Senate Is there a conflict between Religion and Science?

Discussion in 'Archive: The Senate Floor' started by Ghost, Feb 12, 2013.

  1. wannasee Force Ghost

    Member Since:
    Jan 24, 2007
    star 4
    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.
    Jedi Merkurian likes this.
  2. Lord Vivec Chosen One

    Member Since:
    Apr 17, 2006
    star 7
    You should look at everything through a scientific lens.
  3. Jabbadabbado Manager Emeritus

    Member Since:
    Mar 19, 1999
    star 7
    And of course, if you look at science through a religious lens, then it's no longer science.
    Mortimer Snerd and VadersLaMent like this.
  4. wannasee Force Ghost

    Member Since:
    Jan 24, 2007
    star 4
    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.
    Last edited by wannasee, Mar 8, 2013
    Sarge and Jedi Merkurian like this.
  5. Lord Vivec Chosen One

    Member Since:
    Apr 17, 2006
    star 7
    Then make it your goal.
  6. wannasee Force Ghost

    Member Since:
    Jan 24, 2007
    star 4
    It is one of my goals but, because I am a human being, I have other goals as well.
  7. Rogue_Ten Chosen One

    Member Since:
    Aug 18, 2002
    star 7
    can you name some? for the sake of the discussion?
  8. VadersLaMent Chosen One

    Member Since:
    Apr 3, 2002
    star 9
    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.
  9. Lord Vivec Chosen One

    Member Since:
    Apr 17, 2006
    star 7
    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?
  10. wannasee Force Ghost

    Member Since:
    Jan 24, 2007
    star 4
    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.
    Last edited by wannasee, Mar 8, 2013
  11. VadersLaMent Chosen One

    Member Since:
    Apr 3, 2002
    star 9
    A reminder to keep this to discussion and a presenting of ideas, simply posting pictures doesn't further that discussion. - Lowbacca_1977
    Last edited by Lowbacca_1977, Mar 8, 2013
  12. Lady_Sami_J_Kenobi Force Ghost

    Member Since:
    Jul 31, 2002
    star 6
    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.
  13. Chancellor_Ewok Force Ghost

    Member Since:
    Nov 8, 2004
    star 6
    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.
  14. VadersLaMent Chosen One

    Member Since:
    Apr 3, 2002
    star 9
    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.
  15. wannasee Force Ghost

    Member Since:
    Jan 24, 2007
    star 4
    The scientist in the article is not in the target audience of Christian home-school textbooks.
  16. VadersLaMent Chosen One

    Member Since:
    Apr 3, 2002
    star 9
    That doesn't make Adam and Eve on a dinosaur a fact that should be taught to chidlren in place of a real education.
  17. Mortimer Snerd Force Ghost

    Member Since:
    Dec 27, 2012
    star 4

    Probably because it's about as far from fact as possible.
  18. wannasee Force Ghost

    Member Since:
    Jan 24, 2007
    star 4
    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.
    Last edited by wannasee, Mar 10, 2013
  19. VadersLaMent Chosen One

    Member Since:
    Apr 3, 2002
    star 9
    That does not make them equal no worthy of official education.
    UNLIMITED POWER likes this.
  20. wannasee Force Ghost

    Member Since:
    Jan 24, 2007
    star 4
    Anything useful is worth being taught.
  21. VadersLaMent Chosen One

    Member Since:
    Apr 3, 2002
    star 9
    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.
    UNLIMITED POWER likes this.
  22. wannasee Force Ghost

    Member Since:
    Jan 24, 2007
    star 4
    So it is your opinion that parents cannot teach their religion to their children, even in their own homes.

    ok...
    Last edited by wannasee, Mar 10, 2013
  23. Ramza JC Head Admin and RPF Manager

    Administrator
    Member Since:
    Jul 13, 2008
    star 6
    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.
    Last edited by Ramza, Mar 10, 2013
  24. wannasee Force Ghost

    Member Since:
    Jan 24, 2007
    star 4
    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.
    Last edited by wannasee, Mar 10, 2013
  25. Lowbacca_1977 Force Ghost

    Member Since:
    Jun 28, 2006
    star 6
    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.