Why do religious people keep trying to invent a conflict between belief and Science?

[Tampitump]

 

 

Let's not pat ourselves on our backs too hard. I've seen 'science' be quite disrespectful while presenting its position, including on this site.

I don't represent science of you're referring to me. I've constantly warned members of my attitude and stupidity.

[disarray]

Let's not pat ourselves on our backs too hard. I've seen 'science' be quite disrespectful while presenting its position, including on this site.

Um, I think that it was understood that we are not talking about forums and bloggers. My experience is that, when it comes to issues such as evolution vs. creationism, that the creationist approach, having really little or no data to support their own claims, take the strategy of poking or attempting to find holes in evolutionary theory. Apart from a few scientists who have written books to show that creationist arguments are weak, science just merrily goes on its way collecting more and more evidence to support evolution.

 

Amazingly, creationists, et al., fail to see the evidence for what it is, and apparently cherry pick any scientific statement that might be construed as supporting creationism:

 

"This is a wonderful time to be a Bible-believing Christian/creationist. The scientific evidence, rightly interpreted, overwhelmingly supports the straight-forward reading of Scripture. Even in those areas of seeming conflict, research continually sheds new light, increasing our confidence in Scripture.

I call on my Christian "semi-creationist" brothers, those who hold to the Big Bang, or the old Earth or theistic evolution, to join the ranks of those who are trying to solve the remaining conflicts from a God-honoring, Bible-upholding perspective. For in the end, Scripture will stand. Rightly observed and interpreted there can be no conflict between science and Scripture." [from a Creationist website] https://www.icr.org/article/1173

What can one say?

Edited August 21, 2016 by disarray

[iNow]

Even if you subtract 100% of science focused forum participants and bloggers from the equation and remind us of creationist examples, Zapatos' point remains entirely valid and accurate, yet you appear to have suggested it's not.

[disarray]

Even if you subtract 100% of science focused forum participants and bloggers from the equation and remind us of creationist examples, Zapatos' point remains entirely valid and accurate, yet you appear to have suggested it's not.

 

Um, whether Zapatos' point is entirely ( as in100%) valid, is a matter of opinion, so I am not going to get defensive about suggesting that it was not, and indeed, I usually find it pointless to get too sidetracked by minor pseudo-conflicts such as this.

 

However, the original comment was, "Science respectfully presents its position with mounds of empirical data and observation to support its case, never tries to use force or threats to coax people into belief, and doesn't claim to have the ultimate truth."

 

As I didn't make the comment myself, I can only speculate as to its meaning, but given the overall context of the comment, I think that the reference was to studies, papers, texts, lectures, and dissertations.

 

When it comes to discussions on issues with which religion and science are typically in different camps, I do think that it is reasonable to suggest that the religious spend far more time attacking (often disparagingly and often disrespectfully) the opposition (i.e., science) than science/scientists spend attacking the opposition (i.e. religion).

 

If one is not referring to discussion on issues with which religion and science are typically in different camps, I would agree that both scientists and religionists(?) are equally respectful, particularly when it comes to religious people addressing people who are espouse the same religious beliefs.

 

But religion is perhaps generally less respectful of the reader's or listener's viewpoint in theory, as religion does often say that:

• Those who disagree are pagan, atheists, materialists, damned, malicious, etc.;
• People needed to be converted to the Truth whether they realize that they have this need or not, as if true friends would keep pestering them to convert;
• When it comes to a dispute between religion and science, the infallibility of scripture is undeniable so that it is no contest; etc.

In practice, I have often seem religious people approach strangers and tell them that they are guilty sinners, or ignorant about the Truth, or doomed to go to hell unless they accept scriptural truths, etc.

 

Must say, have never seen a scientist approach people and claim that they are sinful and doomed to eternal suffering if they don't accept their version of the truth.

Edited August 22, 2016 by disarray

[iNow]

Comment would have been better if it said, "good science" does x,y,z. Since it just said "science" without qualification, it was flawed and wrong. We could also explore the distinction between science and scientists (as anthropomorphizing science does us no good, but focusing on individual scientists does), but I won't.

[zapatos]

Um, I think that it was understood that we are not talking about forums and bloggers.

Apparently not.

 

 

Um, whether Zapatos' point is entirely ( as in100%) valid, is a matter of opinion, so I am not going to get defensive about suggesting that it was not, and indeed, I usually find it pointless to get too sidetracked by minor pseudo-conflicts such as this.

All evidence to the contrary.

 

 

As I didn't make the comment myself, I can only speculate as to its meaning, but given the overall context of the comment, I think that the reference was to studies, papers, texts, lectures, and dissertations.

There is another approach. You can say to the commenter, "what is your meaning". Speculating seems to regularly get you sidetracked into minor pseudo-conflicts.

[Tampitump]

Comment would have been better if it said, "good science" does x,y,z. Since it just said "science" without qualification, it was flawed and wrong. We could also explore the distinction between science and scientists (as anthropomorphizing science does us no good, but focusing on individual scientists does), but I won't.

I do not qualify statements. I'm not a scientist, and I'm not representing science. I'm a hawkish lay person and redneck with a slightly better understanding of science and philosophy than my fellow rednecks of the south, nothing more. The conversations I'm in usually end up with me attacking not ideas, but people themselves (usually verbally). I'm more of a reactor than a thinker, and I DO judge books by their covers. When I make statements, they are usually sweeping, and I'm operating under the assumption that the people reading them will connect the dots and understand what I mean by them. I'm a lay person through and through. No careful thinking going on here.

 

Lol, the above was slightly hyperbolic and meant as a joke, but it still not far from accurate.

[disarray]

Apparently not. What appearances. I think a commonsense approach would have been to refer to the literature itself.

All evidence to the contrary. I felt it polite to reply once. You are the one belaboring what I would consider to be a nonissue.

There is another approach. You can say to the commenter, "what is your meaning".

I don't actually find usually it necessary to wait for explanations from original poster, this being a case in point. I only mention that I can't read people's minds from time to time when they complain that I have misinterpreted a remark. Sometimes people resent my getting involved in other people's disagreements, but it is my right as a forum member to do this, so that is not my problem.

 

A blanket statement was made and I agreed and elaborated. What is a major point is that the religious do not have much valid scientific evidence (imo) to support their points of view when it comes to issues of contention between religion and science, and therefore they, imo, more often than scientists do within the actual literature, resort to questioning the motives of scientists (e.g., suggesting that scientists are biased), not to mention the several other reasons I listed above.

 

I do find that when people start attacking me in general or my writing style in general that they are almost always not actually addressing my "arguments" regarding the issue at hand. Indeed, in this case, you chose to continue to make personal global observations about me rather than to address my specific arguments as to why I think it a reasonable comment to say that the religious people are less "respectful" when it comes to issues of contention between science and religion, or, for that matter, between religious beliefs and those who do not hold religious beliefs or even the same religious beliefs. In addition to the several different types of examples I gave above, I would note that scientists, by virtue of their professional goals, are less "evangelical" than religious people. I have never had any scientist knocking at my door uninvited, for example, trying to give me religious literature or convert me to a religious viewpoint. Perhaps you might address my actual "arguments" rather than making pointless remarks, insults, and digressions regarding my style of writing.

Edited August 22, 2016 by disarray