+- kanji koohii FORUM (http://forum.koohii.com)
+-- Forum: Learning Japanese (http://forum.koohii.com/forum-4.html)
+--- Forum: Off topic (http://forum.koohii.com/forum-13.html)
+--- Thread: Individual interpretation of scientific fact (/thread-5711.html)
Individual interpretation of scientific fact - kazelee - 2010-05-29
Continued from here:
http://forum.koohii.com/showthread.php?pid=102509#pid102509
Surreal Wrote:Aside from what the others said, I came to the realization that these people don't believe in evolution and the constant changing of the Earth that is progressing in a logical, explainable way. It made me think, how could they even begin to debate climate change, how to preserve the environment and so on? Even if most people who have accepted (or 'believe' as you put it) evolution did so blindly, something I don't fully agree on at least regarding the citizens of my own country, it would at least be an assumption that is based on actual scientific fact and is much more useful for trying to understand the world and planning for the future.
Individual interpretation of scientific fact - nest0r - 2010-05-29
This entry on the Creation museum looks at that particular establishment in a similar perspective: http://scienceblogs.com/pharyngula/2009/08/the_creation_museum_1.php
"I'm careful to put the title in quotes, because it is not a museum in any respectable sense of the word. I knew this ahead of time; I had no expectation of any kind of credible presentation in this place, but what impressed me most is how far it failed to meet even my low hopes. They clearly want to ape a real museum, but they can't — their mission is the antithesis of open inquiry.
The guards are a clear example. Real museums have guards, of course: they're there to protect valuable exhibits from theft and vandalism. But real museums want their guards to be discreet and not interfere with the attendees appreciation of the exhibits. At the Creation "Museum", one of the jobs of the guards is to suppress criticism. They hover about in rather conspicuous uniforms, armed with tasers, and some use police dogs to check out the visitors. They don't want dissent expressed in their building, and they admit it themselves."
Individual interpretation of scientific fact - nest0r - 2010-05-29
Here's an interesting take on the event described in the above blog, from the opposite perspective? http://blogs.answersingenesis.org/blogs/ken-ham/2009/08/08/the-day-285-atheistsagnostics-visited-the-creation-museum/
I am interested in how it's possible to deny the process that informs us that the Earth is much older than this museum claims, and yet to accept the results of that process in other areas.
The Truth is Our Only Weapon
"We should not, however, cover up, hide, suppress or, worst of all, use the state to quash someone else's belief system. There are several good arguments for this:
* 1. They might be right and we would have just squashed a bit of truth.
* 2. They might be completely wrong, but in the process of examining their claims we discover the truth; we also discover how thinking can go wrong, and in the process improve our thinking skills.
* 3. In science, it is never possible to know the absolute truth about anything, and so we must always be on the alert for where our ideas need to change.
* 4. Being tolerant when you are in the believing majority means you have a greater chance of being tolerated when you are in the sceptical minority. Once censorship of ideas is established, it can work against you if and when you find yourself in the minority."
Individual interpretation of scientific fact - Surreal - 2010-05-30
It seems that there is indeed a link that's getting stronger between evolution denial and climate change denial it's about to have an impact on American education: http://www.nytimes.com/2010/03/04/science/earth/04climate.html?ref=earth
(how specific this link is, as nestor has posted a number of articles where it was pointed out that denialists in general tend to be denialists in more than one area)
In many of the arguments coming from the denialist side you see something like "we need more balanced teaching". Now, what does that mean? We can never teach EVERYTHING, obviously, so on what merits should we be picking what to teach? The probability of it being true, the number of supporters for the idea (among only the professional or the whole population?), what we think is most useful? On the first and third I think both creationism and climate change denial hardly deserve a big slice of the teaching time. Moreover, from what I understand the ones pushing for these changes don't want specific criticism of these concepts to be included, something that seems way to basic to be overlooked and to me, some kind of 'special treatment'.
I remember my Swedish biology teacher brought up creationism (in it's most basic form) in one class, said pretty much what it's about and what kind of criticism it has gotten. It took about ten, fifteen minutes because as soon as you know the basic concept there's not much more to say, the specifics of it doesn't help you understand the world much. The scientific view lets us predict, come to discoveries and control phenomena, that's useful.
Individual interpretation of scientific fact - yukamina - 2010-05-30
Well... I read the responses in the original thread, but, of course, couldn't make a reply. So I guess I'll post what I was going to before. I'm too fuzzy brained to add something new at the moment.
IceCream Wrote:Not at all... by saying, "if someone wants to have faith in the bible, it's up to them", i was trying to point to that kind of idea. It's not "faith" that bothers me in the slightest. I even agree (to some extent), you pick the one that suits your world view best and follow it.I agree that the truth must be presented on both sides, but if only it were that easy!
It's the outright lying about scientific reasoning, and the presentation of religious ideas as scientific fact that bothers me. In the museum, they indicate in a lot of places that there is scientific evidence for this and that bible story, that there just simply isn't. They aren't presenting religion as faith, they are presenting it as alternative scientific fact. For those people who haven't been introduced to or don't yet understand real scientific method, of course that is going to interfere with their understanding. In order for someone to be able to freely choose what to beleive, or to try to come to some reconcilliation of religion and science, the truth MUST be presented on both sides. There are many true scientists who are also religious. I don't think that such a division is really as necessary as fundamental christians beleive. But even if it was... it still should be presented as faith, and not "alternative science".
I think your thoughts on separating science and religion are pretty common, but they only make sense from an atheist's/agnostic's point of view. To be honest, most Christians don't view Christianity as a religion. They don't "pick" Christianity because it's in line with their world view, but because they believe it's really true.
As a result, when something like evolution comes along with ideas that conflict with their "truth", it makes sense for them to do their own research to find evidence that is in line with what they "know" to be true. They aren't trying to lie or anything (maybe some of them are, no one's perfect). For this, there is no distinction between religion and science, since Christianity is not seen as a religion.
As for faith, I think atheists/agnostics tend to think of faith as a wishy washy belief that not only has no real proof behind it, but doesn't need any proof. Thus they think Christians can just believe in 6 day creation without support AND without rebelling against evolution. For Christians, you have faith in something that is real, so it is completely possible to (at least try to)prove the existence of God, creationism, etc.
I'm not saying the creation museum is right, I just think people should try to understand why people come up with things like that. They aren't trying to lie or deceive, and they don't side with the thought that religion and science are separate entities. There is a huge tendency to bash Christianity and it bothers me quite a bit.
^^^I emailed the above to IceCream and s/he kindly responded with this(quoted with permission):
IceCream Wrote:Firstly... i think i phrased that sentence really badly. i don't really mean that someone picks science or picks religion because it fits with their world view, it's more like... that the way you see things, justify things, your entire world view stems from that original position.
I often see atheists claiming exactly the same level of knowledge as some christians (or any other religion) do, and i think it's kind of funny to watch because the atheists tend to not notice just how shaky their position is either. If you take all arguments back to their natural root, i think both world views depend heavily on faith. Both in terms of what we accept on the basis of science without really understanding it (i know that there's sooooo many things i don't understand about the world around me, or how it really functions, that i just accept theres a scientific explanation for). But also in the long view...when we think of infinity, or a beginning, there really isn't anything that the human mind can comprehend about this, i think.
Both because of the above, and also because i was brought up as a christian, i don't think of faith as some wishy-washy thing at all. Different types of faith are whole different frames from which people encounter the world. Of course, my experience of christianity was very very different from the faith that a new world creationist has. I was always brought up to search for the metaphors, the meaning, and the beauty in the bible, rather than treat it as strictly factual. And even though i live as though i'm an atheist now, i can still appreciate that. So, it can be difficult for me to see the point of views on which creationist christianity is founded.
Also, i really really do understand how difficult it can be for a christian to reconcile their beleifs about religion with the evidence we have for science, etc. And a desire to look for evidence to confirm what the bible says is natural, you're right! But i still think it's deeply disingenuous to present scientific reasoning in a way which doesn't give people the right understanding of it to allow them to come to their own conclusions about it. Maybe you're also right, and they aren't trying to be disingenuous... they just haven't researched the way that science works. But even then, to present something in a museum setting that isn't properly researched also undermines their own work, and their own relgion, i think.
In the end, right now, it seems like science and fundamental creationist christianity do have to be seperated. If one of them is true, the other one can't be. But, i really don't think that things have to be like that either. I think that if people are true to themselves, and think for themselves, they can come to a world view which does contain both types of thinking. Honestly, the more i learn about biology, the more amazing it is. It's so complex, but works on such smooth principles. Its hard to not see the beauty in it too.
Yes, reconciling the two probably involves modifying beleifs that the world was created only 10,000 years ago. But is that really the important message of the bible anyway?
Well, i'm not sure if you're christian, or just bothered by the way that christianity gets treated, but i'm sure you'll have heard some of the other arguments for reconciliation. Things like, people have the ability to understand metaphor, stories, analogies, in the way that other animals don't. It's one of the effects of having language, that we can understand and play with ambiguity and meanings. So, God really doesn't have to use a fact based language to speak to us through the bible, he can make use of this uniquely human ability. Moreover, we have an exceptionally strong reasoning ability, and conceptual tools that allow us logical understanding. Even if we weren't supposed to have that power, it is still knowledge, and can't just be written off. Taking those two together, we can find interpretations of the bible that both fit with scientific reasoning, and allow us to understand in a more full way, a way only accessible to humans, what the central points truly were.
But if someone wants to beleive in the literal interpretations of the bible, they do have to throw out reasoning for the most part, and depend just on faith. No matter how hard that is, at least it isn't deceiving themselves and others in the process. Of course, it also raises questions about why our reasoning is so faulty, and how it possibly could be if we were designed so perfectly. But those, and many other problems, do seem to be the result of that standpoint.
^^ ugh, total essay, sorry it's so longwinded!! But, honestly, i didn't intend to bash christianity in any way!! Though i don't beleive in it, it doesn't mean i don't respect it, or can't find good in it. It really is only some of the claims the museum and the people who made it are making.