Is science a religion?

Just looking at your link:
"This document is part of an ongoing effort to manifest in clear and positive terms the conceptual boundaries of Humanism, not what we must believe but a consensus of what we do believe."My point is there is no basis for a "must believe" aspect to morals in Evolutionism."Humans are social by nature and find meaning in relationships."That's why we treat each other nicely? Sounds like a strength when everyone else does it, but a weakness for me to, being enlightened enough to overcome the tendency.

All the non-biblical gospels say nothing of his majesty, eh? I read the gospel of Thomas, and several others. They call attention to his miracles as well.Link Wow, you have some faith.This message has been edited by brianforbes, 05-12-2006 04:10 PM

Okay, I guess extrabiblical wasn't the right word to use. I'm talking about non-Christian (Including Gnostic Christians) corroboration of Jesus' miracles, such as by the Romans. The only early non-Christian source I know of that calls attention to Jesus' miracles is the Josephus account.If you want to discuss Josephus, start a thread on it. We've already drifted miles away from the topic at hand.

You’re welcome. Do me a favor, however. When you type your response in Word and then paste it into the forum reply box, it often loses formatting. Don’t know why. Check your response by pushing the “preview” button at the bottom of the box. You may have to go back through and put a line feed at the end of the paragraph. Happens to me all the time. No, I don’t think they’re “false”, in the sense that somebody’s lying to you in the text. I think that a lot of it is parable and morality plays, legend (especially a lot of the Hebrew “history”), and poetry. Some is factual, some is intended to be read otherwise. Several of the posters here can give you a good bibliography that will help you to figure out which is which. All you need to do is ask them. It doesn’t detract from the overall message and intent of the Book, after all is said and done. Well, I guess I disagree with you inre the scientific theories presented here. I quite happily and even gleefully disagree with some of the details (see the thread on Evolution Occurs Faster at the Equator for example) on occasion. However, I reiterate that these are more or less quibbles over details. The fundamental principles and framework, however, based on the accumulated evidence of a several centuries of study, remain virtually unchanged and unchallenged. You have to remember that although Darwin and Wallace wrote in the mid-1800s, many of the basic ideas and evidence had been accumulating for a long time previous. The more we look at nature today, the more this underlying and unifying principle of life science looks strong. Hard to see how it could be falsified at this late date (although, at least in general terms, it could be but hasn’t). Thank you for the “rational” comment. Some of my friends would disagree, however. As to your question, the short answer is “no”, it doesn’t take faith. What it takes is a great deal of study, a lot of hard thinking, and a lot of questioning. I would imagine there are people who take it on faith - faith in authority, faith in science, whatever (sound familiar?). However, those who have devoted their lives to trying to tease out answers and understanding from an uncaring and often capricious natural world (pardon the anthropomorphism) most definitely don’t. They see the evidence right in front of their eyes on a daily basis. That’s not faith. Faith isn’t needed in that case. We have the physical “proof” right in front of us. We can touch it, see it, sometimes even smell it and taste it. It’s there. It’s real, and we’re watching it in real time. And it doesn’t require faith to accept it. I would argue that they very much are independent of one another. Science certainly has limits, at least in the sense of being unequipped to address unreferenced or unevidenced claims on their face. Even subjective notions like “feelings” can’t be addressed. Oh, we can chart the physiological and neurological changes that occur, and we can generalize from them that something physical is going on. We can even watch individual neurons firing. But we can’t analyze scientifically what a given individual means when they reference their internal feelings. The best we can do is provide a statistical generalization from a lot of different people. Even then, we won’t be able to tell exactly what a given person is feeling. This doesn’t detract from the validity of the concept, any more than our inability to predict the exact location of a single atom of oxygen in a room at any given moment detracts from our ability to know that the atom is there. Spirituality, the divine, etc, is the province of the theologian, not science. Only when the two cross into each other’s territory is there conflict (and yes, it happens from both sides). This is why creationism doesn’t belong in science class. As long as theologians don’t try and mess about in science’s turf (and vice versa), there’s no problem. Only when theologians, specifically the nave A creationists, try and make factual claims about the physical world that are completely contradicted by the evidence does science have the means and the right to stomp them flat. Which it does.I never said that the physical doesn’t impact on emotion. Heck, I have emotional responses to the awe-inspiring beauty and complexity of nature as sharp and as clear as any believer. Just because I’m aware that these have a biochemical basis doesn’t make them any more, hmm, numinous. My limited understanding of nature even makes it more amazing to contemplate its intricacy. And knowledge of our itty-bitty insignificance in the vastness of the universe is a wonderful object lesson in humility, IMO. No, not a fool. Perhaps uninformed. And definitely a product of your upbringing/and or experience. As are we all. I’m always hesitant about arguing over “truth”. I never imagine that I know what it is. I’m content with the ambiguity, and never have bothered to trouble myself with the Big Questions the theologians, for instance, are so concerned about. After all, it makes no functional difference in my life or how I live it what the “real” question is to which the answer is 42. There are enough other things in life to worry about. The historicity of Jesus and the other issues you bring up here are beyond my scope, to be honest. As Clint Eastwood said in Dirty Harry, “A man’s got to know his limitations.” There are several posters on this board who definitely would be willing to discuss them with you. I will simply say that thus far, no one has put up any valid evidence that contradicts evolution in any significant way. Not for 150 years of very close scrutiny. A lot of other scientific ideas, with much less evidential support, have died in the same period.I would also like to bring your attention back to the nave vs. mature discussion. There is no incompatibility between Jesus’ teachings and mature A. Think about it. You don’t have to throw in the towel to accept evolution as the best explanation we currently have for the diversity of life on Earth. All you have to do is “graduate” to mature A.

You would have to explain well enough that we could see what is your bias. Nobody is preventing ID scientists from teaching in colleges. The problem is that there are no ID scientists, for there is no science in ID. Perhaps you have been watching too much "Star Trek", and are overly influenced by Mr Spock and his supposed use of logic rather than emotion. But Mr Spock is a caricature. There is no clean separation of logic and emotion.

I think much of what we find as contradiction in the historical texts is that we read our biases into it. It's human nature. Have you heard the theory that Lincoln was gay? Whatever we want to see there, we will find there. It's human nature. The only exception is when the evidence is overwhelming. I've seen several books by PhDs in Biology and other fields that challenge the evolutionary theory. In their books, they complain that nobody takes them seriously. They seem quite logical to me... of course, I have my bias, others have theirs. In the preface of one such book, the author thanks all the scientists and professors that wished to remain anonymous. If you expressed that you believed in ID, you might lose out on some credibility. I can see why a person wouldn't based on that fact (or lie, whichever you decide to believe). In other words, I can't accept so easily that nobody disputes it. I see it all the time in my literature and, as you say, the details of all the theories I read about. Did I mention that I asked my wife to go in and pray for my mom as she was dying. My mom said she saw her brother (who was gay, but that's a side not for the Christians who might be reading), and her mom with a sense that they were beckoning her to come. At that point, she heard my wife praying, thought that she didn't want to die, and then came back. I suppose I didn't mention that either. Does it take faith for my mom to believe that? She experienced it, so I guess it's not faith. It's just true. The problem, as I've stated, is that I cannot believe in science if it doesn't jive with my theology. I believe the thing I hear people around here saying is that Science is more important than theology because it is testable. I can accept that if they give better evidence AND answers for the evidence that theologians (and prophets, etc.) give us. You wouldn't be opposed to them using the conclusions of science, though? What about a scientist using the conclusions of theology or history in their pursuits? That doesn't work, I suppose. Nothing quite as important, though. I've said it before, it takes faith to believe they work together fine. I don't have the evidence to make that belief easy... and I've looked.If Jesus was divine, that means God exists, and his allusions to the "parables" of Adam and Eve, and Noah, for instance, make little or no sense. You really have to stretch those to make them work.The only thing I really have to go on is all you (and the governments of the world, etc.) saying that the evidence supports natural selection. I have seen pages and pages of what many people like you claim as evidence. I still find it all inconclusive. I find that there is a ton of reading an idea into what seems to have happened. It may be better than the idea of a global flood, and/or the order of the 6 days of creation, but without something akin to the "breath of God" making us all alive, I have nothing to pull me to your side of the debate. I'm still better off believing that the evidence is skewed.Option 1:
Compelling, supported by many, really depressingOption 2:
Deny option 1, supported by many, really blissfulThe only other option is to make up my own religion based on this and that of what other people tell me... and what kind of authority is that? Might as well believe I'm in the matrix or some such nonsense.

I beg to differ, Questzal. I think it does some faith. Faith in the scientific method, for one thing. Nobody can have direct, first-hand knowledge of all the facts necessary to fully understand evolution and how it works. Every scientist depends heavily on the work of other scientists. This is reliable only because all (good) scientists follow the scientific method. And, we believe the scientific method is the best method we have at our disposal right now for pursuing truth.It also requires faith in our ability to accurately perceive the real world. And, it requires faith in our ability to intelligently reason and come to conclusions based on our reason that we can be confident in.This, perhaps, is what most strongly distinguishes science from religion. Those who base their belief systems on religion assign their own abilities to accurately perceive reality and to reason and come to reliable conclusions to second class status behind what religion tells them. I had a conversation a while back with Faith who stood on the proposition, as I recall it, that there is nothing that she could ever experience in life that would undermine her religious beliefs because she assumes the accuracy of her religious beliefs over anything else she encounters. (Faith, if I have misrepresented your position, please forgive me, any misrepresentation is unintentional)These are the kinds of faith that are required, in my opinion, to accept evolution as a fact (or, as you suggest, blind faith in authority). And, because science places its faith in these things, and religion places its faith elsewhere, there is and will always be an insoluable conflict between those of a particular religious persuasion and the rest of the thinking world.This message has been edited by subbie, 05-12-2006 05:21 PM

---

Those who would sacrifice an essential liberty for a temporary security will lose both, and deserve neither. -- Benjamin Franklin

First of all, thanks for being honest.Second, thanks for claiming in a round about way that religious people don't think.

I find it interesting that I've been demeaned so harshly for condoning the use of emotion by those, I'm sure, who use them probably as freequently if not more freequently than their intellect. If anyone doesn't use emotions to guide their decision making processes, please raise your hands.Emotions and intellect work together. That's how we were made to think... whether by evolution or by another process. It should not be ridiculed.

*raises hand*That was fun.D'oh!

You only took that interpretation because you didn't read what I wrote very carefully. I referred only to those "of a particular religious persuasion." Only you know if you are of that persuasion, I made no claims about any individual person's beliefs.

---

Those who would sacrifice an essential liberty for a temporary security will lose both, and deserve neither. -- Benjamin Franklin

I use emotions in some decision making, and not in others.If I'm at a store and a clerk gives me change, it would never occur to me to accuse the clerk of short changing me based on whether I felt like I was short changed. I'd count it and rely on that, even if I was intuitively sure the clerk had short changed me.Very few of my decisions are based solely on emotion, but a great many are based solely on logic. The rest are some mix of the two, in varying degrees, depending on the type of decision.If you are going to insist that it's appropriate to use emotions for decisions that are clearly ones that ought to be based on logic, prepare yourself for more than your share of ridicule, especially here.

---

Those who would sacrifice an essential liberty for a temporary security will lose both, and deserve neither. -- Benjamin Franklin

It's in the nature of communication to misspeak and hear wrongly. It is interesting that I believed that you weren't saying that all religious people neglect thought, but I pointed it out in that way to show you that it might be misunderstood. The interesting part is that you decided it was I who had the problem in hearing you incorrectly as opposed to your speech being inaccurate. I suppose it's in the nature of a man to have biases, even ones that show they are right and there is only conflict because another misunderstands them or is wrong.I've learned over my lifetime that it is easy, knowing things such as what I wrote above, to manipulate people using their emotions. When I was a teen, I did it without fear or shame. I became an actor to get what I wanted. I must say that I was effective. You know how they say it takes a con to identify a con? Well, I think it takes an emotional manipulator to see emotional manipulation. I want to tell you, as one who sees it here, that your fields are not exempt from this emotional manipulation. Your leaders have you believe all kinds of things that other men might not. Keep your eyes open for that.I know you're going to think in your head that I'm not quite as smart as you are so I couldn't manipulate you or identify that you were being manipulated emotionally. Don't do that. Just be honest. We are all emotional, and your emotions lie in places other than mine. It's emotions that cause us to disagree more than any solid evidence. Face it, if I was looking at the same things that convinced you of evolution, it wouldn't be my lack of thought or understanding that would keep be from being swayed as you have been, but my biases. In the same way, what sways you is not the evidence alone, but your biases.I don't really care anymore if you disagree with me. I've had this idea out there for some time, and most were denying that they allowed any emotion into their decision to believe in evolution. I know my friends. I know my family. I know many, many smart people. None of them put away their biases, they just adopted new ones. Deny it if you want, I don't care.

I took a great deal of care in writing what I did, because I do not believe most religious people are non-thinking, and I did not want to create a contrary appearance. I write a lot. I have written for a living. Even on a meaningless forum board, I try to write clearly and take pains to see that I do not write something I do not mean to say.If it makes you feel better to suggest that there was some inaccuracy in my writing, it's no skin off my nose. It's also no skin off my nose if want to assume that emotions play a bigger part in my decisionmaking than is actually the case, despite what I have told you. It is curious that you asked a question, seeming to desire information, then rejected the answer you received. Again, no skin off my nose.It might allow you to broaden your horizons a bit if you realized that there are people who make many decisions based on logic, with little or no emotional component. You'd certainly be able to get some insight into how we got to where we are if you cared to discuss it with us. I daresay a number of people here would be willing to entertain such a dialogue with you. I would, as my time permits. However, if you, based on your emotions, have decided that it's not possible for such people to exist, once more, no skin off my nose.I've made it pretty clear what faith I have based my decisionmaking processes on. It's a bias in favor of science and rationality. Either you understand and accept that or you don't. No skin off my nose.

---

Those who would sacrifice an essential liberty for a temporary security will lose both, and deserve neither. -- Benjamin Franklin

I did desire information. I expected one of several kinds of answers, one of which is the kind of answer you gave. You might have shown me something new and profound if you had answered it differently. I have to reject an answer that doesn't work for me. Evolutionists do it. If data doesn't conform to the current working theory, they'll just make up some reason for why it doesn't instead of admitting the theory might not be right. Consider carbon dating and other dating methods for that matter. Tons of inaccurate results, but those tests are thrown out because they don't conform to the commonly accepted idea of what is expected. That was one example. If you had my bias, you could come up with some more for yourself.We all do it. It's human nature. My actions are excused. (Thank you Brian, it's nice to hear confirmation from others that I'm right sometimes.)This message has been edited by brianforbes, 05-12-2006 08:53 PM