I think your example is more of common sense. Jumping off a tall building will almost certainly kill you. Unless you're Neo in the matrix.
Welcome! I talk with believers every day and the conversations are respectable particularly when we stay away from topics like religion. If both people are mature then conversations can happen and not involve being rude to the other. I even get along with my mom who's a Creationist while I'm not (being anthropology/archaeology major probably pinpoints towards my beliefs). Anyway, enjoy your stay!
Might it be useful to differentiate the meaning of "believe in" (which generally denotes faith that does not demand proof up front) and "trust" (which has to be earned.)? Then there is "believe", which may mean either or something distinct again, depending on context. We are, after all, wordsmiths, honing our craft.
Curious question, why is your mom a creationist? I guess there's nothing wrong per say with that belief, but what does she say when you show her real evidence that is common knowledge, to factually prove that creationism is false? Does she not know what radiocarbon dating rocks is? Is she an anti-vaxxer? This is a stance that could really hurt children.
Just to be clear, I only said that to keep the conversation light on my end. But you guys have at it.
I respect my mom enough to not go shoving around evidence in her face to insight an argument. I'm also not entirely certain she takes the "seven days" literally or that the earth is 6,000 years old. I just know she's a firm believer in that God created everything to include Adam and Eve. This isn't uncommon, though, with Creationists. There are Young Earth Creationists, but they're only a small chunk of people that believe the Earth was created by an omnipotent being. She isn't an anti-vaxxer in the least bit. I grew up with an compromised immune system and couldn't get shots so she's very much on the stance everyone who can get vaccines should get them to protect herd humanity. A person can be a Creationist and not be an anti-vaxxer.
I don't think there is usually any problem in superficial water-cooler conversations. "Cold enough fo' ya?" doesn't need to morph into a divine retribution for suffering blasphemers to live vs fossil fuel industry generated climate change. However, in serious discussions regarding political and economic strategy, these issues must arise. Whether they become heated and partisan or remain polite and light depends on how much the participants care, and how deeply entrenched their convictions are. It's hard to be respectful and calm when you feel you're fighting for your life. The situation between ordinary citizens would be a lot less fraught in a country with a trustworthy communication media network and uniform standard of public education. People in such countries may not understand the depth of division in the USA.
Yes, but; Science has given us the internal combustion engine, smart phones, toasters, and nuclear weapons. None of which, including the eradication of childhood diseases will be our salvation. We all march to the drum of Evolution and, sadly, thereby become extinct. There is no science that will save us from that fate. Evolution is a dead end.
I trust science to explain what it is equipped to explain. I do not trust it to 'save the world', especially in the hands of the powerful. Religion explains anything you want it to. I don't trust any of those explanations.
That it won't enable the human race to perpetuate itself for eternity seems like a strange reason not to trust science. I'm not sure that's a common definition of salvation either. Your view point gives rise to false equivalences also. True, neither science nor religion will completely reverse the laws of physics and give an everlasting human race, but when the meteor comes, I do hope they invest in rockets not churches. They are not equally ineffective at saving humanity; they are merely both ineffective at doing it infinitely.
Science gives nobody anything. Religion gives nobody anything. They have no volition or consciousness. They are methods of thought used by human beings for quite different purposes. If anybody "gives" you a vaccine or an explosive device, it's not Science; it's a group of people. If anybody "gives" you a witch-hunt or a promise of eternal life, it's not Religion; a group of people. Either way, it's up to you to count the teeth of that "gift" - there is always a price.
Science has given us the ability to understand nuclear physics. It has given us the ability to have infinite clean nuclear energy. It is our human failing and hubris that we have created nuclear weapons. Science is just a method of exploration.
Well I haven 't disappeared... it's just hard to read or write when my laptop keeps heaving up at me during violent bouts of coughing. I'm generally a fit and healthy person but this season is pitching virus bombs at me from all angles. And talk about a shaky start... an earthquake rattled my bed and sent my cat diving for cover. Have I pissed off God? Wouldn't be the first time. My friend in Utah is the ultimate Pastafarian. He introduced me to His Noodly Goodness.
For those who believe that science and religion are inimical, I refer you to this book by the paleontologist Stephen Jay Gould: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Rocks_of_Ages He contends that the two are complementary rather than contradictory. Both are tools that are used to understand two very different forms of human thought: an understanding of the world and a guide to morality. As long as they stay within their limitations, their product is good and useful, but when they don't, that's when the trouble begins. Science isn't a very good tool for settling ultimate questions of "good" or "bad," and religion is not a good tool for understanding how the world works. It's very thought-provoking reading, by a master explainer.
What he overlooked is that religion is a terrible tool for rule-making, as well. Try intelligent sociology or psychology. The purpose of religion is to consolidate pre-existing power structures. Modern religions do not explore human needs and values in order to arrive at moral systems; they impose moral systems. This results in quite unnecessary constraints on human nature and stresses on human society. Quite apart from its disastrous effect on the rest of nature.
Well, I'm with Oxymaroon, but I've always admired Gould as I love evolutionary biology. My favorite author is David Quammen... anyone familiar with him? Quammen is clearly not a fan of religion but his writing is unbiased. I've struggled to be open-minded and thus have read books like "The Case for Christ" and Francis Collin's "The Language of God." If humans really could separate religion and science, yes, both may be reasonable tools to use in life. My problem with religion, however, is that the harm done by it greatly overshadows the good. And I don't believe that science can't tackle questions of "good" or "bad." As Sam Harris says, if we remove belief in a higher entity isn't it just about cooperation vs. noncooperation? I recently found an article entitled, "Atheists Embarrassed: Study Proves Atheism Uses Less Brain Power." This was of course posted on a religious site. When I went to the actual scientific paper, I plowed through some of it (not exactly light reading!) but found it fascinating, and it does not say what the religious claim. Instead, the study suggests that with a better understanding of how the brain works we may be able to determine what's really going on when we resort to ideology as opposed to more evidence-based critical thinking.
Not only is it thought-provoking, it proves how the one was begot from the other. You never get to the art of Science without first developing a Religion. We Homo sapiens beat out some very formidable rivals. One by one our more primitive competitors bit the dust; it's thought that it was our imagination, that is our ability to think irrationally was a blessing in disguise, and that it led to rituals that became Religion... that led to language... and finally, language represented in written form. It's only after we Homo sapiens develop written symbols and letters that civilization was born. We had chosen the right fork in the road, the one that ultimately gave us Science. The Rock of Ages indeed; Religion is the foundation from which all Science stands.
Sounds good. And I suppose it's possible. It could also be exactly the other way around. Curiosity and observation tend to reach beyond the provable; tends to make leaps of imagination, into conjecture and theorizing. As Bohr said: "We in the back are convinced your theory is crazy. But what divides us is whether it is crazy enough." Sometimes the crazy theory, put through a series of predictions and tests, proves true. Other times, it's just crazy - but the theorist and his followers won't let go, no matter how many times it fails to work. That's when it becomes superstition (which is the name religions give to each other.) When you see a crow or a rat solve quite complicated problems that require the use of tools to make other tools and the manipulation of objects to reach objectives and overcome obstacles -- none of which are found in nature, btw - - you know they're doing Science, right? And somehow, they stop short of worshiping the water-dispenser or building enormous graves or throwing their children off towers to pacify the humans that set up the experiment. It's quite probable that human science and religion originate from similar motives: the desire to find pattern and discern causation; the desire to control our circumstances. And for a long time - a few hundred thousand years, anyway - they did run parallel and/or conjoined. All the primitive belief-systems, as well as primitive healing and navigation, are in close association with observations of nature in action. But then, something decisive happened. Civilization turned spiritual awe into a tool for controlling not only the environment but also the human population, while the spirit of inquiry was thwarted, crippled and deformed. I do not condemn spirituality; I do reject institutional religion.
Embarrassed? Why would they think that? Well, of course non-belief in the supernatural uses less brain power. It's more efficient, far more cost-effective, to follow the evidence than to twist your brain into contortions to deny the evidence of your own senses and reason in order to hang onto something implausible. Double-think needs double the brain power and takes up energy so that it's not available for learning math or birth control. Plus, it gets you killed, coz you're too busy praying to hear the train coming.
Eh...I might accept the idea that language is required for science. Religion created language? Not seeing that, not without expanding the definition of religion beyond anything that I’d ever accept.
I think we'll get on May as well give my opinion here. I think it depends on how seriously the believer believes in the doctrine of their religion. If they actually believe in and show respect for all the ghastly, objectionable bits, then I don't think there is much basis for compassion, respect or civility.
Also, with regard to science having religion to thank for its existence, I don't think we can be certain of that. We only have one planet on which to base our observations. We have no way of telling whether science would have come about even if religion had not. I see religion and science like stages in child development. When children are young, they don't understand the world, and they are scared there are monsters in the dark. Then they grow up and realise there aren't any.
He's not saying they're complimentary; he's saying they are completely separate and have nothing to do with one another. He's also completely wrong, on many, many counts. The history of conflict between science and religion demonstrates that they are not completely separate because science adheres to ethical boundaries, some of which have been unjustifiable. Science is fundamentally a communicative discipline and communication can be and has been censored on moral grounds. On the other hand, morality does not necessitate religion and is grounded in optimising social interaction for the fitness benefit of the social group. The study of these social benefits, including the evolutionary history that selected to maximise them, is increasingly scientific. The existence of a real, objective natural world is not completely undisputed, but is the most consistent with experience. The existence of a real, objective moral world is not, and rests on the *belief* in a universal moral law matching one or none of the local, malleable moral laws existing on Earth. This belief is an artefact of religious faith, meaning that Gould's argument is unfortunately circular.
