First  Prev  1  2  3  4  5  6  7  8  9  10  Next  Last
Post Reply Why do many reasonable people doubt science?
884 cr points
Send Message: Send PM GB Post
19 / M
Offline
Posted 3/5/15 , edited 3/7/15
Jumping Jesus on a pogo stick juggling flaming chainsaws!

There used to be a time when religion and science worked hand in hand and weren't at each other's throats all the damn time. Hell,some priests and monks of a time were scientists!

I remember reading about the whole age of the world being only 4000 years old being complete horsecrap by geologists who were also men of the cloth. Also the funny implication they came up with that God was a spiteful being who teds to wipe out life on the world more often than they would have liked. (the great flood being one of those times)

Why can't we go back to those days?
5318 cr points
Send Message: Send PM GB Post
M
Offline
Posted 3/5/15

x-Cellar_Door-x wrote:

...One Word.

.

Not trying to be Offensive...Just My 2 cents about the Issue...



Not to add fuel to the brewing flame but this opinion makes about as much sense as it's worth. No one in Portland is for or against chemicals in the water because of any god. These people have misinterpreted a situation because someone has campaigned (as they do in all things) misleading information and this time it won through. You may say "this case isn't what I am talking about, I mean in general people deny science for religion", put plain and simple this is way to simplistic. A great many religious organizations not only promote science but offer scholarships and specialized programs for the pursuit of greater knowledge. This said some churches (and I would say a much lesser number) do hinder acceptance of scientific ideas, this is absolutely true. But is it the church doing this or is it the preacher? From an atheist perspective, if God is not real then the word of God is not his word. It is the word of someone from the past being interpreted by some man who will tell someone else and continue this centuries game of telephone." Maybe you're thinking "that's exactly what religion is!" but this is incorrect, religion is the worship of a higher power. It has nothing to do with that man's interpretation. That man tells you being gay is wrong and he may even believe it. But that opinion comes from either his interpretation or the interpretation someone told him and I would bet you my last dollar the guy who interpreted it this way was someone who did not understand homosexuality and was uncomfortable with it. He spread his misinformed interpretation to press his agenda and mounted it on "the word of God" for a platform. My point being (sorry it took so long to get here) there are a great many religions, and a much greater number of subdivisions of any one of these religions. You are entirely correct about some hindering science. But you are far from correct in throwing a blanket statement over religion and condemning even the majority. The real perpetrator is anyone with an opposing agenda for any reason and there are many, many reasons someone might not want scientific information or knowledge to spread. I'm not saying this as someone who has concentrated their butt-hurt into their fingers and out through a keyboard. I really can't think of the last time I went to church and would be surprised if my visits to any religious organization tallied more than dozen times in the last seven or eight years. Just as someone who thinks it is the same kind of wrong to speak generally and dissentingly, so that it may further be misconstrued, of any subject as it is hinder learning of any subject in the first place.
5318 cr points
Send Message: Send PM GB Post
M
Offline
Posted 3/5/15

jeffcoatstephen wrote:

Because they believe religion proves/solves everything. Science was created to fill in the holes religion has... the many holes I might say.


Your post seems pretty biased and (whether religion is right or wrong) not really on the point of this issue. "Why do people doubt science" is not because of religion but because of the spread of misinformation (I understand you hold religion may play a role in this) a subject in which religion would only be a piece of. Your condescending tone only helps to perpetuate a false image of atheists.
72836 cr points
Send Message: Send PM GB Post
30 / M / Central KY.
Offline
Posted 3/5/15

Punk_Mela wrote:


x-Cellar_Door-x wrote:

...One Word.

.

Not trying to be Offensive...Just My 2 cents about the Issue...



Not to add fuel to the brewing flame but this opinion makes about as much sense as it's worth. No one in Portland is for or against chemicals in the water because of any god. These people have misinterpreted a situation because someone has campaigned (as they do in all things) misleading information and this time it won through. You may say "this case isn't what I am talking about, I mean in general people deny science for religion", put plain and simple this is way to simplistic. A great many religious organizations not only promote science but offer scholarships and specialized programs for the pursuit of greater knowledge. This said some churches (and I would say a much lesser number) do hinder acceptance of scientific ideas, this is absolutely true. But is it the church doing this or is it the preacher? From an atheist perspective, if God is not real then the word of God is not his word. It is the word of someone from the past being interpreted by some man who will tell someone else and continue this centuries game of telephone." Maybe you're thinking "that's exactly what religion is!" but this is incorrect, religion is the worship of a higher power. It has nothing to do with that man's interpretation. That man tells you being gay is wrong and he may even believe it. But that opinion comes from either his interpretation or the interpretation someone told him and I would bet you my last dollar the guy who interpreted it this way was someone who did not understand homosexuality and was uncomfortable with it. He spread his misinformed interpretation to press his agenda and mounted it on "the word of God" for a platform. My point being (sorry it took so long to get here) there are a great many religions, and a much greater number of subdivisions of any one of these religions. You are entirely correct about some hindering science. But you are far from correct in throwing a blanket statement over religion and condemning even the majority. The real perpetrator is anyone with an opposing agenda for any reason and there are many, many reasons someone might not want scientific information or knowledge to spread. I'm not saying this as someone who has concentrated their butt-hurt into their fingers and out through a keyboard. I really can't think of the last time I went to church and would be surprised if my visits to any religious organization tallied more than dozen times in the last seven or eight years. Just as someone who thinks it is the same kind of wrong to speak generally and dissentingly, so that it may further be misconstrued, of any subject as it is hinder learning of any subject in the first place.


Ahhhhh! Nothing like a good Debate!
508 cr points
Send Message: Send PM GB Post
22 / M
Offline
Posted 3/5/15
Some people trust their feelings way more than they trust facts.
19921 cr points
Send Message: Send PM GB Post
23 / M / A town called "Ci...
Offline
Posted 3/5/15

Terrance_Blaze wrote:

Jumping Jesus on a pogo stick juggling flaming chainsaws!

There used to be a time when religion and science worked hand in hand and weren't at each other's throats all the damn time. Hell,some priests and monks of a time were scientists!

I remember reading about the whole age of the world being only 4000 years old being complete horsecrap by geologists who were also men of the cloth. Also the funny implication they came up with that God was a spiteful being who teds to wipe out life on the world more often than they would have liked. (the great flood being one of those times)

Why can't we go back to those days?




Because its in our nature to destroy ourselves.
27824 cr points
Send Message: Send PM GB Post
24 / M / Ohio, USA
Offline
Posted 3/6/15
I wouldn't even call myself Atheist. I'm on the sidelines on whether or not to believe in religion or science. I can't trust either right now. If I had to pick a religion right now it be Buddhist.
27824 cr points
Send Message: Send PM GB Post
24 / M / Ohio, USA
Offline
Posted 3/6/15
Religion doesn't aways prove true facts. Science theories are more trustworthy.
23206 cr points
Send Message: Send PM GB Post
27 / M / Long Island
Offline
Posted 3/6/15
It's reasonable to doubt theories that are new or don't have enough data to be considered fact. It's an entirely different matter to doubt science that has been established as fact witch plenty of data and research supporting it. In most countries the internet contains plenty of published research on science available for you to read at your leisure.

I generally don't doubt science that often as I have trust in it, because it is an objective process that has been proven to work in the past. Sure it's not perfect and makes mistakes, but it's designed to find its mistakes, admit those mistakes and improve upon itself.
23206 cr points
Send Message: Send PM GB Post
27 / M / Long Island
Offline
Posted 3/6/15 , edited 3/12/15
Here's a recent example of science being manipulated to further an ulterior motive. Science can be used to mislead people, although I'm not sure you could even consider this a legitimate scientific experiment.

http://www.clivebates.com/?p=2706

As someone who does "vape", seeing that there was an "experiment" done that showed there was formaldehyde found from vaping concerning. However upon closer inspection, people realized that the formaldehyde could only be produced under unrealistic conditions. Some people made the analogy of leaving a steak on the grill for many hours and then trying to eat it.

So it is reasonable to doubt science at times, as this example shows, it can sometimes be used to mislead people. Obviously tobacco companies stand to gain the most from convincing the public that vaping isn't a safer alternative to smoking.

7401 cr points
Send Message: Send PM GB Post
48 / M / New England, USA
Offline
Posted 3/6/15
Science in the past has told us that we should eat plenty of red meat, plenty of well done meat, no red meat, no under cooked red meat, no well done red meat and even no meat at all. Can we believe science? In a word no. If science was flawless and perfect we could possibly believe but as of now the facts that prove science are found/discovered/hypothesized by human beings; flawed human beings who have a habit of getting things wrong due to miscalculations, wrong facts, shoddy evidence, incomplete studies (using too small a study group or a mismatched study group), as well as, numerous other factors that can turn science fiction into science fact.
21448 cr points
Send Message: Send PM GB Post
46 / M / Between yesterday...
Offline
Posted 3/6/15

syvertsond12 wrote:

http://ngm.nationalgeographic.com/2015/03/science-doubters/achenbach-text


Good article that said.

First problem a lack of understanding of what science is. No really had someone in my history of science and technology class that thought acknowledging a theory as fact was an act of faith. I have no faith that gravity will hold my butt to the ground I know it will there is enough evidence that it does. Once a theory reaches a certain level of facts and evidence proving it, I acknowledge it as fact not theory. Evolution for example there is enough evidence both macro and micro proving out that it occurs and there is enough evidence and facts that we are descended from apes. No faith required the proof shows me that it happens and is true. Gather enough actual proof saying otherwise oh the bible is not proof.

Science is like a criminal investigation of the world around us. The theory is the the motive to the crime why does this happen, it is the scientist job to find the suspects and evidence and then prove the case true or false based upon the facts given in that crime. This doesn't require faith it requires an open mind and logic. Faith isn't a bad thing but it isn't needed for the investigation. This information is than peer reviewed so that everyone is kept on the up and up. Like with the vaccine tests the Doctor who made the claim had his research reviewed and it didn't pan out than they found out what he was doing and yanked his license in Great Britain he mistreated a bunch of kids.

That said the hardest thing to disprove is a conspiracy they are a big lie, and designed to be hard to disprove. You as the person disproving it have to provide all the facts against it. People do this all the time they get handed facts and refuse to except them I will go into more of this later. The other party will just make a claim that it isn't true even when presented with the facts that it is. Best example of this is the moon landing.

One of the common arguments is that the photos had two light sources when they were taken this can't be true, because there is only one light source on the moon. This is the line of logic here is the flaw there are two light sources on the moon a direct source and an indirect source the direct source is the sun the indirect source is the moon. Before one of you jump and say there isn't I will ask you a simple question can you see the moon when it is out. Unless you are blind you see the moon the reason for this is the albedo the reflective property of the moon this is the white light that is being bounced off the surface from the sun. It is not that bright from the earth but on the surface of the moon it is bright enough to be a secondary or indirect light source. So yeah we landed on the moon the evidence points to that. Also the human mind does pattern recognition really well this is why we see toads and people on mars when it is just a rock or rover shadow. Remember that tidbit it is important when you look at things.

As I said people will refuse to accept facts when presented with them.This because you have to change your point of view. This is the hard part the whole change your point of view is terrifying to some people, the very idea that what they though was right isn't. It is hard for any person to change their point of view on how the world works. But if you have an open mind and are receptive to knew ideas you shouldn't have any issues with it. The trick it to always be learning makes it easier, intellectual curiosity is a must for science.

Another issue is how miss information is spread best example of this is with climate change. It is snowing on the east coast climate change can't be real. This is jumping to an unjustified conclusion. They equate weather and climate because and it obscures the truth, when talking climate you are talking long term effect not short term. Weather is the short term what happens day to day climate is the long term tracking of the day to day events over the years. Climate long term over many years, weather what happened yesterday.

Ask questions if you don't understand no harm in that never trust an absolute statement most of the time they prove to be false.


Posted 3/6/15
What is reasonable?
37330 cr points
Send Message: Send PM GB Post
36 / M / US
Offline
Posted 3/6/15
No person on earth religious or not, scientist or not, has zero preconceptions and has the ability to be completely impartial. We all rely on our life experience to determine what we view as reality. These have been determined by what "herd" you grew up with and currently run with.

I'd challenge everyone to look at both sides and name off 10 things you think both do good before condemning either. Ignorance always begins at home.

33345 cr points
Send Message: Send PM GB Post
26 / M / Socal
Offline
Posted 3/6/15

nanikore2 wrote:


kamahl01 wrote:

Another science vs religion flamewar...........






Just grab some popcorn and play some Tchaikovsky
First  Prev  1  2  3  4  5  6  7  8  9  10  Next  Last
You must be logged in to post.