Terminalcoffee discussion

http://m.motherjones.com/politics/201...

Consider a person who has heard about a scientific discovery that deeply challenges her belief in divine creation—a new hominid, say, that confirms our evolutionary origins. What happens next, explains political scientist Charles Taber of Stony Brook University, is a subconscious negative response to the new information—and that response, in turn, guides the type of memories and associations formed in the conscious mind. "They retrieve thoughts that are consistent with their previous beliefs," says Taber, "and that will lead them to build an argument and challenge what they're hearing."

What do you think?

Barb wrote, I don't understand why evolution AND the presence of a greater power can't both be true.

I have the same argument. For example, the existence of God has never been proven. However, the non-existence of God has never been verified. Sounds simplistic, but that's a discussion that never seems to take place. I mean, people believe the Loch Ness Monster exists. We haven't been able to prove he exists, but it doesn't mean he never did.

Barb wrote: "I kind of do the opposite. My belief in science / evolution is pretty solid, so I tend to dismiss any theological theories that conflict with it.
Having said that; why is it that it has to be one..."

Catholics and other denominations that believe that the Bible contains stories that can be interpreted have no problem with evolution. It's only the bible literalists that cannot accept that evolution and christianity are compatible.

Barb wrote: "I kind of do the opposite. My belief in science / evolution is pretty solid, so I tend to dismiss any theological theories that conflict with it.
Having said that; why is it that it has to be one..."

This is an excellent point. I should note that a left-wing Catholic friend posted this article on FB...that's where I first saw it.

I remember asking my mother how evolution theories and the Bible could both be right. We were taught at church that the earth was created in 7 days. Yet, at school, we were taught about evolution spanning millions of years. Her response was that we don't know how long one of God's days are. One of his days could be millions of years.

Yes, everyone is looking for support for what they already believe, and giving more weight to information that does that while finding reasons to discount facts that don't.

I like this part of the article:

The upshot: All we can currently bank on is the fact that we all have blinders in some situations. The question then becomes: What can be done to counteract human nature itself?

Given the power of our prior beliefs to skew how we respond to new information, one thing is becoming clear: If you want someone to accept new evidence, make sure to present it to them in a context that doesn't trigger a defensive, emotional reaction.

Gus wrote: "For example, the existence of God has never been proven. However, the non-existence of God has never been verified. Sounds simplistic, but that's a discussion that never seems to take place."

Wrong-o. It takes place all the time, just not in the circles you travel and never, ever in any general interest media (newspaper, TV, magazine).

It generally comes down to one person saying, "you can't disprove god" (meaning their very own christian god), and another saying, "you can't disprove the existence of a giant pink teapot orbiting in space, but you don't seem to attribute superpowers to it."

That isn't really the opposite. The point of the article is that people over value evidence that supports the beliefs they already hold, and dismiss or under value evidence that doesn't. Doesn't matter if you are a creationist dismissing evidence for evolution, or a believer in science dismissing evidence of places where it doesn't work or doesn't apply. Same process in action, really.

Yes, I think I get what you're saying, and this reminds me some of what Jackie's saying, too. Rhetoric often plays a significant part in conversations of these nature; people want to win the argument, if you will. I get frustrated especially with broad statements like "Christians are stupid" or "Christianity is an evil fairy tale." What good does that do? I know a lot of smart Christians who, in connection to their faith, make a positive difference in the world every single day. Look at that bald motorcycle dude from Indiana, for example. So sometimes, I guess, it's not about winning the argument as much as expanding the question's horizons to include more context and purpose.

BunWat wrote: "But I gotta remember that its not just about logic. It can be about things like wanted to stay emotionally connected with family, wanting a feeling of belonging, wanting security and support from a group. Those aren't invalid things to want either, and I have to try to remember that."

I agree. I think it's, regardless of what "it" is, all about security and the defiance over defending a particular position is just something that helps to mask one's vulnerability. What's the John Lennon song? Whatever gets you through the night...

Janice wrote: "Her response was that we don't know how long one of God's days are. One of his days could be millions of years. ..."

Love this!

Ideally, religion and science should be complimentary, but both schools of thought are often not presented this way IRL. I'm not religious, however I don't hold the belief that "science is always right". That's boring and its like saying that 1+1=2. Why cant 1+1=infinity (to me that is). Also having a narrow minded belief system means that one misses out on a lot of things.

No, real science is not about what appeals to you personally, or your personal point of view. And real science isn't about belief systems at all. Real science is about verifiable facts based on data and/or observable phenomena. Just because someone doesn't believe (or choose to believe) that global climate change is a real phenomenon, doesn't take away from the overwhelming data that is consistent with its existence in reality.

The scientific method allows for its not being always right, with a healthy questioning of whatever data are observed or collected, and adjusting to new information that comes along.

The Universe is a wondrous thing to behold. How can a practice that helps us to comprehend the true nature of the Universe be boring? Just the fact that we are here to observe it is miraculous.

I wasn't referring to true science, just how it's presented, the stereotypes and other things.

Ah. Okay. Never mind, then.

Even scientists struggle to change the way they see the world. When new ideas and discoveries are made. If those don't agree with the common thought, it can take a lot to convince them they are wrong. Personally I only believe in chocolate cake.

Chocolate cake isn't real. Oh wait . . . yes it is.

Angel food is the one TRUE cake.

Give me cake and I shall eat it. Every bite.

Dubs, you are the magic door (to magic and whatnot)!

Izzard is sorta rumpled hot.

No. No he's not.

I can't eat any more cake. I have just spent lunch in the local Italian patisserie. Sampling cakes for my sons birthday. The owner wouldn't let me out of the shop before I had sampled every item there. Only a bite of each one. Someone roll me home please.

He sent me home with three samples for my son to decide. A cheese cake, a cake that has a name that sounds a little like marijuana, which is sort of custard with orange through it, and a ricotta slice. My son & daughter have given up chocolate for lent. The usual options weren't available. The only cake he eats usually is chocolate.

Chocolate cake is like drugs for my body. And worth the weight gain.

Phil wrote: "No. No he's not."

We cannot be the same as all the time, twinnie.

I would have ate some of the cake bites for you, Gail. And maybe made you laugh while you were eating a few.

The three options sound daringly opposite of chocolate cake.