Are science and religion incompatible?

Ah, and another strange thing I don't quite get, maybe it's just terms.


Kevn... ah... is abiogenesis the right term?

I mean, even in the case that you are right and all, and an intelligent designer did create everything?

Wouldn't that be abiogenesis too? Unless the intelligent designer is biological?


Not that it detracts from anything you are saying, it's just that I'm thinking your fight is not against abiogenesis per se.

Not quite sure what the term would be. Maybe I've been reading Chip's posts too carefully or something, I don't know.

- Desmond

Sorry for the confusion Desmond, after re-reading my statement, it does kind of look like I was saying that. That is not what I meant at all (you bringing down 'another' thread). Nor did I think your comments were bad ones.

The problem was that fact that in a week, 2 other threads have been locked for people getting abusive of one another. And, while I certainly think some of the points you brought up were valid to discuss, they are hot buttons for a lot of folks. I have seen a lot of abuse over these topics in RL and SL, but more heated on the internet since no one is truly accountable for what they say there. (as a side note I saw a post of a movie on what the real internet is from a couple of guys in Halo outfits that was quite funny while being very true. I think it was posted somewhere in the forums...)

If we can in fact talk about these subjects without any heat, I would gladly do so. I don't think I (or you or several others I have observed here) would introduce this heat, but some are more about drama than discussion. Thus the bringing down of a thread (even though I doubt you ever intended such).

edit----
found the link Real Life vs the Interent

Ellie,

We will probably have to agree to disagree. I think kids can understand concepts are theory as opposed to absolute fact. The problem is teaching it as fact places it in a box that says "this is already proven, don't open or examinate further.

Here is my big point... Atheistic religion (the teaching God doesn't exist) is most certainly taught to students by way of inference. If I tell your child the world was placed here by a big bang, and that life originated from stardust, that would be telling your child a faith. It may have evidence to support it (everything flying away to show a big bang) but it's a matter of faith because apperances can be deceiving.

Do you see anything wrong with being honest with the child and say "hey, we see this happening and it looks like a big bang caused it, but we weren't there, we can't recreate it, so it's still a matter of quessing"? Why must the books teach it as if it happened. It's no better than teaching them God caused a big bang. We have no evidence of a big bang because we can't explore what exploded to make a big bang. We have no idea where the material came from to create the universe.

Anyhow, I don't want to debate science, I want to level the playing field. First remove any references to science teaching absolute fact. Put a disclaimer on the books letting the children know science is never finished so what may seem true today could be falsified tomorrow. The point of science is not to prove you are right, but to try to prove you are wrong. We should look at our assumtions and try to falsify those things we believe. The current scientic community isn't about falsifying their theories, they are defending them with zeal. That's not good science imho.

I don't know where you went to school, but when I was in school it was pretty clearly presented that things like the big bang were theories, and that there were many unanswered questions.

I don't remember anyone ever teaching me that they were undisputed facts.

Where I went to school they were taught of as fact, this in the Bible belt. Not only that, but if you had differing opinions, you were singled out infront of the class to 'demonstrate your wisdom'. This happened all the way back to grade school as well...

More on this here

It also happened mathematics and reading (course, I deserved this because I sucked at reading...)

I'm not talking about when I when to school. I'm talking about now. The books I'm talking about are nationally accepted by the NEA and are distributed throughout the nation. Sorry I didn't make that clear.

Hmmmm again.

" We have no evidence of a big bang because we can't explore what exploded to make a big bang." I cannot agree with, Kevn. If we have a mathematical model of an entire sequence of events from within microseconds, and it predicts things about the remnants which are verifiable and otherwise without explanation, I describe that as evidence. Not proof, but evidence. Certainly not "no evidence".

However, this discussion is changing a bit. If your main point is that science as currently taught in US schools is being misrepresented and badly taught, then I am in no position to argue. I have no evidence of that either way.

If this is (as has been hinted at) worst in locations where the creationism/science battle is at its strongest, then perhaps it is a manifestation of that old human wealness. Exaggerate your case when you feel it to be under threat.

Dunno. All I know is that there is no symmetry between religion and science. One is a practical toolkit for the material world, every kid needs at least part of that toolkit, and its better established stuff is the closest thing we have to "fact" and can fairly be described as that if anything can.

Science must be taught in Schools. Not may. Must.

Religion is something entirely different, far more personal, controversial, fragmented, unproven, and has a history of being dogmatic, dangerous and correlating with intolerance, conflict, and feelings of superiority. Certainly no child should be taught that any one religion is "true" in a public school, even in the same sense that core science is true.

Well, maybe we can agree the US constitution doesn't ban the teaching of ID in school and move on from there, deciding class name from which to teach it isn't as important.

Also, if you agree science shouldn't teach anything as absolute fact, but should be trying to disprove theories, then we could agree to tell kids what science teaches is probably going to change (several times) in their lifetime.

That way kids have more information from which to grow and learn.

Well, I think most of the science they are likely to encounter won't actually change, but they should certainly be alerted that some of it well may. And that that is praise, not criticism.

The really ironic thing about the interchange between you and me here, Kevn, is that I am in fact a believer in my own version of Highly Intelligent Design, whereas I'm not sure you are (though I see no conflict whatever with science).

But I can't prove ellie-HID, and I don't want kids misled. Same applies to other religions.

And incidentally there is no-one in this world I would trust to teach what I believe without misunderstanding, perverting and degrading it. Don't even think I'd trust myself.

And in a school, to school-kids ?

The Creator was loaded? That would make it a lot more sensible!

Brilliant video, Kurgan, I did miss it and I'm glad you brought it here


I agree certain topics are hot buttons. This entire topic is a hot button.

But putting aside all mention of unambiguous tenets of clear intolerance is rather like asking "But other than that, Mrs Kennedy, how was Dallas?"


Sure, we may all love each other as brothers. But given the opportunity to vote, it is clear few have any compunction against telling their neighbour how to live.



Have you read the Satanic Verses? Rushdie characterises the Islamic faith in the form of a beautiful woman, a prophetess that the devout follow on their journey to Mecca.

One day, she gives an instruction her followers do not like. It is a powerful moment, one I recommend reading. No wonder some wanted to kill Mr Rushdie.

Does "loaded" imply chemical enhancement of experience, Taco?
Come on, how could he possibly need it ?

Don't get confused now, T. You're meeting a different Ellie here.

I fully support the teaching of ID as long as Catholic churches are required to teach competing theories alongside Jesusism such as Islam, Judaism, Hinduism, Scientology, Mormonology, and Davinci-Code-ology.

~Ulrika~

Actually, Kevn, I think you have a powerful point.


How about this: A cosmology class, discussing origins.


-The current science book full of theories-du-jour would have a disclaimer.

-The Christian Bible would be there. It would have a disclaimer too.

-The Koran would be there, with a disclaimer also.

-The Torah would be there too, with a disclaimer.

-The Upanishads would be there, with a disclaimer.

Perhaps more, say the 'top ten'.


I think in this case, it would be a proper education.

Does this sound fair to you, to everyone? I would support this.

Ulrika:

Jinx. You owe me a coke.

Hey, I was first. Don't I get the coke?

~Ulrika~

Should we say that Gravitation is probably going to change several times in their life?

When we were taught about science in high school, we were taught about it from a historical perspective. For example, when we were taught about atoms, we started all the way back from Democritus, to John Dalton, to the "pudding" theory, to Bohr, to Schroedinger, etc. And from this perspective, we could see how scientific understanding is refined throughout history, that next time, we might even have a better idea of how things work.

When we were taught physics, we started from Newton, and once we knew it to some degree, we were exposed to the ideas of relativity and quantum mechanics. Again, from the historical perspective, we can see how our model of the universe gets constantly refined.

When we were taught about the Big Bang, we were taught about how the idea evolved as well ( this is a bit hazy to me now, something about red shifts ). And when we were taught about evolution, we were told about various theories that abounded before darwin's time, and then taught about darwin's fateful journey. And then various experiments and observations that came after. (no, we were not taught ID, and I've never seen really convincing evidence of ID -- and, I might say, neither have most scientists)

So anyway, in my experience, science was *not* taught in such a dogmatic "this is how it is and will never change" manner. In fact it was taught as "this is how we think it is, and the evidence for that is: ... ". Maybe I am lucky and had really good teachers.

Okay fine... *sound of bottle cap*

Great, we are in total agreement. All the other arguments I make (in my inarticulate way obviously) is to this point. Because one scientists sees 'reason' as 'God had a hand in it' does not mean that their assumptions are wrong. If you go way back in the thread, I stated this:
So, because someone reasons that something is not they way someone else reasons does not make it bad. The two should be able to co-exist. There are people that believe the Earth is millions of years old, and others that don't. Both have scientific facts to back up their position. Both still have questions about their where their conclusions lead them.

From another thread, quantum mechanics are now being put into question, and the QM camp is fighting it tooth and nail... Most likely, they are both partially correct.

No, I have not read it. But, I have read commentary on it, and it seems to be a fairly large slam in Islam. Is that an incorrect perception?

I have read 'This Present Darkness' and 'Piercing the Darkness', both of which deal with supernatural belief in the Bible. I also want to read 'The Screwtape Letters'. But, neither of these defame anyones belief.

Excellent idea. I'm there!

But, I don't think the religions should be taught in the cosmology class, they belong in a religion class, ID isn't a religion.

Gravity probably won't change (although it might, imagine gravity suddenly increasing dramatically, or turning off completely), the way we understand it most likely will.

Your experience with how schools teach is probably outdated. Do a search for biology or science textbooks and see what they teach today. They really need a disclaimer stating science isn't supposed to answer in absolutes. And that every theory and even law should continue to be explored and falsified.

People are afraid to attempt to falisify scientific data because of the typical onslaught of personal attacks from those who should be open-minded. Much of the testing/data that does show weakness or falsifies a popular theory is buried and not published.

The problem is the scientific community is like a big clique. They fear the few who are at the top, and don't ever question them. The few at the top test to prove their models correct rather than seeking to falsify. It's not good science imho.

To answer the original question of the thread: No.

To me, science and religion are the same thing.

coco

I suggest creative writing class.

No thanks. Religions don't fit in writing classes

btw, writing is about getting your point across, not impressing everyone with your skills as a writer. I prefer good info in bad form than bad info in good form. hmm, was that bad form?