• Welcome to OGBoards 10.0, keep in mind that we will be making LOTS of changes to smooth out the experience here and make it as close as possible functionally to the old software, but feel free to drop suggestions or requests in the Tech Support subforum!

Bill Nye "The Science Guy" Hates Creationism

And I know I'm drawing a bright line between instinctual behavior and thinking behavior, whereas of course it's a continuum between high-function cognition (humans) and low-functioning cognition (mice, etc.). But I'm still comfortable saying mice don't use reason, and that what we're talking about is reasons.
 
Fuck Your Couch said:
I think an important, dare I say essential, part of any understanding of faith is that it is optional. If our brains and world are set up in a manner in which one cannot live or function without using inductive reasoning... I find that to be not in the same universe as anything faith resembles.
Click to expand...

Now that's interesting. I have no problem saying faith is an essential part of everyday life. That one cannot live without faith. Again, some of this is semantics, but semantics carry meaning, and we may have stumbled across a difference in our worldviews.
 
Yeah I guess the word is semantically interesting because there are different usages. One cannot live without faith in something if you take it as just believing in anything. Everyone has faith in lots of everyday things in that sense.

But in the religious sense IMO people have pride in their own personal faith because it is not a given. As far as the discussion to compare inductive reasoning to this kind of faith is kind of silly. Belief in God is optional, which gives power to the faith of those who believe. If God forced everyone to believe in him it would cheapen the belief. Faith wouldn't be faith. IMO.
 
I agree. We have no choice but to live according to low-grade faith in near certainties such as the sun coming up and the floor being there, but choosing to live with faith in God is a more meaningful and difficult decision, and therefore accorded more weight. I mean, I'm one of those Kierkegaard-quoting Christians, and Kierkegaard said Christian faith is totally irrational, so I'm right with you. My faith, like most religious faith, is a huge leap.

I guess what I'm going for is that I think it's a useful part of the dialogue between religious and non-religious to point out that nearly everyone believes in things that cannot be conclusively proven. RChildress took this point too far, because as you said true religious faith is something far more meaningful, but it's a useful pivot point in the discussion, I think, as it leads to questions like how much evidence, and what kind of evidence, is required to believe something that will never be 100% certain. As I ponder that question, I'm heading to bed. Thanks for the tete-a-tete.
 
Seems like there is about to be a relevant discussion with a neuroscientist on the Diane Rehm Show starting now. About science and ignorance and discovery.

eta: nevermind, might be the next day of programming
 
I finally got a chance to read through this thread, and I wish I had done so earlier. It has been very interesting and thought-provoking. Congrats to all the participants, many of you deserve pos reps.

During the seventeenth century the Roman Catholic church condemned Galileo, forced him to recant one of his works, and placed him under house arrest for breaking his explicit promise not to treat the Copernican hypothesis as superior to the Ptolemaic earth-centered understanding of the universe. The church felt that the Copernican explanation contradicted it's own religious understanding of the universe.

Today a number of people based on their understanding of science are rejecting the religious idea of God as impossible, or at least unlikely, because the existence of God and other claims made about God by the religious are not in agreement with our best current scientific understanding.

Plato defined justice, loosely speaking, as everybody minding their own business. Maybe if the scientists would stick to trying to explain how the universe works, which is their business, and refrain from speculating about the existence of God, and the religious would concern themselves with how to go heaven, and not how the heavens go, which is their business, there would be greater justice in the Platonic understanding of the word.

When the religious have attempted to subject science to their standards, the results have not been very good, see Galileo and Creationism. When the scientists start subjecting matters of religious faith to scientific standards, the faith in God suffers.
 
Last edited:
sailordeac said:
I finally got a chance to read through this thread, and I wish I had done so earlier. It has been very interesting and thought-provoking. Congrats to all the participants, many of you deserve pos reps.

During the seventeenth century the Roman Catholic church condemned Galileo, forced him to recant one of his works, and placed him under house arrest for breaking his explicit promise not to treat the Copernican hypothesis as superior to the Ptolemaic earth-centered understanding of the universe. The church felt that the Copernican explanation contradicted it's own religious understanding of the universe.

Today a number of people based on their understanding of science are rejecting the religious idea of God as impossible, or at least unlikely, because the existence of God and other claims made about God by the religious are not in agreement with our best current scientific understanding.

Plato defined justice, loosely speaking, as everybody minding their own business. Maybe if the scientists would stick to trying to explain how the universe works, which is their business, and refrain from speculating about the existence of God, and the religious would concern themselves with how to go heaven, and not how the heavens go, which is their business, there would be greater justice in the Platonic understanding of the word.

When the religious have attempted to subject science to their standards, the results have not been very good, see Galileo and Creationism. When the scientists start subjecting matters of religious faith to scientific standards, the faith in God suffers.
Click to expand...

Science and it's practice has nothing to do with rejecting god. Tell me how many studies you can find that are explicitly held in order to disprove the existence of a supernatural being. For that matter, tell me how many explicitly call out the supernatural in them.

The information gleaned from science can be used to attempt to disprove the supernatural, just like creationists and other religious individuals use science to try to prove their deities existence.

Despite all of that, religion still attempts to control science to this day. Don't act like it still doesn't happen. The only thing that has changed in 500 years is that we are all smart enough to not let the church rule over our government and the content to which we are exposed on a daily basis.

http://articles.boston.com/2011-07-22/news/29804037_1_creationism-evolution-in-public-schools-intelligent-design

http://www.guardian.co.uk/environment/2012/mar/21/tennessee-bill-teachers-evolution-climate-change

http://www.knoxnews.com/news/2012/mar/19/anti-evolution-class-discussions-get-senates-ok/
 
Religion always has a problem because as science becomes more advanced and prevalent, religious beliefs become harder to accept for more and more people.

I agree that religion is much more concerned about science than the reverse. Science is just trying to get to the answer. Religion is worried that the answer science arrives at will upset its dogma "apple cart".
 
TWDeac said:
Science and it's practice has nothing to do with rejecting god. Tell me how many studies you can find that are explicitly held in order to disprove the existence of a supernatural being. For that matter, tell me how many explicitly call out the supernatural in them.

The information gleaned from science can be used to attempt to disprove the supernatural, just like creationists and other religious individuals use science to try to prove their deities existence.

Despite all of that, religion still attempts to control science to this day. Don't act like it still doesn't happen. The only thing that has changed in 500 years is that we are all smart enough to not let the church rule over our government and the content to which we are exposed on a daily basis.
http://articles.boston.com/2011-07-22/news/29804037_1_creationism-evolution-in-public-schools-intelligent-design

http://www.guardian.co.uk/environment/2012/mar/21/tennessee-bill-teachers-evolution-climate-change

http://www.knoxnews.com/news/2012/mar/19/anti-evolution-class-discussions-get-senates-ok/
Click to expand...

Who is acting like it does not happen? If you read my post, you will see that I specifically mentioned Creationism as a poor result of trying to subject science to religious standards. Furthermore, increased education is not "The only thing that has changed in 500 years." Among other things Western society has become much more secular and religion and religious institutions have considerably less influence than they had 500 years ago. And the trend toward greater secularization is accelerating not slowing, despite the hapless efforts of the Creationists.

Creationism is bunk, and one of the reasons it's bunk is because the Creationists attempt to use science to demonstrate their religious views. That's exactly the problem I am referring to.

"Science and it's practice have nothing to do with rejecting God." Certainly should be true. So, why are all these posters on this thread trying to use science to discredit the idea of God? Science should concern itself with nature, and not religion. Just as religion should concern itself with God and getting to heaven and not with how nature works.
 
TownieDeac said:
Machiavelli outlasts his usefulness once you get past politics and war. So over rehashing these arguments (as well as the "pretentious" jabs) with DV7. His negreps are always hilarious, though.

Anyway, so much new reading material here has really piqued my interest.

I need to brush up on some of my horse/bull shit philosophy, especially Hegel.
Click to expand...

You might want to read Isaiah Berlin, "The Question of Machiavelli." It may change your mind about the significance of Machavelli in Western intellectual life.
 
sailordeac said:
"Science and it's practice have nothing to do with rejecting God." Certainly should be true. So, why are all these posters on this thread trying to use science to discredit the idea of God? Science should concern itself with nature, and not religion. Just as religion should concern itself with God and getting to heaven and not with how nature works.
Click to expand...

People are using the knowledge they have about science to make judgements about what they believe about the meaning of life and expressing their opinion. They aren't using science to say that you can't believe in religion. Religion tries to silent science and control what others believe.

To suggest that people should just compartmentalize their knowledge is silly.
 
Last edited:
ChrisL68 said:
People are using the knowledge they have about science to make judgements about what they believe about the meaning of life and expressing their opinion. They aren't using science to say that you can't believe in religion. Religion tries to silent science and control what others believe.

To suggest that people should just compartmentalize their knowledge is silly.
Click to expand...

It would seem to be pretty obvious that in these two areas, science and religion, the interplay between the two has not been too promising. So why force the issue on either side? Let religion be, enjoy science and it's benefits. Let science be, enjoy what religion offers. And if you still feel the irresistible compulsion to believe that the truth is one, coherent, and whole, read the aforementioned Isaiah Berlin, "The Question of Machiavelli." And we'll see what you think after that.
 
The interplay hasn't been promising because Religion has been responsible for killing, imprisoning, torturing and condemning proponents science which has upset their dogma applie cart and power structure.

Of course there is one truth. Either god exists or god doesn't exist. It might be impossible to ever absolutely know that answer.
 
These sorts of things always make me cringe. It's difficult to debate someone who isn't bound by reason or logic. Debating the religious is ultimately futile.
 
Deadbolt said:
These sorts of things always make me cringe. It's difficult to debate someone who isn't bound by reason or logic. Debating the religious is ultimately futile.
Click to expand...

This. Plus, I assume the idiot, whatever his name is, is going to be arguing based on faith/Bible, which Nye isn't really suited to argue against. Would be great to see the idiot debate a real theologian, like Brueggemann, for example.
 
#BillBillBillBillBill

Sent from my C6606 using Tapatalk
 
RevDeac06 said:
This. Plus, I assume the idiot, whatever his name is, is going to be arguing based on faith/Bible, which Nye isn't really suited to argue against. Would be great to see the idiot debate a real theologian, like Brueggemann, for example.
Click to expand...

Why is the guy an idiot?
 
RevDeac06 said:
This. Plus, I assume the idiot, whatever his name is, is going to be arguing based on faith/Bible, which Nye isn't really suited to argue against. Would be great to see the idiot debate a real theologian, like Brueggemann, for example.
Click to expand...

Now, if this were a debate on creationism existing within the framework of science, then maybe we'd have something. Instead we have a guy who thinks the planet it 6000 years old.

Why debate something that isn't up for debate?
 
Screamindemon3 said:
Why is the guy an idiot?
Click to expand...

Is this really a question? Because he is.

I'm working on sermon prep today and Sunday's text is the "you are the salt of the earth" passage. Later it says "if salt has lost it's flavor..." The Greek verb there for "become tasteless" is moraino, the root of the word "moron." So my bad, he's a moron, not an idiot.
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Back
Top