Why are believers anti-science?

Quoted from the web

"Why does the world seem to be completely insane?
Yes, it always appears that you are in a minority of sane people (or perhaps you are the ONLY sane person) in a sea of completely confused crackpots. The reason that so many other people seem completely confused and wrongheaded is that they use different symbols and metaphors to view the world. It is impossible to discuss important issues such as politics, families, violence, justice, etc. without resorting to symbolism. Anything that does not directly refer to something that can be physically sensed, such as justice or one's concept of God must be referred to by metaphor and symbol. If you and another use different symbols, you will be unable to communicate effectively. Some of the main metaphors in use today are:

Conventional religion
Science

Power, that is, dominance and submission
Artistic and aesthetic worth
Traditional political categories
Material wealth and security
Romanticism and relationships
Honor, valor, and courage
Bigotry, racism, and exclusivity
Depth psychology (Freud, Jung, etc.)
Humanism and "new age" psychology
Traditional philosophy

Chances are that your views and beliefs about the world center around one or several of these metaphors. For example, if you see the world in terms of moral worth and submission to a higher law, you are conventionally religious. If you see the world in terms of cause and effect and experimenting to find the right solutions, you are oriented toward science.

People who share one or more basic metaphors will find that they can communicate effectively with one another and work together constructively. People who do not share any metaphors will usually be unable to regard one another with anything beyond fear, hostility, and contempt. Because of this lack of communication between groups, most discussions of important issues in the public arena quickly degenerate into grandstanding and name calling, because in the absence of real understanding between the disagreeing parties, only mob psychology is left to sway public opinion."



"Why is there so much hate in the world?
Well, at least we’re not in the middle ages, when every conceivable atrocity against groups and individuals was justified by the fact that they were different in some way. It’s better now, at least in some parts of the world, than it was then. Of course, there is still a good bit of hate and cruelty, and we usually just bemoan it as a part of human nature. It isn't.

People have very high standards for themselves. As psychologists point out, we don’t like to see ourselves as not meeting our own expectations. People naturally try as hard as they are able to meet their own goals, so "trying harder" is not a solution. People certainly don’t want to lower their expectations either, so they adjust their image of themselves instead. This temporarily solves the crisis; our expectations are intact and we don’t have to try and improve our behavior and performance to a level above what is possible for us.

Unfortunately, this image shift has some rather undesirable side-effects. Whenever we have thoughts or feelings that do not fit in with our superior self image, when we are ashamed of our thoughts, we shove those thoughts and feelings out of our conscious attention. We are afraid of such thoughts; they threaten our self-image at a fundamental level.

These thoughts do not go away; they are still in our minds. Thoughts have their own energy whether we are paying attention to them or not. Similar thoughts attract one another and form structures. People who are involved in creative mental tasks experienced this constantly. When they work with related thoughts and ideas, these thoughts begin to form themselves into hierarchies and patterns. Thoughts that we fear are no different; they create mental landscapes of what we fear the most within our own minds.

When something reminds us of these fearful thought structures, we experience a sudden surge of hatred, fear, or disgust as our conscious attention is momentarily focused on our unacceptable thoughts. Because we cannot accept these thoughts as part of ourselves, we assume that the feelings they generate are coming from whatever or whoever reminded us of them. This is called projection. Anyone that seems vaguely menacing can cause us to project our own suppressed anger onto them. This anger seems to be separate from "our own" thoughts, making it easy to believe that the anger is coming from the other person. Someone with different customs can prompt us to project any anti-social or simply unconventional thoughts of our own that disturbed or disgusted us, making the person before us seems disturbing or dangerous. Depending on the force of our suppressed feelings, people who are in fact harmless can appear to be capable of bringing down civilization.

Well, that was a long exposition, but it boils down to this. The more you accept your own thoughts as normal and natural, whether they offend your sense of decency or not, the more clearly you will be able to see the world. Convincing others of this could be a problem, however. "
 
Last edited:
Q said:
They may not all get answered in our time, but they will eventually get answered in time, through science.
It would be interesting - providing that the quoted stance is of any substance - if science eventually gets led to the answers that religion has been proposing aeons prior.

Can one absolutely say both realms will diverge or converge?
 
Vindicator said:
It would be interesting - providing that the quoted stance is of any substance - if science eventually gets led to the answers that religion has been proposing aeons prior.

Can one absolutely say both realms will diverge or converge?

I found this on the web?
http://www.doesgodexist.org/Phample...oCreatedGod.htm

quoted from above link


It is easy to make an argument for God’s existence from a cosmological standpoint. As the years have gone by, a growing amount of scientific data has accumulated which negates atheistic assumptions about how matter and the cosmos came into existence and how it has arrived at its present condition. As a science teacher and public lecturer on the compatibility of belief in God and science, I have, been impressed with an increasing awareness on the part of many scientists and theologians that science and religion are symbiotic disciplines.One question which inevitably comes up in a discussion of this nature is what is the origin of God? If God created matter/energy, and designed the systems that have propelled matter into its present arrangement, who or what accomplished that for God? Why is it any more reasonable to believe that God has always “been” than it is to say that matter has always “been”? As Carl Sagan has said, “If we say that God has always been, why not save a step and conclude that the universe has always been?” (Cosmos, p. 257).

From a purely scientific standpoint, it is easy to demonstrate that matter cannot be eternal in nature. The universe is expanding from what appears to be a beginning point in space/time, which appears to be a one time event. Hydrogen is the basic fuel of the cosmos, powering all stars and other energy sources in space. If the fuel of the universe has been used eternally, that fuel will eventually be depleted, but the evidence is that the cosmological gas gauge, while moving toward “empty,” is yet a long way from being there—a condition incompatible with an eternal universe. The second law of thermodynamics insists that the cosmos is moving toward a condition of disorder, sometimes referred to as “heat death.” Even in an oscillating universe, things ultimately run out of energy and “die.” All of these evidences, and several others we have not made reference to, show that matter cannot be eternal, as Dr. Sagan and his associates would like to believe. However, this does not mean that we automatically accept the hypothesis that God is the Creator. Why is it not equally invalid to suggest that God has always been?

The problem here is that many people have a mistaken concept of God. If we conceive of God as physical, anthropomorphic (like man) being, the question of God’s origin is valid. However, such a concept of God is alien to the Bible and to common sense. Consider the following descriptions of God from the Bible:[/B]


John 4: 24
God is a Spirit:...
Matthew 16:17
...for flesh and blood hath not revealed it unto thee, but my father which is in heaven.

Numbers 23:19
God is not a man, that He should...;


Obviously, the descriptions and concepts of God given in these passages are that God is a spiritual entity. He exists outside of the three-dimensional, physical world in which we live.
The Bible further supports this concept of God in the following passages:


Jeremiah 23:23-24
Am I a God at hand, saith the Lord, and not a God afar off? ...Do not I fill heaven and earth? saith the Lord.
2 Chronicles 2:6
But who is able to build a house, seeing the heaven and heaven of heavens cannot contain Him?...

Acts 17:28
For in Him we live, and move, and have our being;...


Not only is God described as being outside space, but He is also described as being outside of time. Consider the following:

2 Peter 3:8
But, beloved, be not ignorant of this one thing, that one day is with the Lord as a thousand years, and a thousand years as one day.
Psalm 90:4
For a thousand years in thy sight are but as yesterday when it is past, and as a watch in the night.

Psalm 102:27
But thou art the same, and thy years shall have no end.

Acts 1:7
...It is not for you to know the times or the seasons, which the Father hath put in His power.


If God is a being that is unlimited in time, and if He has access to every piece of time as if it were now, the question of who created God is an invalid question. The problem is like asking a student to draw a four-sided triangle. The terminology is self-contradictory.
When asked “Who or what created God?,” we are making the assumption that God was created. If God exists outside of time and space, and if He is the Creator of time and space, He obviously was not created! God began the beginning! This is why He says, “I am Alpha and Omega, the beginning and the end, the first and the last.”

God created time. The statement of Genesis, “In the beginning God created the heaven and the earth,” is making reference to the creation of time. The reason that things like heat death, the expansion of the universe, and the depletion of hydrogen do not apply to God is because He is outside of time. God has always been. He not only began time; He will also end it. When time ends, all matter and all mankind will enter eternity—a timeless condition free of the negative things that time brings upon us now.
 
Theoryofrelativity said:
I found this on the web?
http://www.doesgodexist.org/Phample...oCreatedGod.htm

quoted from above link


It is easy to make an argument for God’s existence from a cosmological standpoint. As the years have gone by, a growing amount of scientific data has accumulated which negates atheistic assumptions about how matter and the cosmos came into existence and how it has arrived at its present condition. As a science teacher and public lecturer on the compatibility of belief in God and science, I have, been impressed with an increasing awareness on the part of many scientists and theologians that science and religion are symbiotic disciplines.One question which inevitably comes up in a discussion of this nature is what is the origin of God? If God created matter/energy, and designed the systems that have propelled matter into its present arrangement, who or what accomplished that for God? Why is it any more reasonable to believe that God has always “been” than it is to say that matter has always “been”? As Carl Sagan has said, “If we say that God has always been, why not save a step and conclude that the universe has always been?” (Cosmos, p. 257).

From a purely scientific standpoint, it is easy to demonstrate that matter cannot be eternal in nature. The universe is expanding from what appears to be a beginning point in space/time, which appears to be a one time event. Hydrogen is the basic fuel of the cosmos, powering all stars and other energy sources in space. If the fuel of the universe has been used eternally, that fuel will eventually be depleted, but the evidence is that the cosmological gas gauge, while moving toward “empty,” is yet a long way from being there—a condition incompatible with an eternal universe. The second law of thermodynamics insists that the cosmos is moving toward a condition of disorder, sometimes referred to as “heat death.” Even in an oscillating universe, things ultimately run out of energy and “die.” All of these evidences, and several others we have not made reference to, show that matter cannot be eternal, as Dr. Sagan and his associates would like to believe. However, this does not mean that we automatically accept the hypothesis that God is the Creator. Why is it not equally invalid to suggest that God has always been?

The problem here is that many people have a mistaken concept of God. If we conceive of God as physical, anthropomorphic (like man) being, the question of God’s origin is valid. However, such a concept of God is alien to the Bible and to common sense. Consider the following descriptions of God from the Bible:[/B]


John 4: 24
God is a Spirit:...
Matthew 16:17
...for flesh and blood hath not revealed it unto thee, but my father which is in heaven.

Numbers 23:19
God is not a man, that He should...;


Obviously, the descriptions and concepts of God given in these passages are that God is a spiritual entity. He exists outside of the three-dimensional, physical world in which we live.
The Bible further supports this concept of God in the following passages:


Jeremiah 23:23-24
Am I a God at hand, saith the Lord, and not a God afar off? ...Do not I fill heaven and earth? saith the Lord.
2 Chronicles 2:6
But who is able to build a house, seeing the heaven and heaven of heavens cannot contain Him?...

Acts 17:28
For in Him we live, and move, and have our being;...


Not only is God described as being outside space, but He is also described as being outside of time. Consider the following:

2 Peter 3:8
But, beloved, be not ignorant of this one thing, that one day is with the Lord as a thousand years, and a thousand years as one day.
Psalm 90:4
For a thousand years in thy sight are but as yesterday when it is past, and as a watch in the night.

Psalm 102:27
But thou art the same, and thy years shall have no end.

Acts 1:7
...It is not for you to know the times or the seasons, which the Father hath put in His power.


If God is a being that is unlimited in time, and if He has access to every piece of time as if it were now, the question of who created God is an invalid question. The problem is like asking a student to draw a four-sided triangle. The terminology is self-contradictory.
When asked “Who or what created God?,” we are making the assumption that God was created. If God exists outside of time and space, and if He is the Creator of time and space, He obviously was not created! God began the beginning! This is why He says, “I am Alpha and Omega, the beginning and the end, the first and the last.”

God created time. The statement of Genesis, “In the beginning God created the heaven and the earth,” is making reference to the creation of time. The reason that things like heat death, the expansion of the universe, and the depletion of hydrogen do not apply to God is because He is outside of time. God has always been. He not only began time; He will also end it. When time ends, all matter and all mankind will enter eternity—a timeless condition free of the negative things that time brings upon us now.



pardon me, but so what? if god exists as a non-entity, a creative force that moves life in the universe, but cant communicate meaningfully with humanity, then how does that negate the atheist point of view? atheism, as i define it means non-belief in god and non-allegiance to a religious group. it doesnt mean stubborn faith in and adherance to the idea that god cannot exist at all in any form. your quote hastens to point out that atheists would be wrong, but i think religious people would find themselves even more wrong if this situation were the case. because "god" as put forth by every religion on earth would not exist at all, and all religious dogma could be summarily tossed out the window as obselete. atheists would probably just go on doing as they always had and would remain secure in the fact that science does indeed unravel mysteries and the answers are not to be found in old religious books.
what this whole quote basically says is: "god probably exists, but the problem is that everyone's definition of god is wrong" well, thats just semantics. i could say "hey look, god exists, the problem is that everybody just has the wrong idea about god. god is actually a 3,000 year old bristlecone pine tree. people really need to start conceiving of it that way and then everyone will agree that god exists." that requires a changing of the entire definition of god, which significantly alters the concept itself to the point where any god defined by religious people now would surely not exist.
 
"It is wrong to think that the task of physics is to find out how Nature is. Physics concerns what we say about Nature." -Neils Bohr
 
Idiot: God says 2+2=5!
Me: But 2+2=4.
Idiot: It is Satan that blinds you to that fact that 2+2=5.
Me: No, it is math rules that prove that 2+2=4.
Idiot: Morons 19:8 tells us that “whosoeverith believe that 2+2=4 shall be ofith the evil one and shall burneth in eternal damnation.”
Me: But that was written by Morons, of course it’s wrong.
Idiot: The Morons were guided by the hand of God!
Me: But there is no God.
Idiot: You are wrong! 2+2=5, therefore God must exist! Don’t you see?
Me: No, not really, 2+2=4.
Idiot: God says 2+2=5!
 
Lerxst said:
"It is wrong to think that the task of physics is to find out how Nature is. Physics concerns what we say about Nature." -Neils Bohr

I like that. Of course he's right. Our knowledge is only the reflection of our mental construct of nature as filtered through our perception. Hey! I like that too! Just made it up! cool.
 
charles_cure said:
...if god exists as a non-entity, a creative force that moves life in the universe, but can't communicate meaningfully with humanity...
Can you clarify exactly what you hold to be meaningful communication?
 
Science isn't concerned with what isn't. It's concerned with what is - why and how.
Science is concerned with the objectively detectable.

There is no "why?" in science, only "how?" - and yes, that would just refer to how humanity perceives it.

"Why?" will enter science only when it evolves into something it now is not - maybe something closer to what religion is.


Mythbuster said:
...it is math rules that prove that 2+2=4.
It is the same minds that came up with "2" "+" and "4" that produced religion - i.e. the human mind.
-
here i => infinity

Idiot: God says 2+i=5!
M: But 2+i=4.
Idiot: It is Satan that blinds you to that fact that 2+i=5.
M: No, it is math rules that prove that 2+i=4.
Idiot: Morons 19:8 tells us that “whosoeverith believe that 2+i=4 shall be ofith the evil one and shall burneth in eternal damnation.”
M: But that was written by Morons, of course it’s wrong.
Idiot: The Morons were guided by the hand of God!
M: But there is no God.
Idiot: You are wrong! 2+i=5, therefore God must exist! Don’t you see?
M: No, not really, 2+i=4.
Idiot: God says 2+i=5!

Most bickering would really amount to arguments like the remix above.
 
Vindicator said:
Can you clarify exactly what you hold to be meaningful communication?

yeah, communication that can be fully understood by both parties involved to be both taking place, and of some kind of consequence. for instance, not communication in a language that cannot be understood by one party, not communication through signs or signals that cannot be understood by one party. not communication of a type so general that it does not have a specific focus, target, or subject.
 
Vindicator said:
Science is concerned with the objectively detectable.

There is no "why?" in science, only "how?" - and yes, that would just refer to how humanity perceives it.

"Why?" will enter science only when it evolves into something it now is not - maybe something closer to what religion is.

Hate to nitpick over semantics, but WHY and HOW are both at the heart of science. WHY begins many scientific investigations. WHY is the sky blue? WHY do electrons not get sucked into the nucleus? Then you find out HOW these things come about and you understand a bit more about nature.

Maybe you are using the limited notion of the ULTIMATE WHY, which, of course, is not the concern of science. Aye?
 
superluminal said:
Hate to nitpick over semantics, but WHY and HOW are both at the heart of science. WHY begins many scientific investigations. WHY is the sky blue? WHY do electrons not get sucked into the nucleus? Then you find out HOW these things come about and you understand a bit more about nature.

Maybe you are using the limited notion of the ULTIMATE WHY, which, of course, is not the concern of science. Aye?

I think the why questions hes talking about are the ones that anthropmorphize reality. Ex. why does reality exist? Humans are life forms and a behavior of ours is 'intent'. It's an error when we start giving everything eyes, a mouth, and thusly intent.
 
A long time ago, a wise person mentioned to me that there can be no misunderstanding between a person whose only language was Mandarin Chinese and a person whose only language was English.

Both would quickly recognize that they were not communicating any meaningful information.

However, an Englishman and American could easily have serious misunderstandings. For example: Early in WW2, when Americans first arrived in England, Knock me up was an English idiom for call me via the telephone, while to an American soldier it meant get me pregnant.

I often wonder if discussions at Sciforums result in analogous misunderstandings due to posters who have different semantic interpretations of a given post.
 
Dinosaur said:
A long time ago, a wise person mentioned to me that there can be no misunderstanding between a person whose only language was Mandarin Chinese and a person whose only language was English.

Both would quickly recognize that they were not communicating any meaningful information.

However, an Englishman and American could easily have serious misunderstandings. For example: Early in WW2, when Americans first arrived in England, Knock me up was an English idiom for call me via the telephone, while to an American soldier it meant get me pregnant.

I often wonder if discussions at Sciforums result in analogous misunderstandings due to posters who have different semantic interpretations of a given post.


i think there have been several misunderstandings between brits and americans here over the meanings of the terms "fanny" and "pissed"
 
Apros pro of my previous post, in WW1, an American soldier with a little knowledge of French, might ask: “Voulez vous se couchez avec moi?” A foxy French woman’s reaction to such a question might be “I Think I am a desirable female. Why would he want to sleep with me instead of F**king me? He must be weird!”
 
Back
Top