Robert Ingersoll once said, “Ignorance is the soil in which belief in miracles grows.”
Without the tools of thought — that is, education — people will believe anything. They just don’t know any better. This has been the case for most of the history of humanity.
Isn’t it about time we change that?
It is true we are far more better off than we were centuries ago. Better off, but far from perfect — I mean, have you seen those videos of some McCain followers? We still have a long way to go.
What can we do to continue in the progress of knowledge, instead of the downward spiral of ignorance and superstition?
Daniel
Just one question. So you believe that the supernatural can’t happen?
Eric Kemp
We need to promote education! Education, education, education!
The beauty is, we’re finally at a point in history where we don’t have to be ignorant anymore! But, ignorance & superstition ain’t just gonna cure themselves. We need to get as involved as possible in education! We need to donate our money and/or time to educational causes. We need to light fires under our gov’ts asses so they improve education. We need to encourage everyone we know to get as involved as they can as well… Spread the word! And most importantly, we need to constantly be exercising our children’s brains. (Everybody’s brains, for that matter!) We need to nurture their curiosity while teaching them the tools for critical thinking. We need to get our fellow humans excited about all the sciences (and the scientific method), and all the awesome new discoveries that pop up every single day! And last but not least, we need to try to make everybody realize that reality is stranger and more wonderful than any mythologist or science fiction writer could ever imagine.
It’s definitely not a one-step process… More of a lifetime commitment. Women didn’t win the vote in a day, blacks didn’t reclaim their freedom in a day, and gays still haven’t achieved equality, even now, in the 21st century. We need to take a cue from our fellow strugglers, and try to embody their passions as we fight to bring reality to the forefront. But unfortunately, we have to realize that we (probably) will never see this goal come to fruition in our lifetimes. The habit of superstition is as old as civilization itself… So we need to be content in thinking that, although we may never see an enlightened new dawn, we can at least be comfortable, even PROUD, knowing that we’re doing all we can today!
Sorry, I read something recently that said if your comment is longer than the original post itself, then it’s probably too long, but you got me all fired up! :D I just found your blog a couple days ago and I think it’s great!!
Where should knowledge come from? Science?
I’m waiting for the genius pill and digital brain interfaces. Though it is the democratic and human thing to let people be as stupid as they want. Just put them on thier own island/continent. Then we can rig cameras everywhere on that island and have a very entertaining reality show.
“Where should knowledge come from? Science?”
Yes. The scientific method is the most powerful means of exploring the universe ever devised. We aren’t clubbing our food to death with rocks, and dying of minor infections because of it. It taught us what the lights in the sky actually were, and where they come from. No other means of gathering information even comes close.
If we had to rely on supernaturalism for advancement, we’d still be beating our food to death with rocks, dying of simple infections, and praying to a bear god to stop bears from eating us.
“Just one question. So you believe that the supernatural can’t happen?”
Prove that it ever has, and a cool million bucks awaits you. I won’t hold my breath though.
“Where should knowledge come from? Science?â€
Knowledge will come from people taking the time to obtaining it. Spoon-feeding yourself tv every evening is insulting and it is lazy. Science doesn’t hold the monopoly on knowledge, but it is at least honest, unlike religion.
See the movie ” Idiocracy ” by Mike Judge.
Ty, the problem with science is that it doesn’t furnish us with knowledge at all. My question, then, was rhetorical. All scientific “discoveries” are inductive, and induction always asserts the consequent, which is a logical fallacy. We may make rational inferences using science, but these inferences are never justified—unless you want to hold that invalid logic can produce sound arguments.
And, as you probably know, induction presupposes that nature is uniform—a presupposition that atheism cannot account for. Like Bertrand Russell and Karl Popper, you can only admit science works now because it has worked in the past—which, of course, begs the question.
@Keith:
So you assert that the scientific method has stopped working?
“Inductive” You keep using that word, but I do not think it means what you think it means.
The scientific method is designed to avoid inductive reasoning. Avoidance of induction is, in fact, very much the reason for employing the scientific method.
Your last paragraph seems to be either gibberish or poppycock. I suppose scientific analysis could tell us which.
Where did I say that the scientific method has “stopped” working? Science does work, but science achieving our ends (pragmatism) is not the same as saying science gives us knowledge.
The scientific method is designed to avoid inductive reasoning. Avoidance of induction is, in fact, very much the reason for employing the scientific method.
Actually, the exact opposite is true. All scientific laws are accepted only because we’ve never seen them violated.
You think the last paragraph is gibberish because you’ve never studied phil. of sci.
You seem perilously close to the “just a theory” argument that creationists throw at evolution.
To go back a step: Inductive reasoning is the human tendency to bridge gaps in knowledge by positing that if A is true under conditions X, it remains true under conditions Y.
Science sets out to test that theory instead of simply assuming it to be true. Hence induction is avoided.
I suppose one could argue that since it’s impossible to test for each and every set of conditions there’s always a loophole, but that’s also a task of science: further exploration. By such exploration we can define all conditions for which A can be taken to be true.
As to the last paragraph, you’re right. I studied language. So enlighten me. How must atheism account for a universe that follows a given set of scientific laws?
The scientific method worked in the past, is working in the present, and I’ll bet you a six-pack that it continues to work forever, world-without-end amen.
And for results it beats the hell out of the alternatives, no? What better source of knowledge is there than scientific evaluation? And why isn’t everybody already using it?