Failure of creationists/theists to undertand scientific theory & facts

[fantome profane]

I said 'popular science' books. Dawkins etc . This is where alot of people get their 'science' from, don't you realise?

The problem is not people like Dawkins, but the general ignorance of public concerning science and scientific methods. And certainly the solution is to educate the public.

The really sad thing is that Dawkins has written several excellent books that do a very good job at presenting these scientific concepts in a way that can be easily understood by the general population, but the one book of his that has sold the best and has been most widely read is the one book he has written that has nothing to do with science.

 

[rocketman]

The problem is not people like Dawkins, but the general ignorance of public concerning science and scientific methods. And certainly the solution is to educate the public.

Well I think clearly some responsibility also has to be placed on these populist writers to better distinguish between true neutral science and their own personal opinions.

The really sad thing is that Dawkins has written several excellent books that do a very good job at presenting these scientific concepts in a way that can be easily understood by the general population, but the one book of his that has sold the best and has been most widely read is the one book he has written that has nothing to do with science.

Are you refering to the God Delusion? From the preface:

"‘the God Hypothesis’ is a scientific hypothesis about the universe, which should be analysed as sceptically as any other .........
If this book works as I intend, religious readers who open it will be atheists when they put it down."

It may not be a hard science book, but one of his main themes is that science renders God improbable and/or superfluous:

"Science offers us an explanation of how complexity (the difficult) arose out of simplicity (the easy). The hypothesis of God offers no worthwhile explanation for anything, for it simply postulates what we are trying to explain. It postulates the difficult to explain, and leaves it at that."

So he thinks God can be analysed scientifically, and he thinks atheism via science is a better alternative. And I'm all for him writing books with his opinion, but he doesn't do enough to frame things in the true overall context, imho. You and I may know better, but I can see how many average people are going to come away from all that and think that science isn't really neutral.

 

[Luminous]

Look at the 'BUT' on post #137 in the previous page.

 

[rocketman]

Look at the 'BUT' on post #137 in the previous page.

Don't ask me to look at your 'but' :areyoucra

Actually I'm not sure what you are commenting on this time, or the time before for that matter. I'm talking about populist writers like Dawkins.

I'm not really interested in your opinion of 'agnostic'. In the preface I was quoting from Dawkins says: "Perhaps you feel that agnosticism is a reasonable position, but atheism is just as dogmatic as religious belief? If so, I hope Chapter 2 will change your mind..."

Anyway, you should write to him and work it out. Maybe he might be interested in your 'but'.

 

[Luminous]

In the preface I was quoting from Dawkins says: "Perhaps you feel that agnosticism is a reasonable position, but atheism is just as dogmatic as religious belief? If so, I hope Chapter 2 will change your mind..."

aw,:sorry1:. Dawkins is such an idiot. hate that Agodist. Being an atheist requires blind faith and chapter 2 will NEVER change my mind, no matter what it says.

 

[painted wolf]

so the over 2.2 million scientist in the US are all atheists?
Dang yo! That's pretty impressive for a group totaling 290 million. I don't know any other group that has such a lock down on a major economic class.

I also didn't get my notice that I'm supposed to be an atheist... must have missed that meeting.

Also most of the pop sci books I read by authors such as Carl Zimmer and Sean B. Carrol are certainly not Atheist tracts. In fact other than the works of Stephen Gould I haven't read any atheist pop-sci... and he is fairly tame, keeping his atheism and science separate.

wa:do

 

[Sententia]

aw,:sorry1:. Dawkins is such an idiot. hate that Agodist. Being an atheist requires blind faith and chapter 2 will NEVER change my mind, no matter what it says.

I would think you would say you don't know if Dawkins would change your mind as you haven't read it therefore its impossible for you to say. Agnostic on the matter hehe...

The argument he makes boils down to essentially considering the hypothesis of god as any other scientific theory. The argument is reasonable and certainly not the work of an idiot.

 

[Autodidact]

I said 'popular science' books. Dawkins etc . This is where alot of people get their 'science' from, don't you realise?

Please name a single popular science book by Richard Dawkins that advocates atheism. The Ancestor's Tale? The Selfish Gene? I've read them all, and I don't remember any of them even mentioning God. Maybe that's because they're science books, and God is outside the scope of science?

 

[Autodidact]

Well I think clearly some responsibility also has to be placed on these populist writers to better distinguish between true neutral science and their own personal opinions.

Are you refering to the God Delusion? From the preface:

"‘the God Hypothesis’ is a scientific hypothesis about the universe, which should be analysed as sceptically as any other .........
If this book works as I intend, religious readers who open it will be atheists when they put it down."

It may not be a hard science book, but one of his main themes is that science renders God improbable and/or superfluous:

"Science offers us an explanation of how complexity (the difficult) arose out of simplicity (the easy). The hypothesis of God offers no worthwhile explanation for anything, for it simply postulates what we are trying to explain. It postulates the difficult to explain, and leaves it at that."

So he thinks God can be analysed scientifically, and he thinks atheism via science is a better alternative. And I'm all for him writing books with his opinion, but he doesn't do enough to frame things in the true overall context, imho. You and I may know better, but I can see how many average people are going to come away from all that and think that science isn't really neutral.

The God Delusion is not a science book at all--it's about religion and atheism.

 

[rocketman]

The God Delusion is not a science book at all--it's about religion and atheism.

Few popular science books are truly science books; did you think I said 'textbooks' or something? As far as I'm concerned any popular book, (even those by non-scientists), that draws heavily on science and uses science to any lesser or greater degree to make the case for atheism is simply going to cause a lot of people to think that science is not neutral. It's basic cause and effect, get over it. We need more public education as FP rightly suggested.

And when someone of Dawkins well known scientific status starts a book saying he wants to turn his readers into atheists, even if there was no more science mentioned (there's heaps), many readers will still have difficulty seperating his personal opinion from anything else because of his profession. That's the way it is.

Of-course science is neutral, but I'm trying to tell you one reason why there is a widespread belief otherwise; it wouldn't hurt you to listen instead of sniping.

 

[fantome profane]

Few popular science books are truly science books; did you think I said 'textbooks' or something? As far as I'm concerned any popular book, (even those by non-scientists), that draws heavily on science and uses science to any lesser or greater degree to make the case for atheism is simply going to cause a lot of people to think that science is not neutral. It's basic cause and effect, get over it. We need more public education as FP rightly suggested.

And when someone of Dawkins well known scientific status starts a book saying he wants to turn his readers into atheists, even if there was no more science mentioned (there's heaps), many readers will still have difficulty seperating his personal opinion from anything else because of his profession. That's the way it is.

Of-course science is neutral, but I'm trying to tell you one reason why there is a widespread belief otherwise; it wouldn't hurt you to listen instead of sniping.

And how many of these popular science books can you name that make the case for atheism? I just want to understand what kind of books you are talking about.

Other than “The God Delusion”, which I still don’t consider a science book. Although you do make a valid point that Dawkins does conflate science with atheism, and I have always criticized him for this. But still other than this one book by this one author I would like to know what popular science books you are thinking of?

 

[rocketman]

Although you do make a valid point that Dawkins does conflate science with atheism, and I have always criticized him for this.

You have often displayed a refreshingly sharp view of things FP.

But still other than this one book by this one author I would like to know what popular science books you are thinking of?

Any book that rides high on the best-seller lists that 'conflates science with atheism', even if it's not written by scientists. The usual Dawkins, Dennett, Harris and Hitchens crowd spring to mind. It's easy to say that people should know better I guess, but I'm not letting the populist authors off the hook for the impression that many receive.

 

[fantome profane]

You have often displayed a refreshingly sharp view of things FP.

Any book that rides high on the best-seller lists that 'conflates science with atheism', even if it's not written by scientists. The usual Dawkins, Dennett, Harris and Hitchens crowd spring to mind. It's easy to say that people should know better I guess, but I'm not letting the populist authors off the hook for the impression that many receive.

Then I think you are letting the readers off the hook much much too easily. I mean what do you suggest? I know that you are not going to suggest that we censor these authors or prevent them from expressing their opinions in anyway. So the responsibility for any misconceptions must lie with those people read these books without doing their own thinking and their own research. Dawkins of course is responsible for his own misconceptions, but not for the misconceptions of others.

And although I don’t want to get into a debate on all these authors I have to say that I find that Dennett and Harris are both much more careful than Dawkins when it comes to delineating science and metaphysics, and I am not aware of Hitchens saying much about science at all.

 

[rocketman]

Then I think you are letting the readers off the hook much much too easily. I mean what do you suggest?

Well, you suggested better public education, and I would agree we should start there. I would also like to see the scientific community develop a voluntary guideline dealing with the writing of books that conflate science with atheism or even theism for that matter. Such a guideline might suggest that where applicable an explanatory note be placed in the forward, it briefly touching on the need for the reader to be aware of the difference between opinion and peer-reviewed science.

 

[roli]

Wow, this is the opposite of what I think about how people work. I would say that you use "seeing is believing" in each and every area of your life--except religion. When you're sick, you go to the Doctor, who relies on science to figure out how to treat you. You don't just pray and rely on faith. You base every decision you make on the evidence of your (and other's) previous experience. The only thing you accept on faith is God.

...this is true, however, it goes both ways auto,to say there are no aspects of faith involved in perscribing,diagnosing and operation procedures and that docs have full knowledge how a trillion cells, nerves, blood vessels, and hundreds of thousands of chemical reactions taking place will react is well, a little persumptuous, not to mention bias.

I agree that we don't have a lot of certainty, and our efforts to figure out what the heck is going on are not always reliable, but we do the best with what we have. I accept the truth that life is uncertain.

yes,auto, some things are out of man's ability to control and rationalize ...so what I hear you saying is,you agree that it's guess work based on limited information and facts...and could I go out on a limb here and suggest that without this knowledge of facts ,faith,a taboo word in your vocabulary, and mentioned amongst prefessional Doctors, is ,well, unheard of.
It's all about appearing as if they have all the facts and truths, anything less would be , well , unprofessional , but reality insists this is an inprobability and nothing in life is 100% accurate, but ego, pride and ethics cause some to refrain from the word, " faith ".



http://www.creationinfo.com/list.htm

If you commit yourself to a date certain, you will be equally wrong. Just think of all the dead people who all earnestly believed this would happen in their lifetimes! Speaking of prophecy, Jesus prophesied it would happen in the generation after His, and yet it didn't. Great prophet you've got there.

look around the world auto and tell me you don't see what the bible perdicted would happen before the great day of the Lord, wars ,famines, disease, earthquakes,men will increase in knowledge,... it's happening in unprecedented ways, but turn your head and look away.
And you have emperical evidence to support what happens after death....do I hear a presumptuous statment on your part....!...time will be our true science and fate.

 

[fantome profane]

Well, you suggested better public education, and I would agree we should start there. I would also like to see the scientific community develop a voluntary guideline dealing with the writing of books that conflate science with atheism or even theism for that matter. Such a guideline might suggest that where applicable an explanatory note be placed in the forward, it briefly touching on the need for the reader to be aware of the difference between opinion and peer-reviewed science.

And I could not be more opposed to such a notion. It has the stench of censorship. You can’t tell people what they can or cannot write and you cannot tell them what they must include in the forward. It is not the place of the scientific community to decide what should or should not be written. It is not the job of the scientific community to tell people what to think. If they were to do as you suggest they would become the kind of oppressive fascist thought police that movies like expelled would have us believe that they are.

There is no problem caused by books that cannot be solved by books.

 

[Autodidact]

Few popular science books are truly science books; did you think I said 'textbooks' or something? As far as I'm concerned any popular book, (even those by non-scientists), that draws heavily on science and uses science to any lesser or greater degree to make the case for atheism is simply going to cause a lot of people to think that science is not neutral. It's basic cause and effect, get over it. We need more public education as FP rightly suggested.

And when someone of Dawkins well known scientific status starts a book saying he wants to turn his readers into atheists, even if there was no more science mentioned (there's heaps), many readers will still have difficulty seperating his personal opinion from anything else because of his profession. That's the way it is.

Of-course science is neutral, but I'm trying to tell you one reason why there is a widespread belief otherwise; it wouldn't hurt you to listen instead of sniping.

I see. Well, for me a science book is a book about science. I understand what you're driving at. Dawkins argues that science itself argues against the existence of God. It's not a science book per se, but does use science in its arguments.

 

[Autodidact]

You have often displayed a refreshingly sharp view of things FP.

Any book that rides high on the best-seller lists that 'conflates science with atheism', even if it's not written by scientists. The usual Dawkins, Dennett, Harris and Hitchens crowd spring to mind. It's easy to say that people should know better I guess, but I'm not letting the populist authors off the hook for the impression that many receive.

I have read them all, and am trying to remember how much science comes into it. Not too much, as I recall, but I could be wrong. However, I'm sure that you agree that it's these authors perfect right to advance atheism, just as thousands of Christian authors write books advancing Christianity (and occasionally claiming to use science to do so), and further, that their arguments are either right or wrong and should be examined on their own merits.

 

[painted wolf]

look around the world auto and tell me you don't see what the bible perdicted would happen before the great day of the Lord, wars ,famines, disease, earthquakes,men will increase in knowledge,... it's happening in unprecedented ways, but turn your head and look away.

these things happened before the birth of Jesus, since the day man first walked.
Predicting them isn't a miracle, its common sense.

As for this notion of labeling books. I've never seen 'the god delusion' in the science section of my local Borders, or any of the other local bookstores. General non-fiction or philosophy maybe... But if we labeled every book that uses aspects of science in its work, then what about Jurassic Park?
It discusses science, math and theism/atheism.

wa:do

 

[Autodidact]

Thanks, wolf, I missed this:

look around the world auto and tell me you don't see what the bible perdicted would happen before the great day of the Lord, wars ,famines, disease, earthquakes,men will increase in knowledge,... it's happening in unprecedented ways, but turn your head and look away.

(who said it?)

Anyway, I will now show myself to be a prophet:

Tomorrow, in the news, there will be war, famine and natural disaster. Further, the sun will come up, and also set.

Duh, has there ever been a time without war, famine and natural disaster?