a science-friendly God

[Plane]

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

[Lanya]

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.

[Plane]

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".

[Lanya]

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.

[Plane]

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. ..."

[Xavier_Onassis]

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.

[Plane]

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?

[Plane]

http://www.circleversussquare.com/

[Xavier_Onassis]

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.

[Plane]

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.

[Amianthus]

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?

[Xavier_Onassis]

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".

[Lanya]

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. 

[Plane]

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.

[Plane]

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.