Understanding through Discussion


Welcome! You are not logged in. [ Login ]
EvC Forum active members: 115 (8733 total)
Current session began: 
Page Loaded: 03-25-2017 5:46 AM
453 online now:
PaulK, Phat (AdminPhat), Tangle, vimesey (4 members, 449 visitors)
Chatting now:  Chat room empty
Newest Member: timtak
Happy Birthday: OnlyCurious
Post Volume:
Total: 801,961 Year: 6,567/21,208 Month: 2,328/2,634 Week: 516/572 Day: 2/61 Hour: 0/1


Thread  Details

Email This Thread
Newer Topic | Older Topic
  
Prev12
3
Author Topic:   Science in church?
Logic
Member (Idle past 2364 days)
Posts: 31
From: Australia
Joined: 02-11-2008


Message 31 of 35 (483379)
09-21-2008 8:52 PM
Reply to: Message 20 by Blue Jay
09-19-2008 2:13 PM


Thank you for your comment Bluejay you seem to at least held back the urge to not go off topic.

Religion has always enjoyed all sorts of immunities, at least in the USA. They are in the unique position of being shielded from attacks from anywhere while also being allowed to meddle in anybody else's affairs

Here lies the problem =( I know it will never happen but wouldn't it be good if all these faith based sciences were forced to undergo extended testing and per-review.

So I'm guess you would like to see the two ID / creationism and science left separate? So far no-one seems to have given me a definite stance on the subject, there just given thoughts. Which is ok of course but if the system is actually going to take sides people need to express what they actually beleive.

Some may wonder why im so intrested in this subject being from Australia and all, well its quite simple our trends usually start to follow american trends. And in recent years I have seen a few of these creation / science magazines floating around.


This message is a reply to:
 Message 20 by Blue Jay, posted 09-19-2008 2:13 PM Blue Jay has responded

Replies to this message:
 Message 32 by Blue Jay, posted 09-21-2008 10:20 PM Logic has not yet responded

    
Blue Jay
Member (Idle past 47 days)
Posts: 2843
From: You couldn't pronounce it with your mouthparts
Joined: 02-04-2008


Message 32 of 35 (483395)
09-21-2008 10:20 PM
Reply to: Message 31 by Logic
09-21-2008 8:52 PM


Hi, Logic.

My apologies: I was under the impression that you wanted explanations for the current situation.

Logic writes:

So I'm guess you would like to see the two ID / creationism and science left separate?

Yes.

I am for science (and only science) to be taught in science classes. And I am also for the freedom of religion, which requires that no particular religious idea be supported in public institutions.

Here's my particular view on this. I am a Mormon, and many of my fundamental beliefs about the nature of God and the history of creation, etc., are vastly different from what other Christians believe. If they were to teach creationism in school, Protestant and Catholic parents would be happy, but my religious beliefs would be discriminated against, and Mormons don't have the numbers to get a popular vote passed.

And, in addition, there's just no scientific evidence for creationism, so it shouldn't be taught in science class.

But, if I were in authority to choose, I would want to teach at least basic science concepts in church. I think it is inexcusable to allow the ranting about science that I hear in church, but to not allow anybody who feels differently to challenge the views that are put forth. I have tried to rebut an argument in church, and I can testify that it's not good for your health or for your continued fellowship in the congregation to do so. "Church is not a forum for debate," they like to say, which is unfortunate, because there is no way provided for people to discern which parts of what is said are true and which parts are not.


-Bluejay

Darwin loves you.


This message is a reply to:
 Message 31 by Logic, posted 09-21-2008 8:52 PM Logic has not yet responded

Replies to this message:
 Message 33 by Coyote, posted 09-21-2008 10:31 PM Blue Jay has responded

  
Coyote
Member
Posts: 5540
Joined: 01-12-2008
Member Rating: 2.5


Message 33 of 35 (483396)
09-21-2008 10:31 PM
Reply to: Message 32 by Blue Jay
09-21-2008 10:20 PM


Which parts are true and which parts are not?
"Church is not a forum for debate," they like to say, which is unfortunate, because there is no way provided for people to discern which parts of what is said are true and which parts are not.

You are not supposed to "discern which parts of what is said are true and which parts are not."

You are supposed to believe what they tell you, and to take their word for it. That is the basis for organized religions.

Perhaps a Heinlein quote says it best:

The profession of shaman has many advantages. It offers high status with a safe livelihood free of work in the dreary, sweaty sense. In most societies it offers legal privileges and immunities not granted to other men. But it is hard to see how a man who has been given a mandate from on High to spread tidings of joy to all mankind can be seriously interested in taking up a collection to pay his salary; it causes one to suspect that the shaman is on the moral level of any other con man.

But it's lovely work if you can stomach it.

Robert A. Heinlein, Time Enough for Love, 1973


Religious belief does not constitute scientific evidence, nor does it convey scientific knowledge.
This message is a reply to:
 Message 32 by Blue Jay, posted 09-21-2008 10:20 PM Blue Jay has responded

Replies to this message:
 Message 34 by Blue Jay, posted 09-21-2008 11:18 PM Coyote has responded

  
Blue Jay
Member (Idle past 47 days)
Posts: 2843
From: You couldn't pronounce it with your mouthparts
Joined: 02-04-2008


Message 34 of 35 (483401)
09-21-2008 11:18 PM
Reply to: Message 33 by Coyote
09-21-2008 10:31 PM


Re: Which parts are true and which parts are not?
Hi, Coyote.

Coyote writes:

You are supposed to believe what they tell you, and to take their word for it. That is the basis for organized religions.

This is also their complaint against science: "They won't let me teach my idea!"

When you put it like that, it is a bit hypocritical: they shouldn't claim the privilege to do to other groups what they wouldn't let those other groups do to them.


-Bluejay

Darwin loves you.


This message is a reply to:
 Message 33 by Coyote, posted 09-21-2008 10:31 PM Coyote has responded

Replies to this message:
 Message 35 by Coyote, posted 09-21-2008 11:40 PM Blue Jay has not yet responded

  
Coyote
Member
Posts: 5540
Joined: 01-12-2008
Member Rating: 2.5


Message 35 of 35 (483403)
09-21-2008 11:40 PM
Reply to: Message 34 by Blue Jay
09-21-2008 11:18 PM


Re: Which parts are true and which parts are not?
This is also their complaint against science: "They won't let me teach my idea!"

When you put it like that, it is a bit hypocritical: they shouldn't claim the privilege to do to other groups what they wouldn't let those other groups do to them.

In science, evidence will win out in the end. Sometimes it takes a while, but at least there are methods to differentiate between various claims and evidences.

With religions you just have splits and schisms, leading to an estimated 43,000 Christian sects, branches, denominations, or unaffiliated groups in the US and an estimated 4,000 different world religions.

Thanks, I'll stick to science.


Religious belief does not constitute scientific evidence, nor does it convey scientific knowledge.
This message is a reply to:
 Message 34 by Blue Jay, posted 09-21-2008 11:18 PM Blue Jay has not yet responded

  
Prev12
3
Newer Topic | Older Topic
Jump to:


Copyright 2001-2015 by EvC Forum, All Rights Reserved

™ Version 4.0 Beta
Innovative software from Qwixotic © 2017