Here is what I suspect. Most people believe and /or accept the theory of evolution or big bang theories as fact, based on:
1) Whether a scientist said it (aka. the educational credentials of the claim-maker).
2) The sheer number of scientists who said it (aka. 'truth' is based on popular vote, the more scientists who say the same, the stronger the claim).
No.
This is ridiculous.
If your deepest conclusion as to why people accept the evolutionary explanations of biological diversity is based on the appeal to authority fallacy, then you don't talk to enough people.
If, in a hypothetical world, not a single scientist ever mentioned of referenced evolutionary theory again, it would still be true. We have a very good understanding of how the mechanisms of natural selection work and how they impact the gene flow in populations over time. Once someone actually understands what evolutionary science is, and doesn't simply rely on their elementary knowledge of the words that are said, it becomes much easier to understand it, test it, and explain it.
I have a few problems with this.
1) Questions about the origin of the universe, origin of life, etc. are so huge, I suspect the answers a way beyond mere humans to discover the answers to. Which leaves us with mere "guesses". Unfortunately, the truthful descriptive word "guess" never seems to be included in such guesswork.
2) Humans have a propensity to make huge claims of knowledge, etc. because we are prideful, conceited, and many of us are just plain megalomaniacs, making claims so large - especially about our scientific knowledge, that we exceed our bounds of what we truly know. If a scientist made a huge (and bogus claim) it wouldn't be the first nor last. Scientists are just as prone to various human weaknesses as the rest of us mortals.
3) Sheer numbers of scientists, etc. don't negate the above two problems. Many false claims have been made and believed in the past. Very unfortunate.
4) We don't need to be 'scientists' to step into the foray and read articles and dissect them. Is it that our brain isn't up to the level of a scientist or is it that we are unnecessarily intimidated by the material?
1) You mean hypothesize...?
Let me ask you a question:
How big was the Earth before people started sailing around it? What was our knowledge of the Planet before we knew it was a sphere?
How big were the continents before we started mapping them?
How big was the Solar System before we invented telescopes? Was the Sun at the center, or was the Earth? Are the Moon and the Sun the same size?
At one time, those could have been looked at as unanswerable questions - but we have answers to them...
Your ignorance of a thing does not mean that it's not well known. Your ideas about evolution, for example, fall into this category. There will
always be things that we don't know. Each new discovery also raises new questions. That's how knowledge works for infants and it's how knowledge works for humanity as a whole. Current ignorance of a topic does not mean that you should stop asking questions or searching for answers. It means you should try harder to figure them out. Don't rest on your laurels.
2.) You are correct - though I think you fail to realize the implications of what you're criticizing here when it comes to your own stance...
The flaws of human reasoning and logic, and the fact that we are prone to biases, are why science has built-in mechanisms to help weed out these things. It's self-correcting, given time, because it is designed to question, test, pick apart, and dissect every aspect of a peer's methodology and findings. This is the very basis of scientific understanding. If something isn't testable and repeatable, then it's probably not true and needs to be jettisoned to constantly accumulating pile of nonsense that we humans have believed over the years.
Can you say the same of religion? Can you say the same of faith? Do holy claims and presuppositions pass the same rigorous testing procedure before being taught to the masses? Is there any self-correcting mechanism among the faiths which will happily reject false statements?
3.) Again - you are correct. The difference between science and faith is that science happily rids itself of these false beliefs in pursuit of knowledge. Religion is the exact opposite, presupposing an answer to a question and then spending thousands of years before gradually beginning to make changes to its dogmas.
Think about it.
4.) Yes you do... To suggest otherwise is idiotic.
What business does a kindergarten student have judging a calculus exam? The only answer that you can give here is "none". The mathematical knowledge of an Elementary student is not sufficient to judge the work of a trigonometry major. Do you disagree with that statement?
When the mathematical knowledge of that student is on par with that of advanced mathematics, then (and only then), would the student's judgments be of any real value.
Again, if you are intimidated by the science that you read about, or if you are ignorant of a topic, then educate yourself. There are very good sources out there that will help condense the more difficult parts of scientific information so that they can be more easily digested by the general population. There's nothing wrong with reading a "For Dummies" book, for example. All knowledge starts will baby steps. I know what I know about Astrobiology not because I woke up one day and knew everything - but because I've spent years reading and studying almost everything that I can get my hands on in regards to that field. That's how all knowledge works. Just because you don't fully understand something doesn't mean that it's not true... It simply means that you just don't know enough about it...
And if you don't understand even the basics of a topic, then you certainly don't have the knowledge or credentials required to critique it.
We are naturally geared to reject God.
Again, this is factually false.
We are, for various evolutionary reasons, predisposed to faith in a higher power. It's a vestige of our group struggle for survivability. There are many studies which support this, ranging through almost all of the human science fields.
