When I see the pundits on both sides arguing and debating over what should be taught in schools and the like, I don't see people searching for truth. I see people searching for power.

What a great observation! Thanks, VoodooV. THAT'S why no one can compromise, much less agree anymore on any of the many polarizing arguments out there. Abortion, homosexuality, Religion in the Public Sector, Irag - no one gives a shit about the truth anymore, only about winning the fucking argument. No wonder "debate" in this country has turned into a disingenous recitation of talking points and scorched-earth tactics.

Pretty civil discussion in THIS thread, though, on the perennial tricky subject of religion vs science - yay gamers. Maybe that's 'cuz gamers get their winnin' & power in the games.

"And to me, blind faith that science has the answers"

Science never claimed that. There are many things that science expressly says it cannot answer. Read a book called 'Godel, Esher and Bach' (or at least google Godel's theorem). Science is modelmaking which approximates what we see...it gets results.
Faith is pure speculation, and has never produced 'results' which can't be gotten by other means (meditation etc).

"The freedom of choice already exists."

No...that's a false choice. At least, it is when you expect school to be a place where kids learn about the world, people, interaction and how to build stuff. I've never run across 'God' in an equation or in ways to predict which cells will survive a given experiment. If you want kids to solve the problems the previous generations have made, teaching them about 'god' only gives them an excuse, not the means to solve problems.

I was referring to your statement that science can explain everything in the universe. Perhaps science can. But isn't it taking to an extreme (or maybe even taking a leap of faith) to say that science can explain EVERYTHING out there, despite the vast unknowns in the universe around us and that beyond the near? I believe science is the best belief system because it supports its assertions with fact but perhaps there could exist things beyond the scope and extension of science. My point being: science can be dogmatic, too. It's not just religious zealots who take things on faith. I think most people believe in Einstein's theory of relativity, but how many of us understand the mathematical proof behind it? The vast, vast majority do not. Yet we believe in it (even if it is somewhat counterintuitive) because big smart scientists told us it was so.

well put!

I find this contempt for science disturbing. Sure, there are a lot of nutjobs out there working 'in the name of science' but it doesn't change the fundamentals of what is good science and how it should be carried out. You can argue all you want, I'll still rather ascribe to the scientific process than accept things out of blind faith.

this is where you misunderstand. I have no contempt for science. I very much lean more towards science than faith As I have already stated, I just don't think its healthy to have one without the other.

I have contempt for those that believe that their understanding of our place in the universe is better or superior to anyone elses. I'm not saying you do. but as you have admitted, there are people like that out there. be they religious or scientific it makes no difference to me. a unethical priest may believe he is 'closer to god' than his followers are. in just the same way an arrogant scientist may believe that their knowledge makes them superior to the rest of us. THAT is what I have contempt for. Its these kinds of people that always seem to get the most press, while the rest of us who are closer to center go unheard.

I think a lot of people are mistaking faith for dogma. When I talk about faith. I'm simply refering to the belief in something you can't explain..you can't prove. yet you know is there. To borrow from the movie Contact I pose this to you: Do you love your parents?....Prove it. there is no equation for that shit.

I am by nature a logical person. but to say everything is science and nothing else. I find something lacking in that.
And to me, blind faith that science has the answers is no different from the blind faith in the idiotic dogma of some religions. It just seems obvious to me that science and faith have more in common that both of them would care to admit.

When I see the pundits on both sides arguing and debating over what should be taught in schools and the like. I don't see people searching for truth. I see people searching for power. Cuz see, we already have a choice in what we believe and how we are taught. if you are secular, you can go to a public school, if you're devoutly religious, you can go to a parochial school. If you don't like either one, you can be homeschooled. The freedom of choice already exists. Once again, why do we seem to be so concerned about what other people believe? These pundits are seeking the power to choose for you, and to say that their opinions on such personal matters are superior to yours. THAT's when I say to heck what they think. What are they going to do...outlaw schools that don't teach beliefs that aren't their own? That treads awful close to Isaac Hayes-ian levels of bigotry and intolerance

Basically, because every hypothesis is based on some form of (repeatable) observation...faith per definition isn't.

Guys like Freud and Jung are much closer to the truth than guys like the Pope or Pat Robertson. You think psychology has no basis in empirical science?

Freud and Jung (Freud especially) have little grounding in empirical science. Freud specifically rejected positivism and his theories, while influential, are no longer considered valid. And Jung, while his ideas have proven mostly sound, also had a particularly anti-science streak. A good deal of psychology most certainly has empirical grounding and solid research behind it. But not all psychology is created equal.

What contradiction? Facts versus faith.

I was referring to your statement that science can explain everything in the universe. Perhaps science can. But isn't it taking to an extreme (or maybe even taking a leap of faith) to say that science can explain EVERYTHING out there, despite the vast unknowns in the universe around us and that beyond the near? I believe science is the best belief system because it supports its assertions with fact but perhaps there could exist things beyond the scope and extension of science. My point being: science can be dogmatic, too. It's not just religious zealots who take things on faith. I think most people believe in Einstein's theory of relativity, but how many of us understand the mathematical proof behind it? The vast, vast majority do not. Yet we believe in it (even if it is somewhat counterintuitive) because big smart scientists told us it was so.


And what is good, Phaedrus, and what is not good -
Need we ask anyone to tell us these things?
http://citizenb.com/ - Now at v1.1

This comment was edited on Mar 15, 20:41.

I am a Christian. I have a scientific background. I love my faith. I love science. The two are not interchangeable. That's enough out of me.

there really isn't much difference between 'assumption' and 'faith' if you think about it.

if you're trying to tell someone to solve a problem and you tell them to assume X=3. What if that person asks you, "why is X=3, what do you tell them? you have to just take it on faith that X *IS* 3 you don't prove that X=3, it's just given to you. Faith is also just given to you you don't explain it, it just is. making assumptions is the same thing.

I see this argument popping up here and there: science being the religion of the western society. And comparing the Faith of religion with basic assumptions of science is exactly where you go wrong. You're example is stupid; No one is saying that X=3 or anything to that respect. The assumptions of science are of a very different nature, and much more reasonable than Faith.

Another way to look at is this. Many people, including myself, believe that there must be intelligent life elswhere beyond our solar system. Prove it. you can't. We take it on faith that there must be something else out there besides us. Sure you could prove that given the probable size of the universe, that its statistically impossible for there to not be other life out there, but statistics is still just a guess...still faith.

The 'just a guess' you're talking about here is based upon probability, facts and reasoning as opposed to 'just given Faith'. Nowhere near the same things.

fuck what the 'scholars' think.

I find this contempt for science disturbing. Sure, there are a lot of nutjobs out there working 'in the name of science' but it doesn't change the fundamentals of what is good science and how it should be carried out. You can argue all you want, I'll still rather ascribe to the scientific process than accept things out of blind faith.

and at the end of the day, does it make a difference?

Yes, since I am a scientist, it does so at least for me.


This comment was edited on Mar 15, 19:20.

f you're trying to tell someone to solve a problem and you tell them to assume X=3. What if that person asks you, "why is X=3, what do you tell them? you have to just take it on faith that X *IS* 3 you don't prove that X=3, it's just given to you. Faith is also just given to you you don't explain it, it just is. making assumptions is the same thing.

Then whoever is telling the person to solve the problem by assuming x=3 is a jackass.


Behold…this land. And we shall call it [pause] this land. Maybe we should call it your grave!. Curse your sudden but inevitable betrayal! -Wash
http://www.frappr.com/bluesnewsmembers

Yes, there are some fundamental assumptions you have to make, but they are not based on blind Faith

there really isn't much difference between 'assumption' and 'faith' if you think about it.

if you're trying to tell someone to solve a problem and you tell them to assume X=3. What if that person asks you, "why is X=3, what do you tell them? you have to just take it on faith that X *IS* 3 you don't prove that X=3, it's just given to you. Faith is also just given to you you don't explain it, it just is. making assumptions is the same thing.

Another way to look at is this. Many people, including myself, believe that there must be intelligent life elswhere beyond our solar system. Prove it. you can't. We take it on faith that there must be something else out there besides us. Sure you could prove that given the probable size of the universe, that its statistically impossible for there to not be other life out there, but statistics is still just a guess...still faith.

I'm not saying one is right and the other is not. I just see the fanatics dancing around each other, fighting over who is right and I just have to ask, what does it accomplish? does it stop you from believing in science if the religious fanatics win...does it stop you from having faith if the scientific fanatics win? dont you think its awfully petty for these people to argue with each other and try and convince each other that they are right and the other is wrong when in the end, its still up to *you* to decide. fuck what the 'scholars' think.

and at the end of the day, does it make a difference? does knowing the meaning of life change the fact that you still have to go to work or school? does it help you do your taxes? I choose to believe there is room for *both* science and spirituality in my life. to eliminate one or the other seems stupid.

science and religion are the same thing, they both try to explain the unexplainable, and both are interpreted by the same flawed humans. one is just a little bit more adaptable and open to change than the other fanatics from both sides claim that their side has all the answers

Obviously you haven't understood how science works. Yes, there are some fundamental assumptions you have to make, but they are not based on blind Faith. I consider myself an atheist because this is the conclusion I find most reasonable given observations about the universe, not because I think I KNOW the nature of existence. Saying you're agnostic might be honest but at the same time I find it a little too "safe".

I used to be Athiest until I realized that believing that there is no god is really no different than beliving that there is a god. Both beliefs assume that one KNOWS the nature of existence. Its two sides of the same coin. you can argue that god created the universe or you can argue that the big bang did...both makes the assumption that you *KNOW*

science and religion are the same thing, they both try to explain the unexplainable, and both are interpreted by the same flawed humans. one is just a little bit more adaptable and open to change than the other fanatics from both sides claim that their side has all the answers

I am quite content in saying simply that I do not know.

I do know that I have this need/calling/inner voice telling me that there is more out there than I can logically explain away through science.

I agree with the second part of that, though I personally don't have that need/calling/inner voice thing going on. That's why I'm not an atheist. As someone educated in science and with a solid scientific worldview, I just don't get atheists.

Now that all of Blue's thinks that I'm a religious nut

Nah, I have religious friends. I even know a couple of catholics. My sister keeps telling me she wants to go back to church and I understand why--it has nothing to do with God or Jesus or salvation--so I keep my mouth clamped firmly shut. My comments about rationality applied only to comparing one organized religion to another, not individuals. My original point still holds: that often in our culture the deeply entrenched mainstream religious dogma we've been exposed to all of our lives will seem instinctively reasonable when compared to other dogma associated with the "cults." I finally reached the point where I can get past that: Mormons, Catholics, Jehovah's Witnesses, Hari Krishna's, Scientologists, Christians: they're all equally nutso. Except I will concede something to you Heather. I now change that to "almost all."

MEATFORCE!

Nah, sounds too much like STARFORCE to me.

Once you go Invasive MeatForce Rootkit, you never go back, baby

-----
GW: Tashen Boke [R/Me]; Rosti The Ninja [Mo/R]; Gort Grimley [W/Ne]

All I have to do to prove gravity is drop something.

Wow, so how did humanity go for thousands and thousands of years without realizing what gravity was? Did nobody drop anything before [Ancient Greeks/Ancient Chinese/Newton]?

They had their own explanations as well. It just so happens that Newton's Theory of Gravitation (and Einstein's furtherance of it in his Special Theory of Relativity) happens to coincide with empirical testing better than those other explanations. And, yet, they're both wrong. We know this for a fact -- they do not properly predict gravitational interactions at the atomic/quantum scale, and the theories that do predict those don't work at larger scales. Will we eventually figure it out? Sure. But your statement shows how little you know about science.

Prove to me there's a god and I'll acknowledge it

That's inherently impossible. We've been over this. Faith is in a separate realm from science.

Xtians are all about wishful thinking. And they also live in denial where the facts actually exist (e.g. evolution).

Ok, first off, your repeated use of Xtians as an apparant insult to Christians is just... childish. And stupid. You know that X stands for the Greek letter Chi, right? That's where the appreviation comes from. It's not an insult. It is, however, infantile.

Secondly, your statement about Christians and evolution is complete and utter bullshit. Or do you also believe that all Muslims are terrorists, all Jews are tightwads, etc.

Seriously Halsy, do you not realize that your stance against religion is just as fanatical as fundamentalist stances against science? No, I suspect you don't.

As someone whose father is a PCA pastor (conservative branch of the Presbyterians), I can tell you quite a bit. Heather is from the liberal, far more reasonable Presbyterian branch

Ecthelion - thank you for the heads up! I'm just familiar with the PCUSA way of doing things. Gah, I'd have a hard time dealing with the straight-up Calvinist doctrine - I'm way too much of an uppity independent thinker.

I can totally get why people raised in such a conservative movement would bail and ne'er go back. Among my friends, I have oodles who were raised Roman Catholic, Southern Baptist, or Orthodox Jewish, and almost all of them have left those religions to become atheist or UU. Oh, and my stepmom who left the Catholic church when she was divorced and remarried, so she eased up and became Episcopalian (Catholic lite!).

Now that all of Blue's thinks that I'm a religious nut, I'll have to add the codicil that if'n you all were to meet me IRL, you'd think I was a godless heathen. I prefer to keep my faith to myself, except when I see a direct attack against something I believe to be true.

Oh come on, Heather. Nowhere did you answer whether some people go to hell and other people go to heaven. I even went to the site you mentioned and it didn't say either. Not surprising considering the current theological split occurring in the Presbyterian church today. As far as I know, mainstream Presbyterianism has always condemned some people to hell while others go to heaven. As far as non-mainstream, of course there's even more variation there than among the mainstream religions. There will be people attached to mainstream religions who hold their own contradictory views, naturally. So perhaps you personally believe that everybody goes to heaven (you didn't say) but I don't think that opinion is shared by the majority of Presbyterians. I think the concept of any kind of hell is the most irrational component of any religion, but certainly not the only one. Even if there is no hell per se, the belief that some people will get to heaven but not others is pretty high up there too. But this discussion was a comparison of irrationality among religions, not individual people (whose beliefs paint a continuous spectrum from absurd to plausible).

As someone whose father is a PCA pastor (conservative branch of the Presbyterians), I can tell you quite a bit. Heather is from the liberal, far more reasonable Presbyterian branch. The conservative Presbyterians believe that everyone goes to hell, except the select few that God has chosen. An interesting note is that they believe God has to work in the individual and "open his eyes" so that he believes in Christ. Yet they still say people are responsible for thier sins. If there's no free will, how the hell are people to blame for what they do?

The PCA won't come out and say it, but they believe babies go to hell (no wonder they're so against abortion, they have to keep the baby alive so that it grows up and has a chance to become a Christian). Here's an interesting question, if someone is in the "pre-destined" group (meaning God has designated them to become Christian), what happens if they die before they become a Christian? Do they still get to go to heaven? Oh, and Heather, the PCA is still very much grounded in Calvinism (yet they very rarely mention his nationality - I don't think a denomination of primarily Republicans likes to remember their "founding father" was French).

If you can't tell, I'm an atheist now. I can't believe I thought I believed this shit for 20-some years.

One thing that's interesting to note about faith, is that it is in an inverse relationship to humor. The more faith you have, the less you appreciate a good joke. All religions take themselves way too seriously (like the Scientologists, in this case). Remember how much of a ruckus the movie Dogma caused? Even though that movie is hilarious, and brings up lots of good points about religion (my favorite is how the bible is so derogatory towards women, and Chris Rock's whole "black Jesus" comment), but the Catholics (and pretty much every conservative church) got all mad about it, because they can't laugh at themselves.

This comment was edited on Mar 15, 07:32.

All I have to do to prove gravity is drop something.

Actually, you're wrong. At least technically speaking. There is no logical proof of gravity's existence. It is, however, more than ample empirical evidence since every time someone has dropped something before it's been corroborated. Hence, it seems reasonable to think that gravity does exist. This is different from faith, where you think that something (e.g. God) exists in spite of the scarcity of observations supporting this notion (when really put to the test).

Unconscious mind? Universal parent archetype? Sounds like Sigmund Freud and Carl Jung to me. So much for your steadfast subscription to empirical science.

Guys like Freud and Jung are much closer to the truth than guys like the Pope or Pat Robertson. You think psychology has no basis in empirical science?

That sounds like bonafide scientism to me. You're at least as zealous as the average Christian. Check yourself, Halsy. I think you have a contradiction somewhere.

What contradiction? Facts versus faith. Prove to me there's a god and I'll acknowledge it. So far no one has even come close. All I have to do to prove gravity is drop something. Friction? Take a step. etc. etc. One would think that proving the existence of an all-powerful deity would be a cakewalk by comparison. Then again, it wasn't all that long ago that man though fire was a gift from the gods. Xtians are all about wishful thinking. And they also live in denial where the facts actually exist (e.g. evolution).


"You gotta keep on keepin' on, brother!"
- Joe Dirt