Discussion Topic |
|
This thread has been locked |
Ed Hartouni
Trad climber
Livermore, CA
|
|
|
Sep 15, 2010 - 03:22pm PT
|
Science changes as we learn more and our old explanations fail to explain an ever widening set of observations. Generally we understand exactly why the old explanations fail in the new regimes, and still use those explanations when it is appropriate to do so...
Science expands, new knowledge is created, new capabilities emerge.
The way I look at it, most religions do not change, they are static. New observations are interpreted in terms of religions' precepts, which do not change, and no new knowledge is produced as there is nothing new to add to the religion.
While it takes faith to believe that either a religious or a scientific outlook could be valid, science provides a way of modification that adapts to new information. So far in its 400 or so years, it has shown spectacular success in understanding the universe far beyond any religion. While there may be much wisdom in religious writings, they have to be re-interpreted to fit this new knowledge, they provide no predictive capability. So I reject the notion that there is "science" in the Bible (or any other religious text) that is at all meaningful in the modern age. One can take what science we know and apply it to the texts... but without knowing the science there is no application to make.
Being open minded means not only questioning authority but having some basis for changing your mind. If you believe that a religious text is the Truth and is unchangeable, then there is no basis for open mindedness.
|
|
Fat Dad
Trad climber
Los Angeles, CA
|
|
|
Sep 15, 2010 - 04:06pm PT
|
If you are believer in the bible being 100% correct, and don't believe in evolution, then you are a right winger
IMO, this would just make you an evangelical, at least a really orthodox one. Oh yeah, you're a dumbass too.
No less a conservative religious institution than the Vatican has stated that a literal interpretation of the Bible is "intellectual suicide" and cautioned against people approaching it that way as a means of finding easy answers. St. Augustine back in the 4th Century wrote that if you read the Bible and don't find a meaning that supports charity to others, than you need to go back and work hard to understand what the passage actually means. It's amazing how much some individuals, 16 centuries later, with the benefit of all understanding of science, have slid so far back from Augustine's approach.
Personally, I associate "right wing" with political philosophy, not religious.
|
|
JEleazarian
Trad climber
Fresno CA
|
|
|
Sep 15, 2010 - 04:20pm PT
|
Personally, I associate "right wing" with political philosophy, not religious.
Right you are, Fat Dad.
In fact, as many others stated, hostility to science occurs on both the left and the right, as well as everywhere in between. My personal epistemological philosophy is that we learn by adapting our preconceptions to what we observe in a manner similar to using an observation to change a prior distribution in Bayesian statistics. If our preconceptions (i.e. our prior distributions) are strong enough, we can rationalize away seeming contradictory observations.
Also, there seems to be a misunderstanding of the doctrine of inerrancy of scripture, which differs from that of literalness. Much of th Bible is explicitly not literally true (for example, passages in Ezekial, Daniel and Revelation where the writers say they saw something "like" something else. That means it wasn't something else). Evangelical orthodoxy claims inerrancy, not literal truth. Rational discussion of the doctrine of inerrancy requires an understanding of systematic theology, which seems lacking here.
John
|
|
JEleazarian
Trad climber
Fresno CA
|
|
|
Sep 15, 2010 - 04:58pm PT
|
Personally, I associate "right wing" with political philosophy, not religious.
They go hand in hand
You've apparently never heard of the Unitarian Universalists, United Church of Christ, United Methodists, or other religious organizations overwhelmingly associated with the left.
John
|
|
Fat Dad
Trad climber
Los Angeles, CA
|
|
|
Sep 15, 2010 - 05:00pm PT
|
Dr. F, they certainly can go hand in hand. I guess it depends on whether you're more fiscally or socially conservative. Clearly, a large part of the far right approach their politics from a religious perspective and the desire to legislate their own notion of morality: school prayer, banning abortion, banning same sex marriage, etc. Apparently, it's not enough to live in a country where you can worship freely. You need to impose your views on others.
Having said that, however, there are a lot of very religious people who think government should fund programs to help the poor, sick, etc; who think war is immoral; who respect others right to worship freely and adhere to other things are that generally considered left wing.
|
|
Norton
Social climber
the Wastelands
|
|
|
Sep 15, 2010 - 06:08pm PT
|
Yes, it is true that one can point to a "few" instance of anti science on the political extreme left.
The mistake, however, is to pretend that somehow this "balances" out both right
and left as both being anti science.
Wrong. The vast preponderance of the weight of anti science, anti learning,
and anti intellectualism is on the political right.
And that is how they win elections, when they do.
Because they appeal to the "bubbas", the ones who would rather fart and have
a beer with George Bush, and laugh at the dumb things he says and thinks,
because he is "like them", a fellow dumbass.
Just remember Bubbas when you need open heart surgery, that Larry the Cable Guy is NOT the one to call, but rather you get real and better hope your cardiologist is an "east coast" Harvard Medical School "elitist".
The political right can only appeal to the most basic human emotions of fear, hope, and greed.
Left on their own to debate "facts", they fall on their asses, and give
birth to their "leaders", the conservatives who thought voting to put
Sarah Palin one heartbeat away from being Commander in Chief was a real good idea.
|
|
Norton
Social climber
the Wastelands
|
|
|
Sep 15, 2010 - 06:13pm PT
|
And if you don't believe in "evolution", then you ARE anti science, anti education,
anti logic and reason.
Blind Faith was a British rock group.
And the job description of the anti-evolution "crowd".
|
|
rlf
Trad climber
Josh, CA
|
|
|
Sep 15, 2010 - 06:31pm PT
|
I would hazard a guess that the right wing is anti-anything they don't approve of.
Just hope they don't disapprove of you...
Wow, that kinda sounds like another special interest group. I do believe they were called the Nazi Party.
|
|
rlf
Trad climber
Josh, CA
|
|
|
Sep 15, 2010 - 06:38pm PT
|
I love the antonym: reject
|
|
Brokedownclimber
Trad climber
Douglas, WY
|
|
|
Sep 15, 2010 - 07:18pm PT
|
This thread has DEvolved into a leftist-liberal muckraking fest. Most of the participants are busily tarring anyone they can label as a "conservative" with a broad brush.
|
|
Norton
Social climber
the Wastelands
|
|
|
Sep 15, 2010 - 07:31pm PT
|
Yes, it IS a target rich environment.
|
|
rlf
Trad climber
Josh, CA
|
|
|
Sep 15, 2010 - 07:48pm PT
|
"Stupid is as stupid does..."
|
|
JEleazarian
Trad climber
Fresno CA
|
|
|
Sep 15, 2010 - 07:58pm PT
|
The essence of science is skeptical, empirical inquiry. Most of the comments on religion, and on the proclivities of the right wing (whatever that is) largely demonstrate not scientific inquiry, but misplaced faith.
John
|
|
eeyonkee
Trad climber
Golden, CO
|
|
|
Sep 15, 2010 - 08:50pm PT
|
Yes. As a whole, this is undoubtedly true. Here's a test. First, know ahead of time that your foil is a conservative. Then ask him/her whether humans are primarily responsible for global warming or whether global warming is even real. Now, of course, this is not a question that is obviously political. It's really, a purely scientific question. But I contend that 90% to 95% of conservatives will give the knee-jerk reaction of either that global warming is a complete fabrication or that it is something that is occurring naturally, and has nothing to do with human activities. It's absolutely crazy that this should be the case. It's not like the IDEA that humans could possibly be causing global warming is far-fetched. A child could understand it, in principle. I don't know what it is, really. My Dad, an otherwise smart individual - an engineer, succumbed to this malady. People need to make decisions based on logic and science - not on how they think the world should work.
I'm exasperated when it comes to conservative thinking on global warming. I'm completely dumbfounded when it comes to conservative thinking on evolution. Frankly, if you deny evolution in this age, you are an un-informed at best, but most likely an idiot.
Edit: I wish I'd left out the prepositional phrase at the end of the sentence starting with "Frankly". I really don't mean this. I do succumb to being a little strident. Sorry.
|
|
Klimmer
Mountain climber
San Diego
|
|
|
Sep 15, 2010 - 08:55pm PT
|
YES.
And right now they are the party of "NO," so they are anti-everything.
|
|
Brokedownclimber
Trad climber
Douglas, WY
|
|
|
Sep 15, 2010 - 09:00pm PT
|
Folks here are focusing their venom on the so-called "religious right." There is another right that isn't pounding on the Bible, and is being ignored by the left wing bigots who are accusing the right wing bigots, and yes...there are left wing bigots spouting on this thread.
|
|
eeyonkee
Trad climber
Golden, CO
|
|
|
Sep 15, 2010 - 09:16pm PT
|
I dunno, Brokedown. That may be true with the evolution question, but not with the global warming question. I've talked about global warming with a lot of people - people who are engineers and business owners. I'm telling you - it's the easiest thing in the world to predict a conservative's view on global warming.
For the record, I'm a geologist who was slow to adopt my current position on global warming. I know that we are coming out of an ice age and that we should expect a certain amount of global warming because of this. I know some liberals who have the knee-jerk reaction in the other direction, and that flusters me just as much. It's the whole idea of taking a stand on a non-political question based on your politics that bugs me. Just once I would like to hear a conservative say something like "Yeah, we are causing global warming but I think we should engineer our way out of it, because of the cost to the global economy". Now that's an honest response that would be the starting point for useful debate.
|
|
High Fructose Corn Spirit
Gym climber
Full Silos of Iowa
|
|
|
Sep 15, 2010 - 09:26pm PT
|
I wish this site had more eeyonkees. Indeed, I wish this world had more eeyonkees. Then I'd have more faith in the "risen ape" and its future.
|
|
Brokedownclimber
Trad climber
Douglas, WY
|
|
|
Sep 15, 2010 - 09:43pm PT
|
Well, by training I'm a Physical Chemist (Ph.D.), and also an avid and very advanced amateur astronomer. I don't "believe in" the popularized version of "Global Warming" that is a blatantly political construct.
Climate change is another whole issue that can be discussed more rationally, as there is science involved rather than media hype. As a geologist you are accustomed to a different time frame instead of the 20-50 years proposed in the Global Warming scheme.
Also, "Global Warming" is a computer modeled construct, based on incomplete data input; it does not take into account (adequately) both Solar output or cloud cover that an astronomer would consider.
I'm not trying to hijack this thread by getting off into astronomy, but there is conclusive evidence that the Sun is a long-term variable star with a ~350 year period from output maximum to minimum. The so-called Maunder Minimum that is well documented occurred in the mid 1600's and the following period of maximum output between 1950 and 2000. There is also evidence that we are now entering a cooling cycle. Prior to the Maunder Minimum as an output minimum, we have evidence from Meas Verde and dendrochronology that the abandonment of the cliff dwellings corresponded to an output maximum around 1250 AD, that resulted in extensive drought.
P.S. We can discuss this in Superior at the Old Chicago!
|
|
High Fructose Corn Spirit
Gym climber
Full Silos of Iowa
|
|
|
Sep 15, 2010 - 09:58pm PT
|
What, does the "popularized version" overemphasize the role of CO2 in climate change? Is the data just wrong? Perhaps it overemphasizes the role, the ecological footprints, of 6.6 billion humans?
http://co2now.org/
Curious, if the CO2 count gets to 425ppm or 450ppm or 500ppm, will you rethink your stance?
Personally, I couldn't care less about rising shorelines. For me it's tipping points (in different terms, avalanche effects) and ecosystems - some millions of years in the making - thrown out of whack that concerns me, gets my attention.
You're a physical chemist and you don't think it's prudent to err on the side of caution enough to support the movement, the public campaign, the scientific consensus? Amazing.
.....
Just finished reading The Limits to Growth. c. 1972. Highly recommended. I enjoyed it, too, for its accurate modeling of future trends, including its C02 exponential growth curve. For year 2000, 28 years into the future, it predicted 380 ppm. Page 79. Pretty awesome modeling!
|
|
|
SuperTopo on the Web
|
Let us know!