is said doesn't mean what it says. This is why it's a waste of time responding to anything you say. The moment anyone points out the flaw in your argument your strategy is to then claim your words do not mean what they say. In this case, Gordy's words do not mean what they say.
Gordy's blog addresses the trend that the nation is becoming less scientifically literate. It is emphatically not about what an individual believes. You can jump up and down, roll around on the ground and whatever else your tantrum leads you to do, but you can't change that. The blog is right there for anyone to read.
More theatrics.
When someone illustrates that they are misinterpreting my (or in some cases, other's) words, I will typically provide a deeper explanation. In this case, the explanation corrects your misunderstanding and takes away your argument. You, apparently, cannot deal with that and have chosen to stubbornly stick to an interpretation that likely is a result of reading the title and not paying attention to what Gordy wrote in the body of the article and the supporting facts he has cited with links.
Yes, Drakk, his article does indeed speak to that trend. And Gordy's point is that religiosity is a contributing factor. Not the ONLY factor, but a contributing factor. And he has an entire article which backs up his point. You should calm down and attempt to objectively read what the man wrote sometime.
This is just irrational. You keep harping on 'what an individual believes' as if it is incorrect for statistics to reflect what a bunch of individuals believe. Look Drakk:
Is it invalid for Gallup to survey individuals regarding their church attendance and their beliefs regarding evolution? No? Then what is your problem with Gordy pointing out that those with strong religious beliefs are less likely to understand / accept evolution? That is a direct read of the statistics. If someone rejects the near certain fact that we are the results of evolution then they ipso facto do not understand the science (at all).
If only you would do so objectively (put your irrational bias in check). Maybe read words like these:
Yes, it does, but not the one you must be intentionally be using to deceive. The trend is the opposite of what you are attempting to claim. Church attendance is decreasing, not increasing. Therefore, concerning issues such as evolution, the ones who remain in attendance will naturally inflate the percentages, even thought the national percentages will illustrate the opposite. In other words, focusing on only those who don't like broccoli means that, on the whole, Americans don't like broccoli is a distortion. The correct method is to look at the population as a whole in order to determine whether or not Americans, on average, like broccoli.
But, of course, I've wasted this time necessary to say this. You aren't interested in truth. You are only interested in attacking religion.
Un-effing-believable. Gordy presents a blog about the proper method of cooking a stew and because I address that you complain that I am not addressing the real article, which has to do with lawn sprinklers.
Yes, we know.
Do you have a more comprehensive study than that offered by Gordy that shows the Gallup poll wrong? The Gallup poll shows a correlation between frequency of church going and acceptance of the science collectively known as evolution. It deals with people who attend weekly, monthly and seldom/never. The seldom/never are included in the poll. Did you notice that?
This is no doubt what has been driving your venomous, emotional interactions. You interpret an argument that an individual's strength of religion is inversely proportional to their scientific literacy as an attack on religion and that offends you. Thus you lash out attempting to discredit the article and you apparently do not care how far you veer from what Gordy has written.
Again, Drakk, Gordy has clarified his point to you. I certainly have done so repeatedly. You reject Gordy's clarification and insist you know better than the author about the point he is making.
The problem is you.
You've got to be kidding me.
So, let's get this straight. You're appealing to a study concerning a decreasing demographic and claiming that this same demographic, because a portion of it prefers a different kind of fish over the rest of that demographic, proves your point? Seriously?
Look, TiG. I need you to calm down, put the stupidity gun on the floor and back away. If you can do that, you have a chance of understanding the idiocy behind attempting to claim X explains Y when it doesn't. It's as simple as understanding how a scale works.
If religious belief stifles scientific literacy (which isn't true but not the subject) then the more belief, the more stifling. The less belief the less stifling. To claim otherwise means that the fewer people who have religious beliefs the more scientific illiteracy increases.
So, unless you can prove that wrong, what any individual believes about any issue, whether it be evolution or some other subject, is irrelevant unless you can show how it decreases scientific literacy. It would be like claiming scientific illiteracy is the result of what specifically leads flat earthers to believe the earth is flat, when in reality, it freaking doesn't matter. What matters is the number of people who believe the earth is flat. To suggest otherwise is to claim that the rest of the population can't believe the earth is a globe because the tiny minority prevents it.
What offends me, TiG, is your belief I'm stupid enough to fall for your bullshit. The argument has not the slightest relevance to individual belief. It is not a factor at all, in spite of your desperate attempt to make it so. If X is religious belief and Y is scientific literacy and one wants to imply a correlation between the two, there's no logical or mathematical way to claim Y negatively increases when X is negatively increases as well in the manner Gordy is claiming. In fact, if a correlation exists, the only one that can be logically or mathematically supported is that, because X is decreasing, Y is also decreasing. In other words, the opposite of what Gordy claims. It makes no difference whatever what any entity in X believes. This isn't opinion. This is objective fact.
If so, this only highlights why arguing with you guys is pointless. No one can hold you to what you say, since if what you say is inconvenient you simply say it means some other thing that what it obviously says. You know, like every argument ever anyone has with you guys.
So, let's look at what your clarification means, shall we? That fewer and fewer people in the group X believe evolution is wrong it somehow means that it is responsible for an increase in scientific illiteracy in group Y. Thanks, TiG! The scales have fallen from my eyes! The earth really is flat! Ghosts exist! Lima beans taste good!
Since I believe myself to be an advocate of critical thinking, no doubt you are correct. It's a bitch when someone refuses to abandon truth.
[removed]
You continue to focus on overall numbers regarding religiosity and scientific illiteracy, but still ignore the degree of religiosity, which itself has an effect on correlation. This has been explained already by comparing someone who might be more evangelical in their beliefs by rejecting evolution for creationism, as opposed to someone more moderate who understands and accepts evolution as a valid scientific theory. But not only do you seem to ignore or downplay that but then you engage in childish taunting, which doesn't fly and only shows how weak your position is. As of yet, you have not offered anything of substance to refute the studies offered in the article and are merely drawing your own conclusions based on, I suspect, your own biases and defensiveness. So yes, as TiG pointed out and demonstrated, the problem is with you.
Well, I'll tell you what, Gordy. If you can show how an individual's belief can have such an effect on the trend as a whole, I'll grant you your point. Right now I am bombarding you with belief rays of epic proportions. Are you now scientifically less literate? No? then what the hell is your point? How in the hell does what I believe correlate to an overall decrease in scientific literacy simply because of what I personally believe?
Which has exactly what to do with the trend you claim that the nation is scientifically illiterate? Are you seriously suggesting that what individuals B through Z believes is controlled by what individual A believes? Only a complete idiot would make such an argument. If the population is becoming more scientifically illiterate it isn't due to any particular individual belief. It necessarily is due to the number of people who hold a particular belief.
If you have a box with X amount of marbles in it, the number of marbles that happen to be a certain color are not the determining factor for the number of marbles that are another color. That is, you can't logically claim that the orange marbles are orange because the other marbles are green. The orange marbles are orange because they are orange.
(sigh)
Do I need to provide studies that shows 2 + 2 doesn't equal 5? Do you need graphs to show this? If presented with an equation such as X+Y=Z do I really have to come up with some convoluted and ridiculous explanation of how a decrease in X results in an increase in Z?
No matter how many comments I make that are deleted or how much of what I say is censored, the facts won't change.
How many times do you want me to explain this to you? The Gallup poll (one of the cited references in the article) shows a correlation between strength of religion (measured in terms of church attendance) with scientific literacy (measured in terms of acceptance of evolution).
Church going declining in the USA does not affect that correlation. A reduction in church-going increases the stats in the Seldom/Never category. But the correlation between strength of religion and scientific literacy still holds.
You keep repeating the same simplistic fact that both religiosity and scientific literacy are declining and claiming that this contradicts the correlation shown in the Gallup poll (again, just focusing on that one reference). That is faulty logic on your part. As I explained, you have not shown a correlation between reduced religiosity and reduced scientific literacy. You offer no supporting facts. Thus what you have offered is currently coincidence. If you were to actually make a case you might be able to provide a correlation. In that case, you would be arguing that increasing religiosity would increase scientific literacy. I would like to see such a case. Good luck. In the meantime, your coincidence is not persuasive and your stubborn, venomous posts just illustrate the weakness of your claim.
Take my prime example of the YECs. Do you truly not see that indoctrinating people into a belief that the planet is ~6,000 years old, that evolution is a charade, etc. reduces scientific literacy? If not, then that explains why you appear to be so confident that you are correct.
The correlation between religiosity and scientific illiteracy manifests when there is conflict between the belief and science. If one presumes the belief (typically this is a reference to the Bible) preempts well-founded science on conflict, that is a manifestation of scientific illiteracy due to religiosity.
Drakk, I have understood your objection from your first post. It is an objection that, in effect, focuses on the title and ignores the body. What you refuse to even acknowledge is my explanation that the correlation you claim is a coincidence until you put forth the facts that elevate coincidence to correlation. Make your case why reduced religiosity decreases scientific literacy. I predict you will fail (and I think you know that since you have never even attempted to justify your claim that this is a bonafide correlation and not mere coincidence).
Well if that were the case then that would mean that there would be agreement. After all, if 'we' change the meaning of our words so as to not be wrong (as you allege) then clearly the parties tacitly agree on the 'changed' part.
So let's see how this works. You continue to allege that Gordy's article makes the uber-simplistic claim that a national decrease in religiosity necessarily leads to a national decrease in scientific illiteracy. This is something one might presume by reading the title alone.
Well, Drakk, I have repeatedly stated that this national correlation is currently nothing more than coincidence. Let's assume that Gordy agrees. So there you go, we all agree that one cannot claim that decreasing religiosity, nationwide, would necessarily decrease scientific illiteracy. That simplistic national correlation has not been established (as I have stated repeatedly to you).
Now, where we disagree is here: Gordy has stated in his article that religiosity is one of many factors in decreased scientific literacy. I keep showing this to you but you refuse to acknowledge it:
Because Gordy states that religiosity is one of many factors, he is acknowledging that reduced religiosity alone cannot explain the national decline in scientific literacy. And if you objectively read the article and citations you will see that Gordy is making the case as to why religiosity is a factor.
So, real super simple.
Gordy's article argues that religiosity is A factor in reduced scientific literacy. His article focuses on why religiosity is A significant factor.
His article does not argue that it is THE factor. Gordy recognizes that there are other factors at play beyond religiosity that affect our national scientific illiteracy.
You stubbornly refuse to acknowledge the A and insist that Gordy's article argues THE.
The problem is you.
You just refuse to acknowledge this:
Consider for a moment that maybe Gordy and I are not stupid. Now imagine that we are being 100% truthful and consistent. If you could possibly operate with those premises you might be able to read this article and understand the point Gordy is making.
I recommend you read the following citation from Gordy's article since it is factual in support of his argument:
Instead of studies showing 2+2=5, how about studies which discredits the ones cited or supports your own assertion! You also continue to ignore the factor of thow the level of religiosity affects scientific literacy, even though it's been explained to you ad nauseum now. Or do you not see the numbers showing those with greater religiosity are more prone to being scientifically illiterate as opposed to those with lesser religiosity? 40% of adults rejecting evolution in favor of creationism, as an example, is not some fringe group. That is a significant portion of the population. It has also been explained, ad nauseum again, that there are other factors involved. So instead of getting all snarky and defensive, how about you examine the studies in depth or provide something substantial to refute them!
I think you hit the nail on the head.
A litmus test: do you reject the assertion that indoctrinating kids into believing that evolution is a worldwide charade (i.e. bullshit) because it contradicts the Bible reduces their scientific literacy?
Yeah, you did explain it and, apparently, think I'm going to be too stupid to see what you're doing.
I know. Call me optimistic but I figure that, eventually, it will sink in [deleted]
There I go again? The stats show? Okay. Major face palm.
Tell me, TiG. How much sense does it make to claim I'm the one going with the "individual crap" by presenting "individual crap" you yourself presented as evidence? How much sense does it make to go to a Star Trek convention and then conclude that, nationally, the trend suggests people hate broccoli? That's what you are doing.
You, TiG, not me, are taking a shrinking demographic and using individual belief in order to explain a national trend. That is the opposite of my argument. It is you and Gordy who are desperately trying to make your argument from "individual crap", not I. My argument has been and continues to be that if X is decreasing then it can't be used to explain the decrease in Y the way Gordy attempted to do.
The stats do not show the trend Gordy noted outside the demographics it examines. For it to actually do what you are attempting to do, everyone in the country would have to be a Christian of one kind or another. In other words, if one goes to a Star Trek convention and uses whatever they discover there to project a national trend, it necessarily assumes that, nationally, all are Star Trek fans.
Therefore, stating that those with strong religious beliefs are less likely to be scientifically literate only applies to those with strong religious beliefs. You can't offer it as an explanation for dwindling scientific literacy unless you can, at the same time, show that all have strong religious beliefs.
I'm trying to figure out a way to respond to this in a manner the anti-free speech censors won't delete. About all I can come up with is that I "refuse to speak to his point" in the same way I would refuse to acknowledge someone who is trying to claim black is actually white. Gordy's point isn't about individual belief. It's about national trends. That trend is that, on average, people are becoming less scientifically literate. He doesn't offer the dismal state of public education as a reason for this. He offers religion, in spite of the fact it is becoming less influential, not more. Only a total idiot would claim that because X is decreasing it therefore explains the decrease in Y in the manner Gordy is presenting. Using X the way Gordy does necessarily means that for Y to change, X would need to increase, not decrease.
And now the bone for the sensors. I know they're itching to delete something, so here it is. You are a moron if you think I'm going to buy the idea that Gordy's blog was speaking of individual belief rather than a national trend. The issue is, why is scientific literacy declining? That isn't my question. That's the one Gordy presents. While there are many factors to the answer, the one Gordy focuses on is religion. Again, that isn't something I made him do. I'm sure you're aware of the film "Idiocracy". That's you. Have fun, censors.
[deleted]
As for the rest of what you say, here's how I see your argument. Because there are individuals who believe the earth is flat, therefore it explains why the nation, on average, are scientifically illiterate. That is, because Bob, who resides in Arkansas, believes in a flat earth, Billy, who resides in California and has no knowledge of Bob or his beliefs, still somehow is affected by Bob's belief in a flat earth. Bob, even though there is no connection, is responsible for Billy's illiteracy.
A litmus test. Do you reject the assertion that something that is decreasing, such as what you claim to be indoctrination concerning evolution would necessarily mean such belief would result in an increase in scientific literacy rather than a decrease?
I have understood your argument from your first post.
Your premise: religiosity and scientific literacy are both declining in the USA.
(Nobody disagrees with this.)
Your argument: since both religiosity and scientific literacy are declining in our nation, religiosity cannot possibly correlate with scientific illiteracy.
Okay so far?
Now, your argument is wrong because it:
Drakk: But, but, but both religiosity and scientific literacy are declining!!!!!!
Yes. Let's toss in some of those other factors. The decline in scientific literacy is arguably a result of many factors. Let's assume, just for the moment, that some of the top factors are:
Now, what if the weight of motivation+culture outweighs that of religion so that even though a decrease in religiosity correlates with an increase in scientific literacy, the other factors (working against scientific literacy) cause the aggregate national scientific literacy to wane?
Gordy notes that religion is one of many factors and I just listed two of many plausible other factors in this hypothetical. Can you or can you not comprehend how, when many factors are involved in aggregate, multiple factors can dominate the single factor of religion?
Gordy's article focuses only on the religious factor. His citations show a correlation between strong religious beliefs and scientific illiteracy. He is looking at one and only one factor while recognizing other factors exist.
So, again, here is the explanation stated a little differently as an experiment.
What if Gordy's cited studies are true? Imagine that! If true, that means that, in general, the more religious a person is the less their literacy in science. And, again, I offer the extreme YECs to clearly illustrate this. If a person is indoctrinated to believe that evolution is a worldwide charade, that person will likely not take an interest in the science and learn about it.
Now, do you reject the assertion that indoctrinating kids into believing that evolution is a worldwide charade (i.e. bullshit) because it contradicts the Bible reduces their scientific literacy? If so, issue a rebuttal with facts and reason.
Again, you refuse to answer my question. Clearly you read it since you are asking a similar question to me.
For my answer, see: TiG @10.6.30
By the way, your malformed question again, as usual, ignores that religiosity is one of many factors in national scientific illiteracy.
Since you are intelligent, I do not grant you the benefit of the doubt that, at every turn, you simply forget that aspect.
Your constant personal attacks and venomous / angry attitude are counterproductive.
Total and utter crap, TiG. It's what Gordy's blog claims. I didn't write it. Nor do I claim it is the sole reason, as I have already made mention of. Why are you lying?
What if there is a Loch Ness Monster?
Which has nothing to do with the subject Gordy brought up. The subject is why is scientific literacy is declining in the population as a whole, not a specific demographic. But even if it were, it's declining that that demographic as well. You and Gordy are arguing on insistence rather that actual empirical evidence. Only a moron would claim that, because Bob believes the earth is flat, it explains why the rest of the population believes the same thing. Nope.
First, the rest of the population doesn't believe the same thing. Attempting to claim that because an individual such as Bob believes some thing translates to the population in general is moronic without evidence. The evidence is that almost no one believes Bob. Only morons would accept your argument. Bob also believes the Loch Ness Monster is real. Only a moron will conclude that Bob's belief explains why others believe it as well. If I told you that I believe hot dogs are made of actual dogs, are you therefor going to believe it?
So sod off with your individual belief argument unless you can prove how it affects a national trend. And sod off with your lie that Gordy is talking about individual belief rather than the national decrease in scientific literacy. Only a moron would buy that argument. I'm not a moron.
It addresses the one Gordy brought up. I did not hold a gun to Gordy's head and force him to write what he did. While I have already acknowledged that there are other factors, I can only address what Gordy set as the subject.
[deleted.]
Okay, you are just going to keep making the same simplistic allegation while stubbornly ignoring everything I write and refusing to even acknowledge my questions. Given your attitude is venomous and borderline hatred, I doubt that you are influencing anyone to take you seriously.
I have thoroughly explained where you are going wrong and have repeatedly rebutted your claim. You are the problem here Drakk.
Indeed. If anything, it's just trolling at this point.
Agreed. And rather obvious too.
You address the subject, but not the details. Then you go off on emotional rants and attacks. Do you seriously think anyone is going to take you seriously? Especially when you continue to ignore certain points and just keep restating your position without anything to back it up, much less refute anything presented!
That statement alone demonstrates your dismissive and juvenile attitude towards the article and studies and shows you unable to present any constructive argument. You're clearly not interested in what TiG and I (and others) are saying.
Personal attacks (and continued dismissiveness) only further diminishes your credibility and makes you look foolish. TiG has not lied once! He addressed the points made, your posts, and explained things in detail. You're simply not getting it! Or refuse to.
Well.
There you go.
That's it, then.
[deleted]
How can I possible argue against that?
Well played, damn you!
That's it, then. I'm not going to participate [deleted] Can't fight with one arm tied behind my back by the likes of him.
Comparing someone to a Nazi is uncalled for and out of line! Your posts have shown a steady devolution into emotional rants and personal attacks or taunts. If that's how you engage in a discussion, then your participation is not required or wanted!
Drak, you are fighting the modern scientific method. A consensus of one won't be allowed to change how science has been corrupted.
The entire argument in the opinion has been based on the idea that correlation demonstrates causation. That's become a common modern misuse of science. Let me give an example:
There is a correlation between increasing human life span (longevity) and global warming. The data definitely shows that correlation, as longevity has increased the planet has warmed. And the logic supporting that correlation is straightforward; a 50 year old person will have emitted more carbon over there lifetime than will have a 10 year old. Cumulative carbon emissions increase with age.
Modern science takes the leap of faith that the correlation demonstrates that increasing human life spans are causing global warming. If enough scientists and experts can be convinced to accept the conclusion that increasing human life spans are causing global warming then the conclusion becomes a consensus conclusion.
The idea that increasing religiosity causes science illiteracy is based solely upon a correlation. The opinion is premised upon the idea that correlation demonstrates causation. And the studies can be manipulated to make the correlation more apparent. For instance, those who subscribe to a literal interpretation of the Bible would be more likely to reject science and would be more likely to be science illiterate. The correlation would be strong and apparent. But the correlation does not explain why people would subscribe to a literal interpretation of the Bible. The correlation doesn't explain anything. It's science looking for correlations and not looking for explanations which is more political than scientific.
We know the opinion is premised on the idea that correlation demonstrates causation because the CYA weasel has been included that there may be other contributing causes. The correlation has been elevated to the same level as other contributing causes. But the correlation isn't really explaining anything.
Why is science illiteracy increasing? That suggests people are increasingly viewing science as an activity that doesn't warrant the effort to become literate. People are investing their effort in activities that they view as more important in fulfilling their wants and needs. The question about science illiteracy involves science; searching for scapegoats in a political manner won't explain why people are less willing to invest effort in becoming science literate.
As i have noted earlier, i believe one of the bigger reasons is plain laziness. I've seen it again and again in schools where we are promoting STEM.
I didn't get into Engineering because i thought it was going to be easier. I knew it would be harder but that didn't matter. I was motivated by a desire to design/create and to me that was worth the extra effort required. A lot of people today are looking for the easiest way out and lets face it.
That is not programs heavy in STEM.
Your anti science sentiment aside, the scientific method is the best method for establishing conclusions with the best degree of certainty or validity. An opinion of 1, lacking any scientific backing, is certainty not going to mean anything. Like Drak, you fail to acknowledge how the level of religiosity affects scientific literacy nor do you offer anything to challenge the cited studies on the matter. It has been stated time and again that a correlation is not a sole cause and that many factors are possibly involved. Yet you both seem to continue to ignore that, or what the cited studies actually show. Ironically, your post is an example of apparent scientific illiteracy.
I disagree. People tend to invest their time, energy, and effort into things that they perceive as fulfilling their wants, desires, and needs.
Why are there starving artists? Being an artist fulfills a want, desire, or need. Starving while doing art is preferable to not doing art. These people would rather invest their time, energy, and effort into doing art than doing other things.
The scientific method is the best method for explaining reality only when the scientific method is not misused. When the scientific method is misused to support an opinion then that is not science and doesn't explain anything. A consensus opinion is still an opinion only supported by groupthink.
Religiosity and science are presented as alternative choices for a person to invest their time, effort, and energy. The correlation only supports unsubstantiated speculation that religion and science are incompatible. The correlation does not provide any insights or explanations; the correlation only supports an opinion in a political manner. That's a misuse of the scientific method.
The correlation is anecdotal evidence that should lead to formulation of a question worthy of investigation. Why are people investing their time, energy, and effort into religion OR science instead of investing time, energy, and effort into religion AND science?
Yes! Do you think that is not clear?? That is indeed what the article states: correlation. The article provides support analysis / surveys to support the premise that there is a correlation between religiosity and scientific illiteracy.
Indeed, the article includes an explicit disclaimer that religiosity is likely one of many factors leading to scientific illiteracy:
CYA weasel? The author explicitly states a qualifying condition and you call that a CYA weasel. That is just slimy. The author states his opinion that religiosity is likely a significant cause of scientific illiteracy so do not pretend that the author is trying to hide his opinion or cover his ass with weasel words. Further, and crucially, this article does not claim causation, it claims correlation. His article is about correlation and he backs up his noted correlation with studies of correlation. (The title alone should give you a hint.)
In short, honestly represent what the man wrote instead of trying to portray his article as some kind of cleverly disguised propaganda or put words in the author's mouth. The article describes a correlation between religiosity and scientific illiteracy based on cited studies. The correlation is that: "those with strong religious beliefs are less likely to be scientifically literate". Read the closing / summary paragraph:
If you disagree with the correlation that religiosity is one of many contributing factors to scientific illiteracy then at least have the intellectual integrity to show how the cited studies are wrong rather than attempt to impugn the veracity of the author.
To me the most likely contributing factors are:
You can see laziness woven in the above (especially with motivation).
Fair enough, we don't agree. I'm going buy what i see in the real world.
That said, there has always been starving artists in this country. I have little doubt scientific literacy is going down here as well. What has changed to make that happen? People are lazier. No doubt about it. Not saying that's the only cause but from what i'm seeing it is a big one.
Agreed, i have no doubt religion can be a contributing factor but i think that contribution has gone down as time has gone on and not up as some would have us believe.
Suffice it to say that i agree Religion can be a contributing factor to scientific illiteracy but it sure wasn't for me. Not in the least.
All one need do is compare to the Greatest Generation who lived the Great Depression and, through hardship, established strong work ethic (among other things). A few of them are still around (like my father-in-law) and they typically are the polar opposite of lazy.
Yep
Thing is, it depends also on the actual beliefs. There are countless religious beliefs that easily coexist with science. Beliefs such as the existence of a supreme creator do not contradict anything in science; there might indeed by a supreme creator (who uses evolution to generate species).
The key and obvious problem occurs when religious beliefs conflict with well-founded science. Those with stronger religious beliefs will logically trend to holding their beliefs over science: upon conflict, their faith wins. I use the YECs to illustrate this since they are extreme, well established in the USA and continue to influence newer generations with crap like:
Hard to see how anyone indoctrinated into believing this crap would be inclined to study science since it requires they break free of these 'faith-based' notions.
The correlation is empirically demonstrated by the data included. The data is used to draw the conclusion. You seem to be assuming there's an automatic bias on the scientists part?
Religiosity and science are not being offered as a choice. Did you even read the article? They're used to determine a correlation between the two. I don't know how many times that's been explained now. What exactly is not clear about this to you?
Like most things, there are extremists on boths side. They don't represent the majority of either side imo and are more or less inconsequential quantitatively. And i'm not really interested in getting into another "faith-based" debate here.
We won't agree and it has no productive ending based on the last couple we had.
Obviously that is clear since I have based my comments upon the article being an opinion supported by correlation. What I have been pointing out is that the article is premised upon the correlation explaining causation.
The hypothesis is malformed and is using anecdotal evidence of correlation to support the hypothesis. The article only states a conclusion that is more opinion than explanatory.
Yes, CYA weasel. It's no different than a disclaimer to avoid taking a medication if someone is allergic to the medication. How can anyone know they are allergic to a medication without taking the medication?
But the relevant question is why people are investing time, energy, and effort into religion OR science instead of investing time, energy, and effort into religion AND science.
Science literacy is dependent upon the willingness of people to invest time, energy, and effort into becoming literate. People won't become science literate through osmosis. Why aren't people willing to invest more time, energy, and effort into becoming science literate? The relevant question is about the value of science in people's lives rather than about scapegoating other activities. (That's where the CYA weasel comes in; religion isn't the only activity that can be correlated with increasing science illiteracy.)
Other activities are not preventing people from becoming science literate. Science illiteracy is increasing simply because people are less willing to invest time, energy, and effort into become science literate.
It is much easier to engage in debate if one twists their interlocutor's argument to suit their needs.
There is a difference between explaining and proving. Correlation SUGGESTS causation, but it does not PROVE causation.
What is the ' malformed ' hypothesis that you think you are reading?
Then any article that qualifies its positions is engaging in a CYA weasel move. That is beyond stupid Nerm.
No shit!
Just amazes me that some people are incapable of reading what another person has written — even when pointed out to them in clear terms.
Nerm, actually read this from the article. I quoted this to you in my last comment and you still wrote the above nonsense:
This means: " religion isn't the only activity that can be correlated with increasing science illiteracy ".
I did not suggest they are the majority. In fact I explicitly stated this:
They are thus not the only example. They just served to illustrate my point. We can easily tap into myriad other examples such as the Jehovah Witness' refusal to accept blood transfusions, etc. and the cross-denominational belief that global warming is not as bad as science portrays because 'God would never let that happen'.
My point was to punctuate that religion is quite likely a contributing factor to reduced scientific literacy.
I am not interested in sports. In school I only participated in sports when I was required to participate. That requirement transformed my lack of interest in sports into a dislike of sports. I certainly wasn't going to invest time, energy, and effort into becoming sports literate since I disliked sports.
I was lazy. I was not going to exert any effort to improve my ability to play sports. I wasn't going to study sports, I wasn't going to practice, and I wasn't going to do any more than I was required to do. For me, trying to become proficient at sports would not be an accomplishment; it would be a waste of my time and effort. Forcing me to become sports literate robs me of time that could be spent on more interesting activities. And disparaging me for a lack of sports acumen and being too lazy to become sports literate only fosters hatred of sports.
Don't know where you went to school but where i went, organized sports were not required and were 100% elective. I think PE class was required up to around 9th or 10th grade but that wasn't "sports" per se but rather just physical activity that sometimes involved sports.
You might have been physically lazy but it doesn't sound like you were intellectually lazy. Which is really what this discussion is all about and not about sloth.
I have noticed. Again & again.
Who says I was physically lazy? I did farm work. I was involved in vocational agriculture classes that involved quite a bit of physical activity. Have you tried to manhandle a weighted tractor wheel? My physical condition made me a target of our athletic director. I'd rather hump hay bails for 12 hours than waste 30 minutes of my time playing football. And I learned that just laying down and being pinned in the first 10 seconds of a match meant I didn't have to participate. Striking out ends the game faster, trying to get on base only prolongs the misery. I really learned to hate sports because I was physically fit. My physical condition meant I should excel at sports and I received a lot of grief because I did not try to excel at sports.
Sports coaches are bigger assholes than politicians. Religion isn't competing with science in schools. But the athletics programs receive more funding and attention in direct competition with science education. Those with an axe to grind against religion certainly want to push the correlation increasing athletics and decreasing science literacy into the closet.
People who think its a great idea to run around and hit everything with their heads aren't likely to be very science literate. Their heads are hammers and everything is a nail. They're not likely to be literate in anything.
Simmer down nah, look again, not me but you did.
You've got a quite an axe to grind there. Me, i had largely excellent experiences in sports that helped mold me into the person i am today. Mostly all good to say about it in general. Many of the programs i was in helped fund other sports programs that otherwise would not have had funding. Helped build science buildings, fine arts buildings and yes .... God forbid ..... sports facilities. But since you clearly have a chip on your shoulder with this topic i'll be leaving the conversation now ...
You have a nice day now ya hear!
[deleted]
Thanks for the endorsement.
Science literacy or STEM literacy does not require physical effort. And, yet, you've made the general characterization that those who do not strive to be STEM literate are lazy.
I'm not attempting to misuse the scientific method to grind that axe.
I will say sports opened my eyes.
I was a soccer player. Our final game we won. I actually scored three goals and assisted two.
Our coach in his wisdom thought the MVP of the year should go to his son.
Yeah, I leaned a lot from that.
Never played again.
Which you didn't get. Speaking of chips on one's shoulder. You must have an entire tree on yours.
That kind of stuff happened and it was unfortunate but really, it was good life's lesson don't you think?
Oh i got it. You're the one who is missing the point......
Every time you hate on me here or disagree with me i know i'm on the right track.
Yep ....
That nepotism rules out?
That life isn't always fair but i think you got that.
I stayed the course and got more good out of it than bad.
Jeezus Nerm, Sparty did not say that those who do not strive for literacy are lazy. He said one "might be" physically lazy if they do not want to pursue sports. He even made the distinction between physical & mental laziness. Laziness can be one factor for an individual's laziness, physically or otherwise. Perhaps you should read what people say before becoming so defensive.
A courtesy applied selectively, it seems.
To quote Sparty, "As i have noted earlier, i believe one of the bigger reasons is plain laziness. I've seen it again and again in schools where we are promoting STEM." Could you kindly point out where the distinction between mental & physical laziness was made?
I pointed out that a lack of interest isn't laziness. And I used my example of disinterest in sports to illustrate. The attempt was made to attribute my disinterest in sports to physical laziness which is incorrect, as I explained.
Now you've attempted to 'save the theory' by assuming that sports is only a physical activity to allow making a distinction between mental and physical laziness. I suspect that sports statisticians would disagree with that assumption.
it's a real world example of how disinterest in science literacy can be transformed into hostility toward science literacy. And the example doesn't have anything to do with religiosity. Sports enthusiasts making assumptions about disinterest in sports can engender hostility towards sports. That example can also be applied to STEM activities, STEM enthusiasts making assumptions about disinterest in STEM can engender hostility towards STEM activities.
The distinction was made in Sparty's post 10.6.61. He also said you "might have" been lazy. As in, that is not a conclusive explanation. Since you dispute that, then that particular explanation becomes moot. I made no assumptions about sports either. I'm simply using Sparty's example of laziness being a possible contributing factor. Move on.
Hostility (or even a simple bias) towards science fuels scientific illiteracy. And possibly vice versa. The correlation with religiosity demonstrates this, i.e. evolution is false, Earth is 6000 years old, dinosaurs coexistence with humans, ect.
Hostility is rarely nuanced. Perhaps young Earth beliefs gain credence as hostility toward science increases? Perhaps flat Earth beliefs gain credence as hostility toward science increases?
I have a suspicion that forcing people who are not interested in science to become scientists will only produce bad science. Perhaps a better investment of resources would be to improve the science literacy of those who are interested in science and not worry about those who are not interested in science.
Making science literacy and religiosity an exclusionary either/or choice only fosters hostility between the two. And that hostility will not be nuanced. The motivation is for science and religion to adopt beliefs and make demands that are hostile to each other solely to be hostile to each other.
That approach encourages people to believe in science without investing any effort into becoming science literate. If a scientist makes a claim then the expectation is to accept that claim simply because it is science. That doesn't promote science literacy; that only promotes conformity without a need for science literacy.
Has science illiteracy increased among people who are not religious? If science illiteracy is increasing regardless of religiosity then the problem is much larger than Ken Ham. And hostility toward science would lend credence to Ken Ham simply because he is hostile toward science. That only promotes conformity in rejection of science without a need to invest effort in religious literacy.
Dinosaurs are not mentioned in any way, shape, or form in the Bible. So, the idea that dinosaurs coexisted with humans only serves to express hostility toward science. That's not religion and that's not science. In fact, expressing that hostility depends upon religious illiteracy as well as science illiteracy.
But it is not an either/or; it is far more complicated. As I have noted multiple times, when there is no conflict with beliefs, religiosity and science can easily coexist. For example, quantum theory does not contradict any religious belief that I am aware of. So one would not expect anyone to reject quantum theory on religious grounds.
Then we have the cosmological theory known as the 'Big Bang'. Here, not only is there no conflict with science, but science actually has provided creationists a platform upon which to declare the hand of God. Because it is not known what triggered the Big Bang it is ipso facto an act of god (whichever god the claimer believes in).
Finally we have conflicts. The most obvious (800lb gorilla) conflict is evolution (and thus modern biology). But other conflicts exists such as Jehovah's Witness belief that blood transfusions are prohibited by the Bible or Christian Scientists belief in the healing power of prayer and the refusal, by many, to seek medical treatment.
So mere religious belief is not in and of itself in conflict with science. The conflicts are issue-sensitive, not categorical.
I played volleyball for 3 years in high school. I was (and still am) short, but I had a really good serve, and I could put the ball anywhere I wanted to. One game, I scored 8 straight points while serving, and some of those serves were never touched by the other team. They finally returned a serve, an easy lob back over the net. One our front line should have stuffed back down their throats.
Our star athlete flubbed it, and let it fall.
Coach took me out of the game.
The star athlete apologized. She flubbed up, but she didn't punish me for her mistake. That was the coach.
I didn't play after that season, and told the coach why, too. He was the softball coach, and I played softball, too. But he never bothered to develop another pitcher for 2 of the 4 years I played, so he couldn't bench me in softball season.
That is just stupid, pulling someone who is helping you win for no good reason. No other word for it.
Unfortunately it happened but it also was dependent on how much you wanted to play. I dropped hoops jr year for a similar reason but i could take or leave basketball. Didn't miss it one bit. I wasn't going to do that with Baseball or Football that i really loved. Those of us that were dirt farmers, not doctors or lawyers kids, had to hit harder, run faster, etc and be that much better than those kids so coaches had to play us. It's just the way those politics worked.
No dumbass coach was going to stop me from doing what i loved. And they didn't .....
He was kinda clueless about coaching in general, but coaches for softball were hard to find. My dad was assistant softball coach, and would argue with him and just shake his head a lot. The guy never changed our batting/baserunning signals, and would always make sure everyone was looking at him before he gave a signal, so of course everybody in our conference knew when we were going to bunt or steal. And that whole thing about not developing another pitcher meant that I sometimes pitched both games of a double-header, so of course I was pretty tired by the end of the second game, and my fastball just...wasn't. There was no limit on innings or pitches thrown for softball pitchers back then like there were for baseball pitchers.
Yeah, I found I didn't miss competitive volleyball. I was pretty overscheduled, anyway, and took a lot of AP courses senior year, so some free-ish time was a good thing.
But softball meant more to me, which is why I didn't object to pitching double-headers.
i had a JV football coach who didn't like me. Still don't know why but when i got called up to Varsity he was actually mad. I found out later he had not recommended me but several of his ass kissers. Head coach saw through it, a game later i was starting varsity linebacker and never looked back.
Years later i ran into that douchnozzle in a bar and not being one to carry a grudge i bought him a beer and asked him why he did that. His head went down, he couldn't look me in the eye and he said he didn't know. Lets face it, people aren't perfect, some more than others but i let him off the hook. Life is too short to carry shit like that around in your heart forever.
He messed up, he knows it and we are friends today.
Yes, it is complicated. And because it is complicated there are more opportunities to misuse both religion and science for political advocacy and tribal hostility that really have nothing to do with either religion or science.
A belief that dinosaurs and humans coexisted as being necessary for glorification of God or for salvation is crazy. Believing that an amusement park attraction is an existential threat to science is even crazier.
Which receives most of the attention to engage in political debate and political conflict. Somehow the existence of God depends upon the number of meta likes on Facebook. That's not science and that's not religion.
How are beliefs concerning blood transfusions any different than vegan beliefs concerning a meat diet? Both believers use and misuse religion and science to advocate, support, and practice their belief.
So, humans create conflict to serve other purposes than religion or science. And conflict literacy is diminishing the value of religious literacy and science literacy. Is Sun-tzu's The Art of War religion or science? Maybe The Art of War is about sports?
Or perhaps not! Just because YECs & Flat Earthers believe their positions are correct and science is not does not validate their claims and positions. It only shows them as a prime example of being scientifically illiterate.
If one is not interested in learning science or rejects established science, even basic scientific ideas like the Earth being spherical and billions of years old (to use YECs & FEs again as an example), then they are being scientifically illiterate.
Or perhaps a basic science education all around and dispelling anti science rhetoric and misinformation.
There's always been hostility between science and religion when the two contradict each other on a certain principle. Evolution is a prime example of this.
Science doesn't go by belief, unlike religion. Science goes by evidence. Religion tends to become hostile towards science when evidence contradicts religious beliefs.
No one should "believe" in science, nor should anyone accept a claim a scientist makes simply because a scientist makes it. One should look at the evidence produced to accept (or dismiss) any scientific claim. The same can be said of religion, except it rarely happens in religious circles. People will often accept religious claims sans evidence and often from a religious authority simply because they are a religious authority or because others believe the same (conformity).
The studies show the less religious one is, the less their scientific illiteracy.
And yet, we have people like Ken Hamm and even certain members on NT who actually believe dinosaurs existed on the ark with humans and other species. I've heard some interpret the bible to men dinosaurs are mentioned. They might become hostile because science calls out their BS for what it is.
Yes, it is. And yet, many people believe that.
Except it's presented as fact and can distort one's scientific perception.
No, it's neither science or religion. It's mere belief at best. The existence of god, if one makes the affirmative claim, is dependent on the evidence produced to support the claim. Neither science or religion can produce evidence to god's existence.
As you noted, some beliefs are crazy.
Neither. It's military tactics.
Is the increasing specialization within the sciences increasing science illiteracy among scientists? How does a paleobotanist make an informed judgement on the merits of expending large amounts of funds to investigate gravitational waves? The science specialties don't even use the same language any longer. The sciences have become so specialized that scientists are being forced to rely on faith and belief simply because scientists cannot become sufficiently literate in all specialties.
Specialization has become so compartmentalized that not all scientific endeavors are utilizing the scientific method in the same manner. There is a growing dependence upon artificial intelligence within science specialties that elevates the idea of correlation as causation. And compartmentalization of sciences into specialties is creating barriers to perform replication because of the limited number of specialists.
Science has become so specialized that belief and faith is mandatory within the sciences as well as by the public. If scientists cannot become sufficiently literate in all science specialties then expecting the public to be literate would be unrealistic. The argument is being made that the public should strive to achieve what scientists, themselves, cannot accomplish.
Religion is simply more attractive because religion is less compartmentalized and specialized. Religion is easier to understand as a whole than is science.
Where do you see the Ark Encounter or Creation Museum claimed to be an existential threat to science?
Why do you make shit like this up?
Now you're reaching. The issue isn't about scientific specialties, but religiosity relating to scientific literacy.
A scientist can easily review evidence presented and the conclusions made based on it.
Examples?
In other words, religion doesn't require critical thinking. It's like saying Mother Goose is easier to read than James Joyce. I suppose some people prefer to be intellectually lazy. That can certainly be a factor in scientific illiteracy.
The science literate understand that correlation is not causation. The opinion piece depends upon science illiteracy to make a rather political argument.
There is more science reporting today than ever before. The increase in publication and dissemination of science information also correlates with increasing science illiteracy. As people are exposed to more science, the more science illiterate people become.
At least anecdotally, it can be shown that science is being misused more often to promote political opinion and advocate for political activities. The problem may not be science illiteracy but, rather, public rejection of science based political activism. The decline in science literacy and the decline in religiosity may share a common cause.
Science reporting is not the same as knowing the Science. Scientific information is readily available and abundant. But one must first take interest and understand the science. Not ignore or dismiss it outright, especially if because the science contradicts one's beliefs or biases. The article is not making a political statement. Only an observation based on evidence.
So you're saying that those who are refuting the correlation are likely scientifically illiterate as they don't understand that correlation is not causation. Someone's level of religiosity does not automatically mean they cannot be scientifically literate and I agree.
" While causation and correlation can exist at the same time, correlation does not imply causation. Causation explicitly applies to cases where action A causes outcome B. On the other hand, correlation is simply a relationship. Action A relates to Action B—but one event doesn’t necessarily cause the other event to happen."
If we define "Action A" as "level of religiosity" and "Action B" as "scientific illiteracy" then we can safely say that A does not 'cause' B. But it is related. I believe that the real culprit is "Action C" which I would define as "weakness of faith" meaning I believe some religious persons feel hesitant to study science because they fear that scientific literacy would somehow challenge, confront or undermine their faith/religious beliefs.
If you come into the science class with a preconceived idea that the teacher is going to lie to you and misrepresent facts and tell you that everything you learned from the bible is a lie then you may be more resistant to actually learning anything in that class as you'll likely be far more pre-occupied defending your religious beliefs. However, if you come into that class with confidence in your faith and still willing to learn the discoveries science has made in the last few centuries and are willing to see them as two completely separate fields, one dealing with the unseen, unproven realm of spirits and faith and the other dealing with the physical, testable universe around us, then you should have no problem being scientifically literate while also being full of faith.
It does also seem that there is a causal relationship between becoming scientifically literate and becoming less religious, so perhaps those with weak faith have a valid concern as it appears the more scientifically literate you become the less likely you are to be religious.
I read this over the weekend, but did not have a chance to reply.
This does worry me. I do not want this nation to become mired in the "rest on our laurels" mindset that so many seem to be embracing at this time. We should be leading the pack in all areas instead of lagging behind our fellow "developed" countries and even some of the "developing" countries. We need to keep moving forward - learning, inventing and prospering.For all that was accomplished by this country in the 20th century it is appalling to me that some would like us to stay as we are instead of being better & building more. I also find it ironic those that are so worried about advancing technology will not be the first to give up their creature comforts such as cell phones, internet, computers and so on. Why are they so scared of building a newer and better future?
Once again we see that the atheists on Newstalkers are the true fanatics, or at least as fanatic in their own way as the bible thumpers are.
Believing in God , or being religious, is not an obstacle to believing in science. Yes, the extremists in religion, those who accept every word of the Bible as literal truth, will have a predisposition to question some scientific explanations, because the Bible literally and scientific explanations for creation are not compatible as a time line.
But most people who believe in God do not take the Bible creation story literally any more.
I saw Sandy say Christians believe the world was formed in 7 days and is the earth is 6000 years old. I was in Catholic school 50 to 60 years ago and we were not taught that. 50 or 60 years ago we were taught that the Adam and Eve story is allegorical and that 7 days to God was not the same as 7 days in human counting.
The Catholic Church allows that the Bible (Old Testament) is open to interpretation.
The Catholic Church is the largest Christian denomination in the world. So it is borderline ridiculous to say that Christianity believes the world was created in 7 human days. Some Christians do, but "Christianity" as a whole no longer makes that claim.
I also saw Drakonis fairly astute observation that the article claims that religiosity breeds scientific illiteracy , on the rise now, even though polls have consistently shown that adherence to religious beliefs has been slowly dropping in the US for decades. So either religiosity is not necessarily the cause of rising scientific illiteracy or scientific illiteracy is not rising. Because you cant have both falling levels of religiosity, as the polls show , and rising scientific illiteracy, and still claim the former causes the latter. That is , as Tig likes to say, a lack of logic.
Catholic Church has evolving answer on reality of Adam and Eve - Catholic Review
In simplified form, the fundamentalist view is that Adam was a real person and the first human created by God, while science argues that human beings evolved as a group. Some Christians hold that they must follow scientific findings and adapt their faith’s teachings to that information.
Similar debates between science and religion have gone on for a long time, and the Catholic Church has worked through those disputes for centuries, according to Franciscan Father Michael D. Guinan, professor of Old Testament, Semitic languages and biblical spirituality at the Franciscan School of Theology in Berkeley, Calif.
“Since the 1600s,” he said, “the traditional views of Genesis have suffered three challenges: Galileo on the movement of the earth around the sun and not vice versa; the growth of geology in the 18-19th centuries and discoveries about the age of the earth”; and Darwin’s theory of evolution.
“The church has negotiated these challenges, but not without struggles. Today, no reasonable person in or out of the church doubts any of these three,” Father Guinan said in an interview with Catholic News Service.
The controversy – the one over Adam and Eve – involves the competing theories of polygenism and monogenism, that is, the question of whether humans descended from many progenitors, as science argues, or from one couple, as Genesis seems to posit.
“In the past, the church’s statements regarding original sin have presumed that Adam and Eve were historical people,” the priest explained. “The question of monogenism and polygenism never occurred to” those writing the documents.
He said that the most recent statement to mention this debate is Pius XII’s “Humani Generis,” a 1950 encyclical. It states: “The faithful cannot embrace that opinion which maintains that … Adam represents a certain number of first parents. Now it is in no way apparent how such an opinion can be reconciled with that which … the documents of the teaching authority of the church propose with regard to original sin, which proceeds from a sin actually committed by an individual Adam.”
In the six decades since that document, Father Guinan continued, “the Catholic Church has accepted the use of historical-critical tools to understand the Scriptures, which are, among other things, historical documents.
“The 1993 instruction of the Pontifical Biblical Commission on ‘The Interpretation of the Bible in the Church’ calls the historical-critical method ‘essential’ and rejects explicitly a fundamentalist reading of Scripture.”
When such an approach is applied to the Bible, he said, “Catholic scholars, along with mainstream Protestant scholars, see in the primal stories of Genesis not literal history but symbolic, metaphoric stories which express basic truths about the human condition and humans. The unity of the human race (and all of creation for that matter) derives theologically from the fact that all things and people are created in Christ and for Christ. Christology is at the center, not biology.”
He added that “the question of biological origins is a scientific one; and, if science shows that there is no evidence of monogenism and there is lots of evidence for polygenism, then a Catholic need have no problem accepting that.”
When such an approach is followed, he said, Adam and Eve are not seen as historical people, but as important figures in stories that contain key lessons about the relationships of humans and their Creator.
But not in the US where Protestantism is and that sect is being gobbled up by an Evangelism that would reflay Hypatia.
JR comes into an article and attacks a group of NT members.
Sure, John, you cannot figure out that Sandy was speaking of a literal interpretation of the Bible? The various denominations of Christianity vary considerably in how they interpret the Bible. Catholics, in particular, have almost a cartoonish interpretation of the Bible. What is taught to Catholics is very simplistic, very nice and results in Catholics having (unless they study on their own) a very limited understanding of the Bible as written. In contrast, YECs are very schooled in the Bible as written.
Religiosity can correlate with a scientific literacy while both decrease. How? Life is complicated, John. Gordy even states in his article that religiosity is not the only factor reducing scientific literacy:
To best understand Gordy's point I suggest you think of a person indoctrinated in creationism ... specifically that the Christian God created human beings (and all life) directly. That belief alone contradicts evolution (the foundation of modern biology). Given religious faith is such a powerful psychological force, do you see this as encouraging a person to explore evolution, etc. or to dismiss it as sacrilege?
There are many examples including those who believe their lives are in God's hands and thus refuse taking a vaccine, allowing blood transfusions, rejecting that human beings could foul our climate, etc.
That is exactly what Sandy said. I dont see the words "some" or even "many" in there. Fundamentalist Christians believe that, but it is a stretch to say blanketedly that "Christianity" does.
We all know that you atheists like to pretend that all Christians are fundamentalist because it makes your job of making fun of religion easier.
As for your comments about Catholics, there has been debate within the Catholic religion for many many many years over how much the Bible should be taken literally. I am quite confident that at this point very few American Catholics believe God made the world in 7 human days.
Many Protestant denominations align with the Catholics on these points as well.
I read the comments dude.
I am aware of what she wrote. And since Christian beliefs vary considerably, as I just noted in detail, everything that she mentioned is indeed a Christian belief. The denominations contradict each other.
Why make up such childish crap John? That just diminishes your credibility.
And that is irrelevant. Again, John, there are many denominations within Christianity and the beliefs therein are all over the map and contain many contradictions.
Not well and not objectively.
lol.
So your opening statement is an ad hom attack right out of the gate, eh John?
No one ever said it was and that certainly was not claimed by the article. And one shouldn't "believe" in science. One should go by the evidence and studies based on the scientific method.
They are not compatible period!
40% of adults still accept creationism over scientific explanations. That's still quite the significant number.
Many denominations have different interpretations of the bible, including how literally to take it.
The article makes no such claim. The article shows a correlation.
It was specifically stated religiosity was not necessarily the sole factor and other factors are probably involved.
I suppose that means the "Word of God" is not so perfect or unchanging as some like to claim.
Since views on A&E vary, then it stands to reason that inferred "lessons" also vary. I suppose that explains why there are so many different denominations, each with competing ideas.
Of course.
We see the results of that when the Catholic Church decided that "go forth and multiply" meant that contraception was forbidden.
Yes, John, not every sect of Christianity believes that the Earth was created in a week. But some, including some folks right here on NT, believe that, because that's what their scripture says, and they believe their scriptures, contradictions and all.
But Catholics and Protestants both name God as the creator of the Earth (and universe, and life - the whole shebang. Except evil. He created everything, but not that.). Why? Because they were told He's the creator. Somebody way back when, of whose existence we have no evidence, said so.
Joseph Campbell pretty much figured it all out
After reading the comments on this thing, I'm glad I'm Pagan.
I love being Wiccan. It frees me up to be me and indulge my love of all that is natural. The confines of organized religion stifles so much.
I love pagans. They are among the nicest people I have ever met and would do anything in their power for you. I was part of a Druid grove for a few years in the later 1990s and I still observe the 8 sabbats, but in a secular way as the passing of the celestial year.
Although I am really the only pagan in my family - they love the feast days. I do a lot of cooking and baking. The biggest (for me) is coming up on Sunday. So much food & wine....
America is a much less religious nation than it was 100 years ago, by every standard. So attempting to connect our decline in scientific or mathematical literacy to "increased religiosity" is going to present some statistical problems.
The idea that American innovation is less than it was 100 years ago seems almost laughable on almost every level. You can Google that on your iPhone from your Tesla. Or...alternatively...maybe we can all try to make America great again...... WTF. Really.
We're bad at math and science because our schools suck, and get worse all the time. THAT's the trend that should have us very worried. It drives just about every inequality measure in America.
That has little to do with "religiosity", no matter how many academics want to try to shift blame or how many fundamentalists want to "put prayer back in the schoolhouse".
A rather overly simplistic view of things.
Occam's Razor being what it is.......
If we're going to talk about Americans being less educated than they used to be, we should start with the institutions responsible for their education.
Alternatively, I guess it's easier to ignore the blatantly obvious and just blame people we don't like.
We are definitely less religious and continue to trail other nations in scientific literacy.
Definitely a key factor. Another key factor is our culture. We are simply not as driven as other nations. We are somewhat fat, dumb and happy. We do not seem to have the pride in accomplishment as other nations (e.g. Japan).
The degree to which religious beliefs dissuade scientific literacy is a legitimate question. I think it is obvious that those with strong religious beliefs (presuming the beliefs are contradicted by science) will, on the average, be less scientifically literate. A prime example are the YECs. If one is indoctrinated to believe that evolution (one of many examples) is a scam (because it contradicts their reading of the Bible) one is less likely to explore (learn) about science. A survey of YECs would likely show a very high degree of scientific illiteracy (engineering illiteracy too given the ark beliefs). A high degree of scientific literacy would (should) cause a crisis of their faith.
Absolutely.
I think that needs to be asked as part of the larger discussion, which would include the cultural factors you mention, as well as an in-depth look at the practices of most American public schools and how they vary from one to another.
I'm not sure it's valid to use extremists like YECs as a prime example of the average.
It would certainly not be statistically defensible to blame a group that small for a nationwide decline in math and science capability such as the article alleges.
I used them because they are an extreme and thus serve as a clear example. I do not consider YECs to be the average.
Of course not. And the article is talking about the correlation of religion and scientific illiteracy: my YEC example serves to illustrate the correlation since it is so clearly evident in the YEC beliefs. The article does not claim that religion is the sole explanation for a decline in scientific literacy. Note disclaimers such as:
There is a lot of good and interesting discussion here. Everybody please be careful and keep it that way, There are a lot of strong opinions on this topic thanks charger