Sciences vs. Religion

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Ecurb

Herein lies my disapproval of "The Athiest". His argument is already won. Beating religious folks over the head with it is like...

---

Really? The major majority of the world population is still religious, and as threads like these are a testament too, there are still plenty of believers out there espousing their religion as a worldview. Given that this thread is titled "science vs religion" it seems strange to accuse anyone of "beating the other side over the head" with what has "clearly already won." If science had "clearly already won," then these threads wouldn't exist. Nobody starts threads over "geocentrism VS heliocentrism."

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by MorpheusSandman

Really? The major majority of the world population is still religious, and as threads like these are a testament too, there are still plenty of believers out there espousing their religion as a worldview. Given that this thread is titled "science vs religion" it seems strange to accuse anyone of "beating the other side over the head" with what has "clearly already won." If science had "clearly already won," then these threads wouldn't exist. Nobody starts threads over "geocentrism VS heliocentrism."

---

I'm lookin' for a "bravo" emoticon, but I don't see one, so:

Bravo!

Someone brought this to my attention. It is an interview with Alvin Plantinga by Gary Gutting titled "Is Atheism Irrational":

http://opinionator.blogs.nytimes.com...ype=blogs&_r=0

Plantinga has a book called "Where the Conflict Really Lies: Science, Religion, and Naturalism" which sounds relevant to this thread although I haven't read it yet.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by MorpheusSandman

Really? The major majority of the world population is still religious, and as threads like these are a testament too, there are still plenty of believers out there espousing their religion as a worldview. Given that this thread is titled "science vs religion" it seems strange to accuse anyone of "beating the other side over the head" with what has "clearly already won." If science had "clearly already won," then these threads wouldn't exist. Nobody starts threads over "geocentrism VS heliocentrism."

---

Actually, if you go to certain internet discussion boards, you can probably find your geocentrism thread, along with threads about the existence of sasquatch and alien space ships. The reason (as Gopnik points out) that the science vs. religion question is no longer important is that religion no longer affects science in a meaningful way. I’ll grant that there are occasional issues in the public education system here in the U.S., but they are confined to the education of children. At the Universities in which science is actually practiced and at which future scientists receive their training, religion no longer affects how science is done or taught. Individual scientists may still be religious, but science itself is a post-religious process and institution.

In addition, wherefore the missionary zeal? I can understand why Christian missionaries feel called upon to proselytize. They think they are saving souls. But does rejection of the supernatural save anyone’s soul? In past centuries Christian missionaries travelled the world attempting to convert the benighted savages. Here in the Americas (and elsewhere) such conversions were often promoted by the scourge and the flame, as well as by bribes of food and goods. As recently as 100 years ago children were forcibly taken from their parents to “Indian” schools where they were taught literacy, Christianity, English, and Western Ways (including science). Why? Well it was obvious that the illiteracy and lack of Christianity in native cultures was leading to economic hardship, moral turpitude and intellectual ignorance among the Natives. This was a horrible injury to natïve children that could be rectified by “education”.

The ethnocentrism, bigotry and inhumanity shown by those running the Indian Schools does not automatically suggest that they were evil men. Christianity was a motive for some of them, but not all of them. Some educators were probably motivated by a faith in science. If they could just forcibly remove Native Children from their own culture, they could prevent the ignorance which they saw as a terrible injury to children. Nonetheless, this attitude was smug, self-centered, ethnocentric and bigoted. The Native children were ignorant of Western ways, of Chriastianity and of Science -- but they were no more uneducated than Western children.

I don’t mean to suggest that anyone here has advocated the forcible “education” of the religious. However, I see ethnocentric bigotry in these threads similar to that of which the educators of the past were guilty. Cultural differences in and of themselves need not be eradicated. We can fight specific battles – against teaching Creationism to school children, for example. But we need not “convert” the religious in order to do that.

In addition, as Gopnik points out, the statistics about how many people here in North America and Western Europe are “religious” are questionable. A vocal minority of “Christians” in the U.S. identify as Fundamentalists (maybe 15% of the population). The rest of those who identify themselves as Christians (or Jews, or Muslims) are often as willing to accept “science” as you or I.

So the battlefield is controlled by the scientists. Some refugees from the religious army have escaped destruction, and gone guerilla, fighting minor skirmishes far from the centers of scientific progress. It’s reasonable to keep them under control (on the subject of public education, for example), but unreasonable to think we should hunt them down and educate (eradicate?) them. It is also unreasonable for us to belittle them or their culture.

(Of course there are parts of the world where this issue is more pressing, but even there I'm not sure the "science vs. religion" debate is a significant way in which to combat stonings, oppression, and other social problems associated with (if not necessarily due to) religion. Moral problems should be addressed in moral terms.)

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Ecurb

In addition, wherefore the missionary zeal? I can understand why Christian missionaries feel called upon to proselytize. They think they are saving souls. But does rejection of the supernatural save anyone’s soul?

---

You're right. This makes no sense. It is irrational behavior.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Ecurb

The reason (as Gopnik points out) that the science vs. religion question is no longer important is that religion no longer affects science in a meaningful way. I’ll grant that there are occasional issues in the public education system here in the U.S., but they are confined to the education of children. At the Universities in which science is actually practiced and at which future scientists receive their training, religion no longer affects how science is done or taught.

---

Universities and science/scientists rely on money to function. Much of that money comes from donations. People tend to donate to the fields they have interest in or feel are worthwhile. How many wealthy religious believers are there out there? How many will donate to a university science department if they feel that department is turning out results that conflict with their beliefs? Conversely, how many will donate to dishonest institutes like Discovery that disseminate lies and propaganda to convince the ignorant of their beliefs, and how many of those who are hooked will themselves grow up to be religious and withhold their own donations to science departments? How much time does people like Dawkins spend fighting the lies Creationists spread to the public about evolution? How much BETTER would his time have been spent by actually focusing on evolutionary biology and how it can benefit humanity? How far advanced would stem cell research be right now were it not for the resistance mostly from religious fundamentalists?

I think you (and Gopnik probably) grossly miscalculate the affect religious beliefs can have on science and society at large. Societies naturally direct their time, money, and energy into fields it feels are worthwhile, and while mostly everyone feels science is worthwhile, when it comes into conflict with religious beliefs we've seen the directly deleterious impact it can have. To assume that science is free to go about what it does without a care in the world strikes me as quite naive since science requires the support of others in society, just like every institution. In fact, consider how much money gets spent on religious even in a year, and then imagine how much scientific research that money could support. I don't think such things are trivial matters.

So, perhaps given the above, you'll discern my answer for "wherefore the missionary zeal?" Besides these larger, social reasons for my participation in debates about religion and science, I also have personal reasons, insofar as I've directly experienced the sickness that's produced when one's beliefs cut against the grain of how reality functions. While I wouldn't claim everyone has those same personal negative experiences with religion (in fact, I'd probably admit that, for most, religion may even promote mental health, even if it's via untruths), I know a great many do, and for those I do feel a certain moral responsibility in saying "there is another way; trade in the 10 Commandments for the 12 Virtues of Rationality."

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Ecurb

Moral problems should be addressed in moral terms.)

---

When people's morality comes from their holy texts, I don't see any way not to address it in religious terms.

Religion is not faulty, a lot of people who claim to follow it are. I never got a response from the person I asked to give me a citation where the Bible indicates evolution is wrong. In God I trust, in those who claim God is their foundation, often not so much.

Look, everything has a beginning. Then evolution changes things by environment changes that force adaptation. Question though for the scientists; what was the disaster that caused the death of the dinosaurs and early mammals that hit so fast that mammoths are found still with food in their mouths? Whatever it was, to you who like myself believe God created them caused major changes to take place rather swiftly in order to survive.

Why do you deny what can be proven? God chooses evolution to refine His product, that is how I feel. God place medications here for illness, but science made the discovery of how to use it. There were things to create homes, heat, vehicles, etc. Man learned to use what God supplied.

Denying science a place in God's kingdom is ludicrous. Knowledge is often mention favorably in the Bible, especially in Proverbs where knowledge and foolishness are contrasted.

My belief in God as all powerful does not and should not exclude science. I can use this computer because someone discovered the way to use and store data. I can use prayer, because to me God exists. If I need medication to control my bipolar, I don't allow prayer to cause me to refuse the relief medication can give me. I believe God could heal me if He chooses. But not to use the medication He allowed man to discover is foolish in the extreme.

Well, I have probably ticked off both sides. But God Bless.

Pen

It is true that Universities rely on public funding and religion influences the public. I have no expertise as to the extent that religion (in this manner) influences scientific funding – my guess is: not very much. The amount of money spent funding Creation Science is probably a drop in the bucket, as well as coming from private instead of public sources. If religious people want to fund Creation Science, I see no problem with that. I’ll grant that it’s probably a waste of money, but so is buying big-screen TVs and seeing the 7th "Batman" movie. In addition, there’s some value to diversity -- of the many seemingly whacky theories that are funded, perhaps one will prove valuable. I think creation science, searching for sasquatch, and looking for alien spaceships is a waste of time and money – but I don’t see any real harm in it (as long as it’s privately funded).

You correctly point out some specific fields which may have been held back by religious opposition – like stem cell research. But, as we agreed previously, it does not follow that because the objections are based on flawed premises, the objections themselves are unreasonable. Religious faith has been the primary mover in political movements objecting to slavery, too. It seems to me that there are some potentially reasonable, non-religious objections to stem cell research, too.

So as to the issue of the effect of religion on modern science, our disagreement is one of degree, not of kind – and it would take more research than I am willing to do to resolve it in any reasonable way. I’ll grant the (minor) impact.

As far as having personal reasons for your missionary zeal – I think that’s fair. To return to my Native American analogy – it’s one thing for white educators to demand that Natives renounce their superstitious ways and send their kids off to boarding school to be assimilated into a Christian and Scientific society, and another for Hopi parents to decide to do it on their own, and try to persuade their Hopi friends to do the same. The first case demonstrates bigoted ethnocentrism; the second shows reasonable self-criticism.

That’s why I object when some posters mock the beliefs of others (as in, “That’s hilarious.” – “The humour just keeps on keeping on”.) That rhetorical style is a form of bullying. Returning to the analogy, suppose a white man heard the Hopi creation story of how “the people” emerged from the underworld through a hole in the ground and responded, “That’s hilarious! The humour just keeps on coming.” Suppose that same man then started war whooping and performing a fake Hopi Snake Dance to mock Hopi culture. Such a man would be obnoxious. Outsiders should treat the culture of others with some respect – although they can disagree with allegedly factual claims Native Speakers make. Members of the culture (even some who have renounced parts of that culture) have a bit more latitude to criticize the culture, because they are criticizing themselves. Black people can use the “N” word, when white people should not.

Finally, I agree that when people's morals come from religion, there is no way to address it other than in religious terms. That's why I see your approach as ineffective. Alternative theologies or textual interpretations are more likely to change the moral postition of fundamentalists than arguments about science vs. religion.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Ecurb

That’s why I object when some posters mock the beliefs of others (as in, “That’s hilarious.” – “The humour just keeps on keeping on”.) That rhetorical style is a form of bullying. Returning to the analogy, suppose a white man heard the Hopi creation story of how “the people” emerged from the underworld through a hole in the ground and responded, “That’s hilarious! The humour just keeps on coming.” Suppose that same man then started war whooping and performing a fake Hopi Snake Dance to mock Hopi culture. Such a man would be obnoxious. Outsiders should treat the culture of others with some respect – although they can disagree with allegedly factual claims Native Speakers make. Members of the culture (even some who have renounced parts of that culture) have a bit more latitude to criticize the culture, because they are criticizing themselves. Black people can use the “N” word, when white people should not.

---

It is bullying. It is verbal abuse.

What the abuser does is demonstrates that he or she has run out of something reasonable to say, is hostile, and easily gets out of control. If you are debating this kind of person, you just have to stand back and let them talk. They are their own worst enemies, because they demonstrate their own irrationality. In particular, when atheists do this they are setting themselves up for cultural criticism, as you have been providing, since they are giving evidence that they are irrational when they brag about the supposed superiority of their rationality over others.

The main question that I would have for theists is whether their particular religious practices actually lead them to a divine reality. I am more interested in how effective those practices are since there is not enough time to practice all of them.

The main question that I would have for atheists is whether their position is consistent or "rational" even when they are not bullying others. Their practice is supposedly "being reasonable" or "being scientific". How consistent and how scientific then are those beliefs?

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Ecurb

That’s why I object when some posters mock the beliefs of others ....

---

Nice strawman you make there, Ecurb.

When Hopi Indians demand that my children be taught Hopi fairy tales as fact, I will indeed mock their beliefs.

When blacks demand an end to scientific research and abortion, I will indeed mock their beliefs. (if there is such a thing)

Meanwhile, you're typing through a hole in your head.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by YesNo

It is bullying. It is verbal abuse.

---

Huh. Mocking an irrational belief is bullying, but standing and verbally abusing young women having an abortion isn't.

Who knew?

Pendragon, I never responded because I was taken aback by you asking me to cite what I said. I had assumed you knew specifically what I was referring to, and so I refrained until I recently came back to peruse the thread and you said you never got a response.

Genesis

1:20

And God said Let the waters bring forth abundantly the moving creature that hath life, and fowl that may fly above the earth in the open firmament of heaven.

1:21

And God created great whales, and every living creature that moveth, which the waters brought forth abundantly, after their kind, and every winged fowl after his kind: and God saw that is was good.

1:24

And God said, Let the earth bring forth the living creature after his kind, cattle, and creeping thing, and beast of the earth after his kind: and it was so.----one could make the case that each use of "kind" in these passages could refer to variation of species.

2:7

And the Lord God formed man of the dust of the ground, and breathed of life; and man became a living soul.----BUT, then God created man out of basic elements, shaped it's genetic dna, grew it without the female egg and her dna, and then grew it into a man in double quick time.

2:22

And the rib, which the Lord God had taken from man, made he a woman, and brought her unto the man.----Again God makes a woman without a fertilized egg, so perhaps some kind of cloning from the dna in Adam's rib? Either way, it's double quick time and doesn't provide any room for evolution.

Now I claim that The Theory of Evolution, and The Holy Bible's account of the creation of the plants, animals, and men/women of the earth, directly conflict with each other. In passages 2:7 and 2:22 it specifically states that God directly created man, and then a woman from that man's, Adam, rib. This directly conflicts with evolution. I don't see anyway of trying to explain these two passages as being long periods of time for natural selection to occur, or the fusing of 2 chromosomes to create the off-shoot that would become man. I guess one might try to make the case that Adam was a neanderthal or whatever the main ancestor is that we and chimps evolved from, but the Bible looks pretty literal here. Also, nowhere does it state in the generations of Adam and Eve's children any evolving or changing other than shorter life spans. Adam and Eve had cattle, and their children traded, and were social, and had spoken and written language; they were not super primitives akin to packs of chimpanzees or the like.

This was my original point and why I asked how you reconcile God, The Bible, and The Theory of Evolution.

Volta

This of course speaks of creation. I said I believed in creation by God. Where does it say animals cannot change? They produce "after their kind." The point of creation is that the original species is created. There is no "one creature becomes something wildly different". They evolve along their own species. A Sabretooth is still a big cat even if it has evolved and spawned other, modern big cats. Giant Sloths no longer exist but two-toed and three toed sloths do. Eohippus vanished but modern horses are now here. Man has changed as well, not from an ape--which Darwin did not claim anyway--but from one equipped to stand a harsher life to modern man in a modern world.

Evolution doesn't remove creation, it provides a scientific look at the progression of each species since creation.

Let me ask you this: These animals are mentioned in the Bible:

Unicorn many places, but Job 39:9-10 especially
Sytar Isiah:13:21 and other places
Leviathan Job 41:1 among other places
Behemoth Job 40:15
Cockatrice Isiah 11:8 and other places
Dragon all throughout the Bible

What are they and where are they today?


Whew: Confusing to me is that if you tell a creationist that evolution is demonstrable, they begin to cry foul.
If you tell scientific people that you believe God was the spark of life, the beginning of all things, and science tells what happened since, you are told you are mixed up.

Two camps--two immovable stances.

Oh, well, I cannot fully agree with either, but I have made my stand and I stick with what I believe.

God bless

Pen

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by The Atheist

When Hopi Indians demand that my children be taught Hopi fairy tales as fact, I will indeed mock their beliefs.

.

---

I doubt the Hopi have sent a delegation to England to demand that The Atheist's children be taught Hopi myths as fact. Yet (in an attempt to mock Hopi myths) The Atheist calls those myths "fairy tales". He thus demonstrates his ignorance of literary genres, which wouldn't be so bad were it not so hackneyed. How many times has The Atheist called myths "fairy tales" on these boards? Dozens? How many times have other atheists used that same trite comparison? Thousands?

Mockery can be an effective rhetorical tactic -- but only if it is funny, or witty, or original. Since The Atheist mentions "straw men", perhaps, like another straw man, he should visit the Emerald City to ask The Wizard for the help he so sorely needs.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Pendragon

... what was the disaster that caused the death of the dinosaurs and early mammals that hit so fast that mammoths are found still with food in their mouths?

---

Mammoths were not early mammals. They came a long time after the meteor struck. Last I read, it was a combination of the retreat of the ice age and the advance of man that most likely did for the mammoths. But I'm not up with the details of current "mammoth lore", so I stand to be corrected on these matters.

Large herbivores are always eating, so if it fell off a cliff I wouldn't be surprised if it had food in its mouth.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Ecurb

Mockery can be an effective rhetorical tactic -- but only if it is funny, or witty, or original.

---

Seems to be working pretty well on you, so it's fine so far.

I must note that the mockery in this thread has been aimed at ridiculous posts rather than religion, as you can find by checking back. I haven't mocked Pen, or even Yes/No.

I've mocked Yes' silly "arguments" and I've mocked your irrelevant attempts to get at me, and glenn's absurd attempts to paint science as whatever he failed to paint it as.

Which is why you've tried to turn the obvious strawman around. You know what it means, and you know you used one, so the egg is all on one face only so far.

Yours.

Au revoir!

I'll just drop this here to show just how post-religious the world outside Ecurb's house is: http://www.timesfreepress.com/news/2...has-profe/?wtf

The board of trustees is requiring professors and staff to sign a statement saying that they believe Adam and Eve were created in an instant by God and that humans shared no ancestry with other life forms.

Shall we touch on that abortion situation as well, since it got ignored when I first mentioned it?

This stuff is jumping out at me today! More post-religion world where gays are accepted universally and Jesus loves LGBT: http://news.msn.com/in-depth/no-long...oin-trail-life

Just as well I can't be bothered searching for evidence.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Ecurb

It is true that Universities rely on public funding and religion influences the public. I have no expertise as to the extent that religion (in this manner) influences scientific funding – my guess is: not very much. The amount of money spent funding Creation Science is probably a drop in the bucket, as well as coming from private instead of public sources. If religious people want to fund Creation Science, I see no problem with that. I’ll grant that it’s probably a waste of money, but so is buying big-screen TVs and seeing the 7th "Batman" movie. In addition, there’s some value to diversity -- of the many seemingly whacky theories that are funded, perhaps one will prove valuable. I think creation science, searching for sasquatch, and looking for alien spaceships is a waste of time and money – but I don’t see any real harm in it (as long as it’s privately funded).

---

Well, your guess is only that: a guess. It generally takes millions to run institutes like Discovery (and, just quickly checking Wikipedia, it seems they run at about $4 million annually), and if you think millions are "drops in the bucket" to the thousands of scientists out there that struggle even for a few thousand to get research projects off the ground. Anyway, we very much differ on how much of a "problem" we have such things. Buying a big-screen TV and seeing the new Batman movie are not "wastes of money" if they satisfy the person buying/seeing them, which is really all that technology and art is good for. However, when there's an institution whose aim is to debunk evolution, prove Creation, and spread lies and propaganda about both, it's satisfying/helping nobody and actually hurting the progress of science and the good that science could be doing for people. Yes, there's value to diversity, but not when it comes to our attempts to understand how reality works and how to manipulate it to our benefit; in that arena, religion and any other superstitions/magical beliefs have no value, certainly not when compared to science. Anything that's not capable of revealing truths/facts and engineering those things to society's benefit is, conversely, harming the one thing that can. You see no harm in it, but imagine the millions (if not billions) that go to such delusive projects that could be going to science/scientists that may discover the cure for cancer through stem-cell research.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Ecurb

It seems to me that there are some potentially reasonable, non-religious objections to stem cell research, too.

---

I don't see what they are. Most of the objections lie in the notion that the minute a sperm meets an egg God injects a soul into the fetus, which obviously has not the slightest basis in reality and an entire basis in religious belief.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Ecurb

To return to my Native American analogy – it’s one thing for white educators to demand that Natives renounce their superstitious ways and send their kids off to boarding school to be assimilated into a Christian and Scientific society, and another for Hopi parents to decide to do it on their own, and try to persuade their Hopi friends to do the same. The first case demonstrates bigoted ethnocentrism; the second shows reasonable self-criticism.

---

Well, this is a public debate/discussion forum. Anyone reading it is absolutely free to buy into/reject the arguments of either side. Neither the Atheist or myself have the power to demand anyone renounce their religions or superstitious ways, but insofar as we see it valuable/desirable for them to do so, I really don't see any problem with mockery. People are equally free to mock my arguments or beliefs or lack thereof in converse. While I rarely adopt such a style myself, it does have its place when it comes to tackling the most frustrating and ignorant posters (which are, thankfully, fewer on here than most other forums I'm a part of).

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Ecurb

That rhetorical style is a form of bullying.

---

Oh, now, come on; given the anonymity and freedom of the internet I have difficulty describing any action as "bullying" that doesn't cross-over into real life (like, say, kids on FB taking their online bullying into the school). Outside of that, people are free to leave any message board where they feel they're being "bullied" or treated unfairly and go somewhere else. What's more, in a forum like this, there are about equally as many posters arguing for one side as for the other, so it's hard to "bully" when there are equal numbers. What's more, mods and admins tend to restrict the harshest direct attacks, ad hominem, flaming, etc. Things like "that argument is ridiculous!," if bullying at all, must surely be considered the most minor kind of bullying imaginable given the severity of bullying that actually takes place offline and elsewhere online.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Ecurb

Finally, I agree that when people's morals come from religion, there is no way to address it other than in religious terms. That's why I see your approach as ineffective. Alternative theologies or textual interpretations are more likely to change the moral postition of fundamentalists than arguments about science vs. religion.

---

If people understand their morals are rooted in their religious beliefs, but then are lead to question those beliefs because of the ways in which science contradicts those beliefs, then I think that CAN be an effective way to change them. After all, science has probably done more to convert theists to atheists and engender the kind of modern freedom skeptics have than anything else. In the past, because of the overwhelming authority of religion (especially the church), most atheists/skeptics had to remain quite anonymous or subtle in their unbelief; now, because religion has a formidable challenger to their authority in science, atheists and skeptics have become far more emboldened to speak up and out. As is typical when any majority rule is challenged, the rulers see this as an affront to their rights (which are actually ruling privileges), rather than the minority claiming the rights that were denied to them for so long (same thing happened with every 20th century civil rights movement).

OK, Morpheus! You win. The Atheist is not guilty of bullying, only of ATTEMPTED bullying. I'll grant that he probably doesn't ACTUALLY bully anyone. Nonetheless, when he ridicules religion in an ethnocentric and bigoted fashion, he gives atheism a bad name. I'll bet some educated, liberal Christians object when some internet poster calls himself
THE Christian, and then attacks all non-Christians with threats of hellfire and damnation. Attempted bullying may be worse in some ways than actual bullying. Is the intent of the guilty party ameliorarted by his rhetorical incompetence?

A quick google reveals that in the U.S. about 3% of GDP is spent on scientific research, which amounts to about $510 billion. $4 million is .000008 of $500 billion. Of course we can argue about how money should be spent -- but relgiously oriented research comprises such a small percentage that surely there are other, more significant wasted funds. When you spend $500 billion, some of it will be misspent. (By the way, I agree that it's reasonable to argue about PUBLIC funding, but if private sources want to support Discovery, what can we do about it? Also, if we fund only mainstream scientific projects, wouldn't that retard the progress of science by limiting the "Scientific Revolutions" Kuhn talks about? By the way, acc. the web site I found, more scientific research is privately funded than publicly funded.)

Since I support both abortion rights and stem cell research, I don't want to get pulled into an argument on the other side. However, since you ask, it is reasonable to argue against abortion by suggesting that if we agree to value human life, any support for abortion is dependent on suggesting that at some point the fetus is not human. Traditional dividing lines include birth, viability, and "quickening". Nonetheless, ANY dividing line is at least somewhat arbitrary -- and the least arbitrary is conception. Every dividing line beyond that is subject to "slippery slope" objections. If we decide abortion is morally unacceptable, we should reconsider the moral acceptability of stem cell research. (I'm better at arguing in favor of postions with which I AGREE -- but this argument doesn't seem completely unreasonable.)

As to whether science vs. religion arguments are a reasonable or effective way to change the moral positions of believers: I'll grant that it is possible that pointing out scientific inaccuracies in the Bible might convert some Christians. However, science prvides no alternative moral compass. In order to argue about morality, we must make a moral argument, not a scientific one. You are correct, though, in suggesting that the first step might be declaring moral arguments based on the indisputable truth of the Bible (or some other religious text) unreasonable.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by The Atheist

I'll just drop this here to show just how post-religious the world outside Ecurb's house is: http://www.timesfreepress.com/news/2...has-profe/?wtf

The board of trustees is requiring professors and staff to sign a statement saying that they believe Adam and Eve were created in an instant by God and that humans shared no ancestry with other life forms.

---

Horrors! Bryan College -- that great center of scientific research -- has demanded acceptance of Fundamentalist positions. The College was named after William Jennings Bryan, twice a candidate for the Presidency and later the Secretary of State, under Wilson. Bryan later lectured on the Chatauqua circuit and wrote best-selling books and pamphlets decrying Darwinian Evolution. Most famously, Bryan acted for the Prosecution in the Scopes Monkey trials, where he was humiliated on the witness stand by the famous atheist attorney Clarence Darrow.

I would object if Bryan College ALLOWED the teaching of Darwinian Evolution. It would be an insult to the man after whom that influential institution of higher learning was named. What's the point of a Bryan College that teaches Darwinism?

In other science-reigion news, the Instute for Advance Studies, at Princeton, issued a press release yesterday stating that it's members unanimously support the theory that the earth -- far from being a spheroid hurtling through the universe -- is actually the back of a giant turtle.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Ecurb

...bits not answering questions about "post-religion" removed....

---

Nice of you to give me such a good write up, and I'm delighted that I'm giving atheists a bad name, but I'd much rather you answer the questions.

Note that I didn't ask about christians objecting to abortion - your reading comprehension letting you down again, sweetie? - I asked how old men screaming abuse at young women seeking abortions fitted into the wonderful "post religion" world that seems to be only in your head.

I imagine you must also realise that christians have perpetrated actual violence against doctors who perform abortions, have carried out attacks on abortion clinics and have subverted legislation in states of USA to make abortion more difficult to obtain.

All in the name of an invisible sky-fairy. I can see why you're giving that one the swerve.

Please do go on, though.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Ecurb

Horrors! Bryan College -- that great center of scientific research -- has demanded acceptance of Fundamentalist positions.

---

We all know who Bryan was, so regurgitating the obvious is pointless.

You do, however, nicely move the goalposts by talking about teaching evolution, which is barely mentioned.

You really do have a comprehension problem. I hope that third-form class you teach is in something other than English.

(What's an "Instute"?)

I see you avoided the other link. It's ok - I don't wonder why that is.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by The Atheist

We all know who Bryan was...

---

Not outside the USA. I don't expect you to have heard of second rate British politicians/lawyers. Being interested in Evolution, the name kind of rang a bell with me, but I needed the reminder about his involvement in the monkey trial (Darrow, of course, is first rate, so I didn't need a reminder about him...)

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by mal4mac

Not outside the USA.

---

Well, I'm in New Zealand and knew all about him, but I have done a bit of work on Scopes.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by mal4mac

I don't expect you to have heard of second rate British politicians/lawyers.

---

Unfortunately, I probably have. I won't mention any names, however, since politics is verboten and your damned Law Lords are still hearing cases in the Privy Council. (Aren't the politicians all second-rate? Don't answer that!)

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by The Atheist

Note that I didn't ask about christians objecting to abortion - your reading comprehension letting you down again, sweetie?
I asked how old men screaming abuse at young women seeking abortions fitted into the wonderful "post religion" world that seems to be only in your head.

.

---

How kind of you to call me, "Sweetie". You are correct that I wasn't responding to you. You are not the only person in the world. I was responding to Morpheus. I didn't (and won't) respond to your question about screaming abuse at young girls who are considering abortions because I don't want to discuss it with you. Other than that, I shall be glad to agree with it all, just like Elinor Dashwood agreed with Robert Ferrars:

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Jane Austen

Elinor agreed to it all, for she did not think he deserved the compliment of rational opposition.

---

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Ecurb

I didn't (and won't) respond to your question about screaming abuse at young girls who are considering abortions because ....

---

...it doesn't conform to your Utopian "post-religion" world that exists somewhere in your head.

Nice of you to mention rationality in that context.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Ecurb

Nonetheless, when he ridicules religion in an ethnocentric and bigoted fashion, he gives atheism a bad name. I'll bet some educated, liberal Christians object when some internet poster calls himself THE Christian, and then attacks all non-Christians with threats of hellfire and damnation.

---

There's a theory in sociology that states the minority are incapable of bullying because they are, in a larger social context, powerless. So even if, eg, a black man hates all white people, his "racism" is so impotent that it's really a misuse of the term racism (which typically includes a larger social component) that we shouldn't even consider it as such. Atheists are still quite in the minority, and the notion that one of them speaking up on an anonymous internet message is "bullying" in any meaningful sense of the term is, IMO, a bit ridiculous; nor do I think it gives "atheism" a bad name since atheism entails nothing but a disbelief in god(s). So that one atheist bullies or even mass murders means relatively little to atheism, in general. The latter notion is just one of those tics of habit where people try to associate characteristics, behaviors, actions, etc. with one aspect where there is no relevant connection (as any large studies on atheism across countries confirms). Besides, there are plenty of Christians that employ the exact same tactic on several message boards I'm apart of (go to IMDb's Religion, Faith, and Spirituality board and observe the abominable behavior of certain Christians like Erjen, Blade, and Ada); I don't think such actions speak poorly of Christianity, I just think those people are horrible human beings regardless of their beliefs.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Ecurb

A quick google reveals that in the U.S. about 3% of GDP is spent on scientific research, which amounts to about $510 billion. $4 million is .000008 of $500 billion.

---

I mentioned one notable (or rather notorious) religious organization; There are surely thousands of them if we include churches, TV networks, etc. Religion is surely a multi-billion dollar industry, so that ratio of yours is undoubtedly not representative of the total picture.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Ecurb

However, science prvides no alternative moral compass. In order to argue about morality, we must make a moral argument, not a scientific one. You are correct, though, in suggesting that the first step might be declaring moral arguments based on the indisputable truth of the Bible (or some other religious text) unreasonable.

---

Obviously science can't really address normative ethics, that's what philosophy's for, but people need to wake up to the truthful realization that there is no objective, absolute morality. As uncomfortable as this notion makes people (Theologians like William Lane Craig love to prey on people's wrong intuitions that objective morality exists), it's much better to accept that than to assume that the morality chosen by individuals and accepted by the society are somehow divine edicts from a supernatural being. Really, it's as simple as accepting that evolution has programmed us to survive and reproduce, and that it's easier to do both within a social structure where the whole strengthens the individual and vice-versa, and, to quote WH Auden, we must love one another or die.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by MorpheusSandman

Obviously science can't really address normative ethics, that's what philosophy's for, but people need to wake up to the truthful realization that there is no objective, absolute morality. As uncomfortable as this notion makes people (Theologians like William Lane Craig love to prey on people's wrong intuitions that objective morality exists), it's much better to accept that than to assume that the morality chosen by individuals and accepted by the society are somehow divine edicts from a supernatural being.

---

The best part is that many christians don't even get it regarding morality. They will point to the 10 Commandoes and say "an eye for eye" and seek capital punishment, while completely ignoring Jeebus' own demand that only those free of sin should be chucking bricks.

If they actually lived up to the morality Jesus tried to pass on, it wouldn't be so bad, but when the army is full of christians toting guns, it's pretty obvious they neither understand their own prophet, nor read the bible.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by MorpheusSandman

Really, it's as simple as accepting that evolution has programmed us to survive and reproduce, and that it's easier to do both within a social structure where the whole strengthens the individual and vice-versa, and, to quote WH Auden, we must love one another or die.

---

Bingo!

It is that simple.

The trick is getting them to accept it, and on that, I give you a very slim chance. Even lots of atheists are scared by the idea of a completely human-designed code of ethics, even though that's exactly what we have now.

People screaming at women having abortions is hard on the Christian movement. I personally believe abortion is wrong, but if I want the freedom to believe that, I have to accept these women's right to make a choice. When we cry "Freedom" it isn't just for a select group.

Ecurb, could you in good faith back the Westboro Baptist Church and their vitriolic spewing of hate at Serviceman's funerals?? Or the so-called Christians who in the name of preventing abortions, murder Doctors and staff of abortion clinics or blow the clinic up? And yet you cannot see God as the spark of life which then evolved as needed to deal with a changing earth?

Pangera split up and drifted apart to form our continents today. Upon completion of this, animals in new circumstances had to evolve to survive. If you think different here's scripture for you. Gen.1 [9] And God said, Let the waters under the heaven be gathered together unto one place, and let the dry land appear: and it was so. One landmass, the rest ocean.

You appear to take any criticism as a personal attack while spewing rhetoric. My advice is to educate yourself. Nothing I have learned to accept about science has weakened my faith in God. But it is foolish to deny what is demonstratively true. The Earth is not flat. The Earth revolves around the sun. The speed of light is a constant. The Earth is very old and fossil remains are difficult to refute unless you run a museum which destroys any evidence that doesn't suit your plans.

The Earth periodically changes, ice-ages come and go. The jet stream moves, it has moved a lot in my lifetime. I'll be 54 this year. Global Warming may cause a very destructive mess.

Wake up, Ecurb, it's later than you think.

God Bless

Pen

I've been alive for some decades now, and have yet to see any continents "drifiting", Pendragon. So there. Also, we've had the coldest winter in decades here in the U.S. So much for global warming!

Actually, Pendragon highlights one of my objections to The Atheist. Pendragon assumes that anyone who objects to The Atheist's positions (or, in my case, literary style) must be a science-denier and relgious fanatic. I am neither. I accept the scientific canon as much as most reasonable people do -- that is, I think it is the most accurate description of and explanation for reality that we can currently produce.

Also, morpheus, I question your proposed approach to morality. It is probably true that we are "programmed" to propogated our genes (assuming that "programmed" is used metaphorically). It is probably also true that since morals (and religion) are "inherited" (not genetically, of course, but they are generally passed from parents to children) those moral tenets which promote genetic success will tend to spread, while those that inhibit it will tend to be eliminated. Indeed, this is one argument in favor of traditional morality (wheher religious or not): it has stood the test of time.

However, it would be a mistake to think (with Auden's quote) that because we must love one another or die, we "should" love one another. Efficacy (of whatever kind) and morality are separate issues. Surely every one agrees that if Auden's quote were "we must torture other people to death or die", we could hardly use the fact that torturing others was essential to our survival to justify it as morally correct. I'll agree that we should love one another (except for The Atheist), but cannot agree that Auden's reason grants moral credence to that proposition.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Ecurb

Pendragon assumes that anyone who objects to The Atheist's positions (or, in my case, literary style) must be a science-denier and relgious fanatic. I am neither. I accept the scientific canon as much as most reasonable people do -- that is, I think it is the most accurate description of and explanation for reality that we can currently produce.

---

Whoa. Time out. Do not presume to tell me what I am thinking. I in no way called you a religious fanatic. I pointed out that there are religious fanatics and asked if you in good faith would back them in their actions. I don't believe you would any more than I would or I would not have asked, I was sure you agreed. I didn't call you a science denier, but said you question something that can be proven true.

As for disagreements with TheAtheist or Morpheus,I disagree with many statements here, but
if I cannot be civil and extend a olive branch to one an all, I would count myself as fallen from grace. I did say Morpheus should not have said one thing he did, and when he disagreed, I let it go, causing hurt feelings isn't worth the fight.

Look, you can still fit the puzzle pieces together from continental drift. The rocks along continental edges match up. As I quote from scripture waters gathered IN ONE PLACE and the dry land appeared. Tell me that the waters are all in one place now. The difference between the Pacific and Atlantic oceans should take care of that.

I always encourage people to stick to their own principles or they will have no principles.

Good Bless

Pendragon

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by The Atheist

Huh. Mocking an irrational belief is bullying, but standing and verbally abusing young women having an abortion isn't.

---

Three quick points:

1) When have I ever said that verbally abusing women having an abortion is OK?

2) How does appealing to people who abuse others, in any way whatsoever, excuse an individual who also engages in verbal abuse?

3) Regarding "irrational" beliefs, after deterministic materialism was falsified by quantum physics in the early 20th century, how does atheism now rationally justify its own beliefs?

Ecurb is providing valuable feedback to atheists. He is letting them know that when they present their arguments in ways that look like bullying and appear irrational, this makes atheism look bad. It should be obvious that he's right.

How does this relate to the science vs religious theme? In my view the real disagreement is between atheism and religion, not science and religion. Atheism unjustly claims for itself the ideas of rationality and the scientific method. Atheists think they are defending science when they attack religions. They are simply defending their own irrational ideology.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by YesNo

Three quick points:

1) When have I ever said that verbally abusing women having an abortion is OK?

---

You didn't - you just ignored the point.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by YesNo

2) How does appealing to people who abuse others, in any way whatsoever, excuse an individual who also engages in verbal abuse?

---

Pretty sure if you check the thread I haven't abused anyone. (Maybe Ecurb, but it's mutual, and irrelevant as he isn't a christian) Some of the more idiotic "arguments" presented have been subject to abuse, but quite rightly so, I feel. Don't confuse derision of an idea with abuse of the poster.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by YesNo

3) Regarding "irrational" beliefs, after deterministic materialism was falsified by quantum physics in the early 20th century, how does atheism now rationally justify its own beliefs?

---

What beliefs are these?

I don't know of any beliefs at all that pertain to atheism, which is a lack of belief in something. Haven't we covered this point ad nauseum several times? Claiming atheism is a belief in anything is just ignorance of what the word means. I do recommend you read the thread I linked for Glenn if you want to revisit that idea.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by YesNo

Ecurb is providing valuable feedback to atheists. He is letting them know that when they present their arguments in ways that look like bullying and appear irrational, this makes atheism look bad. It should be obvious that he's right.

---

In all seriousness, it's people like Ecurb that convince me I'm on the right track.

Anyone who thinks we're living in a "post-religion" world is so misguided I wouldn't want to agree with them on anything at all. I'm actually staggered someone who goes outside his/her house could even posit such a thing.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by YesNo

How does this relate to the science vs religious theme?

---

It's not, but you, Glenn and Ecurb seem to think it does, otherwise we wouldn't be discussing it.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by YesNo

In my view the real disagreement is between atheism and religion, not science and religion.

---

Good spot!

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by YesNo

Atheism unjustly claims for itself the ideas of rationality and the scientific method.

---

Who and where was that claim made? I've never seen atheism claim anything, and I've taken great pains to point out that atheism embraces lots of non-science types - david Icke's an atheist and he's not exactly a science fan. Wiccans & Buddhists are mostly atheist, but don't call for sceintific enquiry of their claims.

If you think anyone has made a claim anywhere that rationality and the scientific method has any relationship to atheism, please post the evidence of get off the claim.

Just because some individual atheists use the scientific method doesn't mean its a trait of atheism. Just as I don't judge all christians by Jack Chick/Benny Hinn/etc.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by YesNo

Atheists think they are defending science when they attack religions.

---

I can't speak for others, but I don't think science needs any defence. I will attack people who misuse science or make untrue claims about it, but it has nothing whatsoever to do with why I attack religion.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by YesNo

They are simply defending their own irrational ideology.

---

What ideology is that?

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Pendragon

People screaming at women having abortions is hard on the Christian movement. I personally believe abortion is wrong, but if I want the freedom to believe that, I have to accept these women's right to make a choice. When we cry "Freedom" it isn't just for a select group.

---

So far, I have you, Pope Franky and the former Archbishop Rowan Williams on my list of christians who live what they preach.

There are a few others, but few & far between, unfortunately. (Not that I expect Franky to take your position on abortion, but I can't see him standing and throwing blood-soaked dolls at young women either.)

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Pendragon

Nothing I have learned to accept about science has weakened my faith in God. But it is foolish to deny what is demonstratively true. The Earth is not flat. The Earth revolves around the sun. The speed of light is a constant. The Earth is very old and fossil remains are difficult to refute unless you run a museum which destroys any evidence that doesn't suit your plans.

The Earth periodically changes, ice-ages come and go. The jet stream moves, it has moved a lot in my lifetime. I'll be 54 this year. Global Warming may cause a very destructive mess.

---

Are you actually Rowan Williams in disguise?

That is exactly the kind of answer he'd give.

Bravo!

(While I'm obviously never going to share your opinions, I admire your attitude.)

To Pendragon: I apologize for misinterpreting your post. I could see your questions were rhetorical, and assumed (incorrectly, it appears) that you were suggesting that I approve of abusing women getting abortions.

As for my comment that we are in a post-religious era, obviously relgion still plays an important role in human life. I was specifically referring to the impact of religion on SCIENCE. I stand by my statement that-- in general -- science is now in a post-religious stage, although the occasional Bryan College or Discovery Institute are (minor) exceptions to that reality. I have no problem being civil, either. With one exception.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Ecurb

As for my comment that we are in a post-religious era, obviously relgion still plays an important role in human life. I was specifically referring to the impact of religion on SCIENCE.

---

Yet that's nothing like what you said. Shall I refresh your memory?

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Ecurb

We are not only in a post-religious age (in my case, I don't think any of my grandparents were religious, let alone my parents), but we are also in a post-modern age.

---

Not even slightly related to science.

But your goalpost-shifting is acknowledged. I agree that science is indeed more or less post-religion.

Nice of you to see sense at last.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by The Atheist

If they actually lived up to the morality Jesus tried to pass on, it wouldn't be so bad, but when the army is full of christians toting guns, it's pretty obvious they neither understand their own prophet, nor read the bible.

---

There are two great films that imagined what it would be like for a Jesus-like figure to return to the present day: one is Luis Bunuel's Nazarin (Bunuel was an atheist who was obsessed with religion; he made several great films on the subject), and another is Roberto Rossellini's Europa '51 (though the latter was said to have been inspired by Saint Francis of Assissi, whom Rossellini had already made a film about). Both film depict these figures as being persecuted again, with the latter even having its protagonist committed to a mental institution for leaving her bourgeois life (after the death of her son) to help the poor and downtrodden. Who was it that said if Jesus came back today they'd crucify him again?

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Ecurb

However, it would be a mistake to think (with Auden's quote) that because we must love one another or die, we "should" love one another. Efficacy (of whatever kind) and morality are separate issues.

---

I'm actually having this discussion on another forum right now; basically my position is that there IS no way to justify any normative ethical system because every such system will rest on assumptions that can't be proved by the system itself. Things like "it's better to live than die" and "it's better to live well than live poorly" are, themselves, merely assumptions for which nothing objective can justify us believing in them beyond our feelings and belief in them. However, once we DO agree with them, there are ways that are more and less efficacious (to use your word) in bringing them about. Moral issues about the correct course of action to take when one or one's social group feels threatened are some of the trickiest to deal with, and it's surely why "might makes right" reigns in nature and even has throughout human nature and history. Essentially, I don't think when it gets down to it you can justify any "shoulds" (or "oughts" to use the philosophical term) because all such things are necessarily subjective.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by YesNo

after deterministic materialism was falsified by quantum physics in the early 20th century

---

There's one of your lies you love repeating.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by YesNo

In my view the real disagreement is between atheism and religion, not science and religion. Atheism unjustly claims for itself the ideas of rationality and the scientific method.

---

Science is innately atheistic. What I mean by that is that it does not assume the existence of Gods in order to go about its business. It addresses how material reality works on its own terms without getting into the philosophical issues that people's belief in god(s) rest on. That said, religion VS science and religion VS atheism reside in two main areas:

1. Religion conflicts with science when science falsifies certain aspects of religious belief, mainly those about how material reality functions and how history happened, such as how the universe and human life came about or whether there was a mass Jewish exodus from Egypt.

2. For theists that accept science (like Pen), the only place where most atheists and theists differ is that atheists think that science's approach to and understanding of reality is sufficient and as complete as we can get; whereas theists contend that science is only, by its nature, addressing a limited portion/aspect of reality, while their religious beliefs are addressing the rest of reality that is inaccessible to science.

These are the two major conflicts I see between religion and science, and religion and atheism. As I've also said before, the religious method of generating beliefs (faith) is innately incompatible with science that relies on hypothesis, prediction, experimentation, empiricism, peer-review, repeatability, falsification, etc. I think all of these issues have been broached in this thread.