Is Science Unreachable?, ivory tower

I came from a religious fundamentalist household. One of the persons in my current household is still in that category. Today she was as happy as a clam because her order of cd's and books came in from a favorite preacher of hers. Her church has a small group ministry going on (church members meeting in small groups in people's homes for Bible studies, etc.) Her intention is to use the cd's and books to lead a Bible study for the group. My point is this: I watched her open the box and look over all this stuff (dozens of cd's, books, and study guides for Daniel and Revelation prophecy). I was thinking, "Gee, I wish they had stuff like this for things like quantum mechanics, evolution, relativity, string theory, etc. I wish there were tons of people having T.V. and radio shows for science themes. If the science world had as much propaganda as the religion world things would be different."

The religionists know a secret. They know that the more people they convince of their ideas as facts, the more societal clout they will have overall. They put a great deal of effort into this. The pay off is this: They get the mobs to vote and act in the interest of their goals like pushing Intelligent Design in the colleges and suppressing evolution. If they can get enough mobs on their side, they'd send us back to the medieval times.

I think the scientific community must also use this same secret. They need to get science to everyone, even the most ordinary people.

Has anyone thought about this?

I think people find comfort in religion because it let's them "believe" that there is a higher power and everything will work out according to the "plan". In other words it absolves them of any personal responsibility for the state of the world.

Science tells us that it is up to us to solve our problems. That in itself is kind of frightening.

Empress
Yes I have thought about this alot. I suggested that universities teach one set of scientist to just do what scientists do as usual. The other set of scientists should be trained to teach the masses. They should copy the church method as to get out the knowledge of science. It seems that Carl Sagan was one of the few scientists to even begin to reach the masses. What Carl Sagan did was a great beginning but the scientific community needs to be as systematic about teaching the masses as they are about doing one of their complicated math equations or testing and proving their theories in the lab. Scientists must be relentless, systematic and consistent until the average person understands basic science enough to not buy into superstitious nonsense. This will make the difference between getting funding for labs such as FERMI lab which lost their funding because no one cares about weather we discover the Boson or not. The fact that the average person feared that FERMI lab would create a black hole that would swallow the earth and out of fear was against it. If people knew more general science knowledge these sad events would not happen. I keep bring up the tragedy of what happened to the library of Alexandria. The reason I keep bringing up this issue is because America is too close to repeating this history. Book burning happens when the mob is so dumb that they are easily spooked by phantoms, Gods and demons. I wish professors like Brian Greene, Stephen Hawking, Kip Thorn and anyone else who is a scientist would come to Physorg and see this post so at least they could begin a discussion on this very serious matter. Maybe even form a think tank like the right wing does all the time.

Gmilam, That sounds very true. This preacher, whose cd's were bought by a household member, mostly preaches about prophecy. He describes all the dire things that are going to happen in this world because it is prophesied in the Book of Revelation; but then he says not to worry for the Christians will get raptured and not have to be here, and God will remake the world again. They don't believe they have to do anything about things like global warming or even nuclear war.

Science says we have to face the mess we made. I guess no one wants to hear that.

Horta, I don't know if any of the big important scientists ever look at this site. I think maybe a while ago they may have peeked at it but not during the months where it was an untended garden full of spam weeds and vulgarity. Hopefully, that will change.

I have heard people say that you are nowhere if you don't do the math side of things or have a formal background of science. This is like the days before the Protestant reformation when the only ones who could read the Bible were priests that could read Latin (or Hebrew and Greek). The people got all their information from priests. Then, certain people came along who translated the Bible into English (and other common languages). This led to big changes. Science right now is in a "priesthood" phase. It is understood mainly by people who study it for years in college and know all that math. The masses are as ignorant as in the middle ages. Someone needs to translate scientific ideas into plain English. Carl Sagan did well with this, and Brian Greene did well. We need more like them.

In our town there is a very large Christian bookstore. They sell books, cd's, videos, maps, charts, etc. of all sorts of Bible stuff. There is also a very large new age bookstore here. The science shelf at Barnes and Noble here is nowhere near as large and varied as these other two stores. There are much fewer science books written in common language than there are Christian or new age books. For example, I can find dozens of books written about the prophecies of Revelations but perhaps one or two books of quantum mechanics in plain English.

In this town I have many Bible studies I could attend if I wanted too (in churches and homes). How many science studies or meetings can I go to locally? When I am in a waiting room at the doctor, dentist, etc. I often find Christian literature that has been placed there by someone. I never find science stuff. All free public events here are church sponsored (except a tiny handful of town events). If you are religious there are services to go to on Sunday morning, Sunday night, Wednesday night. Where do you go to hear science?

I have noticed that since I have become more science-oriented and less religious oriented, I have become more socially isolated. I have less places to go. When I was a Christian years ago, I had lots of places to go. When I went new age for a time, I had places to go (lots of new age events). Science makes one a lone wolf. It is a good thing there is internet.

I think one reason religion rules is because that is where every one's friends are. People feel compelled to go with the flow.

Empress
I do not know if an important scientist ever looked at this site. I only said "I wish" that they would look and read this thread to get the idea of what we are talking about in hopes of changing the western world before we go back to middle age thinking that the world is flat.

Your above post is excellent. I could not have said it better.

Empress Palpatine: If the type of people who frequent this website are true representatives of "science", then, YES, "science" is most definitely "unreachable"...in regard to things such as reason, discernment and honesty. For example, you may very well have come from/still be a part of "a religious fundamentalist household", but there is no way that you have come from/are still a part of a Christian household, IF your assessment of the things that you've described is indeed accurate and not delusional(I suspect that it is accurate, as I've seen the types of things that you've described countless times myself). For starters, if someone TRULY understood the things that were foretold in the Biblical books of Daniel and Revelation, then they would NOT be "happy as a clam". No, rather, like the authors of the books themselves, they would be GREATLY GRIEVED as they foresaw what was coming upon the world as a direct result of the sinfulness of mankind. Daniel and John BOTH fell on their faces AS DEAD MEN as they received their "revelations". Find me a "religious fundamentalist" who does the same today. Go ahead, I challenge you. No, rather, today's "religious fundamentalists" are all full of "joy"(you know what they're REALLY "full of", don't you?)...maybe the type that you use to wash dishes, but NOT the type that is described within the pages of the Bible. Frankly, if I may be bolder than usual, you ought to tell this person in your household that she's not fit to teach ANYBODY ANYTHING if she's merely "riding the coattails" of her favorite preacher(who, chances are, is a fraud).

Once again, although this would most certainly be an accurate description of most "religionists", it is TOTALLY FOREIGN to anyone who has TRULY encountered Jesus Christ. With your assumed knowledge of scripture, do you HONESTLY believe that Jesus Christ was/is interested in "societal clout"? HONESTLY? Do you HONESTLY believe that Jesus Christ was/is interested in "getting the mobs to vote"? HONESTLY? Do you HONESTLY believe that Jesus Christ was/is interested in "pushing Intelligent Design in the colleges"? HONESTLY? Here's a challenge for you...one that I've given to countless others over the past 20+ years WITHOUT ONE response:

Show me/us where Jesus Christ ever taught/insinuated/hinted that Christians should send their children to government run schools or any schools at all. Go ahead, I challenge you. Until you can successfully meet this "challenge", then you ought to make a distinction in your mind between "religious fundalmentalists" and CHRISTIANS...unless, of course, you wish to remain "unreachable" where discernment is concerned.

gmilam: With the knowledge of scripture that you've shown here in the past, you ought to be ashamed of yourself for making such a statement. YOU KNOW that Christians will be held accountable by their God as to the personal impact that they made in this world in relation to helping others. Why then would you say such a thing? Additionally, my "religion" may not be as "comforting" as you suggest. One of the best descriptions of Biblical salvation that I've ever heard was given in relation to the survivors of the sinking of the Titanic. Those who were fortunate enough to escape in lifeboats had GREAT JOY in the fact that they were "SAVED". However, AT THE SAME TIME, they had GREAT GRIEF(unless they had HEARTS OF STONE) as they heard the anguished cries of those who were perishing all around them. I trust that you understand.

P.S. I'm perfectly aware of the impact(NONE!) that my words have upon the forum members here. Nevertheless, I'll still occasionally attempt to help others to reason HONESTLY in regard to the very real distinction between "religion" and Christianity. Take care.

I have yet to read where you tell me how you know you are not following a false God.

In another thread a guy thought that a ring would go slower down a slope than a solid wheel of the same mass and diameter because of air resistance and that in a vaccuum they would go the same speed.
He's wrong, and with the right equipment I can demonstrate.
That is how science works.

How can you show it's the Muslims and not you who is following the false God?

I wish someone would write a solid article on how having faith is best minimized.

buttershug: If such is the case, then I think that I've identified YOUR problem...

You don't know how to read.

My posting history is rife with examples that would easily answer that question for anyone who genuinely desired an answer.

Once again(we've discussed this before), that would require us to first come to a mutual agreement regarding the use of the word "false". As with people of other "religions", I have every reason to suspect/expect that there are at least two different categories of people within the Muslim "faith". On the one hand, I suspect/expect that there are those who are merely part of a "system", with no genuine spiritual experience/contact with any sort of "god". On the other hand, I suspect/expect that there are those who have had a genuine spiritual experience with some sort of "god". In this second instance, the "god" is not "false" in the sense that it does not exist. It is simply "false" in the sense that it is not the "true" God described within the pages of scripture. In this second instance, the way to find out which "god/God" is "true" would be to have a sort of "spiritual bake-off". You know, may the best "god/God" win in a true spiritual showdown...NOT just in some empty words. As I've plainly testified several times in the past, I've had plenty of experience in dealing with "other gods". My God has shown/proven Himself to be superior in power to "other gods" consistently. That ought to answer your question, but, alas, I suspect that you're really not looking for an answer.

And I "wish" that at least one of you dishonest, unreasonable people would distinguish between the type of "faith" that is described within the pages of scripture and the type of "blind faith" that you all advocate which is no more/less than some sort of "wishful thinking". Biblical "faith" is confidence in a God Whom you already know and Who has proven Himself to be faithful in the past. There's a world of difference in the two, although I suspect that you'll either willfully ignore it or that you're simply not intelligent enough to see the difference between the two. Sorry to question your level of intelligence/comprehension, but my previous dialogue with you has definitely forced me to consider some things about you along these lines. That's it for now. My family is up and I've got a hotel to check out of, followed by a 5-6 hour ride. Take care.

This post has been edited by newguy on Feb 21 2009, 01:48 PM

And you know that most people who claim to follow the Bible don't really know or do what it says. They only hear what they want to believe.

EDIT: Anyone remember James Watt? Reagan's secretary of the interior.

This post has been edited by gmilam on Feb 21 2009, 03:20 PM

I have run into this attitude on these very fora (forums?).

I don't have the advanced math education. Nor do I have the time and desire to persue it. But I am very good at grasping concepts. And that's all the average person needs in order to see what's going on.

Carl Sagan was excellent at presenting complex ideas in easily digestable metaphors. There are scientists out there now who are good at this too, but none seem as charismatic or as enthusiastic as Mr Sagan was.

(Someone really needs to have a go at QM, as the public perception of it is full of misconceptions.)

This post has been edited by gmilam on Feb 21 2009, 03:38 PM

I think Dawkins does a very good job of explaining science in a way that the average person without a background in science can understand. The Selfish Gene practically changed my life and I was just a child when I first read it. The Ancestor's Tale is also quite good and very easy to understand. I think that many people write Dawkins off because of his connection to the Evolution/Creationism issue. He is a very polarizing figure, but at the end of the day the man is a brilliant scientist with a gift for explaining the complexities of some of the core principles of biology in ways that can be easily understood. He has a book coming out later this year called "The Greatest Show on Earth: The Evidence for Evolution" which I am looking forward to reading.


The misunderstanding and mischaracterization of science is scary to me. The masses seem to be getting farther and farther behind and they seem to be getting more combative every day. Many groups are blatantly anti-science, making science 'reachable' is the surest way that we have of fighting back. It will be hard for people to take the anti-science position if they actually understand what they are speaking out against. I hope.

gmilam: Which would make them the hypocrites that I've always claimed that they are. Such types are not Christians.

Since you've always(to my knowledge) handled yourself in an honest(although you're presently deceived) and respectful manner, I'll let you off easy on this one. You, my friend(even if it's not a mutual feeling), have been deceived and are actually perpetuating a myth:

http://www.weeklystandard.com/Content/Publ...4qiuuc.asp?pg=1

That is NOT a James Watt quote...it is a lie. Take care.

You're kindly invited to take a look at

Should Science Be Evangelized, at

http://www.physforum.com/index.php?showtop...20&#entry402021

DH

Since you've always(to my knowledge) handled yourself in an honest(although you're presently deceived) and respectful manner, I'll let you off easy on this one. You, my friend(even if it's not a mutual feeling), have been deceived and are actually perpetuating a myth:

http://www.weeklystandard.com/Content/Publ...4qiuuc.asp?pg=1

That is NOT a James Watt quote...it is a lie. Take care.

I stand corrected, further research reveals that this is a bogus quote. However, I have met "professed Christians" who have stated words to that very effect. So, even though Watt may not have said it, the sentiment does exist.

This is happening because the religionists are getting to the masses before the scientists do. They convince them before they are introduced to science. It starts when they are small kids. To compete with this, one would have to start explaining science to young children. I remember when I was seven years old (and even five and six). I was given Bible stories. I heard creation when I was that young literally years before I even heard of evolution. This made evolution sound strange and foreign and unnatural. One tends to believe what they are told on their parents knee. The first thing I ever saw about evolution was anti-evolution. It was a comic book targeting kids telling them how silly and ridiculous evolution is and it even implied that scientists were purposely lying. There was this hint that Darwin was insulting you by saying you came from a monkey whereas God was better because you are a creation of his and therefore special. The comic book made Darwin out to be some malevolent monster and that the theory of evolution leads to things like the holocaust. This sort of propaganda leads to strong emotions inflamed. It goes way beyond simply saying a scientific theory is incorrect.

Newguy, I know Jesus never told anyone to go into politics. He never got involved in such, but it seems his current followers are very involved. I have witnessed church involvement in various political campaigns dating back to the election of Ronald Reagan. Perhaps you are one of those pure Christians who is not like the rest of them. Unfortunately you have been shouted down by the fundamentalist mob. I, at first, argued with them telling them Jesus did not advocate what they are doing politically. They did not listen and were in fact hostile. I eventually gave up on them.

My problem is this, if Christendom is a purely human institution, human institutions can be wrong and shout down the minority voice which is right. There is supposed to be a God here. Why hasn't He gotten off his keister and done something about it. You do not know how hard I prayed in those days. There came a point where I had to admit that what I was believing in was a myth.

As to the prophecies of the Book of Revelation: I was very up on that years ago. The devil has his role, but God also has His. Haven't you ever noticed that the prophecies regarding human events have come true, but those prophecies regarding actions by God are conspicuously absent?