For any of us who have spent considerable time here at UD in, for lack of a better word, dialogue with our Darwinist friends, each has certainly had the experience of running into a brick wall. What do I mean? Well, we studiously, carefully, energetically present an argument that seems, from a logical point of view, to be unassailable, only to have the Darwinist(s) we’re arguing with (did I say “argue” instead of “dialogue”?) simply dismiss the argument in ‘hand-wave’ fashion.
It’s happened to me so many times and for so long, that I simply not call the other person a “true believer.” It’s my way of saying that there isn’t any further I can go: not in the face of a dogmatic attitude.
Well, here’s the answer to this—finally.
Researchers wondered if “belief in science” could be just as helpful to atheists in stressful and adverse moments just as it has been shown to be for those who believe in religion. The ‘answer’ is: “YES”!!!!
The study is talked about at Science 2.0.
Here’s a little snippet (one of many you’ll find):
“We found that being in a more stressful or anxiety-inducing situation increased participants’ “belief in science”,” says Dr. Miguel Farias, who led the study in the Department of Experimental Psychology at Oxford University. “This belief in science we looked at says nothing of the legitimacy of science itself. Rather we were interested in the values individuals hold about science.”
Our “true believer” Darwinist friends will, of course, tell us this need to ‘believe’ developed via evolution. Is this what they mean by a ‘vicious circle’?
Standing outside this ‘vicious circle’, I would ask this: does this mean that scientists are just as biased as religionists, or does this mean that whether you ‘believe in God’ or not, to do science well you must fight against any inherent biases?
I would hope everyone would agree that the answer is ‘yes’ to the second part of the question.