Classical

Since we have all been asking the same questions since we have any writing, I wonder why most christians don't trust the experts.

Seems to me, we have basically 2 choices to the question "How and why are we here?"

a. Religious answers (but which one{s})?
b. Non-religious answers, or scientific answers

Now I am a pea brain when it comes to math and science, but I do have a Ph.D. in music. So if someone ask me why Beethoven's Third Symphony is one of the greatest of all musical masterpieces, they "trust" my answer. Moreover, they "trust" the consensus of those well-educated in music that this is so.

When I began exploring alternative answers to the religious ones I had been taught, I turned to the experts. When asking a scientific question, I "trust" that someone with a Ph.D. (or comparable) will be able to shed light on the question. Therefore, I sought summaries of arguments and opionions and it became very obvious to me that although not all scientists agree, that the vast majority rule out the religious answers to the opening questions above.

Doesn't it set off some type of alarm to christians when they see that the creation scientists who are trying to prove the genesis account, in one way or another, are in a tiny minority, and are scoffed at by most of the other "experts?" The arguments of the creation scientists would thoroughly convince many non-scientists, who cannot possibly refute their lingo, but don't christians think it's a little "funny" that most other scientists disagree with the creation scientists? :huh:

Plognark

Well, experts are still only human...and prone to error...and the self-perpetuating nature of any good mind virus means that it will latch onto such information and set up a system where all authority outside of that expressely promoted in the mind virus's view is seen as highly suspect.

Which is funny, because studies have shown that people trust human airline pilots far more than mechanical autopilots. :rolling:

seebs

Well, consider that, at one point, "the experts" felt differently, and it was the science people who had the weird idea inconsistent with mainstream belief.

But... I do think it's generally cause for careful consideration when an idea is pretty much inconsistent with most modern thought on a topic. It might be right, but it's a reason to be cautious.

mindovermyth

To Classical.

I think it is always helpful to look at human social evolution in the context of human history. Scientific understanding of how the world in general works and how humans work is far from perfect, but has been growing with an astounding speed during the last few hundred years and will certainly continue to do so.

I think it is rather clear that as our knowledge increases, religious belief systems loose ground, i.e the percentage of human beings believing in various religions is dropping (experts, is my statement correct if we look at say the last 300 years?). In other words, more and more people are listening to "experts" as science keeps advancing and access to these advances becomes more widely spread. Change takes time. I think it is a human trait to be vary of change, but at the end of the day, progress will continue.

Biff the unclean

The thing I find odd is that 9 times out of 10 when Theists complain that once upon a time scientists had this or that wrong it turns out that the scientists got it wrong because they were making assumptions based on their religious beliefs. The more scientists abandon religion and rely on the scientific method the more likely they are to correct themselves. The more often they verify that they are correct the less likely they are to subscribe to a religion.
It's a non-vicious cycle that explains why fewer and fewer science types are Theists.

Triple Six

I think some of the problem lies in the public's perception of what a "scientist" is. Unlike medical doctors, accountants and even lawyers there is no strong professional body to represent them. This allows all sorts of quacks and frauds to declare themselves a "scientist" with impunity. Just imagine an unregistered doctor or accountant trying to pull off the same trick and then watch them end up in the slammer.

Mix in a generally ill informed media and the fraud "scientists" succeed by poisoning the well with their bogus doubts and theories.

Still on a personal level I find it highly depressing when pseudo science is eagerly gobbled up by someone who at the same time wouldn't dream of going to a struck off doctor, or get their local barman to file their company accounts.

epepke

Man, I hope not. If I asked a PhD music person why Beethoven's Third is one of the greatest, I'd listen intently to the answer. I'd use it to expand my musical understanding. But then I'd go listen to it myself and make my own decision. I wouldn't give a rat's about the consensus.

ond_magiker

Haven't you ever heard that more and more scientists are abandoning evolution and embracing creationism? Evolution is a theory in crisis and will be abandoned soon.
Of course, this is utter bollocks, but it's a very popular view held by creationists. Add to this the belief that lots of scientists are constantly trying to disprove God and there's really no problem with disagreeding with the experts after all.

Plognark

Yeah, it does seem to me that most "real" scientists don't give a rats ass about religion at all (although with shrub they're starting to since it's directly impacting their funding).

It's only the obsessive weirdos like me that lose sleep over it