2 ms·
The articles poses a question at the beginning about science sort of replacing religion in the popular psyche. It implies that as science explains more and more
by pmichaud 17y ago
The articles poses a question at the beginning about science sort of replacing religion in the popular psyche. It implies that as science explains more and more about our world, people will naturally accept it as obviously true.
It just doesn't work that way.
Overcomingbias.com and lesswrong.com spend a bunch of time talking about how religion isn't a position chosen after careful consideration of evidence. It's a social cohesion, tribal thing that operates in a totally different process of the brain, and serves an entirely different purpose than logic serves.
If science were going to replace dogma because of the overwhelming weight of the evidence, it would have done so already.
- lhorie 17y agoI agree. It's worth noting that the vast majority of religious people don't actually care about how the universe ticks; it simply makes no difference to their daily lives. It's too bad that only the loud extremist minorities get all this passive aggressive press.