Religion

Cary

(11,746 posts)

35. What data?

Mon Jul 23, 2012, 01:57 PM

Jul 2012

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?

Edit history

Please sign in to view edit histories.

Recommendations

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

155 replies

= new reply since forum marked as read

Highlight:

Science and Religion Need to Take Each Other Seriously [View all] cbayer Jul 2012 OP

I don't agree. Science does NOT have to take religion seriously. Religion has never had to open still_one Jul 2012 #1

Are you just responding to the headline or the article itself? cbayer Jul 2012 #3

Didn't read the full link, but what I read, it discusses civility, which is fine, but I still stand still_one Jul 2012 #5

There's not much more if you click the link. Cary Jul 2012 #7

Why, exactly, do scientists need to take religionists seriously? Cary Jul 2012 #2

You also seem to be responding to the headline and not the article. cbayer Jul 2012 #4

As best as I can tell the author is claiming that scientists should respect religionists because Cary Jul 2012 #6

That's not what it says. cbayer Jul 2012 #9

I think there is a place in science to try to understand why some people don't accept Cary Jul 2012 #13

Because just dismissing them as psych cases or animals who could be studied is weak cbayer Jul 2012 #16

That's a leap. Cary Jul 2012 #19

Is your question, "Why should science and religion take each other seriously"? cbayer Jul 2012 #20

No. Cary Jul 2012 #24

Again, taken from your perspective, the answer would be that scientists don't need to cbayer Jul 2012 #25

What data? Cary Jul 2012 #35

You also seem to be responding to the headline and not the article. AlbertCat Jul 2012 #74

You can assume that, but a lot, perhaps way too many, take them very seriously. cbayer Jul 2012 #75

perhaps way too many, take them very seriously. AlbertCat Jul 2012 #79

Religious people are not children and scientists are not all adults in many ways. cbayer Jul 2012 #82

No Confusious Jul 2012 #8

This is a site primarily for millenials and, at least in this case, cbayer Jul 2012 #12

Youth does not equal smart Confusious Jul 2012 #37

Religion has also led to discovery, including evolution. cbayer Jul 2012 #38

It's hositility Confusious Jul 2012 #43

I don't blame science for anything. I love science. cbayer Jul 2012 #44

please, name the part science Confusious Jul 2012 #46

I'm not here to win the game, Confusious. cbayer Jul 2012 #49

And if we want to end world hunger, we just have to feed everybody Scootaloo Jul 2012 #60

Ah, did you have to put up my super secret boyfriend, NDT? cbayer Jul 2012 #62

Oh HELL no Scootaloo Jul 2012 #65

Ha! I'll pray that you lose, lol!! cbayer Jul 2012 #68

Religion has also led to discovery, including evolution. AlbertCat Jul 2012 #80

If anything... rexcat Jul 2012 #122

Mendacity? cbayer Jul 2012 #124

Your comment... rexcat Jul 2012 #137

Darwin was raised as a Unitarian RainDog Jul 2012 #145

This message was self-deleted by its author cbayer Jul 2012 #147

Millenial here, and i'm seconding the "no" Scootaloo Jul 2012 #51

I don't think there is any plea for you to take their beliefs seriously, just cbayer Jul 2012 #52

Sure they have the right to be offended Scootaloo Jul 2012 #58

Again, we seem to be at the team sport part of this kind of debate where there must cbayer Jul 2012 #61

Sure they can co-exist Scootaloo Jul 2012 #63

Agree. Melding is not an option, but co-existence might be achievable. cbayer Jul 2012 #69

but they're far removed from one another, AlbertCat Jul 2012 #84

So, shoo religion the hell away from science Scootaloo Jul 2012 #102

and hear why they believe what they do. AlbertCat Jul 2012 #81

"The two had better learn to get along." pinto Jul 2012 #64

Sir, if you don't mind, I'd like you to elaborate on the great detriment science... deucemagnet Jul 2012 #123

If I might offer one or two? On edit - three. cbayer Jul 2012 #125

And it was scientists who dropped the bomb? deucemagnet Jul 2012 #127

Correct, but scintists developed them clearly. cbayer Jul 2012 #129

Yet no scientist has taken up sword and shield, deucemagnet Jul 2012 #130

more interest in building bridges than burning them AlbertCat Jul 2012 #76

Ignore them at our own peril. Look where it got us the last 10 years. cbayer Jul 2012 #77

Ignore them at our own peril AlbertCat Jul 2012 #86

Both Evolution and Creationism are Wrong hzcummi Jul 2012 #10

Right. Cary Jul 2012 #15

Welcome to DU! rrneck Jul 2012 #21

C'mon kumbaya fans - listen to this respectfully and begin your dialog ^^ dmallind Jul 2012 #23

Poe's Law.... n/t xocet Jul 2012 #29

He's been doing this for at least 5 years muriel_volestrangler Jul 2012 #100

complete and utter nonsense. bowens43 Jul 2012 #54

Personally, science does not have to take religious belief seriously. rexcat Jul 2012 #11

Does taking something seriously rrneck Jul 2012 #14

You don't need more coffee. As you often do, you have made some interesting points. cbayer Jul 2012 #17

I am conflicted about this article longship Jul 2012 #18

I think there is value in trying to understand why someone would hold something cbayer Jul 2012 #22

Definition of truth? longship Jul 2012 #30

I realize that my experience is greatly skewed by having been raised in some cbayer Jul 2012 #31

You are now preaching to the choir, so to speak. longship Jul 2012 #33

trying to understand why someone would hold something true that has been scientifically proven. AlbertCat Jul 2012 #88

Perhaps parents tell their children stories and present them as facts. PassingFair Jul 2012 #148

Religious Belief Interferes with understanding evolution RainDog Jul 2012 #149

No - we do need a dialogue between theists and atheists Taverner Jul 2012 #26

Sure it does, otherwise there would be no theories or hypotheses. cbayer Jul 2012 #27

Theories and hypotheses are based on evidence. nt Confusious Jul 2012 #45

I am responding to this statement: cbayer Jul 2012 #47

I know what you were responding to Confusious Jul 2012 #53

Point taken. cbayer Jul 2012 #55

Right... xocet Jul 2012 #28

So they really do not want a meaningful discussion longship Jul 2012 #36

You're welcome.... xocet Jul 2012 #57

Damn! This has been a good thread. longship Jul 2012 #71

I can understand your objection to their opening statement. cbayer Jul 2012 #40

They too would object if the roles were reversed. xocet Jul 2012 #70

You just presented a great argument that supports exactly what you are saying. cbayer Jul 2012 #73

Maybe... xocet Jul 2012 #133

The use of "Darwinism" and "Evolutionism" RainDog Jul 2012 #150

Ridicule is not a tool of science, that's why. rug Jul 2012 #32

Science is insightful in order to understand religion. Democracyinkind Jul 2012 #34

Too broad brush. The organization discussed in this article refutes your premise. cbayer Jul 2012 #39

How? dmallind Jul 2012 #41

They are promoting evolution as not inconsistent with religious beliefs. cbayer Jul 2012 #42

No it does not dmallind Jul 2012 #56

I take it, then, that you will not be a part of the conversation. cbayer Jul 2012 #59

I'm sure you are. Cary Jul 2012 #66

You, like many others, make an incorrect assumption about my *faith* or lack thereof, but cbayer Jul 2012 #72

Except for the fact that I have made no assumption about your faith Cary Jul 2012 #109

What is my faith? cbayer Jul 2012 #111

Didn't I just say that I didn't care? Cary Jul 2012 #113

I've answered it to the best of my ability. Sorry. cbayer Jul 2012 #115

So your best answer is that scientists need to take religionists seriously because there are Cary Jul 2012 #142

I think your exchange reinforces the point I made. Democracyinkind Jul 2012 #151

I agree with you, of course Cary Jul 2012 #154

Some other religions viewed this god as a lesser god in the pantheon RainDog Jul 2012 #155

I'd love to hear what they have actually added to understanding yes dmallind Jul 2012 #67

That pretty much hit the nail on the head skepticscott Jul 2012 #139

Look at where the 'conversation' is stuck: were Adam and Eve a real couple? muriel_volestrangler Jul 2012 #103

No one said it would be easy, lol. cbayer Jul 2012 #104

What exactly does this mean: trotsky Jul 2012 #141

Science entirely upends fundamentalist religion RainDog Jul 2012 #143

They are promoting evolution as not inconsistent with religious beliefs. AlbertCat Jul 2012 #91

Even if it where consistent Democracyinkind Jul 2012 #152

which particular religion should be taken seriously? rurallib Jul 2012 #48

Great quote by the incomparable Twain. cbayer Jul 2012 #50

This was one of my very first insights 99th_Monkey Jul 2012 #78

This made me smile. cbayer Jul 2012 #83

Ha...the scientist part of me wants even less to do with religionistas than the atheist part. Evoman Jul 2012 #85

Have I ever read any scientific journals? Are you posing this question cbayer Jul 2012 #87

It's more a general outburst to religious people. But if you like, you can answer the question. Evoman Jul 2012 #89

I have read, oh I'd say, 7 or 8 cbayer Jul 2012 #93

And what is your scientific expertise... rexcat Jul 2012 #95

I have been extensively involved in the peer review process, though I am no longer involved. cbayer Jul 2012 #96

Just asking... rexcat Jul 2012 #97

That's because I have not shared it. I learned the hard way that it's a mistake cbayer Jul 2012 #98

This message was self-deleted by its author rexcat Jul 2012 #108

Are there that many journals out there? Ha.....I used to follow only about 9 or 10, and then Evoman Jul 2012 #112

You wouldn't believe how many there are. cbayer Jul 2012 #116

I've taught a lot, but mostly people who wanted to learn. Evoman Jul 2012 #119

What method do you use to discern the good from the crap in the bible? Evoman Jul 2012 #117

Another glaring difference between science and religion. cbayer Jul 2012 #120

Actually, the bible is subject to paleology, just as with any other old text RainDog Jul 2012 #153

What guys? rug Jul 2012 #101

Vatican observatory: dimbear Jul 2012 #90

Vatican observatory: AlbertCat Jul 2012 #92

It's my nature to side with the underdog, and in fact religion hasn't done exactly nothing. dimbear Jul 2012 #94

That explains why it is hard to pin you down, dimbear! cbayer Jul 2012 #99

I also tend to root for the underdog. AlbertCat Jul 2012 #128

Within the confines of this thread religion is having a hard time. n/t dimbear Jul 2012 #136

Why would he feel like scientists 'talk down' to Christians? Tikki Jul 2012 #105

Well, we could start with things like "magical sky demon" and "delusional". cbayer Jul 2012 #107

Which scientist said that? Just curious? Tikki Jul 2012 #114

No, its like some responses in this thread and other thread like it. cbayer Jul 2012 #118

How about scientists and religionistas skepticscott Jul 2012 #140

Some scientists are sick of religions that undermine reality RainDog Jul 2012 #144

We do often talk down to them. Sometimes it can't be helped....when you know so much, Evoman Jul 2012 #121

"to acquiesce to the authority of modern scientists" xfundy Jul 2012 #106

I hope you will check back in. This has been a fun thread and you have cbayer Jul 2012 #110

Wrong. Science is under no obligation to take mythology of any kind into consideration. kestrel91316 Jul 2012 #126

Tell it to Schliemann. rug Jul 2012 #134

I do take religion seriously. A lot. 2ndAmForComputers Jul 2012 #131

well lowell is a real optimist is`t he... madrchsod Jul 2012 #132

It might help skepticscott Jul 2012 #146

Apples and Oranges BlueinOhio Jul 2012 #135

Er, BioLogos is NOT a community of scientists. They're a community of Xians stopbush Jul 2012 #138