The point i am getting at is that they do not apply the same standard of evidence to their science as they do to their religion, the only way science and religion is compatible is if you do that. Either that or ignore science and choose religion, or bend over backwards to make your religion compatible with science

(October 9, 2013 at 3:13 pm)Rationalman Wrote: I don't think that they are necessarily stupid, just mislead, misguided, delusional. Have you ever watched the atheist experience? Matt Dillahunty claims to have been a southern baptist christian for 20 years and he was going to become a preacher or something. He just said he never evaluated his religious belief before. And when he did (by studying the bible more in order to become a preacher) he became disillusioned. I think we can all agree he is a very smart person but he just didn't evaluate his religion.

I know a muslim who denies human evolution despite being science major, we even sat through an evolution course together. I know christian science majors who know enough about their religion that they regularly preach to others.

Stupid or dishonest seem to be the obvious options.

(October 11, 2013 at 10:46 am)pineapplebunnybounce Wrote: Stupid or dishonest seem to be the obvious options.

Obvious, perhaps, but not necessarily correct.

(October 9, 2013 at 3:33 pm)downbeatplumb Wrote: Lots of peoples default position is there is a god and they never have cause to evaluate it.

Yeah, this is what I found about myself. I'd been raised to accept that god does exist, and cannot recall being exposed to the idea that it might not be so. Subconsciously, I accepted this as absolutely true and thus had no reason to even attempt to challenge it. So any discovery that might challenge my belief in god had to be made to fit the belief, or I could always fall back on the idea that it was the scientists who were mistaken. They had to be, because god's existence was a given.

Confirmation bias and urban legends helped to solidify the beliefs. I've explained the way it works with prayer before. But there were also many anecdotes about how people were experiencing god's intervention. Unless they were of a different denomination or faith, in which case it was Satan deceiving them. Everything that we considered would provide "evidence" for god being real and his detractors being deluded and wrong.

If you start from a particular proposition and refuse to challenge it, you are forced to defend it no matter what. If it is a poorly-supported proposition then you are either going to have to plead ignorance ("we can't know the mind of god") or build an elaborate (and sometimes spectacularly bizarre) structure to deal with it.

(October 10, 2013 at 11:40 pm)Godschild Wrote:

(October 10, 2013 at 2:28 am)Rationalman Wrote: What i'm saying is they can't co-exist with no problems unless they leave their religion by the door at the start of the day and pick it up at the end. To me, that makes them a hypocrite

I know two nuclear engineers who have found it quite compatible. I know another scientist at the OakRidge Laboratories who is very comfortable with his work and faith.

GC

It's obvious that they don't share your young-earth creationist delusion, otherwise their beliefs would not be in the slightest compatible with the knowledge required to be in nuclear engineering.

(October 11, 2013 at 7:58 am)Rationalman Wrote: The point i am getting at is that they do not apply the same standard of evidence to their science as they do to their religion, the only way science and religion is compatible is if you do that. Either that or ignore science and choose religion, or bend over backwards to make your religion compatible with science

You really think a man who is a Christian is not going to follow the nature and physical laws of nuclear material when designing a reactor or any of the working parts the material is housed in, really. You really believe these men could keep their jobs if they ignored the science of their field. Do these men believe in evolution, no, they have looked at the evidence and find it faulty, yet they do live by the sciences in their fields.

GC

(October 11, 2013 at 2:07 pm)Godschild Wrote: You really think a man who is a Christian is not going to follow the nature and physical laws of nuclear material when designing a reactor or any of the working parts the material is housed in, really. You really believe these men could keep their jobs if they ignored the science of their field. Do these men believe in evolution, no, they have looked at the evidence and find it faulty, yet they do live by the sciences in their fields.

GC

Even though I'm quite sure you're lying through your teeth about knowing any scientists at all, it's just plausible enough that one can reasonably conclude that being a scientist doesn't mean you still can't be stupid about some things.

(October 11, 2013 at 2:07 pm)Godschild Wrote: You really think a man who is a Christian is not going to follow the nature and physical laws of nuclear material when designing a reactor or any of the working parts the material is housed in, really. You really believe these men could keep their jobs if they ignored the science of their field. Do these men believe in evolution, no, they have looked at the evidence and find it faulty, yet they do live by the sciences in their fields.

Yes, I'm quite sure your engineering friends are quite competent and conscientious about applying what they know of the science of radioactivity in their jobs, just not when it comes to dating rocks. Thanks for providing a poignant example of the conflict between religion and science. For what it's worth, I don't consider engineers to be scientists. I'm reminded of the Dilbert cartoon in which the garbage collector is showing Dilbert some errors in his calculations which were on pieces of paper in the trash. Dilbert replied that he was amazed that the man was a garbage collector. The garbage collector replied that he was amazed that Dilbert was an engineer. To paraphrase Richard Feynman, a scientist speaking outside of his field is likely as dumb as the next guy.

(October 11, 2013 at 4:48 pm)apophenia Wrote: For what it's worth, I don't consider engineers to be scientists.

Bear in mind, you're talking to a guy who thinks a nuclear engineer is the tech support guy he always calls when he forgets how to use his microwave.

(October 11, 2013 at 10:52 am)apophenia Wrote:

(October 11, 2013 at 10:46 am)pineapplebunnybounce Wrote: Stupid or dishonest seem to be the obvious options.

Obvious, perhaps, but not necessarily correct.

No, the correct answer is "deluded".


de·lu·sion
diˈlo͞oZHən/
noun
1. an idiosyncratic belief or impression that is firmly maintained despite being contradicted by what is generally accepted as reality or rational argument, typically a symptom of mental disorder.