|
Register | Sign In |
|
QuickSearch
Thread ▼ Details |
|
Thread Info
|
|
|
Author | Topic: Article: Religion and Science | |||||||||||||||||||||||
TimChase Inactive Member |
In the case of literalism with respect to the stories of creation, the garden, and the flood, I myself would have to draw the line. One should be firm and certain -- but one can remain polite.
I wouldn't expect to change the minds of any Fundamentalist clergy. However, if clergy have an allegorical understanding of those stories, then I would strongly consider extending the hand of friendship -- unless there is a very good reason for doing otherwise. Clergy who have an allegorical understanding of those stories are about five centuries ahead of those who do not. And many have already taken steps to meet you at least half-way.
|
|||||||||||||||||||||||
TimChase Inactive Member |
There are several points here.
First, I have some understanding of the mistrust which exists between the religious communities and the scientific communites. As far as I can tell, there is a fair amount of mistrust on both sides -- and I expected as much. But if we are serious about the complementarity of religion and science -- something which both the religious and scientific communities have been promoting to a lesser or greater extent, then we need the courage to live authentically by our words, we need to do so with integrity. Otherwise the claim by Fundamentalists that we simply bring God out whenever necessary and then stuff him back in a box as soon as possible will ring true. Science will continue to be perceived as anti-religion, and religion will continue to be perceived as anti-science. And both will be damaged in the process -- science by being exposed to the claims made by Fundamentalists, and religion by being made to appear increasingly irrelevant and backward in the modern age. As for claiming that religious leaders have intellects approaching those of scientists, I certainly wouldn't make that claim. Frankly, I myself am in awe of empirical science and of the people who make it possible -- the dedication, the years of study, the hours spent staying up late trying to cram everything in that they needed to learn for that next exam. The hours spent in the lab, living without virtually any kind of social life. People in your profession have probably spent at least twice as many years in college as people who have entered the ministry -- and the last four years were probably far more difficult than the first four. However, I myself try to approach everyone I meet as an equal -- whether that person happens to be the president of the company I work for, or simply the cashier at the corner store. But at the same time, I believe that this ability to approach clergy with mutual understanding and respect will be far easier for those forty percent of scientists who are religious and belong to the same denomination. As for the "fragile constructs," I have one question: would you agree that religion (and I am not speaking of the Fundamentalism that you are so used to encountering, but of the religion held by the clergy who have already come to the defense of evolution -- whether as part of the project I have mentioned, or as part of Americans United for the Separation of Church and State) can and oftentimes does promote the intellectual courage to admit one's mistakes? Would you agree that some scientists are in fact religious -- and that somehow they still manage to be good scientists? Would you agree that there ethics is an asset to the scientific community? These "fragile constructs" are part of the bedrock of their characters. All I would ask of you is to grant respect to them for being good at what they do, and not penalize them for their religious beliefs or their participation in church. Now with respect to the problem of overpopulation, if you are asking me how to convince the current pope that birthcontrol is needed in Africa, I am afraid that you have me there. However, the first point to keep in mind is the fact that the problems in the third world are interconnected. The growth of population in a country is a function of the poverty -- once the average annual income rises above 300 dollars (in 1964 dollars) population growth begins to decelerate. And the higher the average annual income the more the rate of population growth is lowered. This is what is refered to as the wealth effect. Poverty in third world countries is a typically a function of several factors. I will list the three which I believe are most important. First, a heavily regulated economy with lack of transparency. Second, a burden of debt which is so great that additional debt has to be incurred simply to make payments on the interest for the debt which is already owed. And third, the existence of high tarrifs in First World countries which the Third World countries might otherwise be able to sell. Currently, we are seeing some debt-forgiveness, but the lowering of tarrifs has been postponed into several years in the future. Now we also need to keep in mind the fact that the poverty in the Third World is responsible for the lack of basic sanitation, and moreover, with overpopulation continuing to be an ever-growing problem in an underdeveloped country, it is becoming increasingly necessary for people in the Third World to make further incursions into what would otherwise be prestine and very complex ecological systems. The incursions these ecological systems will expose people to organisms which have never been encountered before, which when combined with the lack of basic sanitation, the amplifiers of overcrowded cities, and jet travel will lead to epidemics which will threaten even the First World. As with the re-emergence of tuberculosis and with the increasing resistence of bacteria to antibiotics, the First World will pay a price for ignoring the conditions in the Third World. And the longer we ignore the Third World, the heavier the price is likely to be. No, you probably can't convince the Catholic church to give up its opposition to birth control any time soon -- but I believe they would have an interest in seeing further debt-forgiveness and could even be made to care about high tarrifs. However, other churches may be more open to the idea of birth control. Now will speaking in the basement of a church on Thursday night about problems in the Third World sway the opinions of an entire denomination? No, obviously not. But speaking in the basement as a member of that denomination who is also a scientist will give one greater visibility in that church -- which may grant one the kind of access which is needed to write short articles for church periodicals, and perhaps periodicals which have much wider circulation in that denomination. And the fact that the First World and the Third World are interdependent will serve to underscore the fact that the moral thing to do (helping the Third World with the problems it currently faces) is also the practical thing to do -- an unbeatable combination. If enough denominations are made aware of the problems which will soon face our world -- and to some degree are already facing our world, public opinion can be swayed and begin to affect both governmental and international policy. But out of necessity, this will probably start small -- probably at the grassroots level. Some religious scientists visiting churches belonging to their own denominations, doing so because the feel free to do so without penalty, and because it is something they would enjoy doing. Now I realize that the success of these more distant goals is much less probable than that of changing public perception regarding the relation of religion and science, perhaps only pie in the sky. But I do believe it is at least possible, and I do not see what we have to lose by trying.
|
|||||||||||||||||||||||
TimChase Inactive Member |
I don't know how others would feel about it, but this is actually something which I thought about suggesting myself. I believe in trying to avoid conflict when possible. And I most certainly do believe that you have the right to your religious beliefs and to bringing up your children as you see fit. Would I be happy with such a solution? Certainly not -- I believe children need to be prepared for the world which they will face, and this includes having a scientific understand of that world. But, if you were to use home schooling, this would not be my decision to make. It would lie, quite properly, in your hands.
This message has been edited by TimChase, 06-22-2005 08:54 AM
|
|||||||||||||||||||||||
TimChase Inactive Member |
Dear Faith,
I assume these include standards regarding the teaching of science which would not regulate, for example, Bible studies? Am I right? I am sorry to seem so naive, but this isn't an issue I have really looked into. Take care,Tim
|
|||||||||||||||||||||||
TimChase Inactive Member |
Sorry -- I didn't see this earlier.
Well, when I say that I am a quasi-Spinozist, atleast for me, it means that I identify God with the lawful nature of reality. As such, I do not believe that God is so much a person as a thing. However, putting things this way oftentimes is a bit too confusing for a lot of people, and involves unnecessarily long explanations. So typically I will just call myself an atheist.
|
|||||||||||||||||||||||
TimChase Inactive Member |
My apologies. Didn't know that the discussion had started up again, and I had been distracted elsewhere.
Like a good number of you, I also have to agree with Faith. Honestly, I have thought that some of the things that Fundamentalism has been compared to have been a bit beyond the pale. Moreover, while one may not agree with how someone is bringing up their children in a particular faith, the child is theirs to raise unless one can LEGALLY demonstrate some form of child abuse or neglect as defined by law. To take a different stand would be to seriously undermine the Separation of Church and State -- which I believe is in the interests of no one here. This message has been edited by TimChase, 06-23-2005 06:51 PM
|
|||||||||||||||||||||||
TimChase Inactive Member |
At one level or another, reality determines whether any given idea is true, false, or meaningless. How much are you willing to legislate? How much control are you willing to grant the state? And what happens when the apparatus of the state falls into the hands of someone who disagrees with you?
|
|||||||||||||||||||||||
TimChase Inactive Member |
If you are simply stating that you believe that raising I child with a Fundamentalist education is wrong, then you and I are not in disagreement. But then what is the point? They will raise their children as they see fit, whether we like it or not -- and in accordance with state-mandated standards of education.
|
|||||||||||||||||||||||
TimChase Inactive Member |
Please.
(Long commute home.)
|
|||||||||||||||||||||||
TimChase Inactive Member |
You cannot defend a free society by undermining its foundations. And cannot oppose tyranny itself by establishing a tyranny.
|
|||||||||||||||||||||||
TimChase Inactive Member |
... then it does not lie with in Faith's desire for home schooling but in the attempt of others to take over the public school system, and ultimately the government and society itself. And if you wish to defend this society, you may have to reach out to people who do not believe exactly the same way you do. People who you may oftentimes be at odds with, but with whom you share at least some values.
|
|||||||||||||||||||||||
TimChase Inactive Member |
Let's give people a chance to collect their thoughts.
|
|||||||||||||||||||||||
TimChase Inactive Member |
"Democracy is the worst form of government except for all those others that have been tried."
-Winston Churchill Rather fond of him and George Orwell. Not sure how well the two would have gotten along, though. However, Plato has Socrates slyly suggest something along much the same lines in The Republic -- for it is only in the "bazarr" of democracy that philosophy is permitted to freely function.
|
|||||||||||||||||||||||
TimChase Inactive Member |
However, they are actively trying to infiltrate and subvert our country by taking over school boards, local government and the media. And once they get in such positions of power they immediately try to force ignorance on the general public. That's exactly what is happening in Kansas. During this entire thread, Faith has been suggesting an alternative to the attempt to take over the public schools. It is home schooling. Anyway, I am aware of the fact that Faith has a bit of a history in the discussions -- I mentioned as much in the apology I wrote her yesterday for the ill treatement she had received on this message board: I felt that I should have stepped in sooner.
|
|||||||||||||||||||||||
TimChase Inactive Member |
I don't know either. The little I've seen of it it doesn't seem to be trying to create a theory to help deal with data but rather it seems to trying to find a way to have the data support a philosophical or religious perspective. That is properly philosophy of science which is an important field but is not science per se. I hope you don't mind, but I would have to disagree a little here. "trying to find a way to have the data support a philosophical or religious perspective" doesn't sound to me like a "philosophy of science" (which would properly be a theory regarding the nature of science, much as epistemology is the theory of knowledge -- and in fact, the philosophy of science would be an extension of the theory of knowledge) but an attempt to twist or force empirical data to rationalize their philosophical or religious perspective -- which seems quite illegitimate to me. Nevertheless, in their views, there are some criticisms of current or prevailing views regarding science which however invalid, do properly belong to the realm of the philosophy of science. Anyway, for what it is worth, I have some links for anyone who is interested in them. The first one is probably best as far as an overview goes, and I know I am missing a few which explain some aspects in more depth. "Master Planned: Why Intelligent design isn't." by H. Allen OrrThe New Yorker from The New Yorker The New Yorker "Intelligent Design (Divine Design)"Page Not Found | Department of Chemistry from Answers In Science Page Not Found | Department of Chemistry The "New" Creationismhttp://slate.msn.com/id/104349/ from Slate Magazine http://slate.msn.com Irreducible Complexity and Michael Behe on Intelligent DesignIrreducible Complexity and Michael Behe on Intelligent Design from Talk Origins TalkOrigins Archive: Exploring the Creation/Evolution Controversy Antievolution: FeaturesAntievolution: Features from Antievolution.org: The Critic's Resource AntiEvolution.org | The Critic's Resource on AntiEvolution Anyway, listening to you both wondering aloud like that (at least in my mind) just kind of reminds me of how I will often be wondering, too. Typically, something along the lines of, "How could this world have possibly gone so wrong?" Just thinking "aloud," I guess. And I don't mean to be that cynical. This message has been edited by TimChase, 06-24-2005 02:34 AM
|
|
|
Do Nothing Button
Copyright 2001-2023 by EvC Forum, All Rights Reserved
Version 4.2
Innovative software from Qwixotic © 2024