Register | Sign In


Understanding through Discussion


EvC Forum active members: 65 (9164 total)
2 online now:
Newest Member: ChatGPT
Post Volume: Total: 916,911 Year: 4,168/9,624 Month: 1,039/974 Week: 366/286 Day: 9/13 Hour: 1/1


Thread  Details

Email This Thread
Newer Topic | Older Topic
  
Author Topic:   Article: Religion and Science
jar
Member (Idle past 424 days)
Posts: 34026
From: Texas!!
Joined: 04-20-2004


Message 106 of 230 (219154)
06-23-2005 10:11 PM
Reply to: Message 101 by TimChase
06-23-2005 9:38 PM


Re: If There is a Threat...
My problem is with willful ignorance. It doesn't matter where that happens, in home schooling or the public system.
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.
I thought for a long time that it would be possible to reason with such people. I was wrong. There is no compromise, no possibility of consensus or middle ground with the Literalist Christians. Read some of Faith's posts.
The only hope is that a few of the cult members will be lurkers on boards such as this. It's possible that one or two of them might come across something that sparks an interest and they begin learning for the first time. We certainly have seen examples of that.
I believe though that it's time the majority of Christians took Christianity back from the religious right. It is not just to protect science, it's to protect the US, the world and humanity itself.

Aslan is not a Tame Lion

This message is a reply to:
 Message 101 by TimChase, posted 06-23-2005 9:38 PM TimChase has not replied

Replies to this message:
 Message 113 by Faith, posted 06-23-2005 11:12 PM jar has not replied

  
Faith 
Suspended Member (Idle past 1474 days)
Posts: 35298
From: Nevada, USA
Joined: 10-06-2001


Message 107 of 230 (219157)
06-23-2005 10:21 PM
Reply to: Message 104 by lfen
06-23-2005 10:07 PM


Re: Where would it end?
I believe GDR is asking a simple question of fact: what is the nature of the philosophy or movement that gets called Intelligent Design here? IS it a movement? Are all who support ID in agreement? Are there different forms of it? I myself don't know or I'd try to answer him.

This message is a reply to:
 Message 104 by lfen, posted 06-23-2005 10:07 PM lfen has replied

Replies to this message:
 Message 121 by lfen, posted 06-24-2005 1:24 AM Faith has not replied

  
lfen
Member (Idle past 4707 days)
Posts: 2189
From: Oregon
Joined: 06-24-2004


Message 108 of 230 (219159)
06-23-2005 10:22 PM
Reply to: Message 77 by Brian
06-23-2005 3:16 PM


Re: Where would it end?
I am talking about an exclusively fundamentalist education where no mainstream education is accessed.
My main concern is that children learn to read, write, and understand mathematics well enough to deal with modern life. As to exclusive education I think that is very rare. There are the Amish communities that might have that kind of control because they won't have television or radio. But I'm at this point unconcerned. As far as I know they do a good job of raising children.
In modern society there are all the media channels, television, radio, magazines, books, other people. Choices are available and people will make them. If someone is teaching a child 2+2+5 they are failing at teaching them basic math. If they are teaching them the earth is 6000 years old they are failing at teaching them science. But I will hold they are not failing to teach them basic science. Lots of people have only a vague understanding of geology and dating for example and don't need any more. They should understand germ theory and why hand washing and nutrition is important etc. but no I don't think it's abuse to teach a child the false idea that the earth is 6000 years old.
We have more important concerns that I believe take precedence and the error is correctable. I agree it is not ideal but failing the ideal, failing even a high standard is not abuse and doesn't warrant enforcement. I don't agree with fundamentalism but I'm not willing to forcefully or legally limit their practise of their beliefs unless the life or health of the child is in jeopardy such as parents denying life saving surgical or medical interventions because they believe prayer should be sufficient. People have a right to believe the earth is 6000 years old even if it isn't.
lfen

This message is a reply to:
 Message 77 by Brian, posted 06-23-2005 3:16 PM Brian has not replied

Replies to this message:
 Message 109 by Faith, posted 06-23-2005 10:28 PM lfen has not replied

  
Faith 
Suspended Member (Idle past 1474 days)
Posts: 35298
From: Nevada, USA
Joined: 10-06-2001


Message 109 of 230 (219161)
06-23-2005 10:28 PM
Reply to: Message 108 by lfen
06-23-2005 10:22 PM


Re: Where would it end?
Lfen, holmes, jazzns and TimChase: Kudos to the Defenders of Freedom. And thanks for being on my side on this one.

This message is a reply to:
 Message 108 by lfen, posted 06-23-2005 10:22 PM lfen has not replied

Replies to this message:
 Message 127 by Jazzns, posted 06-24-2005 2:12 AM Faith has not replied

  
lfen
Member (Idle past 4707 days)
Posts: 2189
From: Oregon
Joined: 06-24-2004


Message 110 of 230 (219163)
06-23-2005 10:36 PM
Reply to: Message 86 by jar
06-23-2005 6:50 PM


Re: Where would it end?
I have asked how someone can in good conscience teach something that is wrong.
It's done all the time out of ignorance because we humans are fallible and of limited knowledge. A YEC is not deliberately teaching falsehoods. They believe they are right.
I've recently been trying to improve my nutrition as my blood numbers could be better, i.e. lower cholestral etc. Well, I've discovered that nutrition is almost but not quite as controversial as politics and religons. Very knowledgeable Ph.Ds and M.D.s disagree over the role of cholestral in heart disease, over whether people should or should not eat animal food, over vitamins, on and on. I don't believe any of these authorities are deliberatingly providing false information. Not all of them can be right, at least not for everyone all of the time, and some of the things they say must be wrong. But which things?
I see a value in diversity in the gene pool and the opinion pool.
It is not a matter of conscious. All of these people I think have good conscious. They disagree. It happens all the time. Now I think drug companies, the American Dairy Association, and other organizations such as these do act and promulagate falsehood in bad conscious out of the profit motive. But I don't think YEC parents are acting in bad conscious. And I don't really get who you are asking this question of?
lfen

This message is a reply to:
 Message 86 by jar, posted 06-23-2005 6:50 PM jar has replied

Replies to this message:
 Message 112 by jar, posted 06-23-2005 10:49 PM lfen has replied

  
lfen
Member (Idle past 4707 days)
Posts: 2189
From: Oregon
Joined: 06-24-2004


Message 111 of 230 (219167)
06-23-2005 10:43 PM
Reply to: Message 95 by jar
06-23-2005 7:53 PM


Re: Teaching falsehoods
It's not their own willful ignorance, they want to force through law and legislation ignorance on every person in the world.
Jar,
I'm concerned also but I don't think they can succeed. I've just not seen people being able to turn back the clock. The church couldn't keep science in check when it was beginning. Now so much is dependent on research and technology all of which require clear highly educated thinking. The attempts to force through their agendas are misguided and in some cases dangerous, I'm thinking of Bush not taking global warming seriously, but I don't see how these people would be able to return us to the middle ages.
lfen

This message is a reply to:
 Message 95 by jar, posted 06-23-2005 7:53 PM jar has not replied

  
jar
Member (Idle past 424 days)
Posts: 34026
From: Texas!!
Joined: 04-20-2004


Message 112 of 230 (219168)
06-23-2005 10:49 PM
Reply to: Message 110 by lfen
06-23-2005 10:36 PM


Re: Where would it end?
I never questioned that there are many scientific issues still to be resolved.
But I don't think YEC parents are acting in bad conscious
I thought that for a long time. Then I began talking to many of them here at EvC. But we are not dealing with things still to be resolved. The exact age of the universe is open and will be defined over the next many decades, but it is NOT 6000 years.
The issue is not even with the specific knowledge, it's with the metal lockbox that says, "If this disagrees with my preconceived notions it is wrong, regardless of the supporting evidence."

Aslan is not a Tame Lion

This message is a reply to:
 Message 110 by lfen, posted 06-23-2005 10:36 PM lfen has replied

Replies to this message:
 Message 114 by lfen, posted 06-23-2005 11:13 PM jar has replied

  
Faith 
Suspended Member (Idle past 1474 days)
Posts: 35298
From: Nevada, USA
Joined: 10-06-2001


Message 113 of 230 (219178)
06-23-2005 11:12 PM
Reply to: Message 106 by jar
06-23-2005 10:11 PM


Re: If There is a Threat...
My problem is with willful ignorance. It doesn't matter where that happens, in home schooling or the public system.
Willful ignorance is a right in a free society. If you have a problem with it, get over it. Human beings are not perfect, and that includes you despite your own apparent self-assessment that allows you to dictate what others have a right to think.
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.
I thought for a long time that it would be possible to reason with such people. I was wrong. There is no compromise, no possibility of consensus or middle ground with the Literalist Christians. Read some of Faith's posts.
Yes, your idea of the success of reaching out to and reasoning with people appears to be that you prove to them they are wrong and they submit to your superior views and thank you for correcting them, and if this doesn't happen you think the effort is worthless. So you abandon the effort and refuse even to treat your opponents with respect BECAUSE they remain opponents and refuse to agree with you.
Sorry, life in a free society means living peaceably with people who don't agree with you in the slightest. The wisdom of the Founders of America was that they understood the problem of inevitable conflict between people and sought a solution that would work best to prevent a devolution into tyranny, which is the natural outcome of such conflict. Always those who are sure they are right would like to dismantle this system because they can't tolerate the existence of other citizens who disagree with them totally.
The only hope is that a few of the cult members will be lurkers on boards such as this. It's possible that one or two of them might come across something that sparks an interest and they begin learning for the first time. We certainly have seen examples of that.
I believe though that it's time the majority of Christians took Christianity back from the religious right. It is not just to protect science, it's to protect the US, the world and humanity itself.
Spoken like a true self-righteous Utopianist tyrant. Hitler could have said that about the necessity of taking Germany back from the Jews and the Communists. Communists say that about conservatives and capitalists. EVERYBODY is trying to save the world and humanity itself.

This message is a reply to:
 Message 106 by jar, posted 06-23-2005 10:11 PM jar has not replied

  
lfen
Member (Idle past 4707 days)
Posts: 2189
From: Oregon
Joined: 06-24-2004


Message 114 of 230 (219179)
06-23-2005 11:13 PM
Reply to: Message 112 by jar
06-23-2005 10:49 PM


Re: Where would it end?
I've got to go out. I don't remember yet the quotes but the idea is that democracy is the worst form of government except for all the others. The idea is that to avoid intolerance we sometimes have to tolerate some things that we find very hard to tolerate but choosing tolerance has I think a high value in many dimensions even if the people I'm tolerating would like to legislate that tolerance out of the social body and have religious intolerance as the rule.
I agree that 6000 years is wrong. But freedom of religious belief is an important value that I think is very important to accept and I'm thinking it's much more important that people have that freedom than that sometimes children are taught false things. It's inevitably that children get taught false things. I don't think it's a crime, or abuse, and I willing to allow the process of living to correct or not the false information, beliefs, whatever. It seems far preferable to compelling non essential education and I don't think it would work frankly. I think the child will either agree with the parent or choose as many do to rebel or disagree whether or not the state intervenes. But I don't want the state to do this. I see that courses as involving more bad than good.
lfen

This message is a reply to:
 Message 112 by jar, posted 06-23-2005 10:49 PM jar has replied

Replies to this message:
 Message 115 by TimChase, posted 06-23-2005 11:33 PM lfen has not replied
 Message 116 by jar, posted 06-23-2005 11:36 PM lfen has not replied

  
TimChase
Inactive Member


Message 115 of 230 (219182)
06-23-2005 11:33 PM
Reply to: Message 114 by lfen
06-23-2005 11:13 PM


Re: Where would it end?
"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.

This message is a reply to:
 Message 114 by lfen, posted 06-23-2005 11:13 PM lfen has not replied

  
jar
Member (Idle past 424 days)
Posts: 34026
From: Texas!!
Joined: 04-20-2004


Message 116 of 230 (219184)
06-23-2005 11:36 PM
Reply to: Message 114 by lfen
06-23-2005 11:13 PM


Re: Where would it end?
I have never said that it's a crime or abuse or that any legislation is needed to counter it. What I have said is that the Christian Literalists have created
What I have said is that the Literalist Christian has created a mental lockbox that allows them to ignore, to disbelieve facts, to be willfully ignorant. I have no problem with them remaining ignorant. They are free to believe whatever they want, wrong, but still free to believe it.
However, they are actively trying to infiltrate and subvert our country by taking over school borads, 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.

Aslan is not a Tame Lion

This message is a reply to:
 Message 114 by lfen, posted 06-23-2005 11:13 PM lfen has not replied

Replies to this message:
 Message 118 by TimChase, posted 06-23-2005 11:52 PM jar has not replied

  
bobbins
Member (Idle past 3643 days)
Posts: 122
From: Manchester, England
Joined: 06-23-2005


Message 117 of 230 (219187)
06-23-2005 11:49 PM


uk lurker leaps to defend Brian
Long time lurker itching to join in but never saw a gap in the discussion.
Having read through these posts and seen the battering that Brian received from many posters re his position on faith-based education I saw that gap.
The first point I would like to make is one of culture. Brian and me are British and do not seem to have this inbuilt distrust of Government and it's role in the lives of the people. To many Americans the very thought of a Government micro-managing their affairs is an affront to their freedom. Whereas in the UK there is public uproar if the individual is let down by the Govt. Be it transport, health, education, water, communication, pensions, trade, farming, industry, whatever (I could go on). The Govt. has established independent watchdogs for (nearly) all these and even renationalised (to a point) the railway infrastructure when the free market approach was failing it. So my point is that to Brian the curriculum and the way it is taught is very much down to Goverment provenance. I would say that the gap between our approaches (US and British) and attitudes pretty much rules out any agreement on that one.
Another point is aimed at Faith. "Utopian micro-management" was a phrase in one of the posts. Used as a term of derision. Well the phrase itself makes little sense as Utopia by definition would not require micro-management. But mainly due to the origins of Utopia. It was thought up by Thomas More, a chap who considered a religious calling in his early years and used his book to describe a perfect republic, requiring few laws and no lawyers (a cause we all surely must approve of). There may be a few qualms when considering the possible influence the book had on Karl Marx but I have read here and there from more than a few Christians that Jesus was the first communist (note small 'c').
As to the topic at hand (at last!) conflict between Religion and Science will always occur and education (especially below University age) will be one of the battlegrounds. No matter how it is dressed up faith based learning should not be the order of the day. As well as being a contradiction in terms (faith - learning !), it obstructs the real value of education. The valuable exchange of ideas to describe, explain and model the world we live in. Unfortunately exchange of ideas is not part of religion. Religion is prescriptive, hence the theological game of apologetics. Science on the other hand is adaptive hence peer-reviewed journals, double-blind testing and the scientific method.
Sorry for the long first post but I had a lot building up in there.

Apophenia:seeing patterns or connections in random or meaningless data.
Pareidolia:vague or random stimulus being perceived (mistakenly) as recognisable.
Ramsey Theoryatterns may exist.
Whoops!

Replies to this message:
 Message 122 by lfen, posted 06-24-2005 1:29 AM bobbins has not replied
 Message 123 by Faith, posted 06-24-2005 1:31 AM bobbins has not replied
 Message 124 by lfen, posted 06-24-2005 1:44 AM bobbins has not replied
 Message 156 by AdminJar, posted 06-24-2005 10:25 AM bobbins has not replied
 Message 158 by Brian, posted 06-24-2005 11:26 AM bobbins has not replied

  
TimChase
Inactive Member


Message 118 of 230 (219189)
06-23-2005 11:52 PM
Reply to: Message 116 by jar
06-23-2005 11:36 PM


Re: Where would it end?
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.

This message is a reply to:
 Message 116 by jar, posted 06-23-2005 11:36 PM jar has not replied

Replies to this message:
 Message 119 by GDR, posted 06-24-2005 1:15 AM TimChase has not replied
 Message 120 by Faith, posted 06-24-2005 1:15 AM TimChase has not replied

  
GDR
Member
Posts: 6202
From: Sidney, BC, Canada
Joined: 05-22-2005
Member Rating: 2.2


Message 119 of 230 (219206)
06-24-2005 1:15 AM
Reply to: Message 118 by TimChase
06-23-2005 11:52 PM


National Geographic
I hope admin won't mind if I quote a report from National Geographic rather than just posting the link. It fits in with the thrust of this thread of the relationship between science and religion.
National Geographic writes:
Evolution and Religion Can Coexist, Scientists Say
Stefan Lovgren
for National Geographic News
October 18, 2004
"Science without religion is lame; religion without science is blind." Albert Einstein
Joel Primack has a long and distinguished career as an astrophysicist. A University of California, Santa Cruz, professor, he co-developed the cold dark matter theory that seeks to explain the formation and structure of the universe.
He also believes in God.
That may strike some people as peculiar. After all, in some corners popular belief renders science and religion incompatible.
Yet scientists may be just as likely to believe in God as other people, according to surveys. Some of history's greatest scientific minds, including Albert Einstein, were convinced there is intelligent life behind the universe. Today many scientists say there is no conflict between their faith and their work.
"In the last few years astronomy has come together so that we're now able to tell a coherent story" of how the universe began, Primack said. "This story does not contradict God, but instead enlarges [the idea of] God."
Evolution
The notion that science and religion are irreconcilable centers in large part on the issue of evolution. Charles Darwin, in his 1859 book The Origin of Species, explained that the myriad species inhabiting Earth were a result of repeated evolutionary branching from common ancestors.
One would be hard pressed to find a legitimate scientist today who does not believe in evolution. As laid out in a cover story in the November issue of National Geographic magazine, the scientific evidence for evolution is overwhelming.
Yet in a 2001 Gallup poll 45 percent of U.S. adults said they believe evolution has played no role in shaping humans. According to the creationist view, God produced humans fully formed, with no previous related species.
But what if evolution is God's tool? Darwin never said anything about God. Many scientistsand theologiansmaintain that it would be perfectly logical to think that a divine being used evolution as a method to create the world.
Still, science does contradict a literal interpretation of the first chapter of Genesis in the Bibleon the origin of the universewhich says that God created heaven and the Earth and the species on it in six days.
Scientific evidence shows that the universe was actually formed about 13.7 billion years ago, while the Earth was formed around 4.5 billion years ago. The first humans date back only a hundred thousand years or so.
Like other scientists of faith, Primack, who is Jewish and reads the Bible regularly, argues that the Bible must not be taken literally, but should be read allegorically.
"One simply cannot read the Bible as a scientific text, because it's often contradictory," Primack said. "For example, in the Bible, Noah takes two animals and puts them on the Ark. But in a later section, he takes seven pairs of animals. If this is the literal word of God, was God confused when He wrote it?"
Proving God
Science is young. The term "scientist" may not even have been coined until 1833. Ironically, modern physics initially sought to explain the clockwork of God's creation. Geology grew partly out of a search for evidence of Noah's Flood.
Today few scientists seem to think much about religion in their research. Many are reluctant to stray outside their area of expertise and may not feel a need to invoke God in their work.
"Most scientists like to operate in the context of economy," said Brian Greene, a world-renowned physicist and author of The Fabric of the Cosmos: Space, Time, and the Texture of Reality. "If you don't need an explanatory principle, don't invoke it."
There is, of course, no way to prove religious faith scientifically. And it's hard to envision a test that could tell the difference between a universe created by God and one that appeared without God.
"There's no way that scientists can ever rule out religion, or even have anything significant to say about the abstract idea of a divine creator," Greene said.
Instead, Greene said, science and religion can operate in different realms. "Science is very good at answering the 'how' questions. How did the universe evolve to the form that we see?" he said. "But it is woefully inadequate in addressing the 'why' questions. Why is there a universe at all? These are the meaning questions, which many people think religion is particularly good at dealing with."
But is a clean separation between science and religion possible? Some scientific work, including such hot topics as stem cell research, has moral and religious implications.
"Religion is about ethics, or what you should do, while science is about what's true," Primack said. "Those are different things, but of course what you should do is greatly determined by what's true."
Natural Laws
In a 1997 survey in the science journal Nature, 40 percent of U.S. scientists said they believe in Godnot just a creator, but a God to whom one can pray in expectation of an answer. That is the same percentage of scientists who were believers when the survey was taken 80 years earlier.
But the number may have been higher if the question had simply asked about God's existence. While many scientists seem to have no problem with deismthe belief that God set the universe in motion and then walked awayothers are more troubled with the concept of an intervening God.
"Every piece of data that we have indicates that the universe operates according to unchanging, immutable laws that don't allow for the whimsy or divine choice to all of a sudden change things in a manner that those laws wouldn't have allowed to happen on their own," Greene said.
Yet recent breakthroughs in chaos theory and quantum mechanics, for example, also suggest that the workings of the universe cannot be predicted with absolute precision.
To many scientists, their discoveries may not be that different from religious revelations. Science advancements may even draw scientists closer to religion.
"Even as science progresses in its reductionist fashion, moving towards deeper, simpler, and more elegant understandings of particles and forces, there will still remain a 'why' at the end as to why the ultimate rules are the way they are," said Ted Sargent, a nanotechnology expert at the University of Toronto.
"This is where many people will find God, and the fact of having a final unanswerable 'why' will not go away, even if the 'why' gets more and more fundamental as we progress," he said.
Brian Greene believes we are taking giant strides toward understanding the deepest laws of the universe. That, he says, has strengthened his belief in the underlying harmony and order of the cosmos.
"The universe is incredibly wondrous, incredibly beautiful, and it fills me with a sense that there is some underlying explanation that we have yet to fully understand," he said. "If someone wants to place the word God on those collections of words, it's OK with me."
This message has been edited by GDR, 06-23-2005 10:15 PM

This message is a reply to:
 Message 118 by TimChase, posted 06-23-2005 11:52 PM TimChase has not replied

  
Faith 
Suspended Member (Idle past 1474 days)
Posts: 35298
From: Nevada, USA
Joined: 10-06-2001


Message 120 of 230 (219207)
06-24-2005 1:15 AM
Reply to: Message 118 by TimChase
06-23-2005 11:52 PM


Re: Where would it end?
During this entire thread, Faith has been suggesting an alternative to the attempt to take over the public schools. It is home schooling.
Also starting more neighborhood Christian schools. But in any case leaving the public schools to themselves and going our own way.

This message is a reply to:
 Message 118 by TimChase, posted 06-23-2005 11:52 PM TimChase has not replied

  
Newer Topic | Older Topic
Jump to:


Copyright 2001-2023 by EvC Forum, All Rights Reserved

™ Version 4.2
Innovative software from Qwixotic © 2024