The battle between science and religion is shaping up to be an all-out war. A number of scientists at a forum this month at the Salk Institute for Biological Studies issued a call to arms against religion.
“The world needs to wake up from its long nightmare of religious belief,” warned Steven Weinberg, a Nobel laureate in physics. He added: “Anything that we scientists can do to weaken the hold of religion should be done and may in the end be our greatest contribution to civilization.”
The frustration of the scientists is understandable — especially by those of us who live in a state where science standards have been under siege. But their hostile, anti-religious rhetoric gives ammunition to fundamentalists who think science is anti-God.
Most Americans and most Christians are more in the middle, looking to science for the how and to religion for the why.
Posted by Phillip Brownlee
452 Comments
the “pseudo-science” craze hasn’t helped the scientist of this country. With the law profession beating bs into the heads of those judging law suits, and the same believing it, we sure got a long way to go.
I don’t now whether or not the average person is as Phillipr says, but I do know they sometimes appear too lazy to learn the truth. If it wern’t true, we wouldn’t be having this discussion, religion or no religion.
What ‘pseudo-science’ are you referring to? It amazes me that some people cannot wrap their heads around people with psychiatric disorders. Is that what you are referring to?
I think at some point, we will be able to monitor brain chemical levels just like we do things like white cells in the blood. We just haven’t reached that point with technology yet. I think when that happens we’ll see a whole relabeling of mental disorders into true medical disorders.
To think we could have so many different known chemicals in the brain, and not think something can go wrong with them, considering how complex everything else in the body is…seems nearsighted to me. The brain is the most complex organ in our body.
And someday society will look back on our era as being so cruel to these disorders, just as the society once was for putting to death those with epilepsy for being possessed by the devil.
It appears that the graphic art in the Times article contains an error. On the left (religious side) it shows ?? (Delta Omega). Shouldn’t that be ?? (Alpha Omega, Revelation 22:13)?
PM, what the hell are you talking about? Pseudo-science is the garbage fed us by hucksters, lawyers and the like. As in: http://skepdic.com/tijunk.html
I said nothing about real science. But therein lies the problem: the average person seems to have a hard time differentiating between real and pseudo science. Point made.
In the Salk Institute symposium, we see the gloves coming off.
Richard Dawkins, the leading exponent of Darwininan behavioralism, has concluded that science is true and religion–all religion–is false.(His new book is titled “The God Delusion”.
That’s not the most important thing per se. The most important thing is that in his estimation, all social conventions, such as religions, are the product of natural processes.
What does this mean? It means that in the mind of Dawkins, and other brilliant atheist scientists, religion is a phenomenon of scientifically-explainable principles, which is to say that religion is not independent of science, but subordinate to science. Hence, if we deeply understand science, and have faith in it, then religion is shown to be something that arose from evolution, is counterproductive to our advancing-knowledge species’ interests, and must be terminated.
In all the “Creation vs. Evolution” and “ID vs. Evolution” lawsuits, judges either haven’t “gotten” this matter, or else they’ve consciously decided to support atheism. I think it is probably the first, for the most part.
But here is the thing about public childhood education in a democracy, or democratic republic. If 95% of Americans believe in God, i.e. they hold religious ideas, then teaching science courses that ultimately deny the validity of religion, which is what natural selection does, not only violates the Constitution’s First Amendment, it not only violates the seperation of church and state principle ( the teaching of natural selection excoriates and repudiates religious beliefs and traditions), it violates the sensibilities of the vast majority of Americans who are not atheists/agnostics. The last isn’t an important matter–except you can’t force 95% of the people to pay for an indoctrination that they don’t believe in.
So, we’re going to have some kind of “war”. When the 95% of Americans who hold religious beliefs realize what is happening, and in many cases insist on ID being taught, what are the courts going to do? Order the National Guard to be present in science classes to ensure the teaching of natural selection orthodoxy? The courts do not have this authority, which is to say the executive branch solely has the power to issue commands to the armed forces, it can ignore court orders, which is to say, if it is following the vast majority of the popular will, it will not be impeached and removed from office, and the legislative branch has the power to abolish such orders, by statute, or by inititiating constitutional referenda, or by impeachment of judges, if push comes to shove.
Most science doesn’t require a belief in natural selection. The Salk Institute’s symposium mentions no physicians or engineers giving their input–people who are applied scientists. Let’s see Richard Dawkins invent a drug to cure diabetes, or an alternative energy system, or a very lightweight jet.
Look at any high school in America. What do the top biology students want to become? Doctors. Doctors who find cures for diseases. They aren’t interested in proving natural selection and demolishing religion.
One mans opinion does not an argument make. I suppose the Salk institute is using religion in the sense religion has been shown more often than not to hold science back.
The greatest understanding religious groups could possibly come to is the fact most scientific discoveries point out the complexity and beauty of the world God created.
I seriously doubt that will ever happen, though as both sides seem content on disproving the other side regardless of “proof.”
To show just what scientists are up against, peruse the following link listing all the known religions of the world. Over 4200 and counting: http://adherents.com/
I am a scientist (PhD candidate in Physics), and I believe in God, in fact I am a devout Christian. The more I look at the bizarre nature of this world the less I think it can be held together on its own. It is amazing to look at the large picture (planets) and see very well defined rules that hold over millions of years. Then look again at the very small things that make up the planets and stars and say we haven’t a clue about why they do what they do. We can describe very well HOW they do what they do, but there is no explanation for the underlying cause of quantum mechanics. There is no accurate prediction of how any one particle will act. We can guess very well how a billion of them will behave, but not one.
Anyone who says they can give a full explanation of the universe without invoking God is a liar. There are no non-theological theories that are complete. There never have been. If you do not believe me, try to find someone (anyone) who can explain dark matter or dark energy - where it came from, what it does, how it interacts with other things and so on. Science often tries to appear as if it has all the answers, but there are very large gaping holes in it. (right now 95% of the universe is dark matter & dark energy - unexplained, plus much of the other 5%)
The most interesting thing about science to me is that it has always had just a couple of outstanding, i.e. unexplained problems. It has always seemed to be very close to solving everything, and probably will continue to look that way for the rest of civilization.
Yup, I’m with you Chad.
Scientists like Stephen Hawking strike me as a little arrogant with their superior atheism.
He can’t even explain the force of gravity. It can be measured of course and quantified in all kinds of ways, made into a constant etc.
But no one can explain WHY mass should have an gravitational force.
All of the scientific explanations only go so far and then they hit the inevitable–”that’s just the way it is.”
I guess Weinberg would rather believe the Universe started from some eternal spark of energy or some eternal piece of matter. If he doesn’t then, it means the universe came from nothingness.
At what point does nothingness start to do something to form energy or matter?
Since there are no dimensions attached to nothingness such as time, how could a starting point be calculated?
As far as evolution goes, why has the been no proof that a species has tranformed over time into a new species? i.e.; trilobyte to human or even primate to human.
Where is the missing link?
How did dinosaures with so-called microfeathers learn to fly and turn into birds? Did they suddenly flap their arms when jumping off a cliff and repeated jumping off a cliff over eons somehow turned the dinosaur into birds with feathers?
Maybe the scientists are just tired of being pushed around by the Bible thumpers and this is their way of fighting back?
And bottom line, it really doesn’t matter because religion cannot be explained - either you believe or your don’t. Science is at least explainable. it is up to the individual in which route they choose to go. And the majority of Americans are in the middle of both camps.
No–it is the religious that are sick and tired of being “pushed around” by scientists. Humans can not explain the complexity of our universe which leads many to conclude that there is a creator.
So, let me get this straight: we already know religion has held back science, in many times violent ways. Which makes any science/religion marriage immpossible? I mean, if a scientist, who is also an atheist, makes any kind of statement, it is automatically suspect due to his atheism? Or his lack of discovery is due to his atheism?
Someones lack of logic is flashing neon lights.
I find the “debate” between science and religion to be fascinating, as if science and religion are mutually exclusive. Science, in regard to evolution, provides a scientific theory for the origins of the species. The theory of evolution does not attempt to define the origins of the universe.
I see similar arguments regarding global warming. It never fails: someone will try to claim that the “weather” is proof that global warming does not exist, failing to understand that “climate” and “weather” are two different things. Weather is what is happening today, climate is what happens over an extended period of time.
Evolution cannot be observed in living matter because evolution occurs over generations based on a need, i.e.; survival of the fittest. Given the human life span, none of us will be able to actually see evolution at work.
Evolution is the best, and only, scientific explanation for the development of species. No other credible scientific theory has been proposes for peer review. Until one is proposed, it will be the only scientific theory.
Evolution does not attempt to address the basic fundamental question of how the universe originated. Scientific proposals exist, but they are not “testable” in a manner to qualify for theory status.
There are kooks on both sides of the scientific debate. Some choose to see evolution as “proof” that God does not exist. There are others that believe that the Earth is only six thousand years old, and the can name the time and date that God created the universe.
Personally, I think that God was playing with a chemistry set and an experiment went awry.
Religion cannot prove the existence of God anymore than science can disprove Her existence.
I believe in God and I believe in evolution.
I don’t believe in religion.
Dusty there are many on that list that you linked to that I do believe in. Facilitated Communication is one- I have actually seen that in use. And I have a child with autism who does not use FC, but I have a friend whose child does, and it is remarkable. He does it ON HIS OWN now, with no help from the outside.
I also believe in Multiple Personality Disorder. I have never seen it in real life, but I believe it exists.
As far as science and religion go, I would SO like to see religious groups STOP interfering with science, heck I’d like to see them stop interfering with other people’s lives. I’m with WSClark…I believe in God, I believe in science, but I don’t believe in Religion.
RELIGION produces more problems in this world than anything.
For sake of discussion only, the following paraphrased definition of religion is offered:
Religion is the attempt by man to explain occurences of natural phenomena which he has not the knowledge to otherwise explain.
This is from memory, presented by a speaker at a campus discussion I attended as an undergrad at KU, ca. 1971.
Assuming arguendo this definition has validity, then the search by scientists to provide natural explanations of occurences of such phenomena could be seen as threatening the existing dogma of various religious belief. To the extent that religions react to such threat in a hostile fashion, e.g., the threatened excommunication of Galileo for promoting the helio-centric nature of the solar system, then it is easy to apprehend the fears of the scientific community to religion, and the attempt to minimize or remove religious beliefs by some in explanation of said natural phenomena. These reactions then feed the thought that scientists are anti-God, setting up the confrontation that has bedeviled Western civilization, at least, through the centuries.
As has already been asserted, at some point, science reaches a point past which it cannot continue; thus, the “it’s always been this way” response to questions of why. In many areas of scientific inqiry, this point is being pushed back in time on a continuous basis.
I think it can be admitted that all science should be looking to explain as many natural phenomena as possible from the “how” perspective, and efforts in this regard should continue in a robust manner; however, I also think it should be admitted that so long as knowledge is incomplete, the “why” is not ascertainable by the human mind.
Chad suggests, at least implicitly, the great difficulty that physicists have in arriving at a grand unifying theory. Does this mean the effort should be abandoned; I am sure he would agree with me that it should not. However, I and those more qualified may disagree with him that “God” is the answer for that which cannot be currently explained. Does this constitute a war against religion? I don’t think so.
I agree with you PM, religion has been a pretty destructive force in the world since man walked upright. Too often it’s been used as a weapon to control and oppress others.Just because we can’t explain something about the universe, that doesn’t prove that there is a creator. I think trying to explain what God is or isn’t is just man’s attempt to explain what he doesn’t yet understand. Just think about how science is still in it’s infancy, look how far we’ve come in just a 100 yrs, then think about how much more we’ll know in 500 yrs.
PM, as far as mutiple personality disorder, I’ve been a psychiatric nurse for over 20 yrs and I’ve only seen it once. It’s a disassociative disorder, not schizophrenia. Most of the patients I’ve seen who claim to have multiple personality really have borderline personality disorder. That’s just my opinion, many of my peers would probably disagree with me.I think it’s very rare.
Hope everyone had a nice Thanksgiving, our’s was not that great. We were driving down Kellogg when two guys in a truck ran a red light and broadsided us. We were taking plates of food to some of my patients who are alone on Thanksgiving, so I got covered in turkey and creamed corn…when I entered the ER, I smelled really good! I’m fine, just a little bruised and sore. The guys who hit us took off, so if anyone sees a light blue truck with the front bashed in a little, let me know! My patients missed out on their turkey dinner, but my cats had a wonderful Thankgiving, I couldn’t stand the idea of all that food lying on the bottom of the car going to waste, so last night they ate turkey until they almost popped!Hope you all had a good one!
It’s impressive how Christians who claim to be scientists can turn off their brains when it comes to religion. There’s a self-proclaims physics major here who works towards his Ph.D. but concluded “God did it” for something he can’t understand. Is that based off of your conclusions or is it just something you pulled out of your ass?
It’s the same sort of thinking that kept the sun revolving around the earth, the earth flat, animals can’t experience pain because they don’t have souls, men have one less rib than women, and the earth is 6,000 years old.
If religion didn’t want to be criticized then they would have kept busy with the afterlife and left reality to the rest of us. Instead they wanted to get involved in the affairs of science. If science can be criticized through a religion lens then religion can be criticized through a scientific lens. Let’s just say religion won’t stand up when it comes to disproven beliefs like virgin births and souls.
Vaughn, Amen! You and I have the same thought and must have been writing at the same time, only you expressed it much more eloquently!
Right on, Doug!
Mary, thank you for your kind words.
I am glad you were not seriously injured in the hit and run incident on Thanksgiving day. Do you have a better description of the truck? Perhaps this discussion should be moved to open thread; but I will keep my eyes open.
There are things that science has come to the conclusion that it fundamentally cannot answer. Examples include the radioactive decay of nuclei and atomic excitations. We know how long they will stay in a certain state on average, but we have no way of predicting the solutions of a particular atom/particle. Science has come to the conclusion that this is the way it is and there is no explanation.I am not discussing a grand unified theory (GUT - the hypothetical theory to combine the 4 fundamental forces), this is something different. These quantum mechanical properties would still be unpredictable if we had a GUT. Science comes to brick walls that it admits it cannot pass.How long do you have to watch an excited atom in order for it to decay? Science cannot answer that.Does the unpredictable effects of quantum mechanics lead to consciousness and free will? Science cannot answer that.Why do each of us have a certain moral standard we consider to be “right”? Science cannot answer that. There might be some theories from sociology, but in order to have an absolute answer there has to be some ground up explanation for everything along the way, and if science cannot explain decay, it cannot explain randomness, it cannot explain choice, it cannot explain morals, it cannot explain religion. Religion has a base somewhere around choice that CANNOT be explained by science.There might be some good theories about where religion came from, but if it arose in a naturalistic (evolutionary) manner, then morals must have come first. Any true evolutionary theory or religion must begin with life->consciousness->morals->religion. We have no base for the first step, so any higher steps are flawed.Sorry if this is not linear enough, I am a little rushed for time right now.
Chad, could it be argued that religion came from the need to impose a set of “rules” on homo sapiens to allow the species to survive, carrying out its biological imperative?
I am of the thought that much which is given the label “morality” represents a set of constraints on individual behavior necessary for species survival, made necessary as our ancestors moved from the “hunter-gatherer” stage to the “agricultural” stage, etc. So, in a manner of speaking, choice is clearly involved; the choice of survival vs. the choice of becoming extinct.
“Let’s just say religion won’t stand up when it comes to disproven beliefs like virgin births and souls.”
Uh Doug, just how do you disprove the existence of souls??? I wanna hear this.
While you’re at it, same for a virgin birth?
How do you prove “souls” and “virgin births?”
OM Goodness Mary I’m so sorry you were in such an accident, and in the commission of such kindness too! I’m glad you’re ok.
Thanks for sharing about Multiple personality disorder. I think you might be right about the latter statement. However just because it’s not real MPD, doesn’t mean they’re not just as ill mentally.Obviously there is a big problem if one has to pretend they have a problem like that, ya know?
I had a patient once who would get abusive to the patients with Alzheimers. I asked him once why he was that way when they couldn’t help what they were doing (wandering into his room). He said because they were all making it up and if they’d only just snap out of it (by him being abusive), then they’d stop acting that way.
The man had fairly advanced Parkinson’s, and his mind was very clear. I told him if he felt that way, then he should just quit shaking and get up and walk, for his disability was all in his head too. LOL.
Just because you can’t verify it with some test or see it, doesn’t mean it’s not real. It wasn’t all that long ago when they found the tangled neurons in the brains of Alzheimer’s patients too.
Exactly. How do you prove or disprove? You can’t.
Outlander, while I believe I know this is not about what you are posting, see link below for a “simple” explanation of parthenogenisis (from the Greek for “virgin birth”):
http://www.factmonster.com/ce6/sci/A0837738.html
Exactly, as in religion is a personal belief system.
Atheism is also a personal belief system.
Evolution is a scientific theory.
The two should not mix as it relates to science.
Scientists can express their opnion on religion, but it carries no more weight than a layperson’s opinion, because it is a personal belief.
Science, on the other hand, is a discipline, defined by rules of evidence.
Personal belief systems cannot stand up to the evidentiary rules that govern scientific theory, therefore science and religion should nto mix as it relates to the teaching of science.
Most of us would agree that lying is wrong. Most of us would agree that stealing is wrong. Most of us would agree that adultery is wrong. Most of us would agree that if a child is in danger of being hit by a bus the right thing to do would be to run out in front of the bus and move the child.
However, all of these rules or limitations would tend to decrease my contribution to the gene pool. If I were really just trying to make the most offspring I would lie and steal and rape in order to make more babies. I would not be tied to one woman and I would not respect other women being tied to other men. I would leave another person’s baby to get hit by a bus, since that doesn’t help me reproduce. Moral standards tend to come up with things (marriage) that seem to contradict the “survival of the species” approach.
Also, why is science “good”? Who decided that we should teach “truth” anyway? Science can not explain that either. There is no reason that we should be “truth seekers,” since that does not advance the biological imperative.
Creamed corn?
Ewwwwww.
I am glad that you are otherwise ok Mary. I too will watch for the offending vehicle.
Science vs. religion?
Well….
I’ll take science. See? Science deals in facts and observation. Religion deals in some invisible, inscrutable, uaccoutable “god” who so far has revealed his existence……how?
Sorry folks. That 95% of Americans believe in god does not get god a pass from me. So far in ALL debates, god is a no show. Ya can’t debate an empty chair.
But moral beliefs (and thus religion) play a part in determination of what areas are appropriate for science to dabble in and what are not. A prime example is human cloning.
And scientific evidence is subject to interpretation and thus is not free of prejudice.
Chad, what about the “altruism” principle I recall discussed a few years ago by evolutionary biologists (among others)? As I recall, there is, in nature, among social animals, behavior that when examined in isolation appears to be contrary to the strict “survival of the fittest” construct, but which, when taken together with other behaviors, represents behavior which promotes better long term prospects for species survival.
On your hypothetical about rescuing a child, not of your own, from being struck by a bus: yes, in the short term, this seems counterintuitive to the survival of your genetic heritage; but, in a longer term view, this child you save could be a potential mate for you or your child; saving the child thus presents an opportunity for furthering your particular genetic heritage, and, not coincidentally, provide genetic diversity to allow strengthening the species as a whole.
I am not quite sure that I completely understand your point, Chad.
The point I was making was that the teaching of science belongs in science class, not the teaching of personal belief systems.
The teaching of “truth” as you have (I think) defined it belongs in another classroom.
“And scientific evidence is subject to interpretation and thus is not free of prejudice.”
Science is not free from prejudice, of course, but the insertion of religion into the equation does not further scientific progrssion.
PM, it’s true there is a lot to be learned about mental illness, and the studies show more of genetic predisposition to it just like diabetes or heart disease. People with mental illness can’t help that their minds don’t function in a “normal” way, it’s mostly chemical imbalances that cause the disease that leads to the abnormal behaviors. Medications that treat the imbalances that cause mood or thought disorders like schizophrenia, depression, bipolar, etc. have been a blessing to people who suffer, but we still have a long way to go into understanding mental illness and how to treat it effectively. Because the symptoms of the illness are behavioral, people don’t know what to do to help the severe and persistant mentally ill, that’s why so many end up on the streets and/or isolating themselves. It’s very sad how much they suffer and are misunderstood by others.Mental illness is one of those diseases where the victim gets blamed for his condition. The idea that someone can just “snap out of it” is ludicrous. You might as well tell them to go move a mountain with their bare hands. True, someone with chronic mental illness needs to take responsibility for himself and his treatment, just like someone with heart disease or diabetes needs to take their medication and watch their diet, but the mentally ill need a lot of support to access the system to get the right help, and that’s why so many of them fall through the cracks. We’re willing to give them blankets and food to help them exist on the streets, but the support they really need to access the system for help and treatment is totally inadequate.
See what I mean? It’s woefully obvious that “Pmom hater” hasn’t had much support to access the help he needs.
“Also, why is science “good”? Who decided that we should teach “truth” anyway? Science can not explain that either. There is no reason that we should be “truth seekers,” since that does not advance the biological imperative. ”
Gee, Chad, I hope you’re not a scientist for anything really important. Which religious group are you a scientist for?
Chad, if science had the answers for everything then there would be no need for scientific study. Religion provides no answers, science at least tries to find an answer. I certainly hope you don’t find a career in the scientific studies since whenever you come up with a problem you’ll just insert “god” into the equation and magically come up with a conclusion.
Another person wanted to know how to disprove the concept of virgin births and souls. Well, for a virgin to give birth to a male the Y chromosome would have to come from somewhere. It doesn’t come from the female because she doesn’t have any. It has to come from male gametes. The only way to get them is from sex unless you are suggesting that there was some matter of in vitro fertilization in the 1st century then that would be up to you to support.
Souls have been disproven time and time again, especially by the drug industry. If mind and body were separate then LSD would be useless, Phineas Gage wouldn’t have changed as a result of a railroad spike going through his noggin’ and medication could help remove the hallucinations religious nuts experience.
Have the religious community ever provided evidence for the existence of virgin births or souls? Nope. The two concepts are the basis of Christianity and without them your religion is another myth, like trying to look for a civilization of gods on top of Mt. Olympus, or a turtle residing underneath our planet. It’s just another myth like so many others.
The concept of “pairing”, e.g., “marriage” makes biological sense when one considers the nine month gestation period for humans, together with the fact that human infants, at birth, are not at a developmental stage comparable to other higher order mammals. I have read an explanation that due to the “big brain” of the human, the size of the pelvis in the female cannot be expanded further to allow similar development in utero, thus, humans are born with another year to two years of development necessary to “survive”. Thus, it becomes necessary for the mother to be away from food production, etc., to tend to the infant. The father, then, must have some connection to the mother and child to provide food, security, etc., during this period to ensure survival of the infant, and thus, his part of the genetic heritage, which then further allows for species survival. This, then, develops into monogamous relationships.
The prohibition against adultery, e.g., makes sense in that the species cannot have civil disorder existing among its members due to the need for some pair-bonding to allow for survival of the infants, and thus the species.
“Moral standards tend to come up with things (marriage) that seem to contradict the “survival of the species” approach.”
This is a naive belief that survival of the fittest must mean that someone looks out only for their interests. Clearly the study of evolution or zoology was not required in your schools. Many species are social species, like humans, vampire bats and zebras. They extend their possibilities for reproduction (and that’s the basis of survival of the fittest) by helping out those in the community. Zebras use others for camoflauge, bats feed others so they’ll be helped if they are low on food and humans do what humans do.
Humans have existed millions of years (regardless of what anti-scientific nutjobs might say) and their behavior is grounded in their genetic structure. Someone turns around and calls our DNA “morals derived from god” totally aloof to the fact that their might be another reason. Perhaps if religious mythology was tossed aside then the real answers could be found, not just some unsupported idea mentioned by a camel kisser.
“Who gives a flying dildo what you think political_mom? You are nothing but a stupid bitch! Get the fuck out of here!”
Way out of control, Nono (P Mom Hater)!
This is a blog for (reasonably) civil individuals.
Get back on your medicine, Nono, before those guys in the white jackets come for you.
What I was trying to say is that we seem to assume that we ought to teach science because science is true, and truth is good. Science itself never claims (and cannot claim) that it is “good” or “true” or that it “ought” to be taught. These are all judgments based on some standard of what “should” be rather than what necessarily is. We discuss the question of “which is better science or religion?” Many of you say science, but science cannot come up with any discussion of why it is good, or why it ought to be taught.
I live out a good portion of my life in the scientific realms, and I can see very well the areas that science cannot address. The Nazi’s performed many scientific experiments on their concentration camp prisoners. This furthered science, but was it the “right” thing to do? It gave us medical advances, but is it the path we “should” take? Or is this a case where scientific advancement “should” take a back seat to moralities? Science cannot answer that.
Clark, science itself is a personal belief system. Just read Humme if you disagree.
Outlander, perhaps myself or my offspring could mate with the child. However, it is by far in the interest of my own gene pool to keep it around rather than possibly give it up on the off chance that this kid might mate with myself or my children. If I save the kid I have a small chance of combining their genetic material with my own. If I fail both that child’s material and mine are lost. If I let the kid get hit, then I am still in a good shape, and my DNA doesn’t have to compete with hers. Which is the best option for my genetic material?
Well this might explain why Chad is so pro-religion, look at the words of where he got his schooling…
ACU, a private institution of higher education, is independently governed by a Board of Trustees consisting of members in good standing of congregations of Churches of Christ.
As a nationally recognized Christian university, our mission is to educate students for Christian service and leadership throughout the world. We integrate faith and learning throughout the curriculum, reflecting the theological perspective of the broad mainstream of Churches of Christ.
http://www.acu.edu/faith.html
Sounds like another Bob Jones University…where they are sending Christians into the world to discredit science.
“Clark, science itself is a personal belief system. Just read Humme if you disagree.”
Give me a hand with that one, Chad, “the Google” doesn’t help much when just referencing “Humme”
I am open to see other points of view, but cannot make the connection on that reference.
Thanks…….
WS, I wonder if he meant David Hume? Try “the Google” on that name.
Perhaps he means David Hume?
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/David_Hume
There is not any conflict between science and religion.
I love science. I study science. I also believe in God.
I know many people who are doctors, chemists, biologists, physisists, and all other types of people who work in a particular field of science who are religious people and believe in God.
The idea that because I believe in God makes me someone who rejects science is retarded.
I am proud of my Christian heritage political mom. I am not out in the world to discredit science, far from it I am out to improve science. My current area of research is in superconductivity, especially studying magnetic properties via neutron scattering. I really don’t see how having faith in God makes you assume that I am trying to discredit science.
If you look back at my posts I have never tried to discredit science. I have said that there are questions like “should the world work this way?” and “how should I behave?” that science seems incapable of answering. Science cannot give a reasonable explanation for its own existence. There are limits on science, and that is not a discredit to the study, but an honest understanding of its limits.
Yes I graduated from ACU with a BS in physics in 2003, an acredited University, NOT like Bob Jones. I graduated from a public high school (Cooper High in Abilene Texas) in 2000. I am currently a graduate student at the University of Tennessee at Knoxville studying under Dr. Pengcheng Dai (an atheist). I took a year off between undergraduate studies and PhD studies, so I am currently in my third year, and will probably finish in the next year or two. That is a brief stating of my scientific background. What is yours political mom? I would like to know that if you are going to question my credentials you must have at least as much training as I do.
Yes, I did mean Hume. I apologize for the misspelling.
“Science cannot give a reasonable explanation for its own existence.”
What an incredibly stupid comment. Did you ever try asking Science. Science is sitting over in a Starbucks right now, go ahead and ask him.
Such statements make me ponder about the dumbing down of society.
Needless to say, Chad, it will take me more than a few minutes to read through David Hume, but we’ll get back to you on that one…
BTW - no one is questioning your creditials or intelligence, but a simple disagreement regarding religion and science.
As far as your education is concerned - you go now!
Education is a wonderful thing - we should all try it some time.
No hidden messages there, Chad….
Doug, does science explain the origin of species? Does science explain planetary motion? Does science explain cancer origins?
The statement “science cannot explain the origins of science” is no more stupid than the statement “science can explain the origin of species.”
Have you gone over to Starbucks and asked Science where species came from?
“Creditials” or “credentials” who’s to know - I majored in partying in college.
Clark, when I mentioned Hume I was referring specifically to his views of causality. One of the premises of scientific inquiry is repeatability. Hume questions causality quite well. His idea is that just because when I drop a pencil a thousand times it always falls down, that does not necessarily mean that it will the 1001th time.
I don’t believe science is some being that you can ask questions. Perhaps if you reframed your statement it may make some sense.
Scientists have explained the origin of species, planetary motion and the origin of cancer. Is that what you were trying to say? On the other hand preachers, Imans and prophets haven’t explained anything. They just make absurd statements with no empirical support. Why don’t you hold religion up the same standards as science?
So Doug, in other words, if you can’t measure something, like a soul, it is disproven? I don’t think so. That is an unscientific attitude. And mind and soul are not the same thing, so the head injury and LSD examples are not applicable.
If you believe in an all powerful God who created the universe, virgin birth is child’s play. If you don’t, well science has almost advanced to the point that it is possible by human (scientific) means. It looks like science is in the process of proving the possibility of a virgin birth.
Chad, the name of the poster appears beneath their posts.
You can’t measure things that don’t exist. If you think there’s a soul then you support it. I can’t disprove a negative. So prove your gods, souls, and virgin births.
“Sounds like another Bob Jones University…where they are sending Christians into the world to discredit science.”
Good catch, pmom.
Once again, late to the party, so I’m skimming again. Apologies if my post is redundant.
Unfotunately, Dawkins and Weinberg have a point (and that’s all we’re talking about here–read the article, folks). Newton could have done so much more if he didn’t stop at some point and offer obligatory credit to a supreme being. More recently, the Templeton Foundation has been trying to muddy the waters by giving awards to scientists who express theological views–as if that says anything for (or against) their scientific work.
This, of course, doesn’t even get into the more crass religious attacks on science we’ve seen.
Ultimately, though, as an atheist, civil libetarian and science supporter, I object the view that science has some obligation to somehow take on religion.
Granted, I don’t buy the late Steven Jay Gould’s “non-overlapping magisteria” argument; when religion says the Earth is only 6000 years old, sorry, religion is wrong. Such conflicts will occasionally happen, but I don’t science would do well to pick unnecessary fights either–and not just for political reasons.
You see, science can no more address the “God question” than it can address, say, the “unicorn question.” We can be relatively certain there are no unicorns, but it’s possible one could be discovered somewhere. If science were a human being, its answer would be “I don’t know”. That, of course, is not the same as unknowable.
Religion for years has objected to the perception of science treading on their turf. In truth, science has not really done that. The reverse is true: religion makes specific claims about the natural world that can’t be backed up, and thus treads on science’s turf. It’s an easy problem to avoid: Want to talk about a non-consumed burning bush, and not just as metaphor? Call it a miracle. Miracles by definition can defy the laws of physics, and challenging one’s personal belief in miracles–while not out of the range of intellectually permissible pursuits–is not something that hard science–physics, biology, etc.–has any defensible basis to address.
There, of course, are those who will continue to attack science on behalf of a religious agenda (see heartlander’s pathetic post above), but scientific integrity is cheapened if the community responds in kind, and such an approach would be particularly disrespectful to the numerous scientists who have some type of religious beliefs.
“It looks like science is in the process of proving the possibility of a virgin birth.”
Where?
And why?
Doug,
I think you show your inability to hold a rationale and mature discussion when you say:
“They just make absurd statements with no empirical support.”
Sorry, did I miss the empirical support for gods, virgin births and souls? Leeemeeeee see here. Hmmmm, nope. So it looks like I’m still correct and your post has nothing to add so I’ll take it as another attempt by religious nuts to avoid actually supporting their position. It’s like when I asked for evidence for creationism and was just met by excuses. I expect the same here.
Doug, you ask for empirical support, but I don’t think that would be good enough for you. You would immediately discredit any claims of miracles as lies or hallucinations. Anything that could be done in a lab you would immediately assume has a natural cause.I think you are angry with some particular religious group for something in particular. If you are, then there is nothing anyone can say that would be good enough for you until that anger had been dealt with.Personally I would like to know what has you so upset.
“Anything that could be done in a lab you would immediately assume has a natural cause.”
Uhm. . .yeah. That’s what science is about (except, of course, at your alma mater).
Chad, why not start with some empirical support rather than making excuses or trying to make this personal. As I predicted you’d make excuses and you did. So I’ll expect you to progress no farther than whining.
Doug,
You said that they “just” make absurd…
They talk about many things which do not always directly pertain to support for God, virgin births, or souls.
I will never be able to proove to you that God exists. It is called faith for a reason.
Either way, it doesn’t change the fact that you seem to be incapable of having a discussion without resorting to calling people religious nuts.
Rage, you probably were not a physics student at ACU, probably never went to ACU, and probably don’t know anybody who did. It is a bit conceited of you to claim to know how labs went at my school. Again, if you are going to attack my credentials please post your own. Otherwise your argument sounds something like “well, you’re wrong because you’re just a big dumb-dumb.” Attacking credentials is the lowest form of debate.
You missed the point anyway. What I was saying is that it doesn’t matter if there was empirical evidence. I don’t think Doug would not accept it in the lab or out of it, and I am curious as to why. If there is evidence he would accept, I would like to know what it is.
Once again another person presents excuses. That’s two down, anyone else? I’ll soon be leaving for work and I’ll come back in about nine hours. Do you think anyone will be able to present any evidence for gods, souls or virgin births in that time?
I’m thinking no.
Rage,
Science is a broad field of many different specialties.
Why don’t you move past the second grade rhetoric of insinuating that Chads school didn’t teach science.
“What I was saying is that it doesn’t matter if there was empirical evidence. I don’t think Doug would not accept it in the lab or out of it, and I am curious as to why. If there is evidence he would accept, I would like to know what it is.”
Gee, how about presenting that empirical evidence, for the benefit of everyone? Call his bluff!
(I won’t be holding my breath. . .)
Chad, you are concluding without actually presenting any empirical evidence. That might have flown at your alma mater but in the scientific realm that’s just dishonest.
Still waiting for that evidence you claim I’ll just deny.
Doug,
It is not an excuse. It is the truth. It is called faith.
There is no faith involved if there was some form of empirical proof of God.
You are acting like a pompous jerk. Of course no one will show you proof of the things you ask and yet you sit here acting indignant because they dont while you pretend like we are making excuses.
Grow up.
Nathan, Chad claimed to have empirical evidence, did he not?
Hey, folks, let’s not all get “Santiago” here - reasonable discussion - not insults.
Explain “nothingness.”
If “nothingness” exists, how can we explain something that has no boundaries, no matter nor energy.
How can something that is nothing exist?
Yet, everday we refer to somethings as nothing.
NO-THING
Does it deserve to be a word?
If an experiment fails to do anything; i.e. no change in states, does it do nothing?
How can we classify our experiment if nothing changed?
How can we put a measurement on it?
Doug: And we are still waiting for you to back up your claim that souls and the virgin birth do not exist.
And round and round we go…
Rage, in order to demonstrate something scientifically you have to know what arguments will be accepted. There are some scientists who will believe some data, others who will not believe the same data. What I am asking for is what type of data Doug wants. If he is unwilling to come up with anything that he would actually believe, then it is impossible for me to convince him. All I am asking is a form of evidence he would accept.
After he can come up with something acceptable to him, I will ask him to narrow that range to things he might expect an all powerful God to do for his creation. We are testing that hypothesis, so we would have to work inside those bounds. I cannot say I will only believe in elephants if I see one jump 10 feet, since that is not a reasonable expectation. Once he comes up with proof he would accept and might be expected for God to do for his creation we can move on from there. Otherwise there isn’t a point, is there?
Nathan you are using faith as an excuse. Faith is meaningless. It doesn’t mean your views can’t be criticized as having no evidence. You use that faith to criticize science and I’m using science to criticize your faith. A giant snake encircling the Earth is faith too but that doesn’t mean it’s real. Your faith is as mythological as Norse myths so don’t be upset that nobody believes your “faith” either.
Looking back, maybe Chad didn’t claim empirical support. In which case, it’s absurd to regard it as being within the domain of science. Or even relevant to the subject.
Chad, how about presenting your evidence rather than making excuses. If you actually had any evidence you would have presented it. Since you don’t you are merely being dishonest by keeping up this charade.
Don’t worry, I often expect this behavior from fundies.
Chad, why are you pretending it can be scientifically demonstrated? Doesn’t that strike you as wee bit absurd?
I would assume your physics curriculum did not include a lecture on “non-combustive burning.”
If you read my posts a little more closely, I have not made any statements about evidence I do or do not have. All I have done is ask what would be acceptable to you. If you cannot list anything that would be acceptable to you I have to assume that there is nothing that could convince you. A scientist has to know what he is looking for, and since you have not told me what you are looking for I have to assume you are not holding to a scientific process.
Repost - Looking for an answer…..
“It looks like science is in the process of proving the possibility of a virgin birth.”
Where?
And why?
Rage, you and Doug are trying to apply to scientific standards to an open discussion. This is not a scientific discussion. It is many faceted, including philosophy and faith. If your world does not include the spiritual, well you are missing out. And we have no common ground for a discussion.
Uhm, no, not really. If someone wants to believe that as a matter of faith, I’m not interested in pursuing the matter (see my first post).
You, however, are the author of the above scientific claim. Where is your evidence for it?
Doug,
>”Nathan you are using faith as an excuse.”
No I am not. Faith is exactly what it is. That is exactly what God asks from us, is for us to have faith in him. Either you do or you do not.
I choose to believe the history which is accounted for in the Bible. I choose to believe that Jesus died for my sins. I choose these things based upon personal experiences, history, and philosophy. It is no excuse.
“Faith is meaningless.”
Why? Because you say so? That is not very scientific of you. Seems to be more like your own personal disdain for faith. I am sorry you feel that way.
“It doesn’t mean your views can’t be criticized as having no evidence.”
There is evidence. You choose to not believe it. There is not any “empirical”, testable, repeat it in a lab evidence, but there is evidence.
“You use that faith to criticize science”
No I don’t. I have already stated that I love science. I study science. The particular scientific things I disagree with I do so not out of my faith alone.
“Your faith is as mythological as Norse myths so don’t be upset that nobody believes your “faith” either.”
I am not upset. There are many things which make my faith in God much more sensible than mere Norse myths.
The link below, which is to an essay on the “virgin birth” issue so important to some Christians, is offered for the review of all interested.
http://www.religioustolerance.org/virgin_b.htm
Rage: Have you heard of a process called cloning?
Doug, let me ask you a question. Why is science good? Why should we use a scientific mindset to view the world?Answer these questions with scientific evidence, and then maybe I will be able to see your point better.All I am asking for is exactly what you have asked of me in reverse.Why is science good?
The essence of the virgin birth is that Mary had not “known” a man. This would actually be possible today. Not in the sense, of course, that God “overshadowed” Mary. But invitro fertilization is an obvious method.
You want to have it both ways. To paraphrase, you say that science can explain anything, given time. Except the virgin birth. That is impossible. Disingenuous.
“You want to have it both ways. To paraphrase, you say that science can explain anything, given time. Except the virgin birth. That is impossible. Disingenuous.”
I don’t know what you are referring to, but I never came anywhere near saying that science can explain anything…. Nice try, though.
I did ask, who is trying to “prove” the virgin birth. Now the Bible doesn’t say anything about in vitro insemination, who is investigating the virgin birth.
And don’t put words in my mouth.
“Your faith is as mythological as Norse myths so don’t be upset that nobody believes your “faith” either.”
Nobody?76.5% of Americans catergorize themselves as “Christian” (44% born again/evangelical).
Less than 1% (.9) are catergorized as agnostic or atheist.100% of which I’m guessing blog. (sarcasm)
WSClark: I don’t think the virgin birth had anything to do with invitro. God did it. He is God.
I was giving that hypothetical to show the hypocrisy of saying that the virgin birth is impossible.
The problem with in-vitro is there needs to be a sperm donor (uh–do you really want to go there?–I don’t wanna get struck by lightning!).
Cloning produces a genetic duplicate.
Your overall point is well-taken. Perhaps someday genetically unique children can be scientifically produced.
But not the same thing as saying there’s “proof.”
WSClark: I was actually responding to Rage, although I see that you asked the question first. Thus the extraneous comments.
“I was giving that hypothetical to show the hypocrisy of saying that the virgin birth is impossible.”
I guess that I do not understand where you come off suggesting that I am a hypocrit - I never questioned your faith - I only stated that science belongs in the science class and religion belongs in a totally different classroom.
You might want to rethink the validity of calling me a hypocrit.
“I was a young man with unformed ideas. I threw out queries,suggestions, wondering all the time over everything; and to my astonishment the ideas took like wildfire. People made a religion out of them!”
- Charles Darwin
Chad I’m very glad that you’re studying under an atheist, in my eyes, it gives the appearance of more credibility than someone who just came out of a strongly religious based institute.
I still have issue with your statement about truthseekers. There is nothing wrong with seeking truth. If more people did within their own religion, I’m afraid Religion would fall.
As for the virgin birth thing, it is POSSIBLE to have a virgin give birth…however it would involve a penis a man sperm and VERY close proximity of ejaculate to the vagina, and I don’t think that is what the bible had in mind.
To me it is far far far more likely that a rape occured (or premarital sex), and that is how the idea of virgin birth came to be.
Nice try, JM…..
Read the facts:
http://members.aol.com/mjsawyer/darwin.html
There is no proof that Darwin said such things, nor did he convert to Christianity……
…as if Christianity and evolution are mutally exclusive.
WSClark: Reread. No one called you a hypocrite.
“to show the hypocrisy”
Who “shows” hypocrisy other than a hypocrite?
Political mom, you imply that truth seeking is in and of itself a good thing. Why? There is no scientific explanation for why that would be good.I can think of good philosophical and religious reasons to question and seek the truth, but no scientific reasons. This is a limitation of science.Also, none of the journals I will be submitting articles to ask for my religious background. They don’t say “since you study under an atheist we will accept your work.” Religious background has no bearing on peer reviewed science in my arena of physics.
I think it was cosmologist Stephen Hawkins who said that BOTH science and religion have their place. As scientists we try to undersand “HOW”; but the “WHY is in the realm of philosophy/theology.
A question for me fellow scientists: Where did the Big Bang come from? Who lit the fuse?
A comment of religions as they stand today. Nobody has ever come up with anything actually “written by God”. Mormons claim that Smith translated some golden plates but those plates might not exists - nobody else has ever seen them. Jews, Christians, and Muslims claim that Moses got some stone tablets engraved with lightning by God (or something like that) - again the tablets are not available. All three Abrahaimic religions claim that their prophets were somehow ‘guided’ by God when they wrote their various Books. Add to the uncertainty there the possibility that so much is in parable form and we really don’t know what happened.
So, for example, the 7 days that Jews, Christians and Muslims see as the Creation? Was anyone there to witness it? Is the genesis story meant as a lab report or just a lesson that “Hey guys, there is something really big behind all this”?
A similar situation exists with other religions and their various creation stories. They all have similarities but far too many differences to all be correct. So, for me at least, I look to them as lessons but not as lab reports.
Remember, religion is man’s best attempt to understand that which is far greater than anything he can comprehend. Science is our attempts to understand HOW all this works. That is important because we interact with what is out there - our actions then effect what we live in. I cannot effect God; however I CAN effect His creation.
Belief in God is faith - Religion is just a man-made way to hold power over a group of people.
This is why I trust no churches, whatever their particular line of religion is. But I do trust my faith in God.
I don’t need a particular preacher to tell me what is right or wrong. God gave me a brain with which to reason things and he gave me a mouth with which I can tell these preachers to back off.
All the greatest minds in thru out history believed in God.God created what we today call thinking; back in the beginnings it was called the tree of knowledge.I never want to come to an absolute end of the journey of knowledge, I don’t want God to disappear nor do I want science to disappear, if I do come to the end of my journey I think that I would be absolute dead.I believe in God and Science at the same time but I do not like religions.I am not going to force an answer to everything when it is not revealed and clear.We are not done yet, so keep plugging at it.
I think it’s always a good thing to seek truth Chad. What good does it do to seek a falsehood or to believe a falsehood?
Truth, leads to other truths. For example, is it not truthful that a person’s lab comes back high for blood sugar, to know that the reason why a blood sugar is high is because of a lack of insulin? It’s really meaningless to know that a blood sugar is high unless you know why, and how to correct it.
Does it matter what perspective one comes from? Absolutely. During the Terry Schiavo fiasco, the right to life community sought out Doctors that sided with them based on faith rather than scientific facts. We all know how that ended, with the religious doctors looking rather profoundly foolish.
I’m late, but want to add to CapnAmerica’s morning post mentioning Steven Hawking. Hawking gives credit for his being alive now to his loving Christian wife. He doesn’t accept Christianity’s explanations, but he does accept its principles-for-living embodied in people like his spouse. Which is worth noting.
Charles Darwin’s wife was also a devout Christian. He was sick during and after his five year round-the-world voyage. He had somebody to nurse him daily, to keep him alive. Women may be the bulwark force preserving religion. Darwin considered women to be the inferior sex. Maybe he didn’t did not accurately grasp biological reality. Maybe he misunderstood a cornerstone principle, compared to which the theory of natural selection is a trifle.
I guess if you cannot refute the findings, you can always resort to saying the findings are not of any importance. A long line of biologists would disagree.
“You can believe what you want to believe,But you don’t have to live like a refugee.”Tom Petty - 1979
Sorry for the digression, what I was going to say is that scientists have felt attacked by the Bush administration. I think it is unwise to attack religion in retaliation - kind of like invading Iraq because you’ve been attacked by Al Qaida.
http://www.wired.com/news/technology/0,62339-0.html
Welcome to WEBLog Chad, and keep following your pathway to enlightenment.
SD, the unfortunate thing is that evangelical Christians put their hope in a new political movement that would respect their values, and fell prey to con artists who, in pretending to respect these values, actually considered evangelicals to be “nuts” and they discredited evangelical Christianity.
Just an observational comment. You know this is an important topic to people, because its postings number dwarfs the rest of WEBlog threads.
Dusty, thanks for this link - it provides a great deal of useful information. I am going to repost it here, in case some of the latecomers may have missed it.
http://skepdic.com/tijunk.html
Thanks, again…..
heartlander,On the evangelicals being exploited, you are absolutely correct. I sure hope they have not been discredited for falling victim to Rove lies. But, if they have been, the rest of America is going to need to join them in their disgrace.
I agree, Dusty, I enjoyed the skeptic.com link. I also think that dissociative identity disorder (the new label for multiple personality) is indeed rare. Extending on what Mary C. said, if you call a borderline MPD, that person will be your patient for life - and will get much worse in the process. And, the therapist’s life won’t be worth living either. Not from personal experience, but what I had the misfortune to witness a few times.
Enjoy the rest of the holiday weekend.
religion has been a pretty destructive force in the world since man walked upright. Too often it’s been used as a weapon to control and oppress others.
How does a RELIGION oppress people?People oppress people. Religion oppresses no one.
Religion is first and foremost an outreach of man’s intellect due to his self awareness. Animals are not possess self awareness, that is why you don’t see animals congregating for religious purposes.
I find it fascinating that people who presume to be intelligent continuously fall back on blaming an abstract idea (like religion) rather than understanding that human beings are moral agents who determine their own actions irregardless of their religious affiliation. Such people only blame the idea of a religion for the inequities of human beings out of emotional rather than rational reasons. Do they need prof that religion is not to blame but human beings are?
Ok. There are over 1 billion Muslims in the world. If every Muslim thought exactly like Osama Bin Laden, there’d be a full scale war between all Muslims and non-Muslims. So have your Muslim neighbors shot at you yet? If religion is to blame, then every Muslim must be an absolutist jihaddist. Since Muslims are moral agents, they CHOOSE not to kill your non-Muslim ass.
Prove me wrong!
Doug,
If all you rely on is empirical knowledge, then you surely protest the following mathematical formula:
1 + 1 = 2
I’m a lapsed agnostic; I’m not sure what it is I don’t believe in.
It seems to me that religion exists to explain the inexplicable. Why do bad things happen to good people? Why do the good die young? Why is there injustice? Why do some things sometimes somehow work out?
Thing is, a long time ago, there were a lot more things that humans hadn’t figured out a way to explain. And we humans are cursed with wanting answers. If we don’t have answers we tend to make up answers. There’s truth in myths and lessons in fables; truth in made-up answers.
Science came along and decided to look for answers that weren’t made up. Scientists took the earth out of the center of the universe and shattered a lot of other myths over the years but didn’t necessarily take the underlying truth away from myths and fables. We all appreciate the lesson of The Tortoise and the Hare, even if there wasn’t an actual race; we understand the tragic implications of indecision even if there never was a real-life Hamlet; whether there really was a Job and God and Satan sat back and yanked his chain, we understand (or, at least contemplate) the point of the story.
I can understand people who need to think that a wise and good man might have been unjustly executed 2,000 years ago and that his spirit and love (in the form of his teachings and examples and parables…metaphors) live beyond the tomb. I can appreciate how Siddhartha Gautama might have discovered and taught and lived enough universal truth to become the Buddha. God or fate or happenstance or something might have pulled the Hebrews’ fat out of the fire often enough for some people to pay attention. The bottom-line Truth therein remains inexplicable, and that’s why there’s religion.
If there is a God, I kinda figure He’d work his miracles on a larger scope than, say, Tinkerbelle. If a moment is like a thousand years to the omniscient, omnipotent, everlasting universal “god,” digging the Grand Canyon is something He could do over his lunch hour, not with a wave of His magic wand.
And maybe, just perhaps, science is a systematic method to understand how His magic wand really works.
There’s a recent report that the human genome project has discovered that humans and chimpanzees do *not* share 99% of their genetic codes; maybe only 96%. I’m bracing myself for the wave of faithful who’ll cite this discovery as an “admission” that science doesn’t know all it thinks it does.
That’s the difference between religion and science: religion has the answers, science has the questions.
Religions cling to “answers,” while science continues to ask questions. Scientists are humanity’s Three-Year-Old, constantly asking, “Why?” We all know how annoying three-year-olds can be. Religionists are the good-but-frustrated parents who stop and say, “Because I said so.”
I suspect Neanderthals thought they’d achieved the height of human understanding, what with their mastery of fire and ability to look at the sun and figure the mastedons were migrating this way. I suspect that every generation of humans tends to think *they* have achieved all there is to know. The only people who won’t will be scientists, the damn little three-year-olds who persist on asking “Why?”
Science deals with immediate principles, religion deals with ultimate principles.
Will, people USE religion as a weapon to persecute others. Just look at the Klu Klux Klan or Fred Phelps. The Spanish burned people at the stake for refusing to convert to Christianity.Humans can justify anything by insisting it’s God’s will, that way they don’t have to take responsibility for their hatred or intolerance.
Mary,The fact that people use ideas as an excuse to kill people, and that religion is certainly an idea, is not lost on me. Compare Hitler to Bin Laden and they are identical in principle, except one used a religious idea to justify killing people, the other used an ethnocentric idea to justify killing people.
Will - good observations. And good additions Mary C.
I would add that the difference between a “regious person” and a “religionist” is important. I know many Jews, Christians, Muslims, and a few Hindu and Buddhists. They are religious and follow their respective faiths. However, I would not call them “religionist”: they do not try to prevent me from eating pork or other meat for example. Many are scientits, the rest know that I am a scientist. We have no conflict with that.
There are extremists on both sides who woul want to eliminate the other side. However, in my observation, most of us can live together and in many cases we are the same people.
An abstract idea can not be blamed because an abstract idea (religion) is not endowed with a consciousness to choose between right and wrong, neither does an idea (religion) possess a free will to carry out it’s actions. In other words, it is not a moral agent.
Religion is indeed the most contentious issue for the posters at WEblog.
The 4 most posted threads in WEblog history all had something to do with religion.
1. Terry Fox thread part12. Terry Fox thread part23. Rush Limbaugh/Michael J Fox stem cell thread.4. Flying spaghetti monster thread
Will, why are so many in Darfur being slaughtered? Why are the Palestinians and Jews always blowing themselves up and shooting missiles at each other?Why did Osama’s group fly planes into the WTC? Why did Hitler kill Jews and those against him?
Religion, religion, religion, religion. If you can’t see the pull of religion in the world, I do not know what to tell ya man.
People kill themselves for religion. People kill others for religion. Are there other reasons, sure, but that’s the main driving force for it.
Jerusalem is a good example. Do you think if that land wasn’t considered sacred, that we’d have this many people for centuries dying over an awful strip of barren land?
Ben,
What you call a “religionist” is simply one who imposes his beliefs on others. This is of course, a form of domination. However, since such a person tries to impose his will on someone else, the latter is equipped with a free will to either affirm or deny aggressive proselytizing. Funny thing, this free will, we can only be dominated if we allow ourselves to be.
MonkeyHawk, you’ve hit the nail on my head. I was one of those persistent “Why” asking children. Given a statement by an adult who wanted to be an authority, I was always trying to figure out what lay behind it. This drove a lot of adults nuts.
Very true will. However, I would add that the “ist” seeks to legislate his version of religion.
Peemom,
You seem to thi