From RICE UNIVERSITY
Some faiths more likely to turn to religion for answers to science
When it comes to seeking answers to questions about science, evangelical and black Protestants and Mormons are more likely than the general population to turn to religion, according to a new study by researchers from Rice University’s Religion and Public Life Program, the University of Nevada-Reno and West Virginia University.
Thestudy, which is slated to appear in an upcoming edition of the journal Public Understanding of Science, is the first to measure whether people would actively consult a religious authority or source of information with a question about science, said lead researcher Elaine Howard Ecklund, the Herbert S. Autrey Chair in Social Sciences, a professor of sociology at Rice and director of Rice’s Religion and Public Life Program.
“Our findings suggest that religion does not necessarily push individuals away from science sources, but religion might lead people to turn to religious sources in addition to scientific sources,” Ecklund said.
The study, “Scientists and Religious Leaders Compete for Cultural Authority of Science,” is based on a survey of 10,241 Americans who provided information about their confidence and interest in science, their religious characteristics and their political ideology. The sample included a wide range of people, including all religious groups as well as the nonreligious.
“People have many places to look for scientific news and information: the internet, books or documentaries by science popularizers, museums or social media,” Ecklund said. “But there is good reason to believe some look beyond scientific sources of information when questions arise about science. Some segments of the public, for example, are skeptical of the scientific community when it comes to topics like climate change, evolution or vaccines.”
Ecklund and colleagues found that the general survey population was more likely to consult a scientific source than a religious source when seeking answers to scientific questions. This was also true when the researchers looked at mainline Protestants, Catholics, Jews, Muslims and other non-Christians. For evangelical Protestants, black Protestants and Mormons, however, the gap between the likelihood of consulting a scientific source or a religious source was narrower.
While 16 percent of all survey respondents said they would be somewhat or very likely to consult a religious leader for answers to their science questions, this number jumps to 29 percent when just looking at evangelical Protestants or black Protestants and 25 percent when looking at Mormons. Similarly, 31 percent of evangelical Protestants, 30 percent of black Protestants and 31 percent of Mormons said they would be somewhat or very likely to consult a religious text for answers to scientific questions, compared with 18 percent of overall respondents. When asked whether they would be somewhat or very likely to consult people at their congregation about such questions, 27 percent of evangelicals, 26 percent of black Protestants and 31 percent of Mormons said yes, compared with 16 percent of overall surveyed respondents.
When asked about their views on consulting scientific sources, 37 percent of those surveyed said they would be somewhat or very likely to consult a book written by a Ph.D. scientist for answers to their questions, compared with 34 percent of evangelical Protestants, 39 percent of black Protestants and 46 percent of Mormons. And 53 percent of the general surveyed population said they would be somewhat or very likely to consult a scientific magazine, compared with 50 percent of evangelical Protestants, 52 percent of black Protestants and 66 percent of Mormons. Finally, 49 percent of all survey respondents said they would be somewhat or very likely to speak with a person working in a scientific occupation, compared with 46 percent of evangelical Protestants, 43 percent of black Protestants and 55 percent of Mormons.
The authors said the research provides helpful implications and insights for science communication.
“In order to reach the large swath of the U.S. population who are religious, scientists and science communicators should be targeting religious leaders and communities,” Ecklund said. “If religious leaders are indeed already being approached with questions about science, it’s possible they simply need the information in hand in order to translate accurate scientific information to the public or to connect religious people with scientists themselves.”
###
The study’s other authors include Christopher Scheitle of West Virginia University and David Johnson of the University of Nevada at Reno.
This study was funded by the John Templeton Foundation and is available online at http://journals.sagepub.com/doi/pdf/10.1177/0963662517718145.
The difference between science and religion can be seen in how we get space probes to another planet. Science evaluates the proper conditions needed to achieve the goal and proceeds to use those calculations which ends in success. Religion prays that some being will make it happen just the way we want it.
When the scientific calculations turn out to be wrong there is a track record to refer back to so errors can be found and corrections made. Religion suggests a failure is due to a deity being angered.
Mars is an angry god. He parries many of our attempts to penetrate his armour. Sometimes when he drinks or whatever we are able to slip something past him.
Tom in Florida says “The difference between science and religion can be seen in how we get space probes to another planet.”
Who is we?
Perhaps you can provide an example of a branch or instance of religion attempting to get a space probe to another planet. Include why they would want to do that when their religion already provides the answers that the probe was sent to obtain.
Michael,
What religion tells us the composition of lunar regolith, what lies under Martian soil or foretells hydrocarbon lakes on Titan?
Thanks!
Did you pray for Apollo 13 to make it home safely? Millions did but is was science that did the trick.
Religions have no idea what the probes will find. If they did it wouldn’t be a religion.
Tom asks “Did you pray for Apollo 13 to make it home safely?”
No.
“is was science that did the trick.”
Says you. That is your religion, a thing called “science” that does things, rather than people that do things. When you anthropomorphize “science” into a Person then it has become your religion.
“Religions have no idea what the probes will find.”
Trivially true. People have ideas. Religions do not. Of those who have ideas, some will turn out to be correct. It would be nice to know in advance whose ideas turn out to be correct.
You have not answered my question about which religion sent a space probe.
“If they did it wouldn’t be a religion.”
The No True Religion fallacy.
Michael 2 October 17, 2017 at 8:08 pm
Michael, …… GETTA CLUE, …….
Tom’s remark stating that …..
“The difference between science and religion can be seen in how we get space probes to another planet.”
…… simply pointed out that Religion or Religious beliefs were not beneficial or responsible for one (1) damn thing associated with launching successful space probes.
Samuel C Cogar explained: “[re: The difference between science and religion can be seen in how we get space probes to another planet.] simply pointed out that Religion or Religious beliefs were not beneficial or responsible for one (1) damn thing associated with launching successful space probes.”
Appreciate the explanation, that the way to distinguish between science and religion is observe which thing sends out space probes. Clearly it was impossible to distinguish between these prior to launching space probes.
I have a doubt that religious beliefs are completely absent in the space program, starting with WHY is there a space program at all? In what way has human evolution driven people to invest billions of dollars in shooting bits of metal into space?
I think the reality is that religious people seek religious opinion on topics where there is no real, hard scientific evidence backed up with common sense observation, and the interpretation of that topic is debatable.
Thus, you won’t find religious people seeking religious opinion on the existence or laws of gravity, but they will consult religious text on a theory regarding the creation of life.
People also seek religion when they feel they have no ability to help themselves. Of course it is much easier for those to simply prey for help than to go out and actually do it for themselves.
Perhaps these jackwagons are just frustrated that people of faith have a higher moral perspective that makes it easier to spot liars like them? Historic evidence to back up their inference that people of faith are incapable of following scientific principle is about as plentiful as evidence CO2 ever controlled earth’s temperature.
In a biography of Louis Pasteur by his son in-law:
Better still, Leonard Euler wrote:
There are examples after examples of famous scientists driven by the miraculous perfection of Nature. The scientific discoveries they made in their quest to understand it fueled an ever increasing conviction to the idea that our universe could not possibly be the result of cosmic chance, (as atheist dullards “believe”).
.
I have always marveled at people who cannot explain to me how the first reproductive system came into existence (a more sophisticated version of which came first, the chicken or the egg), without use of words like: may, could have, perhaps, possibly. Without facts, it is all conjecture and belief.
Darwin himself wrote that without fossil evidence showing more advanced life forms prior to the “Cambrian Explosion”, his Theory of Evolution would be disproven (null hypothesis). The 40 million year extent of the Cambrian period was simply not enough time for evolution from simple life forms at the beginning to the complex life at the end of that period (see “Darwin’s Dilemma” for more thorough discussion.
The first reproductive system (along with a system to provide the energy to reproduce) had to have been created. Either by God or Mother Nature (either here on Earth or some other location). I have yet to read or hear of the demonstration of some combination of air movement (breeze, wind, tornado, hurricane), water movement (drips, tides, waves, tsunamis, brooks, or rivers), earth movement (volcanic eruption, earthquake, meteor strike), or lightning strike or ocean floor vent that could create such complex systems simultaneously. Until then, I will (like the above cited “scientists” continue to believe in God.
WE know how the first reproductive system came into being. A cell split.
Aeons later, it took a different cell to make it split, and that worked better. So it prospered as a system
Life is simply from a material point of view a series of self reproducing cell formations.
Hardly different from growing crystals
Just my opinion, I don’t believe God interceded to tweak anything after Big Bang because to believe that would be to believe that God was incapable of getting it right “the first time”. But then… what IS “the first time” to an entity likely unconstrained by time?
CW,
You are way out of date.
Fossils much older than the Cambrian have been known for about a century, although they weren’t recognized as such until the 1950s. Before then, scientists wrongly felt that organisms were too small and soft-bodied to be detected in Precambrian rocks. But then large organisms were found in them (in central England), and previous discoveries were reexamined and found also to be from rocks older than the Phanerozoic. Today there are lots and lots of fossils and impressions of Precambrian multicellular organisms, plus of course very ancient microbial fossils, such as stromatolites from 3.5 billion years ago and biochemical markers from 3.8 to 4.2 Ga.
The details of how life first arose on earth are still under study, but each year answers emerge.
The chemical precursors of life assemble both on earth and in space. A protocell has yet to self-assemble in the lab, but its constituent parts have already been shown to do so, to include a membrane capable of division and short sequences of both nucleic acids and amino acids (which compose proteins). A simple version of the Krebs cycle, the basis of metabolism, also occurs spontaneously in water.
Scientists working in origin of life research predict artificial protocells within the lifetimes of most people living today. The more optimistic, like Nobel winner Jack Szostak of Harvard, have forecast five years. Others, including myself, don’t expect this result for ten or even 20 years, but in any case before the centennial of the discovery of the structure of DNA.
Michael,
Native speakers of English know what the word means, and nature doesn’t fit the bill, even if you think it does. Sorry, but to imagine the universe is perfect at this point in time is flat out delusional.
The use of perfection in science went out with Aristotle.
If the world is perfect now, then it wasn’t a microsecond ago and won’t be in the next microsecond. It constantly changes. The longer the time frame, the more so.
When was it perfect or when will it be so, or is it just in this instant? The universe is never the same, hence never perfect.
Do you imagine that the human body is perfect as it is now? Then is wasn’t perfect a million years ago and won’t be a million years from now, if there still are humans then.
So saidith: CWinNY – October 17, 2017 at 6:04 am
CWinNY, the only thing you have proven via your above comment is that you are pretty much uneducated about and thus utterly ignorant concerning the Cambrian Period and/or the per se “Cambrian Explosion”.
By the start of the Cambrian Period, simple life forms had already evolved into complex life forms …… but it was during said Cambrian Period that all of the major animal phyla evolved and which still exists today. And thus the reason that Period is referred to as the “Cambrian Explosion”.
But you were correct when you stated that …… “The 40 million year extent of the Cambrian period was simply not enough time for evolution” of all of said major animal phyla if one limits said evolution process to …… “descent with modification” of the DNA via random gene mutations.
But the “evolution process” during the “Cambrian Explosion” progressed at “warp speed” as a result of DNA modifications resulting from ……. Horizontal Gene Transfers between different forms or species of animals.
Samuel,
There is zero evidence that the Cambrian Explosion was from HGT. Please present some evidence for this baseless conjecture of yours.
Each year, more impressions and fossils of organisms ancestral to Cambrian phyla are found. What happened in the Cambrian is that previously small, soft-bodied forms got larger and harder, thus leaving behind more fossils.
Normally evolutionary processes explain the Cambrian Explosion. There are explosions after all mass extinction events, the largest of which after the Cambrian occurred in the Triassic, following the end Permian extinction “Great Dying”.
HGT does occur in multicellular organisms, but it doesn’t account for the origin of new phyla. So, unless and until you can explain precisely how this worked in the Cambrian, your assertion is simply unsupported speculation.
So demandith: Gabro October 19, 2017 at 10:56 am
Gabro, will this factual evidence, that can only be explained by HGT, be sufficient to appease your “brainwashed” beliefs that your chosen mentors forced you to believe, to wit:
http://www.wildwatch.com.au/uploads/Platypus/PLATYPUSweb1.jpg
Gabro, given the FACT that you will surely disagree with the above, …….. let’s see how brilliant you really are by your presenting a BELIEVABLE explanation of the evolution of the Platypus via “descent with modification” triggered by far-and-few-between random gene mutations of the beneficial and survivable kind …….. and not the detrimental or “junk DNA” kind.
And spare me any and all “ifs n’ maybes n’ possibilities” in your explanation.
Gabro, prior to the Cambrian Period of 541 million years ago, the DNA of the then existing life forms had to have been quite simple in the number of different genes, base pairs, etc., etc., which would have permitted HGT to readily occur without rejection of said “foreign” DNA or causing detrimental effect to the absorbing organism.
HGT, which was unknown until recently, …… still occurs randomly in the natural world, ……. and now days, almost every day, in bio labs in universities and other research institutions.
Here, correct some of your misnurtured beliefs, to wit:
Gabro October 19, 2017 at 10:56 am
Gabro, will this factual evidence that can only be explained by HGT be sufficient to appease your beliefs that your chosen mentors forced you to believe, to wit:
http://www.wildwatch.com.au/uploads/Platypus/PLATYPUSweb1.jpg
Gabro, given the FACT that you will surely disagree with the above, …….. let’s see how brilliant you really are by your presenting a BELIEVABLE explanation of the evolution of the Platypus via “descent with modification” triggered by far-and-few-between random gene mutations of the beneficial and survivable kind …….. and not the detrimental or “junk DNA” kind.
Gabro, prior to the Cambrian Period of 541 million years ago, the DNA of the then existing life forms had to have been quite simple in the number of different genes, base pairs, etc., etc., which would have permitted HGT to readily occur without rejection of said “foreign” DNA or causing detrimental effect to the absorbing organism.
HGT, which was unknown until recently, …… still occurs randomly in the natural world, ……. and now days, almost every day, in bio labs in universities and other research institutions.
Here, correct your beliefs, to wit:
Gabro October 19, 2017 at 10:56 am
Gabro, will this factual evidence that can only be explained by HGT be sufficient to appease your beliefs that your chosen mentors forced you to believe, to wit:
http://www.wildwatch.com.au/uploads/Platypus/PLATYPUSweb1.jpg
Gabro, given the FACT that you will surely disagree with the above, …….. let’s see how brilliant you really are by your presenting a BELIEVABLE explanation of the evolution of the Platypus via “descent with modification” triggered by far-and-few-between random gene mutations of the beneficial and survivable kind …….. and not the detrimental or “junk DNA” kind.
maybe the problem is here that we cannot envision a period of 100 million years.
Gabro, prior to the Cambrian Period of 541 million years ago, the DNA of the then existing life forms had to have been quite simple in the number of different genes, base pairs, etc., etc., which would have permitted HGT to readily occur without rejection of said “foreign” DNA or causing detrimental effect to the absorbing organism.
HGT, which was unknown until recently, …… still occurs randomly in the natural world, ……. and now days, almost every day, in bio labs in universities and other research institutions.
David October 20, 2017 at 6:29 am
But, but, but, …. David, ……. animal life had been evolving via “descent with modification (random mutations)” for 1,000 million years before the Cambrian Explosion began, …… then all of a sudden, geologically speaking that is, ……. thousands of different phyla, genera, species, etc., evolved to procreate their “like kind”, ……… Biblically speaking that is. HA HA HA
And HA, …. I thought the server software had rejected my 1st two “Platypus postings” …… so I shortened it a bit and posted it a 3rd time.
As I pointed out, religion is no bar to science,.
Early science simply performed a small transform so that ‘God’s will’ was transformed into ‘Natural law’
Allowing them to study a universe saturated with Godliness and perfect in every way.
I know many good scientists who switch between a scientific world-view for their work, and a spiritual one for their human side.,
As I keep saying, it is the insistence that one is ‘true’ and the other is not, that causes the conflict. Since Galileo
Leo,
Well said!
In the days of one and only one “truth” you might have burned for even that simple statement. The climate literati would like to return us to the days of no dissent and no arguments. They are totalitarians. Their ideas are so weak that they know they can’t withstand critique.
Mike,
Nature is obviously not “perfect”. Far from it. You need look no further than the human body to confirm this fact. Like all organisms, humans are an ad hoc patchwork of Rube Goldberg devices.
There is no “perfect” configuration of this (or other) universes, nor of our galaxy, solar system or earth. All is constantly changing. This fact is one of the greatest, most profound discoveries of modern science.
Nor is even the process of change itself perfect. There is no perfection in nature and no goal to its existence. It just is.
Gabro says “Nature is obviously not perfect.”
It is if I say it is, and I say it is, therefore it is. Shall we discuss what the word means?
“There is no perfection in nature and no goal to its existence. ”
Let’s separate two distinct aspects. One encompasses the timeless structural aspects of nature such as the various laws of physics (that we have thus far identified), physical constants or the make up of the materials. Every one of those aspects requires a precision beyond our comprehension, e.g. the exact speed of light or the gravity ‘constant’ or the kind of ‘stuff’ that makes up a lepton, etc. The other aspect is the result of everything taken together in a universe subject to time which enables motion from the flow of energy.
As I see it, it’s all far too precise to be by chance.
So if it was not by chance then it was conceived.
If it was conceived then there must be a purpose.
A universe without life would be rather boring wouldn’t it? (Like having an ant farm with no ants in it.) Therefore life was the goal of creation and it is perfect because … it worked! Life exists! (and I have almost zero belief life only exists here on this one planet or that humans represent any sort of ultimate objective – “we” have another ~3 billion years to figure things out before “we” either find a new planet or all life on earth perishes).
“You need look no further than the human body to confirm this fact.” I cannot change your pessimism, I can only offer my perspective that life is a miraculous gift to each one of us and I am thankful for mine. But life is not just your life or my life – it is the continuation of life – generation after generation.
Faith is at least believing God created this universe and that life was God’s purpose for creating it.
Science is figuring out how it all works, discovering how God did it, with each discovery yielding only more questions to be answered, a seemingly endless pursuit of infinite knowledge.
Gabro, you keeping saying “nature is obviously not ‘perfect'” How would you define perfection? What would something have to be for it to be perfect to you? In your world does anything perfect exists inside or outside the natural world?
Did this study include people who are commonly referred to a greens, greenies, or eco-whatevers? Those people are turning science related to climate/weather into a religion. They should have been included in this because if any group manifests evangelical behaviors, it is them.
With all due respect, this entire thread, and the Rice study which prompted it, are silly and intellectually empty. Science and Religion are non-overlapping magisteria, to quote the late Steven Jay Gould. As I tell my (first and second year college) students, Science is a system of doubt, whilst religion is a system of belief. One cannot argue the substance of one in the terms of the other. A simple distinction, but a profound one. The word “believe” does not belong in a scientific discussion, although it is often misused there. One cannot arrive at belief through scientific reason. This is where Creationism comes adrift, as does Environmentalism, with its foundational belief on carbon dioxide catastrophism in the face of abundant published data to the contrary.
..hence my attempts to derive a metaphysical position that describes both from a new perspective.
I think to describe this as silly an intellectually empty is a lack of courage. The posts show that this is a topic that, rightly or wrongly impacts us all. Who do we believe in, when we dont know and cant work it out for ourselves?
How far is science ‘true’ and how far is it just ‘what works’?
Religion and science are complementary. Religion answers questions about the unknown (God is another word for what we don’t know) and science is what may be quantitized, measured or counted. Some people here struggle with the truth. Science seeks truth however there is no absolute certaincy. There is good truth in electronics, mechanics, and less in biochemics (life) and the climate. So honest scientists always mention uncertaincies and assumptions. Quacks sell seeming certaincies. But I repeat : these are the two windows for our view on the world : religious and scientific. If one counts more these are subdivisions.
I think science is “what works”, with the endless possibility of “what works better”. Whenever we assume we are done we are only refusing to continue questioning.
Geologist Down The Pub, I tell young geologists that Science is a system of curiosity and introspection. I tell them other things also, and show them cow skeletons in a modern flood cycle, then dinosaur bones in the same geological setting, just 100 million years older.
“As I tell my (first and second year college) students, Science is a system of doubt, whilst religion is a system of belief.”
I question both science and religion. I don’t rule anything out, and I don’t rule anything in.
I was raised a Christian from an early age, but that doesn’t make me a True Believer. One day our preacher gave a sermon where he claimed that using musical instruments to worship God was a sin that would send you to Hell. My particular denomination believed that only the human voice was acceptable to God.
My 10-year-old mind questioned this statement. I said to myself, How could a loving God send someone to Hell for not praising him properly? It’s the intent that is important, isn’t it? Wouldn’t a loving God understand that?
I guess that was one of my first skeptical moments, when the “conventional wisdom” just did not ring true, and I rejected it as not being consistent with a loving God.
That does not mean I don’t believe in God, only that I don’t necessarily accept the religious interpretations of mere men. I’ll look at the “evidence” and decide for myself.
“How could a loving God send someone to Hell for not praising him properly?”
Quite right! Perhaps “loving” is overstated; it is certainly so among the Aesir. Perhaps hell is not adequately defined. Perhaps “proper” is just a particular human’s belief and doesn’t actually reflect that of God. Perhaps many gods exist. Keeping an open mind seems useful; pick something as a guide but be prepared to change course as new information becomes available.
“I don’t necessarily accept the religious interpretations of mere men.”
Likewise, I do not think anyone should accept the dogma of institutionalized religion. But some people nonetheless find comfort in repeating what others did before them because they too found comfort. Such are what traditions are made of and traditions become traditions because they have enduring value to a significant number of people.
Religion is a firewall against fear. Without we live in permanent doubt over an unknown future, we constantly ask ourselves the purpose of life, permanently worry about “good” and “bad”… Religion is a social as well as a psychological construct….
Geologist,
I tell my students the same thing. Also that if they want to do so, they can inject God into the history of the universe and life at whatever point they want, but that He is not necessary to explain any observed phenomena, and adds nothing to our understanding of the natural world.
Religious belief serves a useful purpose, but science is rigorously natural, not supernatural.
“science is rigorously natural, not supernatural.”
YMMV
Your mileage may vary!
Michael,
No mileage variation on that.
The legal definition of science, at least in the USA, is that no supernatural explanations need apply. You could look it up. I’ll make it easy:
McLean v. Arkansas Board of Education, 529 F. Supp. 1255, 1258-1264 (ED Ark. 1982)
Gravity is a downright mysterious and supernatural force is it not? It just exists. We have refined our understanding of how it behaves over time but no one has figured out why it or any other of the known forces exist.
“adds nothing to our understanding of the natural world.”
A purely atheist viewpoint, that the world in which we live is devoid of any good purpose which then opens the door to each person rationalizing their own individual “purpose” … and their own relative definition of good and evil to achieve that purpose.
What is wrong with telling children that God loves them?
There are many sources of authority that have nothing to do with science. Considering James Hansen and Michael Mann as examples of expert authority, perhaps all sources of authority have nothing to do with science. In fact, I’m sure of it. Science does not deal with authority.
Science deals with authority by waiting for the old guard to die so some up-and-coming new ideas can be heard. Think continental drift, among other examples.
No one is an authority to me unless I have accepted them as such. When people try to clothe themselves in the mantle of expertise BEFORE telling me what they believe to be true, I automatically dial them back to the starting line as regards their expertise.
I believe that Hansen is a loonie and Mann is a deliberate liar.
Both are publicity hounds with massive egos
If they want to tell me something about lying or ego driven misbehaviour, I would pay attention. Otherwise, they are dangerous to weak minds.
Coach,
That’s right. Modern science began by rejecting ancient and religious authority, even if it felt the need to pay them lip service. And it has continued on that path.
Philo,
Not so much with “continental drift”. Once seafloor spreading was discovered, most geologists were forced to accept the reality of tectonic plates. They needed a geological mechanism to explain moving continents, just as evolution needed mechanisms, some of which were provided by Darwin, before it could be accepted.
Now the for Bretz floods, you have a case.
I like what Leo Smith said above about existential questions: Huston Smith wrote the most respected book on world [religions], in which he said all regions are responses to four basic human questions: Who am I? Who is the Other? What is Life? What is Death?
On the other hand, it is said: “Man is the measure of all things.” True that humans go about measuring things as the first step in science (word coming from the latin “to know”).
The boundary gray area is well illustrated by global warming/climate change, where we have some measures but not enough to distinguish between beliefs about the future being fearful or benign.
Sorry. “regions” should be “religions.”
Science requires more imagination than is popularly realised in order to make advances. I have no problem with scientists using religion for inspiration: The results still have to pass commonly accepted scientific standards to be taken seriously[*].
I have read that Gauss derived much of his mathematical work from pictures and drawings, knowing that he would still have to go through standard formal mathematical proofs later in order for it to be accepted.
[*Climate science being an apparent exception in some circles.]
There’s the 64 dollar question. What imaginative process do climate scientist go through in questioning the workings of the planet’s atmosphere and oceans. They seem to all arrive at the same conclusions without ever adjusting their blinkers and actually avoid certain lines of inquiry.
The only science I know that resists interesting lines of inquiry and subdues curiosity!
The key is to recognize a soft separation of logical domains: science, philosophy, fantasy, and faith. The problems arise when atheists, agnostics, and theists indulge in conflation, rejection, or abstention.
When rocket-scientists do their work amazing and wonderful things are discovered.
Who in the world would have guessed that religious people are more likely than non-religious people to consult religious authority on subjects of interest?
No doubt, the effort ends with “More study is needed”.
A liberal stated to me recently that their was no such thing as objective truth–I took his advice and ignored him.
But his statement was a subjetive truth.
Post-modern progressive: There is no such thing as absolute truth!
Other: Is that absolutely true?
Progressive: [runs away with hands over ears]
Better.
Post-modern progressive: There is no such thing as absolute truth!
Other: Is that absolutely true?
Progressive: Absolutely!
Does the set of all sets contain itself?
The way out of that dilemma is to understand truth is relative to context, with no absolute truth statements being possible *except the statement that no absolute truth statements are possible*..
But that is the perspective from within the limited epistemological domain set itself. It is constrained by its own limitations.
Well first, this “study” is simply a thinly-veiled Appeal to Authority (i.e. “Science”). Secondly, in many respects science, particularly in dealing with gray areas such as climate has gotten a little too big for its britches. Science used to have some humility, and not pretend that it had all the answers to everything. The danger to this is that it has allowed all manner of scoundrels and scallawags to weigh in in the name of “science”, in order to push their own agendas.
As a practical analysis, that is about as useful a statement as we could have on this subject.
This study alludes to a fundamental truth about humans: most of us need a religion of one sort or another. You can call it Christianity, or Islam, or Marxism, or Climate Change, but the great majority of people seem to need a belief than they can cling to, which in some way makes sense of the world they see around them.
While we in the West have created a wonderfully affluent world, we have allowed a gaping spiritual void to open up in our lives. At this point I expect most people to roll their eyes upwards and say ‘he’s going all weird on us’, but think about it for a while. For most people our lives are a mad whirl of consumption, driven by storm winds of advertising. Do you have the latest and greatest smartphone? Get one today! New clothes, new cars, houses, holidays, gadgets – the list is endless. Yet at some point even the most rabid of shoppers will feel a need to ask themselves whether there is anything in life beyond the mere acquisition of material goods.
Whether we admit it or no, we all of us have this need for reassurance of our worth, of our place in the greater scheme of things. I call this a spiritual need, although you can call it by whatever psychobabble term is currently fashionable if you wish. A generation or two ago, peoples’ spiritual needs were fulfilled fairly well by belonging to and attending a church, but most of us don’t do this anymore. Because of this unfulfilled need for reassurance, people today have a far greater propensity than in previous ages to support any cause that is skilfully sold to them.
Climate change, whatever its merits, has been sold in a very skillful manner. Yes, it tugs our heartstrings with images of the imminent demise of cuddly little animals, yet it doesn’t seem to require any uncomfortable lifestyle changes on our part. Just sell that gas-guzzling car and buy a fuel-efficient hybrid. (But you were going to do this anyway.) Replace that inefficient old fridge with an up-to-date one (which makes your kitchen look so much better). Put most of your garbage into a recycling box (which takes perhaps an extra five minutes per week). You’re making lots of money, so the fact that taxes are constantly creeping upwards isn’t too noticeable (and if you’re not making lots of money and are being squeezed by rising taxes, the mainstream media isn’t really interested in you, when all is said and done).
Climate change however comes with a good cop/bad cop routine. The bad cop part is that if you disagree with it in any way you will be made to feel as if you were walking through a hospital operating theatre in muddy boots. Terms such as ‘denier’ will be hurled at you, and you will be told that you are jeopardizing your grandchildren’s future. And yet, one has to wonder, if climate change and all its desolate scenarios are so self-evident, why the need to sanction dissenters in this way? Could it be that the high priests of climate change are afraid of dissent?
Fear of dissent is usually a sign that the belief system has shaky foundations.
Still in the dark ages of mysticism. Man will never learn.
what I have found is that the average intelligent man just about accepts and uses the philosophy and science of 300 years ago. And a little idea what has happened since
Since in the US, at least, the fact of evolution is accepted by about half of the population, the average intelligent person is OK with science from the 19th century for starters. Throw in DNA and we get up to the mid-20th century.
Gabro:
Evolution as a chaotic process (e.g. human life) or evolutionary creation as a theory of origin?
The polls to which I referred covered biological evolution. which is about the origin of new species and higher classifications of organisms, not of life itself. That’s abiogenesis.
But of course the whole universe undergoes evolution, ie change over time, as do the galaxies, star systems, planets and other celestial bodies within it. As indeed energy and matter have done in our universe.
“Man will never learn”
Seems you have learned to operate a computer. Are you a man?
One issue is whether one uses S. J Gould’s talking point on religion and science being non-overlapping areas of concern seriously or not. A belief in objective reality is just that, a belief, and the sort of statement that leads to endless discussion that settles nothing.
Nevertheless, I do have a belief in objective reality. The issue is that some people act as if they do not. Some people act as if the major goal is reconciling observations with the King James Version, or the Koran and Hadith, and they are familiar enough to merely note. Another, rather more influential group in dealing with science, are New Age neo-Marxists, for lack of a shorter term.
They act and argue as if only the social/economic interests of the writer matter, so denouncing some inconvenient disputed bit of evidence as having been produced in the interests of Big Oil and global capitalism is not fallacious, but the only thing that truly matters. They are inconsistent in applying this standard, but are as devoted to their Cause as are adherents of conventional religions, so demands for consistency are just another tool of oppression.
I am not stating that mind set is common, but it is influential.
That is not just Gould’s opinion. It has long been the very definition of science. He had his own way of putting the fact, but it has long been recognized that science and religion are separate activities.
Scientists used to say, and some still do, that they are trying to understand the mind of God through His works rather than his Word. But it has been a long time since supernatural explanations were deemed acceptable in science.
Gould was also a Marxist, BTW, and late his political ideology poison his “science”. But he was right about the separate realms of science and religion.
Science and faith, including religion/moral philosophy (e.g. individual dignity, intrinsic value), are intersecting logical domains, where the former exists in the near field (i.e. accuracy is inversely proportional to the product of time and space offsets from an established frame of reference).
nn,
Where exactly do you imagine that science and religion intersect?
Hmmm, that’s interesting.
So, I would interpret that as saying that the human centered subjective truth that is presented by the neo-Marxists is really just the perspective of ONE human, not ALL humans. I think that is mostly true on all counts.
As a basis for argument it is no different than any supposed truth that is presented by an individual with the objective of being seen as a fundamental truth.
They often lose me when they speak of the responsibilities of man to share with his fellow man without recognizing the responsibility of all to making the best contribution possible. Today’s world seems to be full of people trying to get the maximum for nothing contributed. Climate science attracts these like flies to honey.
The only corrective for it is to stop government from giving away money.
What the secular world wants to ultimately impose is their view that science should start with a capital “S”. Said differently, “science” endeavors to define the physical cause and effect of our universe by using “facts” that are by definition bounded by that physical universe. Anything that transcends our physical universe by definition, is ignored/denied. That is, by definition God is ignored/denied by the “scientific method”. That doesn’t mean that scientists are all atheists or that religious people deny all science, but it does mean that whatever “balance” any individual chooses between their faith (or no faith) and “scientific facts” is a religious decision.
Therefore science cannot “prove” any religious belief wrong and vice versa. To expand; if powers that transcend our physical universe do exist (God), then attempting to define the limits of those transcendent forces using only observations that are bounded by our physical universe (science) is meaningless, these transcendent forces might alter our physical observations and “fool” us (that is, give erroneous physical cause and effect observations). ‘Who’s to say’ is a religious question.
Final thought: theoretically science can explain all physical phenomenon, and since (as bounded by our physical universe) humans are physical beings, there are “scientific explanations” for everything that everyone thinks and does. So bounded by our physical world, everything we do or think is merely a physical reaction, the same as the orbit of the planets, or why water boils at 212 degrees etc. The logical conclusion of this view would be that “free will” cannot exist. So if “free will” does exist then it must come from some transcendent power (God). And that is the fundamental difference between Science as a religious belief, and science as a tool to help us live in our physical universe.
When post-modern science bumps up against the boundaries of the limited epistemological domain that it has framed, it resorts to circular reasoning.
Science by definition deals only with the observable natural world. Of the supernatural it cannot and does not speak.
Well said. Genuine, original science had/has the sense to realize that; post-modern science doesn’t.
I Came,
“Climate science” and other realms of post-modern science do indeed partake of faith-based reasoning, which means that they are not genuine science.
Gabro,
“Science by definition deals only with the observable natural world. Of the supernatural it cannot and does not speak.”
Of course it does IF the universe is the Creation of a God . . It’s just a word game to speak of the “natural world” as somehow above or separate from such a Being by default . . just a slight of tongue rhetorical trick, I say ; )
John,
Science cannot so does not presume that the universe is the creation of God. Such a belief lies outside the realm of science, since there is no evidence for the hypothesis and it can’t make testable, falsifiable predictions.
Thus, the God hypothesis is supernatural, or at best metaphysical, but in any case not scientific.
John,
Please read this, then explain to me again how the genetic code is inviolate and can’t be altered in any way, as ordained by God uniquely for each species:
https://www.nbcnews.com/health/health-news/new-gene-editing-systems-are-more-precise-n814446
Depends, what is your definition of science? There are at least three or four that are widely propagated, as well as many people running around preaching “science” without any real definition at all. What’s more confusing, what one definition of “science” considers as scientific, another definition disclaims it totally. So which definition of “science” are they working from?
The same questions can be raised about the term “religion”.
So basically, this sounds like a nothing paper.
There is only one valid definition of science, but CACA spewers like Mosher and Oreskes are trying to overturn the centuries old, valid definition of science so that it’s based upon “consensus” rather than time-tested method of hypothesis, prediction, observation or experiment leading to falsification or confirmation, with repeatable results.
Gabro: I agree that there’s only one valid definition of science, namely the definition I was taught in state universities and in secular science textbooks. However, the definition I was taught differs from yours.
The definition I was taught is: observation, repeat observation, derive hypothesis from observing patterns in observations, test hypotheses against more observation (prediction and experimentation are part of testing). If something cannot be observed, or observed only once but not repeatedly, then science cannot study it. That doesn’t mean that it’s false, just that it’s outside the realm of scientific inquiry.
Starting with hypothesis and prediction sounds like the medieval “science” rejected by those who founded modern natural, empirical science.
The reason for my comment above is that there are people, even “scientists”, running around claiming that certain teachings are scientific based on other definitions of “science”, or even no definition. Hence my question, “What do you mean by ‘science’?”
The same is true concerning the definition of “religion”.
science is everything that can be quantitized, counted or measured. So this involves both knowledge (electronics, mechanics) as well as matters under investigation (climate, human immune system)
Spirituality is the awarenes that there are things we don’t know.
Richard,
You were taught incompletely, hence, wrong.
You fail to understand what is meant by “falsification”. It means that the predictions made based upon an hypothesis must be capable of being shown false. They must also be capable of being confirmed.
An Oxi-Moron statement if ever I saw one:
“When it comes to seeking answers to questions about science, evangelical and black Protestants and Mormons are more likely than the general population to turn to religion.”
Al
“If religious leaders are indeed already being approached with questions about science, it’s possible they simply need the information in hand in order to translate accurate scientific information to the public or to connect religious people with scientists themselves.”
Translation: Get that propaganda out there now before anyone discovers what a scam we’re running.
I don’t understand why they felt they had to run “a survey of 10,241 Americans” when they could have gotten exactly the same answer from reading even the briefest biography of Galileo.
The Church of Galileo’s day was not anti-science. It had absorbed Earth centered cosmology and turned it into religious doctrine. I see this as similar to what the Pope is doing today concerning “climate change”.
SR
Yes, it was anti-science then, as it is now, with respect to CACA.
Science requires free inquiry and following facts where they lead. The 17th century Church did not permit Galileo or anyone else to practice the scientific method. The natural world was how it said it was. To challenge this doctrine was heresy, of which GG was guilty.
Religious thesis become “true” by consensus…..
Scientific discoveries only shift the boundary between science and religion. Ask 3x WHY and nobody is able to provide an answer.
Organized religion runs on dogma. It isn’t above caving in to the truth when it can’t be avoided and co-opting it into dogma. They don’t care what they burn you for. It only matters that they are the arbiters of “truth”.
The Church did not get the Earth-centered cosmos concept from the Bible. It had accepted secular thinking, found some verses that could be misconstrued to support that idea, then acted to maintain that consensus. Yes, the Church opposed the scientific method – the concept of testing the current paradigm, as it had become the scientific establishment.
Because most early 20th century geologists opposed Continental Drift, and astronomers of the same period supported the Steady State universe, would you call them anti-science?
SR
Stevan Reddish October 17, 2017 at 12:10 pm
Yes, the Church most certainly did get geocentrism from the Bible. But after about AD 400 to 600, it abandoned the biblical flat earth in favor of the Ptolemaic system, which at least had earth at rest at the center of the universe, like the Bible.
Augustine urged the Church to accommodate pagan science in order to help propagate the faith. Before him, and even after, Early Church Fathers insisted on the biblical flat earth.
David October 17, 2017 at 11:35 am
Science has constantly narrowed the scope for God to operate in the observable world, constantly explaining ever more phenomena which previously were attributed to the work of God.
But it remains separate from religion, even as it forces retreat from previous faith-based doctrines within religion.
“The 17th century Church did not permit Galileo or anyone else to practice the scientific method.”
The gift that keeps on giving. Galileo was not prohibited from practicing the scientific method; but then, he wasn’t practicing it. He was unable to prove his theory; others could not test it. It was the arrival of Newton’s Laws of Motion that created the foundation to eventually prove Galileo’s theories. So you see, Galileo *believed* he was correct, he had faith in his conclusion, but could not prove it. Or one might say he got lucky and turned out to be correct.
It seems to be his arrogance that got him into trouble.
Michael 2 October 17, 2017 at 6:11 pm
So wrong, yet again.
Galileo was most certainly prohibited from practicing the scientific method, which he just as surely was practicing until ordered to stop.
Science doesn’t “prove” theories. It tests hypotheses to see if they can be confirmed or shown false. GG’s observations of the phases of Venus showed the Ptolemaic system false and confirmed the Copernican system, without definitely “proving” it to be objectively real. As a Copernican, he showed through observations of nature that the Church was wrong and Copernicus could be and probably was right.
Newton’s Laws of Motion did not “prove” Copernicus correct either, because Copernicus adhered to circular orbits, as did GG. What eventually showed the earth to go around the sun as a fact were observations of parallax in the 18th century and that earth rotated on its axis in the 19th century. Now we can actually observe the earth and sun from space.
Maybe if you knew what the scientific method was, you’d understand why GG was practicing it. He was not just lucky. His observations of the moon and the Jupiter system also confirmed the Copernican theory.
If you consider putting the beliefs of his friend the pope in the mouth of a character named Simplicio arrogant, then, yes he was. But it was his heretical support for a heliocentric system and mobile earth that caused him to be convicted of heresy.
It’s too bad few humans will accept “I don’t know”
or “No one knows” as an answer
to questions no one has the knowledge to answer.
All religions predict the future, and those I know a little of claim you will
be rewarded/punished if you follow/don/t follow the “rules”.
Climate change is a secular religion that is a substitute for traditional religions.
With the predictions of the future, and the bad things that will happen
to you, or the planet, if you don’t do as the leaders say, I see little difference between
the climate change religion and traditional religions.
They are all nonsense to me.
But what do I know,
I’ve been an atheist since I was old enough
to know what the word meant.
Claims without proof, and predictions of the future,
are BS to me, whether from religious books or
from modern climate “science” text books demonizing CO2.
If you believe in a religion, and require no proof of it’s claims and predictions,
then how can you criticize the “Climate Cult Religion” claims and predictions,
also made without proof?
As long as the “religion” provides the requisite “proof” (sufficient evidence is all that I need), then there is no contradiction or hypocrisy.
The difference is that the Climate Cultists pretend to be doing science when they are not. They are liars, and their lies have done and continue to do great harm to mankind. Furthermore, there is no inherent contradiction in belief in a higher being/God, or whatever, and science. Many great scientists were religious. The two fields of religion and science are separate. Neither one has anything to say about the other except that it exists, and rightfully so.
Most scientists who believe God created the universe will tell you they are studying his creation. They have much to say about science.
Many scientists who don’t believe in God will tell you they believe the universe created itself. They have much to say about religion.
SR
“If you believe in a religion”
All people believe in a religion even if it is his own personal set of beliefs (or disbeliefs) …
and require no proof of it’s claims and predictions,
I believe many things; I know many things; I do not know how many things I do not know. Predictions always prove (or disprove) themselves.
“then how can you criticize the Climate Cult Religion claims and predictions, also made without proof?”
The activity seems to be to draw parallels rather than explain the mechanism of how exactly one goes about noticing and commenting on these similarities.
Speaking as a Mormon that’s just absurd. No member of the LDS church I have ever met looks to the faith for answers to questions of science. For one thing there is absolutely no reason to do so. Scripture does not address science or argue with it in any way. Scripture is about spiritual truth not science. I accept for example the idea of creationism, but note that nowhere in scripture is the mechanism explained therefore to me evolution is simply a fact.
Doesn’t the LDS church teach that Jesus was once an ordinary person on some other world who achieved such a high level of spirituality that he became the father of all humans on this world? How does that teaching square with the idea of humans evolving?
SR
No, they don’t believe or teach that so it’s not in conflict with the theory of evolution.
“Doesn’t the LDS church teach that…”
Yes, it doesn’t. What it teaches is easily discovered at http://www.lds.org; other sources are of doubtful accuracy.
Michael 2 October 17, 2017 at 6:28 pm
I wasn’t sure what you were directing me to. Is this It?:
20 Then shall they be gods, because they have no end; therefore shall they be from everlasting to everlasting, because they continue; then shall they be above all, because all things are subject unto them. Then shall they be gods, because they have all power, and the angels are subject unto them
Stevan Reddish “I wasn’t sure what you were directing me to. Is this It?”
The website I posted includes the passage you quote as well as many others. Which, if any, you find meaningful is for you to decide.
What is not at that site is a description of Jesus being an ordinary man on another planet. It is sufficiently off topic to just clarify that particular point.
Michael 2 October 18, 2017 at 9:38 am
“It is sufficiently off topic to just clarify that particular point.”
The topic of this post is related to the question of whether religious people accept scientific concepts. One person had posted that as a Mormon, he believed in evolution. Thus my question of whether Mormon teachings were compatible with evolution.
I now see my error concerning Mormon beliefs. It was not Jesus that was once mortal, but God:
“As man is, God once was: as God is, man may become” (Mormon prophet Lorenzo Snow, quoted in Milton R. Hunter, The Gospel Through the Ages, 105-106)
“Remember that God, our heavenly Father, was perhaps once a child, and mortal like we ourselves, and rose step by step in the scale of progress, in the school of advancement; has moved forward and overcome, until He has arrived at the point where He now is” (Apostle Orson Hyde, Journal of Discourses, 1:123)
With that correction, the question of how Mormon teaching can allow belief in evolution still stands.
SR
Stevan Reddish asks “With that correction, the question of how Mormon teaching can allow belief in evolution still stands.”
Thank you. I suspected as much from the beginning but it can be difficult to discern whether you are just another troll smearing a religion to someone with a worthy question.
The Mormons have decided to remain silent on evolution or essentially any scientific topic, rendering unto Caesar that which is Caesar’s, in principle. Church members are free to develop their own beliefs on scientific matters without fear of transgressing some sort of prohibition.
Here is an Authorized (official) discussion on the topic: https://www.lds.org/new-era/2016/10/to-the-point/what-does-the-church-believe-about-evolution
“The Church has no official position on the theory of evolution.”
But that’s a little bit disingenuous; for it does have quite a bit to say about “man” and spirits.
Brigham Young, second president, declared: “I don’t care if the Earth is six thousand, six million or six billion years old,” suggesting that it didn’t matter to theology (or the gospel) the age of the Earth.
“Did dinosaurs live and die on this earth long before man came along? There have been no revelations on this question, and the scientific evidence says yes. (You can learn more about it by studying paleontology if you like, even at Church-owned schools.)”
https://www.lds.org/new-era/2016/02/to-the-point?lang=eng
As to God having once been a relatively ordinary man, and now is a God, that is a conclusion (not a pronouncement) drawn from Mormon scripture but can also be gleaned from the bible.
http://biblehub.com/john/5-19.htm “Then answered Jesus and said unto them, Verily, verily, I say unto you, The Son can do nothing of himself, but what he seeth the Father do: for what things soever he doeth, these also doeth the Son likewise.”
The logic seems pretty solid; a one-to-one correspondence between Father and Son. The Son takes no initiatives that the Father did not also take and there are also no gaps; nothing the Father did that the Son did not do. This necessarily includes having been mortal and being a redeemer. It also implies the existence of other Earths, other people, maybe they look human and maybe they don’t. This is recursive, “turtles all the way down.” There’s no point in trying to plumb that depth, trying to find the “first”.
Where Mormons extend the logic is that you too can sit with God, not as a pet or companion animal, but as his heirs.
What the survey shows is that Mormons are more likely than the general population to find answers to questions about science that presumably appear to conflict with their beliefs (but may not in actuality) by questioning their religious leaders and their religious peers, and investigating their religious texts AS WELL AS going to books written by a PhD, science magazines, and people who work in scientific professions. It speaks highly of Mormons that they are open-minded and trying to understand both science and religion and resolve what they may see as conflicts rather than just leaving them as “great mysteries” that must simply be taken on faith.
The survey also demonstrates that non-religious people are less likely than Mormons to go to scientific experts for questions about science. Interesting.
Yes, I did notice your 2nd paragraph’s point. Funny how the paper failed to notice it.
SR
I’m not religious, but I’m not at all surprised that religious people might seek advice on science matters from their religious leaders. This has probably been the case throughout history.
There are many controversial scientific claims about medicine, food, the environment and of course, climate and the internet probably provides confusion rather than enlightenment.
Over the last fifty years there has been a massive growth in universities and scientists. I’m sure this has coincided with much greater spread of scientific quality and competence. There is much pressure on funding and the need to get the “right” answer.
Personally, my belief in a scientific result would depend on my assessment of a number of factors. This process would only take a few seconds but it underlines the fact that I don’t believe something just because it comes from a scientist. Perhaps it is because I am a scientist and I have a low opinion of some of them!
Only for topics outside (i.e. philosophy, fantasy, faith) the limited scientific domain in time and space, and scientific opportunity that infringes on the religious/moral philosophy, including individual dignity and intrinsic value throughout human evolution (e.g. from conception).
Particularly in medicine, there are often life threatening decisions where there is much uncertainty. The action may be as much about faith as anything else.
Whatever Mormonism is today, it started out a s a pseudo Christian cult. It’s origins were pure baloney. I shouldn’t even say that on here because this is about climate and I don’t usually twist people’s tails about their religion but B.S. is B.S.
Definitely off-topic so why bring it up? And if Mormons are more likely than the general population to go to scientific sources for answers about science (which is an evidence-based endeavor) how does that square with your notion that what they believe is “pure baloney?” Clearly a higher percentage of them than the general population are looking for evidence to answer their questions about science. Maybe they know something about their religion and the evidence of its origins that you don’t.
Mormons, as other Christians, and Jews, are advised by their faith to recognize a separation of logical domains. Paradoxically, this creates heartache for “secular” people who like to infer meaning from states and processes far outside the scientific domain, past, present, and future. It is actually to the Judeo-Christian faith’s credit, and modern people’s comfort, that they do not conflate logical domains. Also, faith (i.e. logical domain), religion/moral philosophy, and traditions are separable.
@nn, excellent point about separating logical domains like faith, religion/philosophy, and science; however, they frequently cross those nicely-drawn boundaries and that’s where the conflict and questions arise. For example, are experiments with cloning human embryos moral? Is fighting a war to protect your country’s existence justified when murder is immoral? If Adam was the first man (was he?) then how do you reconcile that with the theory of evolution? The results of this survey show how different groups are likely to try to resolve those conflicts.
“If Adam was the first man (was he?) then how do you reconcile that with the theory of evolution?”
It is a matter of definition. Adam was the first defined man for religious purposes. That other kinds of human or hominid is inferred from the story of Cain that went east to the land of Nod to find a wife. But that’s just my take on it; it doesn’t really matter that much the price of Rice Krispies whether Adam was the first man in the traditional sense, ex-nihilo creation poof mankind now exists, or evolved at at some suitable point God intervened and converted a hominid into a “man” by imparting an endowment of language in particular. With language comes an explosive growth of knowledge because now knowledge can be preserved and transmitted.
The unique belief of atheism is that God does not exist, cannot exist, and there cannot be even the slightest intervention or guidance of this whole process. That, to me, is as groundless a belief as an ex-nihilo magical creation it all happened yesterday and we have created memories of our own childhoods.
Michael,
It’s not a matter of definition if you take the Bible literally. Genesis 2, the second of two irreconcilably contradictory creation myths in the first book of the Bible, plainly states that God Himself made a man (which is what Adam means) from dirt, then plants, then animals, then a woman.
You’re free to interpret the literal story as you wish, of course. The proper way to interpret all the mythical and legendary parts of the Bible before it becomes quasi-historical around 800 BC is figuratively and allegorically. Literal simply is impossible, as was already recognized by Augustine around AD 400 and by Calvin around AD 1550.
Gabro writes “Michael, It’s not a matter of definition if you take the Bible literally.”
That is when it matters the most.
Michael,
Nope. No need for a definition when words have clear meanings, or those which can easily be discerned from context. Reading your definition into the text is not longer a literal interpretation.
Gabro writes “Nope. No need for a definition when words have clear meanings”
What might we call those clear meanings?
Definitions.
Gabro writes, in reply to my question which I will repeat, “It should be obvious that the Book of Mormon is a pack of lies”
Why should I believe your claim rather than that of anyone else? This conversation has become about faith and belief; you make assertions, others make assertions. Why would I turn to you for advice?
Michael,
Because it’s easy for me to show you that the Book of Mormon was made up by a sc@mster.
Gabro, demonstrating faulty logic, asserts: “Because it’s easy for me to show you that the Book of Mormon was made up by a sc@mster.”
Irrelevant. Even a sc@mster (I read it as “scoutmaster” initially!) can write truths such as 2+2=4. What you must do is demonstrate that the product, not the producer, is incorrect. Good luck with that!
Character counts for a lot but is not proof of anything. Might God choose a sc@mster to start a religion and write a holy book? Who am I to say otherwise; he chose a relatively poor carpenter to start Christianity.
“I shouldn’t even say that on here”
And yet you did. That is your religion! A knee-jerk reaction so powerful you are willing to spam a blog with your contempt. What makes you correct? And why should I or anyone believe you?
It should be obvious that the Book of Mormon is a pack of lies. Whether that fact is relevant or not is debatable. But it is obviously pure fantasy, a very bad novel, yet arguably the second most important such fictional fabrication, after the Koran.
Such studies almost always are done to allow the development of propaganda strategies. Even the public release of the poll results are a political tool. In this case it would be two fold, (1) using people’s religious beliefs to embarrass them into toeing the line and (2) to feed the Left/ CAGW base by saying, “just look how stupid and ignorant these religious zealots are. It was why we can’t have anything nice.” The first I have seen used by the Endangered Species special interest crowd. They actually developed political ads in a close legislative election where Evangelicals were a major player. It back fired because of how condescending the ads were. Atheists have a real hard time telling religious folks how to interpret their religion.