tag:blogger.com,1999:blog-18052302.post114312877441535620..comments2024-03-23T11:23:29.270-04:00Comments on Music of the Spheres: And America Will Have a Lot of FaithFlyingSingerhttp://www.blogger.com/profile/12015886527228889332noreply@blogger.comBlogger2125tag:blogger.com,1999:blog-18052302.post-1143290486043602932006-03-25T07:41:00.000-05:002006-03-25T07:41:00.000-05:00Good post, Bruce. At some point I think I realize...Good post, Bruce. At some point I think I realized that the disconnect between scientists and religious conservatives was mostly due to their different assumptions. There could be no reasonable debate between the two sides because there could be no agreed upon ground rules (basic assumptions).<BR/><BR/>It also seemed to me that the reason scientists (myself included) kept getting trounced in these debates is because they were forced to admit (through a combination of their own objectivity and rampant political correctness) that the assumptions of their opponents were just as valid as their own. Meanwhile the religious conservative was not forced to make any such concession, as doing so would imply a lack of faith. Once this concession was made, the scientist is put on the defensive. The debate then focuses on a critique of the scientific method and its inherrant uncertainty rather than its incredible success at answering many questions of practical concern. The religious position is seen to be unassailable simply because any challenge to it would be considered religion bashing by atheistic scientits (who could not possibly understand the subtlties of faith).<BR/><BR/>But I digress. After reading your post (particularly the part about having faith enough in science to trust modern technology), I've come to another conclusion. Most people will believe what they are told if it is presented in an authoratative manner (i.e. the information is from a credible source and is presented as having a high certainty). Scientists have credibility on their side, but on certain issues there remains enough uncertainty that the overall effect is a less authoratative statement. Religious pronouncements, on the other hand, are usually given an enormous amount of credibility (by virtue of people's faith in God alone). Couple this with the percieved absolute literal truth of the unchanging word of ... etc... and you get a very authoratative message. A message that typically overides most people's fair judgement when presented with conflicting ideas.Anonymoushttps://www.blogger.com/profile/01637928679060945364noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-18052302.post-1143158958497714242006-03-23T19:09:00.000-05:002006-03-23T19:09:00.000-05:00Thanks Bruce, I really enjoyed this post. It's ce...Thanks Bruce, I really enjoyed this post. It's certainly true that once the idea of an all-powerful being is invoked as an explanation that there can be no common ground for debate. After all, where a reasoned line of argument requires evidence and rational explanation, faith requires only acceptance. From there, God or whomever is the reason for everything, direct or indirect.Anthony Kendallhttps://www.blogger.com/profile/08382790561397029045noreply@blogger.com