How religion harms scientific progress. [Archive] - Glock Talk

PDA

View Full Version : How religion harms scientific progress.


Gunhaver
04-28-2012, 17:30
Video starts at the relevant part but watching the whole thing can only raise your IQ a few points.

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=8vfOpZD4Sm8&feature=related#

Geko45
04-28-2012, 18:40
Europe experienced a Dark Age where most scientific knowledge was lost and had to be rediscovered. The Middle East is currently experiencing a similar Dark Age and it is unknown how long it will take them to re-emerge from it. I fear that North America at some point in its future will repeat that pattern. We currently live at the pinnacle of human development. Nowhere else does the population enjoy the freedoms and standard of living that we do here. But our continuing position at the top of the hierarchy is not certain. We can still be conquered by either internal or external forces that want nothing more than to turn the clock back and enslave us to their dogmatic interpretation of what their imaginary deity commands.

Paul7
04-30-2012, 20:25
Europe experienced a Dark Age where most scientific knowledge was lost and had to be rediscovered. The Middle East is currently experiencing a similar Dark Age and it is unknown how long it will take them to re-emerge from it. I fear that North America at some point in its future will repeat that pattern. We currently live at the pinnacle of human development. Nowhere else does the population enjoy the freedoms and standard of living that we do here. But our continuing position at the top of the hierarchy is not certain. We can still be conquered by either internal or external forces that want nothing more than to turn the clock back and enslave us to their dogmatic interpretation of what their imaginary deity commands.

What a load of nonsense.

http://www.ldolphin.org/bumbulis/

void *
04-30-2012, 20:34
What a load of nonsense.

http://www.ldolphin.org/bumbulis/

I like how your link ignores Aristotle, Plato, Archimedes, Euclid, Hipparchus, etc. for "Clue #2".

Unless you claim they were Christian?

Gunhaver
04-30-2012, 21:40
What a load of nonsense.

http://www.ldolphin.org/bumbulis/


That link was a load of nonsense. They places the goalposts right where they wanted them for that one.

Animal Mother
04-30-2012, 23:10
What a load of nonsense.

http://www.ldolphin.org/bumbulis/We've gone over the utter failings of that article numerous times before. Why do you keep bringing it up?

Gunhaver
04-30-2012, 23:22
We've gone over the utter failings of that article numerous times before. Why do you keep bringing it up?

Might have something to do with this,

http://www.glocktalk.com/forums/showthread.php?t=1416931

WS6
05-01-2012, 03:56
I like how your link ignores Aristotle, Plato, Archimedes, Euclid, Hipparchus, etc. for "Clue #2".

Unless you claim they were Christian?

Was not the paper on modern science?

HYPOTHESIS

The primary observation that led me to suspect that Christianity was crucial to the birth of science was the localized nature of the origin of science. That is, modern science was born in Christianized Europe.

Gunhaver
05-01-2012, 04:20
Was not the paper on modern science?

That's what I meant by putting the goalpost right where they wanted them. The paper completely ignores any advancements made by anyone in any other society because they had an agenda. Modern science depended on a lot of discoveries made all over the world. Much of the work had been done for them.

What exactly is it that you think makes Christians better at science than anyone else?

Animal Mother
05-01-2012, 06:29
Was not the paper on modern science?Define modern science.

Paul7
05-01-2012, 07:37
We've gone over the utter failings of that article numerous times before. Why do you keep bringing it up?

Because I reject your opinion, as did Oppenheimer and Whitehead, who said Christianity was the basis for Western Science.

muscogee
05-01-2012, 07:44
What a load of nonsense.

http://www.ldolphin.org/bumbulis/

According to his college, the author is the first author on anything and has never authored a paper by himself. http://www.bw.edu/academics/bio/faculty/bumbulis/

Obviously a lightweight in his field, but he can step outside his field and dazzle the uninitiated with BS. If he's going to hold forth as a PhD. he should stick to his area of expertise because expertise is context specific. When experts step outside their field they're laymen.

Animal Mother
05-01-2012, 08:17
Because I reject your opinion, as did Oppenheimer and Whitehead, who said Christianity was the basis for Western Science. No, Oppenheimer didn't. I've challenged you repeatedly to produce the original quote, in its original context. Yet you haven't. Imagine my shock.

It isn't that you disagree with my opinion, it's that you continue to parrot a deeply flawed paper as if it were true.

void *
05-01-2012, 08:56
Was not the paper on modern science?

Can you build modern science without building on the knowledge that came before?

Do you need trig, algebra, etc to get to calc, or not?

Claiming "they didn't do modern science" trivializes the fact that you can't *get* to modern science without knowing at least some of what they contributed (or figuring it out yourself, which those named in the article decidedly did not do).

Basically, the article draws a line that happens to be convenient for the view of the article, and says 'all this stuff before is unimportant', even though you can't get to the what came after without it.

IndianaMatt
05-01-2012, 10:57
Define modern science.

Science completely separated from religion.

IndianaMatt
05-01-2012, 10:58
Because I reject your opinion, as did Oppenheimer and Whitehead, who said Christianity was the basis for Western Science.

Even if they did say that - which they didn't until you provide a cite- they were wrong.

scccdoc
05-01-2012, 11:06
According to his college, the author is the first author on anything and has never authored a paper by himself. http://www.bw.edu/academics/bio/faculty/bumbulis/

Obviously a lightweight in his field, but he can step outside his field and dazzle the uninitiated with BS. If he's going to hold forth as a PhD. he should stick to his area of expertise because expertise is context specific. When experts step outside their field they're laymen.

What have you authored?

Does the number of publications increase credibility?

Paul7
05-01-2012, 12:08
According to his college, the author is the first author on anything and has never authored a paper by himself. http://www.bw.edu/academics/bio/faculty/bumbulis/

Obviously a lightweight in his field, but he can step outside his field and dazzle the uninitiated with BS. If he's going to hold forth as a PhD. he should stick to his area of expertise because expertise is context specific. When experts step outside their field they're laymen.

Ad hominem. Get back to us when you have a rational counter-argument.

Paul7
05-01-2012, 12:10
No, Oppenheimer didn't. I've challenged you repeatedly to produce the original quote, in its original context. Yet you haven't. Imagine my shock.

It isn't that you disagree with my opinion, it's that you continue to parrot a deeply flawed paper as if it were true.

We've been over this before. More denial by you of facts that don't fit your world-view. From an article by Linda Kimball:

"In an article titled "On Science and Culture" in Encounter, Oct. 1962, J. Robert Oppenheimer, director of Advanced Study at Princeton (1947) stressed that modern science was born out of the Christian worldview. (How Should We Then Live? Francis A. Schaeffer, p. 132)

Highly respected philosopher and mathematician, Alfred North Whitehead (1861-1947), agrees with Oppenheimer. In the Harvard University Lowell Lectures entitled "Science and the Modern World" (1925) Whitehead said that Christianity is the mother of modern science because of "the medieval insistence in the rationality of God." With complete confidence "in the intelligible rationality of a personal being," continued Whitehead, early scientists had an "inexpugnable belief that every detailed occurrence can be correlated with its' antecedents in a perfectly definite manner, exemplifying general principles. Without this belief the incredible labors of scientists would be without hope." (ibid, pp. 132, 133)

The key words here are 'rational, personal Being' as opposed to the irrationality of today's science counterfeit: naturalistic science.

"Christianity," summarized Francis Schaeffer, "is the mother of modern science because it insists that the God who created the universe has revealed himself in the Bible to be the kind of God he is. Consequently, there is a sufficient basis for science to study the universe." (ibid, p. 134)


Since you are questioning this Oppenheimer quote, cited in many publications, why don't you track down that issue of Encounter and prove me wrong?

Paul7
05-01-2012, 12:11
Science completely separated from religion.

The Christian founders of Western science would think that an idiotic requirement.

Paul7
05-01-2012, 12:12
Even if they did say that - which they didn't until you provide a cite- they were wrong.

So why did modern science arise in the Christian West and not India, for example?

void *
05-01-2012, 12:18
"In an article titled "On Science and Culture" in Encounter, Oct. 1962, J. Robert Oppenheimer, director of Advanced Study at Princeton (1947) stressed that modern science was born out of the Christian worldview. (How Should We Then Live? Francis A. Schaeffer, p. 132)

That doesn't appear to be precisely true. I am reading this article right now, and what he says it that it took a notion that "is well expressed by the second half of the famous Christian dichotomy--faith and works; the notion that the betterment of man’s condition, his civility, had meaning; that we all had a responsibility to it, a duty to it, and to man."

An idea being expressed well by Christianity is hardly the same thing as the idea *requiring* a Christian worldview.

For instance, I'm an atheist, but the notion that the betterment of man's condition has meaning (to us) and that we as humans collectively have a responsibility to do so is something I quite agree with.

(The article is available at http://www.unz.org/Pub/Encounter-1962oct-00003, for anyone who wants to read it)

countrygun
05-01-2012, 12:29
Even if they did say that - which they didn't until you provide a cite- they were wrong.


Even Einstein said "God doesn't play dice with the universe"

Obviously he was hampered by a belief in God:whistling:

BTW I am an atheist, but I believe in giving credit where credit is due, and not just bashing for its own sake.

void *
05-01-2012, 12:31
Even Einstein said "God doesn't play dice with the universe"

Obviously he was hampered by a belief in God:whistling:

Obviously someone didn't do their research.

""It was, of course, a lie what you read about my religious convictions, a lie which is being systematically repeated. I do not believe in a personal God and I have never denied this but have expressed it clearly." -- Albert Einstein

Paul7
05-01-2012, 12:38
That doesn't appear to be precisely true. I am reading this article right now, and what he says it that it took a notion that "is well expressed by the second half of the famous Christian dichotomy--faith and works; the notion that the betterment of man’s condition, his civility, had meaning; that we all had a responsibility to it, a duty to it, and to man."

An idea being expressed well by Christianity is hardly the same thing as the idea *requiring* a Christian worldview.

For instance, I'm an atheist, but the notion that the betterment of man's condition has meaning (to us) and that we as humans collectively have a responsibility to do so is something I quite agree with.

(The article is available at http://www.unz.org/Pub/Encounter-1962oct-00003, for anyone who wants to read it)

Thank you for posting, and allow me to show a fuller quote:

"I think that the best guess is that it took
something that was not present in Chinese
civilisation, that was wholly absent in Indian
clvilisation, and absent also from Greco-Roman
civilisation. It needed an idea of progress, not
limited to better understanding for this idea
the Greeks had. It took an idea of progress
which has more to do with the human condition, which is well expressed by the second half of the famous Christian dichotomy--faith
and works; the notion that the betterment of
man’s condition, his civility, had meaning; that
we all had a responsibility to it, a duty to it, and
to man. I think that it was when this basic idea
of man’s condition, which supplements the
other worldly aspects of religion, was fortified
and fructified between the 13th and 15th centuries by the re-discovery of the ancient world’s scientists, philosophers, and mathematicians, that there was the beginning of the scientific
age."

To me, that quote fully supports my earlier point.

void *
05-01-2012, 12:54
To me, that quote fully supports my earlier point.

Well, of course it would - to you - you're invested in having made the claim that Oppenheimer somehow "stressed that modern science was born out of the Christian worldview."

You can color me "not surprised" when I actually read the reference, and he talked about Christianity expressing it well, rather than Christianity being a fundamental requirement.

I'll also note that you failed to bold "the re-discovery of the ancient world’s scientists, philosophers, and mathematicians" - who were decidedly *not* Christian.

To paraphrase you - to me that quote, and your use of it, fully supports the notion that supporters of "it requires a Christian worldview" are willing to misstate just to have a name like Oppenheimer to throw around.

Paul7
05-01-2012, 14:00
Well, of course it would - to you - you're invested in having made the claim that Oppenheimer somehow "stressed that modern science was born out of the Christian worldview."

You can color me "not surprised" when I actually read the reference, and he talked about Christianity expressing it well, rather than Christianity being a fundamental requirement.

I'll also note that you failed to bold "the re-discovery of the ancient world’s scientists, philosophers, and mathematicians" - who were decidedly *not* Christian.

To paraphrase you - to me that quote, and your use of it, fully supports the notion that supporters of "it requires a Christian worldview" are willing to misstate just to have a name like Oppenheimer to throw around.

No misstatement, I do note your willful (IMHO, you're too smart for it to be otherwise) incomprehension of plain fact. Did you miss the part where he said "something.....that was wholly absent" from Indian, Chinese, and Greco-Roman civilization, but was there in Christian civilization? I don't know how much plainer it can be.

void *
05-01-2012, 14:05
Did you miss the part where he said "something.....that was wholly absent" from Indian, Chinese, and Greco-Roman civilization, but was there in Christian civilization? I don't know how much plainer it can be.

No. Perhaps I missed the part where he stated, at all, that this is somehow fundamental to the Christian worldview. Perhaps you can point out where he said something like "only Christianity can have this" or "the Christian worldview depends on this", if I in fact missed it?

Rather than what he actually did, which was say that it was /expressed well/.

I'm sure you are smart enough to understand that saying "these societies did not have x, this society had x' is not the same thing as saying 'x is fundamental to the society that had it'.

Paul7
05-01-2012, 14:18
No. Perhaps I missed the part where he stated, at all, that this is somehow fundamental to the Christian worldview. Perhaps you can point out where he said something like "only Christianity can have this" or "the Christian worldview depends on this", if I in fact missed it?

It took an idea of progress
which has more to do with the human condition, which is well expressed by the second half of the famous Christian dichotomy--faith
and works; the notion that the betterment of
man’s condition, his civility, had meaning; that
we all had a responsibility to it, a duty to it, and
to man.

void *
05-01-2012, 14:26
It took an idea of progress
which has more to do with the human condition, which is well expressed by the second half of the famous Christian dichotomy--faith
and works; the notion that the betterment of
man’s condition, his civility, had meaning; that
we all had a responsibility to it, a duty to it, and
to man.


Right. Now please explain how "well expressed by" has the same meaning as "stressed that modern science was born out of the Christian worldview".

The point here is that yes, I agree that he is saying that the Christian society of the time had a property that allowed for modern science. I completely disagree that those words mean anything at all akin to "born out of the Christian worldview".

(this has nothing to do with whether or not it was true that this property is actually necessary, or that other societies didn't have it, etc - that's another whole discussion).

Roering
05-01-2012, 15:16
I'll just leave this here.

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/List_of_Roman_Catholic_cleric%E2%80%93scientists


And for good measure...
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/List_of_Catholic_scientists

void *
05-01-2012, 15:24
Eh, I don't think anyone sane would attempt to claim that there haven't been scientists who were religious.

That's a different thing than claiming that science comes from a religious worldview. Do you, for instance, think belief in Catholicism is a necessary criteria for doing scientific work?

Geko45
05-01-2012, 15:26
I'll just leave this here.

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/List_of_Roman_Catholic_cleric%E2%80%93scientists


And for good measure...
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/List_of_Catholic_scientists

Like wise: List of atheists in science and technology (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/List_of_atheists_in_science_and_technology)

Paul7
05-01-2012, 15:51
Right. Now please explain how "well expressed by" has the same meaning as "stressed that modern science was born out of the Christian worldview".

The point here is that yes, I agree that he is saying that the Christian society of the time had a property that allowed for modern science. I completely disagree that those words mean anything at all akin to "born out of the Christian worldview".

(this has nothing to do with whether or not it was true that this property is actually necessary, or that other societies didn't have it, etc - that's another whole discussion).

He specifically mentions Christian concepts as to why science arose in the West.

void *
05-01-2012, 16:13
He specifically mentions Christian concepts as to why science arose in the West.

No, he didn't.

He said that a requisite concept was "well expressed by" the second half of a particular Christian dichotomy.

That dichotomy is "faith and works", the second half is merely "works".

Now, if the "Christian worldview" is "Man can get to science on works alone", you might have an argument - but we both know it isn't, and as it is, you're trying to stretch his statement beyond rational meaning.

Animal Mother
05-01-2012, 17:07
We've been over this before. Yes, we have. And you still haven't produced the quote where Oppenheimer deems Christianity necessary to the birth of Science.
More denial by you of facts that don't fit your world-view. What facts?
From an article by Linda Kimball:

"In an article titled "On Science and Culture" in Encounter, Oct. 1962, J. Robert Oppenheimer, director of Advanced Study at Princeton (1947) stressed that modern science was born out of the Christian worldview. (How Should We Then Live? Francis A. Schaeffer, p. 132)Now that you've actually read the article in question, not just citations in the Christian press, you can see that this claim, which isn't a quote, isn't true at all.
Since you are questioning this Oppenheimer quote, cited in many publications, why don't you track down that issue of Encounter and prove me wrong? I did, two or three years ago when you first brought this up.

Animal Mother
05-01-2012, 17:13
He specifically mentions Christian concepts as to why science arose in the West. No, he doesn't, and what you seem to miss is the part you quoted, " It needed an idea of progress, not limited to better understanding for this idea the Greeks had." Which describes the condition of science under the domination of Christianity. It wasn't until that domination was broken that true progress became possible. You'll notice that he invokes only "the second half of the famous Christian dichotomy", works. Faith has nothing to do with it, and without faith it isn't Christianity, is it?

Gunhaver
05-01-2012, 17:19
Like wise: List of atheists in science and technology (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/List_of_atheists_in_science_and_technology)

Funny in this day and age when one can easily google the counter point to their argument to see how valid it is and simply doesn't.

Even funnier when you haven't learned that's exactly what your opponent is going to do.

It's almost like they don't understand that the internet contains information that counters their claims.

Roering
05-01-2012, 18:05
Eh, I don't think anyone sane would attempt to claim that there haven't been scientists who were religious.

That's a different thing than claiming that science comes from a religious worldview. Do you, for instance, think belief in Catholicism is a necessary criteria for doing scientific work?

Where did I make the claim that science comes from a religious world view? Are you confusing me with another post or jumping to conclusions?

Paul7
05-01-2012, 18:07
No, he doesn't, and what you seem to miss is the part you quoted, " It needed an idea of progress, not limited to better understanding for this idea the Greeks had." Which describes the condition of science under the domination of Christianity. It wasn't until that domination was broken that true progress became possible. You'll notice that he invokes only "the second half of the famous Christian dichotomy", works. Faith has nothing to do with it, and without faith it isn't Christianity, is it?

You're wrong, see post #25. As I said before, you continue to spin and deny facts contrary to your worldview.

Paul7
05-01-2012, 18:08
No, he didn't.

He said that a requisite concept was "well expressed by" the second half of a particular Christian dichotomy.

That dichotomy is "faith and works", the second half is merely "works".

Now, if the "Christian worldview" is "Man can get to science on works alone", you might have an argument - but we both know it isn't, and as it is, you're trying to stretch his statement beyond rational meaning.

Nonsense, Oppenheimer says there was something missing from other cultures, that was present in Christian ideas. It is quite obvious.

Roering
05-01-2012, 18:10
Funny in this day and age when one can easily google the counter point to their argument to see how valid it is and simply doesn't.

Even funnier when you haven't learned that's exactly what your opponent is going to do.

It's almost like they don't understand that the internet contains information that counters their claims.

Oh I fully understand it Gunhaver but my post is to show just how many clerics in the Church were scientists. This is to give examples that point out that the Church has been a proponent of scientific discovery throughout the ages and has not harmed but rather helped the realm of scientific advancement. I thought giving concrete examples of this would prove a greater rebuttal to the flavor of this threads OP.

Of course there are ethical limitations that the Church will stress when it comes to scientific discovery in relation to respect for humanity and human life.

For instance, the Nazi scientists made a lot of discoveries about the physiology of the human body through experimentation on humans (Jews) that the Church would not condone. I'll not go into detail about what some of those "studies" were but I think you get the idea.

void *
05-01-2012, 18:29
Nonsense, Oppenheimer says there was something missing from other cultures, that was present in Christian ideas. It is quite obvious.

It's quite obvious you refuse to read and understand plain English language because it doesn't actually mean what you said it would when you provided the cite, actually.

Animal Mother
05-01-2012, 18:32
You're wrong, No, I'm not.
see post #25. I saw it, more to the point I've read the whole article, and did so a few years ago. I know you imagine that the portion you've quoted supports your point, but it really doesn't.
As I said before, you continue to spin and deny facts contrary to your worldview. If that were the case, it seems unlikely that others would share my position, as this thread makes clear that they do. You're the one who's not bothering to actually comprehend what Dr. Oppenheimer was saying in his article in favor of misrepresenting his intention to try and support your beliefs.

Animal Mother
05-01-2012, 18:34
Oh I fully understand it Gunhaver but my post is to show just how many clerics in the Church were scientists. This is to give examples that point out that the Church has been a proponent of scientific discovery throughout the ages and has not harmed but rather helped the realm of scientific advancement. I thought giving concrete examples of this would prove a greater rebuttal to the flavor of this threads OP. Perhaps we should ask Giordano Bruno about that. The Church does have, and has had, a number of excellent scientists over the centuries, but it has also had many members who worked against scientific progress and institutionally has a history of requiring that scientific discoveries adhere to predetermined dogma.

void *
05-01-2012, 18:39
This is to give examples that point out that the Church has been a proponent of scientific discovery throughout the ages and has not harmed but rather helped the realm of scientific advancement. I thought giving concrete examples of this would prove a greater rebuttal to the flavor of this threads OP.

I wouldn't argue that it has solely harmed, but I think presenting it as solely helped is likewise invalid.

What would Galileo have done with his time, had he not had to worry about charges of heresy? How many more people would have had a chance to read Galileo's work, and what would *they* have done, had there not been a ban in place on reprinting what he wrote? I don't know, nobody does - and it's a bit saddening that this is so.

Paul7
05-01-2012, 18:40
No, I'm not.
I saw it, more to the point I've read the whole article, and did so a few years ago. I know you imagine that the portion you've quoted supports your point, but it really doesn't.
If that were the case, it seems unlikely that others would share my position, as this thread makes clear that they do. You're the one who's not bothering to actually comprehend what Dr. Oppenheimer was saying in his article in favor of misrepresenting his intention to try and support your beliefs.

Are you also going to twist the Whitehead quote about the role of Christianity to Western science?

Paul7
05-01-2012, 18:40
It's quite obvious you refuse to read and understand plain English language

Exactly what I was thinking of you.

because it doesn't actually mean what you said it would when you provided the cite, actually.

Yes it does.

void *
05-01-2012, 18:49
Exactly what I was thinking of you.

Well, then, we're at an impasse.

This might help you, though:

ex·pressed, ex·press·ing, ex·press·es
1. To set forth in words; state.

born (bôrn)
b. Brought into existence; created:

You'll note these are two different things. You should also note that because 'expressed' means 'to set forth in words' and because 'born' means 'brought into existence', the statements 'well expressed by the second half of the famous Christian dichotomy' and 'born from the Christian worldview' have entirely different meanings, but since you're obviously unwilling to do that there's not much more to say.

juggy4711
05-01-2012, 19:27
Religion harms science, doesn't matter which religion it is. Dr Neil DeGrasse Tyson put it well and I paraphrase, "Great minds come to a stumbling block, something they can't figure out, decide God it and stop searching for the scientific truth of a matter. If none of the great religious scientists of the past had done so imagine what our understanding could be at this point". In regards to science "God did it" is a waste of time and always will be.

Animal Mother
05-01-2012, 20:21
Are you also going to twist the Whitehead quote about the role of Christianity to Western science? Also implies I've already twisted something, which isn't the case. I'm not addressing the Whitehead quote, because the Oppenheimer "citation" is sufficient to show the duplicity of your argument.

Gunhaver
05-01-2012, 21:11
Religion harms science, doesn't matter which religion it is. Dr Neil DeGrasse Tyson put it well and I paraphrase, "Great minds come to a stumbling block, something they can't figure out, decide God it and stop searching for the scientific truth of a matter. If none of the great religious scientists of the past had done so imagine what our understanding could be at this point". In regards to science "God did it" is a waste of time and always will be.

And much more frequently not so great minds deny scientific discoveries that contradict their preconceived notions and pollute other minds with those same notions that may have otherwise gone into 'controversial' fields of science like cosmology, geology, anthropology and paleontology. As Dr. Tyson said, "That person is now removed from the pool of people trying to figure it out".

And even more frequently than that, every day people waste vast amounts of money and man hours building and shuffling into churches only to hash over their particular interpretation of an ancient book that nobody has really been able to prove means anything at all. I wonder where we could be if all that time, money and effort were focused on energy research, space programs, health care, materials science and other directly beneficial endeavors. That would be awesome, if we all got up on Sunday morning and went to science class for 3 hours.

Geko45
05-01-2012, 21:17
That would be awesome, if we all got up on Sunday morning and went to science class for 3 hours.

What a world that would be.

juggy4711
05-01-2012, 21:18
And much more frequently not so great minds deny scientific discoveries that contradict their preconceived notions and pollute other minds with those same notions that may have otherwise gone into 'controversial' fields of science like cosmology, geology, anthropology and paleontology. As Dr. Tyson said, "That person is now removed from the pool of people trying to figure it out".

And even more frequently than that, every day people waste vast amounts of money and man hours building and shuffling into churches only to hash over their particular interpretation of an ancient book that nobody has really been able to prove means anything at all. I wonder where we could be if all that time, money and effort were focused on energy research, space programs, health care, materials science and other directly beneficial endeavors. That would be awesome, if we all got up on Sunday morning and went to science class for 3 hours.

While I would not consider those fields controversial I get your point and I think it would be awesome if folks chose to study science a few hours a week any time or day they chose to.

Paul7
05-02-2012, 07:37
Also implies I've already twisted something, which isn't the case.

We disagree.

I'm not addressing the Whitehead quote,

Very wise dodge on your part, as the Whitehead quote corroborates the Oppenheimer one, both blow your argument.

Paul7
05-02-2012, 07:38
What a world that would be.

How would that make your life better?

WS6
05-02-2012, 08:59
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Pontifical_Academy_of_Sciences

http://www.vatican.va/roman_curia/pontifical_academies/acdscien/

http://vaticanobservatory.org/

Geko45
05-02-2012, 09:13
How would that make your life better?

Imagine how much further we would be as a society if that amount of brain power were being devoted to understanding the physical world as opposed to worshipping an imaginary deity. How many discoveries have never happened simply because the right person was regurgitating hymns in church as opposed to investigating real world problems?

WS6
05-02-2012, 09:29
Imagine how much further we would be as a society if that amount of brain power were being devoted to understanding the physical world as opposed to worshipping an imaginary deity. How many discoveries have never happened simply because the right person was regurgitating hymns in church as opposed to investigating real world problems?

Would you suggest a little State enforcement to insure people don't waste their time singing hymns?

Geko45
05-02-2012, 09:34
Would you suggest a little State enforcement to insure people don't waste their time singing hymns?

Nope, you and I have covered that before. I do mourn the waste though.

Paul7
05-02-2012, 10:02
Imagine how much further we would be as a society if that amount of brain power were being devoted to understanding the physical world as opposed to worshipping an imaginary deity.

Didn't they try that in the USSR?

How many discoveries have never happened simply because the right person was regurgitating hymns in church as opposed to investigating real world problems?

According to Whitehead and Oppenheimer, many of these discoveries happened because of a Christian worldview.

Geko45
05-02-2012, 10:04
Didn't they try that in the USSR?

Yeah, but I'm not a godless communist. I'm a godless capitalist, so you have nothing to fear from me.

:tongueout:

Roering
05-02-2012, 10:07
I wouldn't argue that it has solely harmed, but I think presenting it as solely helped is likewise invalid.

True, I didn't mean to give the impression that the Church has been nothing but a champion of scientific progress. As I had posted there are times when the Church would denounce activities within the discipline or to hold off on a pronouncement of a discovery within the field until further proof is brought forth. Not always a bad thing to if you consider how often thoughts of reality have changed within the scientific community over the ages.


What would Galileo have done with his time, had he not had to worry about charges of heresy? How many more people would have had a chance to read Galileo's work, and what would *they* have done, had there not been a ban in place on reprinting what he wrote? I don't know, nobody does - and it's a bit saddening that this is so.

We got over it. In time you will to.

Geko45
05-02-2012, 10:10
We got over it. In time you will to.

It would we be better if we didn't have to "get over" all the negative impacts of religion on society. Don't ya think?

janice6
05-02-2012, 10:25
One person's thoughts that are in disagreement with the thoughts of a second person, are always considered harmful by the first person.

Roering
05-02-2012, 10:27
It would we be better if we didn't have to "get over" all the negative impacts of religion on society. Don't ya think?

Would be great! Of course you would have consider the void of the positive impacts as well.

I don't think it possible to calculate either as we just don't have the ability to consider it in a vacuum.

Geko45
05-02-2012, 10:30
One person's thoughts that are in disagreement with the thoughts of a second person, are always considered harmful by the first person.

While true, this is incomplete. While the first person might always consider it harmful, sometimes it will be actually harmful and sometimes it won't.

void *
05-02-2012, 10:34
We got over it.

I'll believe that when people stop trying to pass laws and ban textbooks merely because science disagrees with their religion.

Roering
05-02-2012, 11:43
I'll believe that when people stop trying to pass laws and ban textbooks merely because science disagrees with their religion.

Yeah, remember what a utopian society Poland had when Russia rolled in and freed them from their bondage of Catholicism and Judaism?

I'm sure that the Polish who remember such times regard it as the "golden era". If only the rest of the world could be so lucky.

void *
05-02-2012, 11:50
Yeah, remember what a utopian society Poland had when Russia rolled in and freed them from their bondage of Catholicism and Judaism?.

Are you claiming that the simple statement "We shouldn't pass laws merely because science disagrees with religion" is equivalent to advocating a totalitarian state?

Roering
05-02-2012, 12:15
Are you claiming that the simple statement "We shouldn't pass laws merely because science disagrees with religion" is equivalent to advocating a totalitarian state?

Too soon?

void *
05-02-2012, 12:33
Too soon?

No, more like you're apparently resorting to guilt by association fallacies, given that the simple statement "We shouldn't pass laws merely because science disagrees with religion" applies in both directions, not just one.

(In other words, in case you're about to pretend you can't read plain English, it applies to the suppression of religious belief merely because it disagrees with science just as much as it applies to the suppression of the findings of science merely because they disagree with a particular religious belief)

But hey, if you want to show the world that you're willing to resort to fallacies, be my guest. If you want to show that you can't help but attack a person, rather than make an argument, I'm good with that.

Roering
05-02-2012, 12:53
No, more like you're apparently resorting to guilt by association fallacies, given that the simple statement "We shouldn't pass laws merely because science disagrees with religion" applies in both directions, not just one.

(In other words, in case you're about to pretend you can't read plain English, it applies to the suppression of religious belief merely because it disagrees with science just as much as it applies to the suppression of the findings of science merely because they disagree with a particular religious belief)

But hey, if you want to show the world that you're willing to resort to fallacies, be my guest. If you want to show that you can't help but attack a person, rather than make an argument, I'm good with that.

U mad?

I haven't attacked anyone yet. It takes me awhile to get warmed up for that. I should take you more seriously though, you're right about that. It's just that I'm having trouble coming up with a law that was blocked here in this country in say the last 30 years where this was the case.

Can you think of a law that was passed in the past 30 years in this country due to "science disagreeing with religion"?

Or rather should we pass laws based upon our scientific communities findings such as global warming? Suppose there were all kinds of restrictions to travel (more than we have now) due to the global warming issue only to discover now that the "evidence" for it was falsified? Would you have an issue with that?

Usually, it is economics that drive our laws, not science or religion.

Geko45
05-02-2012, 13:01
Too soon?

Ok, that was funny.

:supergrin:

void *
05-02-2012, 13:05
It's just that I'm having trouble coming up with a law that was blocked here in this country in say the last 30 years where this was the case.

Can you think of a law that was passed in the past 30 years in this country due to "science disagreeing with religion"?

Have you really missed the whole 'We have to teach intelligent design' debate? Really? You missed the law they just passed in Tennessee? The court case in Pennsylvania? (which, imho, came out the right way, but it certainly points out that people are still trying)

Honestly, I think you think that because I brought up Galileo, you have to jump in and knock me down. This isn't about the Catholic church, it's about learning the lessons of history.

void *
05-02-2012, 13:07
Ok, that was funny.

Honestly - I didn't get it, it made no sense to me at all that he'd respond with "too soon". *shrug*.

muscogee
05-02-2012, 13:10
One person's thoughts that are in disagreement with the thoughts of a second person, are always considered harmful by the first person.

You're a 'nihilist?

void *
05-02-2012, 13:18
Or rather should we pass laws based upon our scientific communities findings such as global warming?

From the scientific standpoint, we should try to figure out what's actually going on (i.e. we should let the actual science being done, still get done). From a religious standpoint, people should be free to believe what they want inasmuch as they are not harming other people (i.e., "my religion believes murder is ok" doesn't legally get you off the hook for murder, etc).

From a legal standpoint, it's my opinion we pass too many law for all *sorts* of bad reasons. Someone intentionally fudging a scientific finding would be one of them. However, I think that the opposition to global warming is borne more out of economics than it actually being bad science (although I don't think we should be, at the moment, necessarily be passing laws even under the assumption that it is *good* science.).

Geko45
05-02-2012, 13:28
Honestly - I didn't get it, it made no sense to me at all that he'd respond with "too soon". *shrug*.

When someone makes a joke about a very dark event (in this case Russia invading Poland) and someone takes offense because they don't feel it's a joking matter (which is not really what you did, but...) then the come back is "too soon" which expanded equals "Too soon to joke about the tragic event?"

Take Roering with a grain of salt. It's been my experience that at least half the time he is just joking around (but you were still right on the unequal comparison call).

janice6
05-02-2012, 13:30
You're a 'nihilist?



No. I'm simply saying that to get two people to agree on anything is difficult because they both think they are right.

Good luck.

void *
05-02-2012, 13:35
When someone makes a joke about a very dark event (in this case Russia invading Poland)

Eh, I guess that's why I didn't get it, because it didn't look at all like a joke to me, it looked like the standard "I don't really have a response so I will associate with hitler/stalin/the north koreans/etc even though that's really just using a well known fallacy' that various different people here in the forums apply.

Roering
05-02-2012, 13:39
Have you really missed the whole 'We have to teach intelligent design' debate? Really? You missed the law they just passed in Tennessee? The court case in Pennsylvania? (which, imho, came out the right way, but it certainly points out that people are still trying)

Honestly, I think you think that because I brought up Galileo, you have to jump in and knock me down. This isn't about the Catholic church, it's about learning the lessons of history.

Was the law to teach intelligent design instead of evolution or in addition to evolution? If it is in addition than this really isn't an example of your statement is it?

Void I make no attempt to knock you down. I have no problem with you bringing up Galileo as it is a valid point to your assertion.

As far as learning lessons about history goes I can think of plenty of generally accepted scientific theories that have been found later to be wrong. I can also point to religious organizations trying to reign in scientific theories and research for good and bad reasons.

However, it is my conclusion that humanity at times needs to be kept in check and the religious community plays a part in that. If we were allowed to treat human life as nothing more than lab rats we could make a lot of discoveries I'm sure but at some point people would hopefully stop to ask if it the right thing to do?

Example: Is it OK to keep a woman's legs tied together while in the act of giving birth to see what will happen to both mother and child for the sake of science?

This was an actual experiment Void. And if the scientific community is not going to speak out against it I would hope that the Church, Politicians, or some body of authority would.

In doing so you may think that this "harms" or "hinders" scientific advancement but I am willing to take that risk.

We live in a time where science has come to a point where we can do things with and to human beings that perhaps should not be done. It is fantastic, fascinating, and at the same time frightening. I think that we should not just do things because we think we can. Our ability to alter our very own DNA can cure an identified problem yet cause numerous unidentified problems. Patience can be so important at times like this. Unfortunately that means having to actually stop and do things slower than we can otherwise do.

Science itself does not stop to ask moral questions. I believe such questions need to be asked though. Such moral issues that arise need to be debated. Even if that is a hinderance.

void *
05-02-2012, 13:54
Was the law to teach intelligent design instead of evolution or in addition to evolution? If it is in addition than this really isn't an example of your statement is it?

Are you ok with something that is not actually science, in the sense that it is unfalsifiable, being taught as science, which actually calls for falsifiability? That's the problem I have. I actually have no problem with intelligent design being taught in appropriate contexts.

As far as learning lessons about history goes I can think of plenty of generally accepted scientific theories that have been found later to be wrong.

Sure. The scientific method itself handles this, when properly applied. It is actually *expected* that 'generally accepted scientific theories' will sometimes be wrong. See Newton and Einstein, for instance. If, in the future, someone comes up with something that deals with the issue of unifying QM and Relativity, and what they come up with requires throwing both QM and Relativity out, and the new thing (whatever it is) explains what QM and Relativity don't, and has the same or better predictive power - then we throw out QM and relativity. That's how science works.

That doesn't mean we teach "The electric universe" alongside QM and Relativity. Grok?

However, it is my conclusion that humanity at times needs to be kept in check and the religious community plays a part in that. If we were allowed to treat human life as nothing more than lab rats we could make a lot of discoveries I'm sure but at some point people would hopefully stop to ask if it the right thing to do?

I don't think religion is the only or even a *necessary* component of stopping to ask "is this the right thing to do?".

Roering
05-02-2012, 14:00
Are you ok with something that is not actually science, in the sense that it is unfalsifiable, being taught as science, which actually calls for falsifiability? That's the problem I have. I actually have no problem with intelligent design being taught in appropriate contexts.



Sure. The scientific method itself handles this, when properly applied. It is actually *expected* that 'generally accepted scientific theories' will sometimes be wrong. See Newton and Einstein, for instance. If, in the future, someone comes up with something that deals with the issue of unifying QM and Relativity, and what they come up with requires throwing both QM and Relativity out, and the new thing (whatever it is) explains what QM and Relativity don't, and has the same or better predictive power - then we throw out QM and relativity. That's how science works.

That doesn't mean we teach ""The electric universe"* alongside QM and Relativity. Grok?



I don't think religion is the only or even a *necessary* component of stopping to ask "is this the right thing to do?".

Has there been an addition to the scientific method that includes stopping to consider if testing or outcome of a hypothesis is morally right?

void *
05-02-2012, 14:11
Has there been an addition to the scientific method that includes stopping to consider if testing or outcome of a hypothesis is morally right?

The scientific method itself does not say 'do not test this if testing it is immoral' - it can't, because it doesn't talk about morality - but there are in fact certain experiments or means of experimentation that are considered unethical, and there are papers, etc on how to conduct ethical experimentation. It's not like *all* scientists are out there going 'we can do whatever we want!'. (That is not intended to imply that there *haven't* been scientists who performed unethical experiments. We're talking about humans here).

Roering
05-02-2012, 14:23
The scientific method itself does not say 'do not test this if testing it is immoral' - it can't, because it doesn't talk about morality - but there are in fact certain experiments or means of experimentation that are considered unethical, and there are papers, etc on how to conduct ethical experimentation. It's not like *all* scientists are out there going 'we can do whatever we want!'. (That is not intended to imply that there *haven't* been scientists who performed unethical experiments. We're talking about humans here).

So do these papers then prohibit or admonish said experiments due to being unethical? Is there an advisory board of some form within the scientific community that prohibits certain experiments from happening? Or a Hypothesis from being tested?

void *
05-02-2012, 14:29
So do these papers then prohibit or admonish said experiments due to being unethical? Is there an advisory board of some form within the scientific community that prohibits certain experiments from happening? Or a Hypothesis from being tested?

Well, there are various organizations that print guidelines and the like, there are laws, etc.

Geko45
05-02-2012, 14:30
it looked like the standard "I don't really have a response so I will associate with hitler/stalin/the north koreans/etc even though that's really just using a well known fallacy' that various different people here in the forums apply.

Oh, that is exactly what that part was.

Roering
05-02-2012, 14:34
Well, there are various organizations that print guidelines and the like, there are laws, etc.

So it is really "religion, laws,various organizations, and the scientific community that harms scientific progress". Not just religion.

void *
05-02-2012, 14:38
So it is really "religion, laws,various organizations, and the scientific community that harms scientific progress". Not just religion.

Do you really think not performing an unethical experiment is the same thing as not exploring a particular area of scientific research because what it is finding contradicts particular religious beliefs?

Roering
05-02-2012, 14:40
Imagine how much further we would be as a society if that amount of brain power were being devoted to understanding the physical world as opposed to worshipping an imaginary deity. How many discoveries have never happened simply because the right person was regurgitating hymns in church as opposed to investigating real world problems?

Sounds like the beginnings of Aldous Huxley's novel.

void *
05-02-2012, 14:45
Sounds like the beginnings of Aldous Huxley's novel.

Actually, no, in Brave New World the population was brainwashed and drugged, not encouraged to do science.

Edit: in fact they had various close-to-religious customs that were part of the brainwashing.

Roering
05-02-2012, 14:50
Do you really think not performing an unethical experiment is the same thing as not exploring a particular area of scientific research because what it is finding contradicts particular religious beliefs?

Scientific research includes experimentation and testing. To deny experimentation and testing harms scientific research which harms scientific progress. And you and I have already shown that various organizations do that. Including the scientific community as you have pointed out.

void *
05-02-2012, 14:55
Scientific research includes experimentation and testing.

Yep.

To deny experimentation and testing harms scientific research which harms scientific progress.

You presume that a particular experiment which is unethical is the only way to find out what that experiment could find out. In some cases this may be true, but it is *not* true in *all* cases, and it is certainly *less* harmful than saying "you can't examine that at all*.

Geko45
05-02-2012, 14:56
Sounds like the beginnings of Aldous Huxley's novel.

Oh no you didn't! It's on cuz!

:tongueout:

Roering
05-02-2012, 15:12
You presume that a particular experiment which is unethical is the only way to find out what that experiment could find out. In some cases this may be true, but it is *not* true in *all* cases, and it is certainly *less* harmful than saying "you can't examine that at all*.

To say that it is *less* harmful is to still imply that it is harmful. In the same way that skydiving with a backup parachute is less dangerous but nevertheless still dangerous.

Which was my point that you seem to keep trying to argue against.

Look Void. You have obviously lost this round. You can either admit it with a...

"Yeah, I guess there are lots of organizations that harm scientific progress including it's own community"

Or go with

"Stupid religious zealot, what the hell do you know about science, you still think the planet is only 4,000 years old"

Or slightly change the subject and try to regroup a different point from there.

I'll only respect you for choosing the first though. Unfortunately many atheists take the second, and the prideful go with the third.

Roering
05-02-2012, 15:12
Oh no you didn't! It's on cuz!

:tongueout:

Would Gattaca have been better?

Geko45
05-02-2012, 15:16
Would Gattaca have been better?

I'd have preferred Atlas Shrugged.

void *
05-02-2012, 15:18
To say that it is *less* harmful is to still imply that it is harmful. In the same way that skydiving with a backup parachute is less dangerous but nevertheless still dangerous.

It is actually "less harmful" enough that I consider even making the comparison completely ridiculous.

Kind of like complaining that since accidentally stepping on a nail attaching your carpet to the floor draws blood and someone stabbing you in the face until you die draws blood, they are equally harmful to a person and we should treat carpet nails as mass murderers.

See, Roering, there's a difference between saying "You can't study that because we disagree with what you've found" and "We don't want that experiment performed because it harms people". If you can't recognize that, then hey, that's on you, and I'll still be over here when you figure out that presenting a false trichotomy doesn't mean you win.

Roering
05-02-2012, 15:19
I'd have preferred Atlas Shrugged.

I don't think I've read any of her work. I think my son has that book though. Any good?

Geko45
05-02-2012, 15:21
Look Void. You have obviously lost this round. You can either admit it with a...

"Yeah, I guess there are lots of organizations that harm scientific progress including it's own community"

Or go with

"Stupid religious zealot, what the hell do you know about science, you still think the planet is only 4,000 years old"

Or slightly change the subject and try to regroup a different point from there.

I'll only respect you for choosing the first though. Unfortunately many atheists take the second, and the prideful go with the third.

Oh, and this is a "False Dilemma" fallacy.

Roering
05-02-2012, 15:24
It is actually "less harmful" enough that I consider even making the comparison completely ridiculous.

Kind of like complaining that since accidentally stepping on a nail attaching your carpet to the floor draws blood and someone stabbing you in the face until you die draws blood, they are equally harmful to a person and we should treat carpet nails as mass murderers.

See, Roering, there's a difference between saying "You can't study that because we disagree with what you've found" and "We don't want that experiment performed because it harms people". If you can't recognize that, then hey, that's on you, and I'll still be over here when you figure out that presenting a false dichotomy doesn't mean you win.

Option three then. I had higher hopes for you.

Geko45
05-02-2012, 15:24
I don't think I've read any of her work. I think my son has that book though. Any good?

Very good. In short, it's about the last few industrial innovators struggling to keep the world working while they drag the dead weight of a failed socialist soceity that continually expects entitlements from them.

Geko45
05-02-2012, 15:26
Option three then. I had higher hopes for you.

Psst, you really have completely failed to understand his point.

Roering
05-02-2012, 15:28
Very good. In short, it's about the last few industrial innovators struggling to keep the world working while they drag the dead weight of a failed socialist soceity that continually expects entitlements from them.

Yikes, sounds like the potential fate of the US.
alright, I'm hooked.

void *
05-02-2012, 15:29
Option three then. I had higher hopes for you.

:upeyes:

Sorry, but disagreeing with you that there is an equivalence of harm in the two cases is not the same thing as "slightly change the subject and try to regroup a different point from there."

Give me a yell when you can present an argument without resorting to having to use a fallacy.

Geko45
05-02-2012, 15:30
Yikes, sounds like the potential fate of the US.
alright, I'm hooked.

Exactly, read it. You'll enjoy it. It's an old book, so somewhat dated, but I find that interesting because it tells us that these issues were being dealt with even back then.

void *
05-02-2012, 15:32
Psst, you really have completely failed to understand his point.

Well, there are other options - it's possible that he actually got my point but doesn't want to admit it, and thus decided to drop to tactical argumentation (such as the use of fallacies) rather than having any kind of actual real discussion. It's possible we've misunderstood him in some way. Etc.

Although, really, he's the only one who can say. All I can say is what it looks like to me.

Roering
05-02-2012, 15:35
:upeyes:

Sorry, but disagreeing with you that there is an equivalence of harm in the two cases is not the same thing as "slightly change the subject and try to regroup a different point from there."

Give me a yell when you can present an argument without resorting to having to use a fallacy.

I said nothing in regards to an equivalence of harm nor did I make any comparison as to the degree of harm. I said harm.
Specifically I said this:

So it is really "religion, laws,various organizations, and the scientific community that harms scientific progress". Not just religion. (post 89)

That is what you chose to disagree with.

void *
05-02-2012, 15:41
I said nothing in regards to an equivalence of harm nor did I make any comparison as to the degree of harm. I said harm.

And my response was "Do you really think not performing an unethical experiment is the same thing as not exploring a particular area of scientific research because what it is finding contradicts particular religious beliefs?"

I contend it is not the same thing. I contend that in many cases, not performing unethical experimentation does *not* prevent obtaining the knowledge by ethical means, whereas a blanket prohibition *does* prevent obtaining the knowledge.

Your response was to (eventually) present me with a False Dilemma and declare victory. I'm sorry, but I don't consider that an actual discussion, I consider it you using debating tactics and fallacies.

Roering
05-02-2012, 15:51
And my response was "Do you really think not performing an unethical experiment is the same thing as not exploring a particular area of scientific research because what it is finding contradicts particular religious beliefs?"

Yes and the point I made in post 93 is that they still do harm.


I contend it is not the same thing. I contend that in many cases, not performing unethical experimentation does *not* prevent obtaining the knowledge by ethical means, whereas a blanket prohibition *does* prevent obtaining the knowledge.

And I agree. But my point was that although it may do less harm it still does harm. (I thought my skydiving illustration would get that through to you) You yourself even said "less harmful". I'll give you this though, you succeeded in brilliantly rebutting a point I never made.


Your response was to (eventually) present me with a False Dilemma and declare victory. I'm sorry, but I don't consider that an actual discussion, I consider it you using debating tactics and fallacies.

I couldn't stand to see you suffer. Allowing you to do so any further would have been shall we say, unethical.

Animal Mother
05-02-2012, 16:05
We disagree. Apparently, but my position has the benefit of being supported by the text of Oppenheimer's article.
Very wise dodge on your part, as the Whitehead quote corroborates the Oppenheimer one, both blow your argument. You mean the Whitehead quote's actual meaning is being misrepresented, as was attempted with the quotation from Dr. Oppenheimer?

void *
05-02-2012, 16:07
And I agree. But my point was that although it may do less harm it still does harm.

Yes, and my tearing my foot open with a carpet nail that happens to be point up does me harm, and my being stabbed in the face by a murderer until I bleed to death does me harm, that does not mean that they are equivalent situations just because they are both "harm"

You are completely ignoring that.

void *
05-02-2012, 16:09
I couldn't stand to see you suffer. Allowing you to do so any further would have been shall we say, unethical.

You consider this quoted statement an ethical form of argumentation, I take it?

It looks to me like an attempt to push somebody's buttons. If that's where you're coming from, there's no point in talking to you. Other than to keep pointing out where you use fallacies, etc, so that people who may be reading will see it.

Roering
05-02-2012, 16:15
Yes, and my tearing my foot open with a carpet nail that happens to be point up does me harm, and my being stabbed in the face by a murderer until I bleed to death does me harm, that does not mean that they are equivalent situations just because they are both "harm"

You are completely ignoring that.

Not at all Void. I read it and agree completely with you. This is a wonderful illustration that goes along with your brilliant rebuttal to the argument I never made.

Roering
05-02-2012, 16:20
You consider this quoted statement an ethical form of argumentation, I take it?

It looks to me like an attempt to push somebody's buttons. If that's where you're coming from, there's no point in talking to you. Other than to keep pointing out where you use fallacies, etc, so that people who may be reading will see it.

I considered it an ethical way of letting you out. I guess some atheists are morally opposed to euthanasia?

void *
05-02-2012, 16:23
I read it and agree completely with you.

So why aren't you continuing the discussion on the basis of something we both agree on, rather than declaring victory through fallacy?


Edit: Yeah, I see by post #116 that you're not interested in rational discussion, but rather poking and prodding and seeing if you can get someone's ire up. I'm not playing that game, have fun.

Roering
05-02-2012, 16:40
So why aren't you continuing the discussion on the basis of something we both agree on, rather than declaring victory through fallacy?

You have yet to concede that the scientific community, various organizations, etc. also harms scientific progress.
(aka: option 1).

Geko45
05-02-2012, 17:22
You have yet to concede that the scientific community, various organizations, etc. also harms scientific progress.
(aka: option 1).

Roering, you aren't putting in your best work today. Ok, yeah, religion isn't the only thing that can impede scientific progress. Even some dysfunctional organizations that claim to support scientific research can, in fact, be impediments to it (usually due to politics that often trace back to religion as well), but what's your point? It seems like you are stuck on scoring a point on Void more than advancing the conversation.

Roering
05-02-2012, 17:39
Roering, you aren't putting in your best work today. Ok, yeah, religion isn't the only thing that can impede scientific progress. Even some dysfunctional organizations that claim to support scientific research can, in fact, be impediments to it (usually due to politics that often trace back to religion as well), but what's your point? It seems like you are stuck on scoring a point on Void more than advancing the conversation.

Many Atheists and Christians (Fundies mostly) believe that religion and science are at opposition to each other. In some cases as extreme as to believe that one must die in order for the other to live (think Harry Potter & Voldemort).

The title of this thread smells to have the same flavor. I have agreed that religion has played a part in doing so and I'm seeing if Void can agree that the scientific community also "harms scientific progress". So far he has not been able to concede that point. If he could THEN there may be some common ground but from my dialogue with him thus far he seems to be one of those atheists I described above.

If this is the case, where can the conversation possibly go?
I'm not looking to score "points". I'm looking for realistic thought from an atheist without such polarizing views.

Honestly, I could no further have a meaningful discussion about this with Norske than you could with a Christian Scientist.

void *
05-02-2012, 17:47
I'm seeing if Void can agree that the scientific community also "harms scientific progress". So far he has not been able to concede that point.

How *precisely* is stating "less harm" the same thing as not admitting that there's harm, Roering?

My response to you was effectively that the difference in scale between the two harms means that they are not comparable as the same situation. Are you really treating my stating of a scale difference as somehow not admitting there can be "harm"?

I mean, I see the sentence above as a *gross* misrepresentation of how the thread played out.

Roering
05-02-2012, 17:55
How *precisely* is stating "less harm" the same thing as not admitting that there's harm, Roering?

My response to you was effectively that the difference in scale between the two harms means that they are not the same situation. Are you really treating my stating of a scale difference as somehow not admitting there can be "harm"?

I'll show you with your own words.


It is actually "less harmful" enough that I consider even making the comparison completely ridiculous.

That's a far cry from admitting that the scientific community, et al also does harm to scientific progress. As you said, it's "completely ridiculous"

void *
05-02-2012, 17:59
We can decide that not harming people is worth making gaining some particular piece of knowledge harder and/or impossible (but in most cases, just harder) *and* decide that not gaining a particular piece of knowledge is *not worth* not offending a particular group that believes something contrary to that piece of knowledge without contradicting ourselves.

void *
05-02-2012, 18:00
I'll show you with your own words

You're selectively quoting. Would you argue that my stepping on a carpet nail is not harm to myself?

If not, why are you ignoring the example I gave that compared stepping on a carpet nail to being stabbed to death?


It is actually "less harmful" enough that I consider even making the comparison completely ridiculous.

Kind of like complaining that since accidentally stepping on a nail attaching your carpet to the floor draws blood and someone stabbing you in the face until you die draws blood, they are equally harmful to a person and we should treat carpet nails as mass murderers.

Oh, right ... because it doesn't fit the argument you want to make. You want to pretend that I am obstinately claiming that there's no harm, rather than address the point I actually did make, which is to say that the scale of the harms is different enough that there's no point in comparing them.

Geko45
05-02-2012, 18:16
Let's take a look at the new thread One in Seven thinks End of World is Coming (http://www.glocktalk.com/forums/showthread.php?t=1419040). Does anyone here believe that these one in seven that think the world will end in their lifetime are voting for funding for long term scientific research?

Paul7
05-03-2012, 06:44
Let's take a look at the new thread One in Seven thinks End of World is Coming (http://www.glocktalk.com/forums/showthread.php?t=1419040). Does anyone here believe that these one in seven that think the world will end in their lifetime are voting for funding for long term scientific research?

No, but they're probably giving more to charitable causes than you atheists, according to research.

Geko45
05-03-2012, 06:53
No, but they're probably giving more to charitable causes than you atheists, according to research.

Well then, you should start a thread entitled "How atheism harms charitable causes" because you might actually have a valid point on that one.

Roering
05-03-2012, 10:00
You're selectively quoting. Would you argue that my stepping on a carpet nail is not harm to myself?

If not, why are you ignoring the example I gave that compared stepping on a carpet nail to being stabbed to death?




Oh, right ... because it doesn't fit the argument you want to make. You want to pretend that I am obstinately claiming that there's no harm, rather than address the point I actually did make, which is to say that the scale of the harms is different enough that there's no point in comparing them.

You agree with my statement then that the scientific community, religion, and other various organizations harm scientific progress?

You agree with that?

If so I'd really like to discuss which does more harm as I'd like to factor in what religion has done to help scientific progress through endowments for research, opening Universities, Hospitals and research facilities all over the world, the part they played in the Renaissance period, etc. etc.

I may make the argument that science is further along now than it would be without religion.

Roering
05-03-2012, 10:14
Let's take a look at the new thread One in Seven thinks End of World is Coming (http://www.glocktalk.com/forums/showthread.php?t=1419040). Does anyone here believe that these one in seven that think the world will end in their lifetime are voting for funding for long term scientific research?

Well probably not, but unless the rules of math have significantly changed 1 in 7 still isn't a majority so......

Geko45
05-03-2012, 10:21
Well probably not, but unless the rules of math have significantly changed 1 in 7 still isn't a majority so......

And the 1 in 7 aren't all encompassing of the group of people that vote their religous beliefs, so...

Even if they aren't a majority, they still represent a signifcant voting block that any candidate is going to either have to placate (or completely abandon) in order to stay in office.

Roering
05-03-2012, 10:29
And the 1 in 7 aren't all encompassing of the group of people that vote their religous beliefs, so...

Even if they aren't a majority, they still represent a signifcant voting block that any candidate is going to either have to placate (or completely abandon) in order to stay in office.

Point taken. But then again there are a lot of demographics that a candidate has to placate to get in office.

What kind of chance would I have being elected Mayor of San Francisco if I wasn't a proponent of the gay agenda.

What kind of chance would I have being elected in Alaska if I was for strict gun control.

We to a degree shape our politicians this way.

void *
05-03-2012, 10:29
If so I'd really like to discuss which does more harm as I'd like to factor in what religion has done to help scientific progress through endowments for research, opening Universities, Hospitals and research facilities all over the world, the part they played in the Renaissance period, etc. etc.

We can discuss that when you can show me where I have ever claimed that religion is *solely* harmful.

If I remember correctly, I was claiming that we should not pass laws *solely* because science was discovering things that contradicted various religious beliefs. If you think you're going to drag me into arguing for a statement I never made, you can think again.

In fact, I seem to remember you agreeing with me when I said this:

I wouldn't argue that it has solely harmed, but I think presenting it as solely helped is likewise invalid.

My position is that we need to *not* get to the point where people's religious beliefs are hindering scientific research simply because what that research is finding contradicts what they believe. Do you disagree?

The Catholic church is, to my understanding, of the position that teaching evolution is OK because nobody can show that God didn't kick it all off. I'm ok with that.

Are you ok with some guy who thinks the earth has to be 6000 years old because some guy counted up generations forcing schools to teach that "alongside" modern geology?

Geko45
05-03-2012, 10:35
Point taken. But then again there are a lot of demographics that a candidate has to placate to get in office.

Nobody has claimed that religion is the only problem in society today, just perhaps one of the greatest.

Roering
05-03-2012, 11:01
We can discuss that when you can show me where I have ever claimed that religion is *solely* harmful.

Never claimed that you said that. Still don't claim it.
(Do you agree with my statement then?)


If I remember correctly, I was claiming that we should not pass laws *solely* because science was discovering things that contradicted various religious beliefs. If you think you're going to drag me into arguing for a statement I never made, you can think again.

I'm asking if you agree to my statement remember?


In fact, I seem to remember you agreeing with me when I said this:



My position is that we need to *not* get to the point where people's religious beliefs are hindering scientific research simply because what that research is finding contradicts what they believe. Do you disagree?

The Catholic church is, to my understanding, of the position that teaching evolution is OK because nobody can show that God didn't kick it all off. I'm ok with that.

I don't quite remember but it sounds right.


Are you ok with some guy who thinks the earth has to be 6000 years old because some guy counted up generations forcing schools to teach that "alongside" modern geology?

Depends how it is presented I suppose.

So, do you then agree that....

Religion, the scientific community, and various other organizations harm scientific progress.

I'm really surprised that you haven't managed to just give a "Yes" to this. Is it in some way difficult for you?

void *
05-03-2012, 11:06
I'm really surprised that you haven't managed to just give a "Yes" to this. Is it in some way difficult for you?


I can't give a "yes" to that as a whole because I think that the total harm done by not performing unethical experiments is completely offset by the actual science done with ethical experiments. I.E. science still moves "net forward", it'd be like running from coast to coast and claiming that achievement is somehow blanked by not going one inch further.

Whereas, when religion (of any denomination - edit - actually, even more strictly, any philosophy whatsoever) says "You can't think about that", it is not "net forward".

But you're going to attempt to use that to say that I'm somehow obstinately claiming that there's no harm done at all, which is ridiculous.

Roering
05-03-2012, 11:08
Nobody has claimed that religion is the only problem in society today, just perhaps one of the greatest.

Greed
War
Totalitarianism
Exploitation of the masses
Genocide
Ethnic cleansing
Nuclear Warfare
Ozone depletion
Overpopulation
Hunger
Disease
Jersey Shore
Dehumanization of society
Top soil eradication
Poverty
Natural Resource depletion
Return of a 2 class society
Communism
Socialism
Nationalism



You would put all of these over Religion?

void *
05-03-2012, 11:11
Jersey Shore

This is a symptom, not a problem.

scccdoc
05-03-2012, 11:14
Do atheist's "foundations" provide grants and scholarships for college students? Christian organizations do.................

void *
05-03-2012, 11:19
Do atheist's "foundations" provide grants and scholarships for college students? Christian organizations do.................

I sit on the board of a (very small, basically no-overhead - i.e. all the administrative work is donated, not paid for) non-profit that gives out book scholarships to new college students. I also donate a fair bit of my own money to not only that non-profit, but others. What do you do?

Roering
05-03-2012, 11:24
I can't give a "yes" to that as a whole because I think that the total harm done by not performing unethical experiments is completely offset by the actual science done with ethical experiments. I.E. science still moves "net forward".

Whereas, when religion (of any denomination) says "You can't think about that", it is not "net forward".

But you're going to attempt to use that to say that I'm somehow obstinately claiming that there's no harm done at all, which is ridiculous.

No, I'm not going to say that. I had no intention of saying it. There is no purpose in it. You find my statement true but can't bring yourself to actually say/write it. Unfortunately you are one of those atheists that I had described earlier. Sorry Void. You're pride forces you to cling too strongly to your preconceived conceptions for us to have meaningful discussion.

ArtificialGrape
05-03-2012, 11:28
Greed
War
Totalitarianism
Exploitation of the masses
Genocide
Ethnic cleansing
Nuclear Warfare
Ozone depletion
Overpopulation
Hunger
Disease
Jersey Shore
Dehumanization of society
Top soil eradication
Poverty
Natural Resource depletion
Return of a 2 class society
Communism
Socialism
Nationalism



You would put all of these over Religion?

Wouldn't all of those be a result of The Fall?

Roering
05-03-2012, 11:29
Wouldn't all of those be a result of The Fall?

Not sure.

void *
05-03-2012, 11:30
No, I'm not going to say that. I had no intention of saying it. There is no purpose in it. You find my statement true but can't bring yourself to actually say/write it.

No, I don't. I agree that prohibition of unethical experiments may result in situations where we may not be able to test for particular knowledge because it is unethical. I agree that this alone can be described as "harm".

I disagree that this, along with the ethical experiments we *can, and do* perform, can be described as "harm to science".

When you grok that, get back to me.

Roering
05-03-2012, 13:03
No, I don't. I agree that prohibition of unethical experiments may result in situations where we may not be able to test for particular knowledge because it is unethical. I agree that this alone can be described as "harm".

I disagree that this, along with the ethical experiments we *can, and do* perform, can be described as "harm to science".

When you grok that, get back to me.

Didn't say "harm to science"

My statement said "Harm scientific progress"

Let's not go moving goal posts. :shame:

void *
05-03-2012, 13:57
Didn't say "harm to science"

My statement said "Harm scientific progress"

*shrug*. I don't see how that distinction is relevant.

Your point is we could get farther along in knowledge if we did certain experiments that we consider unethical. Right?

scccdoc
05-03-2012, 14:07
I sit on the board of a (very small, basically no-overhead - i.e. all the administrative work is donated, not paid for) non-profit that gives out book scholarships to new college students. I also donate a fair bit of my own money to not only that non-profit, but others. What do you do?

Is it an "atheist" organization? Proclaimed or advertised?But, I'm glad you do!

As far as my involvement, I know that if I list them ,I will be accused of "displaying my righteousness". But yes I donate to and work with organizations which help college students and others. DOC

Roering
05-03-2012, 14:13
*shrug*. I don't see how that distinction is relevant.

Yes you do.



Your point is we could get farther along in knowledge if we did certain experiments that we consider unethical. Right?

See post #94. this has been covered.

void *
05-03-2012, 14:14
Is it an "atheist" organization? Proclaimed or advertised?But, I'm glad you do!

It's not specifically atheist, but it's not specifically religious, either.

Why does it have to be specifically "atheist"? Why can't people who are atheist donate to organizations whether they state they are "atheist" or not? If I as an atheist happen to donate to a fund that is run by people who are religious, because I think the cause is worth it, should religion get the credit? If there's a group out there that doesn't specifically advertise religion *or* atheism, why doesn't that count when atheists give there?

The line of thought here is that "Oh, religious groups do all this, and you don't see atheist groups!" but IMHO that's basically expected because when people who are atheists give they don't do it in the name of "atheism" (except to counter such charges, which is why you see things like givingaid from dawkins, but that money goes to the red cross, I don't really see much point in not just donating to the red cross directly, because the charges are effectively baseless to begin with).

void *
05-03-2012, 14:18
Yes you do.

What is "science" to you, Roering? What is "scientific progress" and how is it different from "science"?

If you say "ahah, you're claiming a distinction, that's not what I said" and I say "well, I don't see the distinction", why do you get to claim that I don't mean what I say?

If I tell you "I meant it to mean basically the same thing", are you going to turn around and tell me "No, you didn't"?

In other words, why are you quibbling when it's pretty clear what I meant? From context, what possible harm are we talking about except for not having knowledge that we could have gained by performing unethical experiments, and how is the fact that we both understand that *that* is what we are talking about any different whether I say "science" or "scientific progress"?

scccdoc
05-03-2012, 14:34
It's not specifically atheist, but it's not specifically religious, either.

Why does it have to be specifically "atheist"? Why can't people who are atheist donate to organizations whether they state they are "atheist" or not? If I as an atheist happen to donate to a fund that is run by people who are religious, because I think the cause is worth it, should religion get the credit? If there's a group out there that doesn't specifically advertise religion *or* atheism, why doesn't that count when atheists give there?

The line of thought here is that "Oh, religious groups do all this, and you don't see atheist groups!" but IMHO that's basically expected because when people who are atheists give they don't do it in the name of "atheism" (except to counter such charges, which is why you see things like givingaid from dawkins, but that money goes to the red cross, I don't really see much point in not just donating to the red cross directly, because the charges are effectively baseless to begin with).

Well, please reread the title of the thread. My point is that religious organizations do help educate our future and therefore does not "harm" scientific progress.

If an atheist does donate to a religious organization, well, it kinda kicks the idea that we Christians are so terrible...........................

Roering
05-03-2012, 14:41
What is "science" to you, Roering? What is "scientific progress" and how is it different from "science"?

To me? Let's just review a definition of the two words shall we.

Science:
"Systematic knowledge of the physical or material world gained through observation and experimentation."

Progress:
"A movement toward a goal or to a further or higher stage"

Now that you know what these two words mean you should be able to figure out that scientific progress would be the increase of this systematic knowledge.

void *
05-03-2012, 14:45
Well, please reread the title of the thread. My point is that religious organizations do help educate our future and therefore does not "harm" scientific progress.


Well, I think the blanket statement "religion harms scientific progress" isn't really justified.

I mean, you could make up a religion whose sole purpose was to get people to apply the scientific method.

What is justified, imho, is more along the lines of "There are tendencies in religious thought that in various situations can be detrimental to determining what the truth actually is, compared to using the scientific method in the same situation"

So, for instance, a Catholic organization donating money for research - I don't think anyone is going to call that detrimental.

Someone not liking the fact that they have a particular interpretation of the Bible and the findings of science aren't in line with that interpretation, and then acting on it? That's bad for us *as a whole* (even though it might be good for that particular person, or that person's religion).

Or, say, someone is looking at a problem and figures out a bunch of it, and then hits a harder bit, and rather than thinking about it goes to a "god of the gaps" argument. They don't learn more about it. (I think I saw somewhere that Newton did this, I think - instead of showing how the solar system could be stable, he just went "well, God's will must do it". However, it's possible I'm misremberering, or wherever I'm remembering it from didn't source it correctly or whatever)

I think when people say "Religion harms scientific progress", that's what they mean - not necessarily "Religion (or religious people) has/have never, ever helped human knowledge along in any situation whatsoever"

ArtificialGrape
05-03-2012, 14:45
Do atheist's "foundations" provide grants and scholarships for college students? Christian organizations do.................

FFRF (Freedom From Religion Foundation) is one example that quickly turned up as offering scholarships. I'm sure that there are others, but I don't seek out "atheist" charities.

JDRF, Denver Children's Hospital, Fisher House, Wounded Warrior, and the American Red Cross are a few charities that I support.

-ArtificialGrape

void *
05-03-2012, 14:48
Now that you know what these two words mean you should be able to figure out that scientific progress would be the increase of this systematic knowledge.

Ahh, Roering. Selective quoting again. Let me repeat myself:

In other words, why are you quibbling when it's pretty clear what I meant? From context, what possible harm are we talking about except for not having knowledge that we could have gained by performing unethical experiments, and how is the fact that we both understand that *that* is what we are talking about any different whether I say "science" or "scientific progress"?

ArtificialGrape
05-03-2012, 15:01
Well, please reread the title of the thread. My point is that religious organizations do help educate our future and therefore does not "harm" scientific progress.
It is possible to "educate" our youth while harming the advancement of science at the same time. E.g. I could imagine a scholarship to Moody Bible Institute "educating" our youth on rejecting science.

-ArtificialGrape

Roering
05-03-2012, 15:04
Ahh, Roering. Selective quoting again. Let me repeat myself:

It makes a difference because you attempt to change the wording of my statement in an attempt to change it's meaning during your back-pedal.

If you are going to quote someone use their actual words. But I'll give you another chance. Now that you understand the difference between "science" and "scientific progress" would you care to agree to this statement?

Religion, the scientific community, and various other organizations harm scientific progress.

Roering
05-03-2012, 15:05
It is possible to "educate" our youth while harming the advancement of science at the same time. E.g. I could imagine a scholarship to Moody Bible Institute "educating" our youth on rejecting science.

-ArtificialGrape

I would say so.

scccdoc
05-03-2012, 15:07
Well, I think the blanket statement "religion harms scientific progress" isn't really justified.

I mean, you could make up a religion whose sole purpose was to get people to apply the scientific method.

What is justified, imho, is more along the lines of "There are tendencies in religious thought that in various situations can be detrimental to determining what the truth actually is, compared to using the scientific method in the same situation"

So, for instance, a Catholic organization donating money for research - I don't think anyone is going to call that detrimental.

Someone not liking the fact that they have a particular interpretation of the Bible and the findings of science aren't in line with that interpretation, and then acting on it? That's bad for us *as a whole* (even though it might be good for that particular person, or that person's religion).

Or, say, someone is looking at a problem and figures out a bunch of it, and then hits a harder bit, and rather than thinking about it goes to a "god of the gaps" argument. They don't learn more about it. (I think I saw somewhere that Newton did this, I think - instead of showing how the solar system could be stable, he just went "well, God's will must do it". However, it's possible I'm misremberering, or wherever I'm remembering it from didn't source it correctly or whatever)

I think when people say "Religion harms scientific progress", that's what they mean - not necessarily "Religion (or religious people) has/have never, ever helped human knowledge along in any situation whatsoever"

I agree

void *
05-03-2012, 15:09
It makes a difference because you attempt to change the wording of my statement in an attempt to change it's meaning during your back-pedal.

Bull. I used it meaning effectively the same thing, and now you're pedantically claiming that I'm somehow attempting to change the meaning.

I'm done arguing with you, Roering - anyone who honestly wants to know what I think about this can read my response to scccdoc in post #152.

Roering
05-03-2012, 16:03
Bull. I used it meaning effectively the same thing, and now you're pedantically claiming that I'm somehow attempting to change the meaning.

I'm done arguing with you, Roering - anyone who honestly wants to know what I think about this can read my response to scccdoc in post #152.

What was that you said about selective quoting?:wavey:

void *
05-03-2012, 16:07
What was that you said about selective quoting?:wavey:

Have you yet realized that I wasn't actually quoting you when I said "harm to science", and thus your charge that I've somehow misquoted you and/or somehow changed your statement is utter jank?

Hint: when I quote people, it's usually with QUOTE tags.

And yes, when I said "harm to science", i meant it in the context of our discussion - in other words, I did not mean it in a way that is substantially different to "harm to scientific progress".

And yes, when I stated that, you turned around and effectively told me that I didn't. Did I call it, or did I call it?

Have you read post #152?

Roering
05-03-2012, 16:39
Have you read post #152?

Yes I read the back pedal.

void *
05-03-2012, 16:41
Yes I read the back pedal

:upeyes:

Why is it that the more and more I talk to you, the less and less I think it's possible to have any sort of reasonable discussion with you?

Roering
05-03-2012, 17:04
:upeyes:

Why is it that the more and more I talk to you, the less and less I think it's possible to have any sort of reasonable discussion with you?

I partly explained it in post #140. The false assumption you made in regards to my posts in the thread about the T-shirt reaffirms it. Preconceived notions (stereotyping) based upon some sort of underlying prejudice hamper an open mind which makes it really difficult if not downright impossible to see another persons point of view because instead of listening/reading your too busy judging and assuming what it is that is being said/written. If one cannot do that, then the dialogue is really more like a monologue. I'm not thinking what you think I'm thinking. I'm not saying what you think I'm saying, and I'm demonstratively not typing what you think I'm typing (T-shirt thread). Because of that you get frustrated.

I'm sure you have great discussions with like minded people, or non like minded people who happen to fit your stereotype but just not me.

I'm not saying it's right, I'm not saying it's wrong. I'm just telling you how it is.

void *
05-03-2012, 17:31
I'm sure you have great discussions with like minded people, or non like minded people who happen to fit your stereotype but just not me.

I have great discussions with *differing* minded people when I don't get the impression that they'd rather make ad-homs than actually discuss things.

I have great discussions with *differing* minded people when they come from a position of understanding that, yeah, maybe somebody uses a word here and there, that's not the *exact* thing stated, but if they come back and clear up what they meant, it's fine. (as opposed to demanding that there's some sort of attempt to "change what they mean" or the like).

I have great discussions with *differing* minded people when they don't decide that they're going to declare victory rather than continue the conversation.

I'm sad that you're not one of those people, Roering, because given the intelligence you've put into making tactical debate plays, having such a discussion with you *might* actually be interesting. If you'd let it be.

Animal Mother
05-03-2012, 17:43
Do atheist's "foundations" provide grants and scholarships for college students?Yes. There are a quite a few explicitly atheist organizations which offer scholarships and many more that offer scholarships focused on the sciences.

Animal Mother
05-03-2012, 17:47
Well, please reread the title of the thread. My point is that religious organizations do help educate our future and therefore does not "harm" scientific progress. How much does ICR or AiG spend on unrestricted college scholarships in comparison to their spending on efforts to dismantle the sciences?

Pa.Bill
05-03-2012, 18:12
Did anyone notice that the title, of this conversation, is backwards?

Animal Mother
05-03-2012, 18:25
Did anyone notice that the title, of this conversation, is backwards? What's sad is that some people actually think that is true.

Gunhaver
05-03-2012, 20:15
I mean, you could make up a religion whose sole purpose was to get people to apply the scientific method.



Wouldn't that just be science? However, you may be on to something. If we made up an imaginary deity, perhaps the Great Magnet or the Quantum Spirit or something, it would be a great way to get the theists to finally understand (acknowledge really) the arguments we make against them when they turn them around on us.

juggy4711
05-03-2012, 20:42
So do these papers then prohibit or admonish said experiments due to being unethical? Is there an advisory board of some form within the scientific community that prohibits certain experiments from happening? Or a Hypothesis from being tested?

Actually they do and yes there are. The Belmont Report, Nuremberg Code and the Declaration of Helsinki are the primary examples in regards to "papers" on human research. Every location that does such research is required to have a Institutional Review Board comprised of medical experts, usually MDs and PHDs and to include laymen board members from the community. In addition Federally funded research is required to have Community Advisory Boards comprised completely of laymen. In the US the only thing more stringently regulated than research involving humans is research involving animals as they can not give informed consent.

All such locations are subject to a variety of Federal auditors in addition to sponsor audits.

...I'm seeing if Void can agree that the scientific community also "harms scientific progress". So far he has not been able to concede that point...

He should not have to and I am quite surprised someone else hasn't beat me to the punch. All of the ethical and moral restraints you insist on viewing as harming scientific progress have done no such thing. Those guidelines, procedures and laws have bettered science as to eliminate research that would prove harmful to science and the research subjects as well. Tying a woman's legs together while she gives birth isn't scientific, it's insane and sadistic.

Such experiments have no scientific merit what so ever. They were born from sick twisted minds that used and abused their scientific credentials and knowledge to justify the torture and maltreatment of other human beings for their own perverted pleasures.

Should such atrocities be allowed that would be a harm to science as folks would find it reprehensible and call for science to be done away with.

You know kind of like all the atrocities religion has inspired over the course of history have some wanting to limit and/or do away with religion. Fortunately science and some religions have taken to institute barriers, regulations and laws that prevent/punish such behaviors within their fields and the extinction of either is not necessary.

Your focus on the progress of science has harped on human research. I worked in that field for a decade. Human research isn't really one of the main fields where religion has harmed science. Far more often is has been things such as cosmology, classical physics/mechanics where God has been invoked to the detriment of scientific progress. As I said before, in science, "God did it" is and will forever be a waste of time and brain power.

void *
05-03-2012, 23:20
Wouldn't that just be science? However, you may be on to something. If we made up an imaginary deity, perhaps the Great Magnet or the Quantum Spirit or something, it would be a great way to get the theists to finally understand (acknowledge really) the arguments we make against them when they turn them around on us.

I mean sort of in the way that the Seldon Plan was set up as a religion in one of the early phases of that plan in the Foundation novels, but with knowledge being the thing that is held holy.

Maybe someone goes all El Ron Hubbard on us but the religion that person sets up requires, say, writing the equivalent of a Ph.D. thesis, rather than a whole bunch of cash, to advance into the "mysteries". Or something along those lines.

Gunhaver
05-04-2012, 03:30
I mean sort of in the way that the Seldon Plan was set up as a religion in one of the early phases of that plan in the Foundation novels, but with knowledge being the thing that is held holy.

Maybe someone goes all El Ron Hubbard on us but the religion that person sets up requires, say, writing the equivalent of a Ph.D. thesis, rather than a whole bunch of cash, to advance into the "mysteries". Or something along those lines.

We could have St. Einstein, St. Darwin, St. Newton, St. Faraday, etc. Or maybe Dawkins and Tyson on TV in $3000 suits and gold watches bilking the elderly out of money for research.

Geko45
05-04-2012, 07:07
Roering still hasn't tied this line of thought back to the topic of the thread. What's the point? That other factors impede research too? So what? How does that absolve religion from its negative impacts on science? It doesn't. This whole tangent has been nothing but a red herring.

void *
05-04-2012, 11:42
St. Faraday


For some reason I want him to be the patron saint of prisons.

Schabesbert
05-04-2012, 12:16
For some reason I want him to be the patron saint of prisons.
Or zoos.
Or domesticated birds.

Or 1960s go-go dancers.

void *
05-04-2012, 13:29
Yeah, I like the go-go dancers better than prisons, actually. :supergrin:

scccdoc
05-07-2012, 06:53
FFRF (Freedom From Religion Foundation) is one example that quickly turned up as offering scholarships. I'm sure that there are others, but I don't seek out "atheist" charities.

JDRF, Denver Children's Hospital, Fisher House, Wounded Warrior, and the American Red Cross are a few charities that I support.

-ArtificialGrape

We should all help those less fortunate than ourselves.Thanks, Grape.

scccdoc
05-07-2012, 06:59
It is possible to "educate" our youth while harming the advancement of science at the same time. E.g. I could imagine a scholarship to Moody Bible Institute "educating" our youth on rejecting science.

-ArtificialGrape

"imagine" is the operative word.

scccdoc
05-07-2012, 07:16
Yes. There are a quite a few explicitly atheist organizations which offer scholarships and many more that offer scholarships focused on the sciences.

I would be interested in knowing what they are. I've never said atheist were not compassionate.

scccdoc
05-07-2012, 07:19
How much does ICR or AiG spend on unrestricted college scholarships in comparison to their spending on efforts to dismantle the sciences?

You've got the floor, run with it.................

Animal Mother
05-07-2012, 22:56
I would be interested in knowing what they are. I've never said atheist were not compassionate.
James Randi Educational Foundation (http://www.randi.org/site/index.php/jref-scholarships.html)

American Atheists (http://atheists.org/scholarships)

Freedom from Religion Foundation (http://www.ffrf.org/outreach/student-essay-contests/high-school-essay-contest/)

National Atheist Party (http://www.usanap.org/news/nap-announces-four-scholarships.html/)

Animal Mother
05-07-2012, 22:56
You've got the floor, run with it.................I asked a question. That isn't an answer to the question asked.

Paul7
05-08-2012, 07:40
It is possible to "educate" our youth while harming the advancement of science at the same time. E.g. I could imagine a scholarship to Moody Bible Institute "educating" our youth on rejecting science.

-ArtificialGrape

Or at least your version of it. You have a real problem tolerating differing opinions.

ArtificialGrape
05-08-2012, 08:14
Or at least your version of it. You have a real problem tolerating differing opinions.

I don't have a problem with differing opinions, but the thread is"how religion harms scientific progress" thus my example.

If somebody has the opinion that Noah's Flood happened, and that God created all the species that we see today (and those that have gone extinct) at basically the same time because they have an old book of mythology that tells them so... fine.

When they feel compelled to abuse and reject science in an attempt to support their stories (while living in a world surrounded by the knowledge, comforts and conveniences afforded by science) then it becomes an issue.

When 1 in 8 high school biology teachers admits to illegally advancing Creationism in the classroom it's an issue.

-ArtificialGrape

muscogee
05-08-2012, 08:23
Should colleges teach that the Bible is literally true?

Paul7
05-08-2012, 10:11
I don't have a problem with differing opinions, but the thread is"how religion harms scientific progress" thus my example.

If somebody has the opinion that Noah's Flood happened, and that God created all the species that we see today (and those that have gone extinct) at basically the same time because they have an old book of mythology that tells them so... fine.

When they feel compelled to abuse and reject science in an attempt to support their stories (while living in a world surrounded by the knowledge, comforts and conveniences afforded by science) then it becomes an issue.

When 1 in 8 high school biology teachers admits to illegally advancing Creationism in the classroom it's an issue.

-ArtificialGrape

So believing there is evidence for design is now a 'crime'. And you guys complain about Galileo.

What does science offer someone on the verge of divorce, or who has just gotten a diagnosis of terminal cancer? Nothing. It can get us places faster, communicate better, live a few more years, and kill more effectively in wars, but it doesn't address the deepest longings of the human heart.

Paul7
05-08-2012, 10:12
Should colleges teach that the Bible is literally true?

Christian colleges do so regularly. I assume if you don't believe that you won't go to one of those.

Geko45
05-08-2012, 10:25
Christian colleges do so regularly. I assume if you don't believe that you won't go to one of those.

I went to one of those. That's why I'm now an athiest.

Gunhaver
05-08-2012, 11:02
So believing there is evidence for design is now a 'crime'. And you guys complain about Galileo.

Nobody said that. Nobody ever advocates criminalizing religion or beliefs of any sort in this forum. It's always about stopping religious intrusion into others lives and that's been made clear so many times.

What does science offer someone on the verge of divorce,
A new Corvette and some super thin condoms to get them back in the game? Or how about counseling based on psychological studies to determine what actually helps people feel better in those situations instead of just patting them on the head and saying, "There there, god will make it all OK."
or who has just gotten a diagnosis of terminal cancer? Nothing.
Really? Science has done nothing for cancer patients?
It can get us places faster, communicate better, live a few more years, and kill more effectively in wars, but it doesn't address the deepest longings of the human heart.

I have a deep longing in my heart to travel faster, communicate better, live longer, and own more powerful firearms with higher magazine capacities so science has served me well in those respects. I don't denounce it for it's lack of progress on all the silly things I can dream up.

muscogee
05-08-2012, 11:11
Christian colleges do so regularly. I assume if you don't believe that you won't go to one of those.

Should state run colleges, like Baylor, teach the Bible is literally true?

ArtificialGrape
05-08-2012, 12:18
So believing there is evidence for design is now a 'crime'.
Believing it a crime? No.
Teaching it as science in a public school a crime? Yes.

The distinction between what one can believe and what they teach in a public school should not be confusing. This is not rocket surgery.

What does science offer someone on the verge of divorce, or who has just gotten a diagnosis of terminal cancer? Nothing... it doesn't address the deepest longings of the human heart.
Right, which seems to be a pretty strong case for why every culture has created their own god/religions. Science is not meant to be a Consoling Proposition.

-ArtificialGrape

Geko45
05-08-2012, 12:24
Really? Science has done nothing for cancer patients?

Other than reducing the total number of terminal cancer patients, science hasn't done a damn thing!

:whistling:

void *
05-08-2012, 12:43
Well yes obviously reducing the total number of terminal cancer patients goes without saying. But apart from the aqueduct, the sanitation and the reduction in terminal cancer patients ...

Geko45
05-08-2012, 12:56
What does science offer someone on the verge of divorce, or who has just gotten a diagnosis of terminal cancer? Nothing.

To more seriously respond to this point (what does science do for mental health and feelings of well being), I find the knowledge that we've acquired about the nature of the universe to be a much more comforting "truth" than the dogma of any religion.

The thought that I played a small part in this cosmic stage is awe inspiring to me. inversely, before I abandoned religion, the thought of being a mere cog in some supreme deity's plan, a plan which he never felt the need to share with me, was like coarse sand paper on my conscious mind.

muscogee
05-08-2012, 13:27
So believing there is evidence for design is now a 'crime'. And you guys complain about Galileo.

What does science offer someone on the verge of divorce, or who has just gotten a diagnosis of terminal cancer? Nothing. It can get us places faster, communicate better, live a few more years, and kill more effectively in wars, but it doesn't address the deepest longings of the human heart.

What does religion do except fill them full of BS? That's worse than nothing because when the inevitable happens, they blame themselves for their lack of faith when it was their faith that gave them false hopes the lifted them higher before dropping them. In addition to grief, they now have guilt to deal with as well. Thank you Jesus.

Brasso
05-08-2012, 13:44
How long are you guys going to keep stating evolution as a fact when there is zero evidence for it? No intermediate species have eve been found (that haven't been faked). There's more proof of creation than evolution. A book written 4000 years ago that describes the big bang, tell us when the earth was formed, when the animals were formed, that all matches with archeology and paleontology, yet you call it a "magic book". Then you scream about that same magic book discrediting a theory that has never been proven and is based purely on speculation.

Whatever. Why did I even get involved in this stupidity again.

scccdoc
05-08-2012, 14:23
James Randi Educational Foundation (http://www.randi.org/site/index.php/jref-scholarships.html)

American Atheists (http://atheists.org/scholarships)

Freedom from Religion Foundation (http://www.ffrf.org/outreach/student-essay-contests/high-school-essay-contest/)

National Atheist Party (http://www.usanap.org/news/nap-announces-four-scholarships.html/)

Thanks AM

scccdoc
05-08-2012, 14:25
I asked a question. That isn't an answer to the question asked.

If you know the answer, post it. If not ,feel free to look it up.

Geko45
05-08-2012, 15:01
How long are you guys going to keep stating evolution as a fact when there is zero evidence for it? No intermediate species have eve been found (that haven't been faked). There's more proof of creation than evolution. A book written 4000 years ago that describes the big bang, tell us when the earth was formed, when the animals were formed, that all matches with archeology and paleontology, yet you call it a "magic book". Then you scream about that same magic book discrediting a theory that has never been proven and is based purely on speculation.

This whole post is a textbook example of how religion harms scientific progress.

Gunhaver
05-08-2012, 16:19
How long are you guys going to keep stating evolution as a fact when there is zero evidence for it? No intermediate species have eve been found (that haven't been faked). There's more proof of creation than evolution. A book written 4000 years ago that describes the big bang, tell us when the earth was formed, when the animals were formed, that all matches with archeology and paleontology, yet you call it a "magic book". Then you scream about that same magic book discrediting a theory that has never been proven and is based purely on speculation.

Whatever. Why did I even get involved in this stupidity again.

You've only ever looked at one side of the story. Someone tells you in a seminar or bible study or something that horse evolution was proven false or that carbon dating is flawed and tons of other nonsense that you never bother to objectively verify. I was fed the same garbage myself at one time, heard all the same talking points I hear here and more and I decided to start breaking those points down and taking them apart not with a simple opposite opinion but with actual scientific data that was backed up and lined up and in agreement with so much other data from so many other fields of study that the vast science conspiracy BS I'd been fed by my church fell away bit by bit like the matrix being scraped from a fossil.

As I've said so many times before, the information is out there easily searched up if you really want to know. There's a reason that atheists know both sides of the story while theists only know one, because we came from your side over here once we decided to objectively look at all the information. It's kind of a red pill sort of situation. You'll find out the truth but you may not like it and you can never go back.

So stay comfortably hooked up to the theism machine while they drain you if you prefer, I'm gonna keep looking for the bottom of this rabbit hole.

Animal Mother
05-08-2012, 16:52
How long are you guys going to keep stating evolution as a fact when there is zero evidence for it? No intermediate species have eve been found (that haven't been faked). There's more proof of creation than evolution. A book written 4000 years ago that describes the big bang, tell us when the earth was formed, when the animals were formed, that all matches with archeology and paleontology, yet you call it a "magic book". Then you scream about that same magic book discrediting a theory that has never been proven and is based purely on speculation.

Whatever. Why did I even get involved in this stupidity again.
Were you challenging yourself to see how many falsehoods you could pack into a single paragraph? If so, well done.

juggy4711
05-08-2012, 17:03
Well yes obviously reducing the total number of terminal cancer patients goes without saying. But apart from the aqueduct, the sanitation and the reduction in terminal cancer patients ...

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=ExWfh6sGyso

ksg0245
05-08-2012, 18:03
How long are you guys going to keep stating evolution as a fact when there is zero evidence for it?

As long it remains a fact, and as long as people keep claiming there is zero evidence for it, when in fact there abundant evidence for it.

No intermediate species have eve been found (that haven't been faked).

False.

There's more proof of creation than evolution.

False.

A book written 4000 years ago that describes the big bang, tell us when the earth was formed, when the animals were formed, that all matches with archeology and paleontology,

False.

yet you call it a "magic book".

Because that's essentially what it is.

Then you scream about that same magic book discrediting a theory that has never been proven

Except for all that evidence and observation.

and is based purely on speculation.

And evidence and observation.

Whatever. Why did I even get involved in this stupidity again.

Paul7
05-09-2012, 17:35
Should state run colleges, like Baylor, teach the Bible is literally true?

Baylor is a private, Christian university. Should they not be able to teach what they want?

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Baylor_University

Paul7
05-09-2012, 17:36
I went to one of those. That's why I'm now an athiest.

And a number of people have converted to Christ while attending secular schools. So what?

Paul7
05-09-2012, 17:38
What does religion do except fill them full of BS? That's worse than nothing because when the inevitable happens, they blame themselves for their lack of faith when it was their faith that gave them false hopes the lifted them higher before dropping them. In addition to grief, they now have guilt to deal with as well. Thank you Jesus.

True, if you are right on the hereafter. I don't think you are.

Paul7
05-09-2012, 17:40
Believing it a crime? No.
Teaching it as science in a public school a crime? Yes.


Considering that some proponents of Intelligent Design are atheists, what religion would be established by teaching ID in public schools?

Was Thomas Jefferson a criminal for including the Bible as a textbook in DC schools?

Right, which seems to be a pretty strong case for why every culture has created their own god/religions.

Either that, or God has implanted an idea of Himself on human hearts. Now where does it say that?

Animal Mother
05-09-2012, 18:22
Baylor is a private, Christian university. Should they not be able to teach what they want?Sure. But if they teach something that's factually untrue, that should be pointed out and their degrees in those fields should be considered worthless.

Animal Mother
05-09-2012, 18:33
Considering that some proponents of Intelligent Design are atheists, what religion would be established by teaching ID in public schools? Considering that the Discovery Institute has admitted that ID is nothing but a smokescreen for Christian creationism, it would be Christianity.
Was Thomas Jefferson a criminal for including the Bible as a textbook in DC schools? Since he did no such thing, the question isn't relevant. You should really depend on actual historians, not Barton. To quote Jefferson's actual position, " The first stage of this education being the schools of the hundreds, wherein the great mass of the people will receive their instruction, the principal foundations of future order will be laid here. Instead therefore of putting the Bible and Testament into the hands of the children, at an age when their judgments are not sufficiently matured for religious enquiries, their memories may here be stored with the most useful facts from Grecian, Roman, European and American history. The first elements of morality too may be instilled into their minds; such as, when further developed as their judgments advance in strength, may teach them how to work out their own greatest happiness, by shewing them that it does not depend on the condition of life in which chance has placed them, but is always the result of a good conscience, good health, occupation, and freedom in all just pursuits. "(Thomas Jefferson, The administration of justice and description of the laws? (http://etext.virginia.edu/etcbin/ot2www-singleauthor?specfile=/web/data/jefferson/texts/jefall.o2w&act=text&offset=8258529&textreg=1&query=bible))
Either that, or God has implanted an idea of Himself on human hearts. Now where does it say that? How would this be different than claiming that Odin has implanted himself on human hearts? Or spleens for that matter.

juggy4711
05-09-2012, 18:48
Considering that some proponents of Intelligent Design are atheists...

How is it possible to be an atheist and believe in Intelligent Design?

muscogee
05-09-2012, 20:19
True, if you are right on the hereafter. I don't think you are.

Changing the subject again.

void *
05-09-2012, 23:45
How is it possible to be an atheist and believe in Intelligent Design?

As a matter of technicality, you could invoke panspermia and/or exogenesis, but then you're really just making the question 'How did *that* life come into being?'.

As a matter of practicality, ID is basically an attempt by Christian creationists to frame their views in such a way that they can get forced into the public school systems. Dembski's made statements about it being the Christian God, etc.

As a matter of curiosity, I'd like to see if Paul7 can give actual names rather than just invoking unnamed, unverifiable atheists.

scccdoc
05-10-2012, 06:47
Considering that the Discovery Institute has admitted that ID is nothing but a smokescreen for Christian creationism, it would be Christianity.
Since he did no such thing, the question isn't relevant. You should really depend on actual historians, not Barton. To quote Jefferson's actual position, " The first stage of this education being the schools of the hundreds, wherein the great mass of the people will receive their instruction, the principal foundations of future order will be laid here. Instead therefore of putting the Bible and Testament into the hands of the children, at an age when their judgments are not sufficiently matured for religious enquiries, their memories may here be stored with the most useful facts from Grecian, Roman, European and American history. The first elements of morality too may be instilled into their minds; such as, when further developed as their judgments advance in strength, may teach them how to work out their own greatest happiness, by shewing them that it does not depend on the condition of life in which chance has placed them, but is always the result of a good conscience, good health, occupation, and freedom in all just pursuits. "(Thomas Jefferson, The administration of justice and description of the laws? (http://etext.virginia.edu/etcbin/ot2www-singleauthor?specfile=/web/data/jefferson/texts/jefall.o2w&act=text&offset=8258529&textreg=1&query=bible))How would this be different than claiming that Odin has implanted himself on human hearts? Or spleens for that matter.

Funny, you didn't rely on the "actual historians" presented in "The Case for Christ". You want it both ways?

Paul7
05-10-2012, 07:19
As a matter of technicality, you could invoke panspermia and/or exogenesis, but then you're really just making the question 'How did *that* life come into being?'.

As a matter of practicality, ID is basically an attempt by Christian creationists to frame their views in such a way that they can get forced into the public school systems. Dembski's made statements about it being the Christian God, etc.

As a matter of curiosity, I'd like to see if Paul7 can give actual names rather than just invoking unnamed, unverifiable atheists.

Here's one:

Amazon.com: Seeking God in Science: An Atheist Defends Intelligent Design (9781551118635): Bradley Monton: Books@@AMEPARAM@@http://ecx.images-amazon.com/images/I/41BUr8zSONL.@@AMEPARAM@@41BUr8zSONL

He would probably say life came from outer space.

Japle
05-10-2012, 08:07
Linky no worky.

Paul7
05-10-2012, 09:06
Linky no worky.

Hit the one below the book.

void *
05-10-2012, 09:27
Here's one:

Amazon.com: Seeking God in Science: An Atheist Defends Intelligent Design (9781551118635): Bradley Monton: Books (http://www.amazon.com/Seeking-God-Science-Atheist-Intelligent/dp/1551118637)

He would probably say life came from outer space.

Yeah, I figured you might point at Bradley Monton. The problem you have is, if you actually read what he writes, you don't get the impression that he's a proponent of intelligent design, more that he thinks people are making the wrong arguments against it, and that he thinks it's something valid to be discussing, but also states things that would tend to indicate he doesn't believe it to be true.

For instance, he wrote a paper (http://spot.colorado.edu/~monton/BradleyMonton/Articles_files/FT%20paper%20BJPS.pdf) where he talks about the fine tuning argument, determines what he thinks is the best version of that argument, yet still concludes his paper with the words "It is reasonable to hold that the fine-tuning evidence does not provide evidence for the existence of God."

You could also look at his blog (http://bradleymonton.wordpress.com/category/intelligent-design/), read it for a bit, and note that there are repeated statements along the lines of "I’m obviously not the only educated person who thinks that Behe’s arguments are worth discussing (even though I think they’re wrong)" - emphasis mine).

That doesn't look like a proponent of ID, that looks like a guy who thinks it's interesting to discuss and doesn't want to reject it out of hand. Which is (imho) a fine position to hold for a philosophy professor.

Paul7
05-10-2012, 09:43
Yeah, I figured you might point at Bradley Monton. The problem you have is, if you actually read what he writes, you don't get the impression that he's a proponent of intelligent design, more that he thinks people are making the wrong arguments against it, and that he thinks it's something valid to be discussing, but also states things that would tend to indicate he doesn't believe it to be true.

For instance, he wrote a paper (http://spot.colorado.edu/~monton/BradleyMonton/Articles_files/FT%20paper%20BJPS.pdf) where he talks about the fine tuning argument, determines what he thinks is the best version of that argument, yet still concludes his paper with the words "It is reasonable to hold that the fine-tuning evidence does not provide evidence for the existence of God."

You could also look at his blog (http://bradleymonton.wordpress.com/category/intelligent-design/), read it for a bit, and note that there are repeated statements along the lines of "I’m obviously not the only educated person who thinks that Behe’s arguments are worth discussing (even though I think they’re wrong)" - emphasis mine).

That doesn't look like a proponent of ID, that looks like a guy who thinks it's interesting to discuss and doesn't want to reject it out of hand. Which is (imho) a fine position to hold for a philosophy professor.

Yes, he thinks there are valid points to ID, and doesn't want it to be rejected out of hand, which real science wouldn't do. There is a reason the book is called "An Atheist Defends Intelligent Design". From one of the book reviews:

"In this chapter he says he doesn't so much care if intelligent design is science or not, what the real question is, is "Is it true?" He maintains this is the question we should all be asking. I agree. He then analyzes a few different intelligent design arguments, weighing the objections to them, and the objections to the objections. In the end he maintains that he finds some of them plausible, even if they haven't quite convinced him."

That is a long way from the knee-jerk reactions to ID we get from atheists on GTRI.

void *
05-10-2012, 10:14
"... In the end he maintains that he finds some of them plausible, even if they haven't quite convinced him."

That is a long way from the knee-jerk reactions to ID we get from atheists on GTRI.


It is also a long way from being a "proponent", and let's not forget that you are bringing him up because you asserted the following, and were asked to name such atheists:

Considering that some proponents of Intelligent Design are atheists, what religion would be established by teaching ID in public schools?

You have still not given even *one* name that can truthfully be called a "proponent".

You're also forgetting that at least some of the atheists on this board (including myself) have stated they would have no problem with ID being discussed in a philosophy class.

Animal Mother
05-10-2012, 12:03
Funny, you didn't rely on the "actual historians" presented in "The Case for Christ". You want it both ways? Which actual historians would that be? Just to be clear, I don't depend on the historians, I depend on their arguments and evidence. Barton has just repeatedly shown that his arguments and claims can't be trusted and that his evidence is either misrepresented or non-existent.

scccdoc
05-10-2012, 12:05
Which actual historians would that be? Just to be clear, I don't depend on the historians, I depend on their arguments and evidence. Barton has just repeatedly shown that his arguments and claims can't be trusted and that his evidence is either misrepresented or non-existent.

I thought you read the book. or am I mistaken?

Animal Mother
05-10-2012, 12:15
Yes, he thinks there are valid points to ID, and doesn't want it to be rejected out of hand, which real science wouldn't do. Real science doesn't. Real science says, find a testable hypothesis and we'll explore it. Despite the claims of the last 20 years, ID still hasn't done that.

As it stands now, if ID has any place in an academic setting, it is in a philosophy class, not a science one.

Animal Mother
05-10-2012, 12:18
I thought you read the book. or am I mistaken? Yes, I have, and I repeat the question. Which actual historians would that be?

Paul7
05-10-2012, 13:35
Real science doesn't. Real science says, find a testable hypothesis and we'll explore it. Despite the claims of the last 20 years, ID still hasn't done that.

As it stands now, if ID has any place in an academic setting, it is in a philosophy class, not a science one.

Some scientists disagree with you. It seems to be a science vs. science dispute.

void *
05-10-2012, 13:55
Some scientists disagree with you.

Please name these scientists and the testable hypotheses that they propose.

Paul7
05-10-2012, 13:58
Please name these scientists and the testable hypotheses that they propose.

First tell me your testable hypothesis of what caused the Big Bang, or how the first non-life became life.

:popcorn:

Animal Mother
05-10-2012, 13:59
Some scientists disagree with you. Which scientists? Show me some actual hypotheses based on ID and we can discuss them.
It seems to be a science vs. science dispute.Not until ID proves it is actually science. Again, that hasn't happened, despite 20 years of claiming otherwise.

Animal Mother
05-10-2012, 14:03
First tell me your testable hypothesis of what caused the Big Bang, or how the first non-life became life. You made the claim, "Some scientists disagree with you." Are you admitting you can't back that claim up?

scccdoc
05-10-2012, 14:15
Yes, I have, and I repeat the question. Which actual historians would that be?

Tacitus, Josephus and others.Of course in antiquity, they didn't have ID cards.I assume that would be your "evidence".

Animal Mother
05-10-2012, 14:39
Tacitus, Josephus and others.Of course in antiquity, they didn't have ID cards.I assume that would be your "evidence". Let's examine them. Josephus tells us that a man named Jesus lived, which is far from verifying the Bible or being a "Case for Christ". Tacitus relates that there were Christians in Rome during the second century CE, something no one disputes. These are, as you point out, the best examples of historical accounts of Jesus and neither one verifies any of the Gospel accounts.

Barton, on the other hand, simply lies when it suits his purposes.

scccdoc
05-10-2012, 14:46
James Randi Educational Foundation (http://www.randi.org/site/index.php/jref-scholarships.html)
Narine E. Wandrey
Undergraduate Award
$1,000

American Atheists (http://atheists.org/scholarships)
The Founders' Scholarship grants a first place award of $2000 and runner-up award of $1000 to atheist students going to college

Freedom from Religion Foundation (http://www.ffrf.org/outreach/student-essay-contests/high-school-essay-contest/)
First Place: Herbert Bushong Award — $3,000
Second Place — $2,000
Third Place — $1,000
Fourth Place — $500
Fifth Place — $300
Honorable Mention(s) — $200


National Atheist Party (http://www.usanap.org/news/nap-announces-four-scholarships.html/)
Four awards of $1,000 will be available, one award to a college and one to high school student for both scholarships.



impressive

scccdoc
05-10-2012, 14:54
Let's examine them. Josephus tells us that a man named Jesus lived, which is far from verifying the Bible or being a "Case for Christ". Tacitus relates that there were Christians in Rome during the second century CE, something no one disputes. These are, as you point out, the best examples of historical accounts of Jesus and neither one verifies any of the Gospel accounts.

Barton, on the other hand, simply lies when it suits his purposes.
So the above men have no historical relevance?I didn't realize they were required to "verify" Gospel accounts, they verified Jesus. We were talking about "historians", correct.Cannot an unbiased account carry weight? Or is it if only it is weight that supports what little documentation you have (if any) that Jesus did not live and did not perform miracles and did not rise from the dead ?????????????

I'd say the Bible IS verified, even by your own account and yes they verify the Gospels.

Animal Mother
05-10-2012, 15:17
So the above men have no historical relevance? Where did I say that? Could you point out the specific post?
I didn't realize they were required to "verify" Gospel accounts, they verified Jesus. If you want to cite them as part of a "Case for Christ" verifying the Gospel accounts seems like a fairly important step.
We were talking about "historians", correct.Cannot an unbiased account carry weight? Or is it if only it is weight that supports what little documentation you have (if any) that Jesus did not live and did not perform miracles and did not rise from the dead ????????????? I didn't ever say that their work should be ignored, did I? Neither of the individuals you've cited verify anything other than that there was a man named Jesus with a brother named James (which in itself is a problem for a segment of Christianity) and that there were Christians in Rome during the 2nd century.
I'd say the Bible IS verified, even by your own account and yes they verify the Gospels.You'd be wrong. No one has claimed there is absolutely nothing true in the Bible, but the existence of Jerusalem doesn't lend veracity to the claimed miracles attributed to Christ or any of the other
supernatural accounts of scripture.

void *
05-10-2012, 15:51
First tell me your testable hypothesis of what caused the Big Bang

I don't need to, because I've never claimed that there is a testable hypothesis for a "cause" of the big bang, and in fact, current physics (to my understanding) states that we would not be able to conclusively determine such a cause, or if such a cause is even required at all. The fact that you're asking for such a hypothesis indicates that you either don't actually understand what the big bang theory states, or you're intentionally ignoring what it states to attempt to avoid having to answer my question.

or how the first non-life became life.

There are several abiogenesis hypotheses, none of them have reached the point of being an accepted theory. You may find a list of them at http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Abiogenesis .

Now, I eagerly await your answer to my question: Please name these scientists, that you claim disagree that ID hasn't resulted in testable hypotheses, and the testable hypotheses that they propose.

Failing that, I suppose I'll get another obvious attempt to avoid answering it.

juggy4711
05-10-2012, 17:47
I don't need to, because I've never claimed that there is a testable hypothesis for a "cause" of the big bang, and in fact, current physics (to my understanding) states that we would not be able to conclusively determine such a cause, or if such a cause is even required at all. ...

That would be correct. If we could look back far enough, and one day we may be able to, the physics indicates that the universe becomes opaque long before the BB occurred preventing us from witnessing the actual event much less determining a cause. Scientifically determining a cause isn't likely possible and could very well be of no practical value.

As for proof that it occurred, the cosmic background radiation is generally the primary example used.

scccdoc
05-10-2012, 19:42
Where did I say that? Could you point out the specific post?
If you want to cite them as part of a "Case for Christ" verifying the Gospel accounts seems like a fairly important step.
I didn't ever say that their work should be ignored, did I? Neither of the individuals you've cited verify anything other than that there was a man named Jesus with a brother named James (which in itself is a problem for a segment of Christianity) and that there were Christians in Rome during the 2nd century.
You'd be wrong. No one has claimed there is absolutely nothing true in the Bible, but the existence of Jerusalem doesn't lend veracity to the claimed miracles attributed to Christ or any of the other
supernatural accounts of scripture.
Glad you admit that a historian account from "A Case For has validityChrist"
Nice twist!
I'll let you review....................

juggy4711
05-10-2012, 20:13
Glad you admit that a historian account from "A Case For has validityChrist"
Nice twist!
I'll let you review....................

? As written your post is unintelligible.

Animal Mother
05-10-2012, 22:39
Glad you admit that a historian account from "A Case For has validityChrist"
Nice twist!
I'll let you review....................Review what exactly? I've never claimed otherwise, but you seem to be ignoring the larger picture. Josephus and Tacitus may be part of a case for Jesus and for Christians respectively, but neither makes a case for Christ.

juggy4711
05-10-2012, 23:24
Review what exactly? I've never claimed otherwise, but you seem to be ignoring the larger picture. Josephus and Tacitus may be part of a case for Jesus and for Christians respectively, but neither makes a case for Christ.

You realize you are responding to gibberish?

scccdoc
05-14-2012, 07:07
Review what exactly? I've never claimed otherwise, but you seem to be ignoring the larger picture. Josephus and Tacitus may be part of a case for Jesus and for Christians respectively, but neither makes a case for Christ.


Individually, no. A brick wall is composed of many bricks.

scccdoc
05-14-2012, 07:09
? As written your post is unintelligible.

I think the post was understood. I admit that I am a terrible typist AND rarely proofread.................