So I oppose turning biology class into Church. How is that anti-religious?

We should teach Christian views in school -- in a course dedicated to teaching world religions. Right up there alongside other religious views, with no particular advantage or highlighting.

11/9/2007 4:07:43 PM

i'm with McD on this one..... i haven't seen anything hes said as inherently anti-religious

11/9/2007 4:15:14 PM

The issue many conservatives have with evolution being taught in schools is that they consider it to be a form of religion. Many atheists, whether or not they realize it, do tend to use science as a "church" of sorts, devoting to it a fanaticism that rivals that of many religious fundamentalists. Not saying that I think ID should be in schools, and I'm certainly not saying that McDanger (or others in this topic) are using science as their religion... just pointing out the root of this debate in society.

11/9/2007 7:56:16 PM

Quote :

"The issue many conservatives have with evolution being taught in schools is that they consider it to be a form of religion"

well that's because "conservatives" (or christians or whoever) don't understand the difference between faith and trust, ideology and fact, mythology and history.

11/9/2007 8:11:41 PM

^I'd actually like to see just how many people who place their "trust" in the concept of evolution have actually seen the supporting genetics research, and how many are just maintaining "faith" that what all the scientists say is automatically right. I think you'd be surprised how many are amongst the scientific faithful.

Even strict adherence to fact is an ideology. Difference between them? Yes. Exclusion of one if the other exists? No.

"mythology"... I love the assumption that what you believe about religion is auto-right. Hooray for your faith in the idea that nothing spiritual can exist. Because that's what it is, its faith. Since religion can be neither proven nor disproven, everyone is exercising faith in one direction or another.


(Disclaimer: I am in no way denying the existence of evolution. I am not advocating religion in science class. I'm just showing you that you obviously don't know your own beliefs very well.)

11/9/2007 8:22:18 PM

It is funny to me that mr. danger continues to simply argue that ID is not science therefore has no place in the science classroom. How about this, we invent a new class, we call it science and creation/evolution myths. Problem solved, no improper demarcation of subject matter.

Both ID and evolution seek to answer some of the same questions. Where did humans come from? What is DNA and how does it function? If we expand the discussion to include the broader programs of stellar and cosmological evolution then again ID also seeks to find insights into how those structures arose. Why is there a structure to physical law?

Notice that I am not supporting ID as the ultimate answer. I am actually a sceptic, I don't think we can have an affirmative answer to some of these basic questions of historical origins. I think there may well be multiple equally rational viewpoints due to the nature of the problem. I am trying to get you to see that both ID and the traditional mainstream stories about how these questions should be answered are incredibly speculative.

All I would say is that it is pure censorship to disallow the ID viewpoint. If ID is so clearly wrong then let the kids decide, we are talking about a middle-highschool type class I assume. I think people are capable of independent thought. If a person wishes to put their faith in the mainstream position then let them, but at least give the teacher the freedom to present both viewpoints.

But, label me a conservative Christian, fine, that is of course true. That is more to the point of why you want ID out of the schools, you think it is just creationism and you are antireligious. You don't have to be a graduate student in philosophy to understand that.

Good luck tromboner950 if you question the absolute fact of evolution that makes you a conservative Christian, have you not learned this by now?

11/9/2007 8:28:52 PM

Quote :

"How about this, we invent a new class, we call it science and creation/evolution myths. Problem solved, no improper demarcation of subject matter."

A class examining the debate of ID vs godless evolution (because simply evolution does not exclude the existence of a god) would have to be optional, for obvious reasons. It would also probably need to include the idea of a god-based evolution. Oh, and mathman... most of the people in this topic aren't saying that ID cannot exist, they are simply saying that it is not a factual idea, and has no place in science class, as so far we have found no way to prove or disprove anything that exists in the spiritual world. I'd have to agree with that assessment.

Oh, and just a note, I'm not actually questioning the validity of evolution. I'm questioning the rationality and viewpoints of "religious" atheists... which is really the main point of people's objection to evolution in school, whether or not they say it explicitly.


I do think, though, that as we continue to teach evolution in Biology class that textbooks must start removing the items that support evolution that were purely fabrications... for example, the picture of dark grey moths sitting on a tree trunk that seems present in every highschool biology textbook. The moths were pinned to the trees... not to mention the fact that a moth of that species doesn't actually rest on tree trunks at all to begin with. Another one that is just as unscientific as ID is the diagram comparing fetuses of various animals. It was drawn by a Darwin supporter in (if I recall correctly) the early 1900s (read: A time when the theory of evolution WAS largely speculation), and it was later found to be totally inaccurate to what the fetuses actually look like. I cannot understand why it continues to appear in modern textbooks.

What amazes me is that supporters of science and evolution do not get outraged by the teaching of blatantly false items that are posed to students as evidence of evolution. Such made-up claims are an affront to scientific thought, and should not be allowed in a classroom. There actually is fairly convincing evidence in support of evolution that is out there, but for some insane reason it is not taught in schools, and most people go through life thinking that evolution is based upon loose speculation and drawings of fetuses.

11/9/2007 8:50:39 PM

Quote :

"The problem I see with teach ID is that here in Jesusland it will be taught as the Christian God being the man behind the curtain."

but, it's perfectly OK to say that the beliefs of a religion are 100% wrong... got it

11/9/2007 9:31:07 PM

Quote :

"^I'd actually like to see just how many people who place their "trust" in the concept of evolution have actually seen the supporting genetics research, and how many are just maintaining "faith" that what all the scientists say is automatically right. I think you'd be surprised how many are amongst the scientific faithful. Even strict adherence to fact is an ideology. Difference between them? Yes. Exclusion of one if the other exists? No. "mythology"... I love the assumption that what you believe about religion is auto-right. Hooray for your faith in the idea that nothing spiritual can exist. Because that's what it is, its faith. Since religion can be neither proven nor disproven, everyone is exercising faith in one direction or another. (Disclaimer: I am in no way denying the existence of evolution. I am not advocating religion in science class. I'm just showing you that you obviously don't know your own beliefs very well.)"

This line of argumentation drives me fucking bonkers. Atheists who firmly assert that any conception whatsoever of God is an impossible concept are exercising a measure of faith. People who are simply preferring scientific explanation to religious explanation are not exercising faith in the same way as people who prefer religious explanation.

Think about it, it's a matter of simple observation. Scientific method has won the war of predictive power. We can predict and calculate useful things because of science. Religious explanation has given us no such ability -- so do you really think that people aren't any more warranted in trusting scientific method than religious method? Also, do you really think that people need understand all of the methodology and theoretical content of the sciences before they can justifiably trust the results?

People who placed their trust in the sciences are a hell of a lot more justified than people who place their trust in religious method. Look around us, and show us one contribution religion has given to our progress in explaining, predicting, and calculating the behavior of the world.

Quote :

"It is funny to me that mr. danger continues to simply argue that ID is not science therefore has no place in the science classroom. How about this, we invent a new class, we call it science and creation/evolution myths. Problem solved, no improper demarcation of subject matter."

What else are you suggesting we teach in science classrooms? Oh that's right -- you want us to teach theology.

Look -- I'm not at all opposed to offering a philosophy of science class to kids. Teach them the issues of scientific method: how it works, its shortcomings in theory and in practice, and what isn't science. In that framework, ID could be discussed along with other junk science as examples of what not to do.

Quote :

"Both ID and evolution seek to answer some of the same questions. Where did humans come from? What is DNA and how does it function? If we expand the discussion to include the broader programs of stellar and cosmological evolution then again ID also seeks to find insights into how those structures arose. Why is there a structure to physical law?"

ID doesn't seek to find insights, are you nuts? It starts with its conclusion firmly in tow. Then it spends its time trying to establish itself as the best explanation by launching a negative project against other forms of explanation. It's more a destructive project than it is a constructive one -- precisely because it provides us with no testable hypotheses or usable (read: correct) predictions.

Quote :

"Notice that I am not supporting ID as the ultimate answer. I am actually a sceptic, I don't think we can have an affirmative answer to some of these basic questions of historical origins. I think there may well be multiple equally rational viewpoints due to the nature of the problem. I am trying to get you to see that both ID and the traditional mainstream stories about how these questions should be answered are incredibly speculative."

Yes, science involves speculation -- but it's not metaphysical speculation. It's speculation based on a fair amount of data-collection and attempts at sound reasoning based on this data. It's speculation in the sense that people try to fit theories to observations, and then test the consequences and predictions of these theories.

To put that on the same footing as freewheeling metaphysical speculation is intellectually dishonest, and you know it.

Quote :

"All I would say is that it is pure censorship to disallow the ID viewpoint. If ID is so clearly wrong then let the kids decide, we are talking about a middle-highschool type class I assume. I think people are capable of independent thought. If a person wishes to put their faith in the mainstream position then let them, but at least give the teacher the freedom to present both viewpoints."

It's also "pure censorship" to prohibit teaching art in a science classroom. However, it's censorship that makes complete sense. It's not the right forum.

People have the right to choose what they want. However, valuable classroom time should not be wasted on subject matter that doesn't fit the course. Science class should be for science.

Quote :

"But, label me a conservative Christian, fine, that is of course true. That is more to the point of why you want ID out of the schools, you think it is just creationism and you are antireligious. You don't have to be a graduate student in philosophy to understand that."

Uh... what? ID can be taught in schools -- in a class on religious traditions, for instance. It could also be taught in a philosophy of science course as an example of bullshit, crap "science."

Quote :

"Good luck tromboner950 if you question the absolute fact of evolution that makes you a conservative Christian, have you not learned this by now?"

Name one person on this board who:
1) thinks evolutionary theory, in current form, is "absolute fact"
2) thinks that anybody who questions evolutionary theory in any way is a "conservative Christian"

Quote :

"What amazes me is that supporters of science and evolution do not get outraged by the teaching of blatantly false items that are posed to students as evidence of evolution. Such made-up claims are an affront to scientific thought, and should not be allowed in a classroom. There actually is fairly convincing evidence in support of evolution that is out there, but for some insane reason it is not taught in schools, and most people go through life thinking that evolution is based upon loose speculation and drawings of fetuses."

How the hell do you figure this doesn't outrage us? False stuff should not be presented as evidence under any circumstances. Who here would support teaching our kids shit that we know isn't true? Name one person.

11/9/2007 9:36:59 PM

Quote :

"People who are simply preferring scientific explanation to religious explanation are not exercising faith in the same way as people who prefer religious explanation."

I would agree with this argument in the case of someone who has been convinced of a scientific explanation through substantial evidence. However, if someone is simply assuming that what they are told by some scientist is correct, they might as well be assuming that what they are told by the Bible is correct. If scientific theories and laws are founded on scientific evidence, how can someone have anything other than faith in a theory until they have seen the evidence? Hell, I have faith in the idea that gravity is going to keep holding me down, considering that I've got no idea exactly why large objects (objects with more mass) tend to pull smaller objects towards themselves.

Quote :

"Scientific method has won the war of predictive power. We can predict and calculate useful things because of science. Religious explanation has given us no such ability"

Apples vs. Oranges. You cannot apply religion in this manner because that is not its purpose.

I could just as easily say that science fails in its ability to define the spiritual and otherworldly. However, I cannot apply science in this manner because that is not its purpose.

Quote :

"People who placed their trust in the sciences are a hell of a lot more justified than people who place their trust in religious method. "

What is this "religious method" of which you speak? How can people be placing their trust in a concept you made up a few minutes ago?

Quote :

"Look around us, and show us one contribution religion has given to our progress in explaining, predicting, and calculating the behavior of the world."

Well, not much of one. Which isn't really a problem, considering that this is not the intent of religion to begin with. It is the intent of science. This is really one of the biggest differences between religion and science. Religion is an effort to justify and explain human existence in a spiritual sense, disconnected from sciences that relate to the provable facts of the world.

I'm just as annoyed at people who confuse these two concepts as you are. So stop confusing these two concepts.

Quote :

" How the hell do you figure this doesn't outrage us? False stuff should not be presented as evidence under any circumstances. Who here would support teaching our kids shit that we know isn't true?"

Well, this is a topic about evolution and ID being taught in schools, and the fact that it hasn't been brought up yet tends to indicate a general lack of outrage. It's okay if you didn't know about this or just didn't think to mention it, though.
And if no one supports teaching kids untrue shit, then why is it still taught? No one here, perhaps, but someone out there must like it.

Quote :

"Name one person."

Apparently whoever makes Biology textbooks.


[Edited on November 9, 2007 at 10:03 PM. Reason : formatting]

11/9/2007 10:01:58 PM

Quote :

"What else are you suggesting we teach in science classrooms?"

I know. how dare you teach something other than the religion of science in science class.

11/9/2007 10:08:37 PM

Quote :

"I would agree with this argument in the case of someone who has been convinced of a scientific explanation through substantial evidence. However, if someone is simply assuming that what they are told by some scientist is correct, they might as well be assuming that what they are told by the Bible is correct. If scientific theories and laws are founded on scientific evidence, how can someone have anything other than faith in a theory until they have seen the evidence? Hell, I have faith in the idea that gravity is going to keep holding me down, considering that I've got no idea exactly why large objects (objects with more mass) tend to pull smaller objects towards themselves."

Even a blind trust of scientists is more justified than a blind trust of priests and theology, because science has produced visible results that people understand the utility of.

Quote :

"Apples vs. Oranges. You cannot apply religion in this manner because that is not its purpose. I could just as easily say that science fails in its ability to define the spiritual and otherworldly. However, I cannot apply science in this manner because that is not its purpose."

Most religious stories are attempts at explanation.

Quote :

"What is this "religious method" of which you speak? How can people be placing their trust in a concept you made up a few minutes ago?"

1) A priori arguments based on set assumptions (handed down by doctrine).
2) Appeals to authority (of either a living or dead religious figure).

Quote :

"Well, not much of one. Which isn't really a problem, considering that this is not the intent of religion to begin with. It is the intent of science. This is really one of the biggest differences between religion and science. Religion is an effort to justify and explain human existence in a spiritual sense, disconnected from sciences that relate to the provable facts of the world. I'm just as annoyed at people who confuse these two concepts as you are. So stop confusing these two concepts. "

Trust me, you're the only one here who's confused. I'm building a case as to why people are justified in believing science versus religion, even if they have no comprehension of the inner workings of the subject matter. Go back and read what I'm arguing for because you clearly don't have a clue.

Quote :

"Well, this is a topic about evolution and ID being taught in schools, and the fact that it hasn't been brought up yet tends to indicate a general lack of outrage. It's okay if you didn't know about this or just didn't think to mention it, though. And if no one supports teaching kids untrue shit, then why is it still taught? No one here, perhaps, but someone out there must like it."

I didn't know there was this kind of false shit being taught in books. It should stop immediately. If it were up to me, it would.

Quote :

" Apparently whoever makes Biology textbooks."

Fuck those guys, they're not involved in our discussion. One person on these boards?

Quote :

"I know. how dare you teach something other than the religion of science in science class."

How is it a religion? This is just some shit you heard on Rush Limbaugh. Admit it.

[Edited on November 9, 2007 at 10:10 PM. Reason : .]

11/9/2007 10:09:13 PM

i think McDanger has covered most of the bases, but anyway....

Quote :

"I'd actually like to see just how many people who place their "trust" in the concept of evolution have actually seen the supporting genetics research, and how many are just maintaining "faith" that what all the scientists say is automatically right. I think you'd be surprised how many are amongst the scientific faithful."

Once again, you are mixing up "faith" and "trust". You are correct - i know next to nothing about actual genetics research. Sure, i could subscribe to Genetics Weekly, but that would mean nothing to me because I have not studied it. I chose another field to study. To even begin to make judgements on leading-edge genetics research would take years of dedicated study. Therefore, I put my trust in the scientific community at large, that these theories are developed with scrutiny from all angles from people who are qualified to make judgements. I am certainly not qualified to make judgements on almost any genetic or evolutionary research.

But this is why we develop experts in fields. It is impossible for anybody to have a full and deep understanding of every field of science. Have you extensively researched and studied the fields of geology? If not, how can you be sure that geologists aren't lying to us about how volcanoes and earthquakes work. What about meteorology? Or do you just trust the meteorologists the 11PM news to tell you what's happening with the weather and what it's likely to do? Physics and electromagnetics? Do you really know how electricity works, or how silicon chips function, or do you just see the obvious results, and put your trust in people who study and have in-depth knowledge of these areas.

Quote :

"Hooray for your faith in the idea that nothing spiritual can exist. Because that's what it is, its faith. Since religion can be neither proven nor disproven, everyone is exercising faith in one direction or another."

In this, you are correct. At least as much as it takes faith to proclaim that nothing spiritual exists, which I do not claim or believe. I would call myself a-theistic: I, personally, am "without a god", but I do not make any claims one way or another as to the existence of one. But on that point, the burden of proof is on the person that makes the claim. I make no claim - therefore, how can I back it up? But you have christians and theists who make fully unsubstantiated claims based on no evidence whatsoever, and they are the ones who chastise the "faithless" for being blind or close minded? That, my friend, is 100% backwards. If you make a claim that something exists, it is completely up to you to show evidence to support that claim. It is not up to someone else to attempt to disprove your claim.

Quote :

"Both ID and evolution seek to answer some of the same questions. Where did humans come from? What is DNA and how does it function? If we expand the discussion to include the broader programs of stellar and cosmological evolution then again ID also seeks to find insights into how those structures arose. Why is there a structure to physical law?"

nonsense. As we discussed on the last page, it is clear (straight from the founder's mouth) that ID is just a modern word for Creationism. And creationism, as we know it in a Christian sense, is straight from the Bible. The stories of creationism were written a long time before anyone had even imagined what DNA was, or had even fathomed what the physical structure of the universe was. Creationism is on par with Greek and Roman mythology - they were stories created long before science had developed enough to begin to answer fundamental questions about humans, the earth and the universe, simply for people to have "an answer", any answer.

Modern day Intelligent Design already "knows the answers". The answer is that God or a Creator made the universe, then made the earth, then made people, then it became the year 2007 and we're all here. That's it. Now it just has a new fancy name that is supposed to fool people into thinking there is some reason or rational for believing that.

Science, including evolutionary biology, ideally begins with no conclusion. To be effective, science must begin with a hypothesis, the evidence must be gathered to show that hypothesis is true or false. If it turns out to be false, which I would imagine most hypothesis are, then scientists must start over and keep working until they find evidence of the truth, instead of just sticking to their initial hypothesis and selectively choosing evidence to support it. Noting is "known" until it's proven. With Creationism/ID, the conclusion is already known, so there is no hope of discussing it rationally.

11/9/2007 10:22:02 PM

science fits practically all the facets of a religion today. Especially the part where it requires unquestioning loyalty and devotion and dissenters are labeled as heretics. The zeal and fervor that many scientists have rivals only the zeal of hardcore religious fundamentalists.

Quote :

"Once again, you are mixing up "faith" and "trust". You are correct - i know next to nothing about actual genetics research. Sure, i could subscribe to Genetics Weekly, but that would mean nothing to me because I have not studied it. I chose another field to study. To even begin to make judgements on leading-edge genetics research would take years of dedicated study. Therefore, I put my trust in the scientific community at large, that these theories are developed with scrutiny from all angles from people who are qualified to make judgements. I am certainly not qualified to make judgements on almost any genetic or evolutionary research."

Dude, "faith" and "trust" are effectively synonymous in this context. In both scenarios the person doesn't know something. Faith is, effectively, the trust that a belief is right. Faith is based on that trust. Thus, to try and distinguish between "faith" and "trust" is pointless. They are the same thing.

Quote :

"Science, including evolutionary biology, ideally begins with no conclusion."

The problem today is that few, if any, scientists start like that. practically all of them start with a conclusion and then try to find "evidence" to prove it. That is NOT science. Moreover, few scientists actually try and validate their results these days. They just go out, publish it, and then extrapolate on that, coming up with wilder and wilder ideas. For proof of this, look at global fearmongering. Hell, watch practically any science documentary / show. Every last one of them takes you from a kernel of truth and understanding and from there they pile on conjecture and guess after conjecture and guess. At the end of the show it's always "hey man, isn't this fucking amazing?" and I'm like "ummm, sure, if your chain of conjecture holds true..."

[Edited on November 9, 2007 at 10:28 PM. Reason : ]

11/9/2007 10:22:42 PM

Quote :

"science fits practically all the facets of a religion today. Especially the part where it requires unquestioning loyalty and devotion and dissenters are labeled as heretics. The zeal and fervor that many scientists have rivals only the zeal of hardcore religious fundamentalists."

You have to dissent for a rationally defensible reason. You're confused because people who dissent for crazy-ass, irrational reasons are dismissed. In fact, rational dissent is how science progresses. It's how science works -- science is a method, not a dogma. It's a method for converging on the truth. "Converging" means that we revise our beliefs to new ones without assuming the new ones are the truth.

Quote :

"Dude, "faith" and "trust" are effectively synonymous in this context. In both scenarios the person doesn't know something. Faith is, effectively, the trust that a belief is right. Faith is based on that trust. Thus, to try and distinguish between "faith" and "trust" is pointless. They are the same thing."

You're wrong for all of the reasons already discussed in this thread. If somebody shows me physical, concrete results, I'm likely to assign more weight to their way of doing things than to the way that produces NO visible results.

11/9/2007 10:27:27 PM

Quote :

"Even a blind trust of scientists is more justified than a blind trust of priests and theology, because science has produced visible results that people understand the utility of."

Because something cannot be quantified, it is automatically inferior? And again, religion is not intended to focus on visible results.

My point is not that one is greater than the other, anyway. It is simply that faith exists on both sides, and you don't seem to be denying that.

Quote :

"Most religious stories are attempts at explanation."

Really? Jesus's parables were telling us how the world works? The Pillars of Islam and the Ten Commandments explain factual concepts to be applied to predicting outcomes of worldly things? And all this time I was thinking they were trying to give us a moral and spiritual code to live by. Silly me.

Religion hasn't tried to explain the workings of the tangible universe since the days of Apollo riding his chariot of the Sun across the sky (which is more lunacy and ignorance than it is religion)... Just like science hasn't tried to explain what happens to our consciousness after we die. That's not its field.

Quote :

"1) A priori arguments based on set assumptions (handed down by doctrine). 2) Appeals to authority (of either a living or dead religious figure)."

And either of these definitions are trying to challenge the scientific method as a means of understanding scientific concepts?

I realize that some religious people try to use their beliefs to challenge scientific thought, but we can both agree that those people fail.

Quote :

"I'm building a case as to why people are justified in believing science versus religion, even if they have no comprehension of the inner workings of the subject matter."

And I am building a case as to why there is no "science versus religion" to be discussed. They are both entirely different things that do not overlap except in rare cases or in extreme applications. Science defines the worldly, religion defines the spiritual. One can believe both science AND religion without conflict. People who try to use one of these things to deny the other are simply WRONG. You cannot eliminate religion using science (assuming that it is actually religion, rather than some attempt to explain the world without any backing in worldly evidence), and you cannot eliminate science using religion.

Quote :

"One person on these boards?"

None, in that case. I was just bringing up a topic for the good people of TSB to now express their outrage at.

11/9/2007 10:29:01 PM

Quote :

"Because something cannot be quantified, it is automatically inferior? And again, religion is not intended to focus on visible results. My point is not that one is greater than the other, anyway. It is simply that faith exists on both sides, and you don't seem to be denying that."

Yes we need "faith" in things like the proposition that an external world exists. There's always the logical possibility that the external world doesn't exist that cannot be dismissed.

Equating these articles of "faith" with complex sets of propositions like, say, the ones contained in the Christian corpus, is insane and intellectually dishonest.

Quote :

"Really? Jesus's parables were telling us how the world works? The Pillars of Islam and the Ten Commandments explain factual concepts to be applied to predicting outcomes of worldly things? And all this time I was thinking they were trying to give us a moral and spiritual code to live by. Silly me. Religion hasn't tried to explain the workings of the tangible universe since the days of Apollo riding his chariot of the Sun across the sky (which is more lunacy and ignorance than it is religion)... Just like science hasn't tried to explain what happens to our consciousness after we die. That's not its field."

Good job, you picked out specific parts that aren't attempts at explanation. I'm not going to do your homework for you, because I'm already doing that enough for people in this thread. It's not my fault you're ignorant of the Abrahamic set of religions. Go back and study -- there's plenty of explanation of why the world is the way it is.

Quote :

" And either of these definitions are trying to challenge the scientific method as a means of understanding scientific concepts? I realize that some religious people try to use their beliefs to challenge scientific thought, but we can both agree that those people fail."

Sometimes they do try to challenge the scientific method. The problem is that religions make claims about the observable world. These claims conflict with scientific findings, and fail. People get pissed about this.

Quote :

"And I am building a case as to why there is no "science versus religion" to be discussed. They are both entirely different things that do not overlap except in rare cases or in extreme applications. Science defines the worldly, religion defines the spiritual. One can believe both science AND religion without conflict. People who try to use one of these things to deny the other are simply WRONG. You cannot eliminate religion using science (assuming that it is actually religion, rather than some attempt to explain the world without any backing in worldly evidence), and you cannot eliminate science using religion."

Look -- religion has always made claims about the observable world. This is the only way it can be relevant. However, as science continues to explain things without the need of a God, religion retreats to the margins. If you hold religion strictly to the realm of metaphysics, then yes, it cannot conflict with science. However, at some point, a religious person is going to make a religiously-supported statement about the observable world. It will almost always be false. How is this not a conflict?

11/9/2007 10:34:33 PM

and yet, your "trust" still means that you, yourself, still have not done it yourself. You haven't seen it or known it through your own experiences, which is ultimately the same as faith.

Quote :

"You have to dissent for a rationally defensible reason."

And I don't disagree, but the fact is that anyone who disagrees with status quo in science is immediately labeled a fool and a quack. It's not just the fools and quacks who get labeled that way. The progression that was science has effectively ground to a halt, because scientists have STOPPED being inquisitive. They have assumed that they are infallible, smug in the belief that their ways are the best (you know, kind of like how many followers of a religion also assume that their ways are the best). Don't get me wrong, "science" still turns out discoveries, but if it were more objective and open, and less full of itself, then I'd bet that we would be making far more progress. Taking a serious look at ID won't help that, I agree; but, neither does thumbing one's nose at it and scoffing at the barbarous fools who espouse it, either.

Quote :

"If you hold religion strictly to the realm of metaphysics, then yes, it cannot conflict with science."

The fact that you believe that is clear evidence of your blindness to science's status as a religion. The fundamental belief of science is that the observation is truth. The problem, however, is that such a statement is conjecture in its own right. Science has, basically, made a metaphysical statement that perception is reality. You can say that science produces tangible things, but to practitioners of other religions, so do their beliefs. You might say that science results in meaningful things, but a religious person might also say that their beliefs bring meaning to them. Ultimately, it's a question of what someone values in this case.

[Edited on November 9, 2007 at 10:39 PM. Reason : ]

11/9/2007 10:34:34 PM

Quote :

"and yet, your "trust" still means that you, yourself, still have not done it yourself. You haven't seen it or known it through your own experiences, which is ultimately the same as faith."

Are you not reading what I'm saying? You get to experience the end results. You see something concrete. In the case of religious doctrines, you see nothing concrete that it produces. I'm more willing to place my bets with the people producing the results.

Quote :

"And I don't disagree, but the fact is that anyone who disagrees with status quo in science is immediately labeled a fool and a quack."

Wrong. Shows your ignorance about current practice in science.

Quote :

"The progression that was science has effectively ground to a halt, because scientists have STOPPED being inquisitive."

Wrong. Shows your ignorance about progress in the sciences.

Quote :

"They have assumed that they are infallible, smug in the belief that their ways are the best (you know, kind of like how many followers of a religion also assume that their ways are the best)."

Wrong. Read any scientific journal. You'll see lots of discourse between different camps that drastically disagree.

Quote :

"Don't get me wrong, "science" still turns out discoveries, but if it were more objective and open, and less full of itself, then I'd bet that we would be making far more progress."

Wrong. Refusing to entertain metaphysical doctrines in the course of observing the observable world is a wise choice, not a failure to remain objective and open.

Quote :

"Taking a serious look at ID won't help that, I agree; but, neither does thumbing one's nose at it and scoffing at the barbarous fools who espouse it, either."

ID is not science. When people try to call it science, they should be scoffed at. It doesn't fit the definition.

11/9/2007 10:39:31 PM

Quote :

"But this is why we develop experts in fields. It is impossible for anybody to have a full and deep understanding of every field of science. Have you extensively researched and studied the fields of geology? If not, how can you be sure that geologists aren't lying to us about how volcanoes and earthquakes work. What about meteorology? Or do you just trust the meteorologists the 11PM news to tell you what's happening with the weather and what it's likely to do? Physics and electromagnetics? Do you really know how electricity works, or how silicon chips function, or do you just see the obvious results, and put your trust in people who study and have in-depth knowledge of these areas."

Good argument. As I said to McDanger, "Hell, I have faith in the idea that gravity is going to keep holding me down, considering that I've got no idea exactly why large objects (objects with more mass) tend to pull smaller objects towards themselves."

I suppose if I had to define "trust", it would be the belief in something based upon known facts. I'd define "faith" as the belief in a concept without requiring evidence or backing.

If you want to talk about the fundamental differences between faith and trust, though, feel free to visit dictionary.com and come back here. I might actually be using the two terms incorrectly, so there you go.

Quote :

"I would call myself a-theistic: I, personally, am "without a god", but I do not make any claims one way or another as to the existence of one. But on that point, the burden of proof is on the person that makes the claim."

Admirable stance to take. As for the burden of proof... by the definition of faith that I used earlier, the whole concept of faith is belief without the requirement of evidence.

Quote :

"But you have christians and theists who make fully unsubstantiated claims based on no evidence whatsoever, and they are the ones who chastise the "faithless" for being blind or close minded?"

I agree with you that doing such a thing is foolish. You cannot consider someone "blind" just because they do not believe the same thing that you do.

11/9/2007 10:40:19 PM

Quote :

"ID is not science. When people try to call it science, they should be scoffed at. It doesn't fit the definition."

And you scoff at them, just as Christian missionaries scoffed at the beliefs of the savages they tried to convert. That mindset is indicative of religious beliefs, man. There's no two ways about it.

11/9/2007 10:40:47 PM

Quote :

"Faith is, effectively, the trust that a belief is right. Faith is based on that trust."

i would agree with that.
but what is "belief", then? Science is not based on "beliefs". Science is based on fact. Whether you believe it or not is irrelevant. Sometimes things are true, or they are false. How one chooses to view that information doesn't matter. I mean, i feel like Stephen Colbert here - we're actually having an argument about "truthiness". Some things are simply true. You can put "trust" in facts. Some things are simply false. No matter how much you want to believe it, or how much faith you put into that belief, doesn't change the fact that it is false. People use the word faith just as a cop-out for believing things that are either proven false already or have no provable basis in fact.

Faith, by definition, is irrational. If you put your faith in something, that means you have no actual, provable reason to believe that thing is true or not.
But if you put your trust in something, that means that at every point along the "trust link" is provable.

For example, if you have faith that God created man from clay and woman from man because that's what's written in the Bible. Follow the links here. You believe this because you read it in the Bible. Who wrote the Bible? Men did, thousands of years ago. Why did these men write it, and what makes you so sure they were correct in writing it? It's impossible to know. Therefore, every single step in that line forces you to follow it blindly. You are putting your faith in a book that was written by somebody you don't know and for reasons unknown to you.....

Scientific fact and theory, though, follows a rational chain of evidence, which if followed all the way to the top, you can find hard, concrete answers. Example - if I simply read a paper on an aspect of evolution, that alone is no reason to believe it is true. In that case, though, I could contact the paper's author, who could show me his supporting work, and could bring me first hand accounts of the research that went into the paper. Then in the process of publishing the paper, others in the field with varying amounts and degrees of knowledge of done their own background work and can sign off on the conclusions. Therefore, there is an unbroken chain of trust there. I don't have to see the evidence first-hand myself - i can rely on the chain of rational knowledge to put my trust in the material.

11/9/2007 10:41:25 PM

Except I have a firm set of reasons why they should be scoffed at. They claim something fits a definition when it demonstrably does not. Placing this on equal footing as missionaries scoffing at foreign cultural practices is intellectually dishonest. You know this, but that doesn't stop you from saying it. ^^

[Edited on November 9, 2007 at 10:42 PM. Reason : .]

11/9/2007 10:42:12 PM

Quote :

"Science is based on fact"

false. Science is based on the BELIEF that perception is fact. That is the core of science.

Quote :

"Except I have a firm set of reasons why they should be scoffed at."

As did those missionaries, scoffing at the godless heathens. They hid behind their bibles while you hide behind your "definition." What about the definition makes it any more special than anything else? When one says "It isn't science," all he is really saying is "It's not right," which is exactly what was said by clergymen against scientists so many years ago. The shoe is merely on the other foot now.

[Edited on November 9, 2007 at 10:45 PM. Reason : ]

11/9/2007 10:42:15 PM

What's wrong with beliefs? Beliefs can be rational or irrational.

My belief that there's a table in front of me is a rationally held belief. Science is made up of beliefs too, but ones that are rationally supported. In the cases where science gets these beliefs right, we might even call what it's made up of "knowledge" instead of belief.

^ Wrong again. None of the missionaries' beliefs were rational or defensible. Try again.

Edit:

^ Wrong yet again. In the interests of conducting scientific inquiry, we have to define what science is. Anything not fitting that definition doesn't fall under the umbrella. This is way different from judging a foreign culture as "godless" or "immoral." Your tactic of trying to paint those interested in rational, revisable inquiry as "no different" than religious fanatics is flawed, intellectually dishonest, and invalid.

[Edited on November 9, 2007 at 10:47 PM. Reason : .]

11/9/2007 10:43:46 PM

Quote :

"None of the missionaries' beliefs were rational or defensible."

Oh really. Has someone out there proved that the Christian God does not exist? I was not aware of this.

Quote :

"Beliefs can be rational or irrational."

But what makes one "rational" and another "irrational?" Often, it's whether or not one agrees with it. It's kind of like the difference between what is "good" and what is "bad." It's all a matter of perspective.

Quote :

"Wrong yet again. In the interests of conducting scientific inquiry, we have to define what science is."

Yes. And in the interest of serving their lord, Christians felt it necessary to define what was "Christian." There is no difference. Ultimately, you have no basis to say that you are anything more than a brain in a jar. You want to believe, however, that you are more than a brain in a jar, so you believe it, and you take the belief that your perception is reality. That you shift how much "proof" is necessary doesn't change the fact that you have a fundamentally unprovable belief

Quote :

"Your tactic of trying to paint those interested in rational, revisable inquiry as "no different" than religious fanatics is flawed, intellectually dishonest, and invalid."

And your attack of "intellectual dishonesty" is little more than the missionary's scoff at the heathens.

[Edited on November 9, 2007 at 10:52 PM. Reason : ]

11/9/2007 10:47:58 PM

Quote :

"Religion hasn't tried to explain the workings of the tangible universe since the days of Apollo riding his chariot of the Sun across the sky (which is more lunacy and ignorance than it is religion)... "

ah yes, of course. The religion of the ancient Greeks was simply lunacy and ignorance. For that matter, so is everything in Buddism and Hindu. In fact, every religious believe in the history of civilization outside the beliefs in the Christian Bible can just be dismissed as lunacy, right?

A man pulling a charriot of fire across the sky!? That's crazy!
But an invisible hand reaching down, creating man from clay, breathing life into his nostrils, reaching into his chest and pulling out a rib and fashioning woman from the rib? TRUTH!

Quote :

"Just like science hasn't tried to explain what happens to our consciousness after we die. That's not its field."

Science most certainly is trying to explain this, but we have to start with understanding what "consciousness" is first, before trying to figure out what happens to it after one dies. The study of the brain and mind (and by extension, consciousness) is a very active area of scientific research.

11/9/2007 10:50:13 PM

Quote :

"Oh really. Has someone out there proved that the Christian God does not exist? I was not aware of this."

Seeing as how the concept of the Christian God contains logical contradictions, the short answer is: "yes."

Quote :

"But what makes one "rational" and another "irrational?" Often, it's whether or not one agrees with it. It's kind of like the difference between what is "good" and what is "bad." It's all a matter of perspective."

Wrong. Rational beliefs are those based on straight-forward, empirical, publicly accessible observations. They're also based on the logical consequences of these observations and the theories that successfully predict them.

11/9/2007 10:51:17 PM

Quote :

"But what makes one "rational" and another "irrational?" Often, it's whether or not one agrees with it"

no, no, no, no. "Rational" is something that can be proved and supported with evidence. "Irrational" is the opposite.
It's like this argument we're having. Just because you can't comprehend the difference between Trust and Faith, or Rational and Irrational doesn't mean the difference doesn't exist.

11/9/2007 10:53:12 PM

Quote :

"Seeing as how the concept of the Christian God contains logical contradictions, the short answer is: "yes.""

Really. Are they contradictions or are they things that just make you uncomfortable? Are they contradictions or are they an example of you pushing YOUR desires and wants on such a being?

Quote :

"Rational beliefs are those based on straight-forward, empirical, publicly accessible observations. "

And why does an observation matter?

11/9/2007 10:54:39 PM

Quote :

"and yet, your "trust" still means that you, yourself, still have not done it yourself. You haven't seen it or known it through your own experiences, which is ultimately the same as faith."

no it's not. Like i've said, i can follow the "trust chain" all they way up until I get solid, first hand proof. therefore, it remains a matter of trust. Anything that breaks the chain at some point and cannot be proved with first hand or observable knowledge becomes faith.

11/9/2007 10:56:22 PM

Quote :

"but, it's perfectly OK to say that the beliefs of a religion are 100% wrong... got it"

Yes, Mr. Burro. That is exactly what I said. Nice strawman.

11/9/2007 10:57:24 PM

and someone can follow the "trust chain" all the way up until he gets to a divine messenger. You simply choose to go no farther than you do. The believer chooses to go no farther than his minister.

^ well, that is effectively what you said. "Hey, don't preach no Christianity, man. Preach against it!"

[Edited on November 9, 2007 at 10:58 PM. Reason : ]

11/9/2007 10:57:39 PM

Quote :

"Really. Are they contradictions or are they things that just make you uncomfortable? Are they contradictions or are they an example of you pushing YOUR desires and wants on such a being?"

Contradictions.

There are things that make me "uncomfortable" in the brain sciences. This, however, is not grounds for me to dismiss the findings.

Quote :

"And why does an observation matter?"

How else do we gather knowledge about the world?

11/9/2007 10:57:53 PM

Right. A contradiction like "3 people went to the tomb" and then somewhere else it says "Mary went to the tomb?" Some things make you uncomfortable, and you accept them. For others, you call them "contradictions"

Oh, and how does an observation lead to knowledge?

[Edited on November 9, 2007 at 10:59 PM. Reason : ]

11/9/2007 10:58:32 PM

I am touching a table in front of me. I see this table. I can hear it, if I knock it.

I know there's a table in front of me.

11/9/2007 10:59:37 PM

why do you KNOW there is a table there? how do you KNOW that you haven't been conditioned to believe there is a table there?

[Edited on November 9, 2007 at 11:00 PM. Reason : ]

11/9/2007 11:00:14 PM

Look, if you define knowledge tightly enough that I cannot know there's a table there, then I have to say knowledge is a useless concept.

In this case, we go with rational belief. I'm rational in believing there's a table in front of me because I'm awake, and the observations I have are consistent with my past observations. Perception is "forced" in a way -- it's non-inferential. If something agitates one of my sensory receptors, I can't help but have the belief that something is causing the agitation.

11/9/2007 11:02:19 PM

and if you define that there is no God, then I'd say life is pretty useless

and, all of that assumes that you aren't a brain in a jar

[Edited on November 9, 2007 at 11:03 PM. Reason : ]

11/9/2007 11:02:46 PM

You're certainly warranted in believing life has no value if God doesn't exist.

However, people like me choose to value things anyway. Even if there's no God, I still value life. Things make me happy, and make other people happy. I still love things, and so do other people. Alleviating suffering has a lot of value -- making other people happy has a lot of value. Why? Because it's valuable to me - I make that choice. And just because I create my own value doesn't make it less a value. I still hold values. The fact that you wouldn't in a godless universe makes you a sociopath.

Quote :

"and, all of that assumes that you aren't a brain in a jar"

It certainly does, but it's a scenario I'm justified in discarding. Besides, if we can't even know that we're not brains in a jar, how do you get to know that God exists and is Jesus?

11/9/2007 11:06:24 PM

Quote :

" Equating these articles of "faith" with complex sets of propositions like, say, the ones contained in the Christian corpus, is insane and intellectually dishonest."

Yet again, I'm not equating them. Science =/= Religion. There, I've said it explicitly.
Of course, you also cannot say that Science < Religion or Science > Religion in a general statement. They both deal with fundamentally different subjects, and also do not exclude one another. Science is greater than religion for defining worldly facts, just as religion is greater than science for "explaining" intangible concepts like the afterlife. And again, if someone is using religion to attempt to challenge science, they are being foolish. And vice versa.

Perhaps you believe that fields of study that examine the physical world are more important than those that define morality and human spirit. Okay, that's acceptable. But that's an opinion, which is best not to state as fact like you've been doing.

Quote :

"It's not my fault you're ignorant of the Abrahamic set of religions. Go back and study -- there's plenty of explanation of why the world is the way it is."

I'll agree that I know little of Islam in regards to these explanations, but name me one thing in the Christian Bible or the Jewish scriptures that attempt to explain the way the world works... Other than the creation story, which many people agree is not literal in its explanation of the beginning of the universe. Also, try not to cite various miraculous works such as the parting of a sea as an explanation of the world, as not only are miracles god-aided by their very definition, but also their intent is not to tell us that seas will split if we hold our staff before them.

Most of the stories in the Bible follow a specific person or group of people, which are used as examples of how to live or not live our lives.

Quote :

"Sometimes they do try to challenge the scientific method. The problem is that religions make claims about the observable world. These claims conflict with scientific findings, and fail. People get pissed about this."

See above in regards to explaining the world.
People do try to use religion to challenge science, though, and as I've said before, this is foolishness. As is trying to devoid religion by using scientific processes.

Just to be sure, you are using the right definition of religion, right? The one where it is limited to the spiritual and moral? If someone is using religion to explain a worldly process, they are not by my definition practicing religion, they are practicing idiocy.

Quote :

"However, at some point, a religious person is going to make a religiously-supported statement about the observable world. It will almost always be false. How is this not a conflict?"

This "religious" person (or, as my previous statement would indicate, this idiotic person) is not following religion.

Quote :

"Look -- religion has always made claims about the observable world. This is the only way it can be relevant."

Correction: This is the only way it can be relevant to the observable world. The intent of an actual religion is not to be relevant to the observable world, it is to be relevant to the moral and spiritual world.

You may be going by a more classical social definition of religion (a definition taught in social studies courses, oddly enough), which is that religion is an attempt by man to explain the world around him. Even in middle school I thought "huh?" as soon as I heard this.
This definition would make Christianity not a religion, as it is not attempting to explain the world at all (provided, as said earlier, that the creation story is not taken literally, and that miraculous events are not considered explanations of the world, as they do not try to predict future behaviors of the environment).

11/9/2007 11:07:47 PM

Quote :

"well, that is effectively what you said. "Hey, don't preach no Christianity, man. Preach against it!""

Not at all. What I implied is that if ID were taught in the US since the majority of folks are Christian that it would have a Christian slant either so people/kiddies could understand it better or so that the Christian right howlers don't come out of the woodwork.

Look, I have nothing personal against Christianity. I have a problem with a select group of followers of Christianity that turned me off from the religion but by and large everyday Christians are just fine. Just like everyday Jews or Muslims are just fine. Sheesh.

11/9/2007 11:11:58 PM

Quote :

"The fact that you wouldn't in a godless universe makes you a sociopath."

And the fact that you don't believe in God makes you a heathen who is going to hell, according to the missionary.

Quote :

"It certainly does, but it's a scenario I'm justified in discarding."

And why is that? Why can you discard that?

Quote :

"Besides, if we can't even know that we're not brains in a jar, how do you get to know that God exists and is Jesus?"

I already admit that Christianity is a religion. You refuse to admit that science is a religion. You assert that science is truth, and I am forcing you to prove that. The honus, therefor, is on you to provide that proof.

^ Oh, OK. So, we just don't want those pesky Christians peddling their religion. So it's OK to peddle against their religion. Got it

[Edited on November 9, 2007 at 11:13 PM. Reason : ]

11/9/2007 11:12:08 PM

Quote :

"Yet again, I'm not equating them. Science =/= Religion. There, I've said it explicitly. Of course, you also cannot say that Science < Religion or Science > Religion in a general statement. They both deal with fundamentally different subjects, and also do not exclude one another. Science is greater than religion for defining worldly facts, just as religion is greater than science for "explaining" intangible concepts like the afterlife. And again, if someone is using religion to attempt to challenge science, they are being foolish. And vice versa. Perhaps you believe that fields of study that examine the physical world are more important than those that define morality and human spirit. Okay, that's acceptable. But that's an opinion, which is best not to state as fact like you've been doing."

You are so confused I have no idea where to start. You don't even understand what I'm arguing for, so I'm ignoring anything you say from here on out. I can't continue to waste my time with you if you aren't even going to take the time and effort to read what I'm saying.

Quote :

" I'll agree that I know little of Islam in regards to these explanations, but name me one thing in the Christian Bible or the Jewish scriptures that attempt to explain the way the world works... Other than the creation story, which many people agree is not literal in its explanation of the beginning of the universe. Also, try not to cite various miraculous works such as the parting of a sea as an explanation of the world, as not only are miracles god-aided by their very definition, but also their intent is not to tell us that seas will split if we hold our staff before them. Most of the stories in the Bible follow a specific person or group of people, which are used as examples of how to live or not live our lives. "

"Exclude the parts directed at explanation and then show me parts that attempt to explain."

One salient example of how you're wrong is how the Bible explains sin and consequences. Their explanation for how Jerusalem fell is that people were sinning and God punished them by removing his protection.

Quote :

"Correction: This is the only way it can be relevant to the observable world. The intent of an actual religion is not to be relevant to the observable world, it is to be relevant to the moral and spiritual world. You may be going by a more classical social definition of religion (a definition taught in social studies courses, oddly enough), which is that religion is an attempt by man to explain the world around him. Even in middle school I thought "huh?" as soon as I heard this. This definition would make Christianity not a religion, as it is not attempting to explain the world at all (provided, as said earlier, that the creation story is not taken literally, and that miraculous events are not considered explanations of the world, as they do not try to predict future behaviors of the environment)."

Yeah dude you had this shit figured out in middle school.

Religion is an attempt at explaining all sorts of things. It's also an attempt to tell us how to live -- part of this is based on their explanation of the ultimate reality of things.

I can't continue to do this with you, it's a complete waste of time.

11/9/2007 11:14:23 PM

Quote :

"Science has, basically, made a metaphysical statement that perception is reality."

if you consider it a leap of faith for one to claim that "perception is reality", then yes, i am a man of faith.

But if you refuse to even go as far as agreeing that observation leads to truth, then you're on a whole different level of argument than the rest of us. I mean, maybe you're right - maybe the universe as we know it is one big holographic experience or it is being played out in the neurons of the brain of a god or we're just in a big computer simulation powered by inanimate bodies in pink goo.

If you want to believe that, fine. Have fun. But your arguments can then serve no purpose for those of us in the "real world" who are simply trying to explain the existence we see and feel around us.

11/9/2007 11:15:41 PM

^^ typical way of admitting defeat without saying so. Many Christians do the same thing when their beliefs are questioned.

I'll sum it up: Science says it can find truth. Things that we call religions assert that they have the truth. The two, therefor, are synonymous.

Quote :

"But your arguments can then serve no purpose for those of us in the "real world" who are simply trying to explain the existence we see and feel around us."

It's OK. Christian missionaries saw no reason for existence outside of God, as well. And, frankly, religion is also an attempt to explain the existence people see and feel around them, as well. Thanks for admitting defeat, as well.

[Edited on November 9, 2007 at 11:18 PM. Reason : ]

11/9/2007 11:17:00 PM

Quote :

"And the fact that you don't believe in God makes you a heathen who is going to hell, according to the missionary."

Irrelevant to the discussion, since I share nothing in common with the missionary. The fact that you need a policeman standing around to do the right thing makes you a closet sociopath. You don't rape and pillage because you're scared of retribution.

Quote :

"And why is that? Why can you discard that?"

Because the hypothesis, true or false, does not influence my daily life. Even if I were a brain in a vat, it wouldn't change the daily facts of my experience.

Quote :

"I already admit that Christianity is a religion. You refuse to admit that science is a religion. You assert that science is truth, and I am forcing you to prove that. The honus, therefor, is on you to provide that proof."

Where do I assert that science is truth? Science is a METHOD, aimed at converging on the truth about our surroundings. It's aimed at converging on useful, accurate explanations, predictions, and calculations. You are ridiculously confused.

11/9/2007 11:17:01 PM

Quote :

"Irrelevant to the discussion, since I share nothing in common with the missionary. "

speaking of contradictions...

Quote :

"Even if I were a brain in a vat, it wouldn't change the daily facts of my experience."

Yes it does. It means that what you say is "fact" actually "isn't." There isn't a table in front of you.

Quote :

"You don't rape and pillage because you're scared of retribution."

Are you not scared of the consequences of jumping into a fire? How is that not any different?

Quote :

"Science is a METHOD, aimed at converging on the truth about our surroundings."

So, science's aim is to find truth. Religion claims to have the truth. Both claim, then, to give truth via following them. Moreover, is not Christianity a method to achieve a certain result? Why is science any more noble? What makes science any more special that it should be revered more than any other religion?

[Edited on November 9, 2007 at 11:24 PM. Reason : ]

11/9/2007 11:22:51 PM

Dogs have legs. Humans have legs. Dogs and humans are the same thing.

11/9/2007 11:23:44 PM

Quote :

"And again, if someone is using religion to attempt to challenge science, they are being foolish. And vice versa."

As McDanger (more or less) said earlier, as science moves forward, religion simply has to start to stand aside. Religion is the Old-World's science. It was an attempt to explain the then unexplainable. As science progresses, more and more things about how the world, the universe, and humans become explainable, therefore religion should play a smaller and smaller role. If people who are so weak-minded and socially inept that they need religion to tell them how to act or behave in a socially acceptable, moral way, then that's fine. Some of us don't require that kind of guidance, but whatever. But for explanations on how the physical world works? Just please give way and leave that up to science.

11/9/2007 11:23:55 PM