Christianity and science

[nobspeople]

Christians don't seem to have any problems believing in the science that created the computer they're typing on. Or phone they use. TV they watch. Yet some don't believe science that thwarts their understanding of, or causes issues with, their religion (evolution, abortion issues, homosexuality, etc).

It seems science is OK so long as it doesn't interfere with their beliefs that come from a book written by long, dead men, edited by other men (all of which were imperfect) about a perfect (many say) being.

For discussion:
Is this distrust of science stemming from the distrust of science itself, lack of faith in science and the flawed men that support said science (ironically they have no issues with the imperfect men that wrote and edited the bible but that's something for another topic), lack of faith in their holy book, or something else entirely (please submit YO on what the 'something else' is)?

[nobspeople]

[Replying to mgb in post #115]

I you were a car manufacturer and you want to bring out the next model you would not just change the headlights and release that model. You'd make many changes at the same time and release a new model far in advance of the old model. Makes sense that way.

Having worked in the auto industry for decades, from associate to corporate, I can tell you that's not true and thus, not a proper analogy. Just FYI

[Difflugia]

Assuming your post represents truth, I think this bit could be a minor error about why this particular error happens. It could be that intuition is actually making the right choice, and even that intuition is intuiting out even the complex math, but it's doing that error at the end because somebody deliberately juked some part of the input.

The situation you're describing is more-or-less how camouflage works. Our intuition is good at assimilating data from several sources at once and even really fast computers are just now approaching intuition in situations like driving, but it's still a suboptimal heuristic.

You and Brunumb are talking about the "why risk it" and I think this has a huge impact. Add a devastating negative possibility to one side and people will avoid that side even if it isn't terribly likely to be true. The problem is that peoples' intuition is being deliberately manipulated not to assess that this could be a deliberate deception, and not think about the gains involved in perpetrating such a deception.

I'm pretty sure that it's not a coincidence that most religions have some variety of hell.

I don't think ad hominem is a fallacy, or should be a fallacy.

It's only a fallacy as such if it's used as part of a logical syllogism. "Your argument is flawed because you've been dishonest in the past," is a fallacy. "You're probably lying to me because you've been dishonest in the past," isn't.

I think we need it for properly assessing by our very well-honed intuition whether we might be getting tricked. We actually need this intuition to sort good evidence from bad in almost every situation. I think we need to include it as possibly valid evidence in everything but purely deductive syllogisms and studies which have been double-blinded and controlled, and sufficiently replicated by people motivated to discredit it.

You're absolutely right.

[brunumb]

I suspect that the truth of the matter is somewhere the theory of evolution and Intelligent Design; nature goes forward in leaps and bounds which explains missing links.

I you were a car manufacturer and you want to bring out the next model you would not just change the headlights and release that model. You'd make many changes at the same time and release a new model far in advance of the old model. Makes sense that way.

"Wanting to bring out the next model" suggests that the evolutionary process is purposeful. It is not.

[mgb]

[Replying to flylikeabird20005 in post #124]

Well hello there...

[JoeyKnothead]

[Replying to flylikeabird20005 in post #124]

Well hello there...

Lol

Seems the thread has taken a turn

[mgb]

[Replying to flylikeabird20005 in post #124]

Well hello there...

Lol

Seems the thread has taken a turn

That was a reply to flylikeabird20005's spam post which seems to have been removed.

[JoeyKnothead]

[Replying to flylikeabird20005 in post #124]

Well hello there...

Lol

Seems the thread has taken a turn

That was a reply to flylikeabird20005's spam post which seems to have been removed.

I'm with ya. I was stricken by just how apt was your comment. Still making me laugh.

[mgb]

[Replying to JoeyKnothead in post #127]

[cms]

It's the belief in a God who says: Love others as yourself, turn the other cheek, love those who hate you, etc. teaching peace and tolerance, that gave rise to the pursuit of science. Using this knowledge to try and prove that there is no God, rips down the very foundation of what allowed science to flourish. To me, it's not very wise, because if the foundation collapses, we all fall down.

[Difflugia]

It's the belief in a God who says: Love others as yourself, turn the other cheek, love those who hate you, etc. teaching peace and tolerance, that gave rise to the pursuit of science.

I think you misunderstand Aristotle's view of religion. He believed in a higher power, but was effectively deist in the sense that his conception of God wasn't personal.

Using this knowledge to try and prove that there is no God, rips down the very foundation of what allowed science to flourish.

Medieval Christianity is what ripped down the very foundation of what allowed science to flourish.

To me, it's not very wise, because if the foundation collapses, we all fall down.

Exactly. Once religion has undermined our progress, we can't always rely on a renaissance to begin the slow process of repairing and rebuilding what we once had.