View Single Post
(#25 (permalink))
Old
Jaydelart's Avatar
Jaydelart (Offline)
ジェイデラート
 
Posts: 777
Join Date: Apr 2008
06-17-2011, 08:07 PM

Quote:
Originally Posted by GoNative View Post
But to accept those things as possibilities means that you have to ignore science. It's not being open minded at all. Science is all about having an open mind but with a healthy bit of scepticism.

Science can't co-exist with religion if you want to believe that dinosaurs and humans once lived at the same time (even as remotely possible). There is no evidence whatsoever of this. In fact all the evidence supports that the last of the dinosaurs died out around 65 million years ago and the human species just wasn't around at that time. You also can't accept as even a remote possibility that the earth is only 6,000 years old because all of the scientific evidence shows that it is much, much older. There is such overwhelming evidence that the earth is billions of years old that it truly is ridiculous to consider otherwise. It is the sort of evidence that anyone of any religion or cultural backcground could do experiments to verify and all come up with the same results if the same good scientific methodology is followed.

The sort of thinking you are talking about is credulous thinking. Where anything is possible regardless of any evidence to support it. So you believe in one of the myriad of gods that have been worshipped over the millenia and basically there is virtually nothing you could consider impossible once you start down that road. There is just as much proof in the existence of vampires, fairies, werewolves, ogres, etc, etc. You believe in something for which there is no proof whatsoever and are unconvinced by things for which there are mountains of proof by some of the most intelligent people the human race has ever produced. If this isn't idiotic I don't know what is.

When you have schools teaching kids creationism over evolution or that dinosaurs co-existed with humans once upon a time then we have a huge problem. If you teach that the earth is only 6,000 years old instead of billions then religion negates science. We may as well accept that all human advancement over the years has been for nothing if we cannot accept that our understanding of the world has moved on quite a bit since some old blokes sat around a few thousand years ago and assembled a book of stories called the bible.

The biggest hypocrasy of fundamentalist religious nutters is that most of them happily live in the modern world using the creations of science and technology whilst denying the basic precepts of the science that helped create such things. Surely there is something mentally wrong with people who support such delusions?
Please understand, I never said I believed those things to be true. I believe they could be true, of course, that is my belief as a person with religion. However, I wouldn't necessarily assert it as absolute truth. I deliberately stated that I could appreciate their possibilities; considering what they would entail. Science has, no doubt, provided explanations for many things we witness, but the nature of science suggests there is always more to learn. I am, in fact, alluding to the point of open-mindedness.

Referring to what RealJames stated - and I'm using this as an example - he considered the Earth being 6,000 years old as ridiculous... which is not uncommon. I'm significantly interested in the reason for this. Of course, the answer is relative to Science, I could be called an idiot again, and the question will end there; However, I believe the issue may also delve much deeper: Psychology. It's obvious there are established beliefs for this specific topic, one of them being that the world is billions of years old. I find it unlikely, however, that either of us has extensively researched the possible age of the Earth. Frankly, our beliefs, based on separate logic, are both the product of faith; a confidence or trust in something we have no first-hand observance or knowledge of. That notion aggravates many anti-religious, self-proclaimed intellectuals whom I've talked to, which I also find interesting, as it's founded on the basis of objectivity.

Not that you can observe age to prove it, of course, we need tools... allowing me to include my next questions: Are our methods adequate? Are they accurate? I say 'our' because I'm not just arguing out of pride. Believe it or not, I am genuinely curious about the topic, as it does concern the history of our species. These questions should be asked if we're to determine the truth, shouldn't they?

I am not ignorant of science, simply because I don't want to be. I don't doubt, in all certainty, the validity of science and Global Warming. If you read my first post, I have no qualms about taking precautions. I certainly don't doubt that science can/does/will accomplish finding answers for our inherent questions as human beings, nor do I that science hasn't accomplished wonderful achievements from which we can take advantage of... but I also don't doubt our hubris. The fact is, our technology and subsequent ability to determine absolute truth, although admirably developed, isn't perfect. And this isn't an argument compelled by religion; it's reality. Science should be able to speculate the unlikelihood of something, but it should also hold itself to a certain humility, paving the way for new discoveries.
Reply With Quote