"Separation of Church and State..."

[Bummer]

To some people, science is their faith. see Richard Dawkins.

"Faith, being belief that isn't based on evidence, is the principal vice of any religion. And who, looking at Northern Ireland or the Middle East, can be confident that the brain virus of faith is not exceedingly dangerous? One of the stories told to the young Muslim suicide bombers is that martyrdom is the quickest way to heaven — and not just heaven but a special part of heaven where they will receive their special reward of 72 virgin brides. It occurs to me that our best hope may be to provide a kind of "spiritual arms control": send in specially trained theologians to deescalate the going rate in virgins.

Given the dangers of faith — and considering the accomplishments of reason and observation in the activity called science — I find it ironic that, whenever I lecture publicly, there always seems to be someone who comes forward and says, "Of course, your science is just a religion like ours. Fundamentally, science just comes down to faith, doesn't it?"

Well, science is not religion and it doesn't just come down to faith. Although it has many of religion's virtues, it has none of its vices. Science is based upon verifiable evidence. Religious faith not only lacks evidence, its independence from evidence is its pride and joy, shouted from the rooftops. Why else would Christians wax critical of doubting Thomas? The other apostles are held up to us as exemplars of virtue because faith was enough for them. Doubting Thomas, on the other hand, required evidence. Perhaps he should be the patron saint of scientists."

Richard Dawkins

 

[J_Wales]

" Although it has many of religion's virtues, it has none of its vices."

This could be one of the funniest comments I have read in a long time!

Thanks for the laugh!

 

[Blackhawk2001]

"Faith, being belief that isn't based on evidence, is the principal vice of any religion. And who, looking at Northern Ireland or the Middle East, can be confident that the brain virus of faith is not exceedingly dangerous? One of the stories told to the young Muslim suicide bombers is that martyrdom is the quickest way to heaven — and not just heaven but a special part of heaven where they will receive their special reward of 72 virgin brides. It occurs to me that our best hope may be to provide a kind of "spiritual arms control": send in specially trained theologians to deescalate the going rate in virgins.

Given the dangers of faith — and considering the accomplishments of reason and observation in the activity called science — I find it ironic that, whenever I lecture publicly, there always seems to be someone who comes forward and says, "Of course, your science is just a religion like ours. Fundamentally, science just comes down to faith, doesn't it?"

Well, science is not religion and it doesn't just come down to faith. Although it has many of religion's virtues, it has none of its vices. Science is based upon verifiable evidence. Religious faith not only lacks evidence, its independence from evidence is its pride and joy, shouted from the rooftops. Why else would Christians wax critical of doubting Thomas? The other apostles are held up to us as exemplars of virtue because faith was enough for them. Doubting Thomas, on the other hand, required evidence. Perhaps he should be the patron saint of scientists."

Richard Dawkins

And yet, we have plenty of examples of "scientists" who pick and choose their data, or ignore relevant data that disagrees with their pet theories. The Global Warming scam is just one example. Such scientists are no more willing to give up their belief in their theory, than are faithful religionists willing to give up their beliefs. "By their fruits shall ye know them."

The fact is, humans are not and never will be perfect. Worshipping at the altar of "science" or even "provable fact" is no more intrinsically moral than "believing in that which is unseen", since scientists as much as believers are often prone to holding onto their theory when objective data indicate the theory isn't correct.

 

[Bummer]

And yet, we have plenty of examples of "scientists" who pick and choose their data, or ignore relevant data that disagrees with their pet theories. The Global Warming scam is just one example. Such scientists are no more willing to give up their belief in their theory, than are faithful religionists willing to give up their beliefs. "By their fruits shall ye know them."

The fact is, humans are not and never will be perfect. Worshipping at the altar of "science" or even "provable fact" is no more intrinsically moral than "believing in that which is unseen", since scientists as much as believers are often prone to holding onto their theory when objective data indicate the theory isn't correct.

For every scientist who fakes data there are a hundred chomping at the bit to prove the fraud and win a research contract, if not the Nobel Prize. That's another of the strengths of science and weaknesses of religion.

"By their fruits shall ye know them." Indeed. The Inquisition. The Crusades. Islam and Sharia law. The World Trade Center atrocity. All driven by religion. Then there's Jimmy Swaggart, Jim and Tammy Fay Baker, Jim Jones, the Westboro Baptist Church, James Dobson, Adolph Hitler. Let us not forget The Church's obscenely slow response to Priestly pedophilia. And so much, much more, all of which showing that morals are not a natural result of religious faith. Yes, we know the fruits of that labor. Luckily sometimes the fruit is not rotten.

Faith and religion have their place. That place is not the school Science class.

 

[Bummer]

And to touch on the actual thread topic: The members of the Danbury Baptist church wanted Separation of Church and State. The point was never to prevent those of faith from having the right to exert their one vote of influence, only to prevent them from ganging up and forcing their religious beliefs upon others.

I read a comment once that all of the Founders (the men at the Continental Convention of 1787) were Christians. Not exactly true. Ben Franklin never ran for office so he never had to join a church. Many of the others were Deists who had to register with the official church of the colony wherein they lived, so that they could run for and hold office. Colonial religious requirements were the reason that even the Christians who helped write the Constitution, and those who served on the first Congress, wanted separation of church and state.

 

[level.eleven]

One man's 'misinformation' is another man's information. We all choose to believe what we wish to believe... The totality of your posts actually illustrates my point quite well. Given the fact that neither one of us can factually state that evolution or design unequivocally IS how the universe originated, my claim that both evolution and intelligent design (including creationism) are faith-based in their nature rings true.

You will never admit that because it's fairly obvious we disagree on what is 'faith' and what is 'science' (and you feel you are much more intelligent than I) and that's your right; but the fact remains that each viewpoint requires faith to believe and both result from are free choice we have the ability to make.

We can (but won't) debate irreducible complexity, which is no longer just one man's viewpoint, but one that is actually gaining in popularity. Wasn't Darwin's evolutional theory the viewpoint of one man at some point in time? If irreducible complexity was 'rejected by the scientific community at large' (as you claim) that would do nothing but indicate to me that possibly the "scientific community" might have another agenda. My observation is that scientists don't step out of line often, for fear of losing government funding. I also don't believe that there are many theories in the "scientific community" that would garner near universal acceptance and when that happens, I get suspicious...(I.e, anthropomorphic global warming).

An open and honest viewing of the irreducible complexity theory would lend that it have some level of credence. You may not choose to believe it, but the idea that "theres' something there" is an honest appraisal. I have done the same for evolution. I see where it may be enticing to believe...I just don't.

I keep coming back to this...but reasonable people may still disagree on topics such as this....and it's okay.

Creationists got caught quote mining Patterson. Classic misinformation and deception. You should not use that mined quote in future discussions on the subject as it negatively impacts your credibility.

Oh boy, where do we begin. First, you seem to be shifting gears from natural selection, a component of evolutionary biology, to abiogenesis. A rather common mistake. Second, science is not faith based. Science, adjusts it's position based on what is observed. Faith, is the denial of observation so that positions can be preserved. Enter, the scientific method. Are you arguing that a water molecule consisting of two hydrogen atoms and a single oxygen atom is reliant upon faith, rather than observation, to be believed?

Government funding...for evolutionary biology and the associated feeder disciplines? The fact is the overwhelming majority of public funds is directed towards nanotechnology, particularly in medicine, and computer technology.

For others reading the thread, IC has been debunked. The classic flagellum example has gone by the wayside. As have similar claims about the eye. Some of the more complex research in the area surrounds that of resurrecting ancient genes and associated molecular systems. IC was also at the center of the Dover trial. It is fun reading if you have an interest in the subject and is actually relevant to the original purpose of the thread.

 

[J_Wales]

Never argue with a fool - they will drag you down to their level, then beat you with experience.

 

[Hookeye]

Copy: Faith and religion have their place. That place is not the school Science class.
......................................................................
IMHO the idea of a possible creator should at least be mentioned. It is a viable theory.
Don't have to go on about what various religions have to say about it.

Just:

Cosmic starter soup always was

something made the cosmic starter soup.

Wow, that was a real tough.

 

[level.eleven]

Never argue with a fool - they will drag you down to their level, then beat you with experience.

Who is a fool?

 

[Hookeye]

For every scientist who fakes data there are a hundred chomping at the bit to prove the fraud and win a research contract, if not the Nobel Prize. That's another of the strengths of science and weaknesses of religion.

"By their fruits shall ye know them." Indeed. The Inquisition. The Crusades. Islam and Sharia law. The World Trade Center atrocity. All driven by religion. Then there's Jimmy Swaggart, Jim and Tammy Fay Baker, Jim Jones, the Westboro Baptist Church, James Dobson, Adolph Hitler. Let us not forget The Church's obscenely slow response to Priestly pedophilia. And so much, much more, all of which showing that morals are not a natural result of religious faith. Yes, we know the fruits of that labor. Luckily sometimes the fruit is not rotten.

Faith and religion have their place. That place is not the school Science class.

Blame the religion and not the individuals.

 

[level.eleven]

Copy: Faith and religion have their place. That place is not the school Science class.
......................................................................
IMHO the idea of a possible creator should at least be mentioned. It is a viable theory.
Don't have to go on about what various religions have to say about it.

Just:

Cosmic starter soup always was

something made the cosmic starter soup.

Wow, that was a real tough.

For philosophy classrooms, sure. For science classrooms, the definition of theory has yet to be met.

 

[Bummer]

Blame the religion and not the individuals.

"By their fruits shall ye know them."

How about we blame both. Each for the part played.

 

[dross]

It's often asked, "Why do people get so uptight about a nativity scene put up by the town government," or some other show of religion.

I can understand this argument. That stuff doesn't bother me.

Yet, there's another side to the coin. Why put it up? If the entire town is filled with Christians, then they are probably seeing nativity scenes at church and in their own and each other's houses.

So, in a town full of Christians, why does the government need to put one up?

What if the town is divided in its religious views? Then it's a statement by those in power that their religion is the dominant religion. In one case it's not necessary, and in the other, it's only necessary if you want to be in the face of those who believe differently.

Isn't it way more practical to just leave it out of government alltogether?

As to creationism, it's not a valid theory, and here's why. To assert that an intelligent being designed this whole thing, first you have to provide proof that there is an intelligent being with the power to do so.

Here's how that argument is constructed:

A: An intelligent being created the world.
B: How do you know?
A: Because the world is intricately designed.

In this argument you first must assume there is an all powerful being.
Then you give him credit for designing the world.
Then you use the design of the world to support your argument for the existence of an all powerful being.

This is the logical fallacy known as begging the question.

 

[Bummer]

Copy: Faith and religion have their place. That place is not the school Science class.
......................................................................
IMHO the idea of a possible creator should at least be mentioned. It is a viable theory.

If it can't be falsified, and makes no predictions, it isn't a scientific theory at all.

How does one test and potentially falsify "creator"? What predictions does "possible creator" make?

Don't have to go on about what various religions have to say about it.

Just:

Cosmic starter soup always was

something made the cosmic starter soup.

Wow, that was a real tough.

Tough indeed, since there is no way of knowing that the cosmic starter soup, as you call it, always was, or that something made it, much less who or what may or may not have done whatever may or may not have been done. What you have there is called argumentum ad ignorantiam, a logical fallacy. Again, not something worthy of inclusion in a science class.

IMHO the Flying Spaghetti Monster did it. Arrgh. Ramen.

 

[strahd71]

for my atheist friends, i would suggest the book "i dont have enough faith to be an atheist' by dr's Frank Turek, and Norman Giesler.

i think its one of the best books available that gives reasonable proof of the existence of God and creation through both philosophical and scientific arguments.

even if the book doesnt change your mind, i believe it will give you insight as to why Christians believe as they do, but yet is presented in a way that the average person just isnt able to explain.

jake

 

[Blackhawk2001]

for my atheist friends, i would suggest the book "i dont have enough faith to be an atheist' by dr's Frank Turek, and Norman Giesler.

i think its one of the best books available that gives reasonable proof of the existence of God and creation through both philosophical and scientific arguments.

even if the book doesnt change your mind, i believe it will give you insight as to why Christians believe as they do, but yet is presented in a way that the average person just isnt able to explain.

jake

Don't be interfering in a faith issue, dude. . .

 

[J_Wales]

Don't be interfering in a faith issue, dude. . .

There is much insight in that post. Thanks for making it.

 

[wagyu52]

For every scientist who fakes data there are a hundred chomping at the bit to prove the fraud and win a research contract, if not the Nobel Prize. That's another of the strengths of science and weaknesses of religion.

"By their fruits shall ye know them." Indeed. The Inquisition. The Crusades. Islam and Sharia law. The World Trade Center atrocity. All driven by religion. Then there's Jimmy Swaggart, Jim and Tammy Fay Baker, Jim Jones, the Westboro Baptist Church, James Dobson, Adolph Hitler. Let us not forget The Church's obscenely slow response to Priestly pedophilia. And so much, much more, all of which showing that morals are not a natural result of religious faith. Yes, we know the fruits of that labor. Luckily sometimes the fruit is not rotten.

Faith and religion have their place. That place is not the school Science class.

I fail to see what you are trying to say Matthew 7:15-20 explains this perfectly. The examples you give,done in the name of Religion, are contrary to the teachings of Jesus, they are false prophets, not Christianity.

 

[Roadie]

For every scientist who fakes data there are a hundred chomping at the bit to prove the fraud and win a research contract, if not the Nobel Prize. That's another of the strengths of science and weaknesses of religion.

"By their fruits shall ye know them." Indeed. The Inquisition. The Crusades. Islam and Sharia law. The World Trade Center atrocity. All driven by religion. Then there's Jimmy Swaggart, Jim and Tammy Fay Baker, Jim Jones, the Westboro Baptist Church, James Dobson, Adolph Hitler. Let us not forget The Church's obscenely slow response to Priestly pedophilia. And so much, much more, all of which showing that morals are not a natural result of religious faith. Yes, we know the fruits of that labor. Luckily sometimes the fruit is not rotten.

Faith and religion have their place. That place is not the school Science class.

So you are saying you judge individuals, by the fruits/actions of others that have even a slight "relationship" to them of some kind?
You might as well be saying..

"John Wilkes Booth, Bonnie and Clyde, John Dillinger, Charles Manson, John Hinckley, Lee Harvey Oswald, James Earl Ray, And so much, much more, all of which showing that where guns are involved, usually the fruit is rotten"

That is the same logic the Left uses against gun owners, is it not?

 

[CountryBoy1981]

For every scientist who fakes data there are a hundred chomping at the bit to prove the fraud and win a research contract, if not the Nobel Prize. That's another of the strengths of science and weaknesses of religion.

"By their fruits shall ye know them." Indeed. The Inquisition. The Crusades. Islam and Sharia law. The World Trade Center atrocity. All driven by religion. Then there's Jimmy Swaggart, Jim and Tammy Fay Baker, Jim Jones, the Westboro Baptist Church, James Dobson, Adolph Hitler. Let us not forget The Church's obscenely slow response to Priestly pedophilia. And so much, much more, all of which showing that morals are not a natural result of religious faith. Yes, we know the fruits of that labor. Luckily sometimes the fruit is not rotten.

Faith and religion have their place. That place is not the school Science class.

How about Hitler, Stalin, Lenin, Castro, Margaret Sanger to name a few. Do these people espouse the principles of your religion? My point is that there are individuals who do bad things that do not represent the faith itself. People are human beings and are given free will to diverge from their religious ideals. I think we can all agree that people have done horrible things under the guise of a certain religion (including atheism). The individuals are to blame, not the religion itself.