DebateGate
General Category => 3DHS => Topic started by: Plane on May 18, 2008, 12:07:11 AM
-
philosopher Mary Midgley, who was not at the AEI event, states that science is just one worldview that has come to prevail. Science and religion need not be at odds.
"What is now seen as a universal cold war between science and religion is, I think, really a more local clash between a particular scientistic worldview, much favored recently in the West, and most other people's worldviews at most other times," she writes.
"Scientism ... by contrast, cuts [the setting of human life in] context off altogether and looks for the meaning of life in Science itself. It is this claim to a monopoly of meaning ... that makes science and religion look like competitors today."
Worldviews that transcend that competition or dichotomy are offered ....
http://www.livescience.com/strangenews/080516-god-science-debate.html
-
Maybe my definition of science is wrong.
It isn't "just one worldview that has come to prevail."
I don't think religious experiences or prayer or that still, small voice talking to one in the quiet of the night can be weighed, measured or otherwise evaluated by the scientific method.
Doesn't mean it did not occur.
-
Maybe my definition of science is wrong.
It isn't "just one worldview that has come to prevail."
I don't think religious experiences or prayer or that still, small voice talking to one in the quiet of the night can be weighed, measured or otherwise evaluated by the scientific method.
Doesn't mean it did not occur.
I think she is refering to someone who might say,"prove it scientificly -elese I will not beleive".
-
Maybe, but that's not how I interpret it.
"........It is this claim to a monopoly of meaning ... that makes science and religion look like competitors today."
OK, this is wrong. Science hasn't claimed to have a monopoly of meaning.
The fundamentalist Christians since maybe the mid-1970s, on the other hand, have claimed exactly that and I've read their material and heard their sermons.
If you believe in evolution THEN you are damned to eternal hell, because IF you believe in evolution THEN you do not believe in God. Simple as that. Been in the pew, heard the preacher say it, wondered what the hell happened to people's brains. Trans-fats? Who knows?
My grandpa didn't believe like that and he was a Methodist preacher.
He was curious and intelligent and always hungered for knowledge. There was no 'competition' between science and religion in his mind.
It isn't science that's "forcing" people to choose.
-
on the same link..
" ...A new collection of short essays, discussed here Thursday at an event at the American Enterprise Institute, responds to that question with a more diverse set of voices than is usually offered. Edited by "Skeptic" magazine publisher Michael Shermer and backed by the John Templeton Foundation, the booklet features replies by 13 scholars and thinkers to the question "Does science make belief in God obsolete?"
The practical answer is, "Of course not." Many people worldwide believe. In the United States, the percentage of the population without a religious affiliation is increasing but the majority still have one, according to American Religious Identification Survey 2001. The faithful aren't going away despite a golden age of scientific descriptions of the mysteries of life and the secularizing, culture-draining force of consumerism.
The answers offered by the booklet's two theologians, eight scientists, two cultural commentators and one philosopher are more creative and sophisticated than the mind-numbing "culture wars" portrayed on television. Some of the thinkers even find ways to synthesize or reconcile God and science without throwing up their hands. ..."
-
It is not possible to prove or disprove the existence or the nature of God (or Gods) by any scientific method. Science is therefore agnostic, not atheistic, since it simply states that there is insufficient evidence to prove or disprove the existence of any sort of Supreme Being (or beings), and also impossible to prove anything about the nature of any supreme being or beings.
Whether you believe or disbelieve, or choose not to decide is not a matter for science to decide, because science cannot decide such things.
-
It is not possible to prove or disprove the existence or the nature of God (or Gods) by any scientific method. Science is therefore agnostic, not atheistic, since it simply states that there is insufficient evidence to prove or disprove the existence of any sort of Supreme Being (or beings), and also impossible to prove anything about the nature of any supreme being or beings.
Whether you believe or disbelieve, or choose not to decide is not a matter for science to decide, because science cannot decide such things.
Do you beleive some non-scientific things?
-
http://www.circleversussquare.com/
(http://www.circleversussquare.com/Comics/CVS57.gif)
-
This is a very silly strawman argument.
Scientists do not seek to impose their will on anyone. At most, they simply oppose their tax money being used to impose fundamentalist beliefs on their children.
-
This is a very silly strawman argument.
Scientists do not seek to impose their will on anyone. At most, they simply oppose their tax money being used to impose fundamentalist beliefs on their children.
Good enough , neither should tax moneys be spent imposeing a scientific viewpoint on the children of those who object.
-
Good enough , neither should tax moneys be spent imposeing a scientific viewpoint on the children of those who object.
You're advocating the removal of science from public schools?
-
Science is an attempt to arrive at a rational truth. Science is a method for determining the truth. It should be taught as such in the schools. No more, no less.
Science is not taught as faith. No one is told "you must believe in science or you are going to Hell".
-
Can we eliminate numbers? No math. Only numbers taught in school will be Numbers from the Bible. There will be a video version for those who feel that teaching reading is satanic.
Better make just an audio version for those who think seeing graven images is satanic.
-
Good enough , neither should tax moneys be spent imposeing a scientific viewpoint on the children of those who object.
You're advocating the removal of science from public schools?
Of course not , just what someone objects to.
Anyone.
-
Science is an attempt to arrive at a rational truth. Science is a method for determining the truth. It should be taught as such in the schools. No more, no less.
Science is not taught as faith. No one is told "you must believe in science or you are going to Hell".
No that is true , though I have heard it said that you must beleive in evolution or you won't get employed.
That is a bit milder even though it is just as silly.
-
Can we eliminate numbers? No math. Only numbers taught in school will be Numbers from the Bible. There will be a video version for those who feel that teaching reading is satanic.
Better make just an audio version for those who think seeing graven images is satanic.
Why indeed have serious math courses been so hard to find in school?
The number of High school graduates who know the difference between Apatasourous and Allosaurous is greater than the number that can balance a check book by an order of magnitude.
It is as if there was greater support for the less usefull teaching.
-
Of course not , just what someone objects to.
Anyone.
You'll find someone who will object to any part of any science curriculum. So, you are advocating the removal of science from public school.
-
No that is true , though I have heard it said that you must beleive in evolution or you won't get employed.
Possibly in a field that is directly related to the study of evolution and it's products.
However, geologists are free to disbelieve in evolution. Just as biologists don't need to be concerned with galactic hyperstructures.
-
Of course not , just what someone objects to.
Anyone.
You'll find someone who will object to any part of any science curriculum. So, you are advocating the removal of science from public school.
'
On this basis religion was banished.
Was it legitamately banished?
-
No that is true , though I have heard it said that you must beleive in evolution or you won't get employed.
Possibly in a field that is directly related to the study of evolution and it's products.
However, geologists are free to disbelieve in evolution. Just as biologists don't need to be concerned with galactic hyperstructures.
The number employed directly by their confidence in Evolution must be a lot smaller than those employed directly by faith , which is no longer taught .
Math is poorly taught , and math ties into lots of jobs. Why is there a great emphasis for defending the teaching of evolution , a subject of marginal utility , when the teaching of math is in such a sorry state already?
-
On this basis religion was banished.
Was it legitamately banished?
Last time I checked, religion was still taught in theology courses. This is the proper place to teach religion.
-
Math is poorly taught , and math ties into lots of jobs. Why is there a great emphasis for defending the teaching of evolution , a subject of marginal utility , when the teaching of math is in such a sorry state already?
Math is not challenged on religious grounds as often as biology.
-
Posted on: Today at 10:00:10 PMPosted by: Amianthus
Insert Quote
Quote from: Plane on Today at 09:55:53 PM
Math is poorly taught , and math ties into lots of jobs. Why is there a great emphasis for defending the teaching of evolution , a subject of marginal utility , when the teaching of math is in such a sorry state already?
Math is not challenged on religious grounds as often as biology.
][][][][][][][][][][][][][][][][][][][][][][][][][][
Math is almost never challenged on religious grounds , perhaps it should be .
Millions of Americans are math illiterate , with no challengers , math has no defenders either .
How with such little religious challenge is math in such a disrepute , but evolution , being a political football, is presented as an orthodox dogma?
-
How with such little religious challenge is math in such a disrepute , but evolution , being a political football, is presented as an orthodox dogma?
Evolution is not presented as "orthodox dogma." The science behind it is very well documented. It is the only scientific explanation for life.
-
How with such little religious challenge is math in such a disrepute , but evolution , being a political football, is presented as an orthodox dogma?
Evolution is not presented as "orthodox dogma." The science behind it is very well documented. It is the only scientific explanation for life.
Yes as I said , orthodox dogma , all other viewpoints will please remain silent as the truth we are sure of is presented.
-
So I guess the Earth really is flat after all.
-
So I guess the Earth really is flat after all.
Not according to the venerable Bede;
The monk Bede (c.672 ? 735) wrote in his influential treatise on computus, The Reckoning of Time, that the Earth was round, explaining the unequal length of daylight from "the roundness of the Earth, for not without reason is it called 'the orb of the world' on the pages of Holy Scripture and of ordinary literature. It is, in fact, set like a sphere in the middle of the whole universe." (De temporum ratione, 32). The large number of surviving manuscripts of The Reckoning of Time, copied to meet the Carolingian requirement that all priests should study the computus, indicates that many, if not most, priests were exposed to the idea of the sphericity of the Earth.[53] ?lfric of Eynsham paraphrased Bede into Old English, saying "Now the Earth's roundness and the Sun's orbit constitute the obstacle to the day's being equally long in every land."[54]
.....
A non-literary but graphic indication that people in the Middle Ages believed that the Earth was a sphere, is the use of the orb (globus cruciger) in the regalia of many kingdoms and of the Holy Roman Empire. It is attested from the time of the Christian late-Roman emperor Theodosius II (423) throughout the Middle Ages; the Reichsapfel was used in 1191 at the coronation of emperor Henry VI.
A recent study of medieval concepts of the sphericity of the Earth noted that "since the eighth century, no cosmographer worthy of note has called into question the sphericity of the Earth."[57] However, the work of these intellectuals may not have had significant influence on public opinion, and it is difficult to tell what the wider population may have thought of the shape of the Earth, if they considered the question at all.
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Flat_Earth
Is this a change of subject?
Or is this to point out that the mathmatical or geometrical proof developed centurys ago that the earth was sphereical would be incomprehensible to a modern high school graduate?
-
The latter. Of course Bede himself (and the Church by extension) didn't do a very good job of promoting the fact that the earth is round, sailors and statesmen for centuries afterwards believed otherwise.
-
Yes as I said , orthodox dogma , all other viewpoints will please remain silent as the truth we are sure of is presented.
Science is not an "orthodox dogma." To claim so is to be ignorant of scientific process.
-
Yes as I said , orthodox dogma , all other viewpoints will please remain silent as the truth we are sure of is presented.
Science is not an "orthodox dogma." To claim so is to be ignorant of scientific process.
Scientific process is not used to teach evolution to schoolchildren.
Evolution is presented exactly as an orthodox dogma .
If Scientific process itself were better taught there would be much less to discuss on this subject.
-
Scientific process is not used to teach evolution to schoolchildren.
Evolution is presented exactly as an orthodox dogma .
=================================================
No, it isn't taught that way. It is taught that way in the imaginations of fundie preachers, who will not shut up about it.
If you want to know why math is not taught well, it is a shortage of good math teachers.
This is partly because many good mathematicians are not very good at teaching math. John Forbes Nash was a terrible teacher, despite his genius. He could communicate his ideas well only with other mathematicians.
Another reason is that good mathematicians can make LOTS more money in jobs that pay better outside of schools. Teaching math and language skills is much more difficult than teaching other subjects because there are few ways to make the basic required skills entertaining and useful at the same time.
A good teacher will logically gravitate where the pay is better and one need not dodge spitballs and "teach to the test" in colleges and universities. You can blame capitalism and market economics for this. It is hard to blame a mathematician for not applying useful numeric data to his own life.
-
Scientific process is not used to teach evolution to schoolchildren.
Evolution is presented exactly as an orthodox dogma .
If Scientific process itself were better taught there would be much less to discuss on this subject.
Funny, when I was going to school, the scientific process was explained and the science behind evolution was explained as well. It was the same when my daughter was in school.
Refusing to teach "Intelligent Design" (which is not science) in a science class does not mean that evolution is taught as "orthodox dogma."
-
One can speculate that evolution is God's method of creation, but that would not be science.
Neither would intelligent design, which involves applying unproven speculation to the evolutionary process.
Saying that the evolution of the eye is impossible without God is akin to saying that the building of the pyramids or the creation of the Nazca lines is impossible without the intervention of space aliens.
The fact is that evolution is NOT taught as any sort of dogma in any reputable school.
Any biologist who refuses to accept evolution as the best possible explanation of the creation, however, is not credible, just as a mathematician who claims that pi is equal to 3.00.
Ben Stein should not be given a professorship in biology because he lacks the credentials. He coud get the job in economics, though.