I dragged out the ole comic strip and added to it today. Link's at the bottom...

Doodler, I don't believe that religion and science have to be mutually exclusive. I agree that fundamentalism and science come into direct conflct, but religion by its nature does not have to conflict with science.

Cap Kid...
I'd make a joke about the people of Kansas, but I'm afraid it'd violate the board rules. However, the joke would reference a slang name for a donkey and its similarity to the back half of the word "Kansas".

One last thing..
In public schools, 65% is considered 'passing' (a D--, but still passing). Imagine if your doctor only knew 65% of your anatomy or your mechanic knew 65% of your car.
We have rigorous standards for those things which we think vital to our existance. It remains a failing on education and science's part to not convince the general public of the necessity of basic science and the scientific method.

To quote from the idiots at the top. We need to "win hearts and minds" before we can do anything else.

John

__________________
"Faith: Belief without evidence in what is told by one who speaks without knowledge, of things without parallel."

--Ambrose Bierce

http://threelittleboxes.com

Yes, 9/11 vastly increased the number of non sequiturs in America.

Horsefeathers...

The whole concept is fundamentally incompatable with scientific reality. Religion is not subject to fact, unsubjectable of disproof through testing, and relies on repetitive and indoctrinated dogma over analysis and understanding.

Its the proverbial wool one pulls over their own eyes to convince themselves that they are anything other than utterly insignificant in the universe. A lie that because we're capable of thought and imagination, that we're something special in a universe utterly beyond our capacity to fully grasp.

I'm sorry, I'll take modern knowledge and understanding over blind faith in the wild eyed ramblings of superstitious barbarians utterly terrified of the unknown and fearful of their own irrelevence any day of the week, twice on Sundays during the halftime report.

__________________
The last time I felt a warm fuzzy feeling, I was informed by my doctor that it was just gas.

Is all religious belief incompatible with science? What about Deism?

__________________
"I worry that, especially as the Millennium edges nearer, pseudo-science and superstition will seem year by year more tempting, the siren song of unreason more sonorous and attractive." - Carl Sagan, 1995

Damburger uses the following quote for his signature
I wonder if the Millennium has as much to do with this as 9/11/2001?

__________________
At night the stars put on a show for free (Carole King)

One Earth, One Sky - IYA 2009
All moderation in purple

Doodler... religion has to do with morality, right and wrong and the social contract. it's what tells us whether or not we should do something rather than if we can do something.
science is concerned with explaning the visible (and invisible) universe around us. It's concerned with existing phenomenon.

If you removed us from the universe, science would still continue without skipping a moment. And if you removed us to a place with different universal laws or to a void outside the universe we would still need a set of social and moral guidelines for our society.

The two should not interfere with each other at all, but operate in parallel. which is why when they do it creates such a mess. Like putting a glove over your feet and shoes on your hands.

__________________
"Faith: Belief without evidence in what is told by one who speaks without knowledge, of things without parallel."

--Ambrose Bierce

http://threelittleboxes.com

Doodler;

You make a strong point, but one that in its' own dogmatic assertions indicates (IMHO) why we all are bemoaning the actions of the Kansas BOE (may the Board be used on their Backsides one day soon)

Note the quote below from one of my favorite authors:


You defend most vigorusly the first sentence--and for the record I concur. But the vast majority of people tend to fall (IMHO) into the category the second and third sentences and to summarily dismiss them or call them "superstitious barbarians" is one sure way to see to it that science stays on the margins.

We need to teach science...good science...and oppose attempts to impose bad science for any reason. But we do not need to make religion an enemy.

Rendering moral teachings, love of one's neighbor, charity and giving to
Religion does not impact to rendering the facts, the observations, the experiments, and the therories to Science. I think (and I've not been in a church for 20 years) that they can co-exist.

But calling them names only irritates and sets us an us vs. them dicotomy--and right now, there may be more thems that uses's.

Interesting discussion. Press on.

__________________
JayUtah wrote:
The marketplace of ideas ensures that each item is put on display, but does not compel its purchase.

So why wouldn't an Atheist be moral?

OK, I know that's not the area we are supposed to cover here but it had to be said.

__________________
All Moderation in Purple
To report a post (even this one) to the moderation team, click the reporting icon in the upper-right corner of the post:
─────────────────────────────────────────────
◄Rules For Posting To This Board ► ◄Forum FAQs ► ◄ Conspiracy Theory Advice ► ◄ Alternate Theory Advice ►

Feh, who writes the rules, and who the heck made them the authority? Since when do concepts of right and wrong and social contract come down only through religion? I'm an atheist, are you telling me that my lack of religious belief makes me inherently amoral/immoral and unethical?

The other problem with your line of thought is the inability of the most devout members of religions to observe the lines. The crap in Kansas is a clear cut pie in the face of your arguement about the separation of religion and science, because the damned religious side won't stay the heck out of the way of science.

And Religion is a heckuva lot more than just a morality play, or crap like we're seeing in Kansas wouldn't be happening. Religion is a preconceived notion of the nature of the universe around us seen through eyes blinded by dogma and doctrine.

Science documents observable phenomena and derives its conclusions based only on the facts in evidence without preconception, acknowledging that new data may render previous conclusions inaccurate. Religions take observable phenomena and do their darnedest to wrap what they see around the preconception of dogma and most cannot accept the possibility that new data may challenge their preconvceived notions. Dogma must be right, or the whole concept of the infallible word of God is wrong, and there goes the whole foundation of the religion. Suddenly you face the reality that this supreme being isn't so supreme and may not have the answers you're looking for, or just may well be plain wrong. That's poison to religion. God must always be right, therefore what is written as the "word of God" cannot be challenged, no matter what new information and understanding is introduced into human consciousness. Its willful ignorance.

Where Science is superior to Religion in the most important way is this. Science can admit it might be wrong. Religions must always be right, or the deity can no longer be seen as infallible. Science is constantly in the process of re-writing itself in the face of new understanding.

Religion is, and always will be, the shelter of the weak too lazy to think for themselves and draw their own conclusions. If you can look at a situation, and understand for yourself what that situation is and how to deal with it, why then do you need a supreme being looking over your shoulder? The whole concept is unneeded by the critically thinking mind.

__________________
The last time I felt a warm fuzzy feeling, I was informed by my doctor that it was just gas.

And I wonder what you are implying about Carl Sagan...

__________________
"I worry that, especially as the Millennium edges nearer, pseudo-science and superstition will seem year by year more tempting, the siren song of unreason more sonorous and attractive." - Carl Sagan, 1995

That's rather Ad Hominem and presumptuous. I agree with most of your points, including

I agree with that. While I'm not straight-out Atheist, I'm close enough that this would apply to me.

However, I have many intelligent friends that are religious. Also:

So everyone that's religious is automatically a "superstitious barbarian" that has "blind faith" and are "wild-eyed", without being able to "take modern knowledge and understanding"?

I'm sorry, but even though I'm not religious, I'm going to play Devil's Avocado here and say: You cannot judge a majority based on a minority. In this case, you are taking rather extremist views and attitudes, and assuming that all fit within the category of religion are like that.

It's simply not true.

Also, for the record, I think that religion isn't as beneficial to society as people claim. It seems to me that morality and ethics are learned at the home more from any religion, and are also learned from society. In fact, today, it's much more "acceptable" to concentrate on the "good" and "nice" aspects of the bible (for Christianity, at least - I know there are other religions, I just focus on that which I have the most knowledge of), instead of the "hellfire" and "damnation" parts of it. However, the "Hellfire" and "Damnation" parts of the Bible never disappeared -- just the focus of society shifted, not based on religion, but SOCIETAL morality.

__________________
There are few left who
Stare at the skies with wonder
Wishing to know more;
The clouds still drift by above
But the eyes below are blind.
--Laura Lundberg

Check out my writing, maybe.

I would argue that, all things being equal, an Atheist has a better moral compass than what Nietzche refered to as the 'afterworldsmen' (at least in my copy of Thus Spake Zarathrustra. It probably sounds catchier in german). Somebody who believes in an idylic afterlife has far less regard for this life.

__________________
"I worry that, especially as the Millennium edges nearer, pseudo-science and superstition will seem year by year more tempting, the siren song of unreason more sonorous and attractive." - Carl Sagan, 1995

A question: should scientists get into the arena to discuss ID versus Evolution? Isn´t there the peril that people may understand any scientific opinion on ID as a sign that the issue is at least debatable, hence respectable? Should scientists let themselves be dragged into that discussion or reject it altogether for the sake of rationality?

__________________
What brings us together is stronger than what pulls us apart

I say that scientists should do whatever it takes to show people the truth. If that means debates, then so be it - but go in prepared for ANYTHING.

__________________
There are few left who
Stare at the skies with wonder
Wishing to know more;
The clouds still drift by above
But the eyes below are blind.
--Laura Lundberg

Check out my writing, maybe.

They do it all the time, to no avail...

__________________
What brings us together is stronger than what pulls us apart

That's why I apologized in advance, I knew full well going into this I was going to step on toes, but if this debate is going to be complete, I wasn't going to back down from taking the unpopular view, even if it cost me a bit.

As for anyone following a religion being a "wild eyed barbarian", no, I don't think that. I think they are foolishly beholden to the words of "wild eyed barbarians". As with all things, there are no absolutes, but I stand by my belief that faith is willing blindness to understanding. Of course, that blindness is directly proportional to the degree of faith. The problem with faith, no matter how lax or devout it is, is that its always going to be a line which a believer in that faith cannot cross. The point at which, no matter what you tell them, they just won't bend.

I was wrong to have put parts of my previous post in terms of absolutes, always a bad practice (and habit of mine), but I stand by the fundamental idea I presented.

__________________
The last time I felt a warm fuzzy feeling, I was informed by my doctor that it was just gas.

More often than not, this does seem to be true, I agree.

__________________
There are few left who
Stare at the skies with wonder
Wishing to know more;
The clouds still drift by above
But the eyes below are blind.
--Laura Lundberg

Check out my writing, maybe.

And in particular reference to Kansas, its a line which some of those, who's faith is strong and ethics/morality is sadly lacking (despite Hewhocaves assertion that faith promotes these things), will do anything to move in the direction of dogma. Packaging Intelligent Design as something "separate" from Creationism is just plain old, bald faced lying to get what they want.

Its a control thing. Religions tend to get antsy around people who openly disagree with what they see and the "infallible word". Undermines devotion when their authority on a subject is questioned.

As for me judging all religions by the voices of a "minority". Well, that's regrettable, but if the institution intends to pursue these policies through the voice of their "minority" of utterly devout followers, then those who are a part of that are due some accountability for their association. Their participation in their belief is tantamount to giving them franchise to speak for the whole when they present themselves as the "voice" of the organization.

If you're going to be a part of an organization, you'd better be darned sure what that organization promotes is what you want to support, because it WILL reflect on you.

__________________
The last time I felt a warm fuzzy feeling, I was informed by my doctor that it was just gas.

Doodler, what about the case of Lysenkoism? Doesn't it show that non-religious forces can skew science as much as religious ones?

__________________
"A witty saying proves nothing" Voltaire.
"All your bias are belong to us" Ara Pacis.

In the article linked in the BA's log, board memeber John Bacon, who voted in favor of the standards, said What dogma is he talking about? According to the dictionary, I'd guess from this definition, he means the "authoritative principle, belief, or statement of ideas or opinion" of evolution. Not the theory of evolution, but the dogma of evolution.
But I'd like to know exactly what he meant.

Lysenkoism jived pretty well with official ideology.
An ideology that many consider to be a secular 'religion'.

__________________
Join the Illuminati

Its just as an article i read mentioned:
ID is not a theory. it is a hypothesis, but it is not even a scientific hypothesis because there is no way to experimentally verify its central claim that a supreme being intervened in the creation of earth.

Like religion ID is a beleif. And while many people take there religion as facts, science would go no where if it operated that way. Many of the great discoveries from desease-cures to advanced tecnologies and trips to the Moon would never had been possible without the rigorous scientific process that carefully distinguishes between (belief and testable facts).


Another interesting article i read is here:

(Nobel prize winners speak up to support Evolution)

http://www.livescience.com/othernews...opponents.html


Titana..........

Thanks, Titana! I had to use an editorial for class tomorrow (to practice Rhetorical Analysis), and this link led to a link to an editorial on ID destroying Evolution! Exactly what I needed!

__________________
There are few left who
Stare at the skies with wonder
Wishing to know more;
The clouds still drift by above
But the eyes below are blind.
--Laura Lundberg

Check out my writing, maybe.

'Secular religion' is, of course, an oxymoron.

__________________
"A witty saying proves nothing" Voltaire.
"All your bias are belong to us" Ara Pacis.

I'm not familiar with the term, but I understand the follow up question, and you're absolutely correct. Heck, look at how politics is wreaking havoc on any discussion of cimate change. Its not that religion is the only offender, its just the one being dealt with in this particular discussion.

__________________
The last time I felt a warm fuzzy feeling, I was informed by my doctor that it was just gas.

I'm happy for Kansas. Once the employment market realizes that people from Kansas aren't as good as all the other states, there will be less competition for me!!!!

__________________
"I will do my best to understand and explain the universe from big to small without invoking miracles, unrepeatable events, or divine intervention. In place of those things I will use observations, mathematics, and science."


-Cross
My travel blog

Some of my Astrophotography


Those that lack education have a hard time understanding its value. - Cross

Your welcome.........




Titana..........

Lysenkoism.

I raised this example because I wanted to question whether religion should be blamed at all. I see this kind of interference of ideology in science more as a general pattern that cuts across religions, political ideologies, ethnicities, etc., but is not a necessary consequence of any particular religion, political ideology, or ethnicity.

On another note, I'd like to say that, if some people are so poorly informed that they let themselves be persuaded by ID advocates, then something went wrong in their education, as well. Who's responsible for that?

__________________
"A witty saying proves nothing" Voltaire.
"All your bias are belong to us" Ara Pacis.

Doodler,

We're not as far apart in thinking as this discussion is making us seem. I've been an agnostic for the better part of two decades and with the exception of weddings and funerals haven't sepped foot inside a church in about as long.

Please try to draw a distinction between the inent of something and it's execution. Both religion and science have made mistakes in their execution (cough-cold fusion-cough). I'll grant you religion's had quite a head start, but that doesn't mean athiesm and science are scott free. In both cases the system is susceptible to abuses. We should concentrate on the abuse and seperate it from the whole.

And I did not mean to inadvertently suggest that athiests are amoral. for that I apologize.

and yes, I agree that the right wing of the american politic is using religion as a tool for power politics. And that's an abuse of religion, not a use of it, again referring back to that distinction.

Here in Morgantown WV, where the local newspaper has had ID articles (and 'debates') over the past few weeks, I was pretty shocked to see nothing in the paper about Pennsylvania or Kansas. Maybe tomorow, or maybe it's becoming 'old news'.

I've had the same discussion with Marxists who are about as agnostic as you can get who want to do the same thing to science that the right would like to do. They want science to fit in with the dialectic. (where two sides of an argument are 'fused' together to form a combined opinion.)
Science is a powerful thing because of its immutability and ability to change. Immutability because of its resistance to popular pressures. (you can't repeal the law of gravity). Ability to change as we refine our imperfect picture of the world.
I would submit, then, that the people who fear this independence would use whatever was at hand to destroy science. In other words, if religion didn't exist then they would use another tool against science.

john

__________________
"Faith: Belief without evidence in what is told by one who speaks without knowledge, of things without parallel."

--Ambrose Bierce

http://threelittleboxes.com

does anyone here actually put creationism on equal ground as a true theory?


that's the root of this entire issue. creationists say ID is a theory because they want ID to be a theory

__________________
"I will do my best to understand and explain the universe from big to small without invoking miracles, unrepeatable events, or divine intervention. In place of those things I will use observations, mathematics, and science."


-Cross
My travel blog

Some of my Astrophotography


Those that lack education have a hard time understanding its value. - Cross