CIVIL RELIGIOUS DISCUSSION: The "Science -vs- Religion" debate...

[CathyInBlue]

What's wrong with that?

Not the first thing, but if you wear your religion on your sleeve and then quip "I detest religion", there's a certain word that starts to become relevant, and that word is hypocrite.

Hey, cm. Is that popcorn dripping with butter and loaded with salt? Then pass some my way, brother.

 

[ChristianPatriot]

Not the first thing, but if you wear your religion on your sleeve and then quip "I detest religion", there's a certain word that starts to become relevant, and that word is hypocrite.

Hey, cm. Is that popcorn dripping with butter and loaded with salt? Then pass some my way, brother.

.

 

[ChristianPatriot]

I went back and deleted my most recent posts. They didn't contribute to the conversation, just unnecessary snark. My apologies. Carry on.

 

[steveh_131]

steveh, tried to rep ya but couldn't.

Got him

Steve I never thought you and I would land on the same side of...well...anything. it's a monumentous day.

If I call you guys a bunch of statists would we all be more comfortable?

Excellent. Then the greater part of science should be able to be taught without any objection from ID believers.

Agreed.

Where science in high school science classrooms contradict belief in ID… tough.

There is no part of high school science that contradicts belief in Intelligent Design. Nobody knows the origin of the universe. Science can't tell us for certain. Why do we even need to bring it up? Why do science teachers insist on pushing the issue? I am living proof that a person can master scientific fundamentals while believing in Intelligent Design.

 

[CathyInBlue]

Science can't tell us for certain.

That's the point of science, to tell you the best we have for now. Before you die, the information you were taught in high school science classes will have been revised a dozen times over as science is advanced.

Why do science teachers insist on pushing the issue?

I don't see science teachers pushing the issue, if by issue you mean ID. It's the ID proponents on the outside looking in trying every trick they can think of to shoehorn ID into the curriculum and losing and rightly so.

 

[DoggyDaddy]

Yes,we know. We do not dispute this. But this in no way invalidates science or the scientific method. And say 'this works this way because God decreed it to work that way is EQUALLY circular. You seem to think that by pointing out one or more things that science can't explain (yet) that you win and science is dicredited. Nothing could be further from the truth. And it is this desire to somehow win this discussion/argument that is the most off-putting.

I think you misunderstood me (and maybe that was my fault). I'm in the "science and religion aren't mutually exclusive" camp. I wasn't trying to "win" anything, just trying to contribute to the discussion.

Asymptotic is the word you're looking for

Thank you. However if you plot y = (x squared), the curve will aproach vertical as x increases (or goes more negative). There is really no asymptote, since the absolute value of x can increase to infinity. When I think of asymptotic, I think of a hyperbola, where the value of x (or y) approaches zero as in y = 1/(x squared) for example, rather than a parabola.

 

[findingZzero]

I was waiting for entropy to invade this discussion before wading in. I think we're there now.

How does evolution as origin of species coexist with entropy?

Life is little packets of anti-entropy flowing against the great tide of dissolution. With entropy in charge, this is an ingenious way to propagate understanding of ourselves and everything that is, forward. Thank you, evolution. This suggests direction, purpose. I see that direction as a function of the universe itself. Some call this God. I have no issue with that. What the universe is trying to do, however, is a mystery. For our corner of the Cosmos, it appears it is developing 'consciousness' to admire all that it is. But, who really knows. Maybe the goal is to realize your place in this marvelous dance. Must be more satisfying to have faith and absolutely believe you do. Purpose/direction (God) is a property of the Universe, all that is. I also believe that a dormant emerging property of all matter is 'consciousness.' It's all very intriguing and exhilarating to ponder. So, you see, for this reason, the design may, in fact, be both libertarian (random mutation to strike out on your own) and socialist (for the good of the all, so the Universe works) we do what we do. Science, religion, politics. Now if I could just get money and sex into this screed I will have touched all taboos and should be the first one banned. What say ye CM?

p.s. How do you explain crystallization (organization) in a universe ruled by entropy? When everything cools down, perhaps another cycle starts. This is more philosophy, poetry, than science. But, I have 'faith' in it.

Actually I am wanting to know what "It" is. You said "It" is conducting experiments. That implies that some intelligent being is acting upon something to conduct these experiments. What (or who) is conducting them? Again, the "purpose" as you describe it, is more "What" than "Why". I suspect that if "It" could be defined, then we would have the "Why".

See above

Really? Where did the law come from?
Look, what I'm getting at is, there are things that cannot be explained scientifically.****snip****

Property of the universe/matter/energy.

Give it time brother....

And as far as this,

Now, popcorn..I love popcorn. It forms from those little kernels. I truly wonder at this marvel. Especially when you combine it with chili powder, peanut oil, popcorn salt, smoked paprika and grated parmesan.

 

[DoggyDaddy]

I was waiting for entropy to invade this discussion before wading in. I think we're there now.


Life is little packets of anti-entropy flowing against the great tide of dissolution. Making contributions to knowledge of the Cosmos. With entropy in charge, this is an ingenious way to propagate understanding of ourselves and everything that is, forward. Thank you, evolution. This suggests direction, purpose. I see that direction as a function of the universe itself. Some call this God. I have no issue with that. What the universe is trying to do, however, is a mystery. For our corner of the Cosmos, it appears it is developing 'consciousness' to admire all that it is. But, who really knows. Maybe the goal is to realize your place in this marvelous dance. Must be more satisfying to have faith and absolutely believe you do. Purpose/direction (God) is a property of the Universe, all that is. I also believe that a dormant emerging property of all matter is 'consciousness.' It's all very intriguing and exhilarating to ponder. So, you see, for this reason, the design may, in fact, be both libertarian (random mutation to strike out on your own) and socialist (for the good of the all, so the Universe works) we do what we do. Science, religion, politics. Now if I could just get 'money' into this screed I will have touched all taboos and should be the first one banned. What say ye CM?

p.s. How do you explain crystallization (organization) in a universe ruled by entropy? When everything cools down, perhaps another cycle starts. This is more philosophy, poetry, than science. But, I have 'faith' in it.


See above



Give it time brother....

And as far as this,

Now, popcorn..I love popcorn. It forms from those little kernels. I truly wonder at this marvel. Especially when you combine it with chili powder, peanut oil, popcorn salt, smoked paprika and grated parmesan.

Speaking again of asymptotes, may I suggest that the quest for knowledge* is asymptotic? That is to say, our knowledge increases every day, but we will never (in my opinion) know "all there is to know".

* Knowledge = that which we perceive to be true beyond a doubt, which of course may be subject to change.

 

[CathyInBlue]

I don't remember if it was in the *other* thread or earlier in this one, but someone asked, generally or challenging me directly, a question of "what about consciousness?"

I responded "What do you mean by the word consciousness?" Because, there re a number of English words and disparate concepts that I have seen and heard people abuse by relabelling them as "consciousness", and each of them would be explained in markedly different ways.

So, who wants to discuss science vs. religion's concept of "consciousness"?

 

[findingZzero]

Are you kidding? I'd love to, but my brain already hurts...







"I failed the Turing test."

 

[churchmouse]

Not the first thing, but if you wear your religion on your sleeve and then quip "I detest religion", there's a certain word that starts to become relevant, and that word is hypocrite.

Hey, cm. Is that popcorn dripping with butter and loaded with salt? Then pass some my way, brother.

You know it is.........

 

[ChristianPatriot]

I really have no interest in discussing it further. It goes from "there are no absolutes" to "science is absolute fact" to "science has always just been good enough". To say your version of the beginning of the the universe is the only thing that can be taught because it "might" be proven "someday" is just dishonest. An Intelligent Designer doesn't change science one single bit. I understand that deep down you don't want there to be a Designer. "I need proof." Well God came to Earth and lived as a man for 33 1/2 perfect years, and they killed Him for it. There is no proof that would change your mind if you've already decided I am the smartest thing on this planet and nobody can tell me what is right or wrong. I do truly hope that little voice telling you of His existence will become too loud to ignore. Have a wonderful day, all.

 

[steveh_131]

That's the point of science, to tell you the best we have for now. Before you die, the information you were taught in high school science classes will have been revised a dozen times over as science is advanced.

So why don't we focus on the stuff that we have some kind of certainty? Seriously, this is high school and below. There are enough unchanging, useful fundamentals to last all the way through high school and most of the way through an undergraduate degree.

I don't see science teachers pushing the issue, if by issue you mean ID. It's the ID proponents on the outside looking in trying every trick they can think of to shoehorn ID into the curriculum and losing and rightly so.

So far, I've seen this as a reaction to science teachers that insist on pushing macro evolution and the big bang as undisputed history to students who don't even know how to formulate a basic physics equation or understand the basics of genetics.

I think most parents who believe in intelligent design would be quite alright with leaving the origins of the universe out of the middle school science discussion altogether and teaching their own kids.

 

[hoosierdoc]

Right Steve. Leave it out of curriculum. What would we think if they started teaching what happens at the end of life? It's the natural conclusion of the lecture topic of where life began.

 

[CathyInBlue]

@ ChristianPatriot: 33 ⅓ years, but who's counting?

So why don't we focus on the stuff that we have some kind of certainty?

Because if you want absolute certainty, you don't want science, you want religion. That's not taught in the public schools. That's taught in the church down the street. I'm afraid you've got the wrong address if absolute certainty is on your menu.

Seriously, this is high school and below. There are enough unchanging, useful fundamentals to last all the way through high school and most of the way through an undergraduate degree.

Because, when what we know changes, it will require an understanding of what came before to comprehend the new scientific truth. It's like trying to binge watch an 8 season show by jumping into the middle of season 7. You'll be horribly lost. We still teach Newtonian physics, even though we know there are plenty of regimes of physics where Newton is simply wrong. Newton can't even correctly predict the orbit of Mercury due to the fact that Mercury's orbitting so close to the sun that its space-time environs are distorted by the high gravity field. Oh well, Newton's not certain. Just throw out the whole of the Principia Mathematica. Ash heap of history and all that. Just dump new high school graduates straight into college with general relativity and watch them flounder. Oh, but even Einstein might not be certain enough for Religionists, so just dump all of science and teach religion in its place in the public school classroom.

That's the irrational extreme of such a position, of course.

So far, I've seen this as a reaction to science teachers that insist on pushing macro evolution and the big bang as undisputed history to students who don't even know how to formulate a basic physics equation or understand the basics of genetics.

I think most parents who believe in intelligent design would be quite alright with leaving the origins of the universe out of the middle school science discussion altogether and teaching their own kids.

I quite agree that STEM education in general in this country is sorely lacking. When I tutored recent highs school graduates in basic mathematics (algebra) at IVYTech and ISU, I found them largely unable to solve simple equations for a given variable. If you can't manipulate equations, you're not going to have a fun time in physics class. I do not blame students alone. I do not blame teachers alone. I do not blame administrators alone. I blame all of them pretty well equally.

The advent of high-stakes testing and outcome-based education has sought to explicitly dumb-down the whole of the student body to an average level of intelligence and knowledge that generations past would scoff at. We need to drive students to learn with time-tested methods, not springing the latest fad pedagogy (Common Core, I'm staring daggers at you) on them every other generation.

I believe there is a substantial proportion of every class that can easily handle the material taught at the level immediately above them, and a substantial proportion of that population that can handle the material of the level immediately above that, and they should not only be permitted to do so, but encouraged and rewarded for doing so. If the lowest common denominator of each cohort cannot, indeed, handle the curriculum designed to prepare them to tackle issues that the society in which they live is already struggling with, then I feel sorry for them, but that in no way can be allowed to hobble the greater proportion of each cohort which can handle topics in cosmology and biotech and electronics.

And, of course, anywhere the common curriculum is deemed by a parent to be lacking or in conflict with their own preferred pedagogy, I encourage them to either home school altogether, seek out private school, hire private tutors to cover other material, and/or feed their children the religious schooling of their choice in an attempt to have their religious tenets override the science taught in the public school classroom, but this policy can only harm those students of parents who choose to do them harm with it. It insulates the greater population from that irrational harm. The public school system is required to teach the same science which governs us all, regardless of religious persuasion, and let's not mince words, it is a persuasion, and as such, subject to every bit the level of opinion and then some of which Religionists accuse scientists. Public schools can't teach anyone's religion as fact, else it would have to teach everyone's religion as fact.

 

[DoggyDaddy]

"The new scientific truth". Interesting concept that. Let's just stop calling it "truth" when the fact is, it can and most likely will, change. If it changes, then it wasn't "true" to begin with. It was a "best fit" theory at most. It was something that explained things to the best of our ability. Is that really all so different from primitive cultures that thought the earth was flat? As best they could tell at the time, the flat earth theory explained that which could be easily observed to their satisfaction. Was it "true"? No, of course not. Newtonian physics was "true" until we developed tools which allowed us to more closely observe how things behaved (in your example) with Mercury's orbit. Now we know that it's not "true" in the absolute sense of the word. How long until that "truth" (that Newtonian physics doesn't necessarily apply to Mercury's orbit) is found to be lacking as well? When and if it does, then we will know that it wasn't true either, right?

Is that the nature of truth? If it explains things to our satisfaction, then we can consider it to be the truth, right? As I see it, the difference between pure science and religion is that pure science keeps looking for something that explains things better, to increase the scientists' satisfaction with their understanding. Religion (any religion) explains things to the practitioners thereof to their satisfaction. For them, that's good enough. It doesn't make the scientist "wrong" to want to continue to search for "truth", and it doesn't make the religious person "wrong" if they say, "Good enough." The problems arise when one group vehemently states with certainty that the other group is wrong. Note that I purposely used the word "wrong" (subjective) instead of "correct" (objective). As you noted, Newtonian physics isn't always "correct", but it's "good enough" to explain most things, so I don't think one can say that it's "wrong".

 

[jamil]

Because if you want absolute certainty, you don't want science, you want religion. That's not taught in the public schools. That's taught in the church down the street. I'm afraid you've got the wrong address if absolute certainty is on your menu.

Cathy, you can't have it both ways. Maybe it was someone else who made the point that science doesn't produce absolute certainty, it produces the most certainty available given the current body of knowledge.

 

[DoggyDaddy]

Cathy, you can't have it both ways. Maybe it was someone else who made the point that science doesn't produce absolute certainty, it produces the most certainty available given the current body of knowledge.

You said that much more succinctly than I did.

 

[CathyInBlue]

It's truth until you or someone else proves that it's not the truth using the Scientific Method. The only alternative is to simply abandon science and the ability to make accurate predictions about the universe altogether and let religion and superstition reign.

 

[jamil]

It's truth until you or someone else proves that it's not the truth using the Scientific Method. The only alternative is to simply abandon science and the ability to make accurate predictions about the universe altogether and let religion and superstition reign.

I don't favor teaching religion in place of science. But I think you're sugesting a false dichotomy.