Creating Creationists: Cutting Out the Middle in the Science-Religion Dialogue

[cbayer]

http://www.huffingtonpost.com/david-briggs/creating-creationists-cut_b_5908776.html

David Briggs
Writer, Association of Religion Data Archives

Posted: 10/01/2014 10:07 am EDT Updated: 3 hours ago

About one in five respondents said it was not possible to accept the theory of evolution and believe in the existence of a creator God, according to a British poll taken last month.

Those who said that, however, were overwhelmingly not religious believers.

Just 7 percent of respondents who believe in God said such views were incompatible. Nearly two thirds of believers said one could accept evolution and believe God also plays a role in creation. Other respondents neither agreed nor disagreed with the statement.

The debate about whether science and religion are adversaries often misses the fact that many people are comfortable both with scientific findings on subjects such as evolution and the idea God plays a role in the universe.

more at link

[immoderate]

1. It's not the purpose of reality to make one feel comfortable.

Supernatural explanations can offer some relief for those not too disturbed by the dissonance.

--imm

[cbayer]

2. Say what? I'm not sure how this responds to the article.

Could you elaborate?

[immoderate]

3. I am riffing on this:

The debate about whether science and religion are adversaries often misses the fact that many people are comfortable both with scientific findings on subjects such as evolution and the idea God plays a role in the universe.

Some people are OK holding contradictory ideas. Others do not deal well with inconsistency. I suspect that studies like this don't go deeply into how the reasoning is developed, so the contradictions are skirted.

--imm

[cbayer]

4. You really confirm what the author points out here.

It is mostly non-believers who feel that science and religion are incompatible.

That is a fascinating piece of information, but your remarks show why that may be the case.

If you do not hold any religious ideas, then I can see why it might be hard to imagine that some people can hold both religious and scientific ideas and do not see them as contradictory.

If I am reading you right, you see them as contradictory because you see one set as valid and the other as invalid.

[immoderate]

5. I see them as contradictory, because the ARE contradictory.

Something (such as the universe, for instance) cannot be both natural and supernatural, unless the definition of contradictory is itself, contradictory.

People may be able to abide such notions, but that does not make them compatible with reason, which when done right, approximates objectivity. There are some that even thrive on nonsense. Go figure. I say 'god bless them.'

--imm

[cbayer]

6. You see them as contradictory because you see contradictions.

That is only your POV.

Others, myself included, see no problem with the concept that some things might have both natural and supernatural components. At the very least, I can take a position that I don't know that to be true or not true…. and neither do you.

Your position is reasonable for you, but when you make a judgement as to whether someone else's perception is compatible with reason, you become, well, unreasonable.

I'm not sure what you mean by thriving on nonsense, but I am sure they are grateful for your good wishes.

[immoderate]

7. Sure. We know the same things. Difference is POV.

Similarly, to say that hypotheses that contradict each other are not contradictory requires a process that surpasses reason, even thought, and is therefore not subject to objectivity. I'm right there.

--imm

[cbayer]

8. I just want to make this point.

If you find one of these things completely unbelievable, then they are most certainly going to be incompatible.

I don't think you can comprehend the compatibility because you reject one of them and embrace the other. For you to see them as compatible would indeed result in a great deal of cognitive dissonance.

We do agree, though, that when two things are truly contradictory (say creationism and evolution), there is no room for compatibility and, imo, science wins.

[trotsky]

14. There is not a single thing in the complete theory of evolution...

that requires a "supernatural" component. Not a single damn thing.

You open that door a crack and what you do is give direct support to the "intelligent" "design" crazies and other creationists who simply want to open that door just a bit more and allow their specific god beliefs to overrule science in other areas. If we allow for the belief that god "guided" evolution, then isn't it possible that god may have created each species - as stated in the bible - for his own purposes to "guide" the origin of humans?

Your position is naive, ignorant, and harmful. We actually DO know that a god is not necessary to explain the vast diversity of life on earth.

[muriel_volestrangler]

9. Sounds like the researchers are ignoring the finding of the poll they quote

In the more secular United Kingdom, the YouGov survey of 2,116 people overwhelmingly found few religious believers stating their faith was incompatible with evolution.

And, in contrast to stated fears that creationist views were growing, the survey also revealed a quarter of respondents said they have become more accepting of evolution. Just 5 percent reported being less accepting of evolution.

Individual interviews were part of the larger study, which was reported by Amy Unsworth, a research associate at The Faraday Institute for Science and Religion, which sponsored the Cambridge conference.
...
Researchers such as Unsworth and Elsdon-Baker are concerned that surveys that force people into one of two opposing camps may themselves be unscientific.

"We may be creating more creationists," Elsdon-Baker said in an interview.

So, forget what the poll actually said about acceptance of evolution growing, and religious people being happy with God and evolution, they'll just worry "we may be creating more creationists", and give the Huff Post a misleading headline to use: Creating Creationists: Cutting Out the Middle in the Science-Religion Dialogue.

What's the point of them reporting the results of a poll, if they ignore it anyway in favour of their pre-determined conclusion?

[cbayer]

10. I see your point, but I read it differently.

The surveys they are quoting are more open-ended. They ones they are complaining about are those that only give two options.

When they talk of the "middle", I think they are talking about all the people who aren't clearly in just one camp.

To me, it seems they were advocating for better survey instruments.

[gcomeau]

11. "Feeling comfortable" with both of them...

...in no way indicates they have resolved the glaring logical inconsistencies that come with attempting to simultaneously claim both that you accept the validity of science and that you believe a magic all powerful superbeing rules the universe.

All it means is that they're able to ignore all the problems with their claims without being terribly bothered by it. Which does not strike me as something to point at approvingly.

[AtheistCrusader]

12. I find cognitive dissonance offensive.

I am not capable of entertaining it long term. I can create a sandbox or bubble in my mind within which I can hold a dissonant, illogical, or inimical idea for analysis and exploration. From there it goes into one of three boxes:

1. Incorporated (found to be useful or true, and added to the collection of stuff I operate under as true or likely true).
2. Suspended (not found true, but reserved for later analysis).
3. Garbage (less a box, and more a chute leading to the incinerator).

I can hold any idea in that analysis state, no matter how noxious or horrible. But only for so long. It is a state that must be resolved.


The idea of compatibility between Science and Theism or Naturalism and the Supernatural, went down the incinerator a long time ago. Further scientific inquiry has only reinforced the fact that I made the correct analysis, and has given me no cause to put on the oven mitts and root through the ash looking for something mistakenly discarded.

[trotsky]

13. Saying "Evolution happened, but my god guided it" isn't science.

It's also not full acceptance of the theory of evolution, which says NOTHING about it being guided by anyone or anything other than natural selection and random mutations. Even moderate theists are uncomfortable with that notion, so they "creation-ize" the theory to let their god play a role.

And we're supposed to accept this is some kind of "reasonable" or "middle" position? Bullshit.

It's akin to saying that one accepts the theory of gravity, with the caveat that undetectable little elves are actually pushing things in accordance with the mathematical formulas that we have discovered that describe the force of gravity.

[Leontius]

15. Freethinkers not doing so since day one.