4 ms·

Science needs another ally as well - we also need wholesome support of science. Not just pick and choosing to support a particular ideology, liberal or conserva

Science needs another ally as well - we also need wholesome support of science. Not just pick and choosing to support a particular ideology, liberal or conservative. For some (my friends on the right, whom I understand and have empathy for more than your average HN reader), scientific thought unfortunately has been so closely tied to liberal ideologies that middle America sees as destructive to families and local economies. Additionally, there is growing intolerance for scientists to hold opinions of faith or conservative ideals in our universities. This is unacceptable. (This is a great article on the matter http://www.nytimes.com/2016/05/08/opinion/sunday/a-confession-of-liberal-intolerance.html http://www.nytimes.com/2016/05/08/opinion/sunday/a-confessio...) In short, we need to stop treating that being "scientific" and "liberal" go hand-in-hand. They don't. To quote the great Serj Tankian: Science fails to recognize the single most potent element of human existence

veidr 10y ago
> growing intolerance for scientists to hold opinions of faith or conservative ideals Conservative ideals and science don't have any inherent conflict, but uhm, that other thing...
- mordocai 10y ago
  Some of the greatest scientific discoveries in history were made by people thinking they were glorifying god by doing their work. Faith and science go together just fine, and I say this as a hard atheist.
  - gbrs 10y ago
    Doesn't that depend on the religion though? Like evangelicals don't think human made global warming is real because humans can't alter gods creation. I think most people will accept the evidence as long as it doesn't go against some of their core beliefs (which can be expanded beyond religion). It's just that for a lot of scientific discoveries there is at least one group that refuses to accept it.
    - treehau5 10y ago
      > Like evangelicals don't think human made global warming is real because humans can't alter gods creation Certain types of Christian denominations tend to strongly profess biblical literalism, which encourages this type of thinking, but this isn't representative of the entire group. This type of thinking is what enforces the problem I mentioned. I am an Orthodox Christian, and I have yet to find some type of scientific discovery incompatible with my faith -- how silly would this be regardless. If science is true observation of God's earth, and God is indeed the creator of all, the contradictions only arise when we use flawed logic or reasoning (for example -- biblical literalism and mis-interpretation). The problem is, as I mentioned, when we use science as political tools, or to draw vague conclusions or hasty generalizations. Side note: evangelicalism, while being the loudest and most representative form of Christianity in the states, doesn't even crack the top 10 of largest denomination of Christians in the world. Catholic is first, Eastern Orthodoxy is second, then the various Protestant denominations are all after.
      - nyolfen 10y ago
        not even top 10? there are 280 million pentecostals alone in the world and roughly the same number of eastern orthodox christians: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/List_of_Christian_denominations_by_number_of_members https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/List_of_Christian_denomination...
        treehau5 10y ago
        Pentecostalism is as about as a specific term as "christianity" or "monotheism" or "paganism" comes when it comes down to actual beliefs, practice of worship, doctrines, etc. The largest of those groups, "Assemblies of God" defer in key areas of doctrine, faith, and worship from the next 8 or so on that list. You may argue the differences aren't worth the seperation, but consider even in the American Protestant landscape -- even the Presbyterian Church, which is a specific kind of Protestant is heavily fractured between it's more liberal wing, the PC-USA, and it's more conservative group, the PCA. Baptists not apart of the Southern Baptist Convention differ heavily from those not a part of the SBC. Methodists and Lutherans face similar key distinctions. If all of these groups were united in belief, practice, doctrine, and key tenants of the faith, I would agree with your statement, however this is not the case.
  - deleted 10y ago
    [deleted]
- hx87 10y ago
  The problem isn't faith, it's narrow-mindedness about how the divine interacts with the world. God is bigger than you and doesn't hew to your preconceptions of them.
  - treehau5 10y ago
    I can agree with this 100% as an Orthodox Christian. One of the core tenants in understanding Orthodox Theology is human, created logic does not apply or cannot happen to even hope to describe God in his entirety, this is indeed the root of many of the early heretical teachings about Christ, such as he wasn't actually a man, but just a divine apparition (Docetism), or he wasn't fully divine (Arianism). We merely have words for the attributes He has decided to reveal to us, even using the word "He" when describing him with caution.
Retric 10y ago
Faith is believing in something despite evidence to the contrary not because of it. So, there really is a conflict. People are not robots they can accept ideas in conflict to both be true. That does not mean faith has no cost. EX: So as not to offend anyone. If you believe that god's true name is 'Zual' and that she wants you to do a handstand on your 20th birthday. And you agree there is no evidence that this is the case, well without evidence the default assumption is for a less complex world without that requirement. PS: No, that chain of logic does not disprove the idea. But it does mean picking 'Zual' over 'Zuam' or 'Zuak' ... without evidence is less likely to be true than false.
- phd514 10y ago
  That's not at all what faith is. There are some definitions of faith that include "belief not based on proof", but that is still far removed from "belief despite evidence to the contrary".
  - Retric 10y ago
    Suppose someone said I am going to roll a fair six sided dice. So, 1,2,3,4,5,6. I will give you a 50/50 bet. You can write down a number 1,2,3,4,5, or 6 and then chose if it will be that number or will be another number. AKA pick 2 and say it will be 2 or will not be 2. Baring any evidence the first choice is random, but the second is that number or is not that number should not be random. Logically faith is the same thing. It's picking a very specific result and saying baring any evidence I will pick a small set of outcomes and say this more likely true instead of not true. Now, having evidence changes things. If you can show the dice is biased for 4, then picking not 6 is a better choice than not 4. PS: Now if you believe picking is that number is a better option in my game, then I would be happy to play this game with you.
    - treehau5 10y ago
      > Logically faith is the same thing. According to you.

veidr 10y ago

> growing intolerance for scientists to hold opinions of faith or conservative ideals Conservative ideals and science don't have any inherent conflict, but uhm, that other thing...

mordocai 10y ago
Some of the greatest scientific discoveries in history were made by people thinking they were glorifying god by doing their work. Faith and science go together just fine, and I say this as a hard atheist.
- gbrs 10y ago
  Doesn't that depend on the religion though? Like evangelicals don't think human made global warming is real because humans can't alter gods creation. I think most people will accept the evidence as long as it doesn't go against some of their core beliefs (which can be expanded beyond religion). It's just that for a lot of scientific discoveries there is at least one group that refuses to accept it.
  - treehau5 10y ago
    > Like evangelicals don't think human made global warming is real because humans can't alter gods creation Certain types of Christian denominations tend to strongly profess biblical literalism, which encourages this type of thinking, but this isn't representative of the entire group. This type of thinking is what enforces the problem I mentioned. I am an Orthodox Christian, and I have yet to find some type of scientific discovery incompatible with my faith -- how silly would this be regardless. If science is true observation of God's earth, and God is indeed the creator of all, the contradictions only arise when we use flawed logic or reasoning (for example -- biblical literalism and mis-interpretation). The problem is, as I mentioned, when we use science as political tools, or to draw vague conclusions or hasty generalizations. Side note: evangelicalism, while being the loudest and most representative form of Christianity in the states, doesn't even crack the top 10 of largest denomination of Christians in the world. Catholic is first, Eastern Orthodoxy is second, then the various Protestant denominations are all after.
    - nyolfen 10y ago
      not even top 10? there are 280 million pentecostals alone in the world and roughly the same number of eastern orthodox christians: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/List_of_Christian_denominations_by_number_of_members https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/List_of_Christian_denomination...
      - treehau5 10y ago
        Pentecostalism is as about as a specific term as "christianity" or "monotheism" or "paganism" comes when it comes down to actual beliefs, practice of worship, doctrines, etc. The largest of those groups, "Assemblies of God" defer in key areas of doctrine, faith, and worship from the next 8 or so on that list. You may argue the differences aren't worth the seperation, but consider even in the American Protestant landscape -- even the Presbyterian Church, which is a specific kind of Protestant is heavily fractured between it's more liberal wing, the PC-USA, and it's more conservative group, the PCA. Baptists not apart of the Southern Baptist Convention differ heavily from those not a part of the SBC. Methodists and Lutherans face similar key distinctions. If all of these groups were united in belief, practice, doctrine, and key tenants of the faith, I would agree with your statement, however this is not the case.
- deleted 10y ago
  [deleted]
hx87 10y ago
The problem isn't faith, it's narrow-mindedness about how the divine interacts with the world. God is bigger than you and doesn't hew to your preconceptions of them.
- treehau5 10y ago
  I can agree with this 100% as an Orthodox Christian. One of the core tenants in understanding Orthodox Theology is human, created logic does not apply or cannot happen to even hope to describe God in his entirety, this is indeed the root of many of the early heretical teachings about Christ, such as he wasn't actually a man, but just a divine apparition (Docetism), or he wasn't fully divine (Arianism). We merely have words for the attributes He has decided to reveal to us, even using the word "He" when describing him with caution.

Retric 10y ago

Faith is believing in something despite evidence to the contrary not because of it. So, there really is a conflict. People are not robots they can accept ideas in conflict to both be true. That does not mean faith has no cost. EX: So as not to offend anyone. If you believe that god's true name is 'Zual' and that she wants you to do a handstand on your 20th birthday. And you agree there is no evidence that this is the case, well without evidence the default assumption is for a less complex world without that requirement. PS: No, that chain of logic does not disprove the idea. But it does mean picking 'Zual' over 'Zuam' or 'Zuak' ... without evidence is less likely to be true than false.

phd514 10y ago
That's not at all what faith is. There are some definitions of faith that include "belief not based on proof", but that is still far removed from "belief despite evidence to the contrary".
- Retric 10y ago
  Suppose someone said I am going to roll a fair six sided dice. So, 1,2,3,4,5,6. I will give you a 50/50 bet. You can write down a number 1,2,3,4,5, or 6 and then chose if it will be that number or will be another number. AKA pick 2 and say it will be 2 or will not be 2. Baring any evidence the first choice is random, but the second is that number or is not that number should not be random. Logically faith is the same thing. It's picking a very specific result and saying baring any evidence I will pick a small set of outcomes and say this more likely true instead of not true. Now, having evidence changes things. If you can show the dice is biased for 4, then picking not 6 is a better choice than not 4. PS: Now if you believe picking is that number is a better option in my game, then I would be happy to play this game with you.
  - treehau5 10y ago
    > Logically faith is the same thing. According to you.