Joseph, I just read this article -- EXCELLENT! What is the Source of this? Can't tell from the OFH posting format if you wrote it or transmitted it from another source. I would guess from the context that it's a commercial source; however, the precise source is not revealed. Perhaps the "boxes" that are blank would have revealed the source/author. The technical omissions leave us "incomplete."
I AGREE that Science & Belief are "two different animals." In science, "belief" is called a "hypothesis." Not "ultimate TRUTH!" I too, "shudder" to think what would happen if we had theologians advising our government on climate change. Even theologians themselves can't agree on anything as specific as to what should be DONE, practically speaking about the ice caps melting & the plight of the polar bear. One group might see it as a "sign of the end of the world" & "welcome it" so we could all go home to "heaven." Another religious group might not care at all what happens because they're all gonna go "up on a mountaintop" & wait for "The Rapture."
[In fact, (not belief), the religion I was raised in (Seventh-day Adventist, which locally here owns the Florida Hospital chain), historically was founded by a group of people who believed -- according to THEIR interpretation of scriptures -- that the world was going to end on Oct. 22, 1844 . . . so people sold their worldly goods & literally went up on a mountaintop to await the 2nd Coming of Jesus Christ. It didn't happen -- & the resulting "Great Disappointment" as it was known -- eventually led to a reinterpretation of those scriptures that was pure theological mind-bending.]
Does this info. remind you of modern-day "Doomsayers" -- of which we've had plenty with the Guyana Massacre, the Heaven's Gate group and the Waco Branch Davidians, which, by the way were "off-shoots" of the mainstream SDA religion -- crazy begets even "crazier!"
As far as scientific facts having practical application, what immediately comes to mind is an item on the news last night about a tragedy that happened locally because a scientific fact about electricity was sloppily dealt with & a 10-year old girl died as a result from electrocution. (She was a tourist from NY playing miniature golf at a local tourist attraction & put her hand into a pool of water to retrieve her golf ball. She was electrocuted & died minutes later.) When police Scientifically investigated, they found when a motor of the system had been last repaired, it had not been done up to "Code" specifications. Thus, a DISrespect of a fact of science--electricity caused a needless death.
Science researches Cause & Effect. They would not be content with rationalizing, "Oh well, it was her 'Time.'" Or, "she should have been more careful." Or; it was "an act of God.'" No; rather it was a human being inaccurately doing his/her job & not paying attention to the laws of electricity.
We'd BETTER PAY ATTENTION to the FACTS of global warming/climate change/species endangered environmental pollution/pollution of our food sources/greed demonstrations in financial top levels & DO SOMETHING ABOUT IT -- OR we will suffer the results of our own blindedness and complicity!
Or, to bring it to practical application politically, at least VOTE for the man (Obama) most likely to DO SOMETHING ABOUT the environmental challenges we face now -- AND the Health Care Needs of the 99% of our population! -- not a man (Romney, obviously) -- who would "insulate himself" from the 99% and continue to deny the importance of environmental warnings & just go about enslaving women, particularly with his anti-birth control attitudes & enriching the coffers of the rich at the further expense of the middle class!
Get the environmental facts--
Get the political facts
& VOTE for the man who's gonna care MOST about Science & the Advancement of our Civilization, INCLUDING WOMEN!
From: joseph levy <[address removed]>
To: [address removed]
Sent: Friday, June 29,[masked]:32 AM
Subject: [atheists-36] Scientific knowledge should trump "belief"
Posted: 28 Jun[masked]:36 AM PDT
I have listened to a few discussions on the Christian Radio Rhema
recently. Unusual for me, I know, but I have followed the current controversy around the problem of religious instruction in New Zealand public schools. This issue has been debated (and defended) a bit on Radio Rhema.
My post Mixing values and Jesus in secular education
discussed the problem. Basically it involves getting around the required secular nature of public education by closing the school for the duration of the instruction, which is provided by a church-trained voluntary “teacher.” Some parents feel the system is being bypassed by tying this instruction to the values content of the secular curriculum. And although there is a theoretical opt-out provision, parents are often unaware of this, or of the religious instruction, until the children come home with strange stories about creationism or hell.
But back to Radio Rhema. What amazed me about the announcer and the Christian spokespersons he interviewed was their naive use of post-modernist arguments to justify religious instruction and creationism/intelligent design teaching. They rely on the simple claim that inevitably everyone has a “world view,” a belief system. So everyone must be biased. That whatever is taught is just a belief. And that science has no more access to truth than religion has. One belief is as good as another.
Dragging science down to a “belief”
It’s not the only place I have heard such arguments. In fact this seems to be the inevitable fall-back position when science challenges religious ideas. In this case one spokesperson even said that evolution is just a myth, no better than the creation myths! Another pulled out the old chestnut that any belief system required faith – science requires faith just as much as any religious story! Yet another claimed that both “human caused” and “non-human caused” beliefs about climate change should be taught in schools. Equal time for each belief – forget about the facts.
In one way these people are sawing off the branch they are sitting on because when they deny scientific knowledge, or the epistemic advantage of scientific method, they attempt to put it in the same basket they reside in. But I suppose if you can’t give a reason for your myths to be better than scientific knowledge this may be all you are left with. Dragging science down to the epistemic level of your own ideology.
But those who use such arguments and who treat scientific or historical knowledge as “just beliefs,” having no more support than beliefs derived from magical thinking, at best show a basic misunderstanding of science. Of course, their motives may actually be more malicious. They may consciously be attempting to misrepresent science. to advance their own beliefs
In contrast to the beliefs comprising religious “knowledge,” scientific knowledge is intimately connected with the real world. Scientific ideas and theories are based on evidence, derived from interaction with reality. And they are validated by testing against reality. This does not make scientific knowledge absolute and complete “Truth” – in the capitalised sense. But it does give a picture of reality which usually closely reflects the truth of that reality. Very often close enough to enable practical applications. It’s a constantly improving picture as we get more evidence and more ways of interacting with reality.
The epistemic advantage of science
But importantly, its basis in evidence and its close connection with reality means scientific knowledge is not a “belief.” It is very different from religious beliefs which may, in fact, bear no relation to reality.
This means that science has an epistemic advantage – an advantage that society generally recognises. That is why concern about possible climate change has caused governments to consult climate scientists to summarise the findings of their science. Governments are not interested in beliefs – they are interested in the facts, or at least the best summary of the facts the experts can provide.
If the naive picture presented by the commenters on Radio Rhema was true then governments could save a lot of money. Instead of all the investment in field work, laboratory analysis and scientific and technical staff we could have solved the problem of cobalt deficiency in New Zealand soils by hiring a theologian. And surely even an interfaith committee of theologians, flashy robes and lifestyles included, advising the government over climate issues would have been a lot cheaper than NIWA or our contribution to the Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change. Especially if no international scientific research was actually carried out on climate and these theologians instead consulted the writings of their overseas colleagues.
Mind you, after attempting to read some of the post-modernist material produced by theologians I can just imagine how useless the recommendations of this interfaith committee would be. I doubt if they could even agree on anything understandable, let alone specific enough for a government to base policies on.
Please Note: If you hit "REPLY", your message will be sent to everyone on this mailing list ([address removed])
This message was sent by joseph levy ([address removed]) from Orlando Freethinkers & Humanists.
To learn more about joseph levy, visit his/her member profile
Set my mailing list to email me As they are sent | In one daily email | Don't send me mailing list messages
Meetup, PO Box 4668 #37895 New York, New York[masked] | [address removed]