quote:Maybe the pivotal moment came when Steven Weinberg, a Nobel laureate in physics, warned that “the world needs to wake up from its long nightmare of religious belief,” or when a Nobelist in chemistry, Sir Harold Kroto, called for the John Templeton Foundation to give its next $1.5 million prize for “progress in spiritual discoveries” to an atheist — Richard Dawkins, the Oxford evolutionary biologist whose book “The God Delusion” is a national best-seller.
Or perhaps the turning point occurred at a more solemn moment, when Neil deGrasse Tyson, director of the Hayden Planetarium in New York City and an adviser to the Bush administration on space exploration, hushed the audience with heartbreaking photographs of newborns misshapen by birth defects — testimony, he suggested, that blind nature, not an intelligent overseer, is in control.
Somewhere along the way, a forum this month at the Salk Institute for Biological Studies in La Jolla, Calif., which might have been one more polite dialogue between science and religion, began to resemble the founding convention for a political party built on a single plank: in a world dangerously charged with ideology, science needs to take on an evangelical role, vying with religion as teller of the greatest story ever told.
So I ran across this article while reading the times over my rice crispies this morning and I'm not quite sure what to think of it. On the one hand I agree with much of the sentiment.
quote:“I am utterly fed up with the respect that we — all of us, including the secular among us — are brainwashed into bestowing on religion,” he said. “Children are systematically taught that there is a higher kind of knowledge which comes from faith, which comes from revelation, which comes from scripture, which comes from tradition, and that it is the equal if not the superior of knowledge that comes from real evidence.”
That one for instance. In that sense, I have very little respect for religion. (Mind you, I said religion, not people who are religious. I have a great respect for many people who are religious.)
But on the other hand, I don't want scientists to sink to the level of many evangelicals. Nor do I want science to become a religious dogma. Science is not a religion, it is a method. A method for determining the validity of certain hypothesis. A method for figuring out how the world really works and just what we are capable of doing in it.
Were it not for the fact that certain well supported scientific theories are at violent odds with many dearly held religious beliefs I don't think there would be any problem for science and religion coexisting in the world.
Aside: This may sound like it's at odds with my saying earlier that I have no respect for religion, but it's not. I have no problem coexisting with many things I have no respect for, nor problem respecting the people who practice such things. As an example I offer sadomasochism. I have little respect for it, but I don't feel like I can tell anyone they can't do it. And I have friends who are into it that I respect greatly. --Yes, I know many of you are going to be offended by this comparison, but it's how I honestly feel and I can't think of any other way to put it out there, so please try not to take it as an insult or an assault on you. It's not meant that way.
But here we run into the crux of the problem. The religious people who's beliefs are challenged by scientific theory treat science as a religious dogma. They are starting to attempt to make it a religion, when it's not, it shouldn't be and the vast majority of scientists know it shouldn't be. But when scientists painstakingly careful and meticulous analysis of how the world works gets attacked as if its religious theory... how do they react to that? How do they respond? Their carefully collected evidence is often ignored, called fake or bull or irrelevant. They don't have any argument besides that evidence. And if people won't even examine it, that leaves science with nothing. And what's worse, they didn't set out to attack the religions now attacking them. They set out to figure out how the world works, and they feel like they've found out.
The other issue is that much or all of what we take for granted in our day to day life was made possible by careful scientific inquiry matched with engineering application. If the disrespect many of the religions out there show science spreads from just the ideas that conflict with their beliefs to all scientific inquiry then we may not only slow our forward progress, but stagnate and then go tumbling backwards.
So I feel like this conference, scientists wanting to fight back against religion using religion's own weapons is a natural reaction. Even if I think it's the wrong one, I can see where they are coming from.
I dunno if I can think of a better one though. Especially in regard to many religion's blatant attacks on scientific teaching in schools. What do you folk think?
Posts: 3295 | Registered: Jun 2004
| IP: Logged |
posted
Sounds to me like the the scientists, and yourself at this point, ARE making science a religion or politics. Either you can convince others of the importance of the science or you do not. Otherwise, your "scientific objectivity" is meddling in ways you accuse others of; prosylitising by brainwashing. In other words, "you don't believe the science? Well, I'll MAKE you believe in the science."
At least religious people will be able to point and say, I told you so.
Posts: 2207 | Registered: Oct 2003
| IP: Logged |
quote:Originally posted by Occasional: Sounds to me like the the scientists, and yourself at this point, ARE making science a religion or politics. Either you can convince others of the importance of the science or you do not. Otherwise, your "scientific objectivity" is meddling in ways you accuse others of; prosylitising by brainwashing. In other words, "you don't believe the science? Well, I'll MAKE you believe in the science."
At least religious people will be able to point and say, I told you so.
But you could make the argument that after scientists say they will make you believe in science, they follow it up with data, studies, and experiments to prove it.
Posts: 3852 | Registered: Feb 2002
| IP: Logged |
posted
Aside from the fact that I disagree with pretty much everything you've said, if this is scientists fighting back using religion's own weapons they have a whole lot to learn.
Posts: 4655 | Registered: Jan 2002
| IP: Logged |
quote:scientists wanting to fight back against religion using religion's own weapons
What weapons, exactly, are these which are both "religion's own" and in use by the scientists at the convention?
Posts: 6394 | Registered: Dec 1999
| IP: Logged |
posted
Javert, it doesn't matter. How about show data, studies, and experiments as the methods of proof? Then, you know, let people decide for themselves? Oh yea, that has been done already. Guess the next best thing is force and intimidation. After all, we know how righteous science is and the truths it holds.
Posts: 2207 | Registered: Oct 2003
| IP: Logged |
posted
Sort of what I meant. I wasn't taking the "MAKE" to mean the same thing as "force". Following along with the idea of, if I can show you proof that something is true, you will believe it. Thus, I "made" you believe it.
Posts: 3852 | Registered: Feb 2002
| IP: Logged |
posted
The biggest two weapons religion seems to have these days is a pulpit and a suicide bomber jacket.
What I think is perhaps somewhat silly about this argument, is that it presupposes that science and religion are diametrically opposed to each other. How many people on this board alone are religious and also believe in science and the scientific process? If science as a religion demands that people be athiests, you're in trouble. Also, doesn't that mean government funding for science projects has to go away? No more NASA?
It just strikes me as a silly argument that we should be going for one or the other. Besides, scientists have much more important things to do than worry about, like curing cancer and finding an unending non polluting power source. The status quo of science vs. religion has been a thousand years in the making, and they certainly can't argue that progress hasn't been made since the Dark Ages. We've come a long way. Throwing a hissy fit at the dawn of the 21st century isn't going to gain them any additional traction.
Posts: 21898 | Registered: Nov 2004
| IP: Logged |
quote:But whether there really is some kind of supernatural being — Dr. Krauss said he was a nonbeliever — is a question unanswerable by theology, philosophy or even science. “Science does not make it impossible to believe in God,” Dr. Krauss insisted. “We should recognize that fact and live with it and stop being so pompous about it.”
Why can't we have more like him, and fewer Dawkinses?
Posts: 32919 | Registered: Mar 2003
| IP: Logged |
quote:After all, we know how righteous science is and the truths it holds.
As opposed to . . .? Surely you not claiming that religion is inherently "righteous" or full of "truth". Or are you?
Posts: 6394 | Registered: Dec 1999
| IP: Logged |
posted
It sounds more like a free-for-all of Scientists against religion.
Many religious people do great damage to their cause by treating everyone else like lost, wandering idiots. Many "scientific" people do the same. It sounds like a group of Scientists (whatever that means-- it's a vague and almost useless label) wants to organize and treat other people like idiots en masse.
To characterize religion the way they do in the passage you quoted is insulting to an awful lot of religious people-- the vast majority of the ones I've met are pretty thoughtful about it.
One of the real problems I have with these supposed experts is that, if they were so damned smart, they wouldn't have to reduce their opponents to cliched stereotypes, engaging in what C.S. Lewis called "Bulverism" ("you only say that because you were systematically indoctrinated"), to score their points. There *is* a knowledge that comes from (among other things) faith and revelation-- it's called "wisdom" and, judging by the quoted passages, these men seem to lack it.
It is only fair to note that many religious objections to scientific evidence amount to the same thing, and that these "scientists" may be as representative of scientific thought as those religious are of religious thought. In my house, science and religion get along grandly and I know we are not alone in that.
Posts: 3846 | Registered: Apr 2004
| IP: Logged |
posted
Ultimately, if someone will not yield to a rational argument, then they have started a process of irrationality which can only end in appeal to the gun. That's what rational argument is for; it allows you to settle disputes without force. If you won't recognise the validity of it, then - if the issue actually matters - at some point you're going to have to fight. An appeal to 'faith' is an appeal to irrationality, and morally it is precisely equivalent to an argument from superior firepower. It's worth remembering that the notion of cannon as "The final argument of kings" dates from the same period as the religious wars that wracked Europe.
Posts: 10645 | Registered: Jul 2004
| IP: Logged |
quote:How many people on this board alone are religious and also believe in science and the scientific process?
None, on the issue of the existence of a god. That they are able to compartmentalise sufficiently to accept the scientific method on questions not touching their faith is not relevant.
Posts: 10645 | Registered: Jul 2004
| IP: Logged |
quote:But whether there really is some kind of supernatural being — Dr. Krauss said he was a nonbeliever — is a question unanswerable by theology, philosophy or even science. “Science does not make it impossible to believe in God,” Dr. Krauss insisted. “We should recognize that fact and live with it and stop being so pompous about it.”
quote:Originally posted by King of Men: Ultimately, if someone will not yield to a rational argument, then they have started a process of irrationality which can only end in appeal to the gun. That's what rational argument is for; it allows you to settle disputes without force. If you won't recognise the validity of it, then - if the issue actually matters - at some point you're going to have to fight.
Just thought you'd like to know you are practically quoting St. Louis
quote:I must either reason with him as one man to another or else thrust my sword through him as far as it will go.
That having been said, I disagree with your definition of "faith", but you probably knew that already.
Posts: 3846 | Registered: Apr 2004
| IP: Logged |
posted
Actually, KarlEd, it was a jab at science taking on a moral equivalancy to religous beliefs. If science becomes as self-reverential (and I believe in some respects it has) as religion, how are they at all different?
Posts: 2207 | Registered: Oct 2003
| IP: Logged |
quote:Originally posted by Occasional: Actually, KarlEd, it was a jab at science taking on a moral equivalancy to religous beliefs. If science becomes as self-reverential (and I believe in some respects it has) as religion, how are they at all different?
Let's see you cure cancer by praying, then.
Posts: 10645 | Registered: Jul 2004
| IP: Logged |
quote:Originally posted by King of Men: Dr Krauss is wrong. St Louis is right. What of it?
Nothing... I just found it interesting.
and Dr. Krauss is right. In fact, one of the things hammered into me by my Physics instructors in my undergraduate career was precisely that-- the Question of what is supernatural is definitionally out of the realm of science, which is a tool for studying and predicting nature... the natural.
The fact that C.S. Lewis later confirmed this for me is one of the *reasons* why I listen to him more than I do you, KoM.
And last I checked, Science wasn't curing cancer either, only excising it and praying it didn't grow back (pun intended).
Posts: 3846 | Registered: Apr 2004
| IP: Logged |
posted
I don't think it's a case of science trying to take on "moral equivalency" of religion. It might be an appeal to a rational morality that favors science as a rational means of truth, but I don't see anyone on the scientist side claiming moral authority from science itself.
Personally, I'd like to see what could come from an era of search for rational morality without the irrational appeal to authority religion claims. In this arena, religion does more to disrupt and stagnate progress than any other force. Appeal to divine authority stops discussion cold, ultimately denying rationality as a means to truth.
Posts: 6394 | Registered: Dec 1999
| IP: Logged |
quote:How many people on this board alone are religious and also believe in science and the scientific process?
None, on the issue of the existence of a god. That they are able to compartmentalise sufficiently to accept the scientific method on questions not touching their faith is not relevant.
Again, I don't see how those issues bump into each other really. Science can neither prove nor disprove God. It's not in the equation. Where does it say in my science textbooks that God doesn't exist? Are you saying that because science can't prove God exists, religious people would denounce it? I don't think you are, because you'd have to realize how ridiculous that would be coming from people of faith, so I have to ask for clarification of your point.
Posts: 21898 | Registered: Nov 2004
| IP: Logged |
quote:Originally posted by rivka: Oh, look. Blanket statements with no backup.
Shocking, really.
King of Men is hardly the first to make those in this thread.
Nope, the quote in the first post does that well enough.
quote:“I am utterly fed up with the respect that we — all of us, including the secular among us — are brainwashed into bestowing on religion,” he said. “Children are systematically taught that there is a higher kind of knowledge which comes from faith, which comes from revelation, which comes from scripture, which comes from tradition, and that it is the equal if not the superior of knowledge that comes from real evidence.”
quote:Originally posted by rivka: Oh, look. Blanket statements with no backup.
Shocking, really.
I have already made the actual arguments I'm going to make. You posted a quote from some authority figure disagreeing with me, without any argument either by you or him; Jim-Me posted a quote agreeing with me, without argument either by him or St Louis. Since neither of you posted any argument, what would you have me do? Ignore your posting completely? Repeat what I already said? By all means tell me what you think my course of action should have been.
And if you're going to use the cop-out of not deigning to argue with me, then please stop responding to my posts, it's very passive-aggressive. Put up or shut up, if you please.
Posts: 10645 | Registered: Jul 2004
| IP: Logged |
quote:Originally posted by rivka: Oh, look. Blanket statements with no backup.
Shocking, really.
I have already made the actual arguments I'm going to make.
As to why Dr. Krauss is wrong? I never saw them... but, then again, I don't make a habit of reading all your posts.
Posts: 3846 | Registered: Apr 2004
| IP: Logged |
posted
"but I don't see anyone on the scientist side claiming moral authority from science itself."
I do. Maybe not on issues, but definantly on the appeals to authority. KoM is an example. Its the whole, "I am right and you are wrong. That is That!"
Posts: 2207 | Registered: Oct 2003
| IP: Logged |
posted
"You should not believe things you have no good evidence for."
You know, I don't know a lot about science. However, I am pretty sure I have never read that in any explanations of the scientific methods or foundational principles.
Posts: 2207 | Registered: Oct 2003
| IP: Logged |
posted
That's not a basic foundational principle of science. Not making final decisions based on a lack of evidence either way, however, is.
Posts: 3846 | Registered: Apr 2004
| IP: Logged |
quote:I never saw them... but, then again, I don't make a habit of reading all your posts.
Well then, what the devil are you complaining about?
quote:KoM is an example. Its the whole, "I am right and you are wrong. That is That!"
One more time. I explained why appeals to faith are wrong. I also explained why the scientific method leads to a non-belief in any gods. Could you please point out where I made any appeal to authority while doing so? Could you also please point out where anybody made any arguments in response, except of course for "Appeal to authority! No, it's a blanket statement! Who cares, I didn't read the post anyway!"
Posts: 10645 | Registered: Jul 2004
| IP: Logged |
quote:Originally posted by Jim-Me: That's not a basic foundational principle of science. Not making final decisions based on a lack of evidence either way, however, is.
quote:Originally posted by Occasional: "but I don't see anyone on the scientist side claiming moral authority from science itself."
I do. Maybe not on issues, but definantly on the appeals to authority. KoM is an example. Its the whole, "I am right and you are wrong. That is That!"
I think you are confusing a claim about factual truth with a claim of moral authority. Those are two very separate things in my mind.
Posts: 6394 | Registered: Dec 1999
| IP: Logged |
quote:Originally posted by King of Men: And if you're going to use the cop-out of not deigning to argue with me, then please stop responding to my posts, it's very passive-aggressive. Put up or shut up, if you please.
It's not passive at all.
Posts: 32919 | Registered: Mar 2003
| IP: Logged |
quote:Originally posted by KarlEd: I don't think it's a case of science trying to take on "moral equivalency" of religion. It might be an appeal to a rational morality that favors science as a rational means of truth, but I don't see anyone on the scientist side claiming moral authority from science itself.
Personally, I'd like to see what could come from an era of search for rational morality without the irrational appeal to authority religion claims. In this arena, religion does more to disrupt and stagnate progress than any other force. Appeal to divine authority stops discussion cold, ultimately denying rationality as a means to truth.
Just thought this bore repeating.
Posts: 3293 | Registered: Jul 2002
| IP: Logged |
quote:Originally posted by Occasional: "You should not believe things you have no good evidence for."
You know, I don't know a lot about science. However, I am pretty sure I have never read that in any explanations of the scientific methods or foundational principles.
Usually it's phrased as "You should attempt to falsify"; but I prefer my formulation. In any case, can we not agree that this is just common sense?
Posts: 10645 | Registered: Jul 2004
| IP: Logged |
quote:Originally posted by King of Men: And if you're going to use the cop-out of not deigning to argue with me, then please stop responding to my posts, it's very passive-aggressive. Put up or shut up, if you please.
It's not passive at all.
I don't care what you call it; please stop doing it.
Posts: 10645 | Registered: Jul 2004
| IP: Logged |
posted
The worst part of the whole "Turning Science into Religion" period of our history was the Sectarian wars that followed. Biologist vs Astro-Physicist, Geneticist VS Geologist. It was a brutal time.
Fraternity Brother against Fraternity Brother, and with every generation, further and further splintering of the sects. Everyone remembers when the Bio-Chemists broke off from the greater Chemistry sect with such biological violence that the Nuclear Chemists were completely exterminated.
However that violence was overshadowed by events like when the Archeologist buried every Egyptologist is a mass Pyramid outside of Peru. Oh the inhumanity of that act.
It was only the spawning of ever increasing waves of economists that drove the remaining scientists together againtst this common deadly, and useless foe of all mankind.
Posts: 11895 | Registered: Apr 2002
| IP: Logged |
posted
Well, let's see. You have been asked, repeatedly, to stop taking pot-shots at religion in every remotely related thread. You not only have refused to so so, but have taken some rather disgusting cheap shots at people going through rough times.
So I don't feel much obligation to obey your demands.
Posts: 32919 | Registered: Mar 2003
| IP: Logged |
posted
As you wish. Since you are not going to debate honestly, there will be no debate. Have a nice day.
Posts: 10645 | Registered: Jul 2004
| IP: Logged |
posted
The only thing I'll comment on here is that I find it insulting that the tone of the article suggests that it's somehow ridiculous or unbelievable that an atheist could receive a spirituality award. Just because we don't believe in a god or gods doesn't mean that we are not spiritual people. In this world, too many people equate "spirituality" with "religious beliefs." They are not one and the same.
Posts: 1006 | Registered: Jun 2006
| IP: Logged |
quote:Originally posted by KarlEd: I don't think it's a case of science trying to take on "moral equivalency" of religion. It might be an appeal to a rational morality that favors science as a rational means of truth, but I don't see anyone on the scientist side claiming moral authority from science itself.
Personally, I'd like to see what could come from an era of search for rational morality without the irrational appeal to authority religion claims. In this arena, religion does more to disrupt and stagnate progress than any other force. Appeal to divine authority stops discussion cold, ultimately denying rationality as a means to truth.
Just thought this bore repeating.
And once more for good measure. Posts: 1006 | Registered: Jun 2006
| IP: Logged |
posted
Oooooh boy do I love the first page of threads like this. Everyone expressing themselves so eloquently and passionately. Then in page 2, the eloquence starts to get kind of tiring, but the passion is still going strong. Come page 3 or 4, most attempts at eloquence are long forgotten. Around page 5 or 6, peoples passions will boil over, resulting in some nasty things being said and numerous violations of the ToS. Before the thread ever reaches page 7 it will either be locked or drop off the first page into oblivion. Good times, good times. You heard it here first.
Posts: 2827 | Registered: Jul 2005
| IP: Logged |
quote:The only thing I'll comment on here is that I find it insulting that the tone of the article suggests that it's somehow ridiculous or unbelievable that an atheist could receive a spirituality award. Just because we don't believe in a god or gods doesn't mean that we are not spiritual people. In this world, too many people equate "spirituality" with "religious beliefs." They are not one and the same.
Printer-friendly view of this topic
![[Smile]](smile.gif)
![[Wink]](wink.gif)
