Post Reply
Page 3 of 20  •  Prev 1 2 3 4 5 6 ... 20 Next
Switch to Forum Live View Scientific Illiteracy in America
5 years ago  ::  Aug 15, 2009 - 8:12PM #21
intel
Posts: 2,767

Aug 15, 2009 -- 3:03PM, steven_guy wrote:


Aug 15, 2009 -- 2:53PM, teilhard wrote:


Aug 15, 2009 -- 2:49PM, steven_guy wrote:


Aug 15, 2009 -- 2:41PM, teilhard wrote:


Aug 14, 2009 -- 12:31AM, F1fan wrote:


Aug 13, 2009 -- 2:29PM, teilhard wrote:


In the latest Issue of "Science"


( vol. 325, pp. 678-679, 7 August, 2009 )


there is a Review of a new Book,


"Unscientific America: How Scientific Illiteracy Threatens Our Future,"


by Chris Mooney and Sheril Kirshenbaum


( 2009, Basic Books ) ...


This disconnect could be fixed, say the authors,


if scientists would just keep quiet about their atheism


and if universities would train a new generation of scientists in public outreach ... "




Hmm, I wonder if they give any advice to theists who should keep quiet about science.  Since much of the criticisms of theism and religious belief is a direct response to fundamentalist beliefs and lies about science, it should be those theists on which the blame is heaped.


There are many scientists who accommodate religious belief with no need to distort science.  The problem is theists who cannot and will not accommodate science.




In PART, yes ...


 


Narrowly rigid Guys like Philip Johnson, ( The Late ) Jerry Falwell,


Rick Dawkins, et al.


ALL contribute to The PROBLEM ..




Falwell, certainly, but professor Dawkins is exactly the opposite of Falwellm and he has done an enormous job of promoting science and scientific understandings of issues. You'd know that if ever read any of his books.




Ironicaly,


BOTH Imagine(d)


that they were doing a SUPERB Job


of teaching REAL Science,


but BOTH fall/fell FLAT-FLAT-FLAT


by WRONGLY teaching an In-Compatibility


of The Natural Sciences and Religious Faith ...




Richard Dawkins is a real scientist and a very compassionate, ethical and decent human being. He is a great thinker and has made a significant contribution to discussions on a range of subjects in both educational institutions and in public. His books have informed, educated and raised the consciousnesses of millions of people in various areas. Richard Dawkins is a humanist and a humanitarian - these qualities come through in all his written works.


Jerry Falwell was a crazed bigot. His ideas and beliefs were on a par with those of the Taliban. He did a great deal of damage to the reputation of Christianity througout the world.


The natural sciences, over the last few centuries, have slowly but surely marginalised theists' concepts of god. That is a fact.




Jerry Falwell damaged the reputation of Christianity to non Christians.


Richard Dawkins damaged the rep (perceived benefit) of science to non-scientists.


Both have marginalised people who would otherwise no be opposed to either subject.

I would love for people to know what I know.  I'm just not certain if I would like them to find out how I found out.

intel
Quick Reply
Cancel
5 years ago  ::  Aug 15, 2009 - 8:54PM #22
F1fan
Posts: 11,749

Aug 15, 2009 -- 8:12PM, intel wrote:


Jerry Falwell damaged the reputation of Christianity to non Christians.



Only in the sense that Falwell claimed to speak to the absolute moral issues for all Christians.  But even some Christians thought poorly of him.  So something was wrong somehow.


Richard Dawkins damaged the rep (perceived benefit) of science to non-scientists.



I'm a non-scientist, and he didn't damage the rep of science to me.  What I suspect you mean here is that Dawkins' criticisms of religion gave some theists a reason to justify their bias against science since Dawkins is a scientist.


Both have marginalised people who would otherwise no be opposed to either subject.




The difference is that Dawkins has valid claims and valid arguments.  Falwell never did.

Quick Reply
Cancel
5 years ago  ::  Aug 15, 2009 - 9:17PM #23
intel
Posts: 2,767

I'm a non-scientist, and he didn't damage the rep of science to me.  What I suspect you mean here is that Dawkins' criticisms of religion gave some theists a reason to justify their bias against science since Dawkins is a scientist.


 


You could say that his criticisms did that.  But a more insightful way to put it might be that his criticisms (and those of others) made some theists feel that they have to choose between scientific research and their way of life.  Which, if unnecessary, is not the best move.

I would love for people to know what I know.  I'm just not certain if I would like them to find out how I found out.

intel
Quick Reply
Cancel
5 years ago  ::  Aug 15, 2009 - 9:20PM #24
F1fan
Posts: 11,749

Aug 15, 2009 -- 9:17PM, intel wrote:


You could say that his criticisms did that.  But a more insightful way to put it might be that his criticisms (and those of others) made some theists feel that they have to choose between scientific research and their way of life.  Which, if unnecessary, is not the best move.




If some theists are so insecure and unsophisticated in their faith, then they simply don't have the intellectual chops to make sense of science anyway.  The ignorant tend to stay ignorant because they don't recognize how little they know.  And for the record, belief is not knowledge.

Quick Reply
Cancel
5 years ago  ::  Aug 16, 2009 - 8:23PM #25
teilhard
Posts: 51,523

Aug 15, 2009 -- 9:20PM, F1fan wrote:


Aug 15, 2009 -- 9:17PM, intel wrote:


You could say that his criticisms did that.  But a more insightful way to put it might be that his criticisms (and those of others) made some theists feel that they have to choose between scientific research and their way of life.  Which, if unnecessary, is not the best move.




If some theists are so insecure and unsophisticated in their faith, then they simply don't have the intellectual chops to make sense of science anyway.  The ignorant tend to stay ignorant because they don't recognize how little they know.  And for the record, belief is not knowledge.




 


I agree


that "fear" of The Truth


is NOT a helpful Stance


in Truth-seeking ...

Quick Reply
Cancel
5 years ago  ::  Aug 16, 2009 - 8:25PM #26
teilhard
Posts: 51,523

Aug 15, 2009 -- 8:12PM, intel wrote:


Aug 15, 2009 -- 3:03PM, steven_guy wrote:


Aug 15, 2009 -- 2:53PM, teilhard wrote:


Aug 15, 2009 -- 2:49PM, steven_guy wrote:


Aug 15, 2009 -- 2:41PM, teilhard wrote:


Aug 14, 2009 -- 12:31AM, F1fan wrote:


Aug 13, 2009 -- 2:29PM, teilhard wrote:


In the latest Issue of "Science"


( vol. 325, pp. 678-679, 7 August, 2009 )


there is a Review of a new Book,


"Unscientific America: How Scientific Illiteracy Threatens Our Future,"


by Chris Mooney and Sheril Kirshenbaum


( 2009, Basic Books ) ...


This disconnect could be fixed, say the authors,


if scientists would just keep quiet about their atheism


and if universities would train a new generation of scientists in public outreach ... "




Hmm, I wonder if they give any advice to theists who should keep quiet about science.  Since much of the criticisms of theism and religious belief is a direct response to fundamentalist beliefs and lies about science, it should be those theists on which the blame is heaped.


There are many scientists who accommodate religious belief with no need to distort science.  The problem is theists who cannot and will not accommodate science.




In PART, yes ...


 


Narrowly rigid Guys like Philip Johnson, ( The Late ) Jerry Falwell,


Rick Dawkins, et al.


ALL contribute to The PROBLEM ..






Ironicaly,


BOTH Imagine(d)


that they were doing a SUPERB Job


of teaching REAL Science,


but BOTH fall/fell FLAT-FLAT-FLAT


by WRONGLY teaching an In-Compatibility


of The Natural Sciences and Religious Faith ...






Jerry Falwell damaged the reputation of Christianity to non Christians.


Richard Dawkins damaged the rep (perceived benefit) of science to non-scientists.


Both have marginalised people who would otherwise no be opposed to either subject.




 


I agree ...


It has LONG been my Observation


that there is NO Conflict


between GOOD Science


and GENUINE Faith ...

Quick Reply
Cancel
5 years ago  ::  Aug 16, 2009 - 11:01PM #27
Jcarlinbn
Posts: 7,074

Aug 13, 2009 -- 2:29PM, teilhard wrote:

science writers Chris Mooney and Sheril Kirshenbaum argue


that America's future is deeply endangered by the scientific illiteracy of its citizens



The scientific illiteracy of American citizens is a self correcting problem.  Scientific illiterates will not be able to compete in a modern technological society and will follow in the fossil footsteps of other non-compteitive species. This is known as bad luck.   


More on The Blue Roads of Thinking


 

Jcarlinbn, community moderator
Quick Reply
Cancel
5 years ago  ::  Aug 17, 2009 - 2:56AM #28
steven_guy
Posts: 11,751

Aug 16, 2009 -- 8:25PM, teilhard wrote:


Aug 15, 2009 -- 8:12PM, intel wrote:


Aug 15, 2009 -- 3:03PM, steven_guy wrote:


Aug 15, 2009 -- 2:53PM, teilhard wrote:


Aug 15, 2009 -- 2:49PM, steven_guy wrote:


Aug 15, 2009 -- 2:41PM, teilhard wrote:


Aug 14, 2009 -- 12:31AM, F1fan wrote:


Aug 13, 2009 -- 2:29PM, teilhard wrote:


In the latest Issue of "Science"


( vol. 325, pp. 678-679, 7 August, 2009 )


there is a Review of a new Book,


"Unscientific America: How Scientific Illiteracy Threatens Our Future,"


by Chris Mooney and Sheril Kirshenbaum


( 2009, Basic Books ) ...


This disconnect could be fixed, say the authors,


if scientists would just keep quiet about their atheism


and if universities would train a new generation of scientists in public outreach ... "




Hmm, I wonder if they give any advice to theists who should keep quiet about science.  Since much of the criticisms of theism and religious belief is a direct response to fundamentalist beliefs and lies about science, it should be those theists on which the blame is heaped.


There are many scientists who accommodate religious belief with no need to distort science.  The problem is theists who cannot and will not accommodate science.




In PART, yes ...


 


Narrowly rigid Guys like Philip Johnson, ( The Late ) Jerry Falwell,


Rick Dawkins, et al.


ALL contribute to The PROBLEM ..






Ironicaly,


BOTH Imagine(d)


that they were doing a SUPERB Job


of teaching REAL Science,


but BOTH fall/fell FLAT-FLAT-FLAT


by WRONGLY teaching an In-Compatibility


of The Natural Sciences and Religious Faith ...






Jerry Falwell damaged the reputation of Christianity to non Christians.


Richard Dawkins damaged the rep (perceived benefit) of science to non-scientists.


Both have marginalised people who would otherwise no be opposed to either subject.




 


I agree ...


It has LONG been my Observation


that there is NO Conflict


between GOOD Science


and GENUINE Faith ...





You're observation is wrong or highly coloured by your prejudices.


Science damages theology. It has done so for several centuries. 

Quick Reply
Cancel
5 years ago  ::  Aug 17, 2009 - 7:45PM #29
teilhard
Posts: 51,523

Aug 16, 2009 -- 11:01PM, Jcarlinbn wrote:


Aug 13, 2009 -- 2:29PM, teilhard wrote:

science writers Chris Mooney and Sheril Kirshenbaum argue


that America's future is deeply endangered by the scientific illiteracy of its citizens



The scientific illiteracy of American citizens is a self correcting problem.  Scientific illiterates will not be able to compete in a modern technological society and will follow in the fossil footsteps of other non-compteitive species. This is known as bad luck.   


More on The Blue Roads of Thinking


 



Yes ... "Ideas"


DO have Real-Life Consequences ...


 


"Foolishness"


comes in MANY Brands


( see: Psalm 14:1ff ) ....

Quick Reply
Cancel
5 years ago  ::  Aug 17, 2009 - 7:46PM #30
teilhard
Posts: 51,523

Aug 17, 2009 -- 2:56AM, steven_guy wrote:


Aug 16, 2009 -- 8:25PM, teilhard wrote:


Aug 15, 2009 -- 8:12PM, intel wrote:


Aug 15, 2009 -- 3:03PM, steven_guy wrote:


Aug 15, 2009 -- 2:53PM, teilhard wrote:


Aug 15, 2009 -- 2:49PM, steven_guy wrote:


Aug 15, 2009 -- 2:41PM, teilhard wrote:


Aug 14, 2009 -- 12:31AM, F1fan wrote:


Aug 13, 2009 -- 2:29PM, teilhard wrote:


In the latest Issue of "Science"


( vol. 325, pp. 678-679, 7 August, 2009 )


there is a Review of a new Book,


"Unscientific America: How Scientific Illiteracy Threatens Our Future,"


by Chris Mooney and Sheril Kirshenbaum


( 2009, Basic Books ) ...


This disconnect could be fixed, say the authors,


if scientists would just keep quiet about their atheism


and if universities would train a new generation of scientists in public outreach ... "




Hmm, I wonder if they give any advice to theists who should keep quiet about science.  Since much of the criticisms of theism and religious belief is a direct response to fundamentalist beliefs and lies about science, it should be those theists on which the blame is heaped.


There are many scientists who accommodate religious belief with no need to distort science.  The problem is theists who cannot and will not accommodate science.




In PART, yes ...


 


Narrowly rigid Guys like Philip Johnson, ( The Late ) Jerry Falwell,


Rick Dawkins, et al.


ALL contribute to The PROBLEM ..






Ironicaly,


BOTH Imagine(d)


that they were doing a SUPERB Job


of teaching REAL Science,


but BOTH fall/fell FLAT-FLAT-FLAT


by WRONGLY teaching an In-Compatibility


of The Natural Sciences and Religious Faith ...






Jerry Falwell damaged the reputation of Christianity to non Christians.


Richard Dawkins damaged the rep (perceived benefit) of science to non-scientists.


Both have marginalised people who would otherwise no be opposed to either subject.




 


I agree ...


It has LONG been my Observation


that there is NO Conflict


between GOOD Science


and GENUINE Faith ...





You're observation is wrong or highly coloured by your prejudices.


Science damages theology. It has done so for several centuries. 




 


My own ( thus far ) LIFE-Long Devotion


to The Natural Sciences


hasn't "damaged" MY  Theology in ANY Respect ...

Quick Reply
Cancel
Page 3 of 20  •  Prev 1 2 3 4 5 6 ... 20 Next
 
    Viewing this thread :: 0 registered and 1 guest
    No registered users viewing
    Advertisement

    Beliefnet On Facebook