Not YEC, necessarily. Thinking that the story of adam and eve is an acceptable alternative to evolution is a good example of religious thinking. You're right, the term is rather ambiguous. Belief in sin is also religious thinking. That there is some mysterious force that is used to judge our behavior. The effects of that belief I couldn't say, but to accept magic in any form is a step backwards.

http://www.gallup.com/poll/114544/darwi ... ution.aspx

Dexter's posts:

I don't find the universe as described in the Bible to give a satisfying "meaning of life." In fact, it would make life on Earth utterly trivial in comparison to the afterlife. If you believed it, it seems you should just spend your life bowing to God, or doing whatever else is necessary for a golden ticket. Or if it's predetermined by God, then that would make it all the more meaningless.

I'm talking about God deciding whether you will enter Heaven, based on your faith. That is what the Bible describes, and what many people believe, isn't it?

Thanks Dexter. I'm not sure I follow your logic though.

Assuming there is a God, wouldn't it be entirely logical that he/she would determine who enters heaven? I think what you're saying is that this makes humanity trivial, but even from a purely scientific/empirical standpoint we are trivial. Beyond trivial actually. If there is no God, then we are merely an obscure viral outbreak in a far flung arm of an infinite universe.

Assuming there is a God, and if we accept the Christian biblical teachings on this, then man is:

a) created by God in his/her image (since the Bible also asserts that God is spirit, then this 'image' must refer to our 'spiritual' image rather than our material one)

b) created for a purpose (being to "rule over the fish of the sea and the birds of the air, over the livestock, over all the earth, and over all the creatures that move along the ground.” Genesis 1:26 NIV). It should be noted that the Hebrew word translated here as 'rule' does not have a violent/domination context.

One main strand of Christian understanding sees 'heaven' as a return to this state we were first created for. In essence a return to Eden and the associated presence of God. A good and very readable treatment of this is done by Dr. Sandra Richter, "The Epic of Eden."

Is this a satisfying 'meaning of life?' I guess it depends on whether you see God as perfect love, or as a tyrant.

Thanks for the clarification Interbane.

I think there's a false dichotomy that is assumed in regards to this question though. It's not that Christianity is counter-rational (though of course some Christians are, just as there are some really illogical Atheists), but rather that it accepts and utilizes an additional source of data. This usually includes the Bible, but for some branches of Christianity such as the Roman Catholic church this would also include the 'traditions' of their faith.

Whether this acceptance of 'Christian data' is rational or not is a different question, and often varies depending upon the believer and whether they were born within the faith or converted to it.

In essence, we all determine what evidence we accept as trustworthy. Once that trust is set, it is (and should be) difficult to shake.

Hi Ant,

While I would agree with you that religion is not responsible for US performance in Math and Science, I would disagree that Creationism should be taught alongside evolution in science classes. If I've misconstrued any of your opinions here, please let me know, as I know how annoying that can be.

Math in particular (and the related hard sciences) require an element of repetition. We've largely taken that out of our education system today. Malcolm Gladwell's 10,000 hour hypothesis comes to mind, though obviously far less in application to non-genius learning. Some of the countries that excel in Math and Science are actually those that impose much more rote learning on their students, and the associated increase in worksheets and repetition. I'm thinking of Asian nations like Hong Kong/China, South Korea and Japan. I would suggest it is runaway individualism and the misconception that intelligence/creativity are not related to diligent work that is responsible for our current Western decline in Math and Science. The much mythicized Protestant Work Ethic would seem to be the opposite of this, so I wonder if in some sense our decline is due to the decline in Western religious thinking.

It makes no sense that Creationism should be taught alongside evolution in Science classes. I do not mean this to denigrate those who hold to Creationist beliefs, but rather to simply say that it is not related to Science. Creationism is a conclusion based mainly upon an understanding of the Christian Bible, and as such should be taught in Philosophy or related classes. It is entirely a plausible and necessary question whether the Christian Bible is 'trustworthy,' and if so in what way.

I don't think there is any problem in Science teaching the possible difficulties with current evolutionary thinking, especially in the areas of abiogenesis. I think the main reason this is not done is because there is a fear amongst some that this would be tacit support for a religious agenda. Real science does not shy away from evidence because of inconvenient conclusions however.

In essence, we all determine what evidence we accept as trustworthy. Once that trust is set, it is (and should be) difficult to shake.

Welcome to Booktalk Doulos!

Is the criteria for acceptable evidence so subjective? Are we each individually to decide what is “acceptable” or “unacceptable” on a personal level? There are criteria, perhaps unknown to most, on what can be considered justified evidence. Epistemology, and as a practice, critical thinking, can inform you on what is justified versus unjustified.

In many cases, we can arrive at that determination through deduction, by removing the types of evidence that aren’t acceptable. There is no need to do this blindly, as we’ve been working on these issues as a species for 2,000 years and have filtered out the methods that work versus the methods that don’t work.

An example is accepting evidence that is justified only by a fallacy. Any “evidence” that is arrived at and is supported mainly by ‘argumentum ad baculum’, for example. Such evidence, when a fallacy is the sole support, is not trustworthy. Yet so very many people accept it as trustworthy. This is a failure to understand what qualifies as ‘evidence’.

I disagree that trusting invalid evidence should be a habit that’s difficult to shake, even though I agree that it is difficult to shake.

While I would agree with you that religion is not responsible for US performance in Math and Science, I would disagree that Creationism should be taught alongside evolution in science classes. If I've misconstrued any of your opinions here, please let me know, as I know how annoying that can be.

Cause and effect isn’t a one-track animal, a “chain” as most people think of it. It’s more of a web, with countless causes and countless effects, and any single point picked out is usually done so as a result of the transparency of that point.

I agree that increased repetition during ‘drills’ of various sorts would have a positive impact on education. It’s tough to get across in today’s world, where the entitlement philosophy of most youth means they want the skills now, rather than having to practice to acquire them. This is true for athletics as well as scholastics. To some students, forcing repetition is almost torture.

There are other languages where the words that represent numbers are very short. A single syllable, made up of only 2 or three letters. Studies have shown that the shorter word length allows people to hold a larger number of digits in short term memory, on average. So even our very language is a cause that influences math and science scores.

To say that a widespread belief system that is contrary to science has no negative impact on science education displays a simplistic view of cause and effect. Of course it has an impact. The question is, how much of an impact, and where does it stand in reference to the host of other causes?

To say that a widespread belief system that is contrary to science has no negative impact on science education displays a simplistic view of cause and effect.

Of course it's simplistic. That's the bane of forum discussions!
It was hardly meant as a grand theory of everything

You're making some assumptions here however. Christianity is not necessarily 'contrary to science,' anymore than philosophy is contrary to science. They simply address different fields of knowledge and have different criteria for validity. Part of the basis of science is that empirical evidence is required. Barring hard evidence to support the claim, any statement that religious belief systems play a negative role in Math and Science education is merely conjecture.

I would agree with you that my statement could have been worded better however. I should have said 'religion is not a major influence on US performance in Math and Science' as on some level everything has bearing.

Is the criteria for acceptable evidence so subjective? Are we each individually to decide what is “acceptable” or “unacceptable” on a personal level? There are criteria, perhaps unknown to most, on what can be considered justified evidence. Epistemology, and as a practice, critical thinking, can inform you on what is justified versus unjustified.

Of course what we accept as evidence is ultimately subjective, since we each must come to a personal decision on what is reliable. This is not to say that the basis for this cannot be critiqued, but that critique often has difficulty passing the personal and individual filters that are in place to defend and protect accepted beliefs. This cuts into both sides of the Creation-Evolution debate, as there are 'scared truths' held by both science and religion that raise defence mechanisms when questioned.

Epistemology is a rather broad ranging field. On some issues I think it provides sound basis for clarification, but especially in the field of religious belief it runs into some core problems. If we're discussing the possibility of an infinite God, then the study of what is possible by finite humanity only has limited bearing.

An example is accepting evidence that is justified only by a fallacy. Any “evidence” that is arrived at and is supported mainly by ‘argumentum ad baculum’, for example. Such evidence, when a fallacy is the sole support, is not trustworthy. Yet so very many people accept it as trustworthy. This is a failure to understand what qualifies as ‘evidence’.

The issue is that this whole thought paradigm is not the sole one. It is making a value judgement that rational thought (as exemplified in epistemology) is the highest form of decision making, which may possibly be true... but it is certainly not the only posibility.

As an example, a person may believe something because a 'trustworthy' person told them something. By the cultural norms of a time/location, a person may be recognized as embodying wisdom, and their opinions are thus accorded high status.

An outsider (or person not having cultural norms of trustworthiness) would have difficulty changing viewpoints here even through highly involved reason, since the dominant praxis for receiving knowledge in this context would not simply be reason but also the demonstration of 'wisdom' through accepted cultural norms.

We might say that by the standards of reason, a viewpoint is fallacious, but for the person in the above hypothetical example that would not be an important critique. In this case, it wouldn't be a question of intelligence, but rather the thought paradigms which are accepted and dominant.

You're making some assumptions here however. Christianity is not necessarily 'contrary to science,' anymore than philosophy is contrary to science.

It's not really an assumption, but it does need clarification if you're wanting to follow my reasoning. Christianity is too broad to be 'contrary to science'. Some of the claims internal to Christianity may be contrary to science, but it depends on how the belief is structured. Which means I agree with you here, Christianity is not necessarily 'contrary to science'.

At what point such harmonization occurs, I'm not sure. But it does not happen at the outset. It requires further education on the topics involved. However, a host of polls shows that many people do think their religion (or a component of that) is contrary to science. Even if that is a false belief, it is widespread. Hopefully premise 2 makes more sense now.




There is further room to ponder about cause and effect between religion and science education. I have no evidence here, so it's merely discussion fodder. Consider all those people who intentionally or unintentionally permit actions from the religious community that they disagree with, yet remain silent since they see the people as being 'on the same team'. I'm sure anyone would condemn the more extreme actions such as picketing funerals and blowing up buildings.

What about the less extreme(but still somewhat harmful) actions such as pushing a Creationist agenda? It is the extreme end of the spectrum that pushes the agenda, but only those on the other end of the religious spectrum such as yourself are the ones who speak out against it. The middle of the spectrum, the 'fence sitters', are enablers, either through mild support, or silent inaction. Of course, people of all stripes are guilty of silent inaction. But these are large numbers, where the point is made by statistics, which I don't have. I will assume there is a far greater percentage of "silent inaction" types within the religious community than from a secular community.

Of course what we accept as evidence is ultimately subjective, since we each must come to a personal decision on what is reliable.

Reliable methods produce reliable results. Accepting fallacious evidence as reliable may be subjective, but it is also false.

This is not to say that the basis for this cannot be critiqued, but that critique often has difficulty passing the personal and individual filters that are in place to defend and protect accepted beliefs

That basis for this are the very filters you mention. Such filters should be critiqued, you're right. But entrenchment of belief is often more powerful than any reasoning that seeks to uproot it. That is a problem with human bias. We must be aware of our susceptibility towards entrenchment, and therefore place a higher value on the critique. Otherwise, you can't very well claim to be putting forth the due diligence required to be a critical believer.

As an example, a person may believe something because a 'trustworthy' person told them something. By the cultural norms of a time/location, a person may be recognized as embodying wisdom, and their opinions are thus accorded high status.

But the method is ubiquitous. The trustworthy person is trustworthy(I'll assume), because he has produced reliable results, results that have consistently passed the "filters" I've mentioned. This may be unintentional, but there are people who are logical geniuses that know very little about formal logic.

We might say that by the standards of reason, a viewpoint is fallacious, but for the person in the above hypothetical example that would not be an important critique. In this case, it wouldn't be a question of intelligence, but rather the thought paradigms which are accepted and dominant.

If a trustworthy person has a belief that is supported by fallacious evidence or reasoning, the person then has an invalid belief. If you value a single man's trustworthiness in spite of his committing a fallacy, you're dismissing the trustworthiness of a large number of brilliant minds who have shown fallacies to be non-sequitur or outright false. The obscurity of this fact may seem like you're comparing one "trustworthy" man to a "method". But you're not. Even when we place values on the systems we use to gauge the truth, a trustworthy man is not justified having a higher value placed on him than the standards of reason.

Which means, you can't justify this example.

Interbane wrote: claims internal to Christianity may be contrary to science, but it depends on how the belief is structured.

Supernatural intervention is contrary to science. Christianity can only be rehabilitated by seeing all descriptions of supernatural intervention as symbolic. God does not exist.