3 ms·

> anti-evolution, anti-climate change, anti-Big-Bang crap from my conservative family At least anecdotally, my conservative family is like this because those t

by umvi 8y ago

> anti-evolution, anti-climate change, anti-Big-Bang crap from my conservative family At least anecdotally, my conservative family is like this because those topics have been used in the past to attack/bludgeon their religious beliefs which leads my family to dig in their heels, double down on their beliefs, and close their minds to accepting them. I've made a lot of progress by instead showing how those things are not only not anti-religious topics, but quite the opposite - they bring us closer to the truth of how God accomplishes what he does. Once they feel that their core beliefs are not being threatened, but merely augmented, it's much easier to accept them.

darkmighty 8y ago
Honestly, scientific literacy does jeopardize the "personal God" concept, and in particular obviously the Christian mythology. There are still plenty of christian scientists though, some more keen on the moral teaching and community aspect of the religion, some interpret the texts as non-literal (a tiny minority I presume cling to literal texts). I mean, I'm all for more engagement and scientific literacy, but let's not pretend there isn't some conflict here; specially for the more hardline churches -- while catholicism in particular seems happy to transition its role (into important lessons and social support) and turn dogma into allegory.
- reaperducer 8y ago
  let's not pretend there isn't some conflict here Science and religion can get along just fine. Half of the craters on the moon are named after priests. "Cells" are named for the places where monks live. The Vatican has operated scientific observatories for centuries. There's even one in Arizona that makes important discoveries to this day. The whole science vs. religion meme is something that the internet has amplified out of proportion by latching onto fringe groups and smaller denominations and holding them up as the only kind of religion that exists, creating artificial levels conflict to justify their position.
  - mr_overalls 8y ago
    > Half of the craters on the moon are named after priests. Sure, religious folks often don't have a problem with simple empirical observations (I mean, the Catholic church _did_ get around to pardoning Galileo 350 years after they murdered him). But Lord help you if you apply the scientific standards of empirical rigor or explanatory parsimony to any topics further afield. Most obviously, there isn't a shred of evidence - none whatsoever - for the existence of a divine being along the lines of what's posited by the Abrahamic religions.
    - dragonwriter 8y ago
      > Sure, religious folks often don't have a problem with simple empirical observations (I mean, the Catholic church _did_ get around to pardoning Galileo 350 years after they murdered him). There's a lot of people you can reasonably argue were murdered by the Catholic Church, but Galileo isn't one of them.
      - joelhoffman 8y ago
        GP was probably thinking of Giordano Bruno... Galileo died of old age under house arrest after being convicted of heresy.
    - reaperducer 8y ago
      there isn't a shred of evidence This isn't the place for a discussion about the details of religion, but I guess my response to this is, "So what?" You may need evidence, but people who believe in God don't need evidence. To them, God exists whether there is evidence or not. At one time there was no evidence that hydrogen existed, yet is was still there. At one time there was no evidence that x-rays existed. But they were still there. At one time there was no evidence of other galaxies or planets. But they still existed. Something can exist without there being current scientific proof of it. That certain people can see beyond what is physically in front of them is called "faith."
      - mr_overalls 8y ago
tashoecraft 8y ago
Let's also not forget that literal billions have been spent convincing people to reject evolution, climate change. It's a lot of marketing disguised in all sorts of different ways that has completely disrupted the public's support of scientific work.
- stochastic_monk 8y ago
  Corporations benefiting from anti-science beliefs take advantage of less-educated constituents who find science to be harmful to their beliefs.
dragonwriter 8y ago
> At least anecdotally, my conservative family is like this because those topics have been used in the past to attack/bludgeon their religious beliefs This bludgeoning, historically, especially in the US, has gone almost entirely outward from Christian conservatives, though inventing fantasies of attacks on the Christian community has been a key mechanism the leaders within that community have used to rally their congregation into participation in the bludgeoning; the persecution complex of the most politically, economically, and socially powerful religious group in the nation is the result.

by umvi 8y ago

darkmighty 8y ago

Honestly, scientific literacy does jeopardize the "personal God" concept, and in particular obviously the Christian mythology. There are still plenty of christian scientists though, some more keen on the moral teaching and community aspect of the religion, some interpret the texts as non-literal (a tiny minority I presume cling to literal texts). I mean, I'm all for more engagement and scientific literacy, but let's not pretend there isn't some conflict here; specially for the more hardline churches -- while catholicism in particular seems happy to transition its role (into important lessons and social support) and turn dogma into allegory.

reaperducer 8y ago
let's not pretend there isn't some conflict here Science and religion can get along just fine. Half of the craters on the moon are named after priests. "Cells" are named for the places where monks live. The Vatican has operated scientific observatories for centuries. There's even one in Arizona that makes important discoveries to this day. The whole science vs. religion meme is something that the internet has amplified out of proportion by latching onto fringe groups and smaller denominations and holding them up as the only kind of religion that exists, creating artificial levels conflict to justify their position.
- mr_overalls 8y ago
  > Half of the craters on the moon are named after priests. Sure, religious folks often don't have a problem with simple empirical observations (I mean, the Catholic church _did_ get around to pardoning Galileo 350 years after they murdered him). But Lord help you if you apply the scientific standards of empirical rigor or explanatory parsimony to any topics further afield. Most obviously, there isn't a shred of evidence - none whatsoever - for the existence of a divine being along the lines of what's posited by the Abrahamic religions.
  - dragonwriter 8y ago
    > Sure, religious folks often don't have a problem with simple empirical observations (I mean, the Catholic church _did_ get around to pardoning Galileo 350 years after they murdered him). There's a lot of people you can reasonably argue were murdered by the Catholic Church, but Galileo isn't one of them.
    - joelhoffman 8y ago
      GP was probably thinking of Giordano Bruno... Galileo died of old age under house arrest after being convicted of heresy.
  - reaperducer 8y ago
    there isn't a shred of evidence This isn't the place for a discussion about the details of religion, but I guess my response to this is, "So what?" You may need evidence, but people who believe in God don't need evidence. To them, God exists whether there is evidence or not. At one time there was no evidence that hydrogen existed, yet is was still there. At one time there was no evidence that x-rays existed. But they were still there. At one time there was no evidence of other galaxies or planets. But they still existed. Something can exist without there being current scientific proof of it. That certain people can see beyond what is physically in front of them is called "faith."
    - mr_overalls 8y ago

tashoecraft 8y ago

Let's also not forget that literal billions have been spent convincing people to reject evolution, climate change. It's a lot of marketing disguised in all sorts of different ways that has completely disrupted the public's support of scientific work.

stochastic_monk 8y ago
Corporations benefiting from anti-science beliefs take advantage of less-educated constituents who find science to be harmful to their beliefs.

dragonwriter 8y ago

> At least anecdotally, my conservative family is like this because those topics have been used in the past to attack/bludgeon their religious beliefs This bludgeoning, historically, especially in the US, has gone almost entirely outward from Christian conservatives, though inventing fantasies of attacks on the Christian community has been a key mechanism the leaders within that community have used to rally their congregation into participation in the bludgeoning; the persecution complex of the most politically, economically, and socially powerful religious group in the nation is the result.