Science/Faith Flowchart
From the journal of Wellington Grey:
Comments
rikhei on Feb. 17, 2007 4:03 PM
What a sadly limited idea of faith!
matt-arnold on Feb. 17, 2007 4:08 PM
Unfortunately it's the one used by 99% of the actual people of faith.
threemeow on Feb. 17, 2007 4:20 PM
You could be so much more effective in your obse^H^H^H^Hmission if you weren't so hostile. This was an amusing post until you returned to form. You have a very narrow and willfully cynical view of the world. Fortunately for those of faith you're too full of yourself to change. That makes you harmless to us.
threemeow on Feb. 17, 2007 4:21 PM
Oh, and the faith chart is so much more elegant, no? :-)
users on Feb. 17, 2007 5:30 PM
Wait a minute, which response was the hostile, closed-minded one, yours or his? As something of a theist, I hate when people defend faith without a particularly good understanding.
Oh,and the chart describes the concept of faith pretty accurately, if you understand the term.
threemeow on Feb. 17, 2007 5:49 PM
It describes a pedantic understanding of the word, yes.
users on Feb. 17, 2007 6:04 PM
If by pedantic you mean correct, then I agree completely. If, instead, by pedantic you mean "I'm saying you're incorrect, but not backing it up", then I have to assume you're wrong.
tlatoani on Feb. 17, 2007 6:22 PM
I think you're going to get a "No true Scotsman" response here.
users on Feb. 17, 2007 6:28 PM
It always springs up in these sort of conversations.. it is merely a matter of time.
threemeow on Feb. 17, 2007 7:04 PM
Oh, no, diversity has reared its ugly head in your sandbox. Let's see if sophomorish wit can chase it away!
tlatoani on Feb. 17, 2007 7:12 PM
Oh no! A person of faith who dares to speak out! That's so unusual in Bush's America!
What exactly is your argument here?
threemeow on (None)
tlatoani on Feb. 17, 2007 9:00 PM
Hello, Amy. You're providing another example of how to do it, though you probably aren't aware of how you're coming off.
threemeow on Feb. 17, 2007 11:29 PM
Indeed, I probably shouldn't have deleted the most frank parts of my posts since I said the same damned thing, anyway. So, here is the non-haughty version...
Matt, you've surrounded yourself with like-minded people. You're going to get nowhere convincing them of anything. You're preaching to the choir. When a non-choir member wanders in, have a thicker skin. Jumping right to the hyperbole isn't very compelling.
Jer_ and tlatoani, your smarter-than-thou banter may be amusing to your peers, but really it just feeds a stereotype. Perhaps you aren't aware how you are coming off.
There's a management seminar based on this book. Haven't read the book, but been subjected to the seminar, and read the twenty-page summary of the book. If it's representative, perhaps the book would be a good read for geeks, as it (or the seminar, anyway) describes in charitable but patronizing terms how the world sees geek intellectualism. Think you're aware of all the unflattering stereotypes?
tlatoani on Feb. 17, 2007 11:59 PM
The sheer irony of you posting that, and including a comment about needing to have a thicker skin when you're dealing with people who don't share your beliefs, is so staggering...
Relax; this is an informal social context and we aren't held to the norms of professional business conversation here. I'd suggest gaining a better understanding of the importance of context and tone in social interaction before jumping in with both feet and lecturing people.
matt-arnold on Feb. 18, 2007 6:08 PM
I don't know what you want me to do about who hangs out here. You're here, aren't you? People comment here all the time with views on religion that frustrate me, so where is the problem? I didn't exhibit a thin skin toward Rikhei's comment. She's part of the choir!
I tell it the way it is with no harm intended, and the way it is insults you. But see, here's what you might be having trouble with: that happens because you deserve insult. *Shrug* Sorry about that. If I tell you the bridge is out on the road in front of you, I didn't knock the bridge down to cause you harm. There's a problem between you and the reality I see, not between you and me: I didn't set up reality in such a way as to whose feelings it would hurt. So I don't see it as trying to attack you.
I'd greatly prefer if we could all acknowledge that there are going to be things we don't like about anyone whom we get to know well enough (assuming you are anyone I know), and that we should confront the problems, then set them aside and move on.
phecda on Feb. 17, 2007 9:07 PM
Speaking of people who sabotage their own success, take a look at this wonderful example of a faith-based site: http://www.fixedearth.com/. This is the professed belief of the chairman of the Texas House Appropriations Committee, Warren Chisum. And apparently Rep. Ben Bridges of the Georgia House, too. Evidently Copernicus is too revolutionary for these esteemed statesmen. So, yes, for these fine gentlemen, the right hand path seems to be their choice.
threemeow on Feb. 17, 2007 11:30 PM
This looks like an elaborate hoax, but the site is so ugly I can't stand to find out :-)
tlatoani on Feb. 18, 2007 12:02 AM
That was my reaction too.
phecda on Feb. 18, 2007 6:29 PM
While not prrof that it's not a hoax, a story about this referencing the fixedearth site and Rep. Bridges was evidently published in the Atlanta Journal-Constitution under the title "Anti-evolution memo stirs controversy"
http://www.museumofhoaxes.com/hoax/forums/viewthread/3096/
phecda on Feb. 18, 2007 6:51 PM
And yes, a real paper, and a series of articles on this subject published btw 2/16 and 2/18 of this year.
http://www.ajc.com/search/search/Rep+Bridges/UnifiedSearch?query=Rep+Bridges&collection=site
uplinktruck on Feb. 18, 2007 5:32 PM
Rep. Bridges wrote, "secular evolution science..." 
These religious zealots are almost enough to make me vote liberal. To bad the Libertarians don't have a prayer under the current system.
users on Feb. 17, 2007 7:13 PM
Actually, the "No True Scotsman" is less an alternate manner of thinking and more a logical fallacy... by definition. I suggest reading some introductory rhetoric references if you are interested in contributing something intelligent to this part of the conversation, rather than mere vitriol and poorly focused sarcasm.
tlatoani on Feb. 17, 2007 7:18 PM
I'm not sure that was a response to the "No true Scotsman" reference. I think it was an attempt to ignore it.
tlatoani on Feb. 17, 2007 7:19 PM
(The interesting question is which side of the discussion will step on that particular mine first, by the way...)
threemeow on Feb. 17, 2007 7:57 PM
Since you've painted a big, yellow circle around it, it's likely to be side-stepped by all :-) Or is the fun in seeing who steps on it, anyway?
tlatoani on Feb. 17, 2007 8:35 PM
It is. ;-)
users on Feb. 17, 2007 7:25 PM
Ahh, a fair point... although the red herring is no less frustrating to me...
tlatoani on Feb. 17, 2007 7:16 PM
(By the way, I kind of agree about Matt's sense of humor on this topic, but given how he was raised I understand why he might not see a lot of humor in religious fundamentalism. I find people with a literal belief in religous scripture -- any religious scripture -- pretty damn funny, except when they're in charge.)
uplinktruck on Feb. 18, 2007 5:06 PM
Hostile? I didn't see any hostilities on Matt's part.
Looks like an unvarnished view of the truth to me. However, most people who are overdosed on religion tend to see the truth as hostility.
"I like to think of religion like a fine Irish Whiskey. They are both marvelous things when taken in moderation."
- Monsignor Francis O'Dell replying to a question about religious based violence in Northern Ireland.
matt-arnold on Feb. 18, 2007 5:56 PM
I have given myself a day in which to contemplate the best response, if to respond at all. I don't feel upset or hostile about your response, but feel that your mood requires delicate handling, so I gave it some time to compose some rough drafts.
Who are you? Are you anyone I should expect to speak to in my offline life or in any communities other than LJ?
I was not upset at Rikhei, and I wasn't hostile. I agreed with her, since she and I see eye-to-eye on religious topics. Then I and added a point, to which I expected her to agree. So, that could not have been hostile to her.
Others have responded better than I have about your overreaction. I can think of no response I can formulate that would not sound hostile to you, but I ask that you do me the favor and great priviledge of interpreting the words of others with more charity. It is astonishing that I can't even speak calm, milquetoaste observations about obvoius fact without it being interpreted as belligerent.
threemeow on Feb. 18, 2007 9:57 PM
I did, indeed, overreact. I opologize.
rikhei on Feb. 17, 2007 4:39 PM
Hyperbole much?
matt-arnold on Feb. 17, 2007 5:21 PM
I have a lot of friends who lived a sheltered life, raised by smart, prosperous, educated parents, traveling only in smart, prosperous, educated circles. I guess that's the only way you can think I'm speaking with hyperbole about, for instance, the population of Mexico.
I've been to a dirt-poor town in Mexico on a missions trip. That is far more representative of the current population of the human race than anyone living in any American suburb.
tlatoani on (None)
tlatoani on Feb. 17, 2007 7:09 PM
I hope it's unnecessary to say this, but if you were speaking about the entire population of Mexico, while I wouldn't call it hyperbole because there's a better word, that word would be "overbroad". See, e.g., the UNAM.
tlatoani on Feb. 17, 2007 6:59 PM
Not a universal representation of faith, but not hyperbole.
rikhei on Feb. 17, 2007 9:35 PM
Just to clarify, I think the 99% is a blatant exaggeration, not the ideas expressed in the diagram itself.
tlatoani on Feb. 17, 2007 11:10 PM
Ah. I agree with that. 99% is too high.
avt-tor on Feb. 18, 2007 8:19 AM
Do you have any evidence for this statistic?
matt-arnold on Feb. 18, 2007 5:46 PM
Do you have any evidence that most birds are not flightless? Certainly, there are flightless birds, such as penguins and kiwi. But they are the exception to the rule: when we think of birds, we think of flying.
Off the top of your head, can you produce evidence for us to support the fact that when you think of birds, you think of flying? Certainly, the evidence exists. When we see birds, we see them fly, on a nearly daily basis. But can you produce evidence for me right now about the state of the world's flighless bird population and present it to me over the internet? Is it fair to say, as a rough estimate, that 99% of birds fly, just as a shorthand for all the convoluted stuff I just said? Yes, it would be a misstatement. 99% is shorthand for "overwhelmingly normal". This is a normality that all of us are familiar with, or should be if we venture outside our house.
If you fail to go hunt up the research right now on the exact percent of the world's current bird population that is flightless, have you failed to respect evidence? How can that compare to the disrespect for evidence shown by one who claims that "true", "real" birds normally are flightless and that it is the flying birds who are anomalies?
avt-tor on Feb. 23, 2007 11:54 PM
Well a rudimentary Google search shows that a majority of American Christians (67% of white mainline Protestants, 73% of non-Hispanic white Catholics) accept evolution as scientific fact.
You can't persuasively defend science as a means of understanding the world around us when you base your argument on irrational prejudice that is inconsistent with facts.
matt-arnold on Feb. 24, 2007 3:17 PM
Are you forgetting which claim I made? Keep in mind the claim had to do with the human species, globally, and I immediately stressed that Americans are not representative of the majority. The majority over the last six thousand years have been dirt-poor, ignorant, and superstitious, because we are superstitious as a species. You are making the mistake-- a common mistake in our society-- of conflating "everyone" with "our society".
My claim, although exaggerated, is consistent with the finding that 67% of Americans accept evolution as scientific fact. If you ask the majority of those same Americans about faith, they will switch the conversation onto an entirely different track in which they validate something close to the flowchart on the right. It's not uncommon for a brain to be partitioned into faith and science modes, modes which sometimes overlap and fight within an individual mind, but often don't.
avt-tor on Feb. 26, 2007 3:39 AM
I'm just using available evidence. I think the proportion of Americans who reject science is higher than it's been in the past, and higher than it is in most other countries.
My objection, specifically, was to the "99%" claim. There are some scary people using religious themes to promote ignorance in order to advance their agendas. You can't persuade the irrational people. You can persuade people who accept reason as a means of understanding the world, but you can only do that with reason, not with rhetoric based on different articles of faith.
matt-arnold on Feb. 18, 2007 5:57 PM
I just want to specify that if you intended to correct me for misspeaking, I thank you and appreciate you for this. You were right to do so. Consider my last response a correction to my statement and clarification of intent. I'm sorry for misspeaking.
tlatoani on Feb. 17, 2007 4:30 PM
Too true -- it doesn't include all the violence!
rikhei on Feb. 17, 2007 4:40 PM
Surely you don't think every person of faith is violent?
users on Feb. 17, 2007 5:32 PM
Oooh, awesome straw man!
tlatoani on Feb. 17, 2007 5:42 PM
Of course not. And yes, it's a classic straw man. Next, we'll see the patented religious version of the "No true Scotsman" fallacy.
But this is the face of faith that you see if you're outside the "God club". It's a legitimate (if limited) view, which is a natural consequence of the way faith has been used as a hammer against free thought both in recent years and historically.
Don't want people to view faith that way? Demonstrate the alternative. Right now, the people wrecking the world think exactly like that diagram.
users on Feb. 17, 2007 6:42 PM
Well said. As a person who does believe in a supreme being, I find myself unsettled by the "party line" on faith or belief. It is very off-putting to me, so I can only imagine how it must be percieved by others. It would be nice if theists as an aggregate could acknowledge the shortcomings inherent within, rather than hiding behind sacred cows and protected speech that veil the truth.
rikhei on Feb. 17, 2007 9:28 PM
Yes, it was a straw man, and for that I apologize. I don't know you well, but I do know you to be an intelligent person. I was hoping you would clarify your position, and I thank you for doing so despite my rather crappy way of asking you to do so.
No disagreements on the rest of what you've said - there's always been a high correlation between faith and violence, and I wouldn't dispute causation in most cases. As you said, though, it's a legitimate, if limited view. I even agree that the best way to get people to view faith differently is by demonstrating the alternative.
Am I wrong in assuming that you think I'm a person of faith? You seemed to be suggesting that when you said "Next, we'll see the patented religious version..." and when you recommended I "Demonstrate the alternative." Just wanted to let you know that I'm an agnostic, and we're capable of the occasional stupid logical error once in awhile too. ;P
tlatoani on Feb. 17, 2007 11:12 PM
I did make the assumption, and I apologize. Clearly, we agnostics are also capable of occasional wrong assumptions. (Which might be why we're agnostics, because we know other people are as well...)
wormquartet on Feb. 17, 2007 4:37 PM
I genuinely laughed out loud at this. Thanks for that.
-=ShoEboX=-
grey1618 on (None)
tlatoani on (None)
tlatoani on Feb. 18, 2007 3:03 PM
(Whoops, never mind that response. I misunderstood what you meant.)
tlatoani on Feb. 18, 2007 3:05 PM
(And dude, your stuff is great!)
uplinktruck on (None)
uplinktruck on Feb. 18, 2007 6:09 PM
Wrong link to the chart, Grey. Too bad too. I was just starting to like you.
matt-arnold on Feb. 18, 2007 6:13 PM
Done. Thanks very much for making it! Great stuff on your site!
uplinktruck on Feb. 18, 2007 6:02 PM
Great link Matt, thanks for the laugh.
Leave a Comment