Well, maybe if you’d studied just a little harder you could have gotten an A+, like me.
I think there may have been a gradual slide toward more pseudoscience because science wasn’t able to deliver on all the promises the public thought was implied, like flying cars and androids and immortality serums and whatnot.
Or maybe bullshit just stands out more because we recognize it more easily, whereas in past years it would have just blended into the accepted background.
No. I do not think your statements are incorrect. It is just that your tone places blame on THEM. And that was the exact point I was making in my post that you responded to. We cannot begin the discussion by burdening them with blame or demands for proof of their beliefs. We can spend a lifetime discussing science in which the topic of God/no God ever comes up. Don’t you agree there’s an awful lot of science out there to be learned? So, why end the discussion before it starts?
That’s all I was I was trying to say.
It depends on what the OP means by “science”. If he means general science education, he has a point, insofar as it is most often taught as a dogma of facts and equations. Liberal’s point, about the divorce between science and philosophy, and the attempt to use the former to answer nonevidential questions of the latter is entirely on point, and sadly, most education programs in science, even at the post-secondary level have very little focus on the history, philosophy, and indeed pedagolocial methodology of the development of science. Lacking any grounding in that, the claim that the factual observations and theories that are the result of scientific investigation are no more valid than the errant speculations of babbling madmen and the tautological claims of priests seems justified. Only in understanding how a science came to be, the methods of discovery, and the limitation of knowledge, can one learn to differentiate between honest science and wild-ass speculation.
As far as science itself, a command of the knowledge sufficient to genuinely comprehend most fields of science in any but the most superficial way (as opposed to simply parroting back factoids the way, say, Buddhists throw off aphorisms) is beyond the layman, and indeed often beyond most trained scientists outside their field of specialty. I’ve met physicists that unjustly doubt the fact of evolution, biologists whose grasp of physics is tenuous at best, and psychologists that promote medical quackery. Knowledge, even deep knowledge, in one field, does not transfer to a command of another, but many people think so, especially those whose command of intellectual attainment in one narrow field is great. Consider astronomer Fred Hoyle, for instance, who thought himself to be an expert in matters of biology despite a complete and utter lack of qualification (either in the academic or practical knowledge sense).
For the average person, advanced and speculative science is (and always has been), if I might borrow the phrase, indistinguishable from magic. “Common” science, like that which illuminates the night and allows us to transmit ideas around the globe via the SMDB, is taken for granted. This is exacerbated when science is, as was often done during the early to mid 20th century, substituted for thoughtful consideration and fundamental epistomology. When claims that “science” would rid us of the scourage of famine, poverty, and warfare, the claimants failed to consider that the causes of these social afflictions extend beyond the physical causes and range into the mass interaction of personalities and prejudices. Asmovian “psychohistory” and Heinleinian “psychodynamics”, obvious developments of quantitative understanding of human psychology, seem quaint these days when we appreciate that strict behaviorialism is far too simplistic a philosophy by which to model human interactions.
This doesn’t mean that the world is underlain by a spiritual foundation or that there is any kind of materially inexplicable supernatural drivers; merely that scientific knowedge, as we know it, cannot quantatitively “mark the fall of every sparrow” and probably will never be so advanced as to allow us this prescience. Nor will science replace in us a reverence for the beauty of a stunning sunset or the warmth of a new love affair, even when it is able to chemically describe the interactions that make those emotions. Science is a companion and reference to our understanding of the world and ourselves, but not to the exclusion of the liberal arts (philosophy, music, literature, history, et cetera) and, for those who indulge, non-factual religious or spiritual beliefs.
Stranger
Just MHO here…fwiw.
I don’t agree that science is losing ground…I think its gaining, but slowly. VERY slowly. My guess is that at the turn of the century in America the vast majority of people thought religious/magical explainations of things were valid. I doubt there was any wide spread acceptance of things like Darwins theories among the general population…maybe not even fully among the scientists of the day. The problem is that while general scientific knowledge among the population is slowly rising, the fringe groups that are the bastions of the alternate are more vocal…and they have the means to have their views seen by wider audiences.
I agree with others though…that its not just the religious folks who want to insist on some kind of ‘god’ explaination about science. In fact, I think that they are the lesser part of the problem. The problem, if there is one and IMHO, are the new age types like my sister. She has just spent 4 years getting a degree in Accupuncture and Oriental Herbalism. She is firmly convinced that crystals work healing energy, that Homeopathy is a legitimate healing art, etc. Couple that with the UFO crazed, the crop circle folks still in denial that its all a hoax, and the various other fringe psudo-science types (ESP, Astral Projection, government mind control, 1920’s death ray types, etc) and I think you’ve put your finger on the real problem. These alternatives to science are thriving as folks try and find something that they can believe in, that is exciting and mystical and mysterious…and that doesn’t make them feel stupid because they don’t understand it or doesn’t ridicule them because they can’t grasp it. Which in a lot of cases science does…especially for those folks who don’t have years to devote to gaining deeper understandings of things like quantum physics, or even the ins and outs of evolutionary theory.
That said, I still think this isn’t really a mounting problem…but a gradually lessening one. Historically I’m guessing that the US is at an all time high as far as basic understanding of science by the population…and even if a lot of folks have some rather quirky beliefs about one thing, doesn’t mean that they have no understanding of science on another subject. I think that the US population is slowing gaining an understanding of at least the basics of science. I wish the process would go faster. I wish that stations like Discovery, TLC or even History Channel wouldn’t cater to junk science and sensationalism, though I can see why they do…its what sells. But slowly I think that some things are erroded away (granted to probably be replaced by some other drivel) and that eventually the public over all DOES become more educated.
As far as the religious stuff goes, I agree with the poster that said to take ‘god’ off the table…at least until science can actually make a definitive statement about him/her/it one way or the other. Its simply silly to attempt to constantly use science as a club to beat god out of folks. Certainly debate the religious types on things science CAN make statements about (like evolution, biology, cosmology, etc). But lack of evidence never proved anything.
-XT
You may be correct (in the way that Scott is demonstrating), but the problem with your thesis is that you have to make the deliberate effort to come to a rather small number of fora, such as the SDMB, to even find an atheist in current society. Yeah, there are a few hanging out on some college campuses and you can find the occasional book by Dawkins, but the typical person in the U.S., today, can go their entire life without ever encountering a genuine atheist or an atheistic thought except as presented as a strawman by people of strongly conservative religious backgrounds. The idea that the overall public is rejecting science because they perceive an atheistic bent requires that far more people encounter active atheists than is likely. The Pew Research Center continues to find that about 9% of U.S. citizens consider themselves non-religious, but that 9% includes a lot of people who associate “religious” with worshipping at a particular place. The number who are actively (and assertively) atheistic is going to be much smaller and will be concentrated around college campuses and other “hot spots” of “radical” thought. I suspect that a very large percentage of Americans do not even know that they know even one atheist. (In the study groups I coordinate at my parish over the last few years, I have only found one person, other than myself, who has known even one atheist).
This is the problem with both Scott Plaid’s and lekatt’s assertions: they are each speaking as though there is some great number (or significant though small number) of atheists either reacting against religious tyranny or imposing atheistic tyranny on the populace, yet the overwhelming majority of people are not even aware of this teapot tempest that these posters are eager to hold up as examples of problems in American society.
Lots of good posts. Here’s my take.
Science qua science is not less respected than in the past (per xtisme). But those who call themselves “scientists,” through their overweening philosophical pretentions (per Liberal) and arbitrary, political alignment with hardcore materialism-atheism have greatly diminished the science “brand” that they promote. Further, we’ve been burned several times now by idea systems promoted by science–you’ve just got to believe this, or you are an idiot–and later dispromoted by same–if you believe this, you’re an idiot (psychotherapy, etc., per lekatt).
I think my second point above is among the most important factors for the diminishment of the brand of science. Americans are religious and believe in God. The majority of scientists have decided that it is not “cool” to be relgious, and so now they aren’t. This general and simple ideology is applied in a rigorous and nearly totalitarian fashion to every point to which they might apply it, and anything that doesn’t smell right earns the disdain of the self-branded “scientists.” Put simply, “scientists” diss the beliefs of the majority of Americans.
Now I support such dissing in many ways, although the propaganda has become too cavlier and crude. See Dawkins for examples. But the scientists, as many socieites in the past have done, have decided that their neat, clean little ideology can make the Universe a far simpler place than it really is. And now we have the great train wreck coming, with the materialist-atheist ideology and the Reality of that which it dismisses (to wit, the “paranormal”) as the two locomotives.
It’s too bad, because when the existence of the “paranormal” is at last recognized, a great deal of hogwash will ride along on its coattails. And the “scientists” and their poor brand management and politics shall have been to blame.
Excellent point. But I’d think you’d agree that the place they are most likely to encounter an atheist is in those very science circles where they would go to learn more about science. So, assuming the absolute percent may be very small, it gets dramatically larger when applied to the smaller group of teachers, etc.
I think part of the problem is that science has become so specialized and so difficult that the layman can’t really follow it. This is a fairly new thing - in earlier centuries, laymen made pretty significant contributions to science. That’s less and less true as science becomes more expensive and esoteric.
Also, the boundaries of science are now uncomfortably close to contesting some very fundamental questions of reality and of being human. We’re doing cloning, getting closer and closer to understanding how we came to be. That’s probably causing a bit of a backlash. Everyone likes science when it’s producing color TVs and shooting men to the moon. They like it a lot less when it’s cloning people and describing how the universe began.
One of the main reasons I support a robust manned space program is because we need things like that to inspire people to study science. The space race was the best PR science ever had. Robots may be better for doing science in space, but astronauts are better for making scientists.
This doesn’t jibe with my experience at all, and I don’t think it reflects common sense, either.
I’ve encountered atheists all my life. The couselor at my gifted-n-talented camp was an atheist. A music teacher I was close to didn’t believe in God. And when I got to college, the science teachers were clearly non-believers.
Atheists are in the media, too, and loud. Dawkins basically calls believers idiots. And where are the good self-branded “scientists” who stand up for belief?
Your analysis also doesn’t match common sense. People only need a few examples to form an opinion. In general, they see self-labeled and media-labeled “scientists” opposing their belief in God, and there are no similarly labeled/branded persons defending what they believe or at least the respectability of believing it. Any belief that contradicts materialism-atheism is subject to ridicule by “scientists,” and there is no “scientist” recognized by the media who supports them.
Hence, although you are right there are relatively few atheists who pop up in RL or in the media to say, “This is science, and your beliefs are foolish,” people do encounter a few examples of that and no counterexamples. Then, of course, the objects of this contumely discuss the insult among themselves and exaggerate their depiction of the perpetrators.
I reject your premise.
I think that far more people understand the principles of scientific research and hard scientific facts than at any time in our nation’s history. What has changed is that the unschooled, the superstitious, and those who distrust science now have a voice that they have never had before and are treated seriously be policy makers who should know better.
While it is true that some facets at the edge of science are extremely difficult to communicate and comprehend to a lay person, it begs the question why are we attempting to start by explaining the least explainable? Sometimes that is necessary, as when applying for federal funding for Antartic Neutrino Detectors or the like.
Asimov had many stories in which he predicted that there would be backlashes against the scientific community, virtual descents into madness, that our society was tenderly based on small balance point and very little tipping would be needed to cascade us back to the stone age, but I think that idea is laughable. The fact of the matter is that by and large regardless of faith issues, with a few exceptions, people depend more and more upon scientific innovations and progress and don’t realize it.
Yes there are battles about evolution and stem cell research. This is not going to make people across the country decide that math doesn’t work, stop buying computers or abandon engineering, chemistry of physics in graduate school. It just is another variation of Darwin, those too foolish to educate themselves will fail to achieve the same advanteges as those who do, though, that does not mean that they will reproduce at the same rate as those who do not educate themselves.
That in fact may be one of the greatest errors of the educated in this country to speak bluntly, that they, by choosing to have fewer children than the less educated have achieved a much higher standard of living but have reduced the number or proginy who will grow up with the culture of advanced education.
So, if there is a problem, the problem may be access to advanced education, so that those who are able to obtain advanced degrees, but cannot afford to do so because of financial considerations, are given a way to do so without being hamstrung for the next 20 years. If scientists want to improve things for science we need to start by raiding the minimum bar for free education, if qualified, from high school to college, and make affordable graduate school a much easier option.
It was after all, free high school education that gave us such a big advantage compared to much of the rest of the world 50 years ago, but that is now much more commonplace, if we want to continue to compete, there is only one way to go.
Sure its radical. But it will also work.
Peter, The Peter Files Blog, The Blog For Thinkers Everywhere 
Not that I can see. The number of atheists is relatively higher among scientists, but not among science teachers. Most people I know are simply ignorant of science, not because they have been turned off by encountering some hard-core atheist scientist, but because in the midst of learning their own trade (ditch digging, accounting, programming, retail sales) they decided that “science” was too much work to add to their knowledge base because they were not going to “need” it to pursue their careers. (In this sense, science is not alone; most people are ignorant of history, poli-sci, literature, music, and art, to say nothing of the theology of their own denominations, oftentimes, for the same reasons.)
What a mishmash.
So far, so good.
I assume you mean the Religious Right? This is a mishmash because these people are not particularly unschooled (don’t underestimate them), they are not superstitious (they reject common-place superstitions, whereas their ideology is based on faith and dogma), they do distrust science, they don’t have a new voice (rather, they are a continution of religiosity that has prevailed since the founding of the Republic), and they are treated seriously by policy-makers–but they always have been. You fail to understand the problem.
Yes, because in general religious thought doesn’t derail society, but in fact tends to support it.
True, but this is a non-sequitur.
Math isn’t science. And the battles over evolution (a matter of truth) and stem cell research (a matter of ethics) are quite different.
Oh, where to begin. Knowledge of the truth is only one among many survival factors for modern-day humans. Social Darwinism is discredited pseudoscience, btw. You yourself point out that those in the educated caste tend to reproduce less. And the people you are disdaining are not necessarily uneducated.
In that culture or with the requisite genese to prosper therein?
[quote]
So, if there is a problem, the problem may be access to advanced education, so that those who are able to obtain advanced degrees, but cannot afford to do so because of financial considerations, are given a way to do so without being hamstrung for the next 20 years. If scientists want to improve things for science we need to start by raiding the minimum bar for free education, if qualified, from high school to college, and make affordable graduate school a much easier option.
[quote]
Or, how about this–dismantle the entire system and create one based on merit and other rational principles?
Your post is a perfect example of the problem the OP talks about. You arrogantly speak of the religious as uneducated and superstitious, yet your own puffed-up post is full of errors and baseless prejudices–and you don’t even know it.
No wonder we have a culture war.
I’m not so sure about that.
I have an EECS degree, and had to take an awful lot of “hard” science along the way. I don’t recally any of my science professors making statements that were hostile to religion.[sup]1[/sup] Although it may be hard for someone who hangs out on the atheistically-skewed (compared to the general population) SDMB to believe, I agree with what tomndebb is saying. I think the issue is more profound and complex then the religous being offended by atheists and atheism. However, I was an avowed atheist in college, and may not have been particularly sensitive to faith-hostile statements.
A lot of posters (including myself :)) have made remarks implying that religion needs to reconcile itself and adapt to science, for example, saying that God guides evolution.
More and more lately I’ve been thinking that there’s no point in “reconciling” religion with science, because they answer fundamentally different questions. Science answers “How?” and religion answers “Why?” Science may explain how chemicals combined to form the prototypical life that we evolved from, and give us a timeline for the creation of the universe. But if we ask why life became the answer is “there doesn’t have to be a ‘why’; it just randomly happened” and if we asked what happened before the universe was created the answer is “Time began when the universe was created; it doesn’t make sense to ask what came before.”
But as human beings, who can only comprehend a temporally linear existence, there had to have always been a past; and we need a reason for living in order to enjoy meaningful lives. Those questions ARE valid and reasonable, even if science says they aren’t. This isn’t because science is flawed–it’s simply not defined to answer questions in that domain.
But religion and its accompanying mythology can answer those questions, and, although this is obviously subjective and something that varies greatly between individuals, it can answer them very well indeed. I think the creation myth in Genesis is beautiful and emotionally satisfying. I think I can say that I believe in Genesis. But the things that I believe in Genesis–that the world was created and is beautiful, that humans are like God in important ways and yet deeply flawed–have nothing to do with explanations for physical processes: How the earth physically came to be. Just as it doesn’t make sense to ask science “Why?” I don’t think it’s rational to ask religion “How?”. It uses a “How” to explain the “Why,” but the exact nature of the “How” that it uses is largely irrelevant to the answers that it gives.
More and more I think the best course is to accept both: to accept scientific reason as being valid, and to accept religious mythology as being valid.
But, to tie this all back to the OP, I think the problem is that most people can’t accept both (or try to “reconcile” them in VERY bizarre ways); they feel they must choose one or the other. The majority of the population is more familiar with simplistic forms religion then science. They use religion to answer question that it’s not suitable to answer, and science can suffer because of it.
Hopefully I’m not the only person who understands what I just wrote, because this is one of the best GD threads in a while.
Leaving a niggle about “most likely” aside, I think you’re right. I’d add that it starts very early. There were many kids who I went to school with who had decided by 4th or 5th grade that science was not for them. No doubt, a science teacher who can keep kids interested is doing a world of good.
But I’d have to say, as an adult I’ve had great problems with atheists–and I’m willing to accept that every religion on earth is wrong. The ones that I’ve met (some here on SD) seem as if they are fighting God, or the concept of a god. I just don’t get. Why the intense need to convert people? It’s as bad as some of the pushiest evangelicals I’ve encountered while living in the Bible Belt.
I think the main problem in America is the way in which science is taught in schools. Let’s face it, science as taught, is insanely boring except to those who are highly interested and smart. Most kids just slog through it and then forget. The result is a fairly ignorant general population when it comes to science. I am sure there are the exceptions of good/interesting teachers but for the most part I would say that is not the case.
Neither am I.
As you can see from the my post previous to this one, I agree with much of what your saying. But I disagree that science is more capable of answering the FUNDAMENTAL how.
I leave all “mythology” (which, by the way is a very offensive term to the devout) aside. In the end, or I should probaly say in the beginning, what was there? I won’t go deeply into it here (I’m exhausted from a thread about this last week) but assuming everything going back to the big bang is 100% correct, what caused the big bang? I think the most fundamental tenet of science is that of causality, blah, blah, blah, I think you know the rest. And I’m well aware of the “there was no time before time” counterpoint. The point is that neither of us KNOW. If we weren’t both aware of the others arguments, it would be interesting to get into them, but we already do.
That said, I enjoyed your post. And agree with much of it.
It has nothing to do with ‘education’, which is a joke anyway. It has everything to do with telly (and films, which they see on the telly). This telly is the great education. This telly sucks out individual thought and replaces it with pap of such extent that words fail utterly.
Matching anecdote for anecdote, the only atheists I have ever encountered were in very special situations. Not one of the science teachers who teach at my kids’ schools or whom I know to teach in neighboring districts is atheist–and several are active church members.
Against “common sense”? Go read the publication numbers for Dawkins; he is much better known on the SDMB than he is in the “real world.” There are several scientists who are actively religious. I suspect that their sales are roughly comparable to those of Dawkins, (or even Dawkins, Hawking, and other avowedly atheist writer scientists). Granted, Gould and Sagan probably have sold more than anyone on either side, but then Gould was willing to make room for theological speculation in the realm of human study. “Religious” scientists have included Alister McGrath, Teilhard de Chardin, John Polkinghorne, Arthur Peacocke (an opponent of Intelligent Design from a religious perspective), and several others.
On the other hand, people like Falwell and Dobson and Jack Chick and Wildmon may have a better press organization to present science as atheistic. Certainly lekatt has bought into that hype.
.
I’d be curious where you encountered these atheists. I do not doubt that there are evangelical atheists–we have plenty on the SDMB. I suspect, however, that society, at large, does not have roving bands of fundie atheists trying to stamp out religion. Such people are much more prevalent on message boards and newsgroups than they are in real life. They sometimes appear larger because various religious groups treat people like the late Ms. O’Hare as if she were mentioned by name in the Revelation of John. On a day to day basis, I have trouble envisioning such people actively interrupting the lives of their fellow citizens.
It doesn’t really matter that most scientists aren’t atheists; what matters is what stereotype can be successfully inculcated into the general public’s consciousness. Few have much actual contact with real scientists, so the atheistic secularistic valueless creation of the media and certain segments of the Religious Right and of the Looney Left stands in for the real thing. Add in the few who actively do dis the faithful and the age-old sensititivty of some faithful to anything that says that any part of the sacred text is in literal error, or even implies the same, and a stage is set.
And no Meta, quite understandable. Religions historically provided a folk-science along with a basis for moral values and law and with a sense of group membership beyond your immediate kinship and a sense of spirituality. Some feel that to defend its revealed truth for one leg one must defend all.
A short while ago I was believing that shared secular values (which allowed for multiple faiths and for even no faith to coexist) was becoming the common base, that science had replaced the folk-science of ghost in the machine and creatonism, and that religion was becoming more a tool of group identity and spiritual exploration. I have a harder time believing that now.
And, of course, here is one of the problems with lay persons dealing with science. Paul grabbed the word myth to describe the fairly silly tales of Zeus impregnating mortal women as a shower of gold coins to ridicule the faltering beliefs of a religious thread that was nearing its end. The word myth, in English, today, also carries an anthropological meaning of a story that expresses the truth as understood by a believing community. A sloppy use of the words myth and mythology outside the discipline of anthropology allows the anti-religious to be insulting and the religious to be insulted, but when understood in the anthropological context, mythology helps to identify the core truths that a community holds while acknowledging that those truths are expressed in a literary form.