today to learn that I know an actual living, breathing creationist. Who is under the age of 80. And is convinced of the high quality of the education that led to that belief. (I think indoctrination would be a more accurate name for it, but whatever.)
I have a hard enough time trying to comprehend theists, really, anymore (although it’s the actual, corporate, religions that disgust me, while theism tends to just bewilder me), but trashing all of the science of the past 150 years or whatever it is, deciding that you know better than Charles Darwin?
How does anyone do that?
Tweet
As opposed to trashing 1500 years of accepted belief and deciding that you know better, than say Copernicus, Galileo, Kepler and Boyle?
Are you not also, equally convinced of the high quality of the education/indoctrination that led to your own beliefs?
How is your belief in say “The Big Bang” any more incredible or in incredulous than our friend’s belief in Genesis?
Religion and science both start from the point of finding the answers to the how’s and why’s of our existence. Over the course of several thousand years their paths have diverged. This does not mean the two are mutually exclusive. Many scientists hold a belief in God (http://pewresearch.org/databank/dailynumber/?NumberID=819). A lot of people are able to reconcile their religious beliefs with their scientific beliefs. Take this guy, Pope John Paul II for example, “The Bible itself speaks to us of the origin of the universe and its make-up, not in order to provide us with a scientific treatise, but in order to state the correct relationships of man with God and with the universe… Any other teaching about the origin and make-up of the universe is alien to the intentions of the Bible, which does not wish to teach how heaven was made but how one goes to heaven.” (http://www.ewtn.com/library/PAPALDOC/JP2COSM.HTM)
I wonder if our friend was utterly shocked to learn that they know an actual living, breathing atheist? Given what you know of their background, is this really it shocking?
Science builds on what came before, adding to the knowledge and discoveries of Copernicus or Newton. Copernicus, e.g., decided he knew better than the Church, and he was right, so I don’t know why you cite him.
Our tools improve, the pool of knowledge improves, and we’re able to figure out that Popes have different motives for what they say than pure scientists, e.g.
As for your 51% of scientists who believe in God (or something), I’m going to take a wild guess that fewer than 50% of those are dyed in the wool Creationists.
Every time I hear of a young person glibly embracing the kind of anachronistic, paternalistic belief systems that 99% of the people I know have rejected as classist or misogynist or just completely lacking in reason, I am definitely shocked. I take it as a sign of intellectual immaturity. And we’re all complacent in our beliefs, but some of us have more reason to be than others.
“How is your belief in say “The Big Bang” any more incredible or in incredulous than our friend’s belief in Genesis?”
It’s simple: the former belief is substantiated by reams of observations and inferences supported by logic, while the latter is unambiguously contradicted by the available data. Therefore, a belief in Genesis is more surprising and disappointing than a belief in the Big Bang.
Also, your point that science and religion talk about different things isn’t relevant to the debate at hand. Remember that db is directing her ire towards creationism, which certainly DOES make falsifiable claims about the natural world. Insofar as religion wants to tell us how things actually are, it opens itself up to science’s criticisms.
yeah! so there!
(thanks Robert!! :wub: