What does the national conversation surronding Pluto's planet classification teach us about fundamentalists

Question

What does it tell us, as non-fundamentalists, about fundamentalists who say, "see scientists always changing their mind, what does that tell you" similar to the discussion regarding evolution, where fundamentalists say "see, they are changing their mind, and the data/Theory is always changing".

I had a discussion about a dinosaur in instant message, and I explained there was a dinosaur 70 million years ago that had cancer, thus making a literal interpretation of Genesis impossible, since the first homo sapiens don't show up until 300,000 years ago.

I was asked a series of questions, equivalent of "His Noodly Appendage plays with the machine." She said "the water was purer before the fall of man". At that point I realized, this is not a science discussion any more.

What do the views of fundamentalists regarding the ongoing debates within science, that these debates show "they don't know"; teach us about their own world view?

Answer 1

Fundamentalists see the world as black and white. Good and evil. Right and wrong.

They need something concrete and inflexible, like the Bible, or the Qu'ran, to give them the security and solidity that they crave.

New ideas challenge us, change necessitates adaptation. Fundamentalists can't deal with the advancement of human knowledge simply because this entails new ideas, challenges, change and adaptation.

Evolution is of course an idea that encapsulates not just the changing nature of science, but is actually about change and adaptation itself. No wonder it scares them senseless.

Answer 2

It teaches us that they refuse to grow. They are not comfortable enough to accept teachings outside their own little world view. They don't realize that science is not supposed to stay unchanging.. the very nature of science is change. You make a hypothesis and then create a theory, prove or disprove it and based on the results make adjustments for the next theory. Some belief systems just will not allow for that.

Answer 3

It reinforces the idea that their brains work differently. There are some subtleties at work here that seem to escape the notice of most people. They have to do with the nature of 'belief'.

A rational person might say "I believe in the Big Bang." A religious person might say "I believe in creation, as described in Genesis." But these statements are not even remotely similar, with respect to what is meant by the word 'believe'.

For the rational person, the statement of 'belief' in the Big Bang means that they understand that the concept provides a scientifically and mathematically consistent explanation, congruent with the evidence, which accounts for the evolution of the universe from a fraction of a second after the initiating event, up until the present. When the 'inflationary model' came to the fore, rational people said "Well, good... that clears up a few questions and makes things even more coherent." NOBODY threw up their arms and wailed "Oh, no... oh, no... ain't so... ain't so... the Big Bang is the inerrant truth... not this ridiculous, atheistic 'inflationary' model."

See... when we say "I believe in the Big Bang", we don't really mean the same thing as the religious person means when he says "I believe in creation, as described in Genesis," or "I believe in God." Our 'belief' in the Big Bang (or anything else) isn't really a 'belief'... it is more properly a 'paradigm'... a useful way of looking at something, or thinking about something. If additional information is uncovered that adds to the conceptual model, that is a good thing... not a disaster. If part of the conceptual model is discovered to be incorrect, and must be tossed in the trash and replaced with something completely different... that is also a good thing... not the end of the world as we know it. And often, no matter how highly confident we may be of the accuracy or completeness of a particular paradigm, we may have reason to apply a DIFFERENT paradigm to the same thing, in an effort to tease out new insights; for example, we might want to contemplate the potential implications of a change to a theory from the perspective of the Tao Te Ching, the Gaia hypothesis, or ecological homeostasis. We KNOW that all theories are approximations... and that is OK. We KNOW that we don't have all the answers... and that is OK, too. There is nothing wrong with saying "We don't know... yet; but we're working on it."

But these modes of thinking, perceiving, contemplating and understanding are utterly alien to the 'religious' mind. For the religious mind, a 'belief' is not a paradigm... not a useful way of thinking about something... it is an internalized conviction that one knows the absolute 'truth' pertaining to some aspect of existence and/or fundamental reality. 'Beliefs' are one of the key interpretive component filters of the religious person's 'self-description'... a part of what DEFINES them as a person... the very thing that creates their world-view... an underpinning of their 'subjective reality'. Any challenge to one of these internalized 'beliefs' is perceived and interpreted as a vital threat... an attack upon the 'self-description'... and an assault upon their subjective reality.

And here is the key difference: When there is a change in one of the paradigms dealing with a scientific concept, or a new insight into the workings of the universe, to the 'rational' person it merely constitutes an interesting new piece of knowledge and understanding... a new insight. However, if that same new insight, or piece of information (a feature of the universe, for example) seems to threaten a tenet of Christianity, everybody goes to battle stations, goes into 'damage control' mode... for fear that the whole edifice will come crashing down. And, ultimately, it will.

So, when a fundie disparages evolution, for example, it really has nothing to do with a genuine, intellectual dispute regarding scientific details... they are generally scientifically illiterate, anyway. Any 'scientific' arguments that they present are inevitably not even understood... they are just lifted from the pre-packaged lies and misrepresentations that are found on dozens of 'Liars for Jesus' (LFJ) web sites, and parroted. They are in a battle. They are trying to sink science before science sinks them. They are desperate... and science is (mostly, and unfortunately) oblivious to the fact that they are even in a fight, and that somebody is trying to sink them. They are just blithely bopping along, doing what science does... figuring out how nature works.

No... none of this has anything to do with a mere disagreement pertaining to evidence and understanding. It has to do with minds that deal with fundamental issues in an entirely different way. It has to do with a flexible, open-minded, intellectually honest (willing to question and doubt one's own presumptions) curiosity about the universe, contending with a rigid, unyielding world-view that depends from a certainty that certain delusional faith-based (willful ignorance and magical, wishful thinking) 'beliefs' represent the absolute 'truth' of reality.

We might as well be talking to an alien species, from a distant planet.

When the religious enter a venue like this one, they are (generally) NOT seeking answers, or new information... these might cause them to QUESTION their beliefs, or might put their beliefs at risk. No... they are seeking VALIDATION... of their beliefs, and hence, of their self-description.

Answer 4

easy, the farther youre out there the less people want you!

well it teaches me that these fundamentalists are simply looking for ammunition to use against us. theyre basiclaly a people who have entered an academy of knowledge (science) with absolutely no idea how it works. when new information comes into play and we shift they point thatt shif of knowledge out as a bad thing.

the fundamentalists (and general christians) know nothing about the inner workings of science, because they dont yet see it as an enemy or rival theyre going to attack it.

Answer 5

One question: How do you "know" that man / first homo sapiens / etc. first showed up 300,000 years ago? Or that dinosaurs roamed the earth 70 million years ago?

That's a huge leap of faith for a "scientist," as he wasn't there and it's not testable/repeatable in a laboratory...

These are educated (and sometimes not-so-educated) guesses, my friend...

Toodle-pip!

Answer 6

It teaches us that education is very important, and should be viewed as such by more people in general. Pluto may be re-classified, but that doesn't mean it doesn't exist anymore. It is foolish for them to judge all science as less important than bible stories. In my opinion.

Answer 7

People are readily willing to accept information or tradition as fact regardless of evolving data. It is difficult to be entirely objective in any situation, because in doing so we still make use of our own lens, by which to view things "objectively."

Answer 8

OH fundal this, get-off your vocab bull, they did the best they could with what they had, take the cucumber out your azz and join the rest of the human race whom are all quite capable of making mistakes.

Answer 9

Most of the people I see online upset about Pluto don't seem to be Biblical literalists.

Answer 10

That with a vote things can be here one minute and the next minute your gone. Not fair.