Will Religion Kill Science

karen3212

Hi,
I was watching a video on Beyondbelief2006.org tonight, and I am worried will the religious movements particularly in the US just now, kill off Science and inquiry.

I'm thinking mainly of what happened in the Arab world previously, could that happen in the West. It's just that a lot of rich powerful foundations in the US are working on misconstruing Science, and I think the public is loosing trust in Science.

What can we do to help prevent Science from being starved of money and loosing the public trust.

It is my opinion that once we say God did it, we stop asking why?

Am I being paranoid?

edit website address
http://beyondbelief2006.org/

bonkey

karen3212 wrote:

Hi,
I was watching a video on Beyondbelief.org tonight, and I am worried will the religious movements particularly in the US just now, kill off Science and inquiry.

No chance.

At worst, they'd seriously damage some small number of fields (such as evolutionary theory), but otherwise leave it alone.

I'm thinking mainly of what happened in the Arab world previously, could that happen in the West.

No. Science has progressed too far. The modern scientific method is a far, far different beast to that which existed in times gone by, when science often overlapped with fields such as alchemy or astrology.

It's just that a lot of rich powerful foundations in the US are working on misconstruing Science, and I think the public is loosing trust in Science.

The public is most certainly not losing trust in science. They may be convinced in large numbers that evolution is suspect, but ask how many people are afraid to use a computer, ride a lfit, drive in a car, or basically do anything in the modern day because they have no faith in the science behind it and I think you'll find that they will overwhelmingly treat you as though you were slightly mad to ask the question in the first place.

It is my opinion that once we say God did it, we stop asking why?

Thats a very limited view of science, surely.

Besides...once the faithful say "God did it", surely the next question for them should be "what, exactly, did God do?"

Am I being paranoid?

They tell me not to answer you

rockbeer

bonkey wrote:

Besides...once the faithful say "God did it", surely the next question for them should be "what, exactly, did God do?"

I don't know, that kind of question can give them a real problem. What happens when they discover that god didn't do what he said he did? That's when the trouble really starts.

5uspect

I think you may be confusing science with technology there Bonkey.
People for the most part don't care how their mobile phone or PC works.
For all they care it works by magic.

For example whenever someone goes for surgery it is often said, "its in the laps of the gods now" or "please God" etc. Thery rarely say that its up to the education, dedication and skill of the doctors and the science behind the technology that keeps them alive while being operated on.

Tho people are impressed by what is possible today, I don't think they ever really step too far away from their magical thinking.

As for how this will affect science, I agree that it probably won't affect it much more than it already does. People are ignorant of science in general. Attacking sticky issues like evolution that seem to discard religious mysteries was always is will always be there. The fact that there is relatively large movement currently attacking science in the form of Intelligent Design cannot possibly stand up for significant scrutiny for long. It falls down at the first hurdle.

rockbeer

5uspect wrote:

The fact that there is relatively large movement currently attacking science in the form of Intelligent Design cannot possibly stand up for significant scrutiny for long. It falls down at the first hurdle.

What, aren't you impressed by the logic?

Nothing so improbable could have come into being by chance, therefore it was made by somebody, therefore everything it says in the bible is true?

PDN

5uspect wrote:

For example whenever someone goes for surgery it is often said, "its in the laps of the gods now" or "please God" etc. Thery rarely say that its up to the education, dedication and skill of the doctors and the science behind the technology that keeps them alive while being operated on.

Tho people are impressed by what is possible today, I don't think they ever really step too far away from their magical thinking.

I don't think you will get many people using such phrases when facing a minor operation, such as an ingrowing toenail, or even more major surgery where they are told that the success rate is 100%.

Many people resort to other options (magic, superstition, religion) more as a safety net to cover the gaps left by science. So, if they're told an operation has an 80% survival rate, they start praying about the other 20%.

I also know that many doctors, who are well aware of the technology and skill involved, will pray for God to guide their hands before an operation. Religion and science are only in opposition in the eyes of the extremist fundamentalists (on both sides of the fence). Many great scientific discoveries of the past came about through the conviction that, since God made the world, it is worth searching for order amid the apparent chaos and unpredictability of life.

rockbeer

PDN wrote:

Religion and science are only in opposition in the eyes of the extremist fundamentalists (on both sides of the fence).

But seriously, all facetiousness aside, how do you resolve contradictions between scientific knowledge and scripture in your own mind? Do you reinterpret scripture to accommodate new scientific information, and if so where would this process end?

Or do you deny scientific knowledge that doesn't tie in with your interpretation of scripture?

For example, the biological truth is that homosexual behaviour is widespread throughout the animal world, while scripture declares this to be a sin. Is it a sin because the book says so? Did god deliberately create animals (including us) to whom sinful behaviour was instinctive and natural? If so, why?

Or is the book just plain wrong?

And if it's wrong about that, what else might it be wrong about?

Seems to me that once you tie your idea of the truth down to the contents of one book, there must inevitably come a point where you must either close your mind to new information or reject the book.

bonkey

5uspect wrote:

I think you may be confusing science with technology there Bonkey.

No, I'm not.

People for the most part don't care how their mobile phone or PC works. For all they care it works by magic.

Exactly. Only it doesn't work by magic. It works because of the underlying science....and like you said people don't care.

Science isn't being attacked. Fundamentalists are not going arounf proclaiming that all the trappings of our modern world are some sort of satanic deception...or if they do, they're not given much attention.

Only certain specific aspects of science are being attacked, most notably evolutionary theory.

For example whenever someone goes for surgery it is often said, "its in the laps of the gods now" or "please God" etc. Thery rarely say that its up to the education, dedication and skill of the doctors and the science behind the technology that keeps them alive while being operated on.

But they still go for the surgery, right? Very few say "God will save me" and cry out that surgery is all a hoax, perpetrated by the ungodly, and that God basically decides the outcome anyway regardless of what we do.

Tho people are impressed by what is possible today, I don't think they ever really step too far away from their magical thinking.

It doesn't matter what they think, as long as they don't think "this should be stopped". Thats the only point where they start threatening science.

The fact that there is relatively large movement currently attacking science in the form of Intelligent Design cannot possibly stand up for significant scrutiny for long. It falls down at the first hurdle.

And again, ID is not attacking science, but rather some small aspects of it.

Ultimately, science and religion have little cause to be at odds with each other, except when one claims (false) authority in the other's territory.

PDN

karen3212 wrote:

What can we do to help prevent Science from being starved of money and loosing the public trust.

I can only see 2 reasons why this should happen. One would be if scientific institutes are pursuing methods of research and experimentation that would be opposed by religious people on moral grounds. Of course this is not just a problem in relation with religion, there are plenty of non-religious people who would oppose, for example, using animals for experimentation on moral and ethical grounds.

The second reason would be if science is seen as setting itself up in opposition to religion. If you are working as a scientist in a society where the majority of the population see themselves as religious, then there should be no problem in pursuing research that will benefit that society. But if you choose to attack religion, and portray those who hold religious views as being stupid or illogical, then you're not exactly making friends for yourself. If any branch of science and the arts wants public funding, then it makes sense not to deliberately antagonise those who pay the taxes that provide such funding. You might get away with that in a dictatorship, but not in a democracy.

5uspect

rockbeer wrote:

What, aren't you impressed by the logic?

therefore God exists...

PDN wrote:

I don't think you will get many people using such phrases when facing a minor operation, such as an ingrowing toenail, or even more major surgery where they are told that the success rate is 100%.

Such procedures only become minor when technology and understanding progress enough to allow such high success rates. Is there a point in time when people stop invokoing the will of god for a particular procedure?
Does that mean that god has answered their prayers (a bit late) or that sciecne did it's thing through hard work and skeptical reasoning.

PDN wrote:

Many people resort to other options (magic, superstition, religion) more as a safety net to cover the gaps left by science. So, if they're told an operation has an 80% survival rate, they start praying about the other 20%.

But you cannot fill your 20% gap with something that has a 0% success rate (ignoring the placebo effect). As the gaps decrease with time the alternatives remain unchanged at 0%. If you want to believe that God answers their prayers by inspiring future developents in medicine, fair enough, but I doubt the patients were praying for future patients, as their intentions were somewhat more selfish.

PDN wrote:

I also know that many doctors, who are well aware of the technology and skill involved, will pray for God to guide their hands before an operation. Religion and science are only in opposition in the eyes of the extremist fundamentalists (on both sides of the fence).

People are free to believe what they wish, if a surgeon feels that prayer helps him steady his hands and prepare him for a complex procedure, fine. But most medical doctors aren't practising scientists. They are users of technology and science who rarely develop it just like a lorry driver praying that his lorry starts when he turns the key. There are of course some surgeons etc who do develop methods and technologies.

Saying that religion has no place in science is not an extremest position, and it is a fallacy to do so. Science is concerned with what is observable, repeatable and falsifible. Religion is neither of these and cannot be considered part of science. This is the default position. If you are enjoying the benefits of technology and want to believe it was inspired by god or works by magic, fine, but you can't do science with religion (apart from studying its effects).

PDN wrote:

Many great scientific discoveries of the past came about through the conviction that, since God made the world, it is worth searching for order amid the apparent chaos and unpredictability of life.

Many scientific discoveries (much of original chemistry probably) came from the idea that base metals could be transformed into gold. The distinction is that no matter the bias of the experimenter, the data should speak for themselves. Scientific theories are the hypotheses of scientists moulded by the evidence. There are all potentially wrong, and are all subject to change as new evidence arises. Assuming anything about a god is only a hypotheis that is unscientific. Just because many people worked on this premise doesn't affect their results, only their biased interpretation of it.

5uspect

PDN wrote:

If any branch of science and the arts wants public funding, then it makes sense not to deliberately antagonise those who pay the taxes that provide such funding. You might get away with that in a dictatorship, but not in a democracy.

In other words science should be held hostage to the unfounded superstitions of the population? If people believe something that is unfounded, like religion, why should it be respected? Why not attempt to educate ourselves and see what is actually going on?

Trying to compare scientific progress with a dictatorship is rather disingenuous.
There is no democracy in science. There is the survival of the theory that best explains the observations. If there are ethical or moral reasons as to why a particular line of research should not be followed it must be presented in a rational manner. Simply saying my holy book says different is not good enough.

PDN

rockbeer wrote:

But seriously, all facetiousness aside, how do you resolve contradictions between scientific knowledge and scripture in your own mind? Do you reinterpret scripture to accommodate new scientific information, and if so where would this process end?

Or do you deny scientific knowledge that doesn't tie in with your interpretation of scripture?

For example, the biological truth is that homosexual behaviour is widespread throughout the animal world, while scripture declares this to be a sin. Is it a sin because the book says so? Did god deliberately create animals (including us) to whom sinful behaviour was instinctive and natural? If so, why?

Or is the book just plain wrong?

And if it's wrong about that, what else might it be wrong about?

Seems to me that once you tie your idea of the truth down to the contents of one book, there must inevitably come a point where you must either close your mind to new information or reject the book.

Here is a prime example of the abuse of scientific knowledge. Biologists demonstrate that animals manifest homosexual behaviour. So far so good, that is the proper function of biology, to reveal such facts.

Now the assertion is made that, if animals manifest such behaviour, then that somehow contradicts the biblical view of homosexuality among humans as being sinful. That assertion is not scientific, it is based on rockbeer's prejudice against monotheistic religion, particularly Christianity. It is pseudoscience, and to present it as if it were science is to drag the name of science through the mud.

The fact is that the manifestation of a behaviour among animals does not in any way carry implications as to whether a similar behaviour is sinful for human beings or not. For example, many female spiders eat the male after mating - but I am sure that most of us would be appalled if any religion declared that it was OK for a woman to kill and eat her male partner the morning after a night of passion. We would have howls of protest and threads galore here on this board declaring that religion was evil on the earth.

Seems to me that once you tie your idea of the truth down to the contents of one book, there must inevitably come a point where you must either close your mind to new information or reject the book.

The problem with your argument is that this "new" information can change at the drop of a hat. You seem to view scientific advances as if they have been 100% proven, and therefore incapable of contradiction, but in reality they are simply the best available explanations and, as such, are subject to modification or even rejection in the future.

For example, at one point it was argued that Moses could not have written any of the books of the Pentateuch because one branch of science, archeology, had conclusively proved that writing was not yet invented in the time of Moses. As a result, a whole host of poor deluded religious idiots rushed to accommodate their beliefs to this proven fact. After all, they didn't want to close their eyes to new 'information', so they rejected their book. Rather embarrassingly, subsequent archeological research discovered that writing had, in fact, existed long before the time of Moses.

Or let's take your example of animals manifesting homosexual behaviour. Now, let's suppose for just a moment that I am really stupid enough to swallow your bad logic and believe that such behaviour carries a necessary consequence that anything animals do must be OK for humans. So I say, "Alright then, almighty science has spoken, so I must reject what my book says." Then, a few years later, imagine that biologists make a further discovery. They realize that animals only manifest homosexual behaviour in situations of extreme stress, and, furthermore, that this stress is caused by manmade damage to their natural environment. Now I have a dilemma. The idea that animals would behave in a strange way as a result of human sin is totally consistent with my book. Do I continue to reject my book, even though that rejection was decided as a result of false information? Or do I decide to believe in my book again until almighty science issues another decree?

Son Goku

PDN wrote:

Many great scientific discoveries of the past came about through the conviction that, since God made the world, it is worth searching for order amid the apparent chaos and unpredictability of life.

I'm not being smart, but outside some (one or two) very early Medieval solar models I can't think of many situations where this is the case. Is there a 19th or 20th century example?

PDN

5uspect wrote:

In other words science should be held hostage to the unfounded superstitions of the population? If people believe something that is unfounded, like religion, why should it be respected? Why not attempt to educate ourselves and see what is actually going on?

No, you are twisting my words. People are perfectly free to disrespect religion. They are also perfectly free to devote their time to attacking religion. What they should not expect is for religious people to fund them while they do so.

Let's take an example already raised by another poster. Biologists are free to observe the behaviour of animals in the wild. As one who has a concern for the environment, I am delighted that my taxes help fund such research. One of these biologists observes that animals manifest homosexual behaviour. Again, I am delighted. My tax contributions have helped discover a hitherto unobserved phenomenon.

Now, let's assume that the biologist's logical processes are so defective as to lead him to think that his discovery has any bearing on the Bible's view of homosexual behaviour as being sinful. I am not delighted about this, but he is free to hold whatever private belief he wishes, no matter how illogical it may be. Now suppose that he wastes his time in trying to propagate his illogical view, based on his irrational hatred of my religious views. Now I have a legitimate cause of complaint. Why should I continue, through my taxes, to fund him to attack my religious beliefs?

If this biologist can obtain funding from some private source to conduct a crusade against my beliefs then he is free to do so. But he has not some divine right to public funding because he claims to be a scientist.

Trying to compare scientific progress with a dictatorship is rather disingenuous.

Such a comparison would indeed be disingenuous. Maybe you should find someone who made such a comparison and discuss the matter with them.

I did not make any such comparison. What I said was that in a dictatorship scientific research can operate unhindered by any consideration of how the general population feel about such research (as occurred in the Soviet Union, or in Nazi Germany). But in a democracy, where such research relies on public funding, it makes sense to keep the golden goose that provides your eggs happy. Ridiculing their beliefs is unlikely to achieve that aim.

5uspect

PDN wrote:

Here is a prime example of the abuse of scientific knowledge. Biologists demonstrate that animals manifest homosexual behaviour. So far so good, that is the proper function of biology, to reveal such facts.

But they do infact show homosexual behaviour. Its very well documented.
Humans show such behaviour too. We too are animals.

PDN wrote:

if animals manifest such behaviour, then that somehow contradicts the biblical view of homosexuality among humans as being sinful. That assertion is not scientific,

Whats wrong with this? Why is Anthropology not a science?

PDN wrote:

The fact is that the manifestation of a behaviour among animals does not in any way carry implications as to whether a similar behaviour is sinful for human beings or not.

True, but then I have dfficulty understanding whay sin is.

PDN wrote:

For example, many female spiders eat the male after mating - but I am sure that most of us would be appalled if any religion declared that it was OK for a woman to kill and eat her male partner the morning after a night of passion. We would have howls of protest and threads galore here on this board declaring that religion was evil on the earth.

I think anyone here can see the difference between the murder of another human being and two peoplle engaging in a consentual act. Do you have a problem with homosexuality?

PDN wrote:

The problem with your argument is that this "new" information can change at the drop of a hat. You seem to view scientific advances as if they have been 100% proven, and therefore incapable of contradiction, but in reality they are simply the best available explanations and, as such, are subject to modification or even rejection in the future.

Take this paragraph and replace "scientific advances" with "religious truth".
Religion is the original hypothesis and hasn't realised that it is well past its sell by date.

PDN wrote:

They realize that animals only manifest homosexual behaviour in situations of extreme stress, and, furthermore, that this stress is caused by manmade damage to their natural environment.

But this observation would contradict existing observations. The fact is that animals in the wild have been observed to engage in homosexual behavour. Lions for example. You're being deliberately selective.

PDN wrote:

Now I have a dilemma. The idea that animals would behave in a strange way as a result of human sin is totally consistent with my book. Do I continue to reject my book, even though that rejection was decided as a result of false information? Or do I decide to believe in my book again until almighty science issues another decree?

It is only "strange" because you are refusing to look at the evidence that says that homosexuality amoung animals exists regardless of human interference quite commonly. And as I've mentioned above for new evidence to show what you want every otrher observation on the matter must be ignored.
I don't see how you can talk about how science is incomplete and stand by your holy book with such confidence. This is a massive contradiction that I cannot come to terms with.

Son Goku

PDN wrote:

(as occurred in the Soviet Union, or in Nazi Germany).

Josef Mengele is the primary example I can think of from Nazi Germany, but who from Soviet Russia are you talking about?

Crucifix

PDN wrote:

Now suppose that he wastes his time in trying to propagate his illogical view, based on his irrational hatred of my religious views. Now I have a legitimate cause of complaint. Why should I continue, through my taxes, to fund him to attack my religious beliefs?

But is the issue that it's illogical, or that it attacks your religious position?

bonkey

rockbeer wrote:

For example, the biological truth is that homosexual behaviour is widespread throughout the animal world, while scripture declares this to be a sin. Is it a sin because the book says so? Did god deliberately create animals (including us) to whom sinful behaviour was instinctive and natural? If so, why?

Or is the book just plain wrong?

Science says nothing about sin, as sin is a non-scientific concept.

On closer reflection, one should see that biological capability is a requirement for sin. After all, the religious concept of sin, as with the more abstract moral concepts of good and evil, are dependant on our ability to do something coupled with our choice whether or not to do it.

However, if a religious group were to claim that homosexuality were a disease, then they would be overstepping their bounds unless they could show the scientific reasoning behind such a claim.

bonkey

5uspect wrote:

I think anyone here can see the difference between the murder of another human being and two peoplle engaging in a consentual act.

Hardly a scientific position.

You started by arguing that something is biologically common. When presented with the evidence that "biologically common" is hardly a good absis on which to base your argument, you claim that "anyone can see the difference".

I can't see the difference, unless we're abandoning the concept that "can be seen occurring in other species" somehow ligitimises an action. If we abandon that, then we've left behind the only scientific basis your original point had.

Do you have a problem with homosexuality?

I don't, whatever about PDN. regardless of his position, it doesn't make your argument that "anyone can see the difference" scientifically valid.

PDN

5uspect wrote:

I think anyone here can see the difference between the murder of another human being and two peoplle engaging in a consentual act. Do you have a problem with homosexuality?.

Good grief! Are you deliberately being obtuse? I am using an obviously absurd example to demonstrate that the occurrence of a phenomenon among animals carries no implication as to whether that activity is morally acceptable or not among humans.

[A problem with homosexuality? I believe that homosexual intercourse is sinful, in the exact same way that I believe heterosexual intercourse outside of marriage is sinful. As such both activities should be avoided by Christians. But, if you are not a Christian, then you are not bound by Christian morality and it is a matter of total indifference to me whether you sleep with men or women, and how many of them. It's absolutely none of my business. I only mention homosexuality because I am responding to a post from rockbeer in which he used it as an example.]

But this observation would contradict existing observations. The fact is that animals in the wild have been observed to engage in homosexual behavour. Lions for example. You're being deliberately selective.

Does the concept of a hypothetical example mean anything to you? Also, do you really believe that scientific research never contradicts existing observations?

It is only "strange" because you are refusing to look at the evidence that says that homosexuality amoung animals exists regardless of human interference quite commonly.

I am not refusing to look at anything. I am using a hypothetical example, as I made perfectly clear in my post. This example is obviously hypothetical because it would also depend on me being stupid enough to swallow a piece of obviously defective logic.

Jimoslimos

PDN wrote:

The second reason would be if science is seen as setting itself up in opposition to religion. If you are working as a scientist in a society where the majority of the population see themselves as religious, then there should be no problem in pursuing research that will benefit that society. But if you choose to attack religion, and portray those who hold religious views as being stupid or illogical, then you're not exactly making friends for yourself. If any branch of science and the arts wants public funding, then it makes sense not to deliberately antagonise those who pay the taxes that provide such funding. You might get away with that in a dictatorship, but not in a democracy.

I don't think science has ever attempted to attack religion. Perhaps a better choice of words would be "subconciously undermine". You can look at the data and draw the (obvious) conclusion that there is an extremely small likelihood that what religion teaches is actually true. Science doesn't have an agenda pro/anti religion and any conflicts arising tend to be on the part of religion

PDN

Son Goku wrote:

Josef Mengele is the primary example I can think of from Nazi Germany, but who from Soviet Russia are you talking about?

Lysenko's pseudoscience in the field of genetics was discredited internationally but permitted to waste resources in the Soviet Union at a time when many Soviet citizens were dying of starvation.

Also in the field of psychiatry, Soviet researchers, such as Nekipelov, developed the concept of "sluggishly developing schizophrenia". This supposed malady showed no other symptoms other than a "paranoia" which presented itself in the social sphere as ideas about a struggle for truth or justice. This diagnosis enabled the regime to incarcerate dissidents in psychiatric units and subject them to a whole battery of invasive treatments that were, in effect, torture.

Neither Lysenko nor Nekipelov would, in my opinion, have been able to garner public funding for their nonsense in a functioning democracy.

Son Goku

PDN wrote:

Lysenko's pseudoscience in the field of genetics was discredited internationally but permitted to waste resources in the Soviet Union at a time when many Soviet citizens were dying of starvation.....

I can't believe I forgot Lysenko, thanks.

5uspect

PDN wrote:

No, you are twisting my words. People are perfectly free to disrespect religion. They are also perfectly free to devote their time to attacking religion. What they should not expect is for religious people to fund them while they do so.

I'm not twisting your words I'm trying to show you the flaws in your arguement. A government that hands out public funding based on religious grounds is not a democracy, it is a theocracy. You claim to be a secularist but you don't seem to grasp its fundamental concept.

If you cannot provide a reason as to why you don't want stem cell research funded, for example, other than I have a book that I can interprret that says its wrong then you don't have an arguement. Jehovah's Witnesses refusing blood transfusions for no rational reason springs to mind.

If a politician decided to block the teaching of Shakespeare to school children simply because he didn't like it you'd say that silly. However if one tried to prevent it because they have homosexual references based on religious grounds its different?

PDN wrote:

Now, let's assume that the biologist's logical processes are so defective as to lead him to think that his discovery has any bearing on the Bible's view of homosexual behaviour as being sinful.

Its not about the bible's view, its about the view that the bible is infallable. This is the illogical view. The bible says we shouldn't eat shellfish!
Fiction can say what it wishes. Social scientists are free to point out such instances of irrationality in our society where we take books like the bible as absolute truth. What wrong with studying religion and its influences in society?

PDN wrote:

I am not delighted about this, but he is free to hold whatever private belief he wishes, no matter how illogical it may be. Now suppose that he wastes his time in trying to propagate his illogical view, based on his irrational hatred of my religious views. Now I have a legitimate cause of complaint. Why should I continue, through my taxes, to fund him to attack my religious beliefs?

If the biologist discovers that animals engage in homosexual behaviour and the anthropologist discovers that humans also engage in homosexual behaviour those are the observations. If the social atitude is that homosexuality is wrong based on the views expressed in the bible then the anthropologist is perfectly within his rights to discuss the influences of this very real social effect on the very real existence of homosexuality.

The problem is your attitude not what is written in your book, nobody denies what the book says, and personally I find your vitriol against gay people rather disturbing.

PDN wrote:

If this biologist can obtain funding from some private source to conduct a crusade against my beliefs then he is free to do so. But he has not some divine right to public funding because he claims to be a scientist.

Can you show me a boilogist who claims these things? Are you talking about Dawkins? I don't think public money paid for the God Delusion.

Why is it a crusade against your beliefs? All of science is effectively a crusade against ignorance. Religion like other ideologies must compete for support. You cannot show that it is the only correct position. Is granting Gay people their human rights a crusade against your beliefs? Surely your beliefs are an attack on the human rights of a group of people that have done nothing to you other than exist?

PDN wrote:

Such a comparison would indeed be disingenuous. Maybe you should find someone who made such a comparison and discuss the matter with them.

You are quite fond of comparing atheists the the barbarism of Stalin and science to a dictatorship when it steps on the toes of your belief.

PDN wrote:

I did not make any such comparison. What I said was that in a dictatorship scientific research can operate unhindered by any consideration of how the general population feel about such research (as occurred in the Soviet Union, or in Nazi Germany). But in a democracy, where such research relies on public funding, it makes sense to keep the golden goose that provides your eggs happy. Ridiculing their beliefs is unlikely to achieve that aim.

Public money pays for the funding is any society. Where does any government, democratic of totalitarian get its cash?
In a dictatorship, research benefits the dictator, weapons, etc
In a democracy research should benefit the population. Providing better public services, technology and standard of living. But also by educating the population about the way the world is, not perpetuating the unfounded beliefs that already exist. Just because you don't like the results doesn't mean its wrong.

PDN

5uspect wrote:

If you cannot provide a reason as to why you don't want stem cell research funded, for example, other than I have a book that I can interprret that says its wrong then you don't have an arguement.

I quite agree. I am unaware of my ever having argued against stem cell research for that or indeed for any other reason.

If a politician decided to block the teaching of Shakespeare to school children simply because he didn't like it you'd say that silly. However if one tried to prevent it because they have homosexual references based on religious grounds its different?

Why would it be different? I have never argued that books with homosexual references should be banned from anywhere. Why are you imagining such things?

The problem is your attitude not what is written in your book, nobody denies what the book says, and personally I find your vitriol against gay people rather disturbing.

Have you been drinking this morning? What vitriol? I have stated, very reasonably in my opinion, that as a Christian I would abstain from homosexuality for the same reason that I abstain from heterosexual extramarital sex, because the Bible says such behaviour is a sin. I have made no remarks whatsoever against gay people. In fact, to the contrary, I have stated that it would be entirely unreasonable to expect non-Christians to order their lives according to the Bible. Do you think that by falsely representing me as a homophobic bigot that somehow invalidates my arguments? I would hope that most posters can see through such a transparent smokescreen.

You are quite fond of comparing atheists the the barbarism of Stalin and science to a dictatorship when it steps on the toes of your belief.

Not at all. I usually reserve Stalin to use as a response when atheists trot out particularly silly straw men to attack Christianity.

Scofflaw

PDN wrote:

Lysenko's pseudoscience in the field of genetics was discredited internationally but permitted to waste resources in the Soviet Union at a time when many Soviet citizens were dying of starvation.

Also in the field of psychiatry, Soviet researchers, such as Nekipelov, developed the concept of "sluggishly developing schizophrenia". This supposed malady showed no other symptoms other than a "paranoia" which presented itself in the social sphere as ideas about a struggle for truth or justice. This diagnosis enabled the regime to incarcerate dissidents in psychiatric units and subject them to a whole battery of invasive treatments that were, in effect, torture.

Neither Lysenko nor Nekipelov would, in my opinion, have been able to garner public funding for their nonsense in a functioning democracy.

Social Darwinism? Eugenetics? It wasn't only Nazi Germany that sterilised the handicapped, after all.

cordially,
Scofflaw

5uspect

PDN wrote:

Good grief! Are you deliberately being obtuse? I am using an obviously absurd example to demonstrate that the occurrence of a phenomenon among animals carries no implication as to whether that activity is morally acceptable or not among humans.

One of the problems with the net is that the tone of the agruement gets lost in translation. I thought you were also being rather obtuse also. Thanks for clearing that up. Apologies for my annoyance and attitude.

PDN wrote:

Does the concept of a hypothetical example mean anything to you? Also, do you really believe that scientific research never contradicts existing observations?

They contradict each other a lot of them time, but your example required that all the observences be replaced with a much smaller subset that would be very unlikely. For example all observations of gay animals in the wild would have to be as a result of (likely deliberate) human interference containating the observations.

bonkey wrote:

5uspect wrote:

I think anyone here can see the difference between the murder of another human being and two peoplle engaging in a consentual act.

Hardly a scientific position.

True, this has more to do with my (mis)understanding of sin. I guess I'm arguing on ethical grounds here. Murdering someone results in physical damage or loss to the persons directly involved. Consentual sexual behaviuor does not. No one is hurt or abused. For religion to actively oppose such acts and thought crimes as immoral is beyond reason for me.

PDN

Son Goku wrote:

I'm not being smart, but outside some (one or two) very early Medieval solar models I can't think of many situations where this is the case. Is there a 19th or 20th century example?

I am at a bit of a disadvantage here since history, rather than science, is my area of particular interest. However, I understand that William Thompson or Lord Kelvin (1824-1907) stated that his theological views inspired his development of the second law of thermodynamics. Also, Guglielmo Marconi (1874-1937) attributed his interest in radio waves as stemming from his understanding of how prayer reached beyond the horizon to God. Thomas Edison (1847-1931) attributed his persistence to the conviction that somewhere in creation God must have designed a material that would make the perfect filament. Louis Pasteur (1822-1895) frequently cited his devout Catholic beliefs as a motivating factor in his discoveries.

bonkey

5uspect wrote:

I guess I'm arguing on ethical grounds here. Murdering someone results in physical damage or loss to the persons directly involved. Consentual sexual behaviuor does not. No one is hurt or abused. For religion to actively oppose such acts and thought crimes as immoral is beyond reason for me.

Just to be clear...I was more pointing out the relevance (or lack thereof) to the thread at hand than disagreeing with you.

Science is not at odds with religion in the case you gave, but rather a moral stance based in part on scientific observation is at odds with a moral stance based on religious teachings (in this case, presumably from the bible).

It is important that we not lose sight of this distinction.

Scofflaw

bonkey wrote:

Just to be clear...I was more pointing out the relevance (or lack thereof) to the thread at hand than disagreeing with you.

Science is not at odds with religion in the case you gave, but rather a moral stance based in part on scientific observation is at odds with a moral stance based on religious teachings (in this case, presumably from the bible).

It is important that we not lose sight of this distinction.

I'm not quite clear on how a moral stance can be "based in part on scientific observation"?

I can see that a utilitarian stance would necessarily make use of scientific observation to determine whether something is harmful, and in what measure - but utilitarianism is the moral stance there, and utilitarianism itself is not based on science.

cordially,
Scofflaw

5uspect

bonkey wrote:

Just to be clear...I was more pointing out the relevance (or lack thereof) to the thread at hand than disagreeing with you.

Science is not at odds with religion in the case you gave, but rather a moral stance based in part on scientific observation is at odds with a moral stance based on religious teachings (in this case, presumably from the bible).

It is important that we not lose sight of this distinction.

Yes, I see that now. Thanks for pointing it out.

I'm having my "fighting the windmills" day today.

karen3212

PDN wrote:

I can only see 2 reasons why this should happen. One would be if scientific institutes are pursuing methods of research and experimentation that would be opposed by religious people on moral grounds. Of course this is not just a problem in relation with religion, there are plenty of non-religious people who would oppose, for example, using animals for experimentation on moral and ethical grounds.

The second reason would be if science is seen as setting itself up in opposition to religion. If you are working as a scientist in a society where the majority of the population see themselves as religious, then there should be no problem in pursuing research that will benefit that society. But if you choose to attack religion, and portray those who hold religious views as being stupid or illogical, then you're not exactly making friends for yourself. If any branch of science and the arts wants public funding, then it makes sense not to deliberately antagonise those who pay the taxes that provide such funding. You might get away with that in a dictatorship, but not in a democracy.

From this post PDN I can see that you think Scientists should limit themselves to research that is seen as moral by religion.

Science in the West already has a Code of ethics do you not think that code is law enough.

Aslo you state that it is only a religious fringe of Fundamentalists that are trying to teach pseudo religious Science in the US, I think you will find it is a very well funded powerful "fringe". In my opinion the want a large uneducated underclass to keep them well funded and powerful and rich.

I don't think the masses realize that the Scientific method is the best way humans can find out about our world, and it should not be limited by religious thinking, that seems to explain everything already.

rockbeer

PDN wrote:

Here is a prime example of the abuse of scientific knowledge. Biologists demonstrate that animals manifest homosexual behaviour. So far so good, that is the proper function of biology, to reveal such facts.

Now the assertion is made that, if animals manifest such behaviour, then that somehow contradicts the biblical view of homosexuality among humans as being sinful. That assertion is not scientific, it is based on rockbeer's prejudice against monotheistic religion, particularly Christianity. It is pseudoscience, and to present it as if it were science is to drag the name of science through the mud.

Not so. Leaving my prejudices out of it for now, it is self-referential (i.e. flawed logic) to take an unsubstantiated hypothesis - in this case, that of the bible, which explictly applies different standards of behaviour to humans than to all other animals - and use it to justify your argument. To make your argument stand up, you need to objectively substantiate the contention that behaviour commonly demonstrated both in humans and in close genetic relatives of ours is appropriate in our relatives but not in us. This is not done to an acceptable degree of scientific rigour by quoting from a religious book.

Furthermore, if we accept the scientific theory of evolution then we can form hypotheses about how such behaviour may have evolved. It is one valid hypothesis that homosexual behaviour in humans and other animals may derive from behaviour that evolved in a common ancestor. I don't have the data or knowledge to support this, but I do know that even the fact that such a hypothesis is valid demonstrates the falseness, scientifically, of arguing that no behaviour in any other species bears any relation whatsover to behaviour observed in humans, as you seem to be arguing with your spider example. And if the common ancestor hypothesis could be proved scientifically, where would that leave your concept of sin in relation to science?

PDN wrote:

The fact is that the manifestation of a behaviour among animals does not in any way carry implications as to whether a similar behaviour is sinful for human beings or not. For example, many female spiders eat the male after mating - but I am sure that most of us would be appalled if any religion declared that it was OK for a woman to kill and eat her male partner the morning after a night of passion. We would have howls of protest and threads galore here on this board declaring that religion was evil on the earth.

I've seen you use this argument before - and I'm glad you later acknowledge it to be absurd, because it is in truth deeply flawed. The fact is, the behaviour you refer to is not observed commonly in humans.Therefore if observed on occasion it can reasonably be concluded to be aberrant. However, it is observed routinely in certain spiders, so scientific method concludes that this is 'normal' behaviour for those spiders. It would make no sense, scientifically, to conclude otherwise, even if we don't understand why it happens.

Now, if we routinely observe a particular behaviour in humans - let's say eating fruit - observational scientific method leads us to conclude similarly that this falls within the range of 'normal' behaviour for humans. This is not because scientists 'presume' it is normal, but because it is widely observed. Similarly, homosexual activities are so widely observed throughout human societies as to fall well within the range of normal behaviour. On what scientific grounds do you make an exception for this behaviour, when you accept the conclusions reached through scientific observation in relation to other behaviours? In judging such behaviour as wrong or sinful, your bible is in conflict with the conclusions of scientific method.

So how do you resolve that contradiction while still maintaining that religion and science are 100% compatible?

If human females eating their partners after sex was widely observed behaviour amongst humans, the same scientific method would apply. It would be nonsense to dismiss it as sinful or abnormal if it were observed widely enough - we would have to adapt our morality to encompass it.

PDN wrote:

The problem with your argument is that this "new" information can change at the drop of a hat. You seem to view scientific advances as if they have been 100% proven, and therefore incapable of contradiction, but in reality they are simply the best available explanations and, as such, are subject to modification or even rejection in the future.

Quite the opposite - I totally agree with your point that all knowledge is only the best available explanations at any given time, but utterly fail to see how that is compatible with a religious outlook which predetermines certain beliefs irrespective of whether objective support exists for them.

I see my position as infinitely flexible to accommodate new information as I fully accept that whatever beliefs I (or any of us for that matter) hold are the consequence of imperfect knowledge. It seems to me that religious faith is a much higher barrier to the adoption of additional information because it has to find ways to cling to its predetermined articles of faith no matter how contrary these are to current knowledge.

Correct me if I'm wrong, but I think you're saying that where such contradictions exist you believe this is simply because science has failed to reach the 'right' answer yet (which of course immediately places you in conflict with science by totally contradicting the most fundamental principle of the scientific method, that of basing conclusions on observable data).

Anyway, you haven't really answered my question... I'm a bit disappointed that you've chosen to focus so firmly on my example and not on the question itself. I could easily come up with another example that might be less contentious.

Finally, please explain how is it an extremist position to note that religion is fundamentally at odds with science in relation to the question "is there a god", because it presumes to know the answer without recourse to scientific method.

This is a simple observation of fact.

Zombrex

PDN wrote:

Here is a prime example of the abuse of scientific knowledge. Biologists demonstrate that animals manifest homosexual behaviour. So far so good, that is the proper function of biology, to reveal such facts.

Now the assertion is made that, if animals manifest such behaviour, then that somehow contradicts the biblical view of homosexuality among humans as being sinful. That assertion is not scientific, it is based on rockbeer's prejudice against monotheistic religion, particularly Christianity. It is pseudoscience, and to present it as if it were science is to drag the name of science through the mud.

It is neither science or pseudoscience, it is ethics and morality. "Sin" has nothing to do with science either way, sin is a human moral concept, or at the very least a god moral concept.

How is this an "abuse" of science?

PDN wrote:

The problem with your argument is that this "new" information can change at the drop of a hat.

Very true, but having said that it is rather unlikely that it will be discovered that all modern scientific models of the universe are actually wrong and what is actually reality is described in the Bible.

Given the choice between of 300 years of millions of scientists working on scientifically model the universe and a bunch of religious men living 3000 years ago in a small corner of the Middle East, my money is on the scientists.

Models can certain change, but if a model is predicting accurately a large number of outcomes it is very likely that most of the model is accurate.

Newton's model of physics was incorrect and has been replaced by more detailed models such as general relativity. But when I say it was incorrect I don't mean that it was completely wrong, as in everything it produced was rubbish. We know that what it produced wasn't rubbish because you can do a simple experiment yourself and observe a result predicted by this model. Newton's model predicted things quite well up to a certain point of accuracy.

Newton's model of gravity for example wasn't accurate enough to predict something like a geo-stationary satellite. But that doesn't mean the prediction of the moon was way off, or that things actually fall upwards.

PDN wrote:

For example, at one point it was argued that Moses could not have written any of the books of the Pentateuch because one branch of science, archeology, had conclusively proved that writing was not yet invented in the time of Moses.

Science never "conclusively proves" anything.

PDN you are throwing the baby out with the bath water. There is little point in saying that unless science can conclusively prove something I'm simply going to reject it and hope that some time in the near future they will come across a theory or model that matches what I want it to match. Why would someone do this?

Even if science came up with a workable theory of say a 6,000 old universe, that wouldn't be proven either. The Creationists would have little grounds to go "see! we where right all along"

The point of science isn't to hang on every word produced by science hoping that eventually they will prove a belief true or not beyond all doubt. The point of science is to accurately model the universe

PDN wrote:

Or let's take your example of animals manifesting homosexual behaviour. Now, let's suppose for just a moment that I am really stupid enough to swallow your bad logic and believe that such behaviour carries a necessary consequence that anything animals do must be OK for humans.

Firstly, science and morality have nothing to do with each other. Science will not make a moral judgement on anything, and if anyone says otherwise kick them in the face.

Secondly, from my reading of Rockbeer's post he was not asserting that homosexuality is morally ok because other animals do it (I would imagine that Rockbeer would say that homosexuality is ok because it involves two or more consenting adults).

He was asking the valid question of why would God produce gay animals? What purpose does this serve?

PDN wrote:

Do I continue to reject my book, even though that rejection was decided as a result of false information?

I think the more important question is why do you accept your book in the first place?

Under what rational logic do you accept a book write 2000+ years ago when it describes issues such as the nature of the universe or human morality?

Zombrex

Scofflaw wrote:

I'm not quite clear on how a moral stance can be "based in part on scientific observation"?

Someone while experimenting with apes notices that the ape appears to recognize itself in the mirror.

Someone else goes "Hold on a minute, if an ape can understand itself in the mirror that would suggest an advance brain. It would be immoral for us to cook and eat him"

The science isn't saying anything about the morality of cooking and eating Fred, but the 2nd person is making a moral judgment based on information gained from scientific observation.

Scofflaw

Wicknight wrote:

Someone while experimenting with apes notices that the ape appears to recognize itself in the mirror.

Someone else goes "Hold on a minute, if an ape can understand itself in the mirror that would suggest an advance brain. It would be immoral for us to cook and eat him"

The science isn't saying anything about the morality of cooking and eating Fred, but the 2nd person is making a moral judgment based on information gained from scientific observation.

Well, the moral stance is "it is wrong to cook and eat animals with advanced brains", which, again, has nothing to do with science. Science's contribution is to show that the ape has an advanced brain.

I don't claim my morality is derived from my eyesight, although I would need it in order to see that the ape was recognising itself.

cordially,
Scofflaw

Zombrex

Scofflaw wrote:

Science's contribution is to show that the ape has an advanced brain.

I agree 100%, and I think that is what bonkey meant.

The scientific observation that a ape has an advanced brain leads to the moral decision that cooking and eating an ape is wrong.

It is the combination of the original moral framework (don't eat things that are like us) coupled with the information about the specific issue in question (apes are like us)

Bonkey was contrasting this to religious doctrine, that in this example might say that cooking and eating an ape is ok because God created all animals under us.

PDN

karen3212 wrote:

From this post PDN I can see that you think Scientists should limit themselves to research that is seen as moral by religion.

Has today been designated as a special day for making unwarranted assumptions about other posters? I do not think that scientists should limit themselves to research that is seen as moral by religion, nor have I argued such a thing. I am simply making the point that scientists cannot expect taxpayers to stump up public money for research that is morally unacceptable to the majority of those tax payers. This would apply irrespective of religion - for example in the area of animal experimentation.

Aslo you state that it is only a religious fringe of Fundamentalists that are trying to teach pseudo religious Science in the US, I think you will find it is a very well funded powerful "fringe". In my opinion the want a large uneducated underclass to keep them well funded and powerful and rich.

And you are entitled to your opinion. Again, I think you are misquoting me, but I'm getting used to that by now. It appears to be a tradition of this board.

I don't think the masses realize that the Scientific method is the best way humans can find out about our world, and it should not be limited by religious thinking, that seems to explain everything already.

You may well be correct that "the masses" are less enlightened that you are. But as long as you want the masses to fund scientific research you will have to take their opinions into account.

robindch

PDN wrote:

I think you are misquoting me, but I'm getting used to that by now. It appears to be a tradition of this board.

Not suggesting anything one way or the other, but have you considered the possibility that you may not be expressing yourself clearly?

PDN

rockbeer wrote:

If human females eating their partners after sex was widely observed behaviour amongst humans, the same scientific method would apply. It would be nonsense to dismiss it as sinful or abnormal if it were observed widely enough - we would have to adapt our morality to encompass it.

I think it would be fair to say that people killing other people on religious grounds has been observed very widely among humans. So, according to your reasoning, this must mean that is nonsense to dismiss religiously motivated murder as being sinful or abnormal. :eek:

Tim Robbins

PDN wrote:

I am at a bit of a disadvantage here since history, rather than science, is my area of particular interest. However, I understand that William Thompson or Lord Kelvin (1824-1907) stated that his theological views inspired his development of the second law of thermodynamics. Also, Guglielmo Marconi (1874-1937) attributed his interest in radio waves as stemming from his understanding of how prayer reached beyond the horizon to God. Thomas Edison (1847-1931) attributed his persistence to the conviction that somewhere in creation God must have designed a material that would make the perfect filament. Louis Pasteur (1822-1895) frequently cited his devout Catholic beliefs as a motivating factor in his discoveries.

You should check out John Houghton, working the IPCC and climate change and committed Christian.
http://www.pbs.org/moyers/faithandreason/portraits_houghton.html

I am sure you would get something from Le Maitre as well , who ended up being right saying the Universe was expanding and showing Einstein wrong.

PDN

robindch wrote:

Not suggesting anything one way or the other, but have you considered the possibility that you may not be expressing yourself clearly?

I think the problem is more to do with stereotypes rather than clarity of expression. As a published author I do consider myself able to express myself very clearly in the English language.

Sangre

PDN wrote:

I think the problem is more to do with stereotypes rather than clarity of expression. As a published author I do consider myself able to express myself very clearly in the English language.

Ah....but are you a successful published author?

Scofflaw

PDN wrote:

Has today been designated as a special day for making unwarranted assumptions about other posters? I do not think that scientists should limit themselves to research that is seen as moral by religion, nor have I argued such a thing. I am simply making the point that scientists cannot expect taxpayers to stump up public money for research that is morally unacceptable to the majority of those tax payers. This would apply irrespective of religion - for example in the area of animal experimentation.

True - sauce for the goose, sauce for the gander.

PDN wrote:

And you are entitled to your opinion. Again, I think you are misquoting me, but I'm getting used to that by now. It appears to be a tradition of this board.

I think there's a general assumption that because you say that you are a conservative Christian, you automatically subscribe to the positions usually associated with conservative Christians, even though you haven't said that you do.

It's just standard stereotyping - like everyone assuming you're an anti-scientific socialist because you vote Green, or immoral because you're an atheist.

PDN wrote:

You may well be correct that "the masses" are less enlightened that you are. But as long as you want the masses to fund scientific research you will have to take their opinions into account.

Up to a point. It seems that the same doctrine does not hold for the arts...where instead it is generally held that the masses are to be educated into changing their opinions. I'm not sure why that doesn't work for science.

cordially,
Scofflaw

I-like-eggs,mmm

Scientology's bad m'kay...?

Zillah

For the record PDN has previously stated that he is in favour of making "civil unions" the standard for everyone, hetero and homo, not to mention any two people that wish to gain the same legal benefits with each other. From a religious point of view he'd only consider such a union between a man and a woman as a "marraige", but crucially there would be no legal difference.

rockbeer

PDN wrote:

I think it would be fair to say that people killing other people on religious grounds has been observed very widely among humans. So, according to your reasoning, this must mean that is nonsense to dismiss religiously motivated murder as being sinful or abnormal. :eek:

Sadly this kind of behaviour does seem to come disturbingly close to normal for humans. I don't have a clue, from a scientific point of view, what kind of incidence or distribution would need to be observed in order for the behaviour to be considered 'normal' but I'd be very interested to know.

I'm saying that established scientific methodology for establishing what is 'normal' behaviour for animals is by observation of their habits. We don't start studying spiders by deciding "they shouldn't eat each other" and then condemn them as aberrant when we discover that they do.

I'm interested in whether you think this is also valid scientific methodology for studying ourselves? If not, why not? What alternate methodology would you suggest? And what view do you take from a faith-based perspective when observed 'normal' human behaviour differs from that which your faith deems acceptable?

By the way, PDN, prejudice is an adverse opinion arrived at without just grounds. My views on monotheism are based on evidence, reasoned argument, and grounds that I consider just. Imperfect evidence, possibly, but for the time being I remain open to the possibility of change on the discovery of new information. Just because you don't agree with me doesn't make me prejudiced.

PDN

Scofflaw wrote:

Up to a point. It seems that the same doctrine does not hold for the arts...where instead it is generally held that the masses are to be educated into changing their opinions. I'm not sure why that doesn't work for science.

Ah, yes, well I have a problem with that one as well. I object strongly to the tax revenue of the many being used to subsidise activities (such as opera) which are predominantly the preserve of a social elite.

bonkey

Scofflaw wrote:

Up to a point. It seems that the same doctrine does not hold for the arts...where instead it is generally held that the masses are to be educated into changing their opinions. I'm not sure why that doesn't work for science.

To be fair, it does work for science to an extent as well.

Indeed, with few notable exceptions, it is governments and not moral majorities who decide what is and is not to have money spent on it.

While the two overlap to a greater or lesser extent, when they diverge it is not always the MM who win.

Tim Robbins

PDN wrote:

As a published author I do consider myself able to express myself very clearly in the English language.

Can you send us a links to your publications?

Scofflaw

Tim Robbins wrote:

Can you send us a links to your publications?

Rather a breach of online privacy. I would take PDN at his word, myself.

cordially,
scofflaw