Quote:
|
Originally Posted by willravel
As far as I know, many people understand that energy is equal to mass times the speed of light squared. I think it may be a mistake to assume that atheists put their faith in scientists. I think a better way to put it is that atheists put their faith in reason and the scientific method. I'm not a physicist at all, but I can probably explain the general theory of relativity, and what it means to you and I. I'm not a biologist, but I understand the how of evolution pretty well. I'm not a geologist, but I understand carbon dating pretty well.
|
Okay, well, e=mc^2 is just an example. It is an interesting one in this context, do you know how it's derived off the top of your head? Do you agree with the logic behind it? I have no idea about any of it, but i don't doubt that the people who do know these things have given it their approval. Whether it will stand the test of time is another thing altogether.
Science is complicated stuff. I'm sure you know this. It takes several years of mathematics(at least in the u.s. public school system) to get to the point where you can derive the quadratic formula, and that's just algebra. Apparently, the amount of math you have to learn from elementary arithmetic to get through 2 years of calculus is the same amount of math you have to learn to get from the end of your calculus sequence to the kind of math needed when working with string theory. That's several years of math beyond multivariable calculus and differential equations to understand something that in popular science literature is portrayed as a simple matter of rubber bands and exotic dimensions.
Based on really simple models i've worked with, i imagine that climate models are also incredibly complicated.
The point is that the scientific knowledge we take for granted today is actually incredibly nuanced and rich, so much so that it seems to me like it's practically impossible for many people to have a comprehensive and/or meaningful understanding of any large portion of it. This isn't to say that general knowledge doesn't often suffice, but sometimes the nuance is the most important part.
You might have a general knowledge of many different subjects, but having a general knowledge doesn't mean you understand something in any kind of useful way. I have a general knowledge of fracture mechanics, but you wouldn't want to trust my opinion on the likelihood a given real beam will fail. Not to flatter you, but i imagine you have a better knowledge than most people on things scientific, since you're going to school for sciencey stuff.
Quote:
|
I think it's dangerous to suggest that the whole of humanity = sheep of one color or another. I wouldn't dare call all theists sheep, though the fact that Jesus is labeled a shepherd in the Bible is rather telling as to how those that wrote the Bible viewed a believer's role compared to a deity.
|
Why is it dangerous? If you're talking about people in general, the noble sheep is a great approximation. You might be surprised about how simple assumptions about the nature of human interaction can be used to create complex computer models that accurately predict observed human behavior in groups. I think sociology as a discipline is held together by the idea that people are essentially sheep of one color or another.
Do you think acceptance of atheism will coincide with some sort of golden age of rationality? I don't. I think that of all the different appealing aspects of atheism, the commitment to rationality is the most hollow and the least sexy.