Religion

longship

(40,416 posts)

5. I agree with your recommendation, but only in part.

Wed Feb 12, 2014, 06:47 PM

Feb 2014

I think one needs to present science as if it does not threaten people's beliefs. But unfortunately that does not always work. And in the USA it does not work very well at all because creationism has such a strong grip here. In spite of any desire to be non-confrontational, the confrontation is inevitable.

I whole-heartedly agree that theistic scientists can help smooth the way, but because of the huge amount of overt anti-science exhibited by religious people it cannot be the only tactic. Sometimes one has to take a hard stance and say, "enough of this shit."

Make no mistake, my friend, a sizable chunk of religion is at war with science in the USA. And they have significant political power. I cannot be nice about that no matter how many people think the magisteria are non-overlapping. Here in the USA they are overlapping an awful lot.

(Send up some warmth, please.)

Edit history

Please sign in to view edit histories.

Recommendations

0 members have recommended this reply (displayed in chronological order):

248 replies

= new reply since forum marked as read

Highlight:

Why You Might Have to Choose Between Science and Faith [View all] cbayer Feb 2014 OP

It's a difficult problem, probably without a resolution. longship Feb 2014 #1

Even Darwin, after much struggle, believed that science could be embraced cbayer Feb 2014 #2

I agree with your recommendation, but only in part. longship Feb 2014 #5

Agree that it doesn't always work, but what is being done isn't working cbayer Feb 2014 #7

Ham's museum is 100% lies. longship Feb 2014 #10

Right, but it's fun! cbayer Feb 2014 #13

But that museum is an exemplar of everything that is wrong about religion. longship Feb 2014 #22

I am by no means defending the museum. cbayer Feb 2014 #24

I think Neil deGrasse Tyson is doing just that. longship Feb 2014 #25

Agree about NDT and glad to see that he will be starting a new series soon. cbayer Feb 2014 #26

You got it, cbayer! Remember Mr. Wizard? longship Feb 2014 #31

Oh, man, I loved that show cbayer Feb 2014 #34

That's just beautiful. longship Feb 2014 #36

Enjoy. I've been cooking black beans all night and am cbayer Feb 2014 #37

Darwin eventually discarded religion because it is incompatible with science. nt Deep13 Feb 2014 #78

I think Darwin's beliefs and lack of beliefs are much more complex than that. cbayer Feb 2014 #81

His auto-biography makes it clear that he was a complete skeptic at the end of his life. Deep13 Feb 2014 #85

But there are reports that he took a different position as he was dying. cbayer Feb 2014 #89

Those reports were bald faced lies... gcomeau Feb 2014 #152

Well, that's one interpretation and since neither cbayer Feb 2014 #153

His family was. gcomeau Feb 2014 #154

Hadn't read that. Do you have a link? cbayer Feb 2014 #155

Here you go... gcomeau Feb 2014 #156

Thanks. That's a story about his having expressed regret that cbayer Feb 2014 #157

+1 Warren Stupidity Feb 2014 #158

There are ALWAYS such reports Brainstormy Feb 2014 #180

He never identified as an atheist, but cbayer Feb 2014 #181

Lots of pressure from family and Catholic Church, to "accept" God in the last breath; and be "saved" Brettongarcia Feb 2014 #199

The human brain is a pattern recognition machine among a great many other things Fumesucker Feb 2014 #3

Wow, that is one dense article. cbayer Feb 2014 #4

A lot of it is informed speculation, extrapolation and so on Fumesucker Feb 2014 #6

The brain/mind dichotomy really interests me. cbayer Feb 2014 #9

We have no examples of mind without a brain that I'm aware of Fumesucker Feb 2014 #16

There are still many things which we assume are brain functions but really are cbayer Feb 2014 #19

Isn't it phil89 Feb 2014 #82

An argument from ignorance as in "We don't know the answer to that at this time"? cbayer Feb 2014 #87

No phil89 Feb 2014 #90

Oh, ok. I think many religious people do keep investigating. cbayer Feb 2014 #92

Ok phil89 Feb 2014 #95

Not sure what you are asking. cbayer Feb 2014 #98

so your claim is that there is serious investigation going with respect to theory of consciousness Warren Stupidity Feb 2014 #105

Check out Julian Jaynes's _The Origin of Consciousness in the Breakdown of the Bicameral Mind_. nt tblue37 Feb 2014 #30

I see no major problem in believing in a creator and also believing in evolution. ... spin Feb 2014 #8

And you are not alone. cbayer Feb 2014 #12

Thanks. I downloaded "The Sparrow" and look forward to reading it. ... spin Feb 2014 #55

Will look into that. cbayer Feb 2014 #56

It may be a while until I get to it. ... spin Feb 2014 #62

In the meantime, thanks for your evolutionary idea: religion as materially functional(at times). Brettongarcia Feb 2014 #136

My son in law who is agnostic feels religion is the Santa Claus story for adults. ... spin Feb 2014 #141

The most fervently religious nations are not the most peaceful or ordered ones Fumesucker Feb 2014 #20

Throughout our history, the United States has had a strong religious foundation. ... spin Feb 2014 #51

If evolution explains the development of life, what did the creator do? Deep13 Feb 2014 #83

There's much about the universe that we don't understand. ... spin Feb 2014 #109

It's not arrogance, it's honesty. Deep13 Feb 2014 #121

Scientists have often been wrong. ... spin Feb 2014 #122

Name one naturalistic theory that has been supplanted by a supernatural explanation... Act_of_Reparation Feb 2014 #131

That's a fair challenge and impossible to do as a supernatural event can't be explained by spin Feb 2014 #139

How did they find out they were wrong? nt Deep13 Feb 2014 #142

Sometimes when something goes bang. ... spin Feb 2014 #144

So Chernobyl proves there is a god? Deep13 Feb 2014 #145

Of course not. Your question was how did scientists figure out that they were wrong? ... spin Feb 2014 #146

"it eventually says something had to come from nothing" Lordquinton Feb 2014 #147

The creator is eternal to us. ... spin Feb 2014 #171

But, by your words, the creator needs a creator Lordquinton Feb 2014 #175

It largely comes down to if you are openminded or not. ... spin Feb 2014 #183

Really? Lordquinton Feb 2014 #193

So one wonders why you brought Chernobyl into it at all skepticscott Feb 2014 #149

So one wonders why you asked the question ... spin Feb 2014 #172

I think you misunderstand the big bang... Deep13 Feb 2014 #163

There is not evidence. cbayer Feb 2014 #164

There is "not evidence" of the big bang? Warren Stupidity Feb 2014 #166

There is evidence but there are scientists who dispute it. ... spin Feb 2014 #174

ah you seem to think science is another religiuon that accepts things "as gospel". Warren Stupidity Feb 2014 #186

I fear science may be becoming a form of a religion. ... spin Feb 2014 #188

your gish gallop here is commendable. Warren Stupidity Feb 2014 #189

Thanks. So is yours. (n/t) spin Feb 2014 #191

Nor is it evidence that there is no creator. ... spin Feb 2014 #173

a claim nobody here has made. Warren Stupidity Feb 2014 #187

That's your opinion and you are entitled to it. ... spin Feb 2014 #190

You quoted Carl Lordquinton Feb 2014 #194

In the post you're replying to (190) I said... spin Feb 2014 #196

Not a problem. SamKnause Feb 2014 #11

I don't think it's you he is saying needs to choose. cbayer Feb 2014 #15

I am well aware. SamKnause Feb 2014 #18

The "cooler heads"... MellowDem Feb 2014 #14

Sorry, MD. Lots of people do have their cake and eat it too. cbayer Feb 2014 #17

I know many people are comfortable... MellowDem Feb 2014 #21

Compartmentalization can be a very useful tool. cbayer Feb 2014 #23

It's a bad thing... MellowDem Feb 2014 #29

Do you have any data to back up that it is a "bad thing" or is that just part cbayer Feb 2014 #33

I have very good evidence... MellowDem Feb 2014 #60

So where is the evidence you speak of? cbayer Feb 2014 #69

Let's not call false beliefs hypothesis... MellowDem Feb 2014 #118

Sorry, you can't call something false unless you have some evidence that it is cbayer Feb 2014 #123

Oh, so you must mean that people who consider the existence skepticscott Feb 2014 #129

It depends on how god is defined... MellowDem Feb 2014 #140

You can't call something true without evidence either Lordquinton Feb 2014 #148

I agree and I equally reject the positions of those who claim to "know" cbayer Feb 2014 #151

"building cathedrals" really - no science there, just a minor adjunct to cathedral building. Warren Stupidity Feb 2014 #161

A cursory search on PBS shows at least 2 NOVA's and such devoted to cathedral building Heddi Feb 2014 #162

So you're claiming Inspiration is purely religious? Lordquinton Feb 2014 #169

Not claiming that at all, just saying that it sometimes is. cbayer Feb 2014 #170

I'm following your lead here Lordquinton Feb 2014 #176

I'm adamant that science is dull and emotionless? Not in the least. cbayer Feb 2014 #177

I'm reading you at face value here Lordquinton Feb 2014 #178

I would suggest you are reading me through your own filters. cbayer Feb 2014 #179

Why should it be made easier and more comfortable skepticscott Feb 2014 #39

How closed is your mind to Republican ideas, cbayer? trotsky Feb 2014 #67

One can consider an idea without accepting it. el_bryanto Feb 2014 #68

But that is not what cbayer is saying. trotsky Feb 2014 #72

Once Christians accept evolution, they have a big question: why did Jesus die and get resurrected? muriel_volestrangler Feb 2014 #27

I never believed in Adam abpnd Eve but have always believed in sin. hrmjustin Feb 2014 #28

Belief in the death of a person we now call Jesus, a pretty certain bet. Beachwood Feb 2014 #42

Well you can choose not to believe it. hrmjustin Feb 2014 #43

So just where and when and how were the laws of nature suspended ? Beachwood Feb 2014 #44

I believe he is the son of God. hrmjustin Feb 2014 #45

Science be damned, you have your beliefs to protect Beachwood Feb 2014 #47

Oh Lord! hrmjustin Feb 2014 #49

Lol, you have encountered a true beliver. rug Feb 2014 #64

Where did he go off to? We were just starting to have fun! cbayer Feb 2014 #74

I think I scared him. hrmjustin Feb 2014 #96

Entemology? Had to look that one up (and couldn't find it). cbayer Feb 2014 #52

He meant entomology. Clearly the study of insects flows naturally from a discussion of theology. rug Feb 2014 #65

Maybe he meant oenology. That would make more sense with the cbayer Feb 2014 #70

I think he already saturated himself in oenology. rug Feb 2014 #73

entOmology - the study of insects muriel_volestrangler Feb 2014 #75

I figured that is what he meant. I was just poking him. cbayer Feb 2014 #76

ah - I missed that they had edited (nt) muriel_volestrangler Feb 2014 #77

What is your view of orthography? rug Feb 2014 #66

Beachwood has a good point that everyone is avoiding: what about all the science religion negates? Brettongarcia Feb 2014 #133

Besides literal interpretation like creationism, what science doe religion negate? cbayer Feb 2014 #135

Two words to start the list of " what science doe religion negate?" Beachwood Feb 2014 #185

That doesn't negate science. cbayer Feb 2014 #200

Transubstantiation is not a foundational word of Christianity. hrmjustin Feb 2014 #201

Yes. Transubstantiation is an explanation, Fortinbras Armstrong Feb 2014 #211

Most physical "miracles" conflict with science. Liberals therefore often read them as metaphors. Brettongarcia Feb 2014 #197

You are unable to hold both concepts in your brain and don't believe in a god or cbayer Feb 2014 #50

Yes, some people can hold skepticscott Feb 2014 #54

Why do you perpetuate and reinforce such tired stereotypes, cbayer? trotsky Feb 2014 #71

Non sequitur. okasha Feb 2014 #195

The problem, as I see it, is that we teach our children faith before we teach them science Beachwood Feb 2014 #32

Because kids often start going to church before they start going to school. cbayer Feb 2014 #35

So you think it's okay to delay science until after learning about faith? Beachwood Feb 2014 #38

I didn't say that or anything remotely like that. cbayer Feb 2014 #46

Most likely because that's how they were taught it Prophet 451 Feb 2014 #59

NO. Leontius Feb 2014 #182

No, you don't agree? Why not? Beachwood Feb 2014 #184

Too timid an approach. Start them on astrophysics. rug Feb 2014 #192

It seems to me notemason Feb 2014 #40

How does "the other" (religion) actually have a "purpose" of Beachwood Feb 2014 #41

Why investigate on his own time when you are here to school him? cbayer Feb 2014 #53

I think that is not an unusual position in general and it makes good sense. cbayer Feb 2014 #48

I don't think one has to choose Prophet 451 Feb 2014 #57

That's his point. You don't have to choose. cbayer Feb 2014 #58

You are presupposing a truth... MellowDem Feb 2014 #61

When something is unanswerable... Prophet 451 Feb 2014 #63

We aren't forced to make something up... MellowDem Feb 2014 #119

Religion phil89 Feb 2014 #79

Some religion oppresses. Some religion liberates. cbayer Feb 2014 #84

So religions phil89 Feb 2014 #88

Different religions have very different takes on things. cbayer Feb 2014 #91

That's my point phil89 Feb 2014 #94

Why can't they all be right? cbayer Feb 2014 #100

because claims that are mutually contradictory cannot both be true. Warren Stupidity Feb 2014 #106

Already did. Evidence won. Tradition lost. Deep13 Feb 2014 #80

He's not directing it to you. cbayer Feb 2014 #86

I do believe in the unitary solution. Deep13 Feb 2014 #120

I think that when one speaks of something as concrete and definitive as weight, cbayer Feb 2014 #124

Religion and science can only both be right if Warren Stupidity Feb 2014 #132

Warren is correct Brettongarcia Feb 2014 #134

There is such evidence. Deep13 Feb 2014 #143

But your entire argument is based on there being some kind of interventional cbayer Feb 2014 #150

Well, that and selection by the environment. Deep13 Feb 2014 #165

Yes, that is correct. Those are the basic tenets of evolution. cbayer Feb 2014 #167

because no question of any sort is adequately answered by "have faith...." mike_c Feb 2014 #93

Oh, malarkey. cbayer Feb 2014 #97

That's not based on faith phil89 Feb 2014 #99

And religious believers feel they have reason to believe based cbayer Feb 2014 #101

Actually, I don't phil89 Feb 2014 #102

You may have indications that things are true. cbayer Feb 2014 #103

There you go again. trotsky Feb 2014 #104

it's the second time she's done it in this thread Heddi Feb 2014 #137

I don't get the black and white thinking. phil89 Feb 2014 #107

Wait, it seems that your reasoning is the black or white, reductive thinking here. cbayer Feb 2014 #108

There either is or is not a supernatural phil89 Feb 2014 #110

And do you know whether there is or is not? cbayer Feb 2014 #111

Again, your entire argument hinges upon your equivocation of the word "faith." trotsky Feb 2014 #112

Regarding the love argument... Act_of_Reparation Feb 2014 #113

I do not argue that we should strive to have faith, only that it cbayer Feb 2014 #114

This is so pointless... Act_of_Reparation Feb 2014 #125

You are right, it is pointless. cbayer Feb 2014 #126

Spare me your self-pitious sanctimony Act_of_Reparation Feb 2014 #127

Bravo! trotsky Feb 2014 #128

I think I'm in love Heddi Feb 2014 #138

I don't know whether there is or not phil89 Feb 2014 #115

And you are well within your rights to reject that claim personally, but cbayer Feb 2014 #117

You've brought up skepticscott Feb 2014 #130

Faith comes into marriage because you are getting married with the belief that it will work. Fortinbras Armstrong Feb 2014 #210

Nonsense. trotsky Feb 2014 #214

The only way my comment is "nonsense" is if you were to get married Fortinbras Armstrong Feb 2014 #228

It's nonsense and you just proved my point. trotsky Feb 2014 #230

You take one part of one sentence of what I wrote to respond to Fortinbras Armstrong Feb 2014 #232

They may change a lot, they may change a bit, they might not change much at all. trotsky Feb 2014 #235

"If you go into a marriage with the faith that your partner won't change, you're a fool." Fortinbras Armstrong Feb 2014 #236

So then, turns out you had nothing to say after all. trotsky Feb 2014 #238

"So then, turns out you had nothing to say after all." Fortinbras Armstrong Feb 2014 #239

Keep digging that hole. trotsky Feb 2014 #240

It is essentially what I claimed he said Fortinbras Armstrong Feb 2014 #243

And there's the proof that I'm right and you're wrong. trotsky Feb 2014 #244

It is interesting that you keep bleating that I misquoted him Fortinbras Armstrong Mar 2014 #247

Many have thought Science and Religion are incompatible, but both useful. So: compartmentalize Brettongarcia Feb 2014 #116

There is no need to make this a contest Gothmog Feb 2014 #159

That is the point the author is making actually. cbayer Feb 2014 #160

That is exactly the author's point. cbayer Feb 2014 #204

The misuse of the word "metaphor". Warren Stupidity Feb 2014 #168

Did people misunderstand the Bible - and the natural science buried beneath "solstice"? Brettongarcia Feb 2014 #198

Religion is the pretension of knowledge, not the pursuit of it, it provides easy answers, but not... Humanist_Activist Feb 2014 #202

If that was your experience, so be it. cbayer Feb 2014 #203

How do you define knowledge, cbayer? trotsky Feb 2014 #205

What religion only asks questions, and doesn't provide answers? I can think of none that don't... Humanist_Activist Feb 2014 #206

I've searched my post and can't find the word "only" anywhere in it. cbayer Feb 2014 #207

"The claims of religion are untestable by their very nature..." This, right here, is my point... Humanist_Activist Feb 2014 #208

Let's be accurate. You can derive no answers from such things. cbayer Feb 2014 #209

Why do you want to change the meaning of words to become meaningless? Humanist_Activist Feb 2014 #221

What word have I changed to meaningless? cbayer Feb 2014 #222

Uhm, those aren't knowledge, you may have knowledge of them, they exist, but they aren't... Humanist_Activist Feb 2014 #223

No, I have no idea what "we" are talking about. cbayer Feb 2014 #224

Your definitions of God are all over the place, some of them make me a theist, which is just silly. Humanist_Activist Feb 2014 #225

They should be all over the place, that's the point. cbayer Feb 2014 #226

A definition of knowledge which flies in the face of centuries of epistemological research? Act_of_Reparation Feb 2014 #231

You say Fortinbras Armstrong Feb 2014 #229

Is reality subjective in your world? I ask because you are basically arguing that words... Humanist_Activist Feb 2014 #233

YOU are the one who has an overly narrow definition of knowledge Fortinbras Armstrong Feb 2014 #237

Bullshit, straight up, unadulterated bullshit. You and him make belief equal knowledge... Humanist_Activist Feb 2014 #241

Translation: Humanist-Activist disagrees with me, but doesn't have a meaningful argument Fortinbras Armstrong Feb 2014 #242

Actually I have been asking for an example of knowledge gleaned from belief or faith... Humanist_Activist Feb 2014 #245

The claims of Religious "knowledge" DO seem FAR less certain than Science Brettongarcia Feb 2014 #212

The claims of religion are less certain by there very nature, but cbayer Feb 2014 #213

Generally "facts" are said to be objectively verifiable things. Brettongarcia Feb 2014 #215

OMG!! I made a typo, lol!!!!! cbayer Feb 2014 #216

At least you haven't claimed to be okasha Feb 2014 #217

Okasha: Time after time you've asked for facts. And I've furnished them - while you have not Brettongarcia Feb 2014 #219

Let's talk a minute about Exodus 4:4. okasha Feb 2014 #227

Learn to see generic similarities and larger patterns: Moses touches/grabs a snake is not related? Brettongarcia Feb 2014 #234

The only problem with your "facts" okasha Feb 2014 #246

When studying culture, Social Scientists look for larger patterns; major phenomena Brettongarcia Mar 2014 #248

What I am is someone who types very quickly and recklessly, but I am none of things cbayer Feb 2014 #220

"Facts" explicitly and by name, figure in both definitions of knowledge listed above. Brettongarcia Feb 2014 #218