Religionists get fact and opinion backward

I'm almost 65, but I like to think of myself as a modern with-it guy.

Hey, I've got an iPhone 5; I ride five miles on my longboard/skateboard several times a week; I watched the entire freaking MTV Video Music Awards (and could even understand some of the song lyrics).

But there's one thing I'm decidedly old-fashioned about: I believe in facts. This goes against the grain of some widely pervasive viewpoints.

Like post-modern deconstruction. And pre-modern religiosity. Sorry, fact-deniers. I'm going to cling to my beloved facts.

When I was a kid my mother used to buy the World Almanac every year. This was (and maybe still is) a thick fact-filled book that begged for browsing. Want a list of the world's deepest lakes, the longest rivers, the largest deserts, the tallest mountains? The World Almanac had all that and much more.

So probably my revulsion over news stories like "Next Generation Science Standards in Kentucky Draw Hostility from Religious Groups" can be traced back to my upbringing. In fact, that's probably a fact.

My mother, who raised me, was a strong lover of science. She adored facts. Also, opinions. She was deeply political and loved to argue with people who didn't agree with her conservative views.

In those days, I never felt that facts and opinions were at war with each other. Politics, religion, music, art, literature -- these were areas where everybody had their own opinion. Science, though, dealt with facts -- demonstrable, albeit ever-evolving, truths about the cosmos.

Nowadays, religious fanatics have turned this sensible way of looking upon reality upside down. They've reversed the relation of fact and opinion, getting it backwards. 

The above-linked story talks about how religionists are dead-set against teaching children scientific facts about evolution and climate change. 

Supporters and opponents of the Next Generation Science Standards sparred during hearings in Kentucky last week, as critics took issue with the standards’ teaching of evolution and climate change.

The new standards were developed with input from officials in 26 states –- including Kentucky –- and are part of an effort to make science curricula more uniform across the country. While supporters feel the standards will help beat back scientific ignorance, some religious groups take issue because the standards treat evolution as fact and talk about the human role in climate change.

I'm sure the religious crazies would be over-joyed, though, if schools talked about Jesus as the Son of God. Which, of course, is just their opinion. This reflects the general backwardness of religious thinking:

Solid facts about the objective external world are disparaged as mere opinions, while mere opinions springing from subjective human minds are praised as solid facts. When religious believers try to inflict this on schools, it should be recognized for what it is -- educational child abuse.

Update: Here's another example... "Fact-Haters May Dumb Down Texas Textbooks Again."

Three years later, fundamentalists in charge of Texas textbooks are again working to make sure our students come out of school as ignorant as possible. A report from the Texas Freedom Network and the National Center for Science Education reveals that official state textbook reviewers appointed by the State Board of Education are trying to take the facts out of science education.

They're trying to get "creation science" and climate change denialism injected into textbooks, less students get an adequate education.

This is literal insanity - a wholesale rejection of established fact - but our state educators aren't really interested in facts. Texas students shouldn't be subjected to the fundamentalist religious beliefs of these state education officials, but they are.

"Once again culture warriors on the state board are putting Texas at risk of becoming a national laughingstock on science education," TFN President Kathy Miller said. "What our kids learn in their public schools should be based on mainstream, established science, not the personal views of ideologues, especially those who are grossly unqualified to evaluate a biology textbook in the first place. What we see in these documents makes it imperative that the board finally establish genuine qualifications for those entrusted with reviewing textbooks or curriculum standards for our kids."

Comments

[Aileen Kaye]

I agree completely!

[Willie R.]

Why do "scientists" have such a problem with "religionists"(if that's a word), and vice-versa?

It has everything to do with the one "fact" that is not taught but is inevitably recognized: you are going to die. Homo sapiens is the only species that knows this. The degree to which this bothers an individual will determine their response to that which they can do nothing about.

The "fact" that the Earth is billions of years old, and that Life evolved over those billions of years, is knowledge that cannot be put to practical use.

The "belief" that Life was created by an autonomous being we named "God" will not alter the basic "fact" that you will die.

It does not matter which faction may be right or wrong, or neither. You are still going to die, and to the conscious homo sapiens, this is totally unacceptable. Too bad. Just sweep the fact under the rug and try to rationalize the looming realization that Life has absolutely no meaning whatsoever. You don't "believe" that, do you?

[Willie R.]

Oh those crazy Texans - a lot of them think that they could actually secede from the Union if the required amount of votes are registered. And they are going to Heaven when they die, too. Yup. Nice, clear conservative thinking, for sure.

Any form of programmed education is actually indoctrination, no matter how you slice it. Telling kids that they are descended from apes rather than being specially created by a loving God is still indoctrination.

[cc]

The "belief" that Life was created by an autonomous being we named "God" will not alter the basic "fact" that you will die.

True, but it does alter the consciousness of the believer, enabling him or her to die without facing the fact of death, and that's why "scientists have such a problem with religionists".

[Willie R.]

Despite the fact that scientists have empirical proof in the form of data that tends to justify their assertions about the origins of human beings and even the universe itself, they fail to demonstrate that it would be much better for society as a whole if religionists would abandon their absurd beliefs. Maybe scientists are just jealous of the way religionists can appear to just dismiss the facts in favor of beliefs. The outcome of life for all individuals is always the same whether an individual is invested in facts or beliefs: the Reaper is coming to get ya, and everyone that you love, too. You cannot say that scientific facts will allow an individual to better cope with mortality.

I can, however, see a point in attempting to counter some religionist's militant stance against the propagation of scientific facts. The truth about life has a somewhat canny way of making itself evident despite facts or beliefs.

[cc]

You cannot say that scientific facts will allow an individual to better cope with mortality.

If to "cope with mortality" means believing in posthumous existence in some other form or dimension, the least we can do is to quit giving these idiots tax-exempt status.

[Avi]

Yes, we all know that we all will eventually die, but that does not mean that life has no meaning. In fact, the knowledge that we have only limited time on earth should encourage us NOT to worry about death (over which we don't have much control anyway) but to spend that time meaningfully (and we do have some control over that).

Just completed reading an interesting article in the current issue of "Time" magazine. Felt like sharing some excerpts .....

- How To Live Long -
Comedian George Burns celebrated his 95th birthday by signing a two-year contract to perform in Las Vegas. After Burns inked the deal, he told the hotel manager who'd negotiated it, "If you're still alive around at the end of two years, we'll talk again." (I paraphrased here the original just a little bit)

"It may be no coincidence that so many creative types have long lives. New findings show how doing what you love can add years."

".......... it's not just the luck of living a long life that allows some people to leave behind such robust bodies of work but that the act of doing creative work is what helps add those extra years. And that's something that can be available to everybody."

"Not all intellectual functions are preserved with age, but as processing power declines, the brain can compensate in ways that actually enhance creativity."

"The key is finding work that calls on you to remain nimble, adaptive, even visionary, to invent ideas and solve problems on the fly rather than just responding to the same questions with the same answers again and again."

"As people facing deadlines often lament, work tends to expand to fill the time you have to do it. Now, science suggests, time just might expand to contain the work with which you choose to fill it."

Read the full story at (you do need subscription though):
http://content.time.com/time/magazine/article/0,9171,2151786,00.html