Dangerous "Science Delusion"

[Synnical]

http://www.guardian.co.uk/science/blog/2008/sep/12/robert.winston

Cripes, I must be living in the 14th Century!



-Cindy

[enlightenment]

1. Aw - come on now! Give Lord Winston a little credit!!

That is clearly a mindset of the 16th century.

:banghead: :banghead: :banghead:

[Az]

2. Well hold up there

Even Dawkins himself admits that he has made it impossible for believers to accept the science he wishes to teach people simply because he has made himself such an oppositional figure that his name is all they see and immediately shut down and ignore anything he has to say except that which sounds inflammatory (dang that was all one sentence).

The thing is if you wish religious people to listen to science that contradicts their views you can't just walk up and cram it down their throat. Heck even inviting them out to dinner and attempting to slip it into their soup won't get it down their throats some times. But to just go in all guns blazing simply ignores the reality of matters. And that is the nature of how the mind comes to accept ideas which contradict strongly held beliefs. Such ideas have to overcome tremendous emotional ties that the individual has. So either the new idea has to be rammed home via an incredibly strong emotional association or its going to have to be introduced with respect and consideration for their existing beliefs. Its sometimes necessary to (as Dawkins says) seduce them into accepting an idea.

[enlightenment]

3. There is a difference, I think, between

seduction and what Winston is suggesting, which is that in accepting there are un-know-ables (as in we don't currently have either the answer or the ability to formulate a method to find it) we should also accept that religious belief is an acceptable alternative.

That mindset does nothing to help people realise that magical thinking is not the best response. What it does do is allow them a "get out of jail free" card. If they are able to say "this thing we cannot explain comes from 'god'" then they can say - with equal validity - "just because you have come up with an explanation, it doesn't mean you're right; I will continue to believe it comes from 'god'."

Dawkins' often goes over the top and his fervour definitely has a downside, but I believe that Winston's position is part of the problem, not part of the solution.