Uh Monavis. No. I was asking why we are screwing up the battle FOR America’s minds. The premise (which some disputed) was that anti-intellectualism is a growing force in today’s America and that science is failing to get itself unde
Oh I hate when that happens.
…failing to get itself understood.
I do not think it is that Science is failing to get under stood, I think some people do not want Science to be right, or to disagree with their belief system, their minds aren’t screwed up by science, they just do not want to accept what science teaches. it was also that way in Galileo’s time.
Monavis
However, that perspective simply tries to pretend that the problem does not really exist, ignoring the large number of people who think that “science” supports information regarding the paranormal, that the scientific method is simply one valid (but not exclusive) method among many for discovering the physical nature of the universe, and that false science such as Intelligent Design is every bit as valuable as actual scientific investigation. There may be a paranormal reality and there may be philosophical approaches to understanding our world that do not rely upon the scientific method, but having some large portion of the populace who cannot distinguish between such views is a problem. Pretending that there is no problem or that it is limited to some group of people whom we will dismiss (whether we accuse them of being too religious or something else) will not help American society do what it needs to in order to maintain a good scientific awareness.
Claiming that an uneducated populace is only a problem because of some crackpot beliefs does nothing to get the overall populace educated.
If you lived a life truly without sin your teeth would all fit and your appendix would stay healthy. And the babies whose coccyxes break during birth? They obviously had impure thoughts while in the womb. Being so close to a woman’s intimate bits can do that to a mind prone to sin and it shows how we must stay wary of Satan’s lures at all times.
Yeesh, you doctors think you know everything! 
One’s beliefs do not always depend on intelligence, beliefs are more of how we want things to be. I know an intelligent man who refused to bellieve his wife was cheating on him,(he didn’t want to accept it and made all kinds of excuses for her). It is one’s own perspective that determines what we belive and we can’t blame science for that. Science puts out what it does, than you can accept it or not. Last I heard there still was the freedom to think the world is flat, or the earth is the center of the universe. As I see it the problem is with the individual,what they accept or do not. Can’t blame science for screwing up their minds anymore than a belief system. There are numerous belief systems and they do not all agree on many, many things.
Monavis
Oops, I mispelled believe… Guess my eyes need checking or i need a course in typing.
Monavis
Monavis, that’s a bit of a cop-out. As individuals who care about what direction our society heads we share in the responsibility to help market a scientific worldview to the general public. You are exactly correct that individuals need not be overly smart to appreciate science and that intelligence does not automatically mean a scientific perspective. The trick is to make that habit of thought more transparently useful to everyday function*, so that it is what people want to believe. Marketing this product is not easy. It is not easily reducible to media freindly soundbites, the concepts require some chewing and digesting, it sometimes forces conclusions upon you that were not where you wanted to go. But nevertheless the product must be sold.
*In either practical or psychological aspects.
It is a sad thing to say, but as long as people cling to the belief that science is wrong and are frightened by it they will not accept it. It took the Catholic church 400 years to finally admit Science was right about Galileo’s ideas. Many are taught not to accept Science. Unfortunately some religions do not want their people to accept science and try to give an alternate answer. Believe it or not there are people who do not want science to be right. Some still want Noah’s ark story to be true etc. They do not want science in the way of their beliefs. But that is not the fault of science it is the individual’s. Non are so blind as they who will not see.
Some of the Fundamentalists are fighting the scientific view,afraid that Christianity is under attack.
Monavis
I think we covered this before. Not just fundamentals believe Christianity is under attack, more and more main stream Christians are coming to this belief.
Reasons:
Attacks and removal of their symbols from places they have been for years.
No prayer in school anymore.
No prayer at sporting events, school.
Evolution being taught in schools as fact.
Moderate local preachers have expressed their concern on the evolution teaching.
Wanting to take “under God” out of the pledge to the flag.
Much talk about how “supernatural” things are ignorant.
Science’s theory that the brain creates the personality.
This is the reality they hear and read about daily, whether their perspective is right or wrong doesn’t matter if they believe their religion is under attack.
Our Zoo board oked a display of the creation beside their display of evolution. The city was bombarded by outsiders saying it was ignorant and would make a laughing stock of our Zoo. I listened to the debate on TV, the young man arguing for evolution only was arrogant, talked over the other participates, had to be called down several times by the moderator. But it was enough to change the Mayor and board’s mind, so we can’t have more than one theory of how the world came about. The general public was disappointed, and said so in the letters to the local newspaper. I am wondering if the Mayor can be reelected now. I won’t vote for him.
Leakatt is, to some extent, correct, Monavis. This is the way more and more of the mainstream thinks. Leakatt may be a bit to end of the pole, but my impression is that he is closer to the way most of America is currently leaning than you or I are.
Large portions of America believe that this is a Christian country, not a pluralistic country with a solid secular foundation that is by far a majority Christian. They do not quite get the importance of the seperation of Church and State and how those of us who are of minority faiths (or none) are justified in feeling threatened by erosions of the secular foundations.
Large portions do not agree or really even understand that only scientifically valid science concepts should be taught in science classes or put within the same context as scientifically valid concepts. They cannot comprehend why religious statements of how the material world functions are not equivilant to scientific concepts for how the material world operates.
Some would even agree with Leakatt that modern cognitive neurosience and its advances in understanding the biological bases of behaviors and aspects of personality is a threat to their religious belief in a soul everlasting. They do not want that threatened. They are angry that it is threatened.
These are not stupid people. They include movers and shakers and people who have gone far through our educational systems. But as you point out, they are finding that having their religious beliefs free of threat from any side is more of a need for them than any abstract concepts of secular freedoms or of the nature of scientific inquiry.
And we are failing to convince them otherwise. Worse, this is a condition that can very likely feed-forward: such fears result in an even more inadequate science education and even more justification of religious concepts as equivilant to scientific ones for explanations of the material world … and even more fear of science and secular values.
Throwing our hands and saying “Well, they won’t listen!” is just giving up the ship, and I’m not quite ready to do that yet.
We’ve to package our product better.
No it did not. Most of Galileo’s ideas were accepted by the church before Galileo’s trials. The few areas in which Galileo’s ideas were condemned were when he attempted to impose science on religious interpretation. All of Galileo’s scientific ideas, even the ones that were challenged, were accepted by the church in fewer than 125 years after his death. What it took the church 400 hundred years (actually, just under 350) to do was to re-examine the second trial and acknowledge that it had suffered serious procedural flaws that skewed its verdict. Some mythology from the scientific community is as flawed as some of the mythology bruted about by the opponents of science.
For examples of the latter, of course, we immediately have displayed:
“Attacks and removal of their symbols from places they have been for years.” Although only of those things that have been recently put in place causing the government to make religious statements favoring Christianity.
“No prayer in school anymore.” Pure lie. Prayer has never been removed from school. Only the imposition of sectarian prayers by government agents (school staff) has been forbidden. Any student or teacher may pray at any time as long as they are not violating the rule that Jesus laid out to not make a show of praying publicly.
“No prayer at sporting events, school.” repeat of previous lie
“Evolution being taught in schools as fact.” ** Evolution is a fact. And the Theory of Natural Selection should be taught for what it is, including an understanding of what the term “theory” means in science.** Ever notice how the theocrats never rant against the theory of gravity?
“Moderate local preachers have expressed their concern on the evolution teaching.” Some preachers have, through ignorance or desired theocracy, misled their congregations in this way.
“Wanting to take “under God” out of the pledge to the flag.” This certainly does bother a number of people.
“Much talk about how “supernatural” things are ignorant.” The typical person rarely encounters anyone talking about the supernatural as a manifestation of ignorance. One generally has to seek out special fora such as this one to even encounter that thought–a thought that is not universally held even here.
“Science’s theory that the brain creates the personality.” Which is a misrepresentation of what “science” has actually expressed, although it does seem to be a somewhat widely held misunderstanding. (Perhaps the misunderstanding would not be prevalent if there were more people studying science instead of attacking scientists with lies regarding what science actually explains.)
This statement displays more perception than I would have credited you with, previously. However, the reality of it is, as your own leaders know full well that it is a false perception of the issues. People don’t perceive religion under attack by science because of actual events, but because of what they want to hear. They want to hear, “There is an enemy”. However, the reality of the situation is far different.
Nope. Have all the students in the local school praying as much as you want. Have all the prayers you wish played over the PA baseball games, at the local privately owned baseball stadium. However, keep in mind that while all students are free to pray, out loud or in public, teachers may not pray out loud, publicly. Just don’t expect that the principal will lead a school-wide morning prayer. After all, that would be a public endorsement of one particular religion, and that is not fair to students of other religions. It tell them, “This is a Christian school. You don’t belong here!” Also be aware that all the local Hindus/Muslims/what-have-yous will leave the ball park in droves, because you just made them uncomfortable.
No, this does not happen. It gets taught as a theory, albeit which has all the evidence pointing to it.
No, it is more like restoring the Pledge to its pre-1955 state, since it currently shows gov. endorsement of religion, as per the “No state endorsement of religion” thing. What?
Oh, so you say you approve of the laws of the land, save for that one statement?
Oh.
Too bad.
Damn that freedom of speech thing! Isn’t there anyway of getting rid of it?
P.S. Would you please <snip> already, lekatt? Your quotes are too long!
The only people who are worried about their religion being under attack are those (In my opinion) whose faith is so weak they need the aproval of others.Look at the first Christians, they were in a small minority and never waivered from their beliefs, Belief is in one’s own mind and self, the only person who can change that is the person themsef.
I do not worry that my beliefs are under attack and never did. I use my own mind, and do not worry if some one dis agrees with me, that is their belief, and I believe they are entitled to follow their own mind. Most mainstream Christians(that I know) are not fearful of Science, and do not need their religion posted in public places they just go and live their faith the best they can and trust in their God to take care of the rest.
Monavis
I goofed again on the spelling of a couple of words.
I would add the first Christians had no Bible,didn’t worry about what others believed, had no state religion, and managed to survive.Perhaps they should really go back to that old time religion.
Monavis
Was that before, or after the Romans fed them to the Lions.
This was before the Roman time… and pre Constantine, the first 325 years of Christianity…before the Church Fathers decided what they thought was the word of God, and what was not…the assembeling of the writings that became the New Testament. The Apostle’s creed etc. were decided as the rules to follow.When church and state became one, so to speak.
Monavis
During those early days, without Bible, Country, or even an organization to sustain them. What did they rely on to see them through, or even know there was a through, How did they keep going?
In the early years there were very few Christians, they relied on the word of the people they heard, and the stories they were told, it was strictly their faith in what person (who they believed), was telling them. They were unconcerned about what others thought. There were many places where different preachers taught, then after Constentine was converted(and saw the political advantage to him) the fathers decided to call a council headed by the Bishop of Rome and had the writings collected and called the New Testamant, They put in what they called God’s word, and eliminated the writings they thought were not. They came up with a creed they called the Apostles creed. Until then it was just their Faith that sustained them, in spite of their being in a minority. No commandements were posted, no worry about public prayers, no religious schools etc…
Monavis
Only faith? What else besides faith sustained them?