filtherton

Get some popcorn, this one's a doozy.


I agree that there is a lot of pop science available for anyone who happens to enjoy such things. The discovery channel is a mixed bag. I like that show "how it's made", but they do seem to have a lot of what amounts to skin deep infotainment(hello shark week).

In this day and age, where there's so much stuff to know, there isn't anyone who knows enough about enough things to not be at the mercy of other people's judgment when it comes to the dissemination of information. Even if someone happens to be extremely intelligent and well read, they're still going to have to rely on other people's interpretation of things which they don't understand.

I'm not sure how the subject of sheep came up, as the herd-like behavior isn't necessarily that important in the context of anything i've said. I don't think the fact that humanity can be thought of as an interconnected, interrelated community(essentially the sheep thing) is that relevant to the notion that in a complex world such as ours it is essentially impossible for one person to go about their daily business without needing to, at some point, rely on the judgement and knowledge of someone with more information or experience.

As it stands, most people have very limited knowledge of math or science, and if you happen to be going to school for anything remotely math-y or science-y they will readily tell you this if your area of study ever happens to come up in casual conversation. The next time you meet someone new, tell them you're taking a multivariable calculus class, probably 7 times out of ten you'll get a pair of wide eyes and algebra lamentations as a response. Then tell them that calculus is the study of the ramifications of division by zero, and 7 times out of ten they won't have any clue that you're full of shit.

These people are vulnerable in a sense; it doesn't take much effort to fool them when they trust your authority on a given subject and have no idea what you're talking about. Just look at the current global warming debate. I'm pretty sure that the vast majority of people who have a firm opinion on the subject have absolutely no clue about the models used to predict its effects. Even when you have two people who do know what the science is, they can and will offer widely divergent opinions on the matter (ustwo and i think superbelt).

All this blabbering is really just to say that the idea that we will be better off if more people fly the flag of rationality and science completely ignores the facts that:

1) Most people hate math and/or science(except perhaps for the pop variety).
2) Even people who love math and/or science are limited in their knowledge by the sheer magnitude of things out there to know.
3) A strong cultural commitment to science as a functional alternative to a cultural commitment to religion is meaningless if the majority of people in a society can't actually be bothered to learn the science; you'll just end up with an identical power structure that's just as liable to hijacked by those with ulterior motives(see stalin).
4) Human beings aren't rational in any sort of consistent way, therefore it is pointless to claim that there is any sort of more rational alternative to the current status quo. After all, the atheist position must assume that humans are self-organizing and therefore completely responsible for the current state of affairs. It isn't religion that has gotten us in this mess, it is us.


Now, none of this is to say that atheism necessarily need by thought of as the more rational alternative to religion, or that a bold new age of rational knowledge awaits us just beyond the horizon if only we can throw of the shackles of spirituality. It's just that this is the way that new atheism is commonly framed.


Yes, i know that stereotypes can sometimes be useful when judging people we don't know. However, if what you're actually seeking is some sort of general truth, i find that it is best to leave them at the door. We aren't in the street here.

I'd be interested in seeing how you were able to correlate belief in evolution with the ability to think rationally. You know that conclusions arrived at through rational means aren't necessarily correct? I can think rationally and believe that the universe revolves around the earth, it would be necessary that i start with some probably pretty ridiculous assumptions, but it could be done rationally.

As far as ignoring threats to comfortable belief systems, did you know that einstein disliked quantum mechanics so much that he spent his dying breath trying to come up with a unifying theory that would render it obsolete? He didn't like the idea that the universe left things up to chance. From what i understand, it's actually pretty normal for more established scientists to discourage people whose theories might threaten the current status quo.

Well, when the six(5 actually) examples are responsible for relativity, genetics, calculus, and mechanics one might wonder, what the hell those hundreds of millions of people ever did for science?

Ask the scientist what happens after you die, or why we exist, i guarantee you that if s/he is an actual scientist the answer you get won't be any more substantial that the one you'd get from your diety of choice.