Are science and religion incompatible?

To me, science and religion are the same thing.

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?

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.

Hmm, where would you put all the bad info from ID then?

In my previous posts I demonstrated that ID is not science. Unless you're still writing up your repsonse that refutes my claim, we can at least have some agreement that it doesn't belong in science class.

How about this: A cosmology class, discussing origins.

The disclaimer on the science book would say science doesn't seek to answer in absolutes, and theories and laws should be explored and falsified.

It depends what kids you're talking about. High school students or 1st graders? Do they teach evolution and cosmology in grade school?



You show a distinct lack of faith in children.



I have no problem with this, absolutism is always bad.



Yes, this is true to a point, but somwhere along the line you also need to teach them how to assess what is a good theory (one with strong evidence backing it). In addition, at some point you need to give students information that they can use to apply the findings of science in a practical way. (balancing chemical equations, disecting fetal pigs, calculating trajectories of artillary fire, etc.)



You must not work in the scientific community. My experience is that those who come up with the theory do tend to defend it vigorously, but everyone else tends to act like a pack of hungry wolves trying to tear it apart.

I'm talking about a very young age, when they first see the pictures of the monkeys evolving into man in 5 easy steps. Visuals are very impressionable on a young mind. And now the theories concerning the evolution of man have changed away from monkey to man theory. But still, the pictures remain in the texts.

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?/QUOTE]

Ah, actually, I suppose it depends upon who is reading it. I found it quirky, irreverent, superfluous at times, but strangely powerful.

There are statements that denigrate Islam within it, but then there are characters within the Christian bible itself that denigrate Christianity. If this is the stick to measure by, then any mention of Judas should be sanitised from the Christian bible too.

Rushdie is a very difficult read for anyone who thinks linearly, and he *forces* the suspension of any normal frame of reference one may have. Imagine not knowing the 'rules' - one moment fantasy, the next almost nonfiction, the next: spiritual commentary. To continue to read is to enter a world that is unpredictable, complex and ever-expanding. Most people can't finish the book for that reason.

It's like visiting a wild carnival at night, with odd characters, improbable events and illusions all around you. It's near impossible to make sense of the "why" of things, though there are clues - it is a rational work in the end.

In rare instances, the novel takes you high above the carnival below - for brief instants the view is clear for miles, all is laid before you, and suddenly the humanity and dignity of mankind is apparent. As are the rules by which humanity must abide.

One cannot appreciate what his characters go through if you 'know the answers' in their world before they do. An effect that only Salman could pull off, with his crazy-genius nonlinear style.

It's a small point for some perhaps, but for all his irreverence, Islam is ultimately validated within the story as absolute truth.

In places, he takes the question of humanity -vs- commandment head-on, as well as the inflexibility of truth and its implications for followers of classic Islam. I won't spoil that part for you.

~

Kevn - I am glad that we agree, and in fact, we do! I'm 100% serious. Whatever the class might be called - Origins, what-have-you, that can be worked out.


I offer this challenge to you: Write the disclaimer.


I won't propose one myself, for according to Chip at least, I'm an atheist of some stripe or other. I dread to think what Ulrika might put on that bright little sticky.

I think we could obviously agree that all the religious texts, at least, should carry the same disclaimer?

Yes. That's exactly why they have two different words with two different meanings to describe them. Because they are the same.

~Ulrika~

That's why, "to me" they are "the same thing."
"To me."

To whom?

To whom?

ROFL - you swine - I was being nice to coco and you ruined it by making me chortle.

Wasn't the Satanic Verses the one which begins with a long conversation between two parachutists as they descend ? And then goes on to portray the Prophet's wife as an actual real-life whore? I must say my jaw dropped at some of it, and in parts it seemed contrived to court controversy, as I believe it was. Even over-contrived.

I didn't consider it as good as "Midnights Children" which I put in my top ten books ever. The same fracturing of time and place occurs there, to brilliant effect. I was going through an intensely bad time as I read it, as was the world. All these multiple threads wove together in my mind, the fictional, the personal, the political, day-by-day over about a week, to create an overall effect I shall never forget. Reality blurred. Never happened with any other book. He is undoubtedly a very fine writer.

Yeah, that illustration is classic and a wonderful work of art, but they would be better served to use something like:



Its not as eyecatching but shows both the existing uncertainty and the understanding that evolution doesn't move toward a goal, it branches seeking to diversify and is pared back by selection.

Oi, coco, sweetie. Calm down. Don't let any of it get to you. It none of it matters at all.

Re: The Satanic Verses:



Desmond,

For the religious books I'd write a disclaimer like this:
All religious books are provided as a means of understanding other people from a perspect of religion. Students are encouraged to explore all religions and religious books. The information within these pages are not taught as absolute truth for the sake of allowing all the right to believe as they choose. However, one of these books might contain absolute truth to you and your family, according to your faith. Please consult your parents for deeper understand of these books, as the teachers are restricted in the depth and scope of exploration to the historical accounts as described by the religious text. Students may choose to share deeper meaning among themseves as a means of free speech. Please speak of these religions with respect even if you don't agree with it. Respect other's opinions and feeling when discussing matters as sensitive as religion.

Desmond,

For the religious books I'd write a disclaimer like this:
All religious books are provided as a means of understanding other people from a perspect of religion. Students are encouraged to explore all religions and religious books. The information within these pages are not taught as absolute truth for the sake of allowing all the right to believe as they choose. However, one of these books might contain absolute truth to you and your family, according to your faith. Please consult your parents for deeper understand of these books, as the teachers are restricted in the depth and scope of exploration to the historical accounts as described by the religious text. Students may choose to share deeper meaning among themseves as a means of free speech. Please speak of these religions with respect even if you don't agree with it. Respect other's opinions and feeling when discussing matters as sensitive as religion.

Having read now Memory's post as well, I must say, it kind of surprises me if people SERIOUSLY can't grasp the concept - or it has never occured to them, maybe - that science and religion are not necessarily contradictory or incompatible.

To me, it is sort of like one person saying, "There is a glass of orange juice on the table." And the other person insisting, "No! No, there is a glass of milk on the table!"

And arguing about it forever, when in fact there is a glass of orange juice AND a glass of milk on the table, and they don't contradict each other, but in fact follow all the same natural laws.

I'd say Jake is closer to the truth I'm getting at when he might say the milk and the orange juice ARE the table (or something like that); thus no contradiction.

coco

I'm talking about a very young age, when they first see the pictures of the monkeys evolving into man in 5 easy steps. Visuals are very impressionable on a young mind. And now the theories concerning the evolution of man have changed away from monkey to man theory. But still, the pictures remain in the texts.

I'm not suggesting we stop teaching children critical thinking skills etc. I just want the slate to be blank and the information applied without personal bias from either side.

The whole point behind science is to tear down, falsify everything. What's left has a chance to survive. A good scientist seeks falsification because it's valuable. The effort to explore and experiment is time consuming and costly. So the scientist can allow others to falsify with him, to speed the process.

WAR(in Iraq) IS PEACE

FREEDOM (of the press and your thoughts) IS SLAVERY

IGNORANCE IS STRENGTH (for the corporate cronies that screw you with laws un-favorable to human life but favorable for corporate proffits, example look at the child asthma stats in Texas)

SHIT (Bush's non-existance alternative to Social Security plan) IS SHINOLA



To whom?

To whom?