Post Reply
Page 4 of 15  •  Prev 1 2 3 4 5 6 ... 15 Next
Switch to Forum Live View Why bother with evolution?
3 years ago  ::  Feb 06, 2011 - 12:35PM #31
mountain_man
Posts: 38,740

Feb 6, 2011 -- 12:24PM, mytmouse57 wrote:

The flip-side is, you haven't any right to force your atheism in public schools either. ....


That's a pretty silly argument since no one is saying anything about Atheism. Please try to keep up with the discussion. This thread is about evolution, not Atheism or Atheists. Evolution is about biology and science. Atheism is a single position on a single issue. Trying to equate evolution with Atheism is a fools game.

Dave - Just a Man in the Mountains.

I am a Humanist. I believe in a rational philosophy of life, informed by science, inspired by art, and motivated by a desire to do good for its own sake and not by an expectation of a reward or fear of punishment in an afterlife.
Quick Reply
Cancel
3 years ago  ::  Feb 06, 2011 - 12:40PM #32
mecdukebec
Posts: 14,452

Feb 6, 2011 -- 12:17PM, MMarcoe wrote:


There should be an executive order coming from the president that requires the teaching of evolution in both public and private schools. Not that that will likely happen.

But as our nation continues its slide downward, I have faith that we will see the error of our ways and revitalize our science teaching. 




Good God, I do hope that you're right, but given the wingnuts who believe that the President is either a "Mooslim" or was born in Kenya, Hawai'i (!), or Indonesia, or some other "Mooslim" place, and the wingnuts who shoot people because Glenn Beck was praying and told them to, and the Theocons who stll think that Iraq will be a future HQ of Southern Baptist-style Christianity in the Middle East, I am not sure that science will have much of a chance in the future. 

*******

"Wesley told the early Methodists to gain all they could and save all they could so that they could give all they could. It means that I consider my money to belong to God and I see myself as one of the hungry people who needs to get fed with God’s money. If I really have put all my trust in Jesus Christ as savior and Lord, then nothing I have is really my own anymore."
Quick Reply
Cancel
3 years ago  ::  Feb 06, 2011 - 1:34PM #33
Christianlib
Posts: 21,848
You know, any adult standing in a science classroom and NOT teaching evolution is not a "science teacher."

He/she may be a lot of things, but a teacher of science is not one of them.
Democrats think the glass is half full.
Republicans think the glass is theirs.
Libertarians want to break the glass, because they think a conspiracy created it.
Quick Reply
Cancel
3 years ago  ::  Feb 06, 2011 - 2:39PM #34
Faustus5
Posts: 2,022

Feb 6, 2011 -- 12:21PM, mytmouse57 wrote:

That you and Tyson have a weed up your arse about religion is your problem.


Ah, so for you, being philosophically and scientifically literate about the epistemological differences between scientific and religious ways of knowing is having a "weed up your arse".  Got it.  Ignorance is bliss.

Feb 6, 2011 -- 12:21PM, mytmouse57 wrote:

That statement, and yours, represent a deep and fundamental misunderstanding of true religious faith. . .


There is no such thing as "true" religious faith.  There's just and only what people say and do when they claim to be influenced or acting on their faith based beliefs, nothing more. You don't speak for anyone but yourself.

But, since we live in a world where a solid majority of people who believe in religion consider it a requirement that they must believe in various forms of supernatural entities or forces which are either unsupported, unsupportable, or contradicted by science, then it is an accurate generalization to say that there is a definite conflict between religion and science.

Feb 6, 2011 -- 12:21PM, mytmouse57 wrote:

I've never seen any conflict. And, in fact, one of the central teachings of the relgion I adhere to is the essential harmony between science and religion.


Your approach to religion may not require faith, may not require belief in supernatural forces. Good for you, then, but you are the exception, not the rule.

Quick Reply
Cancel
3 years ago  ::  Feb 06, 2011 - 2:47PM #35
Faustus5
Posts: 2,022

Feb 6, 2011 -- 12:21PM, costrel wrote:

 These myths -- including the literary one by Tolkien -- do explain why we die (yet they obviously cannot be harmonized into one systematic and integral whole), though they provide adequate answers only for a small section of the population that accepts one of these myths as true according to the literal or the spiritual sense (the latter which the Catholic Church subdivides into allegorical, moral, and anagogical senses), and are relatively useless for providing adequate answers for the human population at large. 




Exactly!  That why my as yet unmatched challenge that I often issue to the folks who believe this pablum about science=how, religion=why is to do this:

Give me one single plainly intelligible "Why?" question that religion has answered that people find universally plausible and acceptable, the way they tend to find "How?" questions answered by science acceptable.

Can't be done, I say. And there is a reason for that.

Quick Reply
Cancel
3 years ago  ::  Feb 06, 2011 - 2:52PM #36
vra
Posts: 6,396
Let me just mention that Buddhism has long taught that there's been an evolutionary process (minus the specifics) with the dharma that "everything changes-- nothing stays the same".  Hinduism and Judaism also don't have a problem with it.
Quick Reply
Cancel
3 years ago  ::  Feb 06, 2011 - 2:53PM #37
newsjunkie
Posts: 5,741
From what I can tell, science and religion are irreconcilable. Many religions accept scientific thinking up to a point, but then require certain things to be accepted on faith even if they are inconsistent with or even entirely lack empirical evidence. Religion is typically also not amenable to having its claims subjected to scientific testing, where possible, and disallowing scientific testing of testable things is not in harmony with science. Fewer religions make no such demands of taking things on faith, but AFAIK they do believe that mysticism is another valid way to obtain information or find truth. Science doesn't. If a religion relies on mysticism (or you can call it personal insight or the insight of others) to explain things, it's not consistent, or in harmony, with science. I can't think of a religion that doesn't either accept mysticism or require belief based on faith, or both. A religion may seem to be in "harmony" with science because it accepts the scientific way of knowing, but if it also accepts other ways of knowing, I would say it is not in harmony with science, because that's not how science is done. Also, if the religion makes any claims about the existence of an afterlife or reincarnation, it is not in harmony with science. 

Now, a person can change his mindset and use the scientific mindset at times, or he can use mystical or religious ways of knowing at other times. But that's not harmony. That's singing different tunes at different times. For me, it just leads to cognitive dissonance, but perhaps others are not so affected.
Quick Reply
Cancel
3 years ago  ::  Feb 06, 2011 - 3:53PM #38
Christianlib
Posts: 21,848
From what I can tell, science and religion are irreconcilable.

Nope.  The fact that SOME people on either side of the question can't reconcile them does not make it impossible.  I know plenty of folks who do so just fine.
Democrats think the glass is half full.
Republicans think the glass is theirs.
Libertarians want to break the glass, because they think a conspiracy created it.
Quick Reply
Cancel
3 years ago  ::  Feb 06, 2011 - 4:09PM #39
Faustus5
Posts: 2,022

Feb 6, 2011 -- 3:53PM, Christianlib wrote:

From what I can tell, science and religion are irreconcilable.

Nope.  The fact that SOME people on either side of the question can't reconcile them does not make it impossible.  I know plenty of folks who do so just fine.




Let us know when a single one of them can sensibly articulate a single example.

Quick Reply
Cancel
3 years ago  ::  Feb 06, 2011 - 4:20PM #40
Christianlib
Posts: 21,848

Feb 6, 2011 -- 4:09PM, Faustus5 wrote:

Feb 6, 2011 -- 3:53PM, Christianlib wrote:

From what I can tell, science and religion are irreconcilable.

Nope.  The fact that SOME people on either side of the question can't reconcile them does not make it impossible.  I know plenty of folks who do so just fine.




Let us know when a single one of them can sensibly articulate a single example.


A "single example" of what?


 


And, since you set yourself up as the "judge", all you will have to say is something like, "I don't think that qualifies", and you hand wave away any belief.


I find not conflict.  Sorry if you do.

Democrats think the glass is half full.
Republicans think the glass is theirs.
Libertarians want to break the glass, because they think a conspiracy created it.
Quick Reply
Cancel
Page 4 of 15  •  Prev 1 2 3 4 5 6 ... 15 Next
 
    Viewing this thread :: 0 registered and 1 guest
    No registered users viewing
    Advertisement

    Beliefnet On Facebook