That's a false dichotomy. We have to believe many things without having a scientific basis for them. No one has the time to apply the scientific method to test everything they believe and do, and few have the ability to apply the scientific method rigorously, and when they do, it is often in a very restricted context. Most of our actions are based in tradition, anecdotes, and (over)simplified models of how the world works.
I'm not an expert in psychology, but the study in the first post seems like a simple example of priming to me, not anything monumental. Trying to illuminate the science vs. religion issue with bad, overhyped science is not a good way to start this discussion.
Science is indeed in opposition to those who read religious texts literally and uncritically, though one has to wonder at people opposing science, yet treating their scriptures as scientific dogma. The fact of the matter is that the universe is wonderously complicated and scriptures are anything but a simple account of the truth.
Science is a human construct based on observation and inductive reasoning, that is based on a bunch of trusted assumptions that try to explain the world. While it does a damn good job, there is nothing FACT about it, I am sorry.
In other words, it is a religion.
Do you guys think that everything really need be explained?
right, but to chalk up what we don't know to simply giving God credit is wrong.
I like it when posters try to sound super smart as if it will make their argument that much better.
It's hard to tell exactly what everyone is trying to argue, but it's pretty simple
God and science do not mix. If you think they do, then you are basically subscribing to the Angel Luv Doctrine of "I can't explain it, so it must be God."
Saying "I don't know, there are several theories but we are still researching it and will one day figure it out" is a perfectly acceptable answer.
Saying "There is no explanation other than it is a miracle by God's all powerful hand" in a labcoat is unacceptable.
It is also acceptable to be a Christian and a scientist, but not a Christian based scientist.
That's pretty much it. I don't see what the debate is about.
What if one day you figure out that it's God?
I am sorry you don't know what you are talking about
awesome.
Angel Luv suddenly reaches genius level and puts us all to shame.
no, we really need no explanation about how the Earth works.
we are just fine believing that it's flat.
LOL where did i go wrong, Mr. Know it all?
What is a Christian-based scientist?
sounds similar to my credit card debt plan.
I could come up with any number of definitions.
My own experience was that I attended a private Christian school in middle school. The earth science book was faith based and spent the majority of it trying to debunk chaos theories and evolution.
One example was:
"Imagine if a print shop exploded and everything fell perfectly into place to form a perfect fully functioning encyclopedia. That's what atheists try to say is how the universe was formed."
I'm not saying I disagree with that. It just has no place in science class. It belongs in something like philosophy class.
Point taken.
Some information is useful.
But, for example, do you think we need to know why the earth is round instead of flat?
I don't know it all, you just don't know what you are talking about.
Saying "science is a religion" is something you hear at Sunday School.
explain to me how science is FACT and then I will take back my statement. If something is not fact, it is safe to assume it is something you believe strongly (if you indeed accept it).
who is "we"
It has no more a place in the science class than does the big bang theory, or any other origin of the universe theory that exists.
Anyone.
In your opinion: Does anyone need to know why the earth is round, and if so, who?
I am genuinely interested.
due to the "FACT" that the universe is constantly expanding, some parts of the big bang theory are very plausible and at this point do have a place in science books as a theory.
I guess if you loosen the definition of "religion" to be next to meaningless, that would be the case.
Science is based on observations, and testable hypothesis.
If scientific observations don't really get you "facts", then why don't you test out the Law of Gravity by dropping a car on your head, and see how far that gets you.
...or try to design a jet engine based on the tenets of the bible, and leaving out all the "facts" like thermodynamics, metallurgy, and physics.
That I would like to see.
"Ladies and gentlemen, this jet engine is based on the book of Luke, and I put it together all by myself, ignoring all of the silly faith based "facts" of science."
That's really what you are going with when you call science a "religion"? Seriously?
GMAFB.
since I like you, I'll give you a genuine answer.
There are literally thousands of things you take for granted today simply because someone before you wanted to know "why".
Maybe 10,000 years from now, thanks to the knowledge of knowing why the earth is round, humans are able to rebuild a new earth after our population reached the 500 trillion mark.
I can't think of any reason why we shouldn't care about the why and how of the universe other than the standard selfish, lazy answer of "who cares, you'll be dead in 100 years any way"
You make an excellent point. Thanks very much.
I think it is a compelling task- to temper my desire for knowledge and explanations with the acceptance that there are some things I personally will never be able to fully comprehend.
Science and religion serve two entirely different purposes. It is apples and oranges. Scientific methods require proof, but religious beliefs do not. I have religious faith but not scientific faith, and there is no contradiction there. My mind can actually understand that they are two different arenas of study, and there does not have to be a single means of access to truth. I approach mathematics differently than the way I approach literature, and I have no problem with that.
I think some of you are confused as to what religion is about to many people and are tied up in the fundamentalists' perceptions of the Old Testament and opposition to evolution that does not pervade all of religious belief and believers.
"I maintain that the cosmic religious feeling is the strongest and noblest motive for scientific research."-- Albert Einstein
That is simply not a science book and points to the type of religious school you attended. I have spent my life and my child's life in religiously-affiliated schools and have never seen a bogus science textbook like that.
There are currently 1 users browsing this thread. (0 members and 1 guests)
Posting Permissions
Reply With Quote
