What is Digg?81 Comments
- Wonkanobi, on 10/11/2007, -17/+90Agreed. Religion is a great way to explain the universe - when you're five.
- Salgat, on 10/11/2007, -3/+57No, the problem is people are using religion as an excuse not to take science courses and remain ignorant. I knew a fellow Christian who did not take biology because she didn't believe in evolution. Thats great and all, but forcing yourself to remain ignorant is a foolish decision that limits your intelligence.
- inactive, on 10/11/2007, -2/+39Einstein wasn't a Christian. Sorry.
- chongli, on 10/11/2007, -4/+39Explaining the universe in terms of religion to a five-year-old is contributing to this mess. Children should be taught facts, not superstition, if we expect them to be rational and factual adults.
- mrgeekguy, on 10/11/2007, -4/+23Just don't tell me Santa Claus isn't real.
- inactive, on 10/11/2007, -2/+20See, it's not that we're allowed to believe ridiculous things, it's that we have a sheep mentality when it comes to science. Most people are so oblivious to the world around them (willfully so), that they're perfectly happy having someone else tell them how the world works because they feel it's trivial and that it doesn't matter to anyone but eggheads. So when the pastor says "The world was made in seven days," people latch onto it because it's simple, and it confirms their previously held notions about the universe (existence of God, etc.). And I mean, come on, if you've been told that the Bible is true ever since you could talk, what's easier? The truth, or a story that confirms what you've already been taught?
*sigh* It's really embarrassing to be living in the same country as these weirdos. I mean, you can't take the whole Bible literally, there are too many plotholes. So why do they dwell on this one passage? Oh, right, because these people are such sheep that they don't even know what their own religious texts say. They let the pastor tell them, and he keeps it simple, leaving out the contradictions (not that these people would remember last week's lesson anyway even if it did contradict this week's). That's what pisses me off the most - these people defend the Creation story of the Bible, but they don't even know the story itself. Just within that story, there are contradictions to observable reality. There's no firmament in the sky holding back the water, for starters. Clearly there's not, or we could never go to outer space. But... Whatever. - facelesscoward, on 10/11/2007, -4/+22Of course it does. If you're not willing to open yourself to possibilities, how can you possibly learn? That doesn't mean you have to reject religion; but when the cost of religious beliefs is that you reject science as a whole, they're definitely harmful.
- jonathan95060, on 10/11/2007, -2/+19evolution is "just" a theory. LOL.
Ah, the beauties of equivocation. A "theory" in science has very strong claims to accuracy but english has redecorated the word "theory" to mean what "hypothesis" in science means so if you have lay person ask a scientist "isn't evolution just a theory?" the scientist will say "yes, it is!" but the lay person will not be hearing what the scientist is saying. The scientist is saying "the theory has been proven to be accurate" while the (ID believing) lay person hears "oh, it is just a belief that some people have".
NOTE: theories are not true or false, they are more or less accurate. A theory is not the thing, a theory is description of the thing. More accurate theories do a better job of predicting the domain they attempt to describe than less accurate theories. E.g. newton's gravity is good, Einsteins tweaks it and makes it better.
But what can you do when you live in a country in which 70% of the people who watch FOX NEWS think we found substantial WMD in Iraq (sigh). These type of people are obviously not interested in objective truth... - littlejon, on 10/11/2007, -3/+19I believe that when you ignore or reject ideas simply based on your religion, not only does that make you ignorant, but you're crippling yourself.
- zephc, on 10/11/2007, -4/+20Reality will keep truckin' along, long after we and our religions are gone.
Wow, that almost rhymes - I could be a poet. - shadeOgrey, on 10/11/2007, -1/+16@yougene
Maybe you were just a below average five year old.
I remember my father teaching me about the rotation of the planets using fruit and explaining how gravity worked and I understood it pretty well. That was when i was somewhere around 5 or 6.
One thing I don't remember is my parents ever imposing any religious beliefs on me. Maybe that helped. - alky, on 10/11/2007, -0/+14Parent is correct. The number one predictor of your beliefs is your family's beliefs.
- Calann, on 10/11/2007, -8/+20The real debate is between religion and reality. Too often reality is losing.
- Genshinx, on 10/11/2007, -0/+12There is no science behind "intelligent design" it's creationism sugar coated to sound more scientific.
- jerbaker, on 10/11/2007, -2/+14Why is it that some people are always seeking out some explanation for people just being dumb? Can't they just accept that every brain is not developmentally equal to every other brain?
It's not taboo to say that child A can play a harmonica much better than child B, so why is it taboo to say child A can think much better than child B? It's a double-standard, and I think it's killing our society. It's killing us because before you can fix a problem, you have to identify it. If nobody's ignorant or dumb, what's the problem ... right? - MioTheGreat, on 10/11/2007, -1/+12"The authors cited a paper that showed that many college students erroneously believe that a ball traveling through a curved tube will continue to travel on a curved path once it exits. "
Every one of those people would have failed basic freshman Mechanics at my school. - jm9206755, on 10/11/2007, -1/+12Einstein was not a theist. When he spoke of God he meant it in the same way as Spinoza: God IS the Universe.
- Felian, on 10/11/2007, -1/+10Spoken like a true believer (read ignorant). For a scientist to support a theory then there needs to be a reason for it. A logical interpretation of facts. A theory is a best guess based on evidence.
So what your saying is that a best guess based on actual evidence is not as good as blind faith. Right.... - manitoba98xp, on 10/11/2007, -1/+8@stonewaljacksn
"Atheists here clearly show they refuse to even entertain such thoughts"
Sweeping generalization! Just as you point out, there are moderate believers. There are, in fact, also moderate non-believers. Just as many religious people accept that others do not share their beliefs, so do atheists. It's just the extremists who are most vocal: religious and otherwise. - Hetman, on 10/11/2007, -1/+8Evolution is fact. If you want to beleive in god that is fine but you can still look at the science behind evolution before you bash it.
- Hetman, on 10/11/2007, -1/+7I agree Genshinx if you want to believe in intelligent design thats fine. But there is no scientific basis for it.
- fantasticFlan, on 10/11/2007, -4/+9Jeez, where are you living that people are so strongly oppressing you? Have you considered moving?
- Photokon, on 10/11/2007, -1/+6http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Pastafarian
- idonthack, on 10/11/2007, -2/+7I hate to break it to you, but Santa Claus is actually the Easter Bunny in disguise.
- idonthack, on 10/11/2007, -1/+6No, it's not fine to believe in Intelligent Design. Because it's wrong.
- ksponge, on 10/11/2007, -1/+4@panace9 (#6808063)
Uh, man, what do you think being a sheep is? Because you just described it.
And JimSpaza, people like you that "rationalize" the bible or any religious text are the problem. Thanks for pointing out your ignorance to us though. - alky, on 10/11/2007, -3/+6The article is about smart vs dumb. It's about what children and adults believe in, and why. _Belief_ for or against science doesn't necessarily require intelligence.
- HairyFotr, on 10/11/2007, -0/+3Read the post from jonathan95060 a page higher, to see what theory means in science. A theory is an assumption, that has been observed as true. Science doesn't want you to believe something, it wants your understanding and observation and actually wants you to make better, more accurate theories.
Look at this picture:
http://www.wellingtongrey.net/miscellanea/archive/2007-01-15%20--%20science%20vs%20faith.png - DeFex, on 10/11/2007, -0/+3Fist it is santa, then the easter bunny and tooth fairy, once you tell them those imaginary friends are false, the others are easy for a halfway rational child.
- gabrielg01, on 10/11/2007, -1/+4That is why religion makes you crazy. It pushes your IQ down, to the level of a 4 year old...Santa Claus is coming!!! Yeeppeee!!!
- Genshinx, on 10/11/2007, -3/+6But religion is wrong 100% of the time...
- quiqq, on 10/11/2007, -0/+2this arstechnica entry is in reference to a published story in Science, a respectable source for most dedicated to peer reviewed advancements in science. (ironically, the story mentions "trustworthiness of the source" as a core factor in how we accept information.)
This particular review is a study of sociological and psychological patterns in how individuals resist accepting scientific ideas. It doesn't seek to verify or disprove the validity of scientific ideas or intelligent design, but to explore the means of how we arrive at learning and accepting information.
I find it useful to consider the emotional and psychological backround in understanding how people learn and engage what they come to accept or 'believe'. Many don't consider or recognize the importance of objectivity the process of understanding fact from hypothesis, essential for those engaged in the established disciplines of science.
It doesn't reject the value of nonscientific ideologies, it only points to where they may lead to assumptions and biases not grounded in science. That leaves a lot of room for creative ideas that may have nothing to do with science. - oohexcitement, on 10/11/2007, -1/+3Childlike. Adultlike. Is there a snap transition between the two at the 18th birthday of a person?
What if we failed to produce sane adults for centuries -- would adultlike tendencies deserve any respect? We adults would surely think so. However, I'd guess elders would respect children more than adults. - h4ppydotcom, on 10/11/2007, -0/+2There is no problem with people being religious, the problems start when people get dogmatic and refuse to allow the possibility of questioning their beliefs. Strongest faith comes when people welcome questions and then formulate answers which are, to themselves, internally coherent - even if other people disagree.
This applies to scientists too - scientific principles have been refined and re-defined over the course of history. As soon as scientists start thinking 'we are right now, and can never question the laws we have in place' you start running into all sorts of problems and progress is stifled. - kibiz0r, on 10/11/2007, -0/+2I hope you're just very bad at sarcasm...
- asjk, on 10/11/2007, -0/+1There are several common misconceptions with regards to science fact. The most frequent is in the discipline of probability. I think most people will tell you that after 10 coin tosses resulting in heads that the next single toss is more likely to be tails.
The second misconception often heard is in confusing metabolism and thermodynamics. People believe that covering a car engine with a blanket it will keep it warmer overnight. Certainly some heat will be retained initially but after awhile the car will come into thermodynamic equilibrium with its surroundings. Unlike animals cars do not generate heat from metabolism.
--jk - Error601, on 10/11/2007, -0/+1Bigotry and stereotyping is the epitome of stupid. Irrational and hateful. Congratulation, you're the retard.
- theJoy, on 10/11/2007, -0/+1actually, he's not really the Easter Bunny . . . he's a broom
- berb, on 10/11/2007, -6/+7The biggest problem for many people isn't overcoming your own childhood understanding, but overcoming the oppressive views of people in your everyday life.
- bsiviglia9, on 10/11/2007, -0/+1Would you say that political science education requires overcoming a televised understanding of politics?
- kurtu5, on 10/11/2007, -0/+1jenair, please define anti-semitic. wikipedia had nothing.
- ksponge, on 10/11/2007, -0/+1@fantasticflan (#6803172)
There is no distinction. They are one and the same. But go ahead and try to separate them if it makes you feel stronger inside. - Genshinx, on 10/11/2007, -0/+1Except that if you treat science as a religion you have no idea what
A. Religion is
B. Science is
Science is facts backed up by evidence, religion is faith backed up by nothing. So I sincerely doubt anyone that truly understands both meaning knows that science could not be a religion. I know science is wrong many times which is the beauty of science, we can change it. Religion is black and white thinking science is not, which is why we can be 99.9% wrong and still be better off than people who get their morals and science from a book two thousand years old. - jerbaker, on 10/11/2007, -0/+1Belief doesn't require intelligence ... never a truer statement was written. However, intelligence *is required* to understand whether or not you should believe a given postulate, theory, or dogma, and WHY you should or shouldn't believe it. That is what is missing in a large portion of the population. As George Carlin humorously put it once (to paraphrase), "if you think the average American is dumb, think about the fact that half of them are even dumber than that."
- tech42er, on 10/11/2007, -0/+1@hetman
I think that depends on your definition of fact. Obviously, it cannot be proven. It is however a very robust theory that has never been disproven and has a lot of evidence behind it. A such, it is the basis for modern biology. - ksponge, on 10/11/2007, -3/+4@yougene (#6803421)
Do you have a five year old? I have had 2. They take what you tell them as fact. Then you foster the logic behind the conclusions. Start small and simple, move on to more complex logic problems. They become self sufficient with these techniques very quickly once the foundation is laid. My daughter would out logic probably 60-70% of the digg population at 8 years old. Give her another 10 years, and she'll be leading your kids with ease. You build a follower, I'll build a leader, we'll see who comes out on top eventually. - Error601, on 10/11/2007, -0/+1I'm sure this will be another boring ass repeat of retards screaming evolution that don't understand it themselves....
But...the biggest childhood ideas I see people clinging too are usually magically energy sources. The only reason we don't have these magical cars and power plants is a conspiracy. - tech42er, on 10/11/2007, -0/+1Ironically, it's a fallacy to simplify and generalize it to "smart" vs. "dumb". Intelligence is not one skill, and everyone thinks differently (Apple would be happy), because they're shaped by genetics and their environment (which includes experience). You can test certain things, but it's not easy to integrate those into a concept of overarching intelligence.
- tech42er, on 10/11/2007, -0/+1It's the wording of the question. If they were actually shown the apparatus, no one would think that. It is, of course, still wrong.
- tech42er, on 10/11/2007, -0/+1@h4ppy
Yup. If you get dogmatic about anything, you're really screwed. Do you have to make assumptions a lot of the time in order to do anything? Yes, but you should not close off any info that might contradict your assumptions. That's not good. In science, (at least in theory) whatever is tested and is not falsified is accepted, though it cannot be proven true (nothing can). IF a new discovery contradicts an old one, the old one will be thrown out once the new one has amassed more and better evidence. -
Show 51 - 78 of 78 discussions
Browsing Digg on your phone just got easier with our enhancements to the 
© Digg Inc. 2009
— Content created and posted by Digg users is 