Science and Religion Need to Take Each Other Seriously

[cbayer]

http://www.policymic.com/articles/11583/science-and-religion-need-to-take-each-other-seriously

Lowell McDonald
inCulture,Religion 2 hours ago



Earlier this year, The Daily Mail reported that "Nearly half of Americans believe God created mankind in a single day about 10,000 years ago, a literal interpretation of the Bible, according to a new survey that shows the view toward evolution in the United States hasn't changed in 30 years." The fact that so many Americans seem to steadfastly refuse, almost as an act of will, to acquiesce to the authority of modern scientists befuddles researchers and educators. Writing for Forbes magazine, Steven Salzberg laments "only 40% of Americans believe in evolution. State legislatures continue to pass bills attempting to teach children the creation myth."
It seems that a dichotomy has been assumed in America where one is either committed to the truth and authority of science or the truth and authority of Scripture, the twain never to meet.

The BioLogos Foundation, a self-described "community of evangelical Christians committed to exploring and celebrating the compatibility of evolutionary creation and biblical faith" challenges that dichotomy. Recently they hosted an online discussion with a group of Southern Baptist theologians. As The Washington Post blog reports, "In a series of essays titled “Southern Baptist Voices,” the two groups consider questions such as whether the existence of a historical Adam and Eve created in the image of God is compatible with the gradual development of humans through evolution." BioLogos president Darrel Faulk declares that "our intention in initiating this series together was not to engage in a tit-for-tat argument, but rather, for each of us to take the points of the other under serious consideration."

What is striking and newsworthy about the conversation is the level of grace and kindness displayed by the participants. As the Post noted, “while there is disagreement, the authors are quick to emphasize places where they do agree," and "there is room for give-and-take on both sides."

As an Evangelical, I think that what is different about this conversation (and what will ultimately make a huge impact) is that the scientists at BioLogos take faith, and thus their audience, seriously. Very often, I have personally felt as if scientists talk down to Christians. Christians, in turn, dig in their heels and the lines of communication are shut down.

more at link

[still_one]

1. I don't agree. Science does NOT have to take religion seriously. Religion has never had to open

itself to the scrutiny that science has. Religion is based on faith, not on any scientific basis.

Scientists were persecuted by religion for presenting evidence that the earth was not the center of the universe.

The earth is NOT 5000 years old, and teaching creationism in school is a religious belief not a scientific one

[cbayer]

3. Are you just responding to the headline or the article itself?

Your last line is exactly why science needs to take religion seriously.

Or i guess we could go on letting half the country believe that evolution is not true.

[still_one]

5. Didn't read the full link, but what I read, it discusses civility, which is fine, but I still stand

by my comments

[Cary]

7. There's not much more if you click the link.

You have the gist of the article.

[Cary]

2. Why, exactly, do scientists need to take religionists seriously?

What does science have to gain? I can cite a list a mile long of instances where religionists and religionism has thwarted science. Even Einstein was thwarted by the fact that some aspects of quantum physics contradicted his religious beliefs.

It seems to me that the best and only way to reconcile religion and science is to acknowledge that science is not religion and religion is not science, and never the twain shall meet.

[cbayer]

4. You also seem to be responding to the headline and not the article.

[Cary]

6. As best as I can tell the author is claiming that scientists should respect religionists because

there are a lot of them.

I don't see why scientists need religionists for anything. Hence, my question.

[cbayer]

9. That's not what it says.

It says that scientists need to understand why some religious people don't accept well established scientific findings. The way to understanding is to listen respectfully. That establishes a two way street that could lead towards a better outcome.

Can't see anything wrong with that.

[Cary]

13. I think there is a place in science to try to understand why some people don't accept

well established scientific findings. It's called psychology and the study of the human mind is fascinating. I think anthropologists can do something with these people too.

But other than being the subject of psychological studies I still don't see what religionists have to offer.

There's nothing wrong with listening to them but you still have not answered my question.

[cbayer]

16. Because just dismissing them as psych cases or animals who could be studied is weak

and unproductive.

However, if that is your position, I think you can easily avoid any engagement and I hope that you do.

[Cary]

19. That's a leap.

Everyone is a "psych case" and we are all animals who could be studied. Studying them, and everyone else, has proven to be very productive.

I asked you a fair question. How about giving me a fair answer?

BTW a simple "I don't know" would be a good answer, if you honestly don't know.

[cbayer]

20. Is your question, "Why should science and religion take each other seriously"?

[Cary]

24. No.

In my very first post I asked you "Why, exactly, do scientists need to take religionists seriously?" That's a direct quote.

I went on to give a reason why I thought religion had absolutely nothing to offer to science. In fact religion has played a detrimental role.

As far as I can tell your article still only claims that science somehow needs religion because there are a lot of religionists. The example I gave you was Einstein and he was hardly alone in the denial of quantum physics. In fact other than Einstein all of the great physicists were washed up in terms of new discoveries by the time they reached 23 years of age. Things like religion stultified their minds and only a fresh mind that didn't "know" any better was flexible enough.

I don't know why scientists need to take religionists seriously. So far neither you nor the author of your article offer me what I would consider to be a good answer.

[cbayer]

25. Again, taken from your perspective, the answer would be that scientists don't need to

take religionists seriously.

However, as a scientist, I would say that to exclude any available data in a quest to understand why so many reject evolution and embrace creationism would be weak science. The only way to obtain that data, imo, is to take their POV seriously and ask questions about it respectfully. That is what this article speaks to.

We obviously see this very differently. Don't take them seriously, but they are not going away.

[Cary]

35. What data?

You're a scientist? What data is available because religionists reject evolution?

So what if they're not going away? What difference does that make?

[AlbertCat]

74. You also seem to be responding to the headline and not the article.

That's because it was written by an evangelical. No one takes them seriously.

[cbayer]

75. You can assume that, but a lot, perhaps way too many, take them very seriously.

[AlbertCat]

79. perhaps way too many, take them very seriously.

Which is a HUGE problem for everyone on the planet.

Taking science seriously isn't.


This kind of "we're equally important" OP is just religion trying to maintain its authority. It is obsolete. It is not a level playing field. Science is for adults. Religion is for children.

Religion has no authority over me and I despair at people...good people... hindered from the beauty and amazing things and ideas in the world of reality by ancient guesses and superstitions.

Science should only take religion seriously...as a threat. a serious threat.

[cbayer]

82. Religious people are not children and scientists are not all adults in many ways.

Our views are very, very far apart here. It's been nice talking to you.

[Confusious]

8. No

There is room for give and take on both sides? Like what? We evolved in 10,000 years?

there are places Religion could be an influence, like morality, but it's failed miserably in the past 2,000 years.

I'd like to be nice about, I really would. Maybe they had identified the give and take in a little more detail I could understand, but the entire article is fluf that doesn't explain much.

given the history of Religion and science, I only can assume what that means. And my first assumption I don't like. "We evolved in 10,000 years?"

Oh, the writer also sounds like they have a personal problem. "being talked down to," when it comes to sceince, usually has to do with the talkee, not the talker.

[cbayer]

12. This is a site primarily for millenials and, at least in this case,

they seem to have more interest in building bridges than burning them on a whole host of issues.

They feel that the MSM is too invested in division and are committed to open debate that leads to greater understanding.

Interesting, Condoleeza Rice is one of their "thought leaders", as well as a GLBT activist, a peace activist and others. They represent a really eclectic group and many of the articles are really well done.

Sometimes people that feel they are being talked down to are actually being talked down to. When religious believers are called delusional and their beliefs mocked, there is a good chance that their perception is reality.

At any rate, the conclusion of the article is this:

"I don't know what future generations will believe about the Bible and science, but it seems clear that both faith and science are going to have deep roots in American life for the foreseeable future. The two had better learn to get along."

[Confusious]

37. Youth does not equal smart

For the entire history of science, religion has been there to persecute.

They should get along. Religion doesn't want too.

You want some peace, make Religion stop treating science with hostility.

You want to believe certain things, fine, just don't make science take it as gospel without evidence.

Have the evidence, science will take it as gospel.

It's really not that hard. religion just wants to say "take me at my word, the earth is flat. No questions"

[cbayer]

38. Religion has also led to discovery, including evolution.

If we want peace, we have to all stop treating each other with hostility.

[Confusious]

43. It's hositility

Far outweighs any contributions.

I also highly doubt it's contributed anything.

As far as "Peace" goes, I'll believe it when ai see it.

You seem to keep wanting to blame science for the state of affairs. Like I said before, it's not the fault of science, in any matter. It hasen't been science banning books, or stopping people from going to church, or telling people not to look up at the stars.

You seem to want to blame the victim in the name of "peace," and let the bully go free.

If it means giving up scientific discoveries, or not looking into something like evolution so we can placate the Religious, I'm dead set against it.

[cbayer]

44. I don't blame science for anything. I love science.

There is responsibility on both sides for the divisions.

I totally agree with your last statement.

[Confusious]

46. please, name the part science

has in the division.

I can name quite a few incidences, from centuries past to the modern day, of the part religion has played.

I can't think of much on the part of science, unless you want to include disproving things like the earth is flat, Adam and eve, every part of the bible that deals with the physical world that isn't true.

If religion stayed to the "metaphysical," there would be no problem.

Like I said before, blaming the victim and letting the bully go free.

[cbayer]

49. I'm not here to win the game, Confusious.

I don't think the two camps are mutually exclusive. There are religious scientists and atheistic spiritualists. Way too much grey area to take sides here. Religion has long been used to explain what seemed to be unexplainable. Some of religion's explorations have led to scientific revelations.

Some scientists have been victimized and religion has too often been the bully. OTOH, some religionists have been victimized, ridiculed and mocked and some scientists have been the bullies.

[Scootaloo]

60. And if we want to end world hunger, we just have to feed everybody

[cbayer]

62. Ah, did you have to put up my super secret boyfriend, NDT?

Now I can't think straight.

[Scootaloo]

65. Oh HELL no

I'll fight you for him!

[cbayer]

68. Ha! I'll pray that you lose, lol!!

(The prayer reference was a joke.)

[AlbertCat]

80. Religion has also led to discovery, including evolution.

Only in that the religious hypotheses are defunct and should be forgotten.... and replaced by what current knowledge offers.

This applies to a lot more than evolution.

God is a failed hypothesis.

[rexcat]

122. If anything...

religion usually gets in the way of scientific discovery. You are the first person I have heard say that evolution is the by-product of religious discovery. If anything religion has tried to bastardize evolution by claiming it was part of "god's" plan or totally rejected evolution. Please, that is just too, too, too something! Please, that is just too, too, too something!

on edit: I am shocked at the mendacity of your statement.

[cbayer]

124. Mendacity?

Darwin was a deeply religious man. He believed that his studies and investigations would reinforce beliefs about creation and perfection. He was also an amazing scientist and came to see how his theories were going to lead to inconsistencies.

He struggled with this. He understandably took tremendous heat from the religious powers, but he felt it could be reconciled.

In short, his religious beliefs played an important role in the development of his theories and conclusions about evolution. He remained both religious and scientific and was pained by the inability to reconcile these.

I didn't say evolution was the by-product of religious discovery. I said that religion has led to discovery. In the case of evolution, I think it clearly did.

Mendacious, indeed. Why do you make everything personal?

Would love for evoman to weigh in here, even if he disagrees with me. No, particularly if he disagrees with me.

[rexcat]

137. Your comment...

Religion has also led to discovery, including evolution

might be true in some very small sense but I think religion has been more of a hindrance to science. I think this is an overstatement on your part.

Darwin, despite his religious education considered himself agnostic. His words, not mine (letter from Darwin, C. R. to Fordyce, John, 7 May 1879 and from Darwin Correspondence Project - http://web.archive.org/web/20090225124103/http://www.darwinproject.ac.uk/content/view/130/125/).

My apologies for the perceived "personal" comment about you. I will try to do better in the future.

[RainDog]

145. Darwin was raised as a Unitarian

Unitarians developed a doctrine that includes doubt that Jesus was supernatural, denies the trinity exists, holds a firm belief that the bible is not inerrant, rejects the doctrine of original sin - iow, Darwin's family, for two generations before him, held beliefs that are more modern than those currently held by fundie evangelicals.

His family held those beliefs, including the abolition of slavery, when the U.S. was forming a constitution - before the Articles of Confederation had been formed into a constitution.

Darwin's grandfather, Erasmus, a doctor and naturalist and poet, depicted a form of evolutionary theory in verse form when the French were in the midst of revolution. Both Erasmus and Robert - Charles' father and grandfather, were freethinkers - they held views that logic, not revelation, explained the workings of the world.

I don't see how anyone can make an case for religion as fundamental to Darwin's understanding of evolution. The reality is that Darwin grew up in a household that was the combination of two great inventors and scientific investigators of their day, Erasmus Darwin and Josiah Wedgwood. His associations in the scientific world included Charles Babbage, who developed a view of god as a programmer - and Babbage is considered the father of the computer. He was a logician whose thinking was greatly influenced by logic developed by non-Christian philosophy. Babbage's pov was consistent with that of Darwin's father and grandfather.

Darwin's family history was one of scientific inquiry and rejection of the dominant religious thought of the time. His wife's family moved toward Anglicanism - in GB, Anglicanism was necessary to advance in society and attend the best schools - dissenters were not allowed to attend Cambridge or Oxford for a long time.

Darwin studied for the ministry - but that does not mean he was a believer in the sense that American protestant would view this, any more than many of them would view Emerson's belief in deism in any way related to their beliefs in a relevatory god.

I don't think there is any way you can tie religion to the discovery of evolution - Darwin's history denies your claim. His background in the sciences began with him reading the works of his grandfather and his grandfather's associates - who were the great inventors and scientists of their day.

[Scootaloo]

51. Millenial here, and i'm seconding the "no"

Being polite is one thing, but do not expect me to take stories of invisible sky demons "seriously."

If you're a religious person who is deeply ofended when I tell you "No, your sky-demons are not real. They have never been real, someone was lying to you," then I'm terribly sorry, but it's not my fault that you've been programmed to take offense at truth and comfort in lies. You're the one who needs to get over that hurdle, not me.

[cbayer]

52. I don't think there is any plea for you to take their beliefs seriously, just

to take them as individuals seriously and hear why they believe what they do.

I think anyone who's beliefs you mock by calling their god "invisible sky demons" and telling them that they have been duped, programmed and lied to (even though you have no proof of this) has the right to be offended. I doubt they would be interested in continuing any conversation with you, as you probably would not be if they mocked your position.

Whether that's your loss or theirs is unclear.

[Scootaloo]

58. Sure they have the right to be offended

People are entitled to opinions, no matter how wrong or nonsensical they may be, after all.

It is not my job to prove religions for the religious. If someone believes in invisible pink unicorns, it falls on them to defend that belief by showing me that there are in fact invisible pink unicorns. it's not up to me to show them there are no such things - though I can certainly point out the lack of evidence, or the poor logic of attributing color to an invisible critter...

As for belittling their god... First, I think that if there is a god, he can take it. He's a big boy. Second, how is it "offensive"? It's an invisible spirit that lives in the sky and punishes people who don't believe in him. Sky demon, simple. when thye tell me that clouds are actually dust kicked up by this sky-demon's feet as he walks through the sky (Nahum 1:3), when I very plainly know they are suspended water vapor created by the process of evaporation, shouldn't I take offense at having my intelligence mocked?

"it's just a parable!"

yeah, ever noticed that science doesn't need to fall back to "parable" and "metaphor" to get the point across?

[cbayer]

61. Again, we seem to be at the team sport part of this kind of debate where there must

be a winner and loser.

Science and religion are totally different animals. They use different language, methods and are based on different experiences. I maintain that they can and must co-exist, because neither is going away.

Mocking and using language that you know will offend other people is a strategy one uses when one is intent on winning. That's not my deal.

[Scootaloo]

63. Sure they can co-exist

I can buy a bottle of bleach at the local supermarket, and I can also buy a pound of hamburger. However, they're not even remotely in the same aisle.

So it is with religion and science. They co-exist, but they're far removed from one another, and people need to stop trying to "remedy" that. There's a reason for the separation.

One is an effort to explain the world around us. The other is an attempt to reinforce tribal identity. They're just totally different products.

[cbayer]

69. Agree. Melding is not an option, but co-existence might be achievable.

Hey, we are all part of a tribe here, despite our vast differences.

[AlbertCat]

84. but they're far removed from one another,

This is Gould's "non-overlapping magisteria" nonsense. It's simply not true. Religion is constantly offering reasons for this and that and is wrong. Science tries to find what's really going on, not guess at it based on how one feels. Mary shot up into heaven body and all without dying... so where did she go? If her physical body went somewhere... where? That's science. Why do we have so many languages? Religion and the science both have answers.... one is correct.... one is a Just So story. Religion asks scientific questions all the time.... and then answers them with bunk.

[Scootaloo]

102. So, shoo religion the hell away from science

Like I said, its primary function is to massage human tribalism. It has no more business trying to do science than dentists do writing books on global warming.

[AlbertCat]

81. and hear why they believe what they do.

Why?

You don't think scientists grew up with religion? We've all been there... and rejected it...already. 'Nuff said.

[pinto]

64. "The two had better learn to get along."

Couldn't agree more. Both have been around, in one form or another, for centuries. Both have offered great benefit and great detriment to human culture and our histories. To have the benefit of both worlds, in this one world...that's a good thing.

[deucemagnet]

123. Sir, if you don't mind, I'd like you to elaborate on the great detriment science...

...has inflicted on human culture and our histories. I know of a Christian Dark Age, but no scientific one. I know of Christian crusades and inquisitions, but no such scientific crusades nor inquisitions. I know of religious persecution of minorities, but no such scientific persecutions. Surely if you are to equate the atrocities of science to those of religion, you should be able to provide examples that match religion in scope and magnitude. Thanks.

[cbayer]

125. If I might offer one or two? On edit - three.

Development of nuclear weapons comes to mind.

Finding the right gases to kill millions of people quickly in small chambers also rings a bell.

Science has not always been for the good.

Third, Tuskegee experiments.

LIke religion, science can be used for good and of evil.

[deucemagnet]

127. And it was scientists who dropped the bomb?

Who gassed the innocents?
Who ordered the Tuskegee experiments?

I would contend that it was government officials, in all cases, who ordered these things done. But, fine, for the purposes of your argument, let's assume that science is directly responsible for all three things you listed. Please tell me how it compares in scope and magnitude to the examples of religious detriment foisted upon society that I mentioned in the post above. Specifically: the dark ages, the crusades, the inquisitions, and religious persecution of minorities.

[cbayer]

129. Correct, but scintists developed them clearly.

I might also argue that governments have used religion to pursue atrocities when religious goals were not their main goals at all (see church of England).

It's not a contest to see which is better or worse. I'm not interested in the body count.

[deucemagnet]

130. Yet no scientist has taken up sword and shield,

emblazoned his breastplate with the double-helix insignia of his order, and ridden off to convert or slay the infidel. That is the purview of religion alone.

[AlbertCat]

76. more interest in building bridges than burning them

A bridge to nowhere is useless.

[cbayer]

77. Ignore them at our own peril. Look where it got us the last 10 years.

[AlbertCat]

86. Ignore them at our own peril

I don't. Religion is harmful.

But defending ourselves from religion's malarkey is not what the OP is about.

[hzcummi]

10. Both Evolution and Creationism are Wrong

The educators and scientists speak from ignorance. No teacher in any school system has obtained the proper training to teach creationism. Genesis does not have any creation accounts. The “creationist clowns” of the worlds of Creationism and Theology have not understood the Genesis text, teaching foolishness and false doctrines.

Evolution is a false conclusion of the 600+ million year fossil record. It is embraced by those that favor atheism, and are blind to other explanations. All they want is to promote the belief that God does not exist. That is their agenda, rather than seeking the truth of ancient life (and escalating death) on Earth.

On the other hand, creationists are too pig-headed to admit that they don’t understand Genesis, and teach such ridiculous doctrines such as “young Earth”, and false teachings such as theistic evolution, Day/Age, Gaps, and “progressive” nonsense.

Instead of being fools about this, first learn the truth about Genesis. What your churches and institutions should be doing is scheduling the presentation (“Observation of Moses”), instead of trying to push more nonsense (creationism) into the school system…, which already is teaching foolish nonsense, as far as ancient life forms are concerned.

What your scientists are accepting is merely a false ideology, without being objective. So scientific endorsement is not a valid supporting reason to only teach evolution. The Observations of Moses exposes the errors of both current creationism and the evolution theory. Take the time to examine the truth first, else you are being insane.

I say to you that claim to believe the Bible. Stop your foolishness, and learn the truth of Genesis. I sent an offer to the Arch-Bishops of Canterbury, and of York, but as all clergy, they refused to respond. They’d rather remain in ignorance of the truth, than to allow their communities to learn the truth. How stupid is that?


Herman Cummings
[e-mail]

[Cary]

15. Right.

Ancient man walked with dinosaurs 5,000 years ago.

For sure for sure.

[rrneck]

21. Welcome to DU!

Well shit man, if you've got it figured out don't keep us in suspense. What's the truth?

[dmallind]

23. C'mon kumbaya fans - listen to this respectfully and begin your dialog ^^

Show us how to do it, and show us how effective it is...

[xocet]

29. Poe's Law.... n/t

[muriel_volestrangler]

100. He's been doing this for at least 5 years

In October 2007, a letter was written to the Discovery Institute, in an effort to create a united front against the false teaching of evolution.

::::::::

Hello. My name is Herman Cummings. I wrote to you in October 2007,...

http://www.opednews.com/maxwrite/diarypage.php?did=8675

If it's a spoof, it's a long-running one.

[bowens43]

54. complete and utter nonsense.

when I see this kind of bullshit I can't help but shake my head in wonder.....

[rexcat]

11. Personally, science does not have to take religious belief seriously.

About 60% of the population do not believe in evolution based on their religious beliefs. How can there be real dialog by scientists when the religious can't understand a simple concept like evolution.

The religious people who dismiss science are never going to accept science and the statement below from the blog sums up the issue:

Evangelicals, in particular, are known for the very often emotional stories of personal conversion. In such a situation, God is real because of the very real effect faith has had on their lives.

Emotion will triumph reason every time with these people. Because religious belief is on the gut level and not the intellectual level with the literalist, and with religious people in general, there will always be conflict between the religious and the pro-science groups. My premise is sensible dialog is not possible. It is difficult, if not impossible, to have reasoned dialog with a group that would rather go to their religious texts to argue their POV rather than with reasoned scientific study.

Our technological edge in the world is slipping away at an accelerating pace because we are being dragged down by Neanderthal-like religious people. They (the religious right) also hold onto too much political power, IMO, in this country and they have never been willing to look at things outside their narrow world view. This also ties into global warming, over population and many other issues that face this nation and the world.

[rrneck]

14. Does taking something seriously

mean accepting its inevitability or embracing it as our own? And if we embrace it, what are we embracing? How close do we hold it?

Science and religion don't take anything seriously. That's what human beings do. I just hate it when people anthropomorphize ideology. You can't outsource empathy and understanding. People take each other seriously by finding common ground in shared humanity.

But they're starting right. All you have to do is make a place where we can put aside ideology and pay attention to each other. You'd be surprised how much of others you'd find in yourself if you just look. It makes it a lot easier to take them seriously.

Looks like I need more coffee.

[cbayer]

17. You don't need more coffee. As you often do, you have made some interesting points.

This is about humans talking to other humans who perceive the world differently but know they share something essential.

Glad you read the article.

[longship]

18. I am conflicted about this article

While I agree that people should communicate with one another on these issues, it is definitely not from a level playing field.

When religious make claims long falsified, like a 6,000 year old universe, dinosaurs coexisting with humans, and outright science denial, I have a real problem.

I also have a real problem with the outright pious frauds like Peter Popoff, Benny Hinn, Jimmy Bakker, the Crouches, and so many more who use religion solely to enrichen themselves while preying on their flocks.

When things like this happen in science, the perpetrators are drummed out; they lose any future credibility. But religion seems to a rich growth medium for this shit.

By all means, let's all talk about this. Science has a methodology for self-correction and fraud detection. The first thing I would ask the religious is, what are you going to do about this?

Until the anti-science and ethical questions are answered, I don't know how we can have much of a meaningful dialog.

But, in principle, I agree that the discussions should continue.

Sorry that I am not more optimistic. And, yes, I did read the whole article and I agree with these efforts.

[cbayer]

22. I think there is value in trying to understand why someone would hold something

to be true that has been scientifically proven. Perhaps we are teaching the science badly. Perhaps we are not explaining it in a way that uses the vocabulary they are used to. Perhaps they feel mocked when it is discussed. It would seem entirely consistent with the scientific process to ask why and to design methods to answer that question.

The fact that so many reject the idea of even talking respectfully and are responding only to the title of this piece speaks legions, imo. Why would they listen to anyone who treats them as if they are not worth talking to or taking seriously?

Thanks for reading the article.

[longship]

30. Definition of truth?

That's a question which might prove to be productive. It also might result in a room full of chair throwing. But it seems to me that religion and science define the term differently.

For science, the only truth is nature herself. The universe is what the universe is. Science attempts to find that, however acknowledging that finding it is probably not obtainable. Science does have facts; those results which are beyond question. But even that is defined a bit fuzzy. Stephen J. Gould may have put this the best:

In science, fact can only mean confirmed to such a degree that it would be perverse to withhold provisional assent. I suppose that apples might start to rise tomorrow, but the possibility does not merit equal time in physics classrooms.

Maybe I have a naive view of religion, but I would think that many preachers would claim a channel to absolute truth. As somebody trained in physics, I consider this to be the biggest problem with religion. Here, Oliver Cromwell may have said it best.

I beseech you, in the bowels of Christ, think it possible that you may be mistaken.

Science does that every day. From my perspective religion, generally, does not. That's a problem that cuts to the core of the two disciplines having a meaningful dialog.

Unless, we can bridge this gap, there may be little basis on which to discuss the bigger issues.

Of course, these are philosophical arguments, but it isn't science which claims to have the truth -- science only claims to have lots and lots of data and many, interlocking theories which, in many (if not most) cases, work exceptionally well.

Note that the differences here are not subtle.

[cbayer]

31. I realize that my experience is greatly skewed by having been raised in some

of the most progressive, socially activists churches that exist in this country, but I never heard any of the preachers I had contact with talk about a direct connection to god for truth. However, I acknowledge that those people exist.

I was raised in a religious milieu where questioning was not only accepted, but encouraged. There was a scientific rigor in the way these theologians explored their and others beliefs. They dialogued extensively with people from all faiths, as well as non-believers. I was not exposed to the "one way" argument or those who felt they held the ultimate truth.

I recall being shocked when I began to understand the racial bigotry being led by some churches and by the Ku Klux Klan in particular. This was not the way I understood religion at all.

In order for people to understand that there are different kinds of religion and *areligion*, and that some are used for good and some are not, we most definitely need to dialogue.

[longship]

33. You are now preaching to the choir, so to speak.

This is where we have a very strong agreement.

I was raised in the United Church of Christ (aka Congregational), probably the most liberal of the Christian sects. I stopped attending when I was 13 and haven't looked back. I never believed it, but I met many friends and the music was still beautiful.

See to in church.

[AlbertCat]

88. trying to understand why someone would hold something true that has been scientifically proven.

Because it has empirical proofs.

If you mean "would NOT hold something true" (you did didn't you? I do that all the time... leave out the "negative&quot

Science is spending much time and money trying to understand that.


Is religion doing the same?

NO.

I don't think religion takes science seriously.... even tho' they try to lend legitimacy to their superstitions by trying to cloak them in science-like terms (ID for instance). Meanwhile there are psychologists, psychiatrists, anthropologists, neurologists, etc etc very seriously trying to figure out what goes no (for real) in the religionist's mind.

When is religion gonna take science seriously? That's the question. It certainly benefits from it!

[PassingFair]

148. Perhaps parents tell their children stories and present them as facts.

Perhaps they take them to buildings where everyone concurs with these "facts".

Perhaps they are even taught by "teachers" that these stories are facts.

Why would you wonder WHY?

[RainDog]

149. Religious Belief Interferes with understanding evolution

It seems to me the problem is with the religious teachers, first and foremost. They hold positions of trust among their congregants. If you ask someone to accept that their religious leader is a liar - of course you are going to face resistance from believers because their view of their place in the universe and as one of god's "chosen" is threatened by information that challenges what believers have been taught.

I think it's entirely wrong to place the onus upon the scientist or someone who understands science when people are resistant to information that challenges beliefs they were (most often) taught as children that is essential to their life after death - which, let's face it, is the most fearful issue for most people - the idea of nothingness or separation from those they love.

Rather than asking scientists to try to overcome decades of brainwashing by religious leaders who gain money and power from telling lies - it's time to expect religious leaders to stop lying.

It's ethical for them to stop lying. It's evil for them to lie about science to benefit their own pocketbooks because they harm others willingly for their own self interests.

http://www.democraticunderground.com/1002185204

WHY DO SOME PEOPLE RESIST SCIENCE?

...there are cultural factors that need to be explained. Americans are not more resistant to science in general. For instance, 1 in 5 American adults believe that the Sun revolves around the Earth, which is somewhat shocking—but the same proportion holds for Germany and Great Britain. But Americans really are special when it comes to certain scientific ideas—and, in particular, with regard to evolutionary theory. The relevant data are shown below, from a 2006 survey published in Science. What explains this culture-specific resistance to evolution?

When faced with this kind of asserted information, one can occasionally evaluate its truth directly. But in some domains, including much of science, direct evaluation is difficult or impossible. Few of us are qualified to assess claims about the merits of string theory, the role in mercury in the etiology of autism, or the existence of repressed memories. So rather than evaluating the asserted claim itself, we instead evaluate the claim's source. If the source is deemed trustworthy, people will believe the claim, often without really understanding it. As our colleague Frank Keil has discussed, this sort of division of cognitive labor is essential in any complex society, where any single individuals will lack the resources to evaluate all the claims that he or she hears.

This deference to authority isn't limited to science; the same process holds for certain religious, moral, and political beliefs as well. In an illustrative recent study, subjects were asked their opinion about a social welfare policy, which was described as being endorsed either by Democrats or by Republicans. Although the subjects sincerely believed that their responses were based on the objective merits of the policy, the major determinant of what they thought of the policy was in fact whether or not their favored political party was said to endorse it. More generally, many of the specific moral intuitions held by members of a society appear to be the consequence, not of personal moral contemplation, but of deference to the views of the community.

Adults thus rely on the trustworthiness of the source when deciding which asserted claims to believe. Do children do the same? Recent studies suggest that they do; children, like adults, have at least some capacity to assess the trustworthiness of their information sources. Four- and five-year-olds, for instance, know that adults know things that other children do not (like the meaning of the word "hypochondriac&quot , and when given conflicting information about a word's meaning from a child and from an adult, they prefer to learn from the adult. They know that adults have different areas of expertise, that doctors know about fixing broken arms and mechanics know about fixing flat tires. They prefer to learn from a knowledgeable speaker than from an ignorant one, and they prefer a confident source to a tentative one. Finally, when five year-olds hear about a competition whose outcome was unclear, they are more likely to believe a character who claimed that he had lost the race (a statement that goes against his self-interest) than a character who claimed that he had won the race (a statement that goes with his self-interest). In a limited sense, then, they are capable of cynicism.

[Taverner]

26. No - we do need a dialogue between theists and atheists

But science does not take anything seriously that doesn't have proof

[cbayer]

27. Sure it does, otherwise there would be no theories or hypotheses.

[Confusious]

45. Theories and hypotheses are based on evidence. nt

[cbayer]

47. I am responding to this statement:

"But science does not take anything seriously that doesn't have proof."

I reject that. Science takes lots of things seriously that don't have proof. It attempts to prove things. Sometimes it succeeds and sometimes it fails. Sometimes it appears to succeed, only later to be proved false when further evidence becomes available.

[Confusious]

53. I know what you were responding to

I started writing a whole bunch of stuff, and then realized we may not be communicating correctly.
not either of our fault, just happens.

Let's use this example. evidence=proof

The galaxy doesn't spin the way it should. That is evidence of dark matter. No one has seen dark matter, yet scientists have a conjecture that it exists. evidence=proof, they make a theory that fits the evidence=proof.

Now, second example

unicorns. no evidence they ever existed, even though they show up on tapestries from the middle ages. No scientist believes in unicorns becuase there is no evidence=proof

Science doesn't believe in things without evidence=proof.

[cbayer]

55. Point taken.

The bottom line for me is this - we know virtually nothing. Science has given us a lot, but it barely scratches the surface. To ever stop wondering would bring science to a screeching halt. I will continue to entertain the ideas of those whose beliefs can not be disproven.

[xocet]

28. Right...

Maybe, for the dialog to commence, BioLogos should rephrase the first point noted below and direct it towards themselves to check its tone. Here is the altered form for your consideration:

"We believe that all religious people are weak-minded simpletons and are in need of re-education.

How does that sound?

Is it a good place to start when taking each other seriously?

About The BioLogos Foundation

...

We believe that all people have sinned against God and are in need of salvation.

...

We believe that the methods of science are an important and reliable means to investigate and describe the world God has made. In this, we stand with a long tradition of Christians for whom Christian faith and science are mutually hospitable. Therefore, we reject ideologies such as Materialism and Scientism that claim science is the sole source of knowledge and truth, that science has debunked God and religion, or that the physical world constitutes the whole of reality.

...

We believe that the diversity and interrelation of all life on earth are best explained by the God-ordained process of evolution and common descent. Thus, evolution is not in opposition to God, but a means by which God providentially achieves his purposes. Therefore, we reject ideologies such as Darwinism and Evolutionism that claim that evolution is a purposeless process or that evolution replaces God.

...

http://biologos.org/about

Maybe they should examine whether they really want a dialog, and maybe they should go back to examining what they mean when they write about knowledge, truth and science.

[longship]

36. So they really do not want a meaningful discussion

They want to preach.

Screw them. This is what worries me about these so-called overtures.

Please read my colloquy with cbayer, above.

Thank you for this. I am bandwidth limited here and would not have taken the trouble to find this out. (That's why I love DU so much.)

[xocet]

57. You're welcome....

Last edited Mon Jul 23, 2012, 04:44 PM - Edit history (1)

The definition of truth (and the definition of acceptable methods and data) would need to be discussed as you noted.

That issue always has been the sticking point each time that I have tried to have such a dialog.

Even though one makes the initial concessions that there is a possibility that a "god" exists and that induction cannot prove the non-existence of god, there are no corresponding concessions from the other side which would allow defining god closely enough to even question any of the effects or attributes which he/she/it supposedly has. If those concessions would be made, it would lead to an incremental dismantling of the idea of god. Not much would be left that would have even a reasonable probability of existence.

So, it seems to me that such dialogs are contingent on the science side making concessions to the faith-based side. Seldom is any reciprocation evident by the faith-based side. Hence, their article of faith that I adduced in the post to which you replied.

For the good of society, discussion is needed, but it is a deadlock from the start.

[longship]

71. Damn! This has been a good thread.

Lot's of thoughtful and respectful posts.

And... You are most welcome.

[cbayer]

40. I can understand your objection to their opening statement.

OTOH, they are putting their cards on the table before proceeding. That is what they believe.

[xocet]

70. They too would object if the roles were reversed.

If they would put their methodology on the table instead, it would be easier to start a discussion.



Here are some important questions that they need to attempt to concisely address prior to starting a dialog:

What, if any, role does empiricism play in their attempt to establish factual data?

What does ontology mean to them?

What does epistemology mean to them?



If these questions cannot be answered, people will just be talking past each other:i.e., the parties will subscribe to different sets of semantics and nothing will be agreed upon.

[cbayer]

73. You just presented a great argument that supports exactly what you are saying.

I can't answer your questions at all because I don't speak your language. I would need to do some research in order to properly understand the terms you are using, or...

I would have to ask you to explain them to me so I could answer them.

While preferring the second option, I would not be able to if I felt you were dismissive or going to ridicule me for lack of knowledge in this area.

[xocet]

133. Maybe...

the solution would be to start somewhere in the middle; i.e., in philosophy.

That is where ontology, epistemology, empiricism etc. are defined.

[RainDog]

150. The use of "Darwinism" and "Evolutionism"

immediately identifies the linguistic lineage of this group. Those phrases are directly from fundie creationists.

Anyone who knows about science - which, it seems fairly obvious, whoever wrote that did not, realizes that the modern synthesis is the current foundation of evolutionary science.

Genetics drives our current understanding of evolutionary processes - anyone who wants to claim that mutations are "purposeful" as opposed to their disdain for "purposeless process" - how can someone like that have a conversation about science?

Random mutation occurs - we know this. It has been observed.

The process of natural selection and the randomness of evolutionary action is evident in the development of sickle cell anemia. Because of an altered landscape, more mosquitoes flourished. A mutation that conferred a benefit on those who just so happened to inherit one copy of this have passed on more of their genes because they survived disease created by the increase in mosquitoes. Because more people had that gene, it was more likely to be inherited. If two copies are passed along, the outcome is a disease, rather than protection from disease.

There is a "purpose" to this process - survival of the DNA, at the most basic level, and the human that carries it, and the community in which that human lives and the world in which that community lives.

If someone wants god to be the cherry on top - that's fine - god wants humans to live and wants the world to survive (contrary to eschatological teachings about god destroying the earth for one reason or another) But god is not necessary to be a part of the process.

To pretend that everyone must agree that god is the cherry on top is the problem.

Evangelical christianity specifically views its purpose to tell their version god to others. Most of us have heard it. Many of us are not interested. So, let's move on if you want to talk about something that we can both find of value.

[rug]

32. Ridicule is not a tool of science, that's why.

[Democracyinkind]

34. Science is insightful in order to understand religion.

But religion is NOT insightful for understanding science.

False equivalency 101.

[cbayer]

39. Too broad brush. The organization discussed in this article refutes your premise.

[dmallind]

41. How?

What exactly has this group done to increase an understanding of science?

[cbayer]

42. They are promoting evolution as not inconsistent with religious beliefs.

That promotes an understanding of science by definition.

[dmallind]

56. No it does not

It's the equivalent of somebody who has spent years saying the Cubs are the most successful MLB team of the century finally looking at all the series wins, pennants and W-L records of, say, the Yankees, and saying "yeah ok you have a point". They haven't increased the understanding of a damn thing - they have taken a few steps toward admitting that their understanding needs to adapt a bit to the overwhelming evidence that has been universally acknowledged outside religious groups for over a century.

Their "about us" statement says "we reject ideologies such as Materialism and Scientism that claim science is the sole source of knowledge and truth". Can they point to a demonstrably true thing that they have discovered outside it?

It also says they reject the idea "that the physical world constitutes the whole of reality". Same question - what have they got as evidence of anything outside it?

These folks are just another set of "other ways of knowing" special pleaders who, like all the others, cannot produce, demonstrate or rationallt argue one scintilla that has come from those other ways. Until they can do so, they have not added a single atom to the understanding of anything at all.

[cbayer]

59. I take it, then, that you will not be a part of the conversation.

That's up to you, of course, but I am most likely going to support anything that might change the statistics about how many people in this country reject evolution. Unless their methods impinge on my or other people's liberties, I'm willing to listen and give them chance.

There are those on both sides who won't participate.

[Cary]

66. I'm sure you are.

Since you can't answer my question, "Why, exactly, do scientists need to take religionists seriously?" then perhaps you can ask the religionists and then get back to me.

In the meantime what's wrong with the idea of simply saying that religion is religion and science is science? What's wrong with keeping the two separate? Yes, you can have your faith. That's fine, but you don't get to tell me that your faith trumps science in any way, shape, or form.

What turf are you defending here? Are you defending the right of the Church to persecute Galileo?

[cbayer]

72. You, like many others, make an incorrect assumption about my *faith* or lack thereof, but

that's ok, I used to it.

I do agree that science and religion are completely different. That's why it makes even less sense to me that there should be a war going on at all. Who wins the fight and what do they win?

I have never, ever said that faith trumps science. That would fly in the face of what we both said - completely different games, no contest here.

Not defending any turf at all nor am I going to defend atrocities committed by either science or religion. Just looking for some dialogue and cessation of hostilities.

[Cary]

109. Except for the fact that I have made no assumption about your faith

I find no fault with your faith and I really don't care. No, it's not your faith. It's your squishy reasoning that offends me.

You still haven't come close to answering my question. Science will go on, regardless. It is religion that has to contend with science, not the other way around.

[cbayer]

111. What is my faith?

[Cary]

113. Didn't I just say that I didn't care?

I have no idea what your faith is, and I don't care.

I do wish you would answer the question that I asked you, 15 times now.

[cbayer]

115. I've answered it to the best of my ability. Sorry.

See you around the campfire.

[Cary]

142. So your best answer is that scientists need to take religionists seriously because there are

a lot of them.

You really think that's a good answer?

[Democracyinkind]

151. I think your exchange reinforces the point I made.

He was not able to show how the organization refutes my premise. Their possible promotion of scientific knowledge does not constitute "religion giving insights into science".

I have yet to see a cogent argument that shows how Religion can increase scientific knowledge. While it is undisputable that science has a lot to say about religion that is informative - the reverse is just not true.

[Cary]

154. I agree with you, of course

Cbayer has skirted the issue and he has not supported his premise well. Of course he is entitled to his opinion but we certainly have every right to challenge that opinion.

Now I will give you a half baked challenge to your premise. If you look at modern physics and some of the Eastern religions/philosophies I think you will find some striking similarities. Of course the Eastern religions/philosophies differ from Western thought in that Western thought is, in essence, a man against nature kind of proposition whereas Eastern religions/philosophies tend to be an emulation of nature.

But to expect any creation story, or deity mythology, to be literal--that's just demanding too much from religion. Religion does have lessons for us but those lessons are to be learned by way of the metaphor.

There is a deeper meaning to God's little practical joke on Abraham by demanding that he sacrifice Isaac, his only son and his most precious thing in the whole universe.

I am not sure what that deeper meaning is, but I'm pretty sure there is a meaning. Perhaps it's only that it's salutary for some reason to ponder such things? The Bible is the story of deeply religious ancient people trying to relate their relationship with the Creator. I know that an all knowing, all powerful being taunting and toying with Abraham in this way is a profound act of some sort.

[RainDog]

155. Some other religions viewed this god as a lesser god in the pantheon

because he was, as ascribed to him in the bible - a jealous god.

one view of the sacrifice of Abraham is that it illustrates the patriarchal structure: submission.

...which is a view shared by the offspring religions.

An anthropomorphized god, imo, is just too small - too backward looking and thinking - yet lacking a full view of the history of humankind because the stories about the development of that religion were meant to sell it - this is the one true belief - and that has always been about political and cultural power as much as anything else.

I just cannot view those stories as anything more than relics of the past, in the same way that Hathor was the goddess of the sky - the abstract - life and death - the creator of the stars and the milky way because of her fertility and life-giving, life-bringing attributes.

Instead - the god of western culture starts out with demanding a murder of an innocent to prove how much someone is willing to submit to his authority?

Sounds abusive to me.

[dmallind]

67. I'd love to hear what they have actually added to understanding yes

So far you've come up with diddly squat to have a conversation about. All this is a religious group who have finally noticed they can't sanely argue against evolution but still want to keep a "but God did it even thiugh we cannot provide even exhibit A" provision. What's there to listen to?

[skepticscott]

139. That pretty much hit the nail on the head

This is basically a groups of people trying desperately to look all modern and rational on the one hand, but saying "Can't there PLEASE still be a place for our god SOMEWHERE in the midst of all this knowledge, without us looking foolish?"

[muriel_volestrangler]

103. Look at where the 'conversation' is stuck: were Adam and Eve a real couple?

In a series of essays titled “Southern Baptist Voices,” the two groups consider questions such as whether the existence of a historical Adam and Eve created in the image of God is compatible with the gradual development of humans through evolution.

While there is disagreement, the authors are quick to emphasize places where they do agree, such as the reality of the miracles described in the Bible, including the bodily resurrection of Jesus. And there is room for give-and-take on both sides.

http://www.washingtonpost.com/national/health-science/evangelical-scientists-debate-evolution-online-with-southern-baptist-seminary-professors/2012/07/18/gJQAqBsstW_story.html

They couldn't admit that there was no 'Adam and Eve' couple 2 years ago:

As many of our readers know, the historicity of Adam and Eve is a critically important topic in the discussion of Christianity and human origins. Although BioLogos takes a firm stand on the fact that Adam and Eve could not have been the sole biological progenitors of all humans (see here), science does not rule out the possibility of a historical Adam and Eve, which opens this interesting discussion.

http://biologos.org/blog/adam-and-eve-literal-or-literary

And those who stuck to the science (that genetics shows the human race can never be paired down to a single couple - science has ruled out the possibility of a historical Adam and Eve, whatever BioLogos claims), have left, with young-earth creationists, who have to deny the reality of multiple disciplines of science, still there:

Templeton-Funded BioLogos cleans house, promotes young-earth creationist, begins slide into irrelevance

With the departure of Biblical scholar Pete Enns from BioLogos, who had an official position as “Senior Fellow in Biblical Studies” (as well as a Ph.D. from Harvard in Old Testament studies and a considerable reputation for work on Biblical literalism/nonliteralism), it appears that the organization is cleaning house. What both Enns and Karl Giberson (also recently departed) had in common was their repudiation of the physical existence of Adam and Eve—something that angered the evangelicals, who desperately want to save that story to ensure that Jesus didn’t die for a mere metaphor. I would guess that both Enns and Giberson were shown the door because of this issue, and I predicted some time ago that BioLogos would fall apart.

That appears to be happening, at least with respect to the Foundation’s original mission—designed by ex-BioLogos-President and now-NIH director Francis Collins—to get evangelical Christians to accept the truth of evolution. That mission has gone down the tubes. BioLogos has bounced anybody who questions Adam and Eve, and now they’re promoting a young-earth creationist.

The creationist is Aaron Daly, and he has a 2:49 video on BioLogos called ”A young earth creationist’s perspective.” They describe it like this:

In this video, young earth creationist Aaron Daly offers his thoughts on theistic evolution, creation, and how Christians should handle disagreements over issues such as the age of the earth and how God created. Most of all, however, Aaron highlights the need for love in our discussions with one another, especially when we disagree.

http://whyevolutionistrue.wordpress.com/2011/09/29/templeton-funded-biologos-cleans-house-promotes-young-earth-creationist-begins-slide-into-irrelevance/

[cbayer]

104. No one said it would be easy, lol.

The statistics are alarming. Surely there is a way to address some of this, though. The number of people that believed the earth was flat or that the sun revolved around the moon diminished over time. The more religiously based organizations that begin to argue for an evolution that is somehow compatible with their core beliefs, the better, imo.

Beats just continuing to deny it's real at all.

[trotsky]

141. What exactly does this mean:

The more religiously based organizations that begin to argue for an evolution that is somehow compatible with their core beliefs, the better, imo.

"to argue for an evolution" - do you perhaps mean a version of evolution that is more compatible?

If so, what you ask is impossible. Science is about finding answers - not answers we WANT to hear, but answers that are true. If you want actual science to bend and modify the answers it finds in order to make them more palatable to people who, according to you, are a "bunch of dumbasses," then you are destroying science.

[RainDog]

143. Science entirely upends fundamentalist religion

And refutes it. Entirely.

Scholars of the bible know the books were not written when and by whom the fundies believe.

Geneticists know that humans evolved in East Africa and, from there, over hundreds of thousands of years, spread across the world. Civilization first arose in Africa. Those religions that were founded in support of slavery, or justified the same by religion should wonder why god allowed them to dwell in such a sewer of lies for so much of history. Religion is a story of false prophets.

What do such truths reveal about the value of religious revelation related to any aspect of society? Not much. No truth to be found in the long-standing racism and misogyny that is the cultural legacy of most religion. That, in itself, is an argument that religion is "man made."

There is no "Adam and Eve" - instead, small group population genetics, mutations and genetic bottlenecks explain the long, long, long process that lead to humans.

The creation story of the bible is a bad metaphor. Humans are, by default, female. For a good metaphor that reflects the human condition, a god would've created a female first - but this contradicts the patriarchal orientation of all three Abrahamic religions.

There is no god-centered reason for a female to submit to any male authority - and every reason for religion to place the female at the center of worship, instead of creating a trinity that is glaringly misogynistic in its exclusion of the female divine.

The old testament is, basically, a story of a group - that married into other groups that already existed, as stated in the bible. Just as with any jingoistic story, that group is preferred - there's simply no reality there, however, in any of the claims as is evident in the archeological record (not just the fossil record.)

It's possible to talk about ethics with someone who has a religious belief - and to note that their particular belief, no matter what it is, shares some basic ethical principle - compassion, equality (do unto others), but other than that, the rest is babble.

The religions themselves need to contend with their false teachings.

The reason so many of them haven't is because the foundation of their beliefs is "personal revelation" that does not require truth or fact as part of its dogma. Truth and fact are antithetical to that dogma.

Some religions disappear because they are no longer relevant - their beliefs become so archaic, they simply cannot be supported. That's what should've happened with fundamentalisms a long time ago.

But when political power benefits by promoting false beliefs - such beliefs continue because it's in someone's economic and political interests to do so.

[AlbertCat]

91. They are promoting evolution as not inconsistent with religious beliefs.

That right there is a lie.

It IS. It is inconsistent with religious beliefs.

[Democracyinkind]

152. Even if it where consistent

Simply promoting evolution on a scientific basis would not meet the mark that I originally proposed in this subthread.

Cbayer, if he wants to meet the substance of my reply, will have to show more than just promotion of evolution by any religious institution.

What he disputed is that Religion has nothing cogent to say about science.

I have seen no refutation so far.

I have yet to see any religious concept or idea that proved useful in the laboratory.

[rurallib]

48. which particular religion should be taken seriously?

Mark Twain:

Man is a Religious Animal. He is the only Religious Animal. He is the only animal that has the True Religion--several of them. He is the only animal that loves his neighbor as himself and cuts his throat if his theology isn't straight. He has made a graveyard of the globe in trying his honest best to smooth his brother's path to happiness and heaven....The higher animals have no religion. And we are told that they are going to be left out in the Hereafter. I wonder why? It seems questionable taste.
- "The Lowest Animal"

[cbayer]

50. Great quote by the incomparable Twain.

[99th_Monkey]

78. This was one of my very first insights

while under influence of Owsley LSD in 1963.

I couldn't stop thinking of how profoundly this truth
shifts and integrates seeming opposites in the psyche.

[cbayer]

83. This made me smile.

Memories!

[Evoman]

85. Ha...the scientist part of me wants even less to do with religionistas than the atheist part.

Have you ever read any type of science journal? These guys are about 200 years behind when it comes to evolution. We have ideas, concepts, and statistical models that are amazingly sophisticated....and these guys are talking about evolution like they have a clue, yet they don't even understand the fucking basics. And the frustrating thing is the NEVER LISTEN when you try to school em. Not even if you do it nice like.

Having a "dialogue" with religion always amounts to the same thing...giving them ground, while they refuse to back down or compromise at all.


Religion has nothing to contribute to science. Zilch. Nada. It has done nothing but stall and destroy scientific progress. And now that it's been shown for the rotten lie it is, religion wants to converse? And if scientists refuse to accept their bullshit, what are they gonna do? Start killing us again? I guess we will take religion seriously if that starts to happen....

[cbayer]

87. Have I ever read any scientific journals? Are you posing this question

to me personally or to to the author of the article?

[Evoman]

89. It's more a general outburst to religious people. But if you like, you can answer the question.

I'm really getting frustrated with this "both sides need to compromise" bullshit.

Religion is lies and brutality.

Science has it's problems (human problems), but it's the closest thing we have to a perfect way of learning and knowing.

Why the fuck would anyone want to contaminate their brain with religion?

[cbayer]

93. I have read, oh I'd say, 7 or 8

thousand scientific journals or so.

Some are excellent, many are not. Some showcase good peer reviewed, well done, statistically significant studies. Others not so much.

Much like the bible, one must read carefully, evaluate and choose to accept or reject all or part of it.

I understand that you don't understand why people want to *contaminate* their brain with religion, but since so may do, I think it's a question that should be asked in more than a rhetorical way.

How are you doing, by the way?

[rexcat]

95. And what is your scientific expertise...

to be able to determine what is a good vs. bad scientific paper? Are you part of the peer review process of one of the scientific disciplines?

[cbayer]

96. I have been extensively involved in the peer review process, though I am no longer involved.

Why?

[rexcat]

97. Just asking...

Per your post you have read thousands of scientific articles and you obviously have your opinion concerning there validity as good or bad science, therefore, I was asking about your qualifications. I don't recall seeing anything on DU about your scientific background.

[cbayer]

98. That's because I have not shared it. I learned the hard way that it's a mistake

to provide much personal information here - even in highly protected spaces.

[Evoman]

112. Are there that many journals out there? Ha.....I used to follow only about 9 or 10, and then

occasionally articles from other journals.

I'm just bugging you. I'm doing better. I didn't sleep at all last night (I've been awake since about 9 am YESTERDAY), so this morning I went for a 3k walk. The most of I've been able to do up till now is about 1 or so K. But I pushed myself so freakin hard.....and by the time I got home, I was so tired I was crying. Chemo and getting of my narcs beat the crap out of me, but I never stop. Everyone tells me I need to rest more, but I'll rest when I'm dead. So there you go....I'm not nearly as afraid of sharing personal info, I guess.

Just for the curious, I have a masters in biology with a specialization in Genetics and Evolution, as well as an undergrad in Biochemistry with Honours. My supervisor tried to convince me to change my masters into a phD, but I refused. Knew it was a dead end by then....getting a job in the sciences is a crapshoot right now. I'm apparently too awesome fore a lowly tech job (I don't think so, but employers do and have told me so...I've published 3 papers from my masters work, and two more from a 1 year stint in another lab) but not qualified to be a full fledged scientist. So instead I decided to get cancer and do a degree in Pharmacy instead, hehe.

I don't think I'm that smart, but I'm a genius compared to some of these neandrethals. I just can't talk to them about evolution...it frustrates me way too much.

[cbayer]

116. You wouldn't believe how many there are.

For pretty much anything you can imagine.

Glad you are doing better. Your strength of character is remarkable. I think you may sleep tonight.

Evolutionary genetics. Great stuff there. I could picture you as a pretty engaging professor and imagine that your students would not get bored (once they figured out that you are really a pussycat in lion's clothing). Does that not appeal to you?

It takes a lot of patience to try to talk to those who have already made up their minds, I agree. The trick is figuring out if there is a chance of making any inroads or not, and I often get that wrong or too late.

Anyway, keep on trekking, evoman. I suspect there is something waiting for you to get fully better. It's just a hunch, not a message from god or anything, lol!

[Evoman]

119. I've taught a lot, but mostly people who wanted to learn.

These evolution denialists don't want to learn....they will control, distort, and cover their ears to the truth. The one thing they will not do is learn. I have no use for them. Neither does science.

We'll be here once they get their heads out of their asses. Not holding my breath.

[Evoman]

117. What method do you use to discern the good from the crap in the bible?

With scientific studies, we can at least follow the methodology to determine if it's good or not. We can run the statistics. We can double check the math and statistical information. And even a bad study can teach you something...if nothing more than how to get crap results.

I don't get how people can double check the methodology of the bible. It's all crap, and most of the stuff liberals consider good, can be learned somewhere else. The bible is useless....if I had a textbook with the contradictions and errors the bible had, I wouldn't take the good from it....I would throw the piece of shit away. You can't trust part of it, you can't trust any of it.

[cbayer]

120. Another glaring difference between science and religion.

Since there is not good or generally accepted *methodology* for examining the bible, some take the position that it is all true, while others that none of it is.

Whether true or not, there are stories, parables, lessons that may be valuable for individuals at some points in their life. While it is often ridiculed, I am a fan of cherry picking in this case. Read it, take what you want, reject what you do not. Same for the Torah, Qu'aran, etc.

[RainDog]

153. Actually, the bible is subject to paleology, just as with any other old text

It is subject to linguistic analysis and textual history.

As an artifact of a culture, the bible, in its many variations in its many languages, is most certainly subject to the same methodology that someone would use when studying hieroglyphics or Homer.

Many claims made by some Christian sects are demonstrably false and this error in their belief impacts their capacity to read the bible as it is as an historical artifact.

Beyond that, yes, stories are subject to interpretation.

And if someone chooses to interpret a text in a way that is harmful to others, people have the right and, sometimes, obligation to dispute that interpretation.

[rug]

101. What guys?

Mendel?



Lemaître?

[dimbear]

90. Vatican observatory:

http://vaticanobservatory.org/index.php?option=com_content&view=article&id=95&Itemid=161

Some moderately important firsts.

[AlbertCat]

92. Vatican observatory:

Well, they had the $$$$.... and were looking to confirm their superstitions.

Alas...that didn't work out so well.


And it still took them 300 years to forgive Galileo.

And we'd be a lot further along if they hadn't destroyed all those ancient books!

[dimbear]

94. It's my nature to side with the underdog, and in fact religion hasn't done exactly nothing.

That may not be truly great, but it's something.

[cbayer]

99. That explains why it is hard to pin you down, dimbear!

I also tend to root for the underdog.

[AlbertCat]

128. I also tend to root for the underdog.

Oh yeah... religion's the underdog.

They have to fight to get funding
They have no way of getting their message out
No one likes or believes their message
You can't find a church/temple anywhere!
Religious people are shunned.

Those poor poor put-upon underdogs!

[dimbear]

136. Within the confines of this thread religion is having a hard time. n/t

[Tikki]

105. Why would he feel like scientists 'talk down' to Christians?

That statement doesn't make much sense and within it is the reality of why religion
is a faith and science works on to facts.


Tikki

[cbayer]

107. Well, we could start with things like "magical sky demon" and "delusional".

[Tikki]

114. Which scientist said that? Just curious?

Was it in the article? Did I miss it? Was it a group of scientists?
I don't think scientists feel persecuted by the faithful.



Tikki

[cbayer]

118. No, its like some responses in this thread and other thread like it.

And sometimes those statements are made by people who identify themselves as scientists.

I think scientists feel incredibly frustrated by some of the faithful, and who can blame them.

Evolution can be easy to understand. Geology can be easy to understand. So when someone takes the position that the world is 6000 years old and evolution is false, it might not be persecution, but it sure must make some want to bang their heads against the wall.

[skepticscott]

140. How about scientists and religionistas

both take the TRUTH seriously? If it's purely religious truth, scientists can leave religionists to wrestle with it. But if it's scientific truth, and religionists want to pollute it with their unverified Bronze age mythology, they lose their right to be take seriously. In some cases, the truth is pretty much right where someone is already standing, and "common ground" shouldn't have to mean they move off it to accommodate other people's delusions and insecurities.

[RainDog]

144. Some scientists are sick of religions that undermine reality

Richard Dawkins has taken on fundamenalists for their ignorant beliefs that they insist are part of faith. He did this because he thinks those religious groups are dangerous in their promotion of beliefs that are demonstrably false.

If an entire religious group is like a cult in its insistence on denial of reality - that's a problem when big, important issues rest upon some basic scientific literacy.

Dawkins spoke in Falls Creek, Virginia and urged any student who was a student at Liberty University to withdraw immediately and get an education that had some respect for reality. (you can find that on YouTube.)

Kierkegaard, who saw himself as religious, had to admit that the story of the creation of the Abrahamic religions is a story of insanity, when reality is part of the configuration. That's why it's faith, not reality.

For those who don't find those beliefs in any way meaningful, it's hard to understand why denial of reality is so important for an entity that is supposed to have set the same in motion.

People anthropomorphize their wishes and fears - this doesn't give them any more meaning than any other story beyond that select group that finds meaning in those stories.

To others outside of that culture - the stories are about the people telling them, not any great truth that is universally applicable to the human condition, beyond the fact that people have told themselves stories to explain what they cannot understand to help them create order in uncertainty.

When certain things are no longer unexplainable, the problem is with religions who cling to explanations that no longer have meaning in the world.

[Evoman]

121. We do often talk down to them. Sometimes it can't be helped....when you know so much,

it's hard to believe that anyone could deny evolution. It's literally like talking to petulant children.

Sometimes it may make us look like assholes. I'd rather be an arrogant asshole than an ignorant fuckhead.

[xfundy]

106. "to acquiesce to the authority of modern scientists"

Who is demanding acquiesence? Or claiming "Authority?"

Not scientists, at least none I'm aware of. On the other hand, though...

a dichotomy has been assumed in America where one is either committed to the truth and authority of science or the truth and authority of Scripture, the twain never to meet.

No commitment is required, except in religion. Science is all about, "hey, I dunno, how about THIS?" and open to exploring the views and experiments and extrapolations of others, unrestrained by the "known" or the "thought-known," while religion is about some "authority," saying, "THIS is absolute truth!," and if you dare to question or find their theories unbelievable, you are scheduled to be burned in eternal fire, at best.

Some of us, many of us, can just say, wow, yeah, what about that, that's amazing, I dunno, and then go about our daily lives, content in the knowledge that there are amazing things we can't know.

I do admire your commitment and willingness to stand up for your beliefs—if only a few more had that courage, that strength of gut, and personally, I hope you can hold on to that perceived rock—but while issues involving religion/belief vs science are far from solved, the proofs you so earnestly insert still don't stand up to scientific method for inclusion.

Still, I wish you the best.

I don't typically bookmark/follow my responses, so if you want to discuss further or tell me I'm going to hell, DUmail me.

Thanks.

[cbayer]

110. I hope you will check back in. This has been a fun thread and you have

offered some good input.

I think religion is a very personal thing. Science, by it's very nature, is not personal at all. Perhaps that is the most glaring difference and why there really should be no battle between the two. I reject those that rest religion like science - saying they are holding the facts, that there is only one way, that their truth trumps what anyone else may think.

I hope you are aiming your final thoughts at the author of this piece, as I am not trying to insert any proofs that would stand up to scientific scrutiny.

Thanks for weighing in here.

[kestrel91316]

126. Wrong. Science is under no obligation to take mythology of any kind into consideration.

[rug]

134. Tell it to Schliemann.

[2ndAmForComputers]

131. I do take religion seriously. A lot.

But not in the way religion would like me to.

If you know what I mean.

[madrchsod]

132. well lowell is a real optimist is`t he...

judging by the reaction here, i`d say his idea does`t stand a chance in hell..or is it in heaven?

[skepticscott]

146. It might help

if he and his ilk actually gave us something worthy of being taken seriously. We've heard all of the creationist/ID arguments, packaged in every way possible to try to pass legal or scientific muster, and they still fall flat. If they gave us some real evidence to back up their claims, they might not get snickered at. Instead, they just give us a repackaged version of "our point of view deserves to be taken seriously because it's our point of view"

[BlueinOhio]

135. Apples and Oranges

Scientific Theory and thinking that you have a theory are two different things. You are taking a guess. Scientific theory has empirical evidence to prove the theory. Religion was just put in place for crowd control. Dont upset the boat for me you'll get yours when you are dead. Just tell people that gravity is just a theory they can test it if they want. I like to bring up the 3 radioactive families actually there was 4. Neptunium no longer occurs in nature. Np237 Half life of 2.2E09 years. That means that it has undergone 1000 half life decay. So much for the Earth being less than 10000 years. Over the weekend there was a tv show with 2 christians talking about creationism like it was science. They can believe whatever they want but facts are still there. The other post about Texas repubs not wanting to teach children critical thinking sums it up. Back to the crowd control.

[stopbush]

138. Er, BioLogos is NOT a community of scientists. They're a community of Xians

that includes a few scientists, chief among them Francis Collins.

They're a "self-described community of evangelical Christians committed to exploring and celebrating the compatibility of evolutionary creation and biblical faith." They start from the position of having Biblical faith and seeing how they can make science conform to their beliefs, not the other way around.

"As an Evangelical, I think that what is different about this conversation (and what will ultimately make a huge impact) is that the scientists at BioLogos take faith, and thus their audience, seriously. Very often, I have personally felt as if scientists talk down to Christians."

Again. They're NOT all scientists. They are not even a majority of scientists.