# Can an Evangelical be Considered Anything but Ignorant? **URL:** \ **Category:** Great Debates\ **Created:** [February 7, 2011, 9:12pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/can-an-evangelical-be-considered-anything-but-ignorant/570577 "2011-02-07T21:12:28Z")\ **Posts on this page:** 20\ **Page:** 7
**Author:** ![The\_Hamster\_King](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/t/8edcca/32.png) [@The\_Hamster\_King](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/The_Hamster_King)\ **Post date:** [February 12, 2011, 6:59pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/can-an-evangelical-be-considered-anything-but-ignorant/570577/121 "2011-02-12T18:59:37Z")
> [@JThunder](#): > > I have said that the question “Did this person rise from the dead” is a matter of historical inquiry, rather than a scientific issue. And historical inquiry is a matter of observing empirical evidence and drawing logical conclusions. It’s not science, but it rests on exactly the same epistemological foundation as science. ---
**Author:** ![The\_Hamster\_King](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/t/8edcca/32.png) [@The\_Hamster\_King](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/The_Hamster_King)\ **Post date:** [February 12, 2011, 7:03pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/can-an-evangelical-be-considered-anything-but-ignorant/570577/122 "2011-02-12T19:03:16Z")
> [@Thudlow\_Boink](#): > > I find it interesting that that article goes on to say “identifiable features distinguish scientific inquiry from other methods of obtaining knowledge.” This would seem to contradict either **Lakai** ’s claim that scientific method is simply observation and logic, or **The Hamster King** ’s claim that observation and logic are the only method of obtaining knowledge. Observation and logic constitute the basis of the scientific method. However they are not the entirety of it. If you know of a method of gaining accurate knowledge of the world that is NOT grounded in observation and logic, please describe it. ---
**Author:** ![John\_DiFool](https://sea3.discourse-cdn.com/straightdope/user_avatar/boards.straightdope.com/john_difool/32/19543_2.png) [@John\_DiFool](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/John_DiFool)\ **Post date:** [February 12, 2011, 7:28pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/can-an-evangelical-be-considered-anything-but-ignorant/570577/123 "2011-02-12T19:28:46Z")
> [@The\_Hamster\_King](#): > > Empirical observation and logical reasoning are the only paths to knowledge. Science is merely the systematic application of both. > > If you have another workable path to knowledge, please share. Fine. Use empirical observation and logical reasoning to divine the precise nature of the theme of guilt in the play _Macbeth_. [Oops I just doomed the thread] ---
**Author:** ![Thudlow\_Boink](https://sea3.discourse-cdn.com/straightdope/user_avatar/boards.straightdope.com/thudlow_boink/32/320_2.png) [@Thudlow\_Boink](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Thudlow_Boink)\ **Post date:** [February 12, 2011, 7:40pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/can-an-evangelical-be-considered-anything-but-ignorant/570577/124 "2011-02-12T19:40:20Z")
> [@The\_Hamster\_King](#): > > Observation and logic constitute the basis of the scientific method. However they are not the entirety of it. I agree with you and **JThunder** , against what **Lakai** seemed to be saying, that it’s incorrect to say that the scientific method **is** simply logic and observation. Surely, the scientific method as we understand it today is not the only route to knowledge: humans (and their ancestors) have known things prior to the development of the scientific method. > [@](#): > > If you know of a method of gaining accurate knowledge of the world that is NOT grounded in observation and logic, please describe it. I, personally, know a lot of what I know, even on matters that are purely scientific, secondhand: not through direct observation but by hearing about them or reading about them or being taught about them by someone who knew. Clearly, there are ways that an **individual** can gain knowledge besides observation and logic. The real question is the method(s) whereby the human race can gain knowledge; i.e. how does knowledge originate, before being passed from person to person? I notice that you specified “accurate knowledge **of the world** ,” which raises the question: are there other sorts of knowledge besides knowledge of the world? Can we have knowledge of things that are not considered part of “the world,” and if so, how? Perhaps abstract ideas (such as those studied by pure mathematics), or things that, if they exist, are “not of this world” (like God or an afterlife or parallel universes), or the interior minds of other human beings, might be examples. ---
**Author:** ![The\_Hamster\_King](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/t/8edcca/32.png) [@The\_Hamster\_King](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/The_Hamster_King)\ **Post date:** [February 12, 2011, 7:53pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/can-an-evangelical-be-considered-anything-but-ignorant/570577/125 "2011-02-12T19:53:56Z")
> [@John\_DiFool](#): > > Fine. Use empirical observation and logical reasoning to divine the precise nature of the theme of guilt in the play _Macbeth_. No problem at all. First, we must note that theme of guilt in \*Macbeth \*emerges through the interaction between the text and its /audience. The text does not \*contain \*the theme the way it contains the words “Out out damn spot.” Rather it has the capacity to \*evoke \*the theme within an audience that brings a particular cultural background to their engagement with the work. So, in order to understand how the theme of guilt functions in _Macbeth_, we have to look at the system as a whole: the text itself plus an assumed “interpretive community” – perhaps its original audience, perhaps a well-educated modern one. Starting from this basis we can identify words, phrases, and situations within the text itself that will resonate with the assumed audience. We’re dealing in probabilities of course. We can’t be sure how each individual viewer will respond to particular lines. But through close reading we can identify moments that are \*likely \*to set up resonances with the cultural background of the audience. We can identify likely responses, and from those building blocks deduce a pattern of interpretation that adds up to “the theme of guilt in _Macbeth_”. Observation and reasoning. It works in the humanities too. It’d just not as systematic as it is in the sciences. ---
**Author:** ![The\_Hamster\_King](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/t/8edcca/32.png) [@The\_Hamster\_King](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/The_Hamster_King)\ **Post date:** [February 12, 2011, 8:12pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/can-an-evangelical-be-considered-anything-but-ignorant/570577/126 "2011-02-12T20:12:23Z")
> [@Thudlow\_Boink](#): > > I, personally, know a lot of what I know, even on matters that are purely scientific, secondhand: not through direct observation but by hearing about them or reading about them or being taught about them by someone who knew. Pedagogy is \*itself \*based on observation and logic. The teacher speaks words. These themselves are _evidence_. We use logic to assimilate this evidence into our understanding of the nature of the world. All we have, ever, is a stream of sensory perceptions and a mind working to make sense of them. The stream may contain a reading off a scientific instrument, the cry of a baby, the color of a traffic light, or the voice of a teacher. We take that new data and attempt to logically integrate it with our existing internal model of the world. If the data doesn’t agree with our model, we must either choose to ignore the data, or the model must change. We never trust any teacher completely. If they start spouting nonsense like “George Washington was the first president of the Moon!” we have strong evidence that we should add “teacher is crazy” to our understanding of the world. The problem with religion is that it posits ways of absolute knowing that take “teaching is crazy” off the table. ---
**Author:** ![Lakai](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/l/9de0a6/32.png) [@Lakai](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Lakai)\ **Post date:** [February 13, 2011, 12:01am UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/can-an-evangelical-be-considered-anything-but-ignorant/570577/127 "2011-02-13T00:01:15Z")
> [@Thudlow\_Boink](#): > > I find it interesting that that article goes on to say “identifiable features distinguish scientific inquiry from other methods of obtaining knowledge.” This would seem to contradict either **Lakai** ’s claim that scientific method is simply observation and logic, or **The Hamster King** ’s claim that observation and logic are the only method of obtaining knowledge. I’m not saying the scientific method is simply observation and logic. The scientific method is just one way of applying observation and logic. > [@JThunder](#): > > That’s not a definition, **Lakai**. The Wikipedia articles states that scientific inquiry must be based on those principles. It does not state that these principles alone are sufficient to declare something to be scientific. For example, the scientific method requires the use of hypothesis formulation and experimentation under controlled circumstances. This goes far beyond merely stating that observation and logic are sufficient to define science. Hypothesis formulation and experimentation under controlled circumstances is the use of empirical evidence (through observation) and a specific type of logical reasoning. It’s more specific than saying observation and logic are sufficient to define science, but I never claimed they defined science. I only claimed that science was the application of both. Science therefore falls under the umbrella of observation and logic. As do all other methods of acquiring knowledge. > [@](#): > > **Thudlow Boink** has also pointed out that your own link disproves your claim. It specifically states that there are other methods of obtaining knowledge. That is precisely why schools typically draw a distinction between the sciences and the humanities – because there IS a meaningful difference between the two. I didn’t say science was the only method of acquiring knowledge. Science is just one way to apply observation and logic. The use of observation and logic is really the only way to acquire knowledge. And you can even shorten that to logical or rational thought. Using rational thought is how someone figured out that empirical evidence was really useful to acquire more knowledge. Which still brings us back to the question **THK** keeps asking: “If you know of a method of gaining accurate knowledge of the world that is NOT grounded in observation and logic, please describe it.” ---
**Author:** ![Stoneburg](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/s/df705f/32.png) [@Stoneburg](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Stoneburg)\ **Post date:** [February 13, 2011, 9:56pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/can-an-evangelical-be-considered-anything-but-ignorant/570577/128 "2011-02-13T21:56:07Z")
> [@Skammer](#): > > I tried to respond to this in my previous post but it got swallowed somehow. > > Since I fully embrace the method and discoveries of science, I’d like to know in what way you think I’m less religious than I think I am. If you fully embrace the method and discoveries of science, then you don’t believe in god, which would make you an atheist. God is a magic superpowerful ghost, and science doesn’t allow for that to exist. ---
**Author:** ![Stoneburg](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/s/df705f/32.png) [@Stoneburg](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Stoneburg)\ **Post date:** [February 13, 2011, 9:57pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/can-an-evangelical-be-considered-anything-but-ignorant/570577/129 "2011-02-13T21:57:48Z")
> [@Thudlow\_Boink](#): > > What do you mean by “side with doctrine over rational explanations and science”? Prefering a religious explanation over a scientific one. ---
**Author:** ![Thudlow\_Boink](https://sea3.discourse-cdn.com/straightdope/user_avatar/boards.straightdope.com/thudlow_boink/32/320_2.png) [@Thudlow\_Boink](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Thudlow_Boink)\ **Post date:** [February 14, 2011, 12:58am UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/can-an-evangelical-be-considered-anything-but-ignorant/570577/130 "2011-02-14T00:58:57Z")
> [@Stoneburg](#): > > If you fully embrace the method and discoveries of science, then you don’t believe in god, which would make you an atheist. God is a magic superpowerful ghost, and science doesn’t allow for that to exist. You, also, seem to be confusing science with scientism. ---
**Author:** ![HMS\_Irruncible](https://sea3.discourse-cdn.com/straightdope/user_avatar/boards.straightdope.com/hms_irruncible/32/7394_2.png) [@HMS\_Irruncible](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/HMS_Irruncible)\ **Post date:** [February 14, 2011, 1:21am UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/can-an-evangelical-be-considered-anything-but-ignorant/570577/131 "2011-02-14T01:21:36Z")
> [@Stranger\_On\_A\_Train](#): > > Richard Dawkins, noted evolutionary zoologist and ardent atheist, has steadfastly maintained the existence of memes as physical and replicable structures within the brain even as neurological research has pretty much eliminated the possibility of transmissible or repeated neurological features… Do you have a cite that Dawkins ever believes that memes were physical structures within the brain, preferably a cite from Dawkins himself? I will be the first to admit I haven’t read his complete canon, but when I read his account on memes, I never once got the impression he was talking about anything physical. ---
**Author:** ![New\_Deal\_Democrat](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/n/9d8465/32.png) [@New\_Deal\_Democrat](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/New_Deal_Democrat)\ **Post date:** [February 14, 2011, 6:38am UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/can-an-evangelical-be-considered-anything-but-ignorant/570577/132 "2011-02-14T06:38:15Z")
Just because someone disagrees with you does not mean that the person is ignorant. Jerry Falwell was the valedictorian of his graduating class in high school. Pat Robertson graduated from Yale Law School. Neither of these men can be called “ignorant” by any definition of the word that merits respect. There probably is an inverse relationship between Fundamentalist religious beliefs and the duration and quality of one’s education and the depth and breadth of one’s knowledge. Nevertheless, some Fundamentalists are brilliant, well educated, and well informed. Some atheists are none of these. ---
**Author:** ![Skammer](https://sea3.discourse-cdn.com/straightdope/user_avatar/boards.straightdope.com/skammer/32/143_2.png) [@Skammer](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Skammer)\ **Post date:** [February 14, 2011, 2:21pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/can-an-evangelical-be-considered-anything-but-ignorant/570577/133 "2011-02-14T14:21:00Z")
> [@Stoneburg](#): > > If you fully embrace the method and discoveries of science, then you don’t believe in god, which would make you an atheist. God is a magic superpowerful ghost, and science doesn’t allow for that to exist. Fantastic, show me where science has disproven the existence of God so that I can start sleeping in late on Sundays. The truth is that God’s existence is not a scientifically testable hypothesis, so the claim that you can’t trust science and believe in God at the same time is the ignorant view. ---
**Author:** ![Acsenray](https://sea3.discourse-cdn.com/straightdope/user_avatar/boards.straightdope.com/acsenray/32/4519_2.png) [@Acsenray](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Acsenray)\ **Post date:** [February 14, 2011, 2:51pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/can-an-evangelical-be-considered-anything-but-ignorant/570577/134 "2011-02-14T14:51:05Z")
Science is not obligated to prove a negative. The burden is on those proposing the existence of supernatural beings to offer tangible proof. ---
**Author:** ![Skammer](https://sea3.discourse-cdn.com/straightdope/user_avatar/boards.straightdope.com/skammer/32/143_2.png) [@Skammer](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Skammer)\ **Post date:** [February 14, 2011, 2:57pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/can-an-evangelical-be-considered-anything-but-ignorant/570577/135 "2011-02-14T14:57:26Z")
So your position is that nothing is true if it cannot be scientifically proven? ETA: No one is asking science to prove or disprove God. As someone upthread said, science is entirely uninterested. ---
**Author:** ![Cheshire\_Human](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/c/5f8ce5/32.png) [@Cheshire\_Human](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Cheshire_Human)\ **Post date:** [February 14, 2011, 7:31pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/can-an-evangelical-be-considered-anything-but-ignorant/570577/136 "2011-02-14T19:31:34Z")
> [@acsenray](#): > > Science is not obligated to prove a negative. The burden is on those proposing the existence of supernatural beings to offer tangible proof. True, but **Stoneburg** said: > [@Stoneburg](#): > > …science doesn’t allow for [God] to exist. Whereupon **Skammer** replied: > [@Skammer](#): > > Fantastic, show me where science has disproven the existence of God so that I can start sleeping in late on Sundays… **Stoneburg** made a specific factual claim that science doesn’t allow for the existence of God. The burden of proof is on him to back up that factual claim. **Skammer** merely (correctly) placed that burden where it belongs. On **Stoneburg** , not on “science”. ---
**Author:** ![Stoneburg](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/s/df705f/32.png) [@Stoneburg](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Stoneburg)\ **Post date:** [February 14, 2011, 9:49pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/can-an-evangelical-be-considered-anything-but-ignorant/570577/137 "2011-02-14T21:49:36Z")
> [@Skammer](#): > > Fantastic, show me where science has disproven the existence of God so that I can start sleeping in late on Sundays. > > The truth is that God’s existence is not a scientifically testable hypothesis, so the claim that you can’t trust science and believe in God at the same time is the ignorant view. Explain god to me in a way that does not break the fundamental laws of physics. Anything that is “not a scientifically testable hypothesis” does not exist. ---
**Author:** ![Skammer](https://sea3.discourse-cdn.com/straightdope/user_avatar/boards.straightdope.com/skammer/32/143_2.png) [@Skammer](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Skammer)\ **Post date:** [February 14, 2011, 9:54pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/can-an-evangelical-be-considered-anything-but-ignorant/570577/138 "2011-02-14T21:54:55Z")
> [@Stoneburg](#): > > Explain god to me in a way that does not break the fundamental laws of physics. Easy: “God exists apart from the pysical universe and is not suject to the laws of physics.” > [@](#): > > Anything that is “not a scientifically testable hypothesis” does not exist. You live in a small world, then. ---
**Author:** ![Stoneburg](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/s/df705f/32.png) [@Stoneburg](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Stoneburg)\ **Post date:** [February 14, 2011, 9:58pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/can-an-evangelical-be-considered-anything-but-ignorant/570577/139 "2011-02-14T21:58:48Z")
> [@Cheshire\_Human](#): > > True, but **Stoneburg** said: > > Whereupon **Skammer** replied: > **Stoneburg** made a specific factual claim that science doesn’t allow for the existence of God. The burden of proof is on him to back up that factual claim. **Skammer** merely (correctly) placed that burden where it belongs. On **Stoneburg** , not on “science”. Not really. Semantics or no, ghosts don’t exist. If you find comfort in believing things that aren’t true, that’s fine. I don’t think any amount of evidence, logic or rational discussion could convince you otherwise. Atheism is something people arrive at by themself, not something you can convince people of. ---
**Author:** ![Stoneburg](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/s/df705f/32.png) [@Stoneburg](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Stoneburg)\ **Post date:** [February 14, 2011, 10:04pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/can-an-evangelical-be-considered-anything-but-ignorant/570577/140 "2011-02-14T22:04:30Z")
> [@Skammer](#): > > You live in a small world, then. No, I live in the actual world. And the world of science is bigger, more interesting and marvelous than any bronze age tale. By several orders of magnitude. The theory of evolution, quantum theory, relativity… way cooler than a burning bush and a talking snake. In my world, every atom in your body has been inside a star that died billions of years ago. You’ve got one book, I’ve got millions. You believe, I am constantly learning more. [Previous page](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/can-an-evangelical-be-considered-anything-but-ignorant/570577.md?page=6) [Next page](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/can-an-evangelical-be-considered-anything-but-ignorant/570577.md?page=8)