| Author | Thread |
|
|
04/29/2008 04:52:52 PM · #701 |
//www.nytimes.com/2008/04/29/science/29prof.html
An interesting take from an evolutionary biologist and geneticist who also is a former Dominican priest.
In fact, he said, evolution âis more consistent with belief in a personal god than intelligent design. If God has designed organisms, he has a lot to account for.â Consider, he said, that at least 20 percent of pregnancies are known to end in spontaneous abortion. If that results from divinely inspired anatomy, Dr. Ayala said, âGod is the greatest abortionist of them all.â |
|
|
|
05/06/2008 12:03:26 PM · #702 |
Another interesting discussion. Fodder for all sides.
Templeton Foundation: Does science make belief in God obsolete?
Originally posted by Hitchens:
Religion, remember, is theism not deism. Faith cannot rest itself on the argument that there might or might not be a prime mover. Faith must believe in answered prayers, divinely ordained morality, heavenly warrant for circumcision, the occurrence of miracles or what you will. Physics and chemistry and biology and paleontology and archeology have, at a minimum, given us explanations for what used to be mysterious, and furnished us with hypotheses that are at least as good as, or very much better than, the ones offered by any believers in other and inexplicable dimensions.
Does this mean that the inexplicable or superstitious has become "obsolete"? I myself would wish to say no, if only because I believe that the human capacity for wonder neither will nor should be destroyed or superseded. But the original problem with religion is that it is our first, and our worst, attempt at explanation. It is how we came up with answers before we had any evidence. It belongs to the terrified childhood of our species, before we knew about germs or could account for earthquakes. It belongs to our childhood, too, in the less charming sense of demanding a tyrannical authority: a protective parent who demands compulsory love even as he exacts a tithe of fear. This unalterable and eternal despot is the origin of totalitarianism, and represents the first cringing human attempt to refer all difficult questions to the smoking and forbidding altar of a Big Brother. This of course is why one desires that science and humanism would make faith obsolete, even as one sadly realizes that as long as we remain insecure primates we shall remain very fearful of breaking the chain. |
Message edited by author 2008-05-06 12:52:57. |
|
|
|
05/14/2008 06:04:13 PM · #703 |
Vatican says aliens could exist
The search for forms of extraterrestrial life, he says, does not contradict belief in God.
[...]
To strengthen its scientific credentials, the Vatican is organising a conference next year to mark the 200th anniversary of the birth of the author of the Origin of Species, Charles Darwin.
Message edited by author 2008-05-14 18:04:38. |
|
|
|
05/23/2008 10:51:05 PM · #704 |
//ldolphin.org/wmwilliams.html
I found this. Haven't had time to read it really but thought others might find it of interest. |
|
|
|
05/24/2008 01:18:31 AM · #705 |
Originally posted by dponlyme:
//ldolphin.org/wmwilliams.html
I found this. Haven't had time to read it really but thought others might find it of interest. |
Copyright 1928?
Historically interesting? Yes. Scientifically interesting? Not a bit. |
|
|
|
05/24/2008 02:31:11 AM · #706 |
| I realize it is old but interesting nonetheless imo. I have read part of it. It gives you an insight into just how old the argument is and the positions taken and defended and how they were defended. I'm certainly not saying that I find the it wholly viable today. Just a point of interest I thought I would share. |
|
|
|
05/27/2008 02:15:07 PM · #707 |
Posted without comment (but with a healthy dose of skepticism that should always apply when learning of things that appear to reinforce one's own preconceptions).
I.Q. vs. Biblical Literalism |
|
|
|
05/30/2008 05:39:37 AM · #708 |
| I just saw an interview of Richard Dawkins the author of the God Delusion and just wanted to say that the guy seemed pretty cool. Seemed like a real nice guy. Had some very good points and made Bill O'Reilly look pretty foolish because he did not get upset with Bill but merely said his piece. Pretty interesting stuff to watch. It's too bad such a nice guy with some good rational points had to be interviewed by Bill who doesn't know his ass from a hole in the ground when it comes to true Christianity and it's reality in life. He did Christians a disservice by not being able to say why he believes in God. I also see where most of the atheists are getting their talking points from and here I thought you guys were independent thinkers. (please no rebuff, Just teasing you guys a little) |
|
|
|
05/30/2008 06:06:54 AM · #709 |
Originally posted by dponlyme:
I just saw an interview of Richard Dawkins the author of the God Delusion and just wanted to say that the guy seemed pretty cool. Seemed like a real nice guy. Had some very good points and made Bill O'Reilly look pretty foolish because he did not get upset with Bill but merely said his piece. Pretty interesting stuff to watch. It's too bad such a nice guy with some good rational points had to be interviewed by Bill who doesn't know his ass from a hole in the ground when it comes to true Christianity and it's reality in life. He did Christians a disservice by not being able to say why he believes in God. I also see where most of the atheists are getting their talking points from and here I thought you guys were independent thinkers. (please no rebuff, Just teasing you guys a little) |
I have a lot of time for Richard Dawkins. When I first heard about the God delusion I assumed the author would be an inflammatory, aggressive type but he is a very intelligent, softly-spoken man with a genuine desire for people to question the world in which they live. I've started The God Delusion and am finding it a very interesting read. |
|
|
|
05/30/2008 09:25:39 AM · #710 |
Originally posted by shutterpuppy:
Posted without comment (but with a healthy dose of skepticism that should always apply when learning of things that appear to reinforce one's own preconceptions).
I.Q. vs. Biblical Literalism |
I don't know if you'd call me a Biblical literalist (would that mean I believe there was an actual snake that tempted eve?)or not but I assure you that I have always been considered to have well above average intelligence. The graph does seem a little self serving of a certain point of view. |
|
|
|
05/30/2008 09:32:23 AM · #711 |
Originally posted by Gordon:
Vatican says aliens could exist
The search for forms of extraterrestrial life, he says, does not contradict belief in God.
[...]
To strengthen its scientific credentials, the Vatican is organising a conference next year to mark the 200th anniversary of the birth of the author of the Origin of Species, Charles Darwin. |
That is whacky! I don't even know what to say. I don't get the Catholic Church at all but I guess if they think wine and wafer actually and literally transform into the actual body and actual blood of Christ then anything is fair game. |
|
|
|
05/30/2008 09:39:18 AM · #712 |
Originally posted by dponlyme:
... they think wine and wafer actually and literally transform into the actual body and actual blood of Christ ... |
 |
|
|
|
05/30/2008 09:50:47 AM · #713 |
Originally posted by Gordon:
Vatican says aliens could exist
The search for forms of extraterrestrial life, he says, does not contradict belief in God.
[...]
To strengthen its scientific credentials, the Vatican is organising a conference next year to mark the 200th anniversary of the birth of the author of the Origin of Species, Charles Darwin. |
That quote seems so odd to me. I know the vatican is trying to implement science in their everyday religious doctrine but this makes it all so weird. It's like they see what's happening in the world with people starting to ask questions about what they've been told by their parents and religious leaders, and are modifying their religion into one that incorporates evolution to a limited degree. More hypocrisy by the King of all hypocrisy, the head clown pope. |
|
|
|
08/11/2008 12:06:33 PM · #714 |
Bush finally said something I agree with.
While channel surfing last night during the commercial break from CBC's coverage of the Olympics, we caught Bush being interviewed in Beijing. He was complaining about China's human rights record -- but not about political or social freedom, rather about religious practice.
He said, verbatim, "Once religion gets hold of a society, it's impossible to stop."
Agreed. |
|
|
|
08/12/2008 02:33:25 AM · #715 |
Originally posted by Louis:
Bush finally said something I agree with.
While channel surfing last night during the commercial break from CBC's coverage of the Olympics, we caught Bush being interviewed in Beijing. He was complaining about China's human rights record -- but not about political or social freedom, rather about religious practice.
He said, verbatim, "Once religion gets hold of a society, it's impossible to stop."
Agreed. |
I take it that you have opposite views of whether that be a good or bad thing...
I also think that 'religion' is not necessarily a good thing but faith, hope, and love are wonderfully great things that can come not from being 'religious' but from being spiritually minded... If all people in a country were spiritually minded it would be a great thing I think. Everyone would love their neighbor as themselves, follow the golden rule, give without worrying about repayment to those who have need. Greed and envy would be eradicated. Everyone would work toward the common good of all. Now what could be wrong with that? |
|
|
|
09/04/2008 06:04:39 PM · #716 |
Nothing like resurrection of the dead... [a dead thread, that is]
A nice article recently in the New Humanist picking apart a recent book-length defense of "Intelligent Design." One of the claims in the book is apparently that religion is the actual source for science. Not just that early scientists were often believers or that early scientific research was often funded by religious groups (as was virtually all early research since the Catholic Church was virtually the only game in town, at least in Europe and the early Americas), but that religion and religious - specifically biblical, christian belief - remains scientifically relevant and that atheism hasn't done anything for science.
To which the author makes this excellent response:
Originally posted by AC Grayling:
[W]hat has atheism done for science? Well, let's see: it removed the risk of scientists being burned at the stake for controverting the divinely revealed truth that "the lord hath laid the foundations of the earth so that it shall not be moved for ever" (Psalm 102, beloved of Bellarmine in his efforts to shut up the astronomers and philosophers of the era of Descartes). It removed the necessity of having to distort observations, facts, experimental results and observations to fit an antecedent doctrine as far from what observation and experiment revealed as one could possibly get. (Think about seeing the moons of Jupiter through a telescope in an age when the earth was - by order! - at the centre of the universe and man and his man-made religion was the most important thing in it, with the Pope and the Office of the Inquisition daring you to think otherwise.) In short, it liberated the mind and enquiries of mankind. Decreasing religious hegemony and rapidly increasing scientific and technological knowledge have gone pari passu during the last four centuries, in mutually reinforcing tandem: the less religion, the more science; the more science, the less religion. And this is a universal phenomenon (see the Pew polls on the decline of religion, even in the USA). |
If only there was some guarantee that this "mutually reinforcing tandem" would continue to endure. I'm hopeful in the long term, but cynical in the short run given the state of U.S. education and politics and its seemingly immutable love for irrationality, artifice and fantasy. The sheer pride of ignorance displayed in the current election season is enough to depress even the most irrationally optimistic materialist.
I recommend the entire article: Origin of the Specious
|
|
|
|
09/05/2008 08:33:10 AM · #717 |
Originally posted by shutterpuppy:
Nothing like resurrection of the dead... [a dead thread, that is]
A nice article recently in the New Humanist picking apart a recent book-length defense of "Intelligent Design." One of the claims in the book is apparently that religion is the actual source for science. Not just that early scientists were often believers or that early scientific research was often funded by religious groups (as was virtually all early research since the Catholic Church was virtually the only game in town, at least in Europe and the early Americas), but that religion and religious - specifically biblical, christian belief - remains scientifically relevant and that atheism hasn't done anything for science.
To which the author makes this excellent response:
Originally posted by AC Grayling:
[W]hat has atheism done for science? Well, let's see: it removed the risk of scientists being burned at the stake for controverting the divinely revealed truth that "the lord hath laid the foundations of the earth so that it shall not be moved for ever" (Psalm 102, beloved of Bellarmine in his efforts to shut up the astronomers and philosophers of the era of Descartes). It removed the necessity of having to distort observations, facts, experimental results and observations to fit an antecedent doctrine as far from what observation and experiment revealed as one could possibly get. (Think about seeing the moons of Jupiter through a telescope in an age when the earth was - by order! - at the centre of the universe and man and his man-made religion was the most important thing in it, with the Pope and the Office of the Inquisition daring you to think otherwise.) In short, it liberated the mind and enquiries of mankind. Decreasing religious hegemony and rapidly increasing scientific and technological knowledge have gone pari passu during the last four centuries, in mutually reinforcing tandem: the less religion, the more science; the more science, the less religion. And this is a universal phenomenon (see the Pew polls on the decline of religion, even in the USA). |
If only there was some guarantee that this "mutually reinforcing tandem" would continue to endure. I'm hopeful in the long term, but cynical in the short run given the state of U.S. education and politics and its seemingly immutable love for irrationality, artifice and fantasy. The sheer pride of ignorance displayed in the current election season is enough to depress even the most irrationally optimistic materialist.
I recommend the entire article: Origin of the Specious |
Mr. Grayling gives far, far too much credit to atheism. There is absolutely no evidence that it was atheists who forced the eventual acceptance of scientific observations, and of science itself, that were contrary to then current religious doctrines.
One does not have to be the antithesis of a position to be instrumental in overturning that position.
Rosa Parks was neither a black supremacist, nor an anti-white racist, yet she played a significant part in overturning the segregation laws that oppressed blacks.
Likewise, Copernicus, Kepler, Galileo, and Descartes were NOT atheists, but through perseverance, each one advanced the cause of science, even science that disagreed with the Church's positions at that time. |
|
|
|
09/05/2008 11:08:41 AM · #718 |
Originally posted by RonB:
Mr. Grayling gives far, far too much credit to atheism. There is absolutely no evidence that it was atheists who forced the eventual acceptance of scientific observations, and of science itself, that were contrary to then current religious doctrines.
One does not have to be the antithesis of a position to be instrumental in overturning that position.
Rosa Parks was neither a black supremacist, nor an anti-white racist, yet she played a significant part in overturning the segregation laws that oppressed blacks.
Likewise, Copernicus, Kepler, Galileo, and Descartes were NOT atheists, but through perseverance, each one advanced the cause of science, even science that disagreed with the Church's positions at that time. |
While they may not have been atheists, they were certainly secularists in regard to their scientific observations and approach. Perhaps Mr. Grayling would be more correct to say that secularism -- a necessary and concomitant to scientific thinking and method -- is the source of those benefits he describes, but one must also weigh the "belief" of the people you list in the context of their time. A time in which religious belief was an unquestioned default. Atheism as identity was simply not an option. Secular thinking - even atheistic thinking - was most certainly possible, however.
Further, your example of Rosa Parks doesn't help your case. While she wasn't an "extremist" in the political sense, her thinking was certainly radically antithetical to the dominant belief of her place and time - black inferiority, segregation, and subservience.
Similarly, many of the findings and conclusions reached by the scientists you list were antithetical to the dominant beliefs of their time - a dogmatic christian theology which denied the material nature of the world.
|
|
|
|
09/05/2008 01:41:12 PM · #719 |
Originally posted by shutterpuppy:
Originally posted by RonB:
Mr. Grayling gives far, far too much credit to atheism. There is absolutely no evidence that it was atheists who forced the eventual acceptance of scientific observations, and of science itself, that were contrary to then current religious doctrines.
One does not have to be the antithesis of a position to be instrumental in overturning that position.
Rosa Parks was neither a black supremacist, nor an anti-white racist, yet she played a significant part in overturning the segregation laws that oppressed blacks.
Likewise, Copernicus, Kepler, Galileo, and Descartes were NOT atheists, but through perseverance, each one advanced the cause of science, even science that disagreed with the Church's positions at that time. |
While they may not have been atheists, they were certainly secularists in regard to their scientific observations and approach. Perhaps Mr. Grayling would be more correct to say that secularism -- a necessary and concomitant to scientific thinking and method -- is the source of those benefits he describes, but one must also weigh the "belief" of the people you list in the context of their time. A time in which religious belief was an unquestioned default. Atheism as identity was simply not an option. Secular thinking - even atheistic thinking - was most certainly possible, however. |
While I will grant that scientific experiments must be secular ( worldly rather than spiritual ) in nature, I maintain that secularISM ( religious skepticism or indifference ) is NOT a necessary and concomitant requirement to scientific thinking and method.
In fact, a great many scientific studies have been conducted precisely for non-secular reasons - that being that scientists were searching for scientific explanations for events described in the Bible.
Just as one example: scientific experiments were conducted to see if it was possible for a strong steady wind to part the Red Sea. And the experiments proved that it was possible ( ref here
Originally posted by shutterpuppy:
Further, your example of Rosa Parks doesn't help your case. While she wasn't an "extremist" in the political sense, her thinking was certainly radically antithetical to the dominant belief of her place and time - black inferiority, segregation, and subservience. |
But her thinking was only antithetical to the prevailing beliefs OUTSIDE of her own peer group. The same could be said for Kepler, et. al.
She put her antithetical beliefs into action - so did they.
She confronted her opponents, at the risk of personal danger - so did they.
She did not reject her own core beliefs in so doing - neither did they.
Originally posted by shutterpuppy:
Similarly, many of the findings and conclusions reached by the scientists you list were antithetical to the dominant beliefs of their time - a dogmatic christian theology which denied the material nature of the world. |
But they did not reject their core religious beliefs in the process. They kept their core religious beliefs, AND still challenged the religious dogmatists.
You seem to want to put science closer to Atheism than to Theism by claiming that Secularism is required for valid science. That is simply not the case. |
|
|
|
09/05/2008 02:13:53 PM · #720 |
Originally posted by RonB:
In fact, a great many scientific studies have been conducted precisely for non-secular reasons - that being that scientists were searching for scientific explanations for events described in the Bible.
Just as one example: scientific experiments were conducted to see if it was possible for a strong steady wind to part the Red Sea. And the experiments proved that it was possible [/url] |
So? The same experiment might conclusively prove that a strong enough wind would carry reindeer harnessed to a sled great distances, thus proving that it is physically possible for a man to ride a sleigh around the world. The science, necessarily secular, might be sound, but the beliefs that gave rise to the study can be completely absurd. |
|
|
|
09/05/2008 02:30:16 PM · #721 |
Originally posted by RonB:
You seem to want to put science closer to Atheism than to Theism by claiming that Secularism is required for valid science. That is simply not the case. |
Yes, I am explicitly making the claim that secularism is required for science and that atheism is "closer" to science than theism. Actually, I will say that there can be no such thing as "theistic science." Legitimate science is always secular in its method and reasoning.
Your example in regard to the Red Sea is a perfect example of why "theistic science" is an oxymoron. The researchers take the supposed occurrence of the biblical account of Moses parting the Red Sea as historical truth, and then, working from this hypothesis, attempt to come up with some materialistic method by which the account might plausibly have occurred. Having only a second-hand account of their "research", it really isn't possible to critique their conclusions, but whether or not their method is sound is really beside the point.
If they came to the conclusion that a phenomenon like what was described in the bible could happen under some set of circumstances because there are materialistic mechanisms available - that is completely secular and there would be nothing preventing an "atheist scientist" from arriving at the same conclusion should that scientist be granted the same data and evidence. If, however, the scientists conclusions require some sort of credulity to the text of the bible - in other words if there is any "goddidit"/"then a miracle happens" aspect to their research or conclusions, they are not engaged in legitimate scientific thinking. Further, even if - materialistically - such an event might have some possibility of occurrence, does not actually answer the question of whether such an event is probable, or whether it actually occurred, or even whether such an event, if it did occur, was the result of supernatural intervention. Indeed, if some materialistic explanation for the phenomenon exists, then that would tend to undermine supernatural claims.
Science need not be explicitly atheistic - and actually, I'm not sure what being "explicitly atheistic" would mean, since atheism, by itself, carries no dogma or creed - but for science to be credible and legitimate it cannot be theistic. Science starts with the question and gathers evidence to find an answer that conforms to that evidence. Theism starts with the answer and then selectively looks for evidence in an attempt to support the answer.
Message edited by author 2008-09-05 14:42:29. |
|
|
|
09/05/2008 02:57:40 PM · #722 |
Originally posted by Louis:
Originally posted by RonB:
In fact, a great many scientific studies have been conducted precisely for non-secular reasons - that being that scientists were searching for scientific explanations for events described in the Bible.
Just as one example: scientific experiments were conducted to see if it was possible for a strong steady wind to part the Red Sea. And the experiments proved that it was possible [/url] |
So? The same experiment might conclusively prove that a strong enough wind would carry reindeer harnessed to a sled great distances, thus proving that it is physically possible for a man to ride a sleigh around the world. The science, necessarily secular, might be sound, but the beliefs that gave rise to the study can be completely absurd. |
The BELIEFS may, perhaps, be absurd but they do not HAVE TO BE secular. That is my point.
The overturning of the Church's control of "science" did not HAVE TO BE at the hands of either Atheists or Secularists or any other *ists. |
|
|
|
09/05/2008 03:16:49 PM · #723 |
Originally posted by shutterpuppy:
Science need not be explicitly atheistic - and actually, I'm not sure what being "explicitly atheistic" would mean, since atheism, by itself, carries no dogma or creed - but for science to be credible and legitimate it cannot be theistic. Science starts with the question and gathers evidence to find an answer that conforms to that evidence. Theism starts with the answer and then selectively looks for evidence in an attempt to support the answer. |
Science should not be *istic in any way, shape, or form. Neither should good science be rejected because of the non-secular belief of the scientist who has followed the secular rules regarding scienctific study.
Science doesn't always start with a question. Sometimes it starts with an observation - e.g. an observation that a star cluster appears to be spinning faster than gravity should allow. The observation ( belief ) leads to the question ( why? ). That leads to experiments to pose a hypothesis as to how the observed effect could be caused ( dark matter ), then to establish experiments to test the hypothesis ( ongoing ).
Why cannot the process begin with a theistic premise? The bible says that the Red Sea was parted following a long, strong wind; that leads to the question ( how? ); that leads to the hypothesis already stated in the Bible ( a long, strong wind could have parted the Red Sea ); that leads to experiments to see if that hypothesis COULD have produced the claimed result, and those ( secular ) experiments DID prove that a wind of not-illogical force, for a not-illogical duration, from a not-illogical direction at a not-illogical geographic location on the Red Sea, could produce the stated ( observed ) results.
If the scientific community rejects secular proofs given by non-secular scientists just because of that scientist's beliefs, then the scientific community is no better than the early Roman Catholic Church |
|
|
|
09/05/2008 03:39:58 PM · #724 |
Originally posted by RonB:
You seem to want to put science closer to Atheism than to Theism by claiming that Secularism is required for valid science. That is simply not the case. |
Atheism is simply lack of belief in religious doctrines while theism adheres to those beliefs. Science requires objectivity to be valid. You cannot perform credible science without controls and a willingness to accept the results. Thus, if a given religion declares the entire universe revolves around the earth, a scientist must be willing to disbelieve those teachings if the results show otherwise. In that regard, science IS closer to atheism. While the experimenter can continue to believe and try to reconcile whatever's left over, every piece of science that overturns theist doctrine (geocentricity, flat earth, lightning, etc.) represents a rejected religious belief. |
|
|
|
09/05/2008 04:47:15 PM · #725 |
Originally posted by scalvert:
Originally posted by RonB:
You seem to want to put science closer to Atheism than to Theism by claiming that Secularism is required for valid science. That is simply not the case. |
Atheism is simply lack of belief in religious doctrines while theism adheres to those beliefs. Science requires objectivity to be valid. You cannot perform credible science without controls and a willingness to accept the results. Thus, if a given religion declares the entire universe revolves around the earth, a scientist must be willing to disbelieve those teachings if the results show otherwise. In that regard, science IS closer to atheism. While the experimenter can continue to believe and try to reconcile whatever's left over, every piece of science that overturns theist doctrine (geocentricity, flat earth, lightning, etc.) represents a rejected religious belief. |
I agree that a scientist must be prepared and willing to accept the results. I agree that a scientist must be willing to disbelieve religious teachings if the results show otherwise. But I do NOT believe that for a religious experimenter every piece that overturns theist doctrine represents a rejected religious belief.
Since we do not have written evidence of such, there is no way to state with certainty that Kepler, Copernicus, et. al. believed in ALL of the Roman Catholic Church's positions on matters of science - hence no way to state with certainty that they had to reject [their] religious beliefs in order to accept the findings of their experiments. |
|
