RELIGION /Re: No Intelligence Allowed

[Guest guest]

Joy-

> Real physical scientists don't even need to *look* at " intelligent

> design " beyond the basic premise. Anybody who actually knows anything

> about real physical science knows that " intelligent design " bears no

> resemblance whatsoever to real physical science.

>

> That's why real physical scientists have no reason to begin discussing

> it, why it's so ridiculous for anybody to try to force " intelligent

> design " to fit somewhere in there.

Yes, exactly.

> You can freely discuss religion within some other branches of the

> sciences, like in psychology, or sociology, or in any number of other

> fields of study. Religion has no place in hard Science.

I'd go further than that, actually. What's properly being discussed

in psychology, sociology and other such branches of science isn't

religion itself, which is to say the claims made by religion, but the

human phenomenon of religiosity and religion. IOW they're not

discussing the question of whether there is a god, but of why humans

often believe there is and how that belief affects society.

-

[Guest guest]

-------------- Original message ----------------------

From: " Cray Fish " <crayfishfeed@...>

> Religion has no place in hard Science.

> >

> > Joy

>

> I take issue with this statement right here and although I haven't

> seen the movie Expelled, it sounds like it's taking issue with these

> exclusive positions that people have of hard Science. Science is

> systematic study so how could it exclude religion.

what exactly is your argument here? Science doesn't mean 'systematic study'. It

is a methodology, relying on the ability to quantify and measure. Regardless of

how systematic you think religion is, studying God is simply not what science is

about. Do you for instance, criticize economics because it 'excludes' religion?

>How can science

> only be marginalized to what is measurable.

there exist many disciplines in this world of ours. Science is one of them, and

because of what it is, and how it works, the study of god is simply not a part

of it. this is CONCEPTUAL. It is not somehow this conspiratorial exclusion.

This argument is CRAZY.

> The problem with this is

> that which can be measured then hinges on the capability of what's

> been invented so far for measurement.

There is NO problem here.

>

> To be a truth seeker of any kind you have to understand the age you

> have been born into to work in terms of given prejudices and bias.

> This is the age of science worship. " Science " has become the new

> catholic church giving or not giving permisssion to people for belief

> based on what's not even science in most cases but just the

> mainstream accepted view of things.

this has absolutely NOTHING to do with what the issues are here, and you are

simply not listening. Science cannot prove the existence of God, and it cannot

disprove it. A scientist can believe or disbelieve in God, and be a member of

any religion. There is no problem here. Similarly, a mathematical proof will not

arrive at God either. There is no problem in that, and it doesn't imply that

mathematics is somehow prejudicial against religion.

Glancing at what you write below - that someone would claim to believe only what

can be concluded from Science IS narrow minded, and rather ignorant of what

actually does exist in the world. That is a different issue entirely. One can be

educated enough to know what science is, what it does, and what its limitations

are, and be quite open minded. the problem is ignorance.

>I think this is crux of what the

> movie is addressing. The ridicule and closemindedness you come up

> against if you are not thinking along the mainstream where people

> lose their jobs etc. The theory of Evolution, like anything else, has

> it's theories within theories with some being mutually exclusive of

> each other. There's a lot of debate within this field, of course

> like any other, of what the " facts " are and how to interpret them.

> One tiny example: I have read over and over about the fallibility of

> carbon dating. That the older the substance is the less reliable the

> dating method is.

>

> I encounter a lot of people who proudley proclaim " I only believe in

> things that are scientifically supported " . Okay getting a lot of

> vaccinations is scientifically supported OR there is not an abundance

> of articles on Cod liver oil in JAMA so that is not scientifically

> supported according to doctors I have spoken with. People don't

> understand that the very term " scientifically supported " is not a

> concrete, agreed upon concept. That's the issue here: is co-existing

> in a society (that is bent on self-destruction even with all

> this " science " at our fingertips) with individuals who go through

> life denying all the other laws of the universe except for what they

> think are scientific laws, and it helps pave the way for the

> continued thought control I experienced in the school system. On

> another note, God will never be proved b/c God is everything. It's

> not like someday someone will perfect a telephone that can call God

> up and broadcast the conversation on television. He's not a man with

> a beard. God is everything and " no thing " and plus only believing in

> what you can see is no fun and not part of the game. Many old

> religions refer to life here as a game.

>

> Religion and Philosophy allow, inherently for the inclusion of

> science in the discussion but the real pseudo scientists say " no only

> what we call hard science can be viewed as working fact, leave any

> other systems and though processes out of it " so you have this

> complete marginalization that brings us further and further away from

> any truths that science is supposed to be helping us seek out. A

> methaphor would be the allpathic view of the body vs. a holistic

> view. My money is on the holistic view. The interplay of systems, the

> bigger picture vs. micro views.

>

> Most well thought out people believe science and religion can exist

> side by side and that they somtimes point to one another. Evolution

> should be a standard of truth only if it can stand on it's own two

> feet, logic and evidence wise, and maybe it will, who knows? It

> shouldn't be held as truth just as an alternative to believing in

> God. Plus many christians/jews accept evolution and some athiestic

> scientists don't accept evolution as how life is here as we know it

> b/c many don't accept unifromitarianism based on a lot of different

> evidence out there.

>

>

>

>

[Guest guest]

.. How can

> science

> only be marginalized to what is measurable. The problem

> with this is

> that which can be measured then hinges on the capability of

> what's

> been invented so far for measurement.

>

Because this is what science does. That is science by definition, it is about

quantification. Science and " Truth Seeking " (or better yet, let's use the word

Philosopy) are not tautologies. They are not identical. Science is attempting

to discover the truth, but the truth about things that can be quantified.

So, unless you consider God to be a quantifiable phenomenon, (i.e He has a long,

white beard and livess in heaven, which happens to be somewhere in the asteroid

belt) then science is pretty much useless as regards spiritual matters. It can

put forward negative reasons why God does not directly cause a certain action.

It can tell you that it is gravity that causes an object to fall to earth...but

it can not tell you WHY gravity exists. Heidegger one asked, " Why is there

something rather than nothing? " Science can't answer that question. That

belongs to the realm of philosophy and theology.

[Guest guest]

.. How can

> science

> only be marginalized to what is measurable. The problem

> with this is

> that which can be measured then hinges on the capability of

> what's

> been invented so far for measurement.

>

Because this is what science does. That is science by definition, it is about

quantification. Science and " Truth Seeking " (or better yet, let's use the word

Philosopy) are not tautologies. They are not identical. Science is attempting

to discover the truth, but the truth about things that can be quantified.

So, unless you consider God to be a quantifiable phenomenon, (i.e He has a long,

white beard and livess in heaven, which happens to be somewhere in the asteroid

belt) then science is pretty much useless as regards spiritual matters. It can

put forward negative reasons why God does not directly cause a certain action.

It can tell you that it is gravity that causes an object to fall to earth...but

it can not tell you WHY gravity exists. Heidegger one asked, " Why is there

something rather than nothing? " Science can't answer that question. That

belongs to the realm of philosophy and theology.

[Guest guest]

-

> It can tell you that it is gravity that causes an object to fall to

> earth...but it can not tell you WHY gravity exists. Heidegger one

> asked, " Why is there something rather than nothing? " Science can't

> answer that question. That belongs to the realm of philosophy and

> theology.

Well, maybe, but I think it's more that science can't answer the

ultimate question underlying the question of why gravity exists rather

than the specific, scientific reasons for gravity's existence and

function.

On a somewhat related note, science may well prove to be able to

answer the specific, proximate question of why the observable universe

is here, but it can't very well answer the question of what we should

do with it now that we're living inside it... though it can certainly

enable us to make somewhat more informed decisions on that count.

-

[Guest guest]

I did see the movie Religulous (sp?) the other day and I enjoyed it immensely. 

Though I think that Bill is a bit of a cynic and needing some compassion in his

life, I think his ending argument about mankind needing to " grow up " out of

religious indoctrination was great.  Am I adding fuel to the fire here? 

<blinkblink>

Deb in NC

(who is realizing that Vitamin D isn't nearly as exciting to read as

philosophical banter)

 

[Guest guest]

> Deb in NC

> (who is realizing that Vitamin D isn't nearly as

> exciting to read as philosophical banter)

Yes, but is it more exciting than getting a flu shot?

[Guest guest]

Debra-

> Am I adding fuel to the fire here?

Sure, but what's life without a few charred corpses?

-

[Guest guest]

On Oct 25, 2008, at 9:51 AM, Cray Fish wrote:

>

> >

> > Because this is what science does. That is science by definition,

> it is about quantification. Science and " Truth Seeking " (or better

> yet, let's use the word Philosopy) are not tautologies. They are not

> identical. Science is attempting to discover the truth, but the

> truth about things that can be quantified.

>

> Science by definition is systematic study, a system of acquiring

> knowledge, or using the scientific method. There are many other

> definitions and styles of thinking on it as well. Just watching a man

> last night on 20/20 study wolves was science. He came up with a

> hypothesis, made observations and made conclusions. People who talk

> about hard science are having problems themselves defining it which

> is exactly the problem of science being used by people who don't

> understand science: it tries to lock things down as being fact with

> too little elasticity. A real scientist knows they are working on a

> model for reality but a model is NOT reality itself. The

> quanitfication of things includes philosophy and bias playing their

> roles throughout the whole process. That's why studies come out

> differently and why there exists the notion in quantum physics that

> an object is affected by the act of being observed..

>

Ultimately I'm not even sure what this all means. I'll start with the

fact that, as far as I know, quantum physics contains nothing about

everyday objects being different when they are observed. My

understanding is that it concerns subatomic particles, and that

inferences to the world at large have generally been the work of

popularists, e.g. The Tao of Physics, and such stuff. Fun to read, but

it ain't science.

My eyes start fuzzing over when I hear things about the confusion of a

'model of reality' vs 'reality itself', whatever that really is. I

think that the problem is when people, scientists, or admirers of

science confuse what can be quantified and predicted with the

methodology of science, with the totality of reality. Perhaps that's

what you're really saying.

I'm not aware of science itself having motivation and consciousness -

I'm not sure that statements like " it tries to lock things down as

being fact with too little elasticity " has any real meaning at all.

There are scientific theories and observations, both bad and good, and

there are also appropriate and inappropriate interpretations of the

data. This would be true in any field. When I listen to some religious

fanatics, I'm reminded that it's true of religion as well.

>

>

> > So, unless you consider God to be a quantifiable phenomenon, (i.e

> He has a long, white beard and livess in heaven, which happens to be

> somewhere in the asteroid belt) then science is pretty much useless

> as regards spiritual matters.

>

> There is an interplay of arts and sciences. Scientists stand on the

> shoulders of the ideologies that came before them and this includes

> taking inspiration from many things, of course religion being one of

> them. Carl Jung used science to explain a huge chunk of our psyche

> and spirituality.

>

I'm not sure again how this really relates to the core discussion -

which is whether it is correct or appropriate to teach ID in a science

class, regardless of one's predisposition towards holism.

>

>

> >>It can put forward negative reasons why God does not directly cause

> a certain action. It can tell you that it is gravity that causes an

> object to fall to earth...but it can not tell you WHY gravity

> exists. Heidegger one asked, " Why is there something rather than

> nothing? " Science can't answer that question. That belongs to the

> realm of philosophy and theology.

>

> It can belong to both. Something rather than nothing is my hand being

> made of particles moving at a different speed than the wall which is

> why my hand can't go through the wall. Why do we want to lock it down

> so badly what science can and can't do or religion can and can't do.

> Words and names are an attempt to make a framework not to replace

> common sense that our names and words for thing aren't perfectly non-

> overlapping.

>

Sometimes things are just what they are, and what these things are

lead to logical conclusions. Again - this can be true whether one is

religious or not, a scientist or not, and whether one has a favorable

view of ID in general, or a holistic world view. An emotional

argument, which is tantamount to 'I don't like science', really does

nothing at all. Nothing is being 'locked down' here. Do you resent

mathematics being 'locked down' to exclude religion?

>

>

> None of this was my original point. My original point is that

> Expelled is supposed to be a movie that touches on the non-permission

> of the scientific world to think anything except that which is

> accepted by the scientific mainstream ie. certain teachers losing

> their jobs, etc. My position can be summed up with this quote by Carl

> Jung in his author's note in the begnning of Symbols of

> Transformation: I do not consider scientific work as a dogmatic

> contest, but rather as a work done for the increase and deepening of

> knowledge.

>

> To me it's about creating a world that optimizes self-discovery for

> individuals and human nature as a whole. Most people need the

> interplay, they desire it to learn about what makes them, them.

> Science is positioning itself to be uniquely isolated of other

> influences,for some people, and this is with some science (most of

> which is not hard science like the law of gravity or the xylem and

> phloem system of a plant but medical doctors denying the validity of

> weston price's work for example) An even more poignant example is

> doctors not even beginning to address the mental or spiritual role in

> illness. I guess it's because the spirit hasn't been quantified yet.

> When you look at an example like this the implications become clearer

> that some people have positioned science to be an errant child that

> is trying to dominate it's brothers and sisters in terms of sphere of

> influence. In other words for a rapidly growing number of people they

> are serving science rather than letting science serving them.

> Ironically, it's becoming a religion for some people.

>

> I love science by the way and was a biology major for 3 years before

> switching my major and I read scientific magazines regularly so my

> position is not against science for science's sake. One of my friends

> is getting his Ph.D in biology focusing on the ecolgoy of snakes,

> he's even been on the animal planet and in one of our first

> conversations we talked of how most people have this mistaken view of

> science, how they worship the whole field as it being the final say

> on reality when most of it is completely suject to human error.

>

> In the end my position is quite boring, it's that neither science nor

> religion (or phlisophy or mythology) should be studied to the

> exclusivity of the other.

>

>

>

[Guest guest]

Would you expect a science teacher to lose their job if they were

conducting cooking lessons as a basis for the class? That's even

physically related to science, but needs its own class, since it would

focus on things that really had nothing to do with what there is to be

learned in science class.

Religion is plenty important in the human world, but it needs its own

class, too.

Joy

>

>

> >

> > My original point is that

> Expelled is supposed to be a movie that touches on the non-permission

> of the scientific world to think anything except that which is

> accepted by the scientific mainstream ie. certain teachers losing

> their jobs, etc.

[Guest guest]

On 10/26/08, jmr1290 <jomarex@...> wrote:

> Would you expect a science teacher to lose their job if they were

> conducting cooking lessons as a basis for the class? That's even

> physically related to science, but needs its own class, since it would

> focus on things that really had nothing to do with what there is to be

> learned in science class.

That is just flat-out ridiculous. I'm sure a science teacher would

get fired in some schools for cooking science class, but if I were a

superintendent I would probably fire the administrator who fired that

teacher, because I would fundamentally disagree with her ridiculous

philosophy of education.

Chris

[Guest guest]

I don't understand your response at all. My interpretation of the

original was that the point was made that someone should not be

teaching non-science material in a science class, e.g. giving cooking

lessons as a 'basis for the class'. The analogy, of course, was to

teaching ID in a science class. If a teacher got fired for teaching

cooking in the science class, or film appreciation in a math class, it

wouldn't be an example of the conspiratorial censorship being proposed

by some here.

You point about the administrator is totally lost on me.

> On 10/26/08, jmr1290 <jomarex@...> wrote:

> > Would you expect a science teacher to lose their job if they were

> > conducting cooking lessons as a basis for the class? That's even

> > physically related to science, but needs its own class, since it

> would

> > focus on things that really had nothing to do with what there is

> to be

> > learned in science class.

>

> That is just flat-out ridiculous. I'm sure a science teacher would

> get fired in some schools for cooking science class, but if I were a

> superintendent I would probably fire the administrator who fired that

> teacher, because I would fundamentally disagree with her ridiculous

> philosophy of education.

>

> Chris

>

>

[Guest guest]

On 10/26/08, Gene Schwartz <implode7@...> wrote:

> I don't understand your response at all. My interpretation of the

> original was that the point was made that someone should not be

> teaching non-science material in a science class, e.g. giving cooking

> lessons as a 'basis for the class'. The analogy, of course, was to

> teaching ID in a science class. If a teacher got fired for teaching

> cooking in the science class, or film appreciation in a math class, it

> wouldn't be an example of the conspiratorial censorship being proposed

> by some here.

If she meant that the cooking technique rather than the physical and

chemical principles underlying cooking were being emphasized, then

yes, I agree that teaching something outside the range of the class

description is at least reprimandable behavior. However, cooking

could be used to demonstrate a lot of important physical and chemical

principles and would be an interesting way to do it, much like ID is

an interesting and stimulating way of addressing certain

epistemological principles important to science.

Chris

[Guest guest]

Well, obviously, one could use a variety of disciplines, including

cooking, to demonstrate scientific principles. But if one was doing

that, then what would be the point of bringing it up at all?

You keep on repeating, like a mantra, that ID, through epistemology,

is appropriate to teach in a science class. I reject that 100%, and I

think that you are simply enamored of the notion of inserting

Christianity into a school science class.

> On 10/26/08, Gene Schwartz <implode7@...> wrote:

> > I don't understand your response at all. My interpretation of the

> > original was that the point was made that someone should not be

> > teaching non-science material in a science class, e.g. giving

> cooking

> > lessons as a 'basis for the class'. The analogy, of course, was to

> > teaching ID in a science class. If a teacher got fired for teaching

> > cooking in the science class, or film appreciation in a math

> class, it

> > wouldn't be an example of the conspiratorial censorship being

> proposed

> > by some here.

>

> If she meant that the cooking technique rather than the physical and

> chemical principles underlying cooking were being emphasized, then

> yes, I agree that teaching something outside the range of the class

> description is at least reprimandable behavior. However, cooking

> could be used to demonstrate a lot of important physical and chemical

> principles and would be an interesting way to do it, much like ID is

> an interesting and stimulating way of addressing certain

> epistemological principles important to science.

>

> Chris

>

>

[Guest guest]

On 10/26/08, Gene Schwartz <implode7@...> wrote:

> Well, obviously, one could use a variety of disciplines, including

> cooking, to demonstrate scientific principles. But if one was doing

> that, then what would be the point of bringing it up at all?

She made it a point to note that cooking was related to scientific

principles. I'm not the one who offered the analogy, so I don't know

what the point was. I agree that improperly using cooking in a

science class is improper and that improperly using ID in a science

class is improper, but then, since both are tautological, what is the

point of bringing *that* up at all?

> You keep on repeating, like a mantra, that ID, through epistemology,

> is appropriate to teach in a science class. I reject that 100%, and I

> think that you are simply enamored of the notion of inserting

> Christianity into a school science class.

Yes, I am enamored with the idea of imposing my religious beliefs on a

young and impressionable audience, although not nearly as enamored as

I am with the idea of forcing my culinary beliefs on a young and

impressionable audience.

If you kept insisting that cooking doesn't belong in science class, I

would probably be repeating that it does like a mantra.

Chris

[Guest guest]

On Oct 26, 2008, at 6:59 PM, Masterjohn wrote:

> On 10/26/08, Gene Schwartz <implode7@...> wrote:

> > Well, obviously, one could use a variety of disciplines, including

> > cooking, to demonstrate scientific principles. But if one was doing

> > that, then what would be the point of bringing it up at all?

>

> She made it a point to note that cooking was related to scientific

> principles. I'm not the one who offered the analogy, so I don't know

> what the point was. I agree that improperly using cooking in a

> science class is improper and that improperly using ID in a science

> class is improper, but then, since both are tautological, what is the

> point of bringing *that* up at all?

>

Because a number of people here think that, because ID has some remote

connection to science, it is legitimate to teach it.

>

>

> > You keep on repeating, like a mantra, that ID, through epistemology,

> > is appropriate to teach in a science class. I reject that 100%,

> and I

> > think that you are simply enamored of the notion of inserting

> > Christianity into a school science class.

>

> Yes, I am enamored with the idea of imposing my religious beliefs on a

> young and impressionable audience, although not nearly as enamored as

> I am with the idea of forcing my culinary beliefs on a young and

> impressionable audience.

>

As I suspected.

>

>

> If you kept insisting that cooking doesn't belong in science class, I

> would probably be repeating that it does like a mantra.

>

> Chris

>

>

[Guest guest]

Gene,

>> Yes, I am enamored with the idea of imposing my religious beliefs on a

>> young and impressionable audience, although not nearly as enamored as

>> I am with the idea of forcing my culinary beliefs on a young and

>> impressionable audience.

>>

> As I suspected.

Someone must have broken your ironometer in a previous post.

Chris

[Guest guest]

On Oct 26, 2008, at 7:32 PM, Masterjohn wrote:

> Gene,

>

> >> Yes, I am enamored with the idea of imposing my religious beliefs

> on a

> >> young and impressionable audience, although not nearly as

> enamored as

> >> I am with the idea of forcing my culinary beliefs on a young and

> >> impressionable audience.

> >>

> > As I suspected.

>

> Someone must have broken your ironometer in a previous post.

>

actually, I believe that it is yours that is broken.

>

>

> Chris

>

>