Denialism. Why people believe unbelievable things.
Replies
-
IMO the largest reason that climate change deniers exist is because of the poorly constructed method by which it's been debated (in politics). The fact that climate change is even considered a political issue is comical and more the root of the problem IMO.
The politics of lies is destroying the U.S. :brokenheart:
Suddenly you are interesting in discussing? Funny how that happens.
Yeah, I just didn't want to read the OP. Too long. :laugh:
ETA: Politics mixing into science angers me as much as mixing religion with politics.0 -
I am constantly evaluating whether my beliefs are rooted in reality and evidence. Most people don't, but they should, not just because they deny global warming or whatever, but because most people hold beliefs about themselves that hold them back and aren't true. For instance: "I can't lose weight."0
-
Tempting thread but would ultimately lead to my demise.
Cliffs notes: atheist, global climate change exists, i effin love science.0 -
I love to believe crazy things.0
-
This content has been removed.
-
I am disappointed you didn't address my points, but I will address yours. Whatever religion, God made himself known through the creation, so that everyone is without an excuse. The fact that we don't know the facts is proof of mystery in the creation. It is God's glory to hide it, and man's glory to find it (computer programmers, game designers, writers, movie makers and artists that concept very well).
As for the easy way out - you flip the switch and the light turns on. A small child can grasp this. Knowledge of the how and why is not required to know the what, nor is it needed to UTILIZE it. George Washington Carver asked God for answers. He got them. He did not have a hypothesis, he didn't use controls in his experiments. It wasn't scientific - it was brilliant. Scientists in his day were appalled, but they did not make a fraction of the discoveries he made. Knowledge is great, wisdom is better.
I'm always impressed with the ability to write or speak so many words and yet convey no coherent thought.
I understood it perfectly. George Washington Carver is one of my heroes, and the peanut is one of my favorite foods!
Thanks.0 -
You need it more concise? Ok.
1. The most brilliant people in history believe in God.
Democritus, Epicurus, Andrew Carnegie, Ivan Pavlov, Sigmund Freud, Clarence Darrow, Bertrand Russell, Linus Pauling, Alan Turing, Francis Crick, Claude Shannon, Richard Feynman, Noam Chomsky, Carl Sagan, Stephen Hawking... all non-believers and truly some of the most brilliant people in history
2. Some of the controversial ideas in science are ideologies themselves and lack evidence.
Which is why they're ideas, not theories or proofs.
3. Science needs to go back to studying things for more knowledge instead of setting up experiments in such a way that supports their ideology.
Science doesn't need to do what you want. It operates independently of your wishes. Which is good, that way we didn't have to wait for them to invent the internet you enjoy using so much.
Succinct. Concise. I like the longer version myself.
Succinct, concise, false. As expected.
You listed Sigmund Freud and Stephen Hawking in your list? Well, lets just agree to disagree.0 -
I am disappointed you didn't address my points, but I will address yours. Whatever religion, God made himself known through the creation, so that everyone is without an excuse. The fact that we don't know the facts is proof of mystery in the creation. It is God's glory to hide it, and man's glory to find it (computer programmers, game designers, writers, movie makers and artists that concept very well).
As for the easy way out - you flip the switch and the light turns on. A small child can grasp this. Knowledge of the how and why is not required to know the what, nor is it needed to UTILIZE it. George Washington Carver asked God for answers. He got them. He did not have a hypothesis, he didn't use controls in his experiments. It wasn't scientific - it was brilliant. Scientists in his day were appalled, but they did not make a fraction of the discoveries he made. Knowledge is great, wisdom is better.
I'm always impressed with the ability to write or speak so many words and yet convey no coherent thought.
I understood it perfectly. George Washington Carver is one of my heroes, and the peanut is one of my favorite foods!
Thanks.
Being in Missouri, I have visited the GWC monument on several occasions. I learn something new every time I go. He was definitely a brilliant man.
Also:Democritus, Epicurus, Andrew Carnegie, Ivan Pavlov, Sigmund Freud, Clarence Darrow, Bertrand Russell, Linus Pauling, Alan Turing, Francis Crick, Claude Shannon, Richard Feynman, {deleted} Carl Sagan, Stephen Hawking...
^^ Are all brilliant as well, but this can by no means be called an exhaustive list. So many people besides these can also be considered brilliant. (I mean, hell, you didn't even include Einstein or Newton. :ohwell:)0 -
So you are arguing for Creationism? Which method of creationism? The Judeo-Christian 6 day model? The Egyptian rising from the sea? The Fon of Western Africa believe that the creation deity was carried from place to place by a rainbow dragon. The Mayans believed that man was made from Maize because they did not have a soul when made from wood.Never really understand why I get silence in response to what appears to me to be a well-thought out, logical, non-combative viewpoint. Ugh. Am I just wasting my time? Lets try again:
The fact is, we are constantly being told what the facts are, and that we should believe them. But scientific fact keeps changing. In addition, what is observable, like humans, or simpler, an ant, has not yet been fully understood even after thousands of years of study and observation have been made. Nevertheless, the scientific community will attempt to explain the brilliance of nature by dumb accident, and string bits and pieces of ideas to support the conclusion, while being unable to observe or test these ideas.
I know I'm dating myself to admit this, but when I was in college, my professor was working on the Human Genome Project. He said that he was disturbed by the ideologues in his field, who essentially, like the article you mentioned, are blinded by their belief -- in macroevolution. He took issue with their unwillingness to admit that there are many, very large holes in the theory (enough to throw turkeys through, was the phrase he used). Where was their scientific curiosity, their empirical quest for truth?
An archaeologist finds in the sands, a broken piece of pottery. They will carbon date it back to a certain time in history and paint a picture for us about the people who made the "sophisticated" artwork. And yet, another scientist will consider a human being, for all our symmetry and beauty and consider this incredibly sophisticated art as something NOT designed? Ask an artist how difficult it is to draw hands, ask a roboticist how difficult it is to make a robot walk and not fall over. The brilliance in the earth is astounding.
George Washington Carver embraced science and faith, and was a better scientist for it. He enraged other scientists, because his method of discovery was not the scientific method, and yet he continued to make an abundance of scientific discoveries. When brought before congress to testify, they asked him where he was able to attain such knowledge. "From an old book," he said. "What book?," they asked. "The Bible," he replied. They asked, "does the Bible say anything about the peanut?" No, but it does say about the God that made the peanut.
Scientists are still making discoveries about humans and ants, although we have been studying both for thousands of years. Very sophisticated, I would say.
I understand that Intelligent Design can be an attractive view of how we got to where we are but I feel that it is the easy way out and does not answer the "how" that science seeks. Also, depending on your cosmology, it opens up the question of "why" which can then muddy the waters and obstruct research.
As I stated above, both religion and science can suffer from views of immutability. I have yet to meet a scientist who feels that they know all of the answers or are not open to new views. That being said, there are plenty of scientific theories that have been researched and tested to the point that they are accepted as fact yet some scientists continue to peel back the layers of the onion.
I am disappointed you didn't address my points, but I will address yours. Whatever religion, God made himself known through the creation, so that everyone is without an excuse. The fact that we don't know the facts is proof of mystery in the creation. It is God's glory to hide it, and man's glory to find it (computer programmers, game designers, writers, movie makers and artists that concept very well).
As for the easy way out - you flip the switch and the light turns on. A small child can grasp this. Knowledge of the how and why is not required to know the what, nor is it needed to UTILIZE it. George Washington Carver asked God for answers. He got them. He did not have a hypothesis, he didn't use controls in his experiments. It wasn't scientific - it was brilliant. Scientists in his day were appalled, but they did not make a fraction of the discoveries he made. Knowledge is great, wisdom is better.
I'm always impressed with the ability to write or speak so many words and yet convey no coherent thought.
You need it more concise? Ok.
1. The most brilliant people in history believe in God.
2. Some of the controversial ideas in science are ideologies themselves and lack evidence.
3. Science needs to go back to studying things for more knowledge instead of setting up experiments in such a way that supports their ideology.
Succinct. Concise. I like the longer version myself.
But the longer version has nothing to do with your concise version lol.
1. There were also many that did not believe in God and were punished for their views.
2. Have already argued that immutability of ideas is a flaw that can plague both science and religion. Science suffers in both cases.
3. I thought we didn't need to know how the light switch worked?
Also, I only see one time when George Washington Carver was brought before Congress. It was in 1921 and it was not to find out why he was so smart but rather for him to testify and consult in support of a tariff bill to protect the US peanut industry. They were enamored with his presentation of all the things he could do with a peanut and he testified much longer than scheduled. I find no records of the scientific community being appalled with him.
This is in now way meant to disparage the man, his brilliance or his contribution to science. I will point out, though, that he was a student of the scientific method because he was a professor who taught students and other farmers. These lessons did not start with "go out into the woods and start talking to God."
Also, your comments and argument seem to be out of place in this discussion since I do not think anyone stated that scientists need to be atheists.0 -
IMO the largest reason that climate change deniers exist is because of the poorly constructed method by which it's been debated (in politics). The fact that climate change is even considered a political issue is comical and more the root of the problem IMO.
The science on if climate change exists isn't entirely the issue either, but rather how much of a role have humans played into it (still very much up in the air) and what else could possibly be the cause of it. We know other planets have also gone through climate changes throughout history, but obviously we're not burning fossil fuels there.
Now...the second topic....religion. IMO, I'm a semi-religious guy and I have a love for all things science. So I tend to remember a few key principles when reading and learning about scientific discoveries...
1) Science is a study of the world around us. I happen to believe that world was created. I believe that the laws of the universe were also created. So therefore science is a study of what was created and anything 'discovered' solely teaches me more about what was created and possibly the creator himself and maybe 'how' it was created. I don't believe that science ever contradicts the creator. God vs Science is solely a product of lack of human understanding and they are not actually at odds (in large part due to religious people that try to fit God into the box they believe God should fit into).
2) Science is not fact. Science is a human interpretation of what we've observed and is subject to bias (both religious or atheistic) Science is often wrong and what we 'know' changes every day (and hopefully will continue to change). Know that I'm not saying, "Don't trust science" or "It's all lies from an agenda", just more that it's always important to remember the filter of the source and what they believe and want and know to be true. (including what you yourself believe and want to know)
I have a unique viewpoint I'm sure
Nicely said.
I'm very religious and pro-science. I can love both simultaneously. There is no disconnect because I do not approach my religion as an extremist or on a purely emotional level (I examine my faith with the same fervor with which I examine science).
Just as there are extremists in religion, there are extremists outside of it as well. It is not the ideology that creates the extremist but the extremist's own failings/personality.
I do not fall for 'fad diets', 'conspiracy theories', or popular opinion. Anything that is presented to me (if I deem it worthy of attention), is examined from all sides of the argument (you can never find the truth from the side that advocates what they are arguing, nor can you find it in the side that attacks. You find truth somewhere right in between). Once I've examined the issue, I make a choice.
When I was presented with that pregnancy hormone fad, the Body by Vi fad and even Shakeology I approached it with the same skepticism with which I approach all things.
What does this do?
Does it sound like pseudoscience?
Is it really cost effective?
Would I rather eat real food?
Most people, however, see these things and ask only one question; Where do I send my money? Why? Because they are presented with the lie that this is the easy way out, and let's face it, everyone wants the easy way out these days. Why?
Sometimes I think denialism, extremism, and just plain weirdism is the result of laziness.
It's an unpopular opinion, perhaps not supported by anything but my own experience, but I truly feel the majority of our population (Western population) has succumbed to laziness. Why? I don't know. Maybe it's because information is SO readily available. If you want to know something, you no longer have to seek knowledge yourself through countless hours of study. Now, you can simple plug into google, do a quick search and BAM! You suddenly have the 'knowledge' of a rocket scientist (without the discipline). This creates a false sense of pride without anything to back it up. Maybe it's because we have machines to do all those manual, hard things we used to have to do to get through a day. Maybe it's because we can sit in front of a box all night and watch things that take us away from reality.
Either way, this laziness has eeked into everything we do, whether intellectual pursuits, political pursuits or otherwise.
Anyway. Those are my thoughts. TL;DR.0 -
How do we solve this problem?
Agree with very little in that rant.
My thoughts:
Don't believe what ANYONE else tells you is the right way to live.
ALWAYS questions your own beliefs.
NEVER stop looking for answers.
UNDERSTAND you will NEVER have all the answers.
KNOW that ANYONE who tells you 'they know', doesn't know and is trying to sell you something.0 -
How do we solve this problem?
Agree with very little in that rant.
My thoughts:
Don't believe what ANYONE else tells you is the right way to live.
ALWAYS questions your own beliefs.
NEVER stop looking for answers.
UNDERSTAND you will NEVER have all the answers.
KNOW that ANYONE who tells you 'they know', doesn't know and is trying to sell you something.
*snicker*
That last line was brilliant.0 -
*snicker*
That last line was brilliant.
For $5 I can help you be brilliant too. 0 -
*snicker*
That last line was brilliant.
For $5 I can help you be brilliant too.
But for $4.99 I can help YOU be wise. Maybe we could just trade?0 -
You need it more concise? Ok.
1. The most brilliant people in history believe in God.
Democritus, Epicurus, Andrew Carnegie, Ivan Pavlov, Sigmund Freud, Clarence Darrow, Bertrand Russell, Linus Pauling, Alan Turing, Francis Crick, Claude Shannon, Richard Feynman, Noam Chomsky, Carl Sagan, Stephen Hawking... all non-believers and truly some of the most brilliant people in history
2. Some of the controversial ideas in science are ideologies themselves and lack evidence.
Which is why they're ideas, not theories or proofs.
3. Science needs to go back to studying things for more knowledge instead of setting up experiments in such a way that supports their ideology.
Science doesn't need to do what you want. It operates independently of your wishes. Which is good, that way we didn't have to wait for them to invent the internet you enjoy using so much.
Succinct. Concise. I like the longer version myself.
Succinct, concise, false. As expected.
You listed Sigmund Freud and Stephen Hawking in your list? Well, lets just agree to disagree.
Do you not find them brilliant or do you disagree that they were not religious?0 -
This content has been removed.
-
You listed Sigmund Freud and Stephen Hawking in your list? Well, lets just agree to disagree.
:laugh: You laud Carver and dismiss Hawking?! Oh that's rich.
One makes revolutionary breakthroughs in the study of the universe, the other came up with many uses for peanuts, not including peanut butter.
You must be joking.
Hey, watch the tone when talking about my peanut man!
But yeah, I have no idea why anyone would not including Hawking in a list of brilliant people. (Sagan is my favorite from your list, and as for Freud....anyone who can do as much coke as he did is alright in my book. :laugh:)
:flowerforyou:0 -
This content has been removed.
-
I am disappointed you didn't address my points, but I will address yours. Whatever religion, God made himself known through the creation, so that everyone is without an excuse. The fact that we don't know the facts is proof of mystery in the creation. It is God's glory to hide it, and man's glory to find it (computer programmers, game designers, writers, movie makers and artists that concept very well).
As for the easy way out - you flip the switch and the light turns on. A small child can grasp this. Knowledge of the how and why is not required to know the what, nor is it needed to UTILIZE it. George Washington Carver asked God for answers. He got them. He did not have a hypothesis, he didn't use controls in his experiments. It wasn't scientific - it was brilliant. Scientists in his day were appalled, but they did not make a fraction of the discoveries he made. Knowledge is great, wisdom is better.
I'm always impressed with the ability to write or speak so many words and yet convey no coherent thought.
I understood it perfectly. George Washington Carver is one of my heroes, and the peanut is one of my favorite foods!
Thanks.
Being in Missouri, I have visited the GWC monument on several occasions. I learn something new every time I go. He was definitely a brilliant man.
Also:Democritus, Epicurus, Andrew Carnegie, Ivan Pavlov, Sigmund Freud, Clarence Darrow, Bertrand Russell, Linus Pauling, Alan Turing, Francis Crick, Claude Shannon, Richard Feynman, {deleted} Carl Sagan, Stephen Hawking...
^^ Are all brilliant as well, but this can by no means be called an exhaustive list. So many people besides these can also be considered brilliant. (I mean, hell, you didn't even include Einstein or Newton. :ohwell:)
I took a class from a guy who used Carver's method, he's an organic chemist. When given a project to make the molecules of the product smaller, he consulted with more experienced chemists who told him it was impossible. He prayed, got the answer, and millions of people use this product today. What is interesting to me is how the field of physics seems to embrace the concept of hidden mystery. Perhaps because their discoveries are so mathematically logical, it's obviously well designed, like a skilled craftsmants joint. When you see how we'll it fits, you know something of the dedication of the craftsman.0 -
You listed Sigmund Freud and Stephen Hawking in your list? Well, lets just agree to disagree.
:laugh: You laud Carver and dismiss Hawking?! Oh that's rich.
One makes revolutionary breakthroughs in the study of the universe, the other came up with many uses for peanuts, not including peanut butter.
You must be joking.
He didn't invent peanut butter.0 -
Carvers discoveries revitalized the economy of the southern United States that was decimated by the Civil War, and created products that makes people's lives better.0
-
This content has been removed.
-
You listed Sigmund Freud and Stephen Hawking in your list? Well, lets just agree to disagree.
:laugh: You laud Carver and dismiss Hawking?! Oh that's rich.
One makes revolutionary breakthroughs in the study of the universe, the other came up with many uses for peanuts, not including peanut butter.
You must be joking.
Hey, watch the tone when talking about my peanut man!
But yeah, I have no idea why anyone would not including Hawking in a list of brilliant people. (Sagan is my favorite from your list, and as for Freud....anyone who can do as much coke as he did is alright in my book. :laugh:)
:flowerforyou:
I was going to go back and edit to say I don't mean to take anything away from the man. He was very intelligent. But he's no Hawking.
:smokin:
I wouldn't want to put one IQ against the other. Carver is my hero for more than just being brilliant, for the adversities he overcame as a man of color, the changes he made to "black colleges," etc. :bigsmile:0 -
^^ Are all brilliant as well, but this can by no means be called an exhaustive list. So many people besides these can also be considered brilliant. (I mean, hell, you didn't even include Einstein or Newton. :ohwell:)
FYI - Isaac Newton was an ordained minister... so was Charles Darwin for that matter. Faith and science can coexist.0 -
*snicker*
That last line was brilliant.
For $5 I can help you be brilliant too.
But for $4.99 I can help YOU be wise. Maybe we could just trade?
You would still owe me a penny.
Just sayin.0 -
You need it more concise? Ok.
1. The most brilliant people in history believe in God.
Democritus, Epicurus, Andrew Carnegie, Ivan Pavlov, Sigmund Freud, Clarence Darrow, Bertrand Russell, Linus Pauling, Alan Turing, Francis Crick, Claude Shannon, Richard Feynman, Noam Chomsky, Carl Sagan, Stephen Hawking... all non-believers and truly some of the most brilliant people in history
2. Some of the controversial ideas in science are ideologies themselves and lack evidence.
Which is why they're ideas, not theories or proofs.
3. Science needs to go back to studying things for more knowledge instead of setting up experiments in such a way that supports their ideology.
Science doesn't need to do what you want. It operates independently of your wishes. Which is good, that way we didn't have to wait for them to invent the internet you enjoy using so much.
Succinct. Concise. I like the longer version myself.
Succinct, concise, false. As expected.
Yeah, sorry. Well said, but pretty much false. First point, maybe, but I'd say that has to do more with sociology than science. It may also be confusing spirituality with belief in "God" (Which could mean any number of things. I talk about God. I'm pretty sure what I mean when I use that word is a lot different than what you mean. In other words, were I ever to be considered "brilliant", I'd make your list, but my inclusion in this context would be misleading.)0 -
Define weird tricks?...what if he made 4.49999 billion (years) happen in a 10th of a second?
That.
(edited to make sense, even though it makes no sense to begin with)
What if God exists outside of time? He created it, and is independent of it (unlike us). I think that is a pretty cool trick myself.
Neat.
But like I said before, you're just making things up. Science can't prove or disprove your theory because it's been defined as unprovable. God is invisible, God won't show himself, God exists outside of space and time, God can be what anyone says they want it to be...
You know why you think of clouds when you picture heaven? Because that's where people originally said God lived. Science checked, he wasn't there. So God was moved somewhere else. Handy system you all have, but I find it to be intellectually dishonest.
"The invisible and the non-existent look very much alike" -DB McKown
I don't think of clouds when I picture Heaven, actually. But putting that aside, God is a matter of faith, not science. Too many Christians want to put science in a box, and make it explain things the way they think they should have happened according to our limited understanding of God and how He works. Creationists often embarrass me with their lack of understanding of the evidence in the fossil record. I don't have a problem with believing that God created the Universe, and I don't have to understand how He did. The human brain is quite limited. I would say Einstein's brain was the least limited brain in our recent history, and even he flirted with just the edges of understanding how time (as a dimension) works.
Would you really say that it is intellectually dishonest to admit there is much that exists that we don't see?0 -
^^ Are all brilliant as well, but this can by no means be called an exhaustive list. So many people besides these can also be considered brilliant. (I mean, hell, you didn't even include Einstein or Newton. :ohwell:)
FYI - Isaac Newton was an ordained minister... so was Charles Darwin for that matter. Faith and science can coexist.
Exactly. Also, Einstein said this, and I think it is brilliant and what I was trying to convey earlier.
"Your question [about God] is the most difficult in the world. It is not a question I can answer simply with yes or no. I am not an Atheist. I do not know if I can define myself as a Pantheist. The problem involved is too vast for our limited minds. May I not reply with a parable? The human mind, no matter how highly trained, cannot grasp the universe. We are in the position of a little child, entering a huge library whose walls are covered to the ceiling with books in many different tongues. The child knows that someone must have written those books. It does not know who or how. It does not understand the languages in which they are written. The child notes a definite plan in the arrangement of the books, a mysterious order, which it does not comprehend, but only dimly suspects. That, it seems to me, is the attitude of the human mind, even the greatest and most cultured, toward God. We see a universe marvelously arranged, obeying certain laws, but we understand the laws only dimly. Our limited minds cannot grasp the mysterious force that sways the constellations. I am fascinated by Spinoza's Pantheism. I admire even more his contributions to modern thought. Spinoza is the greatest of modern philosophers, because he is the first philosopher who deals with the soul and the body as one, not as two separate things.[20]"
Viereck, George Sylvester. "Glimpses of the Great". Duckworth, 1930. p. 372-373.0 -
Say, what happened to the chap who predicted this thread would die right off the bat? :laugh:0
-
0
This discussion has been closed.
Categories
- All Categories
- 1.4M Health, Wellness and Goals
- 393.4K Introduce Yourself
- 43.8K Getting Started
- 260.2K Health and Weight Loss
- 175.9K Food and Nutrition
- 47.4K Recipes
- 232.5K Fitness and Exercise
- 426 Sleep, Mindfulness and Overall Wellness
- 6.5K Goal: Maintaining Weight
- 8.5K Goal: Gaining Weight and Body Building
- 153K Motivation and Support
- 8K Challenges
- 1.3K Debate Club
- 96.3K Chit-Chat
- 2.5K Fun and Games
- 3.7K MyFitnessPal Information
- 24 News and Announcements
- 1.1K Feature Suggestions and Ideas
- 2.6K MyFitnessPal Tech Support Questions