No, I was responding to "If you concede that believing in the creation story is irrational, then you should agree with that, too." And the reason a scientist believing creationism isn't rational is because of all the evidence against it.
"I've already clarified why a scientist (or anyone who would consider themselves a rational being) is not rational for their belief in god. "
You have got to be kidding. The only things you've offered are:
"They're holding on to ideas deeply ingrained into their psyche since birth. That kind of brainwashing is hard to break away from for some people, including PhDs."
Unlike true believers, I'm willing to alter my opinion when new facts are presented. Feel free to offer an alternate explanation for why a scientist who relies on empiricism and falsification to determine truth would disregard all of this as well as the history of social evolution and put all his chips on creationism.
Credits & Style Info
Talk Politics. A place to discuss politics without egomaniacal mods
"Clearly, the penguins have finally gone too far. First they take our hearts, now they’re tanking the global economy one smug waddle at a time. Expect fish sanctions by Friday."
![[community profile]](https://www.dreamwidth.org/img/silk/identity/community.png){kind=small}
(no subject)
Date: 21/9/11 21:02 (UTC)No, I was responding to "If you concede that believing in the creation story is irrational, then you should agree with that, too."
And the reason a scientist believing creationism isn't rational is because of all the evidence against it.
"I've already clarified why a scientist (or anyone who would consider themselves a rational being) is not rational for their belief in god.
"
You have got to be kidding. The only things you've offered are: