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

[jamil]

The dichotomy is what we know via diligent application of the Scientific Method versus any and all other ways of "knowing". You either used the Scientific Method and are discovering science, or you're not. That's not a false dichotomy.

You make the scientific method sound a lot like a religion to believe in. Maybe it is the most efficient method to find answers now. Doesn't mean it's the only method there will ever be. And it doesn't mean that the only alternative ever is religion.

 

[BugI02]

The double-speak is just mind blowing.

"We haven't proven God exists yet, therefore He does not ."

"We haven't proven the Big Bang yet, therefore we will teach it to everyone as science."

To quote Reagan "There you go again ....." The vast majority of pro-science posters to this thread do not think God is disproven or try to use science in such a way as to prove/disprove God. Many of us are Christians and believers. We are trying to get the pro-religion as truth side over the hump to see the limitations inherent in their viewpoint. I'll say it again, science can postulate the big bang as a possible explaination of the origin of the universe. This hypothesis will suggest other, testable postulates (testable being the important part). We design experiments to test these postulates and report the results. Our peers review the design of our experiments (to ensure we are testing what we think we are testing) and some replicate our experiment (often using alternate aparatus of their own design). If it is generally agreed our experiment was designed correctly and our results support the hypothesis that small area of knowledge is accepted and quite often used as a jumping-off point for further hypotheses.

We haven't proven God exists yet because, for aa great many of us, we don't require 'proof' to believe and in fact believe it to be untestable. Just think for a moment, what experiment could you concieve to test any portion of a hypothesis that God does/does not exist.

I am running a small experiment for you, though. Review my post #233 and see how long it takes folks to get out the hammer and the nails. And remember that I am a christian and a believe and am not really arguing against beliefr

 

[DoggyDaddy]

*SNIP*
C) If you do not believe the age of the Earth is precisely what the best geologists and paleontologists and cosmologists and planetologists have calculated the age of the planet Earth to be to be a good scientific citizen? No. Not if that precise age of the planet doesn't affect your ability to make good decisions and predictions. However, if you are attempting to support an outfit like the Creation Museum in KY and are deliberately making statements of fact that are not just orders of magnitude different from the established age of the planet, but deliberately so in order to spread the unscientific ideas of religious zealots, then I view that as a serious problem for the scientific literacy of generations of this country's citizens.

It's a serious problem for the scientific literacy of people that care about scientific literacy. If one's ambitions are simpler, say to be a florist, or a lawyer or an Indian chief, then does it really matter? You know there are tribes in the Amazon rainforest that haven't heard of any of the major religions OR scientific theory, and couldn't give a rat's patoot about either. If they are content, then do any of those things really matter? Should they matter to them?

 

[CathyInBlue]

@ jamil: The Scientific Method's supremacy as the best method yet devised to know the truth of the universe is something of an axiom. That does not mean that it is unassailable. Indeed, if someone were to actually come up with a better method than the Scientific Method, by better i mean makes learning truths easier while continuing to avoid the fallacies and biases the Scientific Method avoids at least as well, then I'm sure that people would happily adopt it in place of the Scientific Method. Until then, it's just the bee's knees.

@ DoggyDaddy: And I'm sure those tribes of Pygmys in Africa live much harder and shorter lives for their scientific ignorance. That is what I bemoan when I rail about people who want to replace science with non-science, especially religion, that the proponents of non-scientific ways of knowing are promoting the idea that it's better for the people who listen to them to live lives that are shorter, more painful, and less fulfilling than one in which informed predictions come true. The problem with the scientific literacy of the "simple" folk, is that they still have the potential to spread it so very far and wide. To paraphrase Ronald Reagan, "The trouble with our religious friends is not that they are ignorant, but that they know so much that isn't so."

I would rather the "simple" folk, for whom the size and fate of the universe, the age of the Earth, or the spin polarization of the electron matters not at all, know absolutely nothing about same, rather than they had some "alternative" way of knowing that it was this or that. Because if they were completely ignorant of such matters, when a child or an inquiring adult mused in their presence about same, they could just say, "I know nothing about that." and go back to their flower arrangin', lawyerin', or chiefin', rather than propagating their unscientific "knowledge" by filling the inquiring person's mind with "so much that isn't so."

 

[DoggyDaddy]

The inquiring child or adult has ample sources from which to get their information. If they swallow whatever is given to them, then that's their worry, isn't it? I don't know, but personally I'm not going to go seeking information about physics from an African pygmy tribesman. I'm also not going to go to church to learn about physics, nor am I going to a physics lab to worship. Perhaps you are altruistic in wanting everyone to lead a longer, less painful life, and that's fine. But I think we need to tread lightly when we tell someone that if they don't want the same that they are somehow wrong. (As long as it's harming no one but themselves.)

 

[steveh_131]

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.

I said "some kind of certainty". The Big Bang does not meet that criteria.

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.

This is a gross exaggeration, at best. There is no part of high school physics that can not be understood without a belief in the 'big bang' theory. There is no part of undergraduate physics that can not be understood without a belief in the 'big bang' theory. There is no part of any of the graduate level physics courses that I took that relied on the 'big bang' theory.

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.

There is no tangible 'harm' in not teaching children your opinion of the origin of the universe. None, whatsoever.

 

[CathyInBlue]

Okay, the argument against teaching modern cosmological concepts (such as the Big Bang) in the public high school classroom setting seems to have boiled down to "You don't have to do it, so you shouldn't do it." Of course, taken to its irrational extreme, that would still nix 99% of a public education curriculum, so as far as I'm concerned this vein of discussion has been largely mined out. Moving on.

What does anyone make of any of the following terms that could be a new vein of discussion in this thread:

• consciousness
• brain
• mind
• soul
• self-awareness
• sentience
• (artificial) intelligence

 

[D-Ric902]

Okay, the argument against teaching modern cosmological concepts (such as the Big Bang) in the public high school classroom setting seems to have boiled down to "You don't have to do it, so you shouldn't do it." Of course, taken to its irrational extreme, that would still nix 99% of a public education curriculum, so as far as I'm concerned this vein of discussion has been largely mined out. Moving on.

What does anyone make of any of the following terms that could be a new vein of discussion in this thread:

• consciousness
• brain
• mind
• soul
• self-awareness
• sentience
• (artificial) intelligence
• Hoosierdoc

.

 

[findingZzero]

Is consciousness what we think it is? Or is it an adaptive feedback loop that fools us into thinking that we are aware. It seems to be somewhat useful for the organism (if we don't use it to kill ourselves) to learn about ourselves and what's outside ourselves. It allows us to make decisions that change our environment for good and bad. I would suggest 'the soul' or 'God' is the connection of all consciousness and the understanding of our part in the cosmic dance. Something we've either forgotten, or must learn. I can 'prove' none of this. Some can prove some of this.

 

[findingZzero]

To quote Reagan "There you go again ....." The vast majority of pro-science posters to this thread do not think God is disproven or try to use science in such a way as to prove/disprove God. Many of us are Christians and believers. We are trying to get the pro-religion as truth side over the hump to see the limitations inherent in their viewpoint. I'll say it again, science can postulate the big bang as a possible explaination of the origin of the universe. This hypothesis will suggest other, testable postulates (testable being the important part). We design experiments to test these postulates and report the results. Our peers review the design of our experiments (to ensure we are testing what we think we are testing) and some replicate our experiment (often using alternate aparatus of their own design). If it is generally agreed our experiment was designed correctly and our results support the hypothesis that small area of knowledge is accepted and quite often used as a jumping-off point for further hypotheses.

We haven't proven God exists yet because, for aa great many of us, we don't require 'proof' to believe and in fact believe it to be untestable. Just think for a moment, what experiment could you concieve to test any portion of a hypothesis that God does/does not exist.

I am running a small experiment for you, though. Review my post #233 and see how long it takes folks to get out the hammer and the nails. And remember that I am a christian and a believe and am not really arguing against beliefr

Well said! Good summation.

 

[findingZzero]

You may be misunderstanding the 2nd law of thermodynamics, which is germain to discussing the direction towards which a systems total entropy moves. The law deals with an isolated system, the size of which can be as large as the total universe but needs only be isolated and taken as a whole. Your example of crystalization actually violates this stricture. If you cool a substance to induce crystalization you have removed entropy/disorder from that system (the heat you drew off to induce crystalization) and more importantly you are not considering this removed heat as part of the original system if you want to cite this as evidence of negative entropy. Entropy in microcosm can be increased by inrevention from outside the system in question, but then you have to expand your definition of the system under examination to include this outside influence in order to meaningfully speak to the the total entropy of the system. At the limit, considering the universe in total, the TOTAL entropy of the system can only increase.

I may be misunderstanding crystallization. The process by which something becomes 'ordered', but releases energy. I'm not arguing against entropy however.

 

[steveh_131]

Okay, the argument against teaching modern cosmological concepts (such as the Big Bang) in the public high school classroom setting seems to have boiled down to "You don't have to do it, so you shouldn't do it."

You're boiling it down incorrectly.

The origin of the universe is hotly debated and controversial. Plenty of very, very intelligent scientists are unconvinced of the merit of the Big Bang. Additionally, it has absolutely no bearing on the fundamental principles that children should be learning. Comparing it to fundamentals is silly.

Is my point that we should eliminate all 'unnecessary' teachings, simply because they are unnecessary? Well, yes, we probably should but that isn't the heart of my point.

The heart of my point is that you know they aren't necessary, you know that this could be resolved by eliminating it from the curriculum without harming the educational benefits of a science course, and you know that the large number of religious parents would be perfectly content. So I want you to drop the silly suggestions that kids are 'harmed' by not learning this in middle school and just acknowledge your real agenda: Preventing religious kids from going through school without having their beliefs belittled by their teachers at some point along the way.

 

[T.Lex]

I totally didn't read this entire thread from pages 2-7 (I max out the post/page).

But, I will put this here.
Scientists discover that atheists might not exist, and that?s not a joke

Cognitive scientists are becoming increasingly aware that a metaphysical outlook may be so deeply ingrained in human thought processes that it cannot be expunged.

 

[CathyInBlue]

Teachers are prohibitted by the 1st amendment from belittling the religious beliefs of their students and are rightly spanked by the courts when it happens, and you know it.

 

[T.Lex]

Okay, the argument against teaching modern cosmological concepts (such as the Big Bang) in the public high school classroom setting seems to have boiled down to "You don't have to do it, so you shouldn't do it."

Again, I skipped a HUGE portion of this, but has an issue been brought up about parochial schools? My kids have gone (still go), yet do very well in science classes. Their peers, with the same education, go on to achieve amazing things in scientific fields.

True, Religion is taught as a separate class, but the kids are also taught to think critically. Even in Religion. Even in Chemistry.

What does anyone make of any of the following terms that could be a new vein of discussion in this thread:

• consciousness
• brain
• mind
• soul
• self-awareness
• sentience
• (artificial) intelligence

I am in favor of all of those.

 

[ATM]

Teachers are prohibitted by the 1st amendment from belittling the religious beliefs of their students and are rightly spanked by the courts when it happens, and you know it.

Incorrect.

Teachers are regulated by the changing whims of society, not the 1st amendment.

 

[CathyInBlue]

I totally didn't read this entire thread from pages 2-7 (I max out the post/page).

But, I will put this here.
Scientists discover that atheists might not exist, and that?s not a joke

Magical thinking does not a belief in god make.

Just because I think to myself, after 5 fruitless attempts to start the lawn mower, "Just one more tug will do it!" does not mean that I'm praying to a higher power for divine assistance in starting the internal combustion motor that is the product of a manufacturing industry. Magical thinking is a psychological coping mechanism, developed over eons by evolutionary forces. Nothing in that proves any religion correct, nor prove that all religions have some correctness. The correctness of religions is orthogonal to the organicly evolved neuro pathways that support the religiosity of a community.

 

[T.Lex]

Magical thinking does not a belief in god make.

Indeed. So, from a cognitive perspective, do you agree that there's little (perhaps not any) difference between belief in religion and belief in science? Cognitively, both are trust in something that is not fully understood.

Or, to perhaps put it another way, do you believe that at any point in the future, human beings will scientifically know everything? Truly, have an explanation for every natural occurrence? I'll even concede that randomness/entropy/chaos counts as scientific knowledge.

 

[steveh_131]

Teachers are prohibitted by the 1st amendment from belittling the religious beliefs of their students and are rightly spanked by the courts when it happens, and you know it.

Hogwash. I went to school, I remember it well. Intelligent design was thoroughly mocked.

So tell me. What is your agenda? Why do you care if the 'big bang' is taught in a class where it is not necessary?

 

[T.Lex]

Man, I wish there was an agenda for this thread. It would keep people focused.

The chair invites a Motion to close discussion on topic #4.

(Except we don't HAVE any agenda, so we don't know what topic #4 is!)