Chronology Current Month Current Thread Current Date
[Year List] [Month List (current year)] [Date Index] [Thread Index] [Thread Prev] [Thread Next] [Date Prev] [Date Next]

[Phys-L] Re: Mocking the Faithful: was Breaking News in ID



Perhaps reading today's NYTimes would be beneficial. It has an article on
the front page about reconciling science and religion, and also about
religious scientists.

I don't think that rational arguments are lost on the scientists who are
religious. The real problem is with people who are religious and do not
have the ability to think scientifically. This would be 70% of the
population. Scientific thought really requires formal operational reaoning,
or in Lawson's terms hypothetico-deductive reasoning. Only about 30% of the
population tests at this level, while 30% test at the concrete operational
level (typical of children below age 10). The rest are transitional.

The ID believers say that life is too complex to have arisen by "random"
processes, but I have never seen any good statistical calculations being
published for this. The scientific thinker will understand probabilistic
reasoning and appreciate this argument, but others will have difficulty.
Just consider how the tobacco companies successfully argued about the lack
of proof even though there was a clear statistical link between smoking and
diseases.

It is quite clear that the president does not understand this type of
reasoning, or that he chooses to ignore the evidence for political reasons.
I think that the former is true.

Since there is compelling evidence that students can be cognitively
accelerated to the formal operational level, this problem is actually
squarely in the labs of the educators who failed to do this. Let us face
it, we educators have failed to properly educate students to think
scientifically. Arons even reports that up to 85% of elementary school
teachers can be pushed up to the higher level of thinking (currently most
are concrete operational).

The issue of promoting better thinking skills is not an anti religion
program. If scientists are seen as being intolerant of religion, the
fundamentalists can win politically. But if scientists are seen as
promoting better thinking and tolerance of religion, then the opposition
will not be as fierce. Certainly, one must oppose the introduction of a
"mystical" hypothesis into a scientific model, but active hostility towards
religion is a very bad tactic. Remember that Newton wrote extensively about
theology, and Galileo was very religious. Even Einstein expressed
generalized religious sentiments.

The mainline churches can be your allies against the forces opposed to
scientific thought, if you don't alienate them.

John M. Clement
Houston, TX


If, as a Chinese philosopher suggested, the art of war is to take
the enemy off balance, while remaining collected onself, then
this might be a suitable weapon.

But as a person who has actually been exposed to a tutor who
was visibly respectful of people with religious convictions,
though this attitude was quite alien to my convictions at that time,
I can say that the abrasive mocking approach demonstrated here
will win no friends from the folks with religious propensities.

Yes, it does indeed correspond to the convictions of more than one
science teacher as to the proper attitude to the Divine.

But you are not to preach to the agnostic choir, if you hope to
prevail
with the faithful, in my view. Rather, doing as you would be
done by, is usually a smart move.

Brian W


At 05:01 PM 8/23/2005, you wrote:
Actually this was referenced in a previous post. The web site below for
this "alternative" is very nice.

John M. Clement
Houston, TX



http://www.venganza.org/


... I
and many others around the world are of the strong belief that the
universe was created by a Flying Spaghetti Monster. ///


Brian Whatcott Altus OK Eureka!