|
Users viewing this topic:
none
|
|
Login  | |
|
Childhood Origins of Adult Resistance to Science - 7/31/2008 6:20:39 PM
|
|
|
essentialsaltes
Posts: 1062
Joined: 10/14/2007
From: Inglewood, CA
Status: offline
|
Thought-provoking article from Science (18 May 2007).
"Resistance to certain scientific ideas derives in large part from assumptions and biases that can be
demonstrated experimentally in young children and that may persist into adulthood. In particular,
both adults and children resist acquiring scientific information that clashes with common-sense
intuitions about the physical and psychological domains. Additionally, when learning information
from other people, both adults and children are sensitive to the trustworthiness of the source of
that information. Resistance to science, then, is particularly exaggerated in societies where
nonscientific ideologies have the advantages of being both grounded in common sense and
transmitted by trustworthy sources."
_____________________________
"My object in all arguments is not to make any preconceived opinion of mine seem right, but merely to discover and establish the truth, whatever the truth may be."
-- HP Lovecraft, letter to Robert E. Howard 7/27-28/34
|
|
|
|
|
RE: Childhood Origins of Adult Resistance to Science - 7/31/2008 11:15:33 PM
|
|
|
Carico
Posts: 531
Joined: 8/19/2005
Status: offline
|
quote:
ORIGINAL: essentialsaltes
Thought-provoking article from Science (18 May 2007).
"Resistance to certain scientific ideas derives in large part from assumptions and biases that can be
demonstrated experimentally in young children and that may persist into adulthood. In particular,
both adults and children resist acquiring scientific information that clashes with common-sense
intuitions about the physical and psychological domains. Additionally, when learning information
from other people, both adults and children are sensitive to the trustworthiness of the source of
that information. Resistance to science, then, is particularly exaggerated in societies where
nonscientific ideologies have the advantages of being both grounded in common sense and
transmitted by trustworthy sources."
Sorry but I grew up in a secular humanist family who all had blind faith in the fallible minds of scientists. It was only when I grew into an adult that I saw how brainwashed i was as a child by science books claiming to be the infallible truth. Scientists are as fallible as every man is. If people believed that, they would see how impossible, bizarre, and embarrassing many of the theories of scientists are. They make the events in the bible look like everyday occurrences. 
|
|
|
|
|
RE: Childhood Origins of Adult Resistance to Science - 7/31/2008 11:47:13 PM
|
|
|
wayward1
Posts: 231
Joined: 7/15/2008
Status: offline
|
quote:
ORIGINAL: Carico
quote:
ORIGINAL: essentialsaltes
Thought-provoking article from Science (18 May 2007).
"Resistance to certain scientific ideas derives in large part from assumptions and biases that can be
demonstrated experimentally in young children and that may persist into adulthood. In particular,
both adults and children resist acquiring scientific information that clashes with common-sense
intuitions about the physical and psychological domains. Additionally, when learning information
from other people, both adults and children are sensitive to the trustworthiness of the source of
that information. Resistance to science, then, is particularly exaggerated in societies where
nonscientific ideologies have the advantages of being both grounded in common sense and
transmitted by trustworthy sources."
Sorry but I grew up in a secular humanist family who all had blind faith in the fallible minds of scientists. It was only when I grew into an adult that I saw how brainwashed i was as a child by science books claiming to be the infallible truth. Scientists are as fallible as every man is. If people believed that, they would see how impossible, bizarre, and embarrassing many of the theories of scientists are. They make the events in the bible look like everyday occurrences.
Your experience is also common though. Often times the first literary endeavor many adults embark upon is a search for truth in the bible. Growing up in a neutral or even scientifically biased home wouldn't predispose you to "siding with science" (as if they're at odds on any important level) unless you were taught about both religion and science in great detail.
If you were left to your own devices and happened to turn to God in a time of need or in a time of strong desire for understanding, I'll bet he was there for you. The psychological effect of reading the bible for the first time as an adult is powerful. Many American adults have never "interpreted" any poetry or attempted to gain understanding of an author's intent by critically examining a literary work of art like the bible.
When they pick up the bible and start to get it, this appears to have the effect of creating the feeling that "it is being revealed" to them. They're most likely experiencing something similar to what an English major experiences when he first starts "getting Shakespeare", who is a far better poet than God by the way, but they take it as a studious conscious attempt to "make sense of it all". As sense appears to be being made of the words on the page, it is perceived that sense is being "made of it all", which was the original intent when picking up the book.
In that way God is imagined to be there for you, answering the call. You understand things as you've never understood them before and simply forget the fact that you never really tried to understanding anything like this before.
< Message edited by wayward1 -- 8/1/2008 12:11:01 AM >
|
|
|
|
|
RE: Childhood Origins of Adult Resistance to Science - 8/1/2008 9:40:09 AM
|
|
|
EStan
Posts: 451
Joined: 7/27/2005
Status: offline
|
quote:
ORIGINAL: wayward1
quote:
ORIGINAL: Carico
quote:
ORIGINAL: essentialsaltes
Thought-provoking article from Science (18 May 2007).
"Resistance to certain scientific ideas derives in large part from assumptions and biases that can be
demonstrated experimentally in young children and that may persist into adulthood. In particular,
both adults and children resist acquiring scientific information that clashes with common-sense
intuitions about the physical and psychological domains. Additionally, when learning information
from other people, both adults and children are sensitive to the trustworthiness of the source of
that information. Resistance to science, then, is particularly exaggerated in societies where
nonscientific ideologies have the advantages of being both grounded in common sense and
transmitted by trustworthy sources."
Sorry but I grew up in a secular humanist family who all had blind faith in the fallible minds of scientists. It was only when I grew into an adult that I saw how brainwashed i was as a child by science books claiming to be the infallible truth. Scientists are as fallible as every man is. If people believed that, they would see how impossible, bizarre, and embarrassing many of the theories of scientists are. They make the events in the bible look like everyday occurrences.
Your experience is also common though. Often times the first literary endeavor many adults embark upon is a search for truth in the bible. Growing up in a neutral or even scientifically biased home wouldn't predispose you to "siding with science" (as if they're at odds on any important level) unless you were taught about both religion and science in great detail.
If you were left to your own devices and happened to turn to God in a time of need or in a time of strong desire for understanding, I'll bet he was there for you. The psychological effect of reading the bible for the first time as an adult is powerful. Many American adults have never "interpreted" any poetry or attempted to gain understanding of an author's intent by critically examining a literary work of art like the bible.
When they pick up the bible and start to get it, this appears to have the effect of creating the feeling that "it is being revealed" to them. They're most likely experiencing something similar to what an English major experiences when he first starts "getting Shakespeare", who is a far better poet than God by the way, but they take it as a studious conscious attempt to "make sense of it all". As sense appears to be being made of the words on the page, it is perceived that sense is being "made of it all", which was the original intent when picking up the book.
In that way God is imagined to be there for you, answering the call. You understand things as you've never understood them before and simply forget the fact that you never really tried to understanding anything like this before.
Well, as a child and young adult, I read Shakespeare - in addition to Kant, Wilder, Kafka, Camus, Plato, Milton, ad infinitum. And yes, even the Bible. I sought not just answers, but truth.
The Bible meant little to me, until I gave my life to Christ, and then, as Paul says in his first letter to the church at Corinth, "the veil was lifted." God is no figment of anyone's imagination, as you implied in your last paragraph.
_____________________________
Eternal Father, grant that through the tears of repentance I may see more clearly the brightness and glories of the saving cross.
|
|
|
|
|
RE: Childhood Origins of Adult Resistance to Science - 8/1/2008 11:43:08 AM
|
|
|
Bettawrekonize
Posts: 1384
Joined: 4/17/2005
Status: offline
|
I don't have a problem with science. One problem that I think evolution (and atheism/naturalism/materialism) has is that it tries to claim that it is a product of empirical methods when this is not true. No matter what one chooses to believe requires faith. If one chooses to believe that the Bible is true, that requires faith. If one chooses to believe that we are a product of naturalistic cause, that requires equal faith. No one has ever observed microbe to man evolution (or abiogenesis outside a lab or even in a lab yet) and claiming that it takes millions of years is speculative and faith based. The difference is that Christianity acknowledges that it is not entirely a product of empirical methods while evolution and other naturalistic philosophies try to claim that they are a product of empirical methods. It makes much more sense to believe that Christianity, something that correctly acknowledges that it requires faith, is true than to believe that evolution, something that incorrectly claims to be a product of empirical methods, is true. When authorities try to incorrectly convince us that UCD is a product of empirical methods and we know that's not true (ie: no one ever observed microbe to man evolution and claiming millions of years requires faith), then it's hard for us to take those authorities seriously.
|
|
|
|
|
RE: Childhood Origins of Adult Resistance to Science - 8/1/2008 12:14:20 PM
|
|
|
evry1needsgod
Posts: 500
Status: offline
|
The fact that people grow up with bias towards their childhood beliefs is something that happens on both sides of the spectrum. Christians often grow up believing they are saved simply because their parents told them they were, and Atheists will grow up thinking God does not exist because their parents told them. This does not include EVERY individual on either side, it merely shows this is a problem for not only Christians, but everyone else too. When you are a child, you tend to believe what has been told to you, and thank God I found the truth 18 years later!
|
|
|
|
|
RE: Childhood Origins of Adult Resistance to Science - 8/1/2008 12:16:28 PM
|
|
|
evry1needsgod
Posts: 500
Status: offline
|
quote:
ORIGINAL: Bettawrekonize
I don't have a problem with science. One problem that I think evolution (and atheism/naturalism/materialism) has is that it tries to claim that it is a product of empirical methods when this is not true. No matter what one chooses to believe requires faith. If one chooses to believe that the Bible is true, that requires faith. If one chooses to believe that we are a product of naturalistic cause, that requires equal faith. No one has ever observed microbe to man evolution (or abiogenesis outside a lab or even in a lab yet) and claiming that it takes millions of years is speculative and faith based. The difference is that Christianity acknowledges that it is not entirely a product of empirical methods while evolution and other naturalistic philosophies try to claim that they are a product of empirical methods. It makes much more sense to believe that Christianity, something that correctly acknowledges that it requires faith, is true than to believe that evolution, something that incorrectly claims to be a product of empirical methods, is true. When authorities try to incorrectly convince us that UCD is a product of empirical methods and we know that's not true (ie: no one ever observed microbe to man evolution and claiming millions of years requires faith), then it's hard for us to take those authorities seriously.
EXTREMELY well written! * clap clap clap *
|
|
|
|
|
RE: Childhood Origins of Adult Resistance to Science - 8/1/2008 2:20:32 PM
|
|
|
wayward1
Posts: 231
Joined: 7/15/2008
Status: offline
|
quote:
ORIGINAL: evry1needsgo
EXTREMELY well written! * clap clap clap *
It may be well written but its quality is only effective at communicating the flawed logic that went into it. And it is extremely typical
quote:
ORIGINAL: Bettawrekonize
I don't have a problem with science. One problem that I think evolution (and atheism/naturalism/materialism) has is that it tries to claim that it is a product of empirical methods when this is not true.
If it made such claims, your criticism would be valid. Will you not read post 247 in the "Is belief in God logical" thread? This is the 3rd time I've asked you to read it.
quote:
No matter what one chooses to believe requires faith. If one chooses to believe that the Bible is true, that requires faith. If one chooses to believe that we are a product of naturalistic cause, that requires equal faith.
It is technically correct that it requires faith, but the furthest thing from correct that it requires equal faith. Read that post.
quote:
No one has ever observed microbe to man evolution (or abiogenesis outside a lab or even in a lab yet) and claiming that it takes millions of years is speculative and faith based. The difference is that Christianity acknowledges that it is not entirely a product of empirical methods while evolution and other naturalistic philosophies try to claim that they are a product of empirical methods.
Again, empirical proof is an impossibility really. If science didn't recognize this it would remove the worth "theory" from evolutionary theory.
quote:
It makes much more sense to believe that Christianity, something that correctly acknowledges that it requires faith, is true than to believe that evolution, something that incorrectly claims to be a product of empirical methods, is true.
No, it makes much more sense to believe that something that makes no appeal to the supernatural for its explanations is more able to derive viable explanations, especially considering no supernatural thing has ever been observed.
quote:
When authorities try to incorrectly convince us that UCD is a product of empirical methods and we know that's not true (ie: no one ever observed microbe to man evolution and claiming millions of years requires faith), then it's hard for us to take those authorities seriously.
Something makes it hard for you to take them seriously, but it's not their claims.
|
|
|
|
|
RE: Childhood Origins of Adult Resistance to Science - 8/1/2008 4:04:14 PM
|
|
|
evry1needsgod
Posts: 500
Status: offline
|
quote:
It may be well written but its quality is only effective at communicating the flawed logic that went into it.
It's flawed because it proves you and yours are not as smart as given credit for? It's flawed because it contradicts you?
You even admitted " It is technically correct that it requires faith," so there is nothing in his post that is flawed.
quote:
No, it makes much more sense to believe that something that makes no appeal to the supernatural for its explanations is more able to derive viable explanations, especially considering no supernatural thing has ever been observed.
It's funny you say this, because UCD has never been observed either. If you are going to apply one standard to a Christian's faith, trust, belief in God, apply the same to your faith, trust, and belief in evolution. You accuse Christians of resorting to ignorance in an aspect that has not been observed, when you have done that exact thing of which you accuse us. This is a bit hypocritical on your part, but if I have misunderstood you (which I have done in the past), I apologize.
|
|
|
|
|
RE: Childhood Origins of Adult Resistance to Science - 8/1/2008 6:58:34 PM
|
|
|
gluadys
Posts: 1000
Joined: 4/26/2008
Status: offline
|
quote:
ORIGINAL: evry1needsgod
It's funny you say this, because UCD has never been observed either. If you are going to apply one standard to a Christian's faith, trust, belief in God, apply the same to your faith, trust, and belief in evolution. You accuse Christians of resorting to ignorance in an aspect that has not been observed, when you have done that exact thing of which you accuse us. This is a bit hypocritical on your part, but if I have misunderstood you (which I have done in the past), I apologize.
No, UCD has not been observed, and could not be barring a workable time machine. On the other hand there is a good deal of evidence that only makes sense if one posits UCD as a model. Furthermore, when UCD is used as a hypothesis it yields testable predictions, and to date, those predictions have often proven true.
These two characteristics: being able to explain current evidence and being able to predict evidence before it is observed, make it a theory scientists can work with.
Until another theory matches its power in these respects, it will hold its place in biology.
|
|
|
|
|
RE: Childhood Origins of Adult Resistance to Science - 8/1/2008 7:05:09 PM
|
|
|
evry1needsgod
Posts: 500
Status: offline
|
quote:
ORIGINAL: gluadys
quote:
ORIGINAL: evry1needsgod
It's funny you say this, because UCD has never been observed either. If you are going to apply one standard to a Christian's faith, trust, belief in God, apply the same to your faith, trust, and belief in evolution. You accuse Christians of resorting to ignorance in an aspect that has not been observed, when you have done that exact thing of which you accuse us. This is a bit hypocritical on your part, but if I have misunderstood you (which I have done in the past), I apologize.
No, UCD has not been observed, and could not be barring a workable time machine. On the other hand there is a good deal of evidence that only makes sense if one posits UCD as a model. Furthermore, when UCD is used as a hypothesis it yields testable predictions, and to date, those predictions have often proven true.
These two characteristics: being able to explain current evidence and being able to predict evidence before it is observed, make it a theory scientists can work with.
Until another theory matches its power in these respects, it will hold its place in biology.
Ya ya ya, same ol' same ol'. Evolutionists claim truth by interpreting their evidence to line up with their expectations, but that hardly proves fact. I was simply pointing out the hypocrisy of the quoted argument used too often by evolutionists.
|
|
|
|
|
RE: Childhood Origins of Adult Resistance to Science - 8/1/2008 9:30:33 PM
|
|
|
gluadys
Posts: 1000
Joined: 4/26/2008
Status: offline
|
quote:
ORIGINAL: evry1needsgod
quote:
ORIGINAL: gluadys
quote:
ORIGINAL: evry1needsgod
It's funny you say this, because UCD has never been observed either. If you are going to apply one standard to a Christian's faith, trust, belief in God, apply the same to your faith, trust, and belief in evolution. You accuse Christians of resorting to ignorance in an aspect that has not been observed, when you have done that exact thing of which you accuse us. This is a bit hypocritical on your part, but if I have misunderstood you (which I have done in the past), I apologize.
No, UCD has not been observed, and could not be barring a workable time machine. On the other hand there is a good deal of evidence that only makes sense if one posits UCD as a model. Furthermore, when UCD is used as a hypothesis it yields testable predictions, and to date, those predictions have often proven true.
These two characteristics: being able to explain current evidence and being able to predict evidence before it is observed, make it a theory scientists can work with.
Until another theory matches its power in these respects, it will hold its place in biology.
Ya ya ya, same ol' same ol'. Evolutionists claim truth by interpreting their evidence to line up with their expectations, but that hardly proves fact. I was simply pointing out the hypocrisy of the quoted argument used too often by evolutionists.
Can you point to any natural evidence that is better explained by the presumption that God exists than by the presumption that God does not exist? Can you point to any observations in nature that have been successfully predicted by the hypothesis that God exists?
There is no hypocrisy in the argument.
|
|
|
|
|
RE: Childhood Origins of Adult Resistance to Science - 8/1/2008 9:57:21 PM
|
|
|
evry1needsgod
Posts: 500
Status: offline
|
quote:
ORIGINAL: gluadys
quote:
ORIGINAL: evry1needsgod
quote:
ORIGINAL: gluadys
quote:
ORIGINAL: evry1needsgod
It's funny you say this, because UCD has never been observed either. If you are going to apply one standard to a Christian's faith, trust, belief in God, apply the same to your faith, trust, and belief in evolution. You accuse Christians of resorting to ignorance in an aspect that has not been observed, when you have done that exact thing of which you accuse us. This is a bit hypocritical on your part, but if I have misunderstood you (which I have done in the past), I apologize.
No, UCD has not been observed, and could not be barring a workable time machine. On the other hand there is a good deal of evidence that only makes sense if one posits UCD as a model. Furthermore, when UCD is used as a hypothesis it yields testable predictions, and to date, those predictions have often proven true.
These two characteristics: being able to explain current evidence and being able to predict evidence before it is observed, make it a theory scientists can work with.
Until another theory matches its power in these respects, it will hold its place in biology.
Ya ya ya, same ol' same ol'. Evolutionists claim truth by interpreting their evidence to line up with their expectations, but that hardly proves fact. I was simply pointing out the hypocrisy of the quoted argument used too often by evolutionists.
Can you point to any natural evidence that is better explained by the presumption that God exists than by the presumption that God does not exist? Can you point to any observations in nature that have been successfully predicted by the hypothesis that God exists?
There is no hypocrisy in the argument.
There absolutely is hypocrisy! I simply applied the same standard expected of me to evolutionists. This is something evolutionists have a hard time doing. They demand others to abide by some standard they have placed on them, but refuse to acquiesce to that same standard. That is hypocritical.
|
|
|
|
|
RE: Childhood Origins of Adult Resistance to Science - 8/1/2008 11:12:03 PM
|
|
|
wayward1
Posts: 231
Joined: 7/15/2008
Status: offline
|
quote:
ORIGINAL: evry1needsgod
quote:
ORIGINAL: gluadys
quote:
ORIGINAL: evry1needsgod
quote:
ORIGINAL: gluadys
quote:
ORIGINAL: evry1needsgod
It's funny you say this, because UCD has never been observed either. If you are going to apply one standard to a Christian's faith, trust, belief in God, apply the same to your faith, trust, and belief in evolution. You accuse Christians of resorting to ignorance in an aspect that has not been observed, when you have done that exact thing of which you accuse us. This is a bit hypocritical on your part, but if I have misunderstood you (which I have done in the past), I apologize.
No, UCD has not been observed, and could not be barring a workable time machine. On the other hand there is a good deal of evidence that only makes sense if one posits UCD as a model. Furthermore, when UCD is used as a hypothesis it yields testable predictions, and to date, those predictions have often proven true.
These two characteristics: being able to explain current evidence and being able to predict evidence before it is observed, make it a theory scientists can work with.
Until another theory matches its power in these respects, it will hold its place in biology.
Ya ya ya, same ol' same ol'. Evolutionists claim truth by interpreting their evidence to line up with their expectations, but that hardly proves fact. I was simply pointing out the hypocrisy of the quoted argument used too often by evolutionists.
Can you point to any natural evidence that is better explained by the presumption that God exists than by the presumption that God does not exist? Can you point to any observations in nature that have been successfully predicted by the hypothesis that God exists?
There is no hypocrisy in the argument.
There absolutely is hypocrisy!
No, there isn't. You just prefer for there to be hypocrisy so that your world continues to appear as you wish.
quote:
I simply applied the same standard expected of me to evolutionists. This is something evolutionists have a hard time doing. They demand others to abide by some standard they have placed on them, but refuse to acquiesce to that same standard. That is hypocritical.
You applied a double standard, not the same standard. I'm growing weary of this.
|
|
|
|
|
RE: Childhood Origins of Adult Resistance to Science - 8/1/2008 11:34:35 PM
|
|
|
evry1needsgod
Posts: 500
Status: offline
|
quote:
No, there isn't. You just prefer for there to be hypocrisy so that your world continues to appear as you wish.
A lot of noise, but no substance. Believe what you want. You don't change reality. I don't make these things up. But, believe whatever you want. I guess intellectual dishonesty is your choice.
quote:
You applied a double standard, not the same standard.
In a round-about way, you accused Christians of resorting to an aspect that has not been observed, even though YOU do the SAME EXACT thing by resorting to UCD which has not been observed. I applied the SAME standard, but you are so blinded by your own reality, you can not see the silliness in your evolutionism. You expect everyone to make exceptions for you and your beliefs. How is that "science?"
quote:
I'm growing weary of this.
Good bye then...
|
|
|
|
|
RE: Childhood Origins of Adult Resistance to Science - 8/2/2008 12:19:56 AM
|
|
|
gluadys
Posts: 1000
Joined: 4/26/2008
Status: offline
|
quote:
ORIGINAL: evry1needsgod
quote:
ORIGINAL: gluadys
Can you point to any natural evidence that is better explained by the presumption that God exists than by the presumption that God does not exist? Can you point to any observations in nature that have been successfully predicted by the hypothesis that God exists?
There is no hypocrisy in the argument.
There absolutely is hypocrisy! I simply applied the same standard expected of me to evolutionists. This is something evolutionists have a hard time doing. They demand others to abide by some standard they have placed on them, but refuse to acquiesce to that same standard. That is hypocritical.
I notice you reacted to my final statement, but not to what preceded it. Can you point to any theory about natural evidence which is improved by presuming the existence of God, or to any natural observation successfully predicted by this hypothesis?
Yes, you applied the same standard of faith to both your viewpoint and that of UCD, but that is exactly the problem. The existence of God can only be received by faith. But UCD does not require faith since it is well-supported by evidence, including evidence predicted to exist before it was observed. So your standard does not apply appropriately to UCD. And there is no hypocrisy in pointing that out.
|
|
|
|
|
RE: Childhood Origins of Adult Resistance to Science - 8/2/2008 12:29:14 AM
|
|
|
evry1needsgod
Posts: 500
Status: offline
|
quote:
ORIGINAL: gluadys
quote:
ORIGINAL: evry1needsgod
quote:
ORIGINAL: gluadys
Can you point to any natural evidence that is better explained by the presumption that God exists than by the presumption that God does not exist? Can you point to any observations in nature that have been successfully predicted by the hypothesis that God exists?
There is no hypocrisy in the argument.
There absolutely is hypocrisy! I simply applied the same standard expected of me to evolutionists. This is something evolutionists have a hard time doing. They demand others to abide by some standard they have placed on them, but refuse to acquiesce to that same standard. That is hypocritical.
I notice you reacted to my final statement, but not to what preceded it. Can you point to any theory about natural evidence which is improved by presuming the existence of God, or to any natural observation successfully predicted by this hypothesis?
Yes, you applied the same standard of faith to both your viewpoint and that of UCD, but that is exactly the problem. The existence of God can only be received by faith. But UCD does not require faith since it is well-supported by evidence, including evidence predicted to exist before it was observed. So your standard does not apply appropriately to UCD. And there is no hypocrisy in pointing that out.
I reacted only to your final statement because the previous was a deviation from the topic. We both know that the answer to your question is something meant not for this thread. And we both know that the answer I would give (design demands a designer) is something you've heard millions of times over, and probably don't wish to discuss. If you do, however, I don't. So my silence on the matter was not because I had no answer, but rather an attempt to keep the subject partially on track. Understand? I wished to point out the standards demanded of Christians by evolutionists as a partial reason for the "childhood origins of adult resistance to science." Perhaps if we apply the same standards to everyone, there will be less fear of science, specifically what one claims is science?
|
|
|
|
|
RE: Childhood Origins of Adult Resistance to Science - 8/2/2008 12:39:45 AM
|
|
|
gluadys
Posts: 1000
Joined: 4/26/2008
Status: offline
|
quote:
ORIGINAL: evry1needsgod
And we both know that the answer I would give (design demands a designer) is something you've heard millions of times over, and probably don't wish to discuss. If you do, however, I don't.
I am always willing to discuss it and I have no objection to moving the discussion to a more appropriate thread. But if it is not your cup of tea, that's fine too.
|
|
|
|
|
RE: Childhood Origins of Adult Resistance to Science - 8/2/2008 11:54:15 AM
|
|
|
essentialsaltes
Posts: 1062
Joined: 10/14/2007
From: Inglewood, CA
Status: offline
|
quote:
ORIGINAL: essentialsaltes
"Additionally, when learning information
from other people, both adults and children are sensitive to the trustworthiness of the source of
that information. Resistance to science, then, is particularly exaggerated in societies where
nonscientific ideologies have the advantages of being both grounded in common sense and
transmitted by trustworthy sources."
Just gonna steal something gluadys said in other thread: "I have heard of young people raised in the belief that evolution means you are worthless (something their church drilled into them) becoming depressed and even suicidal once they realized evolution is true. I have never heard of this happening to people who were not exposed to this religious teaching first. That is another thing that makes this religious perspective so dangerous."
The article mentions that children value information from trustworthy adults, which obviously includes parents and religious figures. They also trust teachers. In most cases, there is no difficulty. Pastors do not fulminate against algebra, so no resistance to mathematics is instilled in the children. But for certain scientific findings, the children receive conflicting information (unless the children are sent to special science-resistant schools).
And so a certain cognitive dissonance arises in students as they get conflicting information from their religious instruction and their academic instruction. The religious side has the advantage of starting early and coming from the most trusted of sources, while academia has (in general) the advantage of actual scientific study & expertise. Studies show that acceptance of evolution increases with education level, so continued instruction appears to settle the matter of which side is more trustworthy in favor of science, where evolution is concerned. I can already hear Betta complaining that it is not instruction, but indoctrination. But it is also interesting that acceptance of evolution is greater among science majors (any science major) than liberal arts majors. Physicists and chemists spend little if any time in biology classes, so there is no time for any indoctrination in evolution; what they do share, though, is a better understanding and appreciation for science and the scientific method. If learning the tools of the trade and their uses is indoctrination, then so be it.
Anyway, the stress of the cognitive dissonance can lead to depression or suicidal thoughts, and this is very regrettable. Unfortunately, I see no solution. People are free to believe any cockamamie thing they like, and to teach their children likewise.
_____________________________
"My object in all arguments is not to make any preconceived opinion of mine seem right, but merely to discover and establish the truth, whatever the truth may be."
-- HP Lovecraft, letter to Robert E. Howard 7/27-28/34
|
|
|
|
|
RE: Childhood Origins of Adult Resistance to Science - 8/2/2008 1:30:32 PM
|
|
|
wayward1
Posts: 231
Joined: 7/15/2008
Status: offline
|
quote:
ORIGINAL: essentialsaltes
quote:
ORIGINAL: essentialsaltes
"Additionally, when learning information
from other people, both adults and children are sensitive to the trustworthiness of the source of
that information. Resistance to science, then, is particularly exaggerated in societies where
nonscientific ideologies have the advantages of being both grounded in common sense and
transmitted by trustworthy sources."
Just gonna steal something gluadys said in other thread: "I have heard of young people raised in the belief that evolution means you are worthless (something their church drilled into them) becoming depressed and even suicidal once they realized evolution is true. I have never heard of this happening to people who were not exposed to this religious teaching first. That is another thing that makes this religious perspective so dangerous."
The article mentions that children value information from trustworthy adults, which obviously includes parents and religious figures. They also trust teachers. In most cases, there is no difficulty. Pastors do not fulminate against algebra, so no resistance to mathematics is instilled in the children. But for certain scientific findings, the children receive conflicting information (unless the children are sent to special science-resistant schools).
And so a certain cognitive dissonance arises in students as they get conflicting information from their religious instruction and their academic instruction. The religious side has the advantage of starting early and coming from the most trusted of sources, while academia has (in general) the advantage of actual scientific study & expertise. Studies show that acceptance of evolution increases with education level, so continued instruction appears to settle the matter of which side is more trustworthy in favor of science, where evolution is concerned. I can already hear Betta complaining that it is not instruction, but indoctrination. But it is also interesting that acceptance of evolution is greater among science majors (any science major) than liberal arts majors. Physicists and chemists spend little if any time in biology classes, so there is no time for any indoctrination in evolution; what they do share, though, is a better understanding and appreciation for science and the scientific method. If learning the tools of the trade and their uses is indoctrination, then so be it.
Anyway, the stress of the cognitive dissonance can lead to depression or suicidal thoughts, and this is very regrettable. Unfortunately, I see no solution. People are free to believe any cockamamie thing they like, and to teach their children likewise.
I could not possibly agree more and what's more is that this has been a primary means of survival for religions for thousands of years. I mean they got their information on the table first. Then they fine tuned it for thousands of years, "preached it as sacred truth" and it went utterly unquestioned, other than by competing theistic world views.
Given full knowledge of modern chemistry, biology, evolutionary theory, cosmology, physics, sociology, and psychology, the men who wrote the books of the bible would have written differently, period. In fact if the whole of modern science would have been "on the table first" I see no way for any "religion" to have ever been invented. It wouldn't mean there was no way for there to be a God, it would just mean that we didn't feel a need to murmur to him 6.5 billion strong, out of unison, in 6000 different ways and in 6900 different languages and still look at the world puzzled as to why He misses so much. It could be that the men who wrote the bible were making sincere efforts to pass on what had been passed on to them and I fully believe they did it for what they thought was the good of society. Whether it was actually God "revealing" things to them or not though, the revelation still passed through or rather oozed through their ignorance filter.
After oozing through the ignorance filter, what came out is what we see on the pages of the bible, including blatant ignorance of geology, volcanology, plate tectonics, weather, astronomy, physics, botany, zoology, etc. etc.. The effect would be viewed as truly bizarre by visitors to our earth from another world. They would see that thousands of years after we made a basically made a collective "bad call", we are so stubborn that we don't believe our own discoveries that contradict with it.
If nothing else the prevalence of religion is a powerful testament to the frailty of the human mind that created it in the first. What's even more than that is how unfortunate it is that they fear proliferation of the idea that we are "just animals" will result in widespread disregard for human life, when in fact it results in widespread respect for the beauty and rarity of ALL life, including human life.
< Message edited by wayward1 -- 8/2/2008 1:41:02 PM >
|
|
|
|
|
RE: Childhood Origins of Adult Resistance to Science - 8/3/2008 7:03:35 PM
|
|
|
Jhud
Posts: 7783
Joined: 4/11/2005
From: Lake Wobegon
Status: offline
|
The reality is that Western civilization (from which science as we know it springs) is in large part the product of Christian culture and thinking.
The first scientists were as much theologians as they were men of science. To set the two at odds is ignorance of history and reality, which seems to be a hallmark of materialitic thinking. There is no evidence that any of the blessings we enjoy, including scientific knowledge could have sprung from materialism. Christians don't 'resist' science, they simply understand it's limits.
_____________________________
Jack
It has been said that politics is the second oldest profession. I have learned that it bears a striking resemblance to the first..
- Ronald Reagan
|
|
|
|
|
RE: Childhood Origins of Adult Resistance to Science - 8/3/2008 7:24:53 PM
|
|
|
HHV5
Posts: 159
Joined: 7/20/2008
Status: offline
|
quote:
ORIGINAL: Jhud
The reality is that Western civilization (from which science as we know it springs) is in large part the product of Christian culture and thinking.
The first scientists were as much theologians as they were men of science. To set the two at odds is ignorance of history and reality, which seems to be a hallmark of materialitic thinking. There is no evidence that any of the blessings we enjoy, including scientific knowledge could have sprung from materialism. Christians don't 'resist' science, they simply understand it's limits.
What was that about the sun revolving around the Earth?
|
|
|
|
|
RE: Childhood Origins of Adult Resistance to Science - 8/3/2008 8:51:47 PM
|
|
|
drj11
Posts: 632
Joined: 3/29/2008
Status: offline
|
quote:
ORIGINAL: Jhud
The reality is that Western civilization (from which science as we know it springs) is in large part the product of Christian culture and thinking.
The first scientists were as much theologians as they were men of science. To set the two at odds is ignorance of history and reality, which seems to be a hallmark of materialitic thinking. There is no evidence that any of the blessings we enjoy, including scientific knowledge could have sprung from materialism. Christians don't 'resist' science, they simply understand it's limits.
A case could be made that religious thought served to slow science and prevent it from honestly studying the world. I would say that it is because of materialism and/or naturalism that science has advanced so tremendously in recent times. There is your evidence.
|
|
|
|
|
RE: Childhood Origins of Adult Resistance to Science - 8/3/2008 9:05:30 PM
|
|
|
gluadys
Posts: 1000
Joined: 4/26/2008
Status: offline
|
quote:
ORIGINAL: Jhud
The reality is that Western civilization (from which science as we know it springs) is in large part the product of Christian culture and thinking.
The first scientists were as much theologians as they were men of science. To set the two at odds is ignorance of history and reality, which seems to be a hallmark of materialitic th | | |
Forum Tools
Printable Version
