Really?Does something in trigonometry threaten a world view in which you’ve heavily invested and work hard to maintain?
I hate to admit it Skep, but “Yes!” it’s true, my fear of trig is directly challenging my belief that I am able to comprehend any and all scientific or mathematical theories if they are explained properly. When I meet those words ‘sine’ and ‘cosine’ my brain self-destructs and I am forced to face the fact that I am not as intelligent as I thought I was . . . in fact, given my inability to understand how to calculate the area of a hyperbolic curve on a graph (which can’t really be that difficult after all) is proof enough that I am actually an idiot posing as an intelligent primate. In effect, this sort of proof does threaten a world view, or at least my place in that world I am viewing. Damn it all!
I saw a little bit of a lecture program on a religious TV station the other night. Apparently, its approach was to justify a theistic worldview by equating it with science, both being reduced to equally valid “beliefs.” It used some hypotheses and theories of science that either haven’t been proven or fits in “nicely” to justify alternative hypotheses that coincide with a theistic worldview of a “younger” earth/universe. The lecturer mentioned diamonds, but I don’t recall exactly what his point was except that perhaps diamonds that have come to the Earth’s surface generally range from under 1 billion to 3.3 billion years old, representing 22% to 73% of the “scientific” estimated age of the Earth. Another was comets, specifically the life of comets to indicate a younger universe. The lecturer referenced secular scientists’ Oort Cloud hypothesis that addresses new generation of comets. He then remarked that if you ask this scientist if he can prove it (Oort Cloud), the answer will be no, followed by, you can’t prove that it doesn’t exist either, therefore legitimizing the theistic worldview as equally valid “beliefs.” The lecture seemed to be peppered with these little anecdotes that produced laughter from the audience who were listening intently and busily taking notes. The point that was continually brought home was that both theistic and secular scientific thought are “world views” based on “beliefs” of equal validity and heavily invested interest.
When arguments like this are made I always think of something like “The word “proof” should always be used in quotes” and that old philosophical idea that goes something like… “Nothing can be proven at all because nobody can prove that they are not actually in some kind of dreamworld like in that movie The Matrix.”
But the idea of the earth being only 6000 years old as opposed to over a billion years old always references the bible and assumes that this was written by god and he can’t be wrong and all that jazz. So arguing semantics like this is fine except other than “the bible said so” what evidence do christian scientists have that the earth is only 6000 years old? If you take the bible out of the argument and pretend it was never written then you have no point of reference to argue that the earth is only such and such years old as opposed to a scientificly theorized age. The idea from christian people used to be science is wrong, now it is science and religion (oddly, only christianity) are at least on equal footing, and possibly in the future more christians will accept the idea that the earth is over 6000 years old and that evolution DOES exist but that christianity is still right about God making it all. Just the fact that religious peoples opinions only change when it becomes necessary to battle popular consensus should set off a very loud warning alarm to christians that desperation is the reason for this new wave of anti-facts. And should they then ask themselves who is desperate and why they might actually come to the reality of this fight themselves and understand this is just a political agenda and has very little to do with the saving of souls. That’s my hope anyway.
