How the Public Resolves Conflicts Between Faith an

---

As it's been a topic banging around here of late, I found this article interesting.Copied from Pew Research Center How the Public Resolves Conflicts Between Faith and ScienceOn Subjects such as Evolution, Many Americans Are Aware of -- but Reject -- the Scientific Consensusby David Masci, Senior Research Fellow, Pew Forum on Religion & Public LifeAugust 27, 2007The relationship between faith and science in the United States seems, at least on the surface, to be paradoxical. Surveys repeatedly show that most Americans respect science and the benefits it brings to society, such as new technologies and medical treatments. And yet, religious convictions limit many Americans' willingness to accept controversial scientific theories as well as certain types of scientific research, such as the potential use of embryonic stem cells for medical treatments.Science and religion have traditionally, and often incorrectly, been viewed as enemies. This perception has been fueled in part by a number of famous episodes in history that have pitted scientists, like Galileo and Darwin, against the prevailing religious establishments of their time. But more often than not, scientists and people of faith have operated not at cross purposes but simply at different purposes.Today the situation is much the same. Certainly, there are modern scientists who are actively hostile to religious belief. British biologist Richard Dawkins, for instance, in his best-selling book, The God Delusion, argues that many social ills – from bigotry to ignorance – can be blamed, at least in part, on religion. In addition, a significant number of scientists – roughly a third according to a 2006 Rice University survey of more than 750 professors in the natural sciences – do not believe in God, compared with only one-in-twenty in the general population. But regardless of their personal views, most scientists tend to view the two disciplines as distinct, with each attempting to answer different kinds of questions using different methods. The late evolutionary biologist Stephen Jay Gould famously referred to this complementary relationship as "non-overlapping magisteria." But there are times when the "magisteria" do overlap. The debate over the origins and development of life is the most compelling example of this. All but a small number of scientists regard Darwin's theory of evolution through natural selection as an established fact. And yet, a substantial majority of Americans, many of whom are deeply religious, reject the notion that life evolved through natural forces alone. Indeed, according to a 2006 survey from the Pew Forum on Religion & Public Life and the Pew Research Center for the People & the Press, 42% of Americans reject the notion that life on earth evolved and believe instead that humans and other living things have always existed in their present form. Among white evangelical Protestants – many of whom regard the Bible as the inerrant word of God – 65% hold this view. Moreover, in the same poll, 21% of those surveyed say that although life has evolved, these changes were guided by a supreme being. Only a minority, about a quarter (26%) of respondents, say that they accept evolution through natural processes or natural selection alone.Interestingly, many of those who reject natural selection recognize that scientists themselves fully accept Darwin's theory. In the same 2006 Pew poll, nearly two-thirds of adults (62%) say that they believe that scientists agree on the validity of evolution. Moreover, Americans, including religious Americans, hold science and scientists in very high regard. A 2006 survey conducted by Virginia Commonwealth University found that most people (87%) think that scientific developments make society better. Among those who describe themselves as being very religious, the same number – 87% – share that opinion. So what is at work here? How can Americans say that they respect science and even know what scientists believe and yet still disagree with the scientific community on some fundamental questions? The answer is that much of the general public simply chooses not to believe the scientific theories and discoveries that seem to contradict long-held religious or other important beliefs. When asked what they would do if scientists were to disprove a particular religious belief, nearly two-thirds (64%) of people say they would continue to hold to what their religion teaches rather than accept the contrary scientific finding, according to the results of an October 2006 Time magazine poll. Indeed, in a May 2007 Gallup poll, only 14% of those who say they do not believe in evolution cite lack of evidence as the main reason underpinning their views; more people cite their belief in Jesus (19%), God (16%) or religion generally (16%) as their reason for rejecting Darwin's theory. This reliance on religious faith may help explain why so many people do not see science as a direct threat to religion. Only 28% of respondents in the same Time poll say that scientific advancements threaten their religious beliefs. These poll results also show that more than four-fifths of respondents (81%) say that "recent discoveries and advances" in science have not significantly impacted their religious views. In fact, 14% say that these discoveries have actually made them more religious. Only 4% say that science has made them less religious.These data once again show that, in the minds of most people in the United States, there is no real clash between science and religion. And when the two realms offer seemingly contradictory explanations (as in the case of evolution), religious people, who make up a majority of Americans, may rely primarily upon their faith for answers.

Wow, the majority of Americans are willfully ignorant! What a shocker!

pokes Bob Play nice.

Originally Posted By: bobaliciousWow, the majority of Americans are willfully ignorant! What a shocker! They willfully ignore that which contradicts what they know to be true.I know "A", you have a theory "B" that opposes it...do you really expect the theory to be believed over a known truth? Scientists are wrong all the time...nothing new under the sun.I have proof for my beliefs...but there is no criteria for my own beliefs to be hinged upon something for you to examine in order to be true. You have to be there for yourself to have that proof...your proof must be your own. Your system requires such proof for what you believe, which is something you do not have.

This is exactly what the article is talking about. Your personal truth is not truth, its a belief that has been given the name 'truth' to make it feel stronger.Why can you not believe something that hundreds of people can verify for you, right in front of your eyes in a way that doesn't rely on magic or faith, but you can believe that dinosaur fossils are just a mind-fuck planted by God to keep us entertained? If you didn't have the front of religion to hide behind, if you went around spouting shite like that, you'd be considered nuts! (Not that I don't consider you nuts anyway, of course.)

You reminded me of this bob, Lewis Black

Originally Posted By: bobaliciousThis is exactly what the article is talking about. Your personal truth is not truth, its a belief that has been given the name 'truth' to make it feel stronger. In truth Science isn't truth either.. science, in general, is about theories.I understand faith is not enough for you, but for us Christians it's enough just as science is enough proof for you. Which is fine, because I am concerned about my relationship with god.. not other peoples. I also just want to state for the record... I believe in Dinosaurs

Originally Posted By: bobalicious

This is exactly what the article is talking about. Your personal truth is not truth, its a belief that has been given the name 'truth' to make it feel stronger.

Why can you not believe something that hundreds of people can verify for you, right in front of your eyes in a way that doesn't rely on magic or faith, but you can believe that dinosaur fossils are just a mind-fuck planted by God to keep us entertained? If you didn't have the front of religion to hide behind, if you went around spouting shite like that, you'd be considered nuts! (Not that I don't consider you nuts anyway, of course.:grin:)

You're "out to lunch", bob. I never said anything about evolution...it's "natural selection" that is pure rubbish...and totally unproven under YOUR criteria for a requirement of exminable proof.

As for "my truth", it's truth for a lot more people than just me. If you were in this country you'd be in the minority...though you woulnd't be considered nuts. Blind perhaps...but not nuts. And just as I would not expect a blind man to believe there are stars (because he can't be offered proof), so I do not expect you to accept a truth that you cannot see for yourself.

But with all the people who do see it, it makes one wonder why others can't. But then you arrive at the somewhat obvious conclusion that they do not want to see it. Because then they'd have to start doing a lot of things they don't want to do, and stop doing a lot of things they do want to do. Makes sense to me.

Originally Posted By: NtroducingMyself

I understand faith is not enough for you, but for us Christians it's enough just as science is enough proof for you. Which is fine, because I am concerned about my relationship with god.. not other peoples. :wink:

Which I have a problem with simply because with the small misguided minority, faith is all thats needed to set off car bombs near schools. Or faith is all thats needed to launch a war against a random country.

Originally Posted By: thorYou're "out to lunch", bob. I never said anything about evolution...it's "natural selection" that is pure rubbish...and totally unproven under YOUR criteria for a requirement of exminable proof.http://news.independent.co.uk/sci_tech/article2893896.ece Originally Posted By: thorAs for "my truth", it's truth for a lot more people than just me. If you were in this country you'd be in the minority...though you woulnd't be considered nuts. Blind perhaps...but not nuts. And just as I would not expect a blind man to believe there are stars (because he can't be offered proof), so I do not expect you to accept a truth that you cannot see for yourself.But with all the people who do see it, it makes one wonder why others can't. But then you arrive at the somewhat obvious conclusion that they do not want to see it. Because then they'd have to start doing a lot of things they don't want to do, and stop doing a lot of things they do want to do. Makes sense to me.Are you kidding me? I'd love it if there was a God (maybe not your one), it means that when I die I get to know all the secrets of the universe and be with everyone I love for eternity and all that fanciful jazz. But just cause I want it to be true, it doesn't mean that it is. If you go into a room that you "know" to be haunted, you're gonna see or hear something that you'll "know" is a ghost. If you grew up here in Ireland 50 years ago, you would "know" that the Pope is the closest thing to God on this earth. What makes your personal view of God, which differs from person to person, the truth? If both of you think that you know the truth, but what you know is different, then how can either of you be trusted? If this other persons truth can be so different from yours but he can be so certain of it, then how can you have any faith in what is all just in your head?

Ha, someone just sent me a link to an article that answers my question:http://www.washingtonpost.com/wp-dyn/con...d=moreheadlines  Quote:"The conventional response to myths and urban legends is to counter bad information with accurate information. But the new psychological studies show that denials and clarifications, for all their intuitive appeal, can paradoxically contribute to the resiliency of popular myths... The research is painting a broad new understanding of how the mind works. Contrary to the conventional notion that people absorb information in a deliberate manner, the studies show that the brain uses subconscious 'rules of thumb' that can bias it into thinking that false information is true. Clever manipulators can take advantage of this tendency."

the most delicious thing about the faith argument is that the faithfull totally don't get the joke!I beleive this to be trueI have a bunch of evidence to the contraryHA... that's just a theory!I'm sure there are some wonderfully brillient theologins in the world but the average fundamentalist uses the same logical arguments as a 3 year old. And just like the 3 year old, he is totally oblivious to the blatant error in his "logic"Thor, please feel free to reply with a resounding "nuh-uhh!"

You left-wing liberal communist heathen!

I'm staying twenty feet away from this one darlin'.

Thats what you told me last night... do I smell or something?

Originally Posted By: bobalicious

Originally Posted By: NtroducingMyself

I understand faith is not enough for you, but for us Christians it's enough just as science is enough proof for you. Which is fine, because I am concerned about my relationship with god.. not other peoples. :wink:

Which I have a problem with simply because with the small misguided minority, faith is all thats needed to set off car bombs near schools. Or faith is all thats needed to launch a war against a random country.

I agree but you are talking about extremists. The majority of Christians are not anything near an extremist. Granted that most of the Christians you see on TV are extremists, which sucks because they give the rest of us Christians a bad name. In my personal experience most Christians are your normal everyday person. Only takes a few to give the rest a bad name.

I understand that extremists are in very low numbers, but America still managed to elect one to the presidency. And we have seen over the past few years what a single extremist in a position of power can do.You believe in God and you dismiss claims that humans evolved (if I remember correctly, you believe that other animals evolved but humans didn't). You wilfully dismiss all evidence that supports the theory that humans also evolved and I don't mind this because you are not in a position in which your beliefs can cause any harm (intellectual harm, I believe that anyone who teaches a child to ignore evidence should be shot). You are someone who, if I have your character judged correctly, if you ever adopt a child you will not drill your own beliefs into their skull. Therefore you do not pass on your personal belief as fact.When I have children, I will be teaching them about God/gods and religion. But I will never tell them that God does or does not exist.

Im with you, for once Im avoiding the god screaming match.and bobbo... yes you do stink, go wash your balls for fuck sakes, your thousands of miles away and I can smell em from here.what did you do? bang a girl who washed her dirty vagina with a dirtier vagina?

Originally Posted By: bobaliciousWhat makes your personal view of God, which differs from person to person, the truth? If both of you think that you know the truth, but what you know is different, then how can either of you be trusted? If this other persons truth can be so different from yours but he can be so certain of it, then how can you have any faith in what is all just in your head? Each of us looks on things from a different perspective. One side of a mountain looks different from another side...but both will agree that it is a mountain. Both will agree that there is a God...which is the point in question.BTW, couldn't get your link to work, so can't comment on that.

Originally Posted By: bobaliciousHa, someone just sent me a link to an article that answers my question:http://www.washingtonpost.com/wp-dyn/con...d=moreheadlines  Quote:"The conventional response to myths and urban legends is to counter bad information with accurate information. But the new psychological studies show that denials and clarifications, for all their intuitive appeal, can paradoxically contribute to the resiliency of popular myths... The research is painting a broad new understanding of how the mind works. Contrary to the conventional notion that people absorb information in a deliberate manner, the studies show that the brain uses subconscious 'rules of thumb' that can bias it into thinking that false information is true. Clever manipulators can take advantage of this tendency." Explains exactly what's going on in our education system today. Doesn't explain, however, my belief in God.