Do we choose to 'believe' in either science or religion, evolution or creationism?

[pantheia]

Surely there’s a problem with the semantics of the word ‘belief’? People commonly adopt the attitude that you can believe in evolution, or believe that God made everything instead. Many modern Christians have reconciled the two sensibly, and have come to the wise understanding that the two - God and evolution - are really the same thing. God has

Comments

[lostplectrum]

*hearts Dawkins*

I love watching him debate with clerics, priests or faith-based politicians - his air of extreme impatience when he can't get them to concede the slightest logical progression of reasoning is in very tight balance with his precise diction and (usually) excellent manners.

I totally agree with his notion that indoctrination of children into their parent's religion BEFORE they're taught to think and reason for themselves is a form of mind control.

[pantheia]

Oh it's disgusting, isn't it! But one has to recognise that the faith teachers, such as the lady Catholic teacher at that primary school in the programme, earnestly believe they're doing the children a favour. They're doing it out of love, and what they believe is best for the child. The brainwashing involves those adults as well. It's a complicated problem.

[aurorra]

But the thing is....

Although I COULD go out there and read all the studies, and then go and check all the claims and compare all the specimens and do some DNA tests myself... I'm not going to.

For the majority of people it comes down to one man telling us one thing, and another telling us another. One says he has lots of proof and we are all meaningless accidents, one says that you are a special snowflake and all the amazing stuff going on in your head actually means you are more than just biology, if you believe you are more than an animal, you'll believe this.

So for 99.9% of people, it really does come down to which teacher you believe most.

Science has to accept that they may have all the paperwork in the world but they are still standing on a soapbox asking people to believe what they say, just like the guy next to them shouting the end is nigh.

xx

[pantheia]

But! Scientists aren't asking people to believe exactly what they say, they're asking people to consider the evidence that they're suggesting indicates something or other. Any good scientist isn't saying they have the definitive answer to anything. So they're not going to stand on a soapbox and demand that people think in a certain SET WAY. That's the opposite of what science aims to do.

You could argue we're splitting hairs here, but the issue I have with the way you describe it is that for me it seems to perpetuate part of the problem. The more people insist that it's a matter of two sides and which side you choose to believe in, the longer the general public will continue to fail to recognise that science is the only option that DOESN'T enforce it's views on you. It's a way of approaching everything as an investigation. So I resent the way you view it really, as just another alternative.

[pantheia]

Also, we're not expecting everyone to go and read all the reports etc to be fully knowledgeable. So you're absolutely right there, it DOES come down to which teacher you end up agreeing with and accepting authority from.
But what Dawkins mentioned in this programme, is the importance of encouraging people to question things, which means asking the two teachers of different things where and how they got their opinions and ideas. The one who can offer you some sort of evidence, even if it's a work in progress, but evidence that is based on cumulative research, should ALWAYS recieve more respect than the teacher who cannot suggest that to back up their views.

[aurorra]

I completely agree with you by the way, I was just putting forward an argument

[pantheia]

I remember a biology teacher at school telling us about the nature/nurture debate. I asked her a question, and she said to me (as a good science teacher should), "to be honest, we don't really know how it works". Something in my brain went 'ting!' like a lightbulb turning on, and from then on I've been utterly fascinated with the nature/nurture stuff, which we now know a lot more about.
What I'm trying to highlight is the interesting way that adults admitting they don't really understand something can actually work to inspire the child to go out and dig into it further.

I so want to play Red Dead Redemption!! I've been lamenting the loss of John's Xbox since the advertising began a few months back.
*adopts drawling cowboy accent for the rest of the day*

[aurorra]

It's rather good. I haven't finished Just Cause 2 yet but Stu's been playing it and I've been trying not to watch too much.

I love games where you can decide who you are going to be morally and it changes the storyline.

Only problem is we both find it hard to be evil so I think we may miss out on a lot.

xx

[anonymous]

What Dawkins implies but doesn't say is that knowledge can only take you so far.