> It makes you wonder what obvious thing is being ignored right now

Not really, 40% of the US believes they were created (or are descendant of) by a divine being (creationism), in spite of all evidence, so pass that hurdle first

> I would not be 100% surprised if people in the future accepted things like 'ghost experiences' as normal things.

Like 20%-66% of the US believes this today? No one is experiencing the reality you are, ever, something to keep in mind, IMO.

▲ graemep 4 days ago | parent | next [-]

To be exact a little under 40% believe in special creation - the mainstream Christian position (and more common even in the US) is that evolution is part of God's creation.

The US is very odd, not only in having large numbers of members of creationist churches, but also in tat a lot of members of churches that oppose creationism and Biblical literalism are quite often creationist.

The good news is that there is a downward trend in creationism.

https://news.gallup.com/poll/210956/belief-creationist-view-...

▲

jacquesm 4 days ago | parent [-]

That's not so odd if you take into account that a lot of US citizens trace their origins back to people that left Europe because their beliefs were conflicting with those of the established churches. And because the established churches did not have a strong presence in the United States (or actually, its predecessor) these suddenly found themselves to be the dominant religion in sometimes much larger regions than they ever could have hoped for back in the home country. And when the population boomed so did their numbers.

▲

graemep 4 days ago | parent | next [-]

It explains how it came about but not entirely why it persisted. It is also interesting that it has influenced the views of members of the established churches in the US.

I am not saying its unexplained, just that I do not understand it personally (I really do not understand the American culture and society at all well).

▲

dylan604 4 days ago | parent [-]

There are people that believe in flat-earth. Not entirely sure why it persists.

There's a difference of holding firm in one's existing belief/understanding and not just changing the beliefs as the winds change, but only with strong compelling evidence. It's entirely different when that evidence is presented in multiple forms and yet one still chooses to ignore it.

▲

graemep 4 days ago | parent [-]

Flat-earthers are very few. You only really see them on social media where rage bait and fake stupidity get engagement.

	▲	jacquesm 4 days ago \| parent [-]
		A close family member does not believe in evolution. No amount of evidence will suffice. People can get closed minded around the weirdest things.

▲

notahacker 4 days ago | parent | prev [-]

I think that background also helped entrench outspoken religiosity in US culture.

There's also the dynamics of having lots of variants of Christianity competing for attention (perfect for the age of televangelism) versus Europeans losing faith in established churches

▲ freeopinion 4 days ago | parent | prev | next [-]

Lack of evidence is not the same as contradictory evidence.

Could you point to any literature on evidence that refutes creationism? I'm not saying there isn't any. I'm just admitting my ignorance of it. Please enlighten me.

	▲	superb_dev 4 days ago \| parent [-]
		Falsifiability is pretty important here. What evidence could, in theory, refute creationism?

▲ kriops 4 days ago | parent | prev | next [-]

> No one is experiencing the reality you are.

This is a common sentiment, but it is also a declaration of epistemic bankruptcy, thus incompatible with the scientific method.

▲ N2yhWNXQN3k9 4 days ago | parent [-]

No, people don't experience the same reality, but it can still be observed and measured, which was pretty much resolved in the 1700s (Hume, others), so you might want to delve into that first.

▲ 0xEF 4 days ago | parent [-]

I think you might be conflating "experience" and "interpret." If we can all measure reality and come up with the same values, we are experiencing the same one. How we interpret that is another question. Keep in mind the philosophers who came before had great contributions to the big thought-experiment we call existence, but many of them argued from emotionally or socioeconomically tainted positions and nobody has gotten it 100% right yet, or we would not be having this discussion.

Back to the original point of this thread, science doubts until certainty, or as close to certainty as our current capabilities will allow, is achieved. That doubt is what allows it to change with the introduction of new information. This is why the religious hold on to what they do, the paranormal believers cling to what seems like misunderstood phenomenon to the rest of us; they don't doubt, and are thus barred from discovery of the truth.

▲ N2yhWNXQN3k9 4 days ago | parent [-]

> or we would not be having this discussion.

Or those who aren't students of philosophy, just never read everything they said, seems more likely, no?

> Keep in mind the philosophers who came before had great contributions to the big thought-experiment we call existence, but many of them argued from emotionally or socioeconomically tainted positions and nobody has gotten it 100% right yet, or we would not be having this discussion.

Okay? What does that mean? We have 300 years of society embracing this perspective of Hume and the (at least) tens of thousands of scholars that followed him. I think it is well established that we believe this, even if you have some special knowledge or something enqueued.

Are you going to debunk all philosophy of the 18th century because they were arguing from an "emotionally or socioeconomically" stance (whatever that means)? It seems like an argument from an extremely weak position rhetorically, and I am being generous.

▲ 0xEF 4 days ago | parent [-]

Your replies indicate that you are not able to have this discussion as you are too steeped in your field of study, which I assume you consider to be objectively correct. I respect the time and effort you've put into it, but Philosophy, though useful at times, is conjecture, not science. It does not have a place in a discussion about the inherent truth of measurable natural phenomenon if one is not able to cast doubt on it. I shall move on.

▲ kriops 4 days ago | parent | next [-]

Science is philosophy, though what one might describe as applied philosophy. The point being: science (the scientific method) cannot exist outside the context of some epistemic system.

I saw your 'recommendation' to read about Hume further up the comment chain. Respectfully, I know more than you. Take your own suggestion. But don't just read about Hume; get a broader intro to the subject so you can understand how ontology, epistemology, ethics, and politics tie into one another.

▲ defrost 4 days ago | parent [-]

  I saw your 'recommendation' to read about Hume further up the comment chain. Respectfully, I know more than you.

As an exercise in knowledge and observation, who 'recommended' Hume up thread, and to wHume are you replying?

▲

kriops 4 days ago | parent [-]

Nice catch. Those passwords-as-usernames got me :)

	▲	defrost 3 days ago \| parent [-]
		No drama, gave me a chuckle & I'm glad you took it well; my primary motivation was to alert you in case you wanted to change up your response, etc. Hume might have enjoyed this past century's Dialetheism of Graham Priest and Richard Sylvan as a solution to paradox arising from strict rationalism, it's more probable Hume would have lacked any passion for it.

▲ flir 4 days ago | parent | prev [-]

Yeah, I thought you got schooled, too.

▲ arghwhat 4 days ago | parent | prev [-]

Not to mention flat-earthers, climate change deniers, 5G-causes-vaccines activists burning down 4G towers as they have no idea what 5G even is, etc., etc.

It's all too easy for the less skeptical to be misguided. :/

	▲	N2yhWNXQN3k9 4 days ago \| parent [-]
		yeah, but way less people believe in those things though, still a huge problem, unfortunately not many polls on people understanding a difference between ionizing and non-ionizing radiation even, who knows what people know