Welcome to DU!
The truly grassroots left-of-center political community where regular people, not algorithms, drive the discussions and set the standards.
Join the community:
Create a free account
Support DU (and get rid of ads!):
Become a Star Member
Latest Breaking News
General Discussion
The DU Lounge
All Forums
Issue Forums
Culture Forums
Alliance Forums
Region Forums
Support Forums
Help & Search
Religion
In reply to the discussion: Why Science Can’t Replace Religion [View all]longship
(40,416 posts)54. Why "Why Science Can't Replace Religion" is a straw man.
It is a common and all too recognizable argument. Blaming science for transgressions on religion is all too familiar as well.
I don't care what the religious believe. As Jefferson wrote:
The rights of conscience we never submitted, we could not submit. We are answerable for them to our God. The legitimate powers of government extend to such acts only as are injurious to others. But it does me no injury for my neighbour to say there are twenty gods, or no god. It neither picks my pocket nor breaks my leg. ... Reason and free enquiry are the only effectual agents against error.
That last phrase is important. In it, Jefferson expresses the core of this so-called battle.
Science does not deliberately go about picking fights with religion. To portray that as part of this so called battle is yet another straw man. Most working scientists just ignore these issues. They focus on solving the problems in their domain, not what some religious people say. They almost universally ignore religion.
But religion somehow cannot keep from spewing some very unscientific rubbish, like Ken fucking Ham and his Creationism Museum, or the Texas State Board of Education, or Louisiana's attempt to turn its public school system into religious charter school creationism nightmare with texts written by Bob fucking Jones University, or the myriad of other bills being put forth across the country to deny education in science on strictly religious grounds.
That's why the awesome NCSE, PZ Myers, the SGU, the JREF, AU, CSI, and many other secular groups are fighting back against a cabal of religious nut cases who are overtly attempting to dismantle science education.
If the religious kooks succeed, the damage it would do to our country is immeasurable.
That is why scientists are finding themselves fighting back. If the religious nuts weren't doing what they are doing, the scientists would not have to be so vocal.
Note: I, like many, have no problem with religious people. It's the loonies who use their religious authority to spew rubbish like creationism and denial of climate science with whom I have a problem. With those people I have a huge problem.
Without the kooks spewing their anti-science, there would be no battle here. Scientists would remain in the labs and offices doing their science thing. And religious people would grow up respecting both their beliefs and the awesomeness of science.
Sorry. I am biased. But do not think that means I disrespect your beliefs. But if you think humans rode on top of vegetarian theropods, we have a real problem. If you think climate change is driven solely by natural phenomena, likewise.
It's not nice to fool Mother Nature. In science, she is the final arbiter.
Science is not attempting to replace religion no matter what anybody says. That is a straw man. Scientists just want the right to pursue their discipline without being enjoined by crap like Creationism and other garbage.
Thanks.
Rant off.
Edit history
Please sign in to view edit histories.
119 replies
= new reply since forum marked as read
Highlight:
NoneDon't highlight anything
5 newestHighlight 5 most recent replies
RecommendedHighlight replies with 5 or more recommendations
Is this a fight between believers and non believers? People who are firm in their beliefs do not
upaloopa
Aug 2012
#1
Religion throughout history attempted to explain the unexplainable until science explained it.
Lint Head
Aug 2012
#10
Your link takes me to Discover Magazine, but I get: Error 404 - Not Found - once there.
Jim__
Aug 2012
#11
How does mathematics, neurology, population genetics and behavioral science explain morality?
rug
Aug 2012
#20
If it's simply behavioral, and the result of . . . whatever, then it's not morality.
rug
Aug 2012
#28
Of all the things that can be known, I would suggest that we know a minuscule amount.
cbayer
Aug 2012
#22
Because science doesn't promise you'll go to heaven if you believe in it and give it money?
truebrit71
Aug 2012
#27
"For those who cannot follow the mathematics, belief in the Higgs is an act of faith, ...
Jim__
Aug 2012
#37
No, belief in the Higgs boson is not the same as belief in Brunei or tsetse flies.
Jim__
Aug 2012
#85
Believing in the Higgs boson is fundamentally different than believing in electrons because ...
Jim__
Aug 2012
#96
No, actually I didn't just make up the fact that just about anyone can run an equivalent ...
Jim__
Aug 2012
#116
For those who cannot follow the mathematics, belief in the Higgs is an act of faith *in science*.
enki23
Aug 2012
#78
The article suggests religion has been around for a long time, won't go away. It's like
dimbear
Aug 2012
#50
You can understand that religion has emotional power without believing any of the dumbshit tenets
Nay
Aug 2012
#53
As Einstein said, "Science without religion is lame, religion without science is blind."
SarahM32
Aug 2012
#73
Oh for fuck's sake. Science is constantly replacing religion as an understanding of the world
enki23
Aug 2012
#76
My position is that despite all that science has taught us, we know only the most
cbayer
Aug 2012
#79
Science is the process by which we encroach ever further into the former provinces of of the divine.
enki23
Aug 2012
#81
Well, it's great to know that someone around here has the definitive and final answers
cbayer
Aug 2012
#82
"rational explanation...can't match the feeling evoked by...religious symbolism"
PassingFair
Aug 2012
#90