mikwut wrote: An interesting documentary that shows this is "A Flock of Dodos, The Evolution Intelligent Design Circus". What sectarians often miss by having a microscope on unsophisticated fundamentalists is their own infusion of dialectic into that framework. 'Religion' is a pretty broad brush.
Also, given this dialectic biologists (whether religious or not) are horrible at public relations - just a mess. That has an effect as well.
My general attitude is that causation in these studies isn't proved or isolated by the studies but a general attitude draws a conclusion. Given the dialectic I framed above it is no surprise sectarians paint with the general religion brush - that makes a rhetorical point, but it shouldn't be intellectually satisfying or complete for more critical minds. Like most things in life when we keep our thinking moderated more is at work and causation is complex.
best, mikwut
sec·tar·i·an adj. 1. Of, relating to, or characteristic of a sect. 2. Adhering or confined to the dogmatic limits of a sect or denomination; partisan. 3. Narrow-minded; parochial.
sec·u·lar·ist n. 1. One who demonstrates religious skepticism or indifference. 2. One who holds the view that religious considerations should be excluded from civil affairs or public education.
David Hume: "---Mistakes in philosophy are merely ridiculous, those in religion are dangerous."
DrW: "Mistakes in science are learning opportunities and are eventually corrected."
mikwut wrote: An interesting documentary that shows this is "A Flock of Dodos, The Evolution Intelligent Design Circus". What sectarians often miss by having a microscope on unsophisticated fundamentalists is their own infusion of dialectic into that framework. 'Religion' is a pretty broad brush.
Also, given this dialectic biologists (whether religious or not) are horrible at public relations - just a mess. That has an effect as well.
My general attitude is that causation in these studies isn't proved or isolated by the studies but a general attitude draws a conclusion. Given the dialectic I framed above it is no surprise sectarians paint with the general religion brush - that makes a rhetorical point, but it shouldn't be intellectually satisfying or complete for more critical minds. Like most things in life when we keep our thinking moderated more is at work and causation is complex.
best, mikwut
sec·tar·i·an adj. 1. Of, relating to, or characteristic of a sect. 2. Adhering or confined to the dogmatic limits of a sect or denomination; partisan. 3. Narrow-minded; parochial.
sec·u·lar·ist n. 1. One who demonstrates religious skepticism or indifference. 2. One who holds the view that religious considerations should be excluded from civil affairs or public education.
Give up. You are dealing with people who know what the right answer is before they read any evidence, and afterwards as well.
And in the dominant US culture, that answer contains the letters 'g' and 'd' in terminal positions, has 'o' as its only vowel, and does not refer to members of the family canidae.
Zadok: I did not have a faith crisis. I discovered that the Church was having a truth crisis. Maksutov: That's the problem with this supernatural stuff, it doesn't really solve anything. It's a placeholder for ignorance.
Yes, thank you, I meant 'secularist' and typed sectarian.
mikwut
All communication relies, to a noticeable extent on evoking knowledge that we cannot tell, all our knowledge of mental processes, like feelings or conscious intellectual activities, is based on a knowledge which we cannot tell. -Michael Polanyi
"Why are you afraid, have you still no faith?" Mark 4:40
Chap wrote: Give up. You are dealing with people who know what the right answer is before they read any evidence, and afterwards as well.
And in the dominant US culture, that answer contains the letters 'g' and 'd' in terminal positions, has 'o' as its only vowel, and does not refer to members of the family canidae.
Actually, as a mostly unemployed itinerant in the mid 1960's, I lived for short times in several rural communities in Missouri and Arkansas where select members of the family canidae (especially those of the hound and 'coon varieties), received more respect, devotion and attention than God, except perhaps on Sundays.
David Hume: "---Mistakes in philosophy are merely ridiculous, those in religion are dangerous."
DrW: "Mistakes in science are learning opportunities and are eventually corrected."
Chap wrote: Give up. You are dealing with people who know what the right answer is before they read any evidence, and afterwards as well.
And in the dominant US culture, that answer contains the letters 'g' and 'd' in terminal positions, has 'o' as its only vowel, and does not refer to members of the family canidae.
Actually, as a mostly unemployed itinerant in the mid 1960's, I lived for short times in several rural communities in Missouri and Arkansas where select members of the family canidae (especially those of the hound and 'coon varieties), received more respect, devotion and attention than God, except perhaps on Sundays.
Those people probably had the good sense to realize (six days out of seven) that the canidae representatives did a lot more good to them and their families than the non-stick-fetching non-intruder-deterring non-useful-while-hunting entity designated by an anagram of their common name.
Zadok: I did not have a faith crisis. I discovered that the Church was having a truth crisis. Maksutov: That's the problem with this supernatural stuff, it doesn't really solve anything. It's a placeholder for ignorance.
Chap wrote: Give up. You are dealing with people who know what the right answer is before they read any evidence, and afterwards as well.
And in the dominant US culture, that answer contains the letters 'g' and 'd' in terminal positions, has 'o' as its only vowel, and does not refer to members of the family canidae.
DrW wrote:
Actually, as a mostly unemployed itinerant in the mid 1960's, I lived for short times in several rural communities in Missouri and Arkansas where select members of the family canidae (especially those of the hound and 'coon varieties), received more respect, devotion and attention than God, except perhaps on Sundays.
Chap wrote:Those people probably had the good sense to realize (six days out of seven) that the canidae representatives did a lot more good to them and their families than the non-stick-fetching non-intruder-deterring non-useful-while-hunting entity designated by an anagram of their common name.
Indeed - (and to which I might add the non-present and non-existent attributes, as well.)
Last edited by Guest on Sat Dec 10, 2011 7:45 pm, edited 1 time in total.
David Hume: "---Mistakes in philosophy are merely ridiculous, those in religion are dangerous."
DrW: "Mistakes in science are learning opportunities and are eventually corrected."
One may ask why, when you eliminate hot-button issues like evolution and global warming, religious belief remains associated with lower science literacy. Readers will have their own take here, but I suggest that the willingness to believe in fables and superstition makes one more resistant to believing things that are true, especially when those things fall into a category, “science,” that can be perceived as a threat to belief systems based on superstition. Regardless, Sherkat’s data provide additional evidence, as if we needed any, that science and religion are incompatible.
Wait, I thought he removed perceived threats to belief systems to do the survey?
Maybe the difference has more to do with social pressure. For example, many times Stak has complained about Buffalo's brand of atheism. He wasn't particularly fond of Buffalo trying to make a big deal about the correlation between IQ and atheism (Buffalo seems to take it as causal and rejects suggestions it may be a form of cultural identification for some groups). I think there may be a sort of secular culture that turns to science not because it's some noble pursuit, but rather as a weapon to mock believers. So perhaps the disposition towards science is largely cultural.
When I was reading Richard Feynman's autobiography, he mentioned something interesting about Jews (he was raised in a Jewish home). Why are so many famous scientists Jewish? It may be due to their culture where mothers are as proud of meeting a general as they are a professor.
That's General Leo. He could be my friend if he weren't my enemy. eritis sicut dii I support NCMO
asbestosman wrote: Why are so many famous scientists Jewish? It may be due to their culture where mothers are as proud of meeting a general as they are a professor.
asbestosman wrote: Why are so many famous scientists Jewish? It may be due to their culture where mothers are as proud of meeting a general as they are a professor.
What does this mean?
I would probably have to look up exactly how he said it to do it justice. However, the general idea I got from him is that Jews may place more value on education than most other groups in general.
What it means for this thread is that the differences in religion and non-religion may be more cultural than inherent in religion itself.
That's General Leo. He could be my friend if he weren't my enemy. eritis sicut dii I support NCMO