Is there any reason to reject the science of evolution, other than religious beliefs?

[anotherneil]

There are religious believers who are going to be set in their ways & if that means rejecting the science of evolution, then it's probably a lost cause. I don't think there's any point in trying to change their minds, so I'm not interested in that.

I am, however, interested in finding out if there's a reason not based in any way on religious beliefs for rejecting the science of evolution. Is there any other reason?

 

[Subduction Zone]

I have not ever seen any. I have seen people that did not understand the sciences or even the concept of evidence try to post a rational reason to oppose it, but most of those people do not want to learn. They only want to believe. Which is a pity. Without understanding the basics of science one cannot refute the sciences.

I would be interested in that as well.

 

[Quintessence]

Setting aside the problem that any belief can be understood as a "religious belief?"

Hmm. Actually, could you clarify what you are considering a "religious belief" and what are you considering a "non-religious belief" please?

 

[anotherneil]

Setting aside the problem that any belief can be understood as a "religious belief?"

Hmm. Actually, could you clarify what you are considering a "religious belief" and what are you considering a "non-religious belief" please?

That's a pretty good question & I don't exactly know how to answer that at this point.

The best explanation I can give is that there are supposedly some flat-earthers who reject the idea that Earth is a globe for religious belief reasons and some who reject the idea for reasons unrelated to religious beliefs & what I'm wondering if the same goes for rejection of the science of evolution.

With non-religious flat-earthers, my understanding is that there's some sort of conspiracy to hide something, skepticism, or mistrust of some sort & the underlying reason for the skepticism seems to be a lack of understanding of scientific or logical concepts. One thing I wonder about flat-earthers is whether they're just trying to get a free ride tour of the globe by pretending they don't believe it's a globe.

The point is I can grasp why non-religious flat-earthers might exist, but not for the non-religious rejection of the science of evolution.

 

[Quintessence]

If that seems a superfluous question, I ask it because I consider two things:

1. Like pretty much all language, word meanings are fluid and words are polysemic. Words mean what we decide they mean for a given purpose, and "religious" in particular is... exceedingly difficult to define such that even scholars of religious studies have trouble with it.
2. Part of that difficulty in defining religion (and by extension, what a "religious belief" is) comes from the dazzling diversity of what is considered religion even when religion is understood in a somewhat narrower sense. One person's religious is another's secular (and vice versa) on a fairly routine basis.

In many ways, I feel like we can bypass this conundrum entirely because whether the belief is "religious" or not probably isn't relevant. One can just broadly ask the question "what are the factors that lead a human to accept or refuse novel information?" And that's been thoroughly studied by the social sciences as well as by keen-eyed laypersons. It's something I recall learning bits and pieces about from my college psychology coursework. I might follow up on that thought in a bit, but for now I gotta scoot!

 

[McBell]

Is there any other reason?

• I do not like it...
• I do not understand it...
• teaching evolution degrades values, undermines morals...
• evolution leads to objectionable results, i.e. eugenics and Nazi racial theory,,,

 

[Pogo]

There are religious believers who are going to be set in their ways & if that means rejecting the science of evolution, then it's probably a lost cause. I don't think there's any point in trying to change their minds, so I'm not interested in that.

I am, however, interested in finding out if there's a reason not based in any way on religious beliefs for rejecting the science of evolution. Is there any other reason?

Believing that you are a Boltzmann brain or that the Matrix is true or some sort brain in a vat would be different than what is usually termed religion in the sense of a greater entity, Doubt you could argue anybody out of these either and if you accept their possibility as with gods there is no way to distinguish. There are also some who claim a sort of mathematical dogma to explain the creation of shapes and bodies and even molecular shapes etc. they are not religious, but I'm not sure how I would describe them.

 

[Nakosis]

There are religious believers who are going to be set in their ways & if that means rejecting the science of evolution, then it's probably a lost cause. I don't think there's any point in trying to change their minds, so I'm not interested in that.

I am, however, interested in finding out if there's a reason not based in any way on religious beliefs for rejecting the science of evolution. Is there any other reason?

To reject it? Not that I am aware of. To be skeptical of it, yes.
One should always be skeptical of a scientific theory. Science can't work without skepticism.

 

[Shaul]

I am wondering if the OP question is wrongly phrased. "the science of evolution" could be interpreted as either the science used in support of the theory of evolution or it could be that you meant the validity of the theory itself. Those are separate questions. The science used in support of the theory is multitudinous and the validity of any particular supporting "science" wouldn't negate the theory itself necessarily. The theory itself could be rejected if the falsification standard of it is validated.

 

[King Phenomenon]

I reject evolution because the world’s gonna end when a certain man dies. And the world began with this man.

 

[F1fan]

That's a pretty good question & I don't exactly know how to answer that at this point.

The best explanation I can give is that there are supposedly some flat-earthers who reject the idea that Earth is a globe for religious belief reasons and some who reject the idea for reasons unrelated to religious beliefs & what I'm wondering if the same goes for rejection of the science of evolution.

With non-religious flat-earthers, my understanding is that there's some sort of conspiracy to hide something, skepticism, or mistrust of some sort & the underlying reason for the skepticism seems to be a lack of understanding of scientific or logical concepts. One thing I wonder about flat-earthers is whether they're just trying to get a free ride tour of the globe by pretending they don't believe it's a globe.

The point is I can grasp why non-religious flat-earthers might exist, but not for the non-religious rejection of the science of evolution.

I think for some undisciplined minds there's an unnatural urge to reject the status quo to such a degree that they will reject facts. What they get out of it is membership to an odd tribe.

 

[TagliatelliMonster]

I am, however, interested in finding out if there's a reason not based in any way on religious beliefs for rejecting the science of evolution. Is there any other reason?

No.


And I'll add that there religious belief is not a proper reason either.

 

[TagliatelliMonster]

Hmm. Actually, could you clarify what you are considering a "religious belief" and what are you considering a "non-religious belief" please?

I'ld say that generally, the differentiator would be if there is independently verifiable evidence in support of the belief.
Off course a belief that doesn't have independently verifiable evidence wouldn't necessarily be a "religious" belief.
But I would say that every religious belief wouldn't have independently verifiable evidence.

So if all info given is nothing more or less then "religious" vs "non-religious", then the no evidence part would certainly be a differentiator.


Aside from that, since beliefs without evidence aren't necessarily religious, we could ask how to tell the difference between a religious and non-religious faith based belief.

And at that point, we would need more detail about context.

Belief in homeopathy would be an example of a faith based belief that is not religious.
The only reason for that is because it is a belief that is independent from religious context. It's not a tenent of christianity, hinduism, islam, etc nor is it exclusive to it.

 

[Quintessence]

I'ld say that generally, the differentiator would be if there is independently verifiable evidence in support of the belief.
Off course a belief that doesn't have independently verifiable evidence wouldn't necessarily be a "religious" belief.
But I would say that every religious belief wouldn't have independently verifiable evidence.

This is one of the strangest takes on this I have heard. How did you come by this understanding? Perhaps ironically, this assertion sounds like what you yourself are defining as a religious belief?

Belief in homeopathy would be an example of a faith based belief that is not religious.
The only reason for that is because it is a belief that is independent from religious context. It's not a tenent of christianity, hinduism, islam, etc nor is it exclusive to it.

Interesting. I know for some of the communities I've floated in homeopathy absolutely has a religious context. This is why I point out the issue of religious diversity in a follow-up post - a practice can be religious for one tradition but not part of another's tradition (and perceived as irreligious).

 

[TagliatelliMonster]

This is one of the strangest takes on this I have heard. How did you come by this understanding?

A common denominator from all religious claims I have heard in my life.
I'm not aware of any belief that is branded as "religious" which DOES have independently verifiable evidence.
Have you?

Perhaps ironically, this assertion sounds like what you yourself are defining as a religious belief?

I don't think so, no.

Interesting. I know for some of the communities I've floated in homeopathy absolutely has a religious context.

I'm not aware of any, although it wouldn't surprise me that some religious communities include it.
But I also know of atheists who believe in homeopathy and who aren't religious in any way.
Religious beliefs are beliefs that are taking on faith and which usually also include some type of supernatural component.
More often then not, these beliefs do not exist in a vacuum and are rather part of a larger context like christianity, islam, etc. You know... a religion.

This is why I point out the issue of religious diversity in a follow-up post - a practice can be religious for one tradition but not part of another's tradition (and perceived as irreligious).

True. That is in fact why I also included that context of the beliefs can play a role in whether or not it is considered a "religious" belief.

But one thing thus that in my experience ALL religious beliefs have in common, is that they are always taken on faith.

 

[Quintessence]

A common denominator from all religious claims I have heard in my life.
I'm not aware of any belief that is branded as "religious" which DOES have independently verifiable evidence.
Have you?

Most of them, but I'm not interested in getting into that with you if I'm honest. This is just a very bizarre box you have painted things into and it explains a lot. It is enough to understand that and that when I talk about religion and you are talking about religion we are not even talking about remotely the same things. There's nothing for it.

I don't think so, no.

That you seem to consider your personal opinion on how religion should be defined as "independently verifiable evidence" is part of why I'm not going to get into the above. To see your personal opinions derived from life experience as legitimate evidence but deny that to others is a nonstarter.

But one thing thus that in my experience ALL religious beliefs have in common, is that they are always taken on faith.

This has the curious implication that my religion isn't a religion and that none of my religious beliefs are religious beliefs (and that this occurs for a very large number of religions and religious beliefs as well). This is... pretty much why I'm going to bow out of this conversation, unfortunately.

 

[TagliatelliMonster]

Most of them, but I'm not interested in getting into that with you if I'm honest. This is just a very bizarre box you have painted things into and it explains a lot. It is enough to understand that and that when I talk about religion and you are talking about religion we are not even talking about remotely the same things. There's nothing for it.

I very much doubt it.

I challenge anyone to bring me an example of a religious belief which is not taken on faith and which DOES have independently verifiable evidence.

That you seem to consider your personal opinion on how religion should be defined as "independently verifiable evidence" is part of why I'm not going to get into the above.

I didn't define "religion" as such.

To see your personal opinions derived from life experience as legitimate evidence but deny that to others is a nonstarter.

I'm not denying anyone anything. In fact I invited anyone to bring me an example of a religious belief that isn't taken on faith and DOES have independently verifiable evidence. That would prove me wrong and I would be thankful for it.

But what I actually expect though, is that no such examples exist. And that beliefs that HAVE independently verifiable evidence and are NOT taken on faith, will rather be categorized under the sub-branch of belief known as "knowledge" and that it wouldn't be appropriate to call it "religious".

This has the curious implication that my religion isn't a religion and that none of my religious beliefs are religious beliefs (and that this occurs for a very large number of religions and religious beliefs as well). This is... pretty much why I'm going to bow out of this conversation, unfortunately.

It's unfortunate then that you seem unwilling to explain how your religion doesn't require faith and in fact has independently verifiable evidence.
But again, I seriously doubt it.

Oh well.

 

[Quintessence]

But what I actually expect though, is that no such examples exist. And that beliefs that HAVE independently verifiable evidence and are NOT taken on faith, will rather be categorized under the sub-branch of belief known as "knowledge" and that it wouldn't be appropriate to call it "religious".

This is why I'm not really willing to provide you examples - you've chosen to define examples that would contradict you out of existence entirely. It's a nonstarter and there's nothing productive to be gained from such a conversation. But if you read just about any posts from any member around here who isn't a member of a faith-based religion, you'll find abundant examples of religion-that-isn't-religion (according to you, I guess).

 

[Shadow Wolf]

then it's probably a lost cause. I don't think there's any point in trying to change their minds,

That's unfortunate. Helping people out of a cult is worth it, amd people do change their mind and leave.

Setting aside the problem that any belief can be understood as a "religious belief?"

That is clearly false. There is a world's difference between a position that is held on faith and a position that is held on evidence. Ergo this is why Reiki is alternative medicine while penicillin is medicine. Reiki has shaky research and evidence to support it at best, much like US Government experiments into drugs, torture, mind control and psychokenesis that occured under Project MK Ultra and others. Penicillin, on the other hand, has been consistently treating and curing infections for nearly 100 years. So when a doctor prescribes it it is because she believes the evidence that been produced around it over the past several decades. She avoids sending patients to Reiki practitioners because these energy fields Reiki claims to exist have not been found to objectively exist. It is a matter of pure faith to believe they do.

 

[TagliatelliMonster]

This is why I'm not really willing to provide you examples - you've chosen to define examples that would contradict you out of existence entirely.

I'm afraid I don't know what you mean by this.