Omega wrote:

---

It is with no little amazement that I have repeatedly read postings on this message board regarding "science versus religion" that I can only consider either complete satire or astounding ignorance.

Could you supply an example of this?  Science and religion are orthogonal to one another.  One is based on objective evidence of the physical world and the other on faith.   The only way I see that there could be conflict is if some religion makes a statement about the physical world that can be investigated with science.

It is quite apparent to me that a good number of the scholars who regularly visit this website have no problem baring an hypocritical position with respect to the sense of fairness upon which this country was founded. It is also obvious to me that the divide between the two sides of the issue is approaching a state of insurmountability mainly because there is a lack of respect on the part of science for the human condition.

It will not appear odd to you, Omega, that I have the opposite opinion.  The “position with respect to fairness” is not the method of science.  All opinions are not equal.  Those supported buy evidence and logical reason are the opinions respected by science.

 

What do you mean to state that science “lacks respect of the human condition”? This has no meaning for me unless you want scientists to lie to make people feel good? 

 

Scientists will state that religion has no place in the public classroom, and with that thought I concur.

This is not true.  Scientist say religion has no place in a science classroom.   I’m in favor of teaching comparative religion in high schools.  Intelligent Design (ID) can be discussed along with the many, many other creation stories of the world religions.

Likewise, however, I also suggest that the classroom has no place in religious discussions; there is a subtle but important distinction here. If it is improper for professors to subordinate one or more religious positions to another, then it is also improper for professors to lecture on the virtues of science over religion, couching such lectures as "debunking myths" or some such nonesense.

Can you document claims that “ science professors discuss the virtues of science over religion”?  The ID people often make these unsupported claims.

Science is an important part of our existence, and to marginalize or restrict its advancement or teaching is to walk a fine line between fascism and lunacy. However, as has been pointed out on this venue, scientific theories may not be proven true, they may only be proven false.

Correct!!!  I’m glad to see you understand that.

In a sense, religion and science are comparable in this manner. Religious beliefs may not generally be proven true, only proven false.

In what sense?  I don’t like these qualifiers because the devil is in the details.  

 

How in H*ll can you ever prove a religious belief false.  Here is and example:  A religion says the sky is green.  Everyone sees it as blue so the statement is false.  No say members of the religion. The devil is distorting your vision so you can’t see the truth of their religion.  How do you prove them wrong?

 

Some religious teachings have in fact been shown to be misleading or false while others remain either unable to be studied of unable to be disproved.

Please give an example of each of these.   This will be very interesting for me.

However, true scientists realize that their studies are suggestive works, that their hypotheses explain what scientists believe about a particular issue, though that issue may never be completely understood.

You are using dangerous words here.  The lay people reading this may not realize the scientific meaning of the words hypothsis and theory.   I also object your use of the word believe here.   The hypothesis is supported by evidence and is not an unsupported “wild guess”.

Hypotheses such as these are often used as the foundations of other scientific theories so that we have theory built on theory built on theory, none of which is factual. The scientific belief is that the best scientific theory(ies) is (are) the best way to think scientifically about a particular issue.

I would like to remind the reader that this is true of the “Theory of Gravity” that predicts the experimental observed gravity observations. 

The "science versus religion" debate boils down to a belief system.

This is not true.  I warned that you may use the word belief in different was.  Religious belief is not equivalent to scientific theory.  You conflate the two to confuse the readers.

Scientists believe that their methods yield the best results. Why do they believe this? Because they have engineered a system (built on the scientific method) that allows them to defend their beliefs under a set of rules that confines the manner in which issues may be debated.

No!  This is known to be the only way to establish objective truth.  Science can be tested.  You distort facts to confuse readers who are not trained in science.  If what you said were true, science would never have too change their theories.

One must have a certain type of proof to pass the "acid test" as it were. Such a system makes a scientist believe that his or her theories are real.

What do you mean by the word “real”?  Theory agrees with reality?  Scientists would say the  theory works at predicting experimental results.  This makes EVERYONE "believe" the theory works in the limited way it was tested.

 

 No less real, however, are the beliefs of religious followers who have experienced something or some things that science cannot explain.

Wait a minute.  Don’t you mean to say “religious followers who CLAIM to have experienced something…”   Don’t forget these claims are subjective and can’t be tested by others.   It can be believed by others.  The explanations for the experience can’t be tested either.  How do you separate a change in brain chemistry from a “ religious experience”.   I find you use of the word real here very strange.

When science fails to explain certain situations, who can blame the human mind for seeking an explanation to such events?

I can.  Making up stories to feel better makes truth harder to find.  Science is searching for truth, not “good feelings”.     You do realize some believe they will receive a reward and please god by blowing up innocent people.  And you say ,”… who can blame the human mind for seeking an explanation to such events?”

Are trying to justify the irratonal?

 

The fact that religion cannot be addressed under the scientific method is not the fault of religion any more than it is the fault of science that it cannot explain religion away.

 

Do you want to have a separate discussion about this?  You may be surprised. 

 

These are two ways of thinking that cannot be reconciled on the same playing field. So, then, the issue of belief systems. Individuals have "faith" in different systems. Some place faith in neither science nor religion, while some place faith in one but not the other, and still others place faith in both. Why not, then, allow individuals the freedom to think what they will?

 

If you live in this physical world you can’t deny science and live very long.  I gave an example above of what "belief" can lead people to do.

 

Should the scientist be deterred from her research? No. Should a religious person be forced to endure ridicule of her religious beliefs. No. I think these points are clearly defined under our system of government. What about when the two intersect? The scientist turned professor lecturing to the religious believer turned student about Darwinism?

 

Do you mean evolution?  They theory has advanced since Darwin.  Why didn’t you say evolution?

 

 

This is a much more complicated debate. The answer, I believe, lies in the purpose of the university (with respect to students): to educate. Education, not endoctrination, is a cornerstone of our profession. The scientist presents a factual situation AND a clearly labeled scientific theory for the situation BUT no value judgment about how that theory may conflict with religion; if it is improper to advocate religion over science, then the scientist should exercise restraint in advocating science over religion. Present the science and leave comparisons to religion out of the classroom.

 

Again you make an unsupported claim.  Scientists do not attack religion.  If the religion makes statements about the physical universe, then their statements are subject to evaluation by science.  The public wants to know the truth.

 

 

Why should this be the case? Because our society is founded on majority rule with respect to rights of the minority, a concept that is sometimes supported in this venue while derided at other times in this same place. Ethnic minorities are to be respected, regardless of whether one identifies with their societal systems and behaviors or not. Those with alternative sexual orientations are to be respected, whether one identifies with their societal systems and behaviors or not. In these cases, the "majority" is expected to respect the "rights" of the "minority." I have no problem with that line of thought; all too often, however, the "minority" accepts no responsibility to respect the "rights" of the "majority." At USM, scientific thinkers are the majority. Religious believers are the minority. Where is the respect for the minority? It isn't there. Religious thought is ridiculed as a matter of course in science classrooms as ignorant and backward.

 

Another unsupported claim.    You confuse working with facts and ridicule of religion.

 

 

If we widen our scope to Mississippi as a whole, religious believers are the majority and scientific thinkers the minority. How many science labs have been raided and destroyed or outlawed in Mississippi in the past 25 years? I would suggest that the answer is zero at the limit. Have the religious believers been openly hostile to scientific thinkers? Have they burned labs? Have they destroyed property? No and no. The only overt hostility toward science is vis-a-vis the education/endoctrination argument that wages in the public school system, mainly because educators cannot use restraint in their favoritism of science over religion in the classroom. Public schools are publicly funded, and the public that funds them has a real stake in the daily operations of these institutions. For scientists to continue to thumb their collective nose at the majority only continues the inability of the minority to respect the majority and the growing distaste the public holds for university professors. Such continued ignorance on the part of science may lead to a modern-day "Bonfire of the Vanities" upon which our collective professions and existences may become charred.

 

Please provide evidence for your unsupported claims.  Don’t you realize that science is the one under attack all over the country by the religious?  They want ID taught as if it were science.  They use the unsupported arguments you present here for justification. 

 

 

 

Scientist wrote:

---

Omega wrote:


It is with no little amazement that I have repeatedly read postings on this message board regarding "science versus religion" that I can only consider either complete satire or astounding ignorance.
Could you supply an example of this?  Science and religion are orthogonal to one another.  One is based on objective evidence of the physical world and the other on faith.   The only way I see that there could be conflict is if some religion makes a statement about the physical world that can be investigated with science.
It is quite apparent to me that a good number of the scholars who regularly visit this website have no problem baring an hypocritical position with respect to the sense of fairness upon which this country was founded. It is also obvious to me that the divide between the two sides of the issue is approaching a state of insurmountability mainly because there is a lack of respect on the part of science for the human condition.
It will not appear odd to you, Omega, that I have the opposite opinion.  The “position with respect to fairness” is not the method of science.  All opinions are not equal.  Those supported buy evidence and logical reason are the opinions respected by science.
 
What do you mean to state that science “lacks respect of the human condition”? This has no meaning for me unless you want scientists to lie to make people feel good? 
 

Scientists will state that religion has no place in the public classroom, and with that thought I concur.
This is not true.  Scientist say religion has no place in a science classroom.   I’m in favor of teaching comparative religion in high schools.  Intelligent Design (ID) can be discussed along with the many, many other creation stories of the world religions.
Likewise, however, I also suggest that the classroom has no place in religious discussions; there is a subtle but important distinction here. If it is improper for professors to subordinate one or more religious positions to another, then it is also improper for professors to lecture on the virtues of science over religion, couching such lectures as "debunking myths" or some such nonesense.
Can you document claims that “ science professors discuss the virtues of science over religion”?  The ID people often make these unsupported claims.
Science is an important part of our existence, and to marginalize or restrict its advancement or teaching is to walk a fine line between fascism and lunacy. However, as has been pointed out on this venue, scientific theories may not be proven true, they may only be proven false.
Correct!!!  I’m glad to see you understand that.
In a sense, religion and science are comparable in this manner. Religious beliefs may not generally be proven true, only proven false.
In what sense?  I don’t like these qualifiers because the devil is in the details.  
 
How in H*ll can you ever prove a religious belief false.  Here is and example:  A religion says the sky is green.  Everyone sees it as blue so the statement is false.  No say members of the religion. The devil is distorting your vision so you can’t see the truth of their religion.  How do you prove them wrong?
 
Some religious teachings have in fact been shown to be misleading or false while others remain either unable to be studied of unable to be disproved.
Please give an example of each of these.   This will be very interesting for me.
However, true scientists realize that their studies are suggestive works, that their hypotheses explain what scientists believe about a particular issue, though that issue may never be completely understood.
You are using dangerous words here.  The lay people reading this may not realize the scientific meaning of the words hypothsis and theory.   I also object your use of the word believe here.   The hypothesis is supported by evidence and is not an unsupported “wild guess”.
Hypotheses such as these are often used as the foundations of other scientific theories so that we have theory built on theory built on theory, none of which is factual. The scientific belief is that the best scientific theory(ies) is (are) the best way to think scientifically about a particular issue.
I would like to remind the reader that this is true of the “Theory of Gravity” that predicts the experimental observed gravity observations. 
The "science versus religion" debate boils down to a belief system.
This is not true.  I warned that you may use the word belief in different was.  Religious belief is not equivalent to scientific theory.  You conflate the two to confuse the readers.
Scientists believe that their methods yield the best results. Why do they believe this? Because they have engineered a system (built on the scientific method) that allows them to defend their beliefs under a set of rules that confines the manner in which issues may be debated.
No!  This is known to be the only way to establish objective truth.  Science can be tested.  You distort facts to confuse readers who are not trained in science.  If what you said were true, science would never have too change their theories.
One must have a certain type of proof to pass the "acid test" as it were. Such a system makes a scientist believe that his or her theories are real.
What do you mean by the word “real”?  Theory agrees with reality?  Scientists would say the  theory works at predicting experimental results.  This makes EVERYONE "believe" the theory works in the limited way it was tested.
 

 No less real, however, are the beliefs of religious followers who have experienced something or some things that science cannot explain.
Wait a minute.  Don’t you mean to say “religious followers who CLAIM to have experienced something…”   Don’t forget these claims are subjective and can’t be tested by others.   It can be believed by others.  The explanations for the experience can’t be tested either.  How do you separate a change in brain chemistry from a “ religious experience”.   I find you use of the word real here very strange.

When science fails to explain certain situations, who can blame the human mind for seeking an explanation to such events?
I can.  Making up stories to feel better makes truth harder to find.  Science is searching for truth, not “good feelings”.     You do realize some believe they will receive a reward and please god by blowing up innocent people.  And you say ,”… who can blame the human mind for seeking an explanation to such events?”
Are trying to justify the irratonal?
 
The fact that religion cannot be addressed under the scientific method is not the fault of religion any more than it is the fault of science that it cannot explain religion away.
 
Do you want to have a separate discussion about this?  You may be surprised. 
 
These are two ways of thinking that cannot be reconciled on the same playing field. So, then, the issue of belief systems. Individuals have "faith" in different systems. Some place faith in neither science nor religion, while some place faith in one but not the other, and still others place faith in both. Why not, then, allow individuals the freedom to think what they will?
 
If you live in this physical world you can’t deny science and live very long.  I gave an example above of what "belief" can lead people to do.
 
Should the scientist be deterred from her research? No. Should a religious person be forced to endure ridicule of her religious beliefs. No. I think these points are clearly defined under our system of government. What about when the two intersect? The scientist turned professor lecturing to the religious believer turned student about Darwinism?
 
Do you mean evolution?  They theory has advanced since Darwin.  Why didn’t you say evolution?
 
 
This is a much more complicated debate. The answer, I believe, lies in the purpose of the university (with respect to students): to educate. Education, not endoctrination, is a cornerstone of our profession. The scientist presents a factual situation AND a clearly labeled scientific theory for the situation BUT no value judgment about how that theory may conflict with religion; if it is improper to advocate religion over science, then the scientist should exercise restraint in advocating science over religion. Present the science and leave comparisons to religion out of the classroom.
 
Again you make an unsupported claim.  Scientists do not attack religion.  If the religion makes statements about the physical universe, then their statements are subject to evaluation by science.  The public wants to know the truth.
 
 
Why should this be the case? Because our society is founded on majority rule with respect to rights of the minority, a concept that is sometimes supported in this venue while derided at other times in this same place. Ethnic minorities are to be respected, regardless of whether one identifies with their societal systems and behaviors or not. Those with alternative sexual orientations are to be respected, whether one identifies with their societal systems and behaviors or not. In these cases, the "majority" is expected to respect the "rights" of the "minority." I have no problem with that line of thought; all too often, however, the "minority" accepts no responsibility to respect the "rights" of the "majority." At USM, scientific thinkers are the majority. Religious believers are the minority. Where is the respect for the minority? It isn't there. Religious thought is ridiculed as a matter of course in science classrooms as ignorant and backward.
 
Another unsupported claim.    You confuse working with facts and ridicule of religion.
 
 
If we widen our scope to Mississippi as a whole, religious believers are the majority and scientific thinkers the minority. How many science labs have been raided and destroyed or outlawed in Mississippi in the past 25 years? I would suggest that the answer is zero at the limit. Have the religious believers been openly hostile to scientific thinkers? Have they burned labs? Have they destroyed property? No and no. The only overt hostility toward science is vis-a-vis the education/endoctrination argument that wages in the public school system, mainly because educators cannot use restraint in their favoritism of science over religion in the classroom. Public schools are publicly funded, and the public that funds them has a real stake in the daily operations of these institutions. For scientists to continue to thumb their collective nose at the majority only continues the inability of the minority to respect the majority and the growing distaste the public holds for university professors. Such continued ignorance on the part of science may lead to a modern-day "Bonfire of the Vanities" upon which our collective professions and existences may become charred.
 
Please provide evidence for your unsupported claims.  Don’t you realize that science is the one under attack all over the country by the religious?  They want ID taught as if it were science.  They use the unsupported arguments you present here for justification. 
 
 
 

---

Omega wrote:

---

If you're not teaching comparative religion, then you shouldn't be discussing the pros and cons of religion in class. If you're not using science to tear down religion, then the "other side"'s argument will be exposed for what you think it is -- politics.

---

Scientist wrote:

---

My experience is the same as yours, Invictus.  I have been following the ID debate for some time and this claim of profs attacking religion is used as the excuse to attack science or to ask for "equal time" in the science classroom.  

---

Scientist wrote:

---

Invictus wrote: I don't know where (or if) you ever took a science class or if you've just been smoking a lot of Maui Wowie or something, but I'll state categorically that through three degrees (all in science) at USM over the course of about 12 years, I had only one science instructor who used his classroom as a pulpit to talk about religion. And that particular guy happened to be a fundamentalist who proselytized actively. I have never witnessed a science professor at USM "tear down religion," but I have seen some handle questions related to science & religion posed by students in magnificiently senstive ways. And except for that one exception, the profs answered those questions in office hours & didn't burden class time with them. To be honest, when you're studying Kreb's cycle or the Hardy-Weinberg Law, there really isn't a lot of time to get sidetracked "tearing down religion." Believe me, when you're trying to sort out all the species & subspecies of Nerodia & paying a bit of attention to geographic distribution, it's a monumental distraction to have to waste time with a Sunday School lesson, pro or con. Now maybe your mileage varies. Or maybe you're just propping up a straw man so you can attack it. What's your discipline, O? You got a dog in this hunt, or are you just barkin' up a tree? My experience is the same as yours, Invictus.  I have been following the ID debate for some time and this claim of profs attacking religion is used as the excuse to attack science or to ask for "equal time" in the science classroom.  

---

I think all of you will find the Theatre program's production of Ibsen's Enemy of the People (an excellent adaptation by the late Arthur Miller) to be quite germane to this discussion. The production opens March 16 and runs through March 26 at the Martha Tatum Theatre.

Godless Liberal wrote:

---

Hello all: Let me through another wrench in this one. Another issue that comes at the nexus of science and religion involves the various clinical trials out there experimentally testing intercessionary prayer. These have created some heated debate also, but the questions and issues are much more interesting then those raised by the intelligence design theologians. For example, what are the moral and scientific implications of treating God as an independent variable in an experiment? If God and Man are so aligned, doesn't God deserve the respect shown to mortal subjects whence we obtain fully informed consent? What is God's motivation for allowing those unprayed for to die when they had the mere misfortune of poor luck of the drawer? If intercessionary prayer heals, why not copyright, patent, and sell the protocols shown to be efficacious? Overall, are scientists behaving in a moral fashion when they conduct such experiments? Is this just a round about way of using the scientific method to attempt to demonstrate the existence of God? And is this the domain of science? Much more interesting questions, and ones that I discuss in my psychology class when I discuss ethics and the experimental method.      

---

Interesting, G.L.  How do they contral to which god the people pray?  Seems they have another uncontrolled variable in there.

What does it mean if the those prayed for have a higher death rate?   Don't experiment with god?  The people praying were not skillful?   How do you know the people praying were really praying?  Praying is an internal process.  Another uncontrolled variable.

You guys in psychology can sure come up with some odd research. As SFT would ask, "Can you get funding for it"?

stephen judd wrote:

---

I think all of you will find the Theatre program's production of Ibsen's Enemy of the People (an excellent adaptation by the late Arthur Miller) to be quite germane to this discussion. The production opens March 16 and runs through March 26 at the Martha Tatum Theatre.

---

Just an opinion wrote:

---

Meanwhile, as we debate whether or not evolution occurs and whether or not an omniscient, omnipotent, and essentially benevolent God exists, we will soon see whether a bird flu virus evolves into something capable of indiscriminately killing millions of men, women, and children around the world . . . .

---

But as a good creationist would say, "It is still a virus so it isn't a different "kind".  They have no problem with that type of evolution.  They admit the mechanism exists, but claim it can't result in "different species" over time.  That they say requires "intelligent design".  Why?  Because their book says so, and they just can't imagine that happening without outside help.  It makes their head hurt to think about it.  

Scientist wrote:

---

Interesting, G.L.  How do they contral to which god the people pray?  Seems they have another uncontrolled variable in there. What does it mean if the those prayed for have a higher death rate?   Don't experiment with god?  The people praying were not skillful?   How do you know the people praying were really praying?  Praying is an internal process.  Another uncontrolled variable. You guys in psychology can sure come up with some odd research. As SFT would ask, "Can you get funding for it"?

---

GL wrote:

---

Actually, much of this research is conducted by MDs and some of it is in mainstream journals. It is usually pretty flawed, methodologically.

---

I didn't really think this discussion was over. 

October 23, 2005

Creation/evolution 'debate' not between science, religion

http://www.hattiesburgamerican.com/apps/pbcs.dll/article?AID=/20051023/NEWS01/510230323/1002/NEWS01

Reporter wrote:

---

http://www.clarionledger.com/apps/pbcs.dll/article?AID=/20051023/OPINION/510230309/1009

---

And the lies continue:

"I don't know why it is so hard for people to grasp a simple concept about the theory of evolution: that is, evolution refers to a process some believe happened over the ages.

And a theory is nothing more than an idea about how something happens, based upon one's interpretation of the evidence."

What lies?  It has been pointed out over and over that the Theory of Evolution is a scientific theory that explains and predicts the facts of evolution found in various areas of science.  It is not "...a process some believe happened..." but rather what science agree has occurred from the evidence and what is still occurring.

It is not simply a "belief based on one's interpretation", but rather a logical process that explains and predicts.  This logical process has been tested and peer reviewed by scientists.