Article: Religion and Science

Tim, do what ever you feel needed. I just found that every one of your 4 posts were written as a response to my messages but I don't see what any of the four parts have to do with the question I asked.

---

Aslan is not a Tame Lion

The title of this thread is religion and science.When it comes to science we are dealing with conclusions based on evidence. One good example is 2 + 2 = 5. You outlined several steps that can be taken to convince someone, all of which are reasonable.However, if after discussion, after examples, after demonstrations, after presentations of the evidence the person continues to insist that 2 + 2 = 5, what steps should be taken?

Please show where I suggested

---

Aslan is not a Tame Lion

Tim.Neither Brian or I have suggested removing children from a home or constraining their rights of guardianship. Where does this come from?If you will do a survey of current threads here at EvC, you will find that many involve a conflict where people holding strong religious beliefs are trying to impose those beliefs on the general public inspite of the body of evidence showing those beliefs are unfounded.In Kansas there is an attempt to insert ID and Creationism into the general curiculum. There is the movement to impose restrictions on the rights of homosexuals. There is the imposition on rights of free speech related to pornography.The key point is that there is no evidence, no scientific reasoned approach to those actions. It is an insistence that 2 + 2 = 5 should be recognized as a valid position.How should such situations be handled?

---

Aslan is not a Tame Lion

If someone holds a belief that is factually incorrect, how should they be dealt with? You might consider them OT but in fact, they are the very heart of the original topic title. People, based on their religious beliefs, ones not backed by evidence, are attempting to convince the general public that incorrect beliefs should be granted the same weight as ones supported by evidence.Is a belief that the universe is 6000 years old less incorrect than the belief that 2 + 2 = 5? That is your assertion. Brian has suggested other remedies such as requiring that the children also receive instruction that counters the misinformation. TTBOMK, neither of us has suggested that Fundamentalists should not home school their children any way they want. Brian has suggested that if incorrect information is taught, for example that the universe is 6000 years old, that additional instruction be provided to counter the misinformation.I have not even touched on that area. Instead, I have simply asked how the product of such training should be dealt with.

---

Aslan is not a Tame Lion

Why? Christianity has no problem with the age of the universe, the TOE or evolution. Christianity even believes 2 + 2 = 4. No one, except the Fundamentalists has insisted on ideoological conformity. They are free to believe any fantasy they wish. However, even if there was a concensus that the universe was 6000 years old, it would not make it fact. These are NOT extraneous issues. You touch on the root cause later when you bring up compartmentalization. If the Fundamentalist/Literalist could compartmentalize their beliefs there would be no issue, but they cannot or willnot and so they push to get incorrect material taught to kids, to deny folk rights and to stifle free speech.They believe the Bible over reality (well, not the whole Bible, they're pretty selective about which parts they'll believe and which parts they ignore). No one is asking them to give up Christianity. Hell, I'm a Christian. No one is asking them or their church to perfom gay marriages. No one is even asking them to believe the universe is billions of years old.They are not even being asked to stop teaching wrong information. They are still free to teach falsehoods to their kids, friends, acquaintances, shout it out in their pulpits. Just stop trying to impose such incorrect information on the rest of society.The question is, how does the rest of society protect itself from such people?

---

Aslan is not a Tame Lion

So far you still don't seem to understand what I am saying or even what it is that concerns me.Let me try once more, perhaps by rephrasing I may get further.I really don't care whether or not someone is a Fundamentalist, whether or not they believe in a 6000 year old universe or whether or not they agree with evolutionary theory. That is up to them. They can believe whatever they want.I don't even see much of a threat from teaching creationism or ID. Neither theory can stand up to more than a cursory examination and both are laughable.The question I have asked is how should someone deal with such issues when they are brought up?As to you laundry list of issues, almost all fall within the area of a resonable debate. The folk will devide pretty regularly based on one single criteria, religious belief. That is interesting. I would support that atheist if he had been told that he had to believe in GOD. In fact, I have supported such atheists time after time, so there is no problem there. Substitute religion for belief in GOD and I'll agree with him. Actually, I would not exclude any of the issues, but they fall into two distinct groups.The first group are personal beliefs. I support anyone holding any personal beliefs they might wish.The second are when those beliefs are forced onto others. I oppose having someones beliefs forced onto others.Let's look at the list again.Belief in GOD.There are two camps, one says you can believe or not believe in GOD. The second says you must beleve or not believe in GOD.I support the former and oppose the later.GOD, whether or not She exists, is untestable and so will never be more than a belief, an opinion.Pornography.Again, two groups, one says you can view or not view pornography. The other says you may not, (or must) view pornography.Reproductive rights.You have reproductive rights. Or the other group that says you do not have reproductive rights. Does the first group say that the second group must get abortions?Homosexual rights. One group says homosexuals should have the same rights as any individual. The other group says that homosexuals should be treated differently than other individuals.Can you see a pattern here?The dividing line, the underlying question, is whether or not the individual has worth and rights.No, I don't think the other questions are extraneous.

---

Aslan is not a Tame Lion

Frankly, Tim, No. I still disagree that we are addressing the same issue and so I expect that the statement highlighted above will be true, a given, and correct.But to try to move this discussion along, let's look at one single issue, the one you say is critical, the issue of the effort to introduce creationism or ID into the curriculum.How do you suggest dealing with someone who believes that the Universe is 6000 years old?

---

Aslan is not a Tame Lion

I believed that for a long, long time. However I have come to the conclusion that it is not possible to reason with some individuals, nor is it possible not to insult them. If you present evidence that opposes there point of view, they see it as an active attack, a personal insult.If you will read back through this thread or most any similar thread here at EvC, you will find that there really is a wall. There are people who simply will not be reasoned with.You still seem to believe that everyone is subject to reason. I wish I could agree with you.

---

Aslan is not a Tame Lion