Freethought & Rationalism Archive

keyser_soze · 05-04-2003, 05:24 AM

Quote:

Originally posted by Wyz_sub10
You think the two are mutually exclusive? By 'popularity of science' I do not mean that people suddenly find it fashionable. I mean that it is becoming more accessible to the mainstream. Science should teach critical thinking because it is based on questions, proofs, confirmations, comparisons. When more people read scientific books aimed at the lay person, they learn the scientific principles and learn to ask questions and consider evidence - i.e. think critically.

I think they CAN be mutually exclusive. Critical thinking is a component of science, but it's also a component of our every day learning. I've noticed that even religious nutters use critical thinking, they just refuse to apply it to their belief systems. You see it as well, people who can debate a point rationally, and see erroneous arguments...yet they can't apply it to their own superstitions. Science wouldn't exist without critical thinking, but I'm not sure critical thinking wouldn't exist without science.

Wyz_sub10 · 05-04-2003, 01:19 PM

Quote:

Originally posted by keyser_soze
Science wouldn't exist without critical thinking, but I'm not sure critical thinking wouldn't exist without science.

I agree with this. My position, however, is that the popularization of science has become the vehicle for the spread of critical thinking, and has played the biggest part in separating people from their biblical views of creation and the universe.

Critical thinking can certainly be a component of, say, ethical or phislosophical discussion. And no doubt these are playing a role in people's changing atitudes towards religious teachings. (e.g. views on homosexuality or the rights of women).

But I see "Candle in the Dark" science (a-la Carl Sagan) doing a lot to move people away from "Adam's Rib" and toward evolutionary theory, as an example.

AdamWho · 05-04-2003, 05:41 PM

Quote:

As science advances, the importance of religion declines.

This statement is confusing to me. Most people don't do science but most people do religion. However, more people own and benefit from the products of science then attend church.
I think it is a rare person who actually believes it is a choice of one over the other.

Mageth · 05-05-2003, 12:45 PM

But I see "Candle in the Dark" science (a-la Carl Sagan) doing a lot to move people away from "Adam's Rib" and toward evolutionary theory, as an example.

An example of changing something believed to be historical into something believed to be mythical. This certainly has and is happening, but I don't think this will mean the end of religion. There are many theists who accept evolution, for example. Religion adapts to such "losses" or risks becoming irrelevant.

But there are other areas (esp. the possible existence of a god(s) and the possibility of an afterlife) which are hard if not impossible for science to move many people away from. Naturalism stands counter to but cannot disprove such things. Naturalism can say they're not necessary, but cannot say with absolute certainty they're not true.

Mageth · 05-05-2003, 12:47 PM

I think it is a rare person who actually believes it is a choice of one over the other.

I agree.

Charles-Matthew · 05-05-2003, 02:08 PM

I think a lot of this also has to do with the social acceptance that there is now if you are not religious. You aren't persecuted for not following this or that. (not true in all areas) So I think that with this new acceptance, atheist/agnostic people are finding new ways to explain the world around them other than "god did it".

Thread Tools	Search this Thread
Show Printable Version	Search this Thread: Advanced Search

05-05-2003, 12:45 PM	#24
Mageth Contributor Join Date: Jul 2001 Location: Deep in the heart of mother-lovin' Texas Posts: 29,689	But I see "Candle in the Dark" science (a-la Carl Sagan) doing a lot to move people away from "Adam's Rib" and toward evolutionary theory, as an example. An example of changing something believed to be historical into something believed to be mythical. This certainly has and is happening, but I don't think this will mean the end of religion. There are many theists who accept evolution, for example. Religion adapts to such "losses" or risks becoming irrelevant. But there are other areas (esp. the possible existence of a god(s) and the possibility of an afterlife) which are hard if not impossible for science to move many people away from. Naturalism stands counter to but cannot disprove such things. Naturalism can say they're not necessary, but cannot say with absolute certainty they're not true.

05-05-2003, 12:47 PM	#25
Mageth Contributor Join Date: Jul 2001 Location: Deep in the heart of mother-lovin' Texas Posts: 29,689	I think it is a rare person who actually believes it is a choice of one over the other. I agree.

05-05-2003, 02:08 PM	#26
Charles-Matthew Junior Member Join Date: May 2003 Location: Stanislaus County, CA Posts: 5	I think a lot of this also has to do with the social acceptance that there is now if you are not religious. You aren't persecuted for not following this or that. (not true in all areas) So I think that with this new acceptance, atheist/agnostic people are finding new ways to explain the world around them other than "god did it".

Freethought & Rationalism Archive

The archives are read only.