What drives those of Faith to ignore Scientific Facts?

Robert, I don't believe in hell. My comments were in response to a discussion about the afterlife...

A lot of Christians believe in both Heaven and Hell.
http://www.pcg.org/beliefs

 

What is practiced in America is my concern. Many Christians are no pro-science. Many Christians want Creationism taught in schools. Many Christians denigrate science.

Science is what made this Country great. Science is even more important in the 21st Century. We cannot afford to allow anyone to slow the progress of science.

 

And therein lies one of the problems with believers. You cannot even agree that you are all Christians. I've been in many a discussion where a Christian said to me -about other Christians- "Those people were not or are not Real Christians" or "A Real Christian would not have done that".

I do not use the term "alleged Christian". I would never accuse someone of not being a Real Christian or a Real Muslim. If you or they tell me they are Christians, I take them at their word.

 

That's all very interesting. But it is straying far off the topic of our discussion. You went from discussing science to religious proselytizing.

However, I will address the science portion of your post.

Yes.

It was more crowded then.

Away.

Who says anything was needed? Science doesn't. Religionists do.
Gravity functions exactly the same on enormous stars as it functions on small stars.
Gravity doesn't differ.

 

As I already clearly showed you - Schopf did not speculate that cyanobacterium "came first". He merely posited that the earliest fossils were cyanobacterium.

 

Well that leaves us hanging out to dry. Indeed, the earliest evidence of life he found were cyanobacterium.
It is such a great book. I truly wish the left would read it. Actually all would benefit from his book.

 

Feelings tend to trump objectivity.

 

What evidence do you base your "small minority" claim upon if other than anecdotal?

 

You see GOD as religion. I see GOD in a way you still do not understand. I am not using GOD as a proof for any religion. I am not using GOD even to prove the Bible or any religious text.

If you visualize the first creation, I visualize GOD as doing that. It has nothing to do with some religious dogma.

 

I use the term alleged to show that merely saying one is a Christian does not mean they actually are. Take the group that protests at graves and raises the roof against homosexuals. I doubt they truly are Christians. It is just a values judgement and does not mean I am correct in that either.

When I am wrong, I work quickly to correct a wrong.

We LDS are not going to favor homosexuals at all. I was talking on Monday to one of the members and we discussed homosexuals. He did not blast them yet I could tell our church does not favor them. My homosexual brother was a rather loyal church member who could be counted on to attend the church.

In meetings I have yet to hear homosexuals get run down as that church that hates homosexuals does to homosexuals.

 

I'm concerned that the practice of using "God did it" as a stand in answer for things we don't individually know or understand is corrosive to good decision making and damaging to America.

If it were just the big bang, it would be easy to ignore. It's not as if people's opinion about the big bang is waking me up at night.

But, I have a hard time separating this one issue from the problem of people ignoring concrete evidence on how our world works - something that absolutely DOES justify serious concern, as it affects decisions we're making individually and as a nation every day.

 

Well, there are a lot of people in this forum who sincerely believe they are going to Heaven. Over the years, I've been on a lot of forums and had discussions with a lot of people who sincerely believe they are going to Heaven. I also personally know a lot of people who sincerely believe they are going to Heaven. A lot of the same people have told me I'm going to hell.

Ya think they all just lied to me? Why would they do that?

 

Not a monkey wrench into a consensus. A monkey wrench into your "Climate Deniers Websites" intentional misleading stories.

https://www.skepticalscience.com/ce...-rays-causing-global-warming-intermediate.htm

Perhaps you were referring to a different CERN.

 

Science hasn't found a "gay gene" because there isn't one. That doesn't mean that the cause of homosexuality is not biological. You do understand there is more to biology than just genes, don't you?

You spend nine months in a pretty hostile environment - the uterus. There's a lot of stuff that happens in there. Not all of it is perfect. I'd link some articles for you to read, but why bother. After all, the title of this thread is...
What drives those of Faith to ignore Scientific Facts?

 

FOSSILS Robert. He claimed he found the earliest FOSSILS. He did not claim cyanobacterium was the earliest form of life. Obviously you haven't benefited from reading it, because you clearly don't understand it.

Google "cradle of life schopf". Here's what comes up...
Cradle of Life: The Discovery of Earth's Earliest Fossils: J. William ...
Schopf, J.W.: Cradle of Life: The Discovery of Earth's Earliest Fossils ...

Here is the full title of his book...
Cradle of Life:
The Discovery of Earth's Earliest Fossils
J. William Schopf

 

No I don't. Gods are supposed entities. Religions are the beliefs in and worship of gods.

I do understand. This stated view of a god is essentially deism.

What I do not understand is that you have stated that you are member of LDS.

Deistic beliefs are not those of LDS. Are there two different people posting as Robert?

 

That is news to me. We teach that GOD is different from Jesus. Jesus is the son of GOD. The Holy Ghost is something else.

Also your definition says GOD has no role with humans. I know what I said, but once GOD created, clearly he had a role to play or the entire Bible is false. It speaks of Jesus chatting with GOD while on the cross. Other instances where Jesus prayed to GOD prior to his execution are spoken of.

I was trying to stick to formation of Earth with the entire universe.

Importantly I did not want to get into a tit for tat discussion of doctrine.

BUT.............

https://www.lds.org/general-conference/1974/04/the-holy-ghost?lang=eng

 

My Personal take on this that one must use extreme caution trying to mix religion and science.

Bad enough that even the IPCC mixes science with politics.

A lot happens where I do not speak of GOD doing it. My former wife loved a small dog. A buyer at my place ran over the dog. I did not think GOD killed her dog. My brother died in New York city. GOD did not kill him.

Mother was sleeping when she suddenly woke up very upset. She told dad Gene her youngest brother just then died in combat and she heard him tell her he was okay and more. Gene did that from the battlefield. I verified using Army reports she got it at the right time and day. We had no way to know he had been sent to combat in Korea that early in the war. A letter from him reached Grandma in the next few days where he said he was back in war but not to worry since he was good at combat. The day following his mailing the letter he died at Taejon, Korea. Took me years of research to locate his army records.

 

The gay Gene was first proposed by scientist in the 80s shortly after AIDS came along...The gay plaque it was called at first...So now you're saying those scientist were wrong.
Scientist are now saying within the next 25 years, they will be able to engineer babies in the womb. Are they wrong or just hypothesizing.
The best thing about Science is that it is never settled, it is always open for debate. Things like AGW and evolution are theories...They are not facts, they are educated guesses...With facts to support the hypothesis...But it is not a fact.
The next global ice age was the AGW of the 70s... Didn't happen.
The polar ice caps were supposed to have melted by 2015... Didn't happen.

Both the NOAA and the IPCC admit that their models cannot account for cloud cover. Satellites cannot penetrate cloud cover to give accurate temperature readings.
Common sense tells everyone that if you are under shade or cloud cover it is cooler than direct sunlight. This can be scientifically proven and repeated. None of the weather models are repeatable, none of them agree with each other, and most have been shown to have data manipulated to get the desired result.
But then again science is your religion, isn't it?

 

Yes, they were wrong. That's the way science works. An idea is proposed. The idea is investigated. If there is no evidence found to support the idea, it is scrapped. If enough evidence is found to support the idea, it becomes accepted.

I neither know nor care.

YES!

And now you fall back on the "faithful deniers" choice of word games. You've been around long enough to know the difference between a scientific theory and its usage as in "I have a theory".

You also know that scientists rarely use the term "FACT". But that doesn't stop the faithful science deniers from making comments like you just did. I have a news flash for you. That kind of Bull$hit wording only works with faithful deniers trying to convince other faithful deniers of their "wisdom", it falls flat with anyone understanding science. The worst part is that you know it's Bull$hit, but you keep on spouting it anyway.

And now you resort to another favorite of the faithful - equating to religion.

• Atheism is a religion
• Science is a religion

Atheism has no beliefs in silly childish superstitions
Science has no beliefs in silly childish superstitions

 

And you just proved my point again, go back to the title of the debate....Denying scientific "fact', there is no such thing, there are acceptable theories until they are proven wrong, they are not undisputable, undeniable FACTS....

 

Answer to the OP: they are driven by FEAR. They are scared intellectual cowards. They've picked one out of the thousands and thousands of mutually-exclusive gods and said "THAT ONE - I FEAR THAT ONE - LOGIC AND REASON AND SCIENCE BE DAMNED!"

 

I guarantee you that AboveAlpha understands what a fact is....religious people obviously do not. They can't differentiate between the "fact" that dragons exist in the Bible, vs. the dragons in GOT, nor LOR, nor Harry Potter. They don't understand the word.

 

Mathematics has facts, 1+1=2.
Religion has faith.
Science has accepted hypothesis until they are proven wrong...The whole basis of the OP is flawed.
The problem is that when you point out that Science is never settled, it's like you attacked a zealots faith.

 

Religion has answers that are accepted until they are no longer accepted, too. That's not unique to science at all. We're human beings.

Science and religion are separate, because they have different root assumptions and are designed to answer different questions. Science assumes we can observe the universe (amazingly, not the only choice!), and asks how things work. Religion assumes there is a supernatural and tries to answer questions of why.

From there, the rules for determining what to accept are also different.

In the case of science, ideas get formed into hypotheses that are then tested. When serious testing and review fails to find a way in which they are false, and if they are considered useful in helping understand some part of the universe, hypotheses may become a theory - the best "fact" that science can possibly create. There isn't anything in science more concrete than a theory. Theories get tested continuously. We're still testing Einstein, evolution, etc.

"Settled science" just means that enough testing has been done that scientists throughout the community see it as super highly unlikely that another explanation is possible. It doesn't mean all issues are settled. For example, it could very reasonably be settled that humans are the primary reason for the unusual warming we're seeing - even though there may be specific subtopics that are not settled - like exactly how much does cloud cover account for. (That is, there may be brackets on how much difference a subtopic could make, with that amount not being enough to change the statement about human contribution.)


Simply pointing out that evolution, relativity, anthropogenic warming, etc. continue to be tested doesn't discount science or those theories in any way - it's just a fact of how science works and how progress is made.