Senate Is there a conflict between Religion and Science?

There is a conflict when you try to look at religion through a scientific lens, but that would be like refereeing a soccer game according to basketball rules.

 

You should look at everything through a scientific lens.

 

And of course, if you look at science through a religious lens, then it's no longer science.

 

You should look at everything through the appropriate lens.

The scientific lens will only you garner you scientific data, but scientific data is not always the goal.

 

Then make it your goal.

 

It is one of my goals but, because I am a human being, I have other goals as well.

 

can you name some? for the sake of the discussion?

 

Ah. How we missed you. Not really. The scientific lens is the right out of the choice between right and wrong as backed by all the reviewed history of data. Looking purely through the religious lens is the "pay no attention to that man behind the mirror" field of view.

 

I seem to remember someone in the senate of the old boards saying that evolution and science was wrong because it's of no use to anyone but religions' views of morality were of use to they were right. Was that you, wannasee?

 

Some goals that viewing religion with a scientific lens cannot help me achieve:

1. Pursue a religious way of life that i consider meaningful (because science invalidates it)
2. preserve the culture of ancestors (because science makes it seem quaint)
3. be a part of a community that shares my values. (because science would discourage me from going to a place to worship an imaginary being)

I am here defining the relationship between science and religion in the very narrow, and typically atheist, fashion. That is, "if it's not true, then it's not true, and it's garbage."

Of course there are wider ways to define science where it would not be in conflict with religion. For example, if it is found scientifically that people who attend religious services are healthier than people who don't, that would be an instance where science would not be at odds with religion.

I would never have said that evolution and science are wrong.

 

A reminder to keep this to discussion and a presenting of ideas, simply posting pictures doesn't further that discussion. - Lowbacca_1977

 

Okay, you don't need to disregard your ancestors' culture because of science. What you need to understand about your ancestors' culture is that the stories they told were their way of making sense of the world they lived in, pre-science.

Science doesn't discourage people from going to church. Many religious people have no problem with science and evolution and do not allow those facts to interfere with their beliefs. This also applies to your first reason.

 

I don't think science and religion have to be mutually exclusive at all. I went to a clergy appreciation dinner on Saturday put on by the Knight of Columbus. The speaker was a hematologist who has become involved with confirming, or in some cases, debunking, miraculous healings as part of the Church's canonization process. She's published a book on the subject and it made for an absolutely fascinating talk. The process of canonization is RIGOROUSLY scientific and has very a very clear set of criteria for what does and does not constitute a miracle.

 

Warton, a scientist, says she was horrified when she opened a homeschool science textbook and found a picture of Adam and Eve putting a saddle on a dinosaur.

The article is interesting in that the primary target of this nonsense is starting to resist it. People affiliated with Answers In Genesis and The Discovery Institute have been put on the stand as witnesses in school curriculum cases and have had to admit they have no real research of any sort for Creationism/Intelligent Design. Why? Because they have not research of any kind and saying so will rbing the next step of having to produce some.

 

The scientist in the article is not in the target audience of Christian home-school textbooks.

 

That doesn't make Adam and Eve on a dinosaur a fact that should be taught to chidlren in place of a real education.

 

Probably because it's about as far from fact as possible.

 

There are many kinds of education : moral, cultural, spiritual, practical, scientific, etc.

They are all "real" forms of education and useful in their proper fields.

 

That does not make them equal no worthy of official education.

 

Anything useful is worth being taught.

 

Useful? Humans and dinosaurs did not exist at the same time millions of years ago, thousands of years ago or any other years ago other than possibly modern birds. Wanna teach Adam and Eve riding dinos? then it must be taught that such a thing is pure fiction and has nothing to do with any form of science at all anywhere.

 

So it is your opinion that parents cannot teach their religion to their children, even in their own homes.

ok...

 

The issue is that home schooling exists - ostensibly - as an alternative to public education, but textbooks such as the one being discussed are conveying information contrary to the sort of curriculum necessary to keep the student up to pace with the standards colleges would expect of their incoming students.

Certainly religion can be taught in the home, but it should not be incorporated into a text that purports to provide a legitimate biology, history, etc. curriculum. Although you're free to continually misconstrue VLM's point for the purposes of attacking a non-existent strawman.

 

I was confused by this long sentence. This is what i got out of it:

"This textbook presents information that is contrary to the standard curriculum. Kids are falling hopelessly behind and will fail all their classes in college."

Is that it? Probably not.

If parents want to use texts that start with men on dinosaurs and that then go on to teach the "normal" curriculum, I don't see what the big deal is.

Will you tell me what strawman argument you think it is that I am attacking, or what point of VLM's you think I'm misconstruing?

Edit: I went to high school (a good one, if that matters) and took biology, 2 years of chemistry, and 2 years of physics. I did fine in all of them, and if I had believed that man walked with dinosaurs, I still would have done fine.

 

Except, you're acting as though the point of a science class is simply to be able to pass it, and not that a huge part of science is understanding critical thought and scientific methodology. Already, the public schools fail on this a huge amount, but this represents an absolute and total disregard for that and is actively working against it. It sets these people up to be scammed and manipulated. By anti-vaxxers, by faith healers, by homeopathy, etc just to look at medical applications of it. Understanding how this works is important, and the contortions it takes to teach creationism and the like means you have to teach them to disregard that methodology.