Attitude of certain online Christians and Science... (resolved)

[Warden_of_the_Storm]

Let's exarrogate a bit for demonstration:

I speak with God and discuss this with a shrink.
The shrink tells me that I'm nuts, because hearing voices is sign of mental illness.
If I accept his expert opinion as superior to my own experience, I will have to agree that I'm nuts.
If I instead want to hold to my own interpration of my experience, that I was having a conversation with God, I have to dismiss the expert opinion.
I am forced to make a choice between my experience and my interpretion of that experience vs expert opinion representing science.

Okay. Yes, I can see where you are coming from.
So, if we take that idea and apply it to the outliers of the online community of Christianity who truly believe that the Bible is the inherent word of God, then agreeing with the science that shows that the Earth is older than the Bible claims (just as a single example, and for brevities sake let's stick to the commonly held belief that the Bible claims that the Earth is 6,000 years old), then they would be essentially claiming that their beliefs are wrong.

 

[Warden_of_the_Storm]

Nah, you said yerself that you realize that it's gonna seem/be taken as inflammatory and chose to leave it like that.

Mission accomplished, eh?

As I said, I was forced to stick to the title it has because CF does not allow me to make the title longer. When I read the title and the subsequent OP, I hoped that people would see that I truly did want a legitimate discussion and would not take offence from it.
As has been proven however, a few people have taken offence to it. But I do not claim responsibility for that. If a person is offended, it lies purely with them, not me.

 

[Jack of Spades]

So, if we take that idea and apply it to the outliers of the online community of Christianity who truly believe that the Bible is the inherent word of God, then agreeing with the science that shows that the Earth is older than the Bible claims (just as a single example, and for brevities sake let's stick to the commonly held belief that the Bible claims that the Earth is 6,000 years old), then they would be essentially claiming that their beliefs are wrong.

Exactly, or at very least they would be taking a path of thinking that is bound to undermine their beliefs in long run. If there is a conflict between believers and scientists, the conflict didn't start at the moment when the believers spoke out. It started at the moment when they used some other source than scientific understanding, in this case the Bible, as their source of understanding nature of reality (or some parts of reality). I see the resulting verbal war on science as a natural consequence of building ones world view certain way.

 

[brinny]

As I said, I was forced to stick to the title it has because CF does not allow me to make the title longer. When I read the title and the subsequent OP, I hoped that people would see that I truly did want a legitimate discussion and would not take offence from it.
As has been proven however, a few people have taken offence to it. But I do not claim responsibility for that. If a person is offended, it lies purely with them, not me.

You already posted that you are aware EXACTLY how your title and OP would be taken.

Nah, you are responsible for it.

You got some digs in there, didn't ya'?

LOL!!!

 

[Warden_of_the_Storm]

Exactly, or at very least they would be taking a path of thinking that is bound to undermine their beliefs in long run. If there is a conflict between believers and scientists, the conflict didn't start at the moment when the believers spoke out. It started at the moment when they used some other source than scientific understanding, in this case the Bible, as their source of understanding nature of reality (or some parts of reality). I see the resulting verbal war on science as a natural consequence of building ones world view certain way.

Understandable. And I do not doubt that that struggle is compounded by websites run by other like-minded individuals who claim that science is wrong for not agreeing with the Bible, thus creating a form of conformation bias.

 

[Warden_of_the_Storm]

You already posted that you are aware EXACTLY how your title and OP would be taken.

Nah, you are responsible for it.

You got some digs in there, didn't ya'?

LOL!!!

I was aware that my title MAY be taken a certain way and hoped that it would not be taken that way.
Again, if a person takes offence, it is not my fault. I did not write the title with the intention of it being offensive. A few people who read the title took it to be offensive.

 

[Jack of Spades]

Understandable. And I do not doubt that that struggle is compounded by websites run by other like-minded individuals who claim that science is wrong for not agreeing with the Bible, thus creating a form of conformation bias.

Well, I wont get into that. OP asked what's the reason for attacking scientific positions while not being expert in those fields and I answered to that. I guess that was pretty much what I have to say on the topic.

 

[Warden_of_the_Storm]

Well, I wont get into that. OP asked what's the reason for attacking scientific positions while not being expert in those fields and I answered to that. I guess that was pretty much what I have to say on the topic.

Fair enough. I was just writing the conclusion I took from your post.

 

[brinny]

I was aware that my title MAY be taken a certain way and hoped that it would not be taken that way.
Again, if a person takes offence, it is not my fault. I did not write the title with the intention of it being offensive. A few people who read the title took it to be offensive.

Why would you START OFF with an offensive title, with even a "hint" of an insulting quality to it?

 

[brinny]

Well, I wont get into that. OP asked what's the reason for attacking scientific positions while not being expert in those fields and I answered to that. I guess that was pretty much what I have to say on the topic.

Actually, in reading your posts, i appreciate your objectiveness and i find it a very generous posting here.

Thank you. It's very genteel of you.

 

[Warden_of_the_Storm]

Why would you START OFF with an offensive title, with even a "hint" of an insulting quality to it?

As I said, I didn't think it would be offensive and hoped no-one else would.

 

[brinny]

As I said, I didn't think it would be offensive and hoped no-one else would.

Oh c'mon. you've gotten feedback about it.

Would you consider changing the title to something that would be more neutral, maybe?

 

[Warden_of_the_Storm]

Oh c'mon. you've gotten feedback about it.

Would you consider changing the title to something that would be more neutral, maybe?

If you could suggest a more neutral title, then yes. Because my mind keeps drawing a blank (I'm just bad with titles outside of history essays).

 

[Crowns&Laurels]

You noticed that too, eh?

It's sort of the reason I find myself arguing with atheists on here all the time, I've come to realize. The motives and intents tend to be pretty obvious, which causes me to want to break bad on all of it lol.

 

[Warden_of_the_Storm]

It's sort of the reason I find myself arguing with atheists on here all the time, I've come to realize. The motives and intents tend to be pretty obvious, which causes me to want to break bad on all of it lol.

Those who see enemies around, will never lack for them.

 

[brinny]

If you could suggest a more neutral title, then yes. Because my mind keeps drawing a blank (I'm just bad with titles outside of history essays).

maybe it depends on what you want to convey? Is it that you don't find those (who question scientific data/findings) credible?

 

[Warden_of_the_Storm]

maybe it depends on what you want to convey? Is it that you don't find those (who question scientific data/findings) credible?

Now, see, I think if I wrote something like that, then there's a great chance of that being seen as inflammatory. That's just me though.

 

[brinny]

Now, see, I think if I wrote something like that, then there's a great chance of that being seen as inflammatory. That's just me though.

What is it you'd like to convey?

if you would like an honest exchange, maybe just changing the title that is not seeming to target anyone in particular would be an invitation to open up genuine conversation?

 

[Jack of Spades]

Actually, in reading your posts, i appreciate your objectiveness and i find it a very generous posting here.
Thank you. It's very genteel of you.

Thanks. You're being too nice. Altho I don't know what genteel means...

 

[Warden_of_the_Storm]

What is it you'd like to convey?

if you would like an honest exchange, maybe just changing the title that is not seeming to target anyone in particular would be an invitation to open up genuine conversation?

The thing I would like to convey is to have a discussion about is why, with regards to science, a small number of believers feel that, even though they have no formal training or schooling in the field of science, feel that they are in the right when talking over scientists who do have formal training or schooling in the field of science.