The Flat Earth & Conspiracy Theories

[Jason]

That's actually not true. This Pew Center study on scientists and belief found that about 50% of scientists believe in a god. While that is less than the general population, it is hardly a wide margin. And the "god part of the brain" studies are fascinating, but we are a long ways from drawing conclusions with any degree of certainty. From my perspective, I would hope that God had guided our evolution to develop this part of our brain, so that we could know him.

Interesting survey. But if 95% of the general public believes in some kind of god whereas only 50% of scientists do, shouldn't that tell us that those who are exposed to science are far less likely to believe in a creator? Remember, I'm only questioning your methodology, not your conclusions. What if 95% of scientists turned out to be atheists? Would you then determine that your theistic views are out of step with reality?

It seems you are convinced that evolution through common descent is an established fact. But is this based on how many scientists claim it's true or the actual data? That Pew Center survey you cited above also showed that 15% of scientists reject evolution. Now that's a minority position, but perhaps it's only because the natural sciences must posit natural explanations for things. So I don't think we're dealing with a mass conspiracy here, just a methodology which must, by necessity, exclude the supernatural. If you told me that I had to come up with a natural explanation for what we see around us, it would probably look a lot like evolution through common descent. But that's only because I was forced to use those guidelines. It doesn't take a conspiracy, just a narrow methodology.

I don't see how belief in divinity contradicts the scientific method. As I pointed out above, at least half of all scientists believe in a god of some sort or another.

It doesn't contradict the scientific method, but it does contradict the opinions of most top brass scientists. Or at least, the more vocal among them (I'm looking at you, Neil deGrasse Tyson!).

[morbo3000]

Remember, I'm only questioning your methodology, not your conclusions.

I don't think I understand what you believe my methodology is. You seem to be saying "science" is my methodology. But that's too broad of a term.

Which specific parts of the scientific method do you think are questionable? What criteria do you use for abandoning naturalistic explanations.

Interesting survey. But if 95% of the general public believes in some kind of god whereas only 50% of scientists do, shouldn't that tell us that those who are exposed to science are far less likely to believe in a creator?

As opposed to what? Exposed to alchemy?

What if 95% of scientists turned out to be atheists? Would you then determine that your theistic views are out of step with reality?

That's your logic, not mine. Your original statement was...

The scientific community, by a wide margin, holds that belief in God is nothing more than superstition and a product of Darwinian development

I was only refuting that statement with the facts that about 50% of scientists believe in a god.

I wasn't drawing any conclusions about the appropriateness of faith in God based on the percentage of scientists who believe in God. And I wouldn't. If we based our theories on the correlation between evidence and majority opinion, the sun would still be orbiting the earth. I was pointing out that you've got your facts wrong about the "wide margin."

So I don't think we're dealing with a mass conspiracy here

I don't understand what mass conspiracy you are talking about. Maybe you are referencing something in the previous discussion.

[belief in divinity] doesn't contradict the scientific method, but it does contradict the opinions of most top brass scientists. Or at least, the more vocal among them (I'm looking at you, Neil deGrasse Tyson!).

Decorum does not permit me to use the best words I believe describe Tyson. Jerk is the closest I can use, but that doesn't do him justice. I would love to watch Cosmos. But I can't bear his smugness re: God. Evolutionary science should not be judged by the new atheists anymore than Christianity should be judged by fundamentalists.

[Singalphile]

So I don't think we're dealing with a mass conspiracy here, just a methodology which must, by necessity, exclude the supernatural. If you told me that I had to come up with a natural explanation for what we see around us, it would probably look a lot like evolution through common descent. But that's only because I was forced to use those guidelines. It doesn't take a conspiracy, just a narrow methodology.

I think that's right. There is a difference between having a minority opinion and having a conspiracy theory. Atheists/agnostics are bound to have different opinions than theists b/c philosophy and theology usually comes first for both sides, imo.

Steelwheels,

I would be interested in questioning that brother as to why pilots, astronauts, geologists, and astronomers, etc., all over the world say that Earth is spherical. I would want to know how much of a conspiricist he is. (I don't know how you could not be in order to believe FE.) I would ask him what reason(s) demons would have for convincing people that the Earth is not flat. Why is Satan devoting time to that?

I think you're right regarding poetry. Even beyond that, did some (or all) Biblical authors and people think that Earth is flat? I guess so, but so what? That's not what the Scriptures are about.

I do think it would be worthwhile to tell him to keep that opinion to himself, if you know him well enough.

But I don't have personal experience with flat-Earthers, so discuss it at your own risk!

Again, my guess is that it's just a certain personality type (or drugs).

[Jason]

morbo300,

It's possible that I misread your intentions. The subject here is mass conspiracies and you refuted some earlier claims by essentially calling them anti-science. You did this on the first page with natural evolution. I was merely trying to point out how many of us (including 15% of scientists, apparently) reject evolution via common descent because of the data, not despite it, and explaining why it doesn't take a mass conspiracy for the majority of scientists to champion the theory. All it takes is a narrow methodology (naturalism).

About my earlier claim that most scientists (by a wide margin) don't believe in god, you are correct. It seems to be a 50/50 split. I should have said that the prevailing sentiment in science is that god is not necessary to explain anything, thus there is no reason for a scientifically-minded person to believe in a creator. There's a reason the Discovery Institute is ridiculed by the mainstream, and it has nothing at all to do with arguments or evidence. I once heard a smug CNN reporter calling Stephen Meyer (a PhD) anti-science. This is how silly it's become with mainstream science. You're not allowed to argue with evidence. I called you out because you seem to share the sentiment of that CNN reporter. If you prove me wrong, I'll be quite happy. The world could use a bit less snark.

[morbo3000]

The world could use a bit less snark.

Admittedly "science-denier" is a snarky term. But it reflects the utter frustration with the anti-vaxxer crowd, who do, in fact chalk it up to conspiracy. Young-earthers do as well. Ben Stein's movie on ID does also. There are huge consequences for this in vaccinations and climate science. Less so with YEC. Though Bill Nye incited the ire of Ken Ham by saying that the harm of YEC is in the education of children. Nonetheless... I've learned my lesson not to use the term. It is insulting, so I repent.

I was merely trying to point out how many of us (including 15% of scientists, apparently) reject evolution via common descent because of the data, not despite it, and explaining why it doesn't take a mass conspiracy for the majority of scientists to champion the theory. All it takes is a narrow methodology (naturalism).

As I said, if the legitimacy of a position was determined by the number of people that hold the claim, the sun would still be orbiting the earth. And the number of people who can make a legitimate claim regarding YEC or ID is much smaller than 15%

According to a Gallup poll, the number is 5%. But more significantly, it includes scientists in fields not related to life origins, such as computer scientists, and mechanical engineers. In relative fields, 480,000 scientists support evolution, with only 700 believing in creation-science, making the number less that 0.15%

source: http://www.talkorigins.org/indexcc/CA/CA111.html

I haven't fact-checked that source. So some of the numbers may be off. But within any margin of error, it still makes the number of scientists in relevant fields supporting creation science dramatically less than 15%.

And of course, there is the list of Steves

I should have said that the prevailing sentiment in science is that god is not necessary to explain anything, thus there is no reason for a scientifically-minded person to believe in a creator.

First, your conclusion doesn't follow from your premise. Naturalism does not preclude belief in a creator. Stephen J. Gould uses a term "Nonoverlapping Matisteria" to describe how religion and evolution are not hostile to each other. You can find the essay here

Second, it is not a "prevailing sentiment" to remove God as a cause for measurable phenomena. It's the name of the game. Naturalism is essential to research. Otherwise this happens.



But we must discriminate between methodological naturalism and philosophical naturalism. In order to do effective science, methodological naturalism is required. Philosophical naturalism extends materialism into metaphysics, where it does not belong. That's why John Lennox destroys Richard Dawkins in this debate. Dawkins extends materialism into philosophy where it does not belong, and cannot defend itself.

So, you critique the theory of evolution on the basis that it is the conclusion reached by "narrow methodology (naturalism)."

What do you propose as an alternative?

[Jason]

As I said, if the legitimacy of a position was determined by the number of people that hold the claim, the sun would still be orbiting the earth. And the number of people who can make a legitimate claim regarding YEC or ID is much smaller than 15%

I was actually citing the full survey to which you alluded earlier. It showed that 15% of the scientists interviewed did not accept Darwinian evolution as proven. I made no mention of YEC or ID. Two of the biggest critics of evolution are Michael Denton and David Berlinksi, neither of whom support YEC, ID or even theism. They are agnostic thinkers.

And of course, there is the list of Steves

I'm not one to verse-bomb a brother, but Happy is the man who doesn't join a group of mockers (Psalm 1). I see no value in mocking those we feel are in error. It only rallies the cheerleaders in our own camp, while irritating those in opposition. I think you can better make your point in other ways.

First, your conclusion doesn't follow from your premise. Naturalism does not preclude belief in a creator. Stephen J. Gould uses a term "Nonoverlapping Matisteria" to describe how religion and evolution are not hostile to each other. You can find the essay here

I don't claim that theism and evolution are at odds. Or even evolution and the Bible. In fact, if evolution did occur, it seems hard to explain without invoking some kind of guiding intelligence (consider metamorphosis among caterpillars and tadpoles, or the migration instincts of birds). What I'm addressing is the general attitude among scientists who write on this topic, and they say just what I told you. If evolution can explain everything we observe, then what need is there for God? Evolution is, after all, a rather messy arrangement and it's hard to see God as the cause of it. Sure, go ahead and have your superstitions, but the evidence tends to support us atheists. Of course, you know that I'm on your side of that debate, but they have a point. If God used evolution, he chose a strange way to get things going.

What do you propose as an alternative?

I propose going with hard evidence. We observe evolution taking place within a species, but breeding thousands of generations of fruit flies only yields mutated fruit flies. Most of which are not fit to survive. There is a similarity in the DNA of humans and apes. Is that common descent or common design? One's philosophical leanings will interpret the data to match. Vestigial appendages and organs? The more we learn, the more the list shrinks. The fossil record? According to Gould, not very impressive for supporting Darwin, which is why he proposed a new mechanism. We are not left with much hard evidence but lots of hard opinions.

[morbo3000]

Hey, I appreciate your thoughts. Hopefully I've done a good job of further explaining where I'm at on the topic. Feel free to ask more questions. I believe I've answered the ones you initially asked, and we've found the places where we agree to disagree. Let me know if you have any more questions.

- Jeff