Religion plays a sizeable role in the low levels of scientific literacy found in the United States, and the negative impact of religious factors is more substantial than gender, race, or income.
Can you be religious and not ignorant?
Discuss
Apr 6 2018 3:03AM
lmmccIsn’t part of the point of (some) religion(s) to be tolerant to everybody? You know, the whole “love thy neighbor” sort of thing? I know some religious people can be really intolerant but in theory it should be the opposite.
Both deeply religious and deeply non-religious people can be quite intolerant of other views, to the point that they actively seek out and pressure those around them into conforming to their ideas. It seems to me that the vast majority of people are not in either of those categories however.
I don't think scientific literacy creates an environment that disallows religion unless you take parables and man-made religious texts literally in every way. Religions are based upon a faith that something unexplainable and good guides our lives and that's about as far as many take it.
Apr 6 2018 7:10AM
If you are scientifically literate then how do you explain the miracles and events in every religion that defy laws established by science?
Scientific literacy definitely correlates with less of an association with religion, unless you decide to ignore certain parts of science or certain parts of your religion in order to make both work for you which is fine.
Profahoben_212Source for anything you just said?I would claim that I am rather scientifically literate......i would also claim that I am rather religious. Neither effects the other
Apr 6 2018 8:27AM
Apr 6 2018 8:43AM
It all depends on the religion. There are so many different religions and sub-genres in the religions, you cant just outright answer this question.
You also dont have to conform to the standard of a certain religion. However, I dont think a catholic priest can believe 100% of scientific facts because it would discredit some of what they preach. This can be said for most religions if you 100% believe and preach that religion. But, most people only take most of the religion and disregard the parts that make no sense.
Apr 6 2018 10:40AM
I think a lot of details and rules in various religions are fake. Also if you study religion, it is a fact that people turn to God when in times of need or when something unexplained happens. Hence why so many religions started thousands of years ago. Having said that, I do believe in God because where does the universe end? How was the universe started? I'm not talking about the big bang, but what came before the big bang. Our human minds are too simple to grasp anything that doesn't follow our basic rules of space and time. Current science doesn't explain these questions, so until then, I'll say fuck establishments but God is real.
Fyi there's a similar thread on this from a few months back.
Apr 6 2018 12:35PM
Profahoben_212Source for anything you just said?I would claim that I am rather scientifically literate......i would also claim that I am rather religious. Neither effects the other
Wrong, Baptists for example follow the bible word for word and most believe in creationism and not evolution. Looking at carbon dating of just about anything shows the earth to be billions of years old not thousands. Is it fair to say that in following the bible directly is incompatible with scince and one must be wrong?
IsitWinterYet17I think a lot of details and rules in various religions are fake. Also if you study religion, it is a fact that people turn to God when in times of need or when something unexplained happens. Hence why so many religions started thousands of years ago. Having said that, I do believe in God because where does the universe end? How was the universe started? I'm not talking about the big bang, but what came before the big bang. Our human minds are too simple to grasp anything that doesn't follow our basic rules of space and time. Current science doesn't explain these questions, so until then, I'll say fuck establishments but God is real.Fyi there's a similar thread on this from a few months back.
So your argument for God thrives in the far corners of what current science can explain, So you must know your belief is an ever reciding pocket of scientific ignorance.
Apr 6 2018 1:45PM
Apr 6 2018 3:27PM
IliveinutahWrong, Baptists for example follow the bible word for word and most believe in creationism and not evolution. Looking at carbon dating of just about anything shows the earth to be billions of years old not thousands. Is it fair to say that in following the bible directly is incompatible with scince and one must be wrong?So your argument for God thrives in the far corners of what current science can explain, So you must know your belief is an ever reciding pocket of scientific ignorance.
Your flaw is that you believe that science can be argued as if it is the argument of authority and your convinced that others must take it from authority as well. Thats the exact same problem there is with baptists and far hard creationists.
you might think your correct, however far hardcore creationists would be on the same level of thinking as you.
Apr 6 2018 3:44PM
Apr 6 2018 3:50PM
Apr 6 2018 4:16PM
Being exclusively scientifically literate will dispell religion through rationality. However, it would be foolish to say the world ought to be, or ever has been properly viewed in such rational terms.
To be religious in the traditional sense in our age of information is to have a mental state devoid of or in avoidance of this rationality. The unfortunate result of this is that science is often construed to be the final word these days, painted in a hue that is much more desirable than the idiocy and inconsistency of modern religions because of our cultural fixation with binarism. To be scientifically literate requires no study of the limitations of the study or the epistemological issues it inherently contains. To be steeped in scientific (rational) thought without a critical perspective is just as dangerous as, if not moreso than, being blindly religious.
Science/rationalism is but a way to interpret the universe - it isn't actually the universe.
Apr 6 2018 4:31PM
Apr 6 2018 4:32PM
mattybaumsOk let's see....1. 40 days and 40 nights with no food or water
2. Noah's flood
3. Jesus walking on water
I will be happy to list a lot more later I have to go for now :)
If you're going to try to undermine science which is based on facts and provable means, you should try using something else than fanciful stories passed down through generations of people.
Apr 6 2018 4:41PM
Apr 6 2018 4:55PM
Foundation of science is to question everything including current science and facts. Foundation of religion is mostly faith or belief in how the world ought to work, (ie: Respect gets respect)
So people who dont fundamentally understand either will assume that they are exclusive which is fundamentally untrue, but that does not mean that people who are religious will always accept science or even other religious beliefs also it does not mean that people of science will accept religious beliefs or even other science. The truth is that most people are somewhere in the middle to be 100 percent rational is to be a psycho and to be 100 percent faithful is to be naieve.
Apr 6 2018 5:04PM
Apr 6 2018 5:09PM
IsitWinterYet17I think a lot of details and rules in various religions are fake. Also if you study religion, it is a fact that people turn to God when in times of need or when something unexplained happens. Hence why so many religions started thousands of years ago. Having said that, I do believe in God because where does the universe end? How was the universe started? I'm not talking about the big bang, but what came before the big bang. Our human minds are too simple to grasp anything that doesn't follow our basic rules of space and time. Current science doesn't explain these questions, so until then, I'll say fuck establishments but God is real.Fyi there's a similar thread on this from a few months back.
You fall victim to your own words, only turning to God when there's something mysterious can't be explained. Seems to me the point of religion was to unquestioningly believe that God did those things, regardless of what other explanations exist. Pretty sure they don't want you to flip flop around depending on what has evidence based explanations for it.
Apr 6 2018 5:18PM
BedBugDougthe first thing they teach you at science school is that if it can't be disproved then you can't say it doesn't exist or it isn't true. So basic science literacy would dictate that it is possible for god to exist.
No that's not how this works. Indeed, you're supposed to provide evidence to show that the null hypothesis is false, which is what you've said. However, you need to have a testable system. God isn't testable, there's no way to evaluate whether the null or alternative hypothesis is true. This isn't something you can apply the scientific method to.
Apr 6 2018 5:21PM
K-Dot.Where on earth is this false, useless bit of information stemming from lol
Are you serious?
It comes from my scientifically educated mind. Turns out I listened in several of my geology classes.
How far back exactly do you think it can date material? Before you look like a total jackass I would suggest you use your friend Google.
Apr 6 2018 5:32PM
Lol to everyone reading my post and thinking I'm crazy you need to read what I'm referring to. I'm arguing those events are absurd and cannot be proven by science. I believe scientific literary leads to less religion
i worded it wrong you guys quoted me without seeing what I was quoting...
**This post was edited on Apr 6th 2018 at 5:34:40pm
Apr 6 2018 5:37PM
a_pla5tic_bagNo that's not how this works. Indeed, you're supposed to provide evidence to show that the null hypothesis is false, which is what you've said. However, you need to have a testable system. God isn't testable, there's no way to evaluate whether the null or alternative hypothesis is true. This isn't something you can apply the scientific method to.
woah, man, you can apply the scientific method to everything. Other than that, everything you said is true, and is in agreement with my claim. Which is that science can't prove god doesn't exist.
Apr 6 2018 5:47PM
BedBugDougwoah, man, you can apply the scientific method to everything. Other than that, everything you said is true, and is in agreement with my claim. Which is that science can't prove god doesn't exist.
Nah you're totally wrong on this. There need to be testable predictions to follow the scientific method and science in general.
Apr 6 2018 5:48PM
Apr 6 2018 6:09PM
VinnieFNah you're totally wrong on this. There need to be testable predictions to follow the scientific method and science in general.
Alright, i will admit it would be tough and maybe even impossible. But this leads us to a greater question. If science can't be all encompassing, what can? I'll tell you what can, God can.
God>science
thread busted
Apr 6 2018 6:16PM
AomameYou fall victim to your own words, only turning to God when there's something mysterious can't be explained. Seems to me the point of religion was to unquestioningly believe that God did those things, regardless of what other explanations exist. Pretty sure they don't want you to flip flop around depending on what has evidence based explanations for it.
This is the naive part of religion. The point of religion is solace and shelter when you can't find any in your life. People don't realize that historically religions were created or people turn to religions in times of stress and hardship. Once a religion has been around long enough it becomes treated as fact by many and followed without question. No religion is infallible even though they may preach as such.
Question everything bud. Question everything.
Apr 6 2018 6:33PM
VinnieFAre you serious?It comes from my scientifically educated mind. Turns out I listened in several of my geology classes.
How far back exactly do you think it can date material? Before you look like a total jackass I would suggest you use your friend Google.
Carbon dating can go farther back than 50,000 years, but my main issue with your post was how irrelevant it was. Radiometric dating, which carbon dating is a form of, can take us back billions of years. The earth is provably billions of years old, disputing OP's poor choice of words makes it appear as if that isn't fact
Apr 6 2018 7:41PM
K-Dot.Carbon dating can go farther back than 50,000 years, but my main issue with your post was how irrelevant it was. Radiometric dating, which carbon dating is a form of, can take us back billions of years. The earth is provably billions of years old, disputing OP's poor choice of words makes it appear as if that isn't fact
Really? Cause you said that carbon dating going back 50000 years is false. Which it isn't.
You fucked up. It's fine.
Me pointing out that carbon dating doesn't go back billions of years does nothing to undermine the fact that other dating methods do go back that far and that the Earth is indeed that old. It's just correcting a mistake many people make, you included.
Apr 6 2018 8:06PM
mattybaumsIf you are scientifically literate then how do you explain the miracles and events in every religion that defy laws established by science?Scientific literacy definitely correlates with less of an association with religion, unless you decide to ignore certain parts of science or certain parts of your religion in order to make both work for you which is fine.
Fucking magnets too!!!
Apr 6 2018 8:07PM
VinnieFReally? Cause you said that carbon dating going back 50000 years is false. Which it isn't.You fucked up. It's fine.
Me pointing out that carbon dating doesn't go back billions of years does nothing to undermine the fact that other dating methods do go back that far and that the Earth is indeed that old. It's just correcting a mistake many people make, you included.
Actually carbon dating goes back around two to three hundred million years, but we have no proof of anything existing before that giving many scientist a reason to beleive that the earth, at least in its current form, could not have existed before then.
Apr 6 2018 8:25PM
Bushdid9_11Actually carbon dating goes back around two to three hundred million years, but we have no proof of anything existing before that giving many scientist a reason to beleive that the earth, at least in its current form, could not have existed before then.
Well this is silly.
1- Carbon dating can be used for dating back to ~50,000 year. It cannot do millions.
2- some dating methods can go back many billions of years.
3- we DO have very real proof of stuff existing well beyond a few hundred million years. Rocks like the Acasta gneiss from NWT in which zircons have been dated back to about 4 billion years using thorium.
Apr 6 2018 8:37PM
Apr 6 2018 9:13PM
lol don't worry at least you weren't like everyone else in the thread who thought I was arguing surging 40 days and 40 nights in the desert is scientifically possible lol
theabortionatorI read this as "Dogs Becoming scientifically literate expel religion?"Yeah yeah i get that I'm an idiot. I was very confused on no mention of dogs in OP or rest of thread. Now at least I have the answers I need to go on living.
Apr 6 2018 9:16PM
theabortionatorI read this as "Dogs Becoming scientifically literate expel religion?"Yeah yeah i get that I'm an idiot. I was very confused on no mention of dogs in OP or rest of thread. Now at least I have the answers I need to go on living.
I would understand if dogs turned out to know all the "Religious" Truths of the world
Apr 6 2018 9:22PM
harkenbanksI would understand if dogs turned out to know all the "Religious" Truths of the world
Animals are smart. I'm watching my buddy's rabbit atm and swear the thing is a wizard. Also show up to house sit and motherfucking wizard staff next to him.
Not even joking Ill post a pic. Either him or my buddy are a wizard .
Apr 6 2018 9:30PM
Apr 6 2018 11:12PM
mattybaumsLol to everyone reading my post and thinking I'm crazy you need to read what I'm referring to. I'm arguing those events are absurd and cannot be proven by science. I believe scientific literary leads to less religioni worded it wrong you guys quoted me without seeing what I was quoting...
**This post was edited on Apr 6th 2018 at 5:34:40pm
You're a fucking pussy to not stand behind your own words. Also you're referring to the Bible: the most well-known and least proven document in human history. You can change your NS name to try to hide the fact that you grew up in the UT bubble of religion, but you're doing a massive disservice to yourself by embracing that bubble and cutting yourself off to basic rationale, science and understanding of everything around you. That's fucking insane especially in the time of the most easily accessible and massive database of knowledge in the existence of humanity.
I'm sorry but you are fucking pathetic.
Apr 6 2018 11:19PM
Are you fucking retarded I've been an atheist since I was 8 years old. You asked me if I could name something in religion that defies science so I named 3 which everyone for some reason thought I was naming things that "disprove science" or something. Literally we are on the same side here I got confused and thought you were trying to argue with me that science and religion don't contradict which I apologize for but then everyone got confused when I was trying to argue that science disproves all those miracles in the Bible. Literally you don't need to be a fucking asshole about it though I'm an average fucking teenager that has to go to school with hundreds of bible thumping lunatics and I thought "oh this thread looks like a nice place to hangout with some similar thinkers" but I guess not.
skiermanYou're a fucking pussy to not stand behind your own words. Also you're referring to the Bible: the most well-known and least proven document in human history. You can change your NS name to try to hide the fact that you grew up in the UT bubble of religion, but you're doing a massive disservice to yourself by embracing that bubble and cutting yourself off to basic rationale, science and understanding of everything around you. That's fucking insane especially in the time of the most easily accessible and massive database of knowledge in the existence of humanity.I'm sorry but you are fucking pathetic.
Apr 7 2018 12:36AM
Apr 7 2018 2:00AM
mattybaumsAre you fucking retarded I've been an atheist since I was 8 years old. You asked me if I could name something in religion that defies science so I named 3 which everyone for some reason thought I was naming things that "disprove science" or something. Literally we are on the same side here I got confused and thought you were trying to argue with me that science and religion don't contradict which I apologize for but then everyone got confused when I was trying to argue that science disproves all those miracles in the Bible. Literally you don't need to be a fucking asshole about it though I'm an average fucking teenager that has to go to school with hundreds of bible thumping lunatics and I thought "oh this thread looks like a nice place to hangout with some similar thinkers" but I guess not.
Sounds like you need to grow up, not everyone will agree with you especially on the interwebs