*This Post May Unintentionally Upset Those With Strong Religious Beliefs*

[innerphrenology]

Here is a poll from earlier this month that I found interesting. Disturbing, but interesting.
http://www.harrisinteractive.com/harris_poll/index.asp?PID=581

Comments

[chaospet]

Interesting thoughts. I'd dispute some of the finer points on the nature of science and the distinction between science and non-science (I don't think it's nearly as sharp or objective as it is characterized to be), but that would be a lengthy post in itself. But anyway, I wholeheartedly agree with your general point. It is both astounding and sickening to me that in the (supposedly) most advanced nation in the world, the majority of the populace is completely ignorant of the nature or the magnitude of the evidence that actually supports evolutionary theory, and that there can actually still be a conflict in the courts as to whether Intelligent Design ought to be taught in our classrooms as a viable alternative.

[innerphrenology]

I figured you would have something to say about the science thing. I had quite a bit more written about it, and then I gave up, since it is such a huge subject. I use to have discussions with a guy at the Mt. Pleasant theater who thought that science was becoming a new religion. I disagreed, but I understood where he was coming from. The main point I was trying to express was simply that scientific knowledge isn't something that you can just decide not to believe in, without being irrational, of course.

[chaospet]

It's an interesting and strange contemporary idea that science is just another way of believing, on equal footing with any religion or dogma you may happen to like. I'm completely with you on your main point. Though science isn't as pure or objectively rational as some of its greatest advocates would have it (as it is practiced by mere humans, with all of our flaws and foibles and biases), there still is a fundamental difference between the nature of scientific belief and the nature of religious belief, such that (as you say) you cannot rationally reject a piece of accepted scientific fact, at least not without some very good evidential or theoretical reason.