There is no conflict between religion and science. Never has been.

[Cardinal Carminative]

Yes, many religious people disagree with many of the things that they scientific community says about the origins of the diversity of life on this planet. Disagreement and conflict are two different things.

For example, suppose two twins at a zoo see a Giraffe. One twin says, "Another sign of the glory of God! In His wisdom, He blessed the giraffe with that long neck for eating leaves." The other twin says, "This giraffe evolved from a giraffe-like animal with a short neck. As proto-giraffes were born, the ones with slightly longer necks survived better and passed on their slightly longer neck gene. This continued until we have the long-necked wonder we see before us." They pause, and then say simultaneously, as twins will, "Agree to disagree!"

That's not a conflict. It is only when one tries to force the other to accept an unacceptable belief that the conflict begins.

Those perceived conflicts most often arise when the person who perceives the conflict is upset that they other person will not agree to change their opinion at the perceiver's demand.

I think we can actually all agree with that. But that is precisely what the Creationist crowd wanted to do. They wanted equal time with actual proven science just because they felt they were "special".

But YEC and Creationism isn't science. It is purely religion.

So long as these "non-overlapping magesteria" of Gould remain non-overlapping things will be fine.

 

[Seymour Flops]

I think we can actually all agree with that. But that is precisely what the Creationist crowd wanted to do. They wanted equal time with actual proven science just because they felt they were "special".

It was not "proven science," but yes. Creationists wanted public school using tax dollars to pretend that their religion is science. That is science conflicting with authoritarianism draped in religion.

On the other hand, some parent have only asked that their kids be excused from science lessons that conflict with their religion. Those reasonable requests were refused because the parents were fundamentalist Christians. Any other religion, including Satanism, is accommodated by public school. But that still was not an example of science conflicting with religion. That is authoritarianism draped in science conflicting with religion.

But YEC and Creationism isn't science. It is purely religion.

Yes.

So long as these "non-overlapping magesteria" of Gould remain non-overlapping things will be fine.

Not familiar with that. I'll look into it.

 

[Cardinal Carminative]

On the other hand, some parent have only asked that their kids be excused from science lessons that conflict with their religion.

I guess that then comes to the important question of: what is important to know in a modern technological society. If we agree that biology and geology are NOT important information or that biology and geology are such a useless fields that we can effectively supplant anyone's personal opinions and imaginary versions of it with the real thing then we are good to go.

But if there is value in our understanding biology or geology then we have a duty to teach it to children.

Those reasonable requests were refused because the parents were fundamentalist Christians. Any other religion, including Satanism, is accommodated by public school.

I HIGHLY doubt there was any "accomodation" to Satanism in the same manner as what the Creationists wanted. If the Satanists said they don't want kids to learn about physics I suspect that they would have hit the same lack of accomodation.

But that still was not an example of science conflicting with religion. That is authoritarianism draped in science conflicting with religion.

The only "authoritarianism" in science is what happens when data accumulates to a point that one has to accept the hypothesis it is very hard to deny that science. But since science NEVER claims anything with 100% perfect proof (unlike Religion which ONLY claims 100% perfected truth) there can't really be an "authoritarianism" in science per se.

Not familiar with that. I'll look into it.

Yeah, Stephen J. Gould suggested that religion and science are non-overlapping magesteria. It's a nice detente between the two, but there are points of contact which still have difficulties.

 

[FA_Q2]

Yes, many religious people disagree with many of the things that they scientific community says about the origins of the diversity of life on this planet. Disagreement and conflict are two different things.

For example, suppose two twins at a zoo see a Giraffe. One twin says, "Another sign of the glory of God! In His wisdom, He blessed the giraffe with that long neck for eating leaves." The other twin says, "This giraffe evolved from a giraffe-like animal with a short neck. As proto-giraffes were born, the ones with slightly longer necks survived better and passed on their slightly longer neck gene. This continued until we have the long-necked wonder we see before us." They pause, and then say simultaneously, as twins will, "Agree to disagree!"

That's not a conflict. It is only when one tries to force the other to accept an unacceptable belief that the conflict begins.

No.

That IS conflict, the two worldviews disagree and therefore conflict. That the twins chose to ignore the conflict is certainly a solution though a rather poor one.

But at the end of the day, there is a conflict contrary to the assertion you are making in the OP. That conflict has real world implications as well considering there are entire fields of research and understanding that rely on those base assertions. We see them play out in real time constantly.

 

[Seymour Flops]

I guess that then comes to the important question of: what is important to know in a modern technological society.

Which then leads to the even more important question of who decides what is important for an adult, or a child of an adult to know. If the answer is "that adult, or the adult responsible for that child, most often a parent," then we would make one decision about accommodating a religious belief that disagreed with a particular curriculum. If we decide that parent do not decide that, but rather some government authority figure, then we would make a different decision about that.

Who do you think should make those decisions?

If we agree that biology and geology are NOT important information or that biology and geology are such a useless fields that we can effectively supplant anyone's personal opinions and imaginary versions of it with the real thing then we are good to go.

We were talking about evolution specifically, not biology as a whole. But, I suppose the same principle would apply if a parent wanted their child not be taught any biology at all. I don't know of any religion that objects to the basic "head bone connected to the neck bone" biology.

I did once know a young man whose parents belonged to a religion that taught that they body is an illusion, therefore sickness isn't real. Maybe his parents would have not wanted him to be taught biology. If so, there is plenty of non-biological science in the universe with which to complete a required science credit. Why would that be a big deal?

But if there is value in our understanding biology or geology then we have a duty to teach it to children.

If you were in the park and the parents on the bench across from you were telling their child about God creating the animals and Adam and Eve, would you have a duty to speak up and explain to the kids your own take on that story, and the truth of evolutionary science?

If not, what principle prevents you from having a duty to do that?

I HIGHLY doubt there was any "accomodation" to Satanism in the same manner as what the Creationists wanted. If the Satanists said they don't want kids to learn about physics I suspect that they would have hit the same lack of accomodation.

Well, no. Satanists would not ask to be accommodated in the same way that Fundamentalist Christians ask to be accommodated. But the schools will accommodate the Satanists and not the Fundamentalist Christians. I've never had a Satanist student whose parents asked for their beliefs to be accommodated, but if they did, I'm sure I could find a way.

I teach a lot of first generation immigrants from Mexico and a surprising (to me) number of them are members of a religion that does not allow them to celebrate Halloween, nor their birthdays. As a behavior teacher, I often reward students with bite sized candy that I provide in a plastic Halloween pumpkin. I also use birthdays as an opportunity to encourage the kids to grow tf up, but in more professional terms, of course. I keep a plain basket to accommodate students whose parents object, and I don't make a big deal when such a child has a birthday; I give them the grow up talk at the end of a semester instead.

That doesn't seem like creeping theocracy to me, it seems like plain common sense and respect for others.

The only "authoritarianism" in science is what happens when data accumulates to a point that one has to accept the hypothesis it is very hard to deny that science. But since science NEVER claims anything with 100% perfect proof (unlike Religion which ONLY claims 100% perfected truth) there can't really be an "authoritarianism" in science per se.

Right! That's what I said.

Science offers its truths, which are conditional truths that may change with new information. Actual scientists do not go around buttonholing people with Bibles in their hands to dissuade them of the myths therein. Not even Richard Dawkins does that, AFAK. You read his books or don't.

So, when someone says WTTE of, "sit down and listen to my science and keep your mouth shut if you disagree," that is not science. That is authoritarianism draping itself with the mantle of science.

Yeah, Stephen J. Gould suggested that religion and science are non-overlapping magesteria. It's a nice detente between the two, but there are points of contact which still have difficulties.

I've never heard that term, nor read any Stephen J. Gould. I just did a brief search, and it appears that his NOM is pretty much what I said in the OP.

I'll read more of him, thanks!

 

[rightnow909]

Except for the Democratic Party

oh, you mean Nothing more LYING than the D party

fixed that 4 ya

 

[Seymour Flops]

No.

That IS conflict, the two worldviews disagree and therefore conflict. That the twins chose to ignore the conflict is certainly a solution though a rather poor one.

What would you have them do?

But at the end of the day, there is a conflict contrary to the assertion you are making in the OP. That conflict has real world implications as well considering there are entire fields of research and understanding that rely on those base assertions. We see them play out in real time constantly.

You are using the word "conflict" in the widest possible definition, which would include disagreement.

We can never end disagreement in the world. So, we need a way to deal with disagreement. The best way is simply to respect those disagreements.

 

[Cardinal Carminative]

Which then leads to the even more important question of who decides what is important for an adult, or a child of an adult to know.

I'm going to suggest that it is more important to know factual, testable concepts than it is to know unfalsifiable superstitions. But I also understand that some people get great comfort from unfalsifiable superstitions so I can't completely take out its value to some people.

Who do you think should make those decisions?

Pedagogues.

We were talking about evolution specifically, not biology as a whole.

But biology is predicated on evolution.

But, I suppose the same principle would apply if a parent wanted their child not be taught any biology at all. I don't know of any religion that objects to the basic "head bone connected to the neck bone" biology.

That's called "buffet science". When one picks and chooses those aspects of science one isn't afraid of it doesn't mean one is learning actual science.

If you were in the park and the parents on the bench across from you were telling their child about God creating the animals and Adam and Eve, would you have a duty to speak up and explain to the kids your own take on that story, and the truth of evolutionary science?

I have a very good friend whose wife ended up being VERY religious in a sorta-fundamentalist sect. They started taking their kids to the "Ark Encounters" in Kentucky. It's the "museum" set up to show kids how dinosaurs and people co-existed. It is a "young earth" trash dump of unadulterated junk.

My friend knew I had done my doctorate in geology and so when he told me this I said "If your kids ever want to talk about the history of the earth from a scientific point of view please let me know. I will be glad to do so." But they never did.

I supposed the kids turned out OK. I don't really know them. But it pained me to no end to realize that literally everything I had spent my life up to that point studying was just a big "joke" to them. I asked the wife once and her response was some flippant thing that she didn't really care one way or the other about the age of the earth, but her kids were being exposed to this over and over and over.

Is it good? I don't think so. But I would never criticize my friend's parenting choices. I am not a parent.

It did hurt, though.

Science offers its truths, which are conditional truths that may change with new information. Actual scientists do not go around buttonholing people with Bibles in their hands to dissuade them of the myths therein. Not even Richard Dawkins does that, AFAK. You read his books or don't.

Well, actually some of the "new atheists" like Dawkins, Hitchens and Harris were closer to "proselytizing" than not, but your point is otherwise reasonably accurate. It isn't anyone's job to knock the religious faith out of anyone's mind. But the key is that "religious truth" is never questioned until the person winds up questioning literally EVERYTHING ABOUT THAT WORLD VIEW. My approach to atheism was effectively that. I had spent 30+ years as a believing practicing Christian. But the more I thought about the faith, the more I realized the corrosive effect it was having on me (not necessarily all Christians, but some of us), and then reading the Bible and realizing there really was no "universal truth" to be found. There was just more stuff written by other HUMANS telling me what was behind the curtain.

WIth science one can question "truths" and sometimes those truths fail! One doesn't then abandon all of science! That's because science is BUILT TO ADAPT to new information. Religion is not.

It's a difference in philosophy but it's also a difference in source of knowledge.

 

[Seymour Flops]

I'm going to suggest that it is more important to know factual, testable concepts than it is to know unfalsifiable superstitions. But I also understand that some people get great comfort from unfalsifiable superstitions so I can't completely take out its value to some people.

Very . . . kind of you?

Pedagogues.

I guess I should like that! I'm a pedagogue. Had to be certified in pedagogy in order to become a Texas teacher. So, I can make decisions about what it important to know? And have those decisions enforced by the state?

Like I could decide what is important for you, Cardinal Caminative, to know, and you'll be fine with it?

But biology is predicated on evolution.

I do not believe that is true at all. I've heard that many times and asked how it is that one cannot study biology of existing life without learning about evolution as a pre-requisite. If you can explain it, you will be the first.

That's called "buffet science". When one picks and chooses those aspects of science one isn't afraid of it doesn't mean one is learning actual science.

I have to disagree. A person could be a PhD level physicist and simply avoid any study of evolution because it conflicts with their religion. Science was active for a couple of thousand years before any theories of evolution were enunciated.

I have a very good friend whose wife ended up being VERY religious in a sorta-fundamentalist sect. They started taking their kids to the "Ark Encounters" in Kentucky. It's the "museum" set up to show kids how dinosaurs and people co-existed. It is a "young earth" trash dump of unadulterated junk.

My friend knew I had done my doctorate in geology and so when he told me this I said "If your kids ever want to talk about the history of the earth from a scientific point of view please let me know. I will be glad to do so." But they never did.

I supposed the kids turned out OK. I don't really know them. But it pained me to no end to realize that literally everything I had spent my life up to that point studying was just a big "joke" to them. I asked the wife once and her response was some flippant thing that she didn't really care one way or the other about the age of the earth, but her kids were being exposed to this over and over and over.

Here is where I think the disconnect is. This is a very important point, and I'm glad we have a chance to discuss it. I'm not being critical, I'm glad that you stated it plainly. There are many - too many - people whom "it pains to no end," to know that there are others in the world who disagree with their most sincerely held beliefs. I think that leads to a lot of the bad behavior we see in politics.

I meet people that disagree with my professionally acquired and deeply held beliefs frequently. I am a behavior teacher, a weird hybrid between teacher and psychologist, having masters degrees in both psychology and education. I often have people tell me that my methods, including reinforcement, positive and negative, randomized reward schedules, pre-loading of information, extinction, etc. are bunk and the kids just need a good paddling.

For them, I agree to disagree, and I don't lose a minute's sleep over it.

Is it good? I don't think so. But I would never criticize my friend's parenting choices. I am not a parent.

But you will - through the power of the state - over-ride the parenting choices of parents forced to send their kids to public school.

It did hurt, though.

Sorry to hear it for the reasons above.

Well, actually some of the "new atheists" like Dawkins, Hitchens and Harris were closer to "proselytizing" than not, but your point is otherwise reasonably accurate. It isn't anyone's job to knock the religious faith out of anyone's mind. But the key is that "religious truth" is never questioned until the person winds up questioning literally EVERYTHING ABOUT THAT WORLD VIEW. My approach to atheism was effectively that. I had spent 30+ years as a believing practicing Christian. But the more I thought about the faith, the more I realized the corrosive effect it was having on me (not necessarily all Christians, but some of us), and then reading the Bible and realizing there really was no "universal truth" to be found. There was just more stuff written by other HUMANS telling me what was behind the curtain.

Very much agree about Dawkins, don't know the rest. I honor and respect your beliefs on religion.

WIth science one can question "truths" and sometimes those truths fail! One doesn't then abandon all of science! That's because science is BUILT TO ADAPT to new information.

I don't know of anyone of any religion who preaches the abandonment of all science.

Religion is not.

It may not be built to ADAPT to new information, but it sure does, especially those religions most interested in perpetuating their own existence and influence. Most religions have embraced evolution, even though two hundred years ago, most Christian religions took the stories in Genesis very literally. Look at how many churches are embracing homosexuality, including gay marriage and gay clergy. Many religions have embraced women clergy, though they did not in the past. Many religions with ancient histories are embracing socialism, though that has only been around for a couple of centuries.

Religion does often run behind the times on such issues. Fortunately for them, our constitution protects freedom of religion, not just freedom of up-to-date religion.

 

[FA_Q2]

What would you have them do?

Ideally?

Put the evidence they have for their respective ideas on the table and go with the one that has the best evidence. I know that is not something that happens most of the time and usually it goes the way you mentioned.

You are using the word "conflict" in the widest possible definition, which would include disagreement.

We can never end disagreement in the world. So, we need a way to deal with disagreement. The best way is simply to respect those disagreements.

I am using the word in the only manner that makes any sense for a discussion. If you want to use the term as a matter of actually fighting, then sure. But that is true of everything. Capitalism and Communism do not conflict either because we can simply agree to disagree. If this is how you meant to use 'conflict' then I think it is a rather silly way to use the word in this context.

And no one thinks we can end all disagreement. If your point was to say that it is possible for those that trust in science and those that have faith to get along the OP was a rather convoluted way of saying something so simple....

 

[Seymour Flops]

Ideally?

Put the evidence they have for their respective ideas on the table and go with the one that has the best evidence. I know that is not something that happens most of the time and usually it goes the way you mentioned.

I am using the word in the only manner that makes any sense for a discussion. If you want to use the term as a matter of actually fighting, then sure. But that is true of everything. Capitalism and Communism do not conflict either because we can simply agree to disagree. If this is how you meant to use 'conflict' then I think it is a rather silly way to use the word in this context.

And no one thinks we can end all disagreement. If your point was to say that it is possible for those that trust in science and those that have faith to get along the OP was a rather convoluted way of saying something so simple....

We're debating semantics, now. That's not productive since I've made clear the meaning of "conflict" that I referred to.

Science and religion not only need not interfere with each other, in reality they never do. When one appears to be interfering with the other it is actually authoritarianism that is doing the interfering, not science or religion.

The ideas of capitalism and communism do conflict in any sense of the word. One of the main points of communism is that capitalism has produced great wealth to which the worker is actually entitled, not the capitalist. A capitalist nation and a communist nation can agree to disagree and leave each other along. But in a capitalist country, an actual communist would be working toward the hoped-for revolution.

He would be living up to the true ideals of communism, where an anti-religious activist trying to force parents to allow their children to be indoctrinated with curriculum that violates their religion is being authoritarian, not scientific.

 

[BreezeWood]

What would you have them do?

You are using the word "conflict" in the widest possible definition, which would include disagreement.

We can never end disagreement in the world. So, we need a way to deal with disagreement. The best way is simply to respect those disagreements.

who's we -

not as long as the corrupt desert religions are allowed to persist ... will resolution ever be accomplished.

 

[Seymour Flops]

who's we -

not as long as the corrupt desert religions are allowed to persist ... will resolution ever be accomplished.

Then by all means wipe them out.

Especially Judaism. No one has ever tried to wipe them out before, so there is no reason to think that you cannot be successful. /sarcasm

 

[BreezeWood]

Then by all means wipe them out.

Especially Judaism. No one has ever tried to wipe them out before, so there is no reason to think that you cannot be successful. /sarcasm

not by your sarcasm ... for the reason of their crime.

otherwise, that being to bringing the crucifiers to justice ... no, that has never been accomplished they have been in charge since the 1st century, the authoritative despots, all 3 desert religions.

 

[Seymour Flops]

not by your sarcasm ... for the reason of their crime.

otherwise, that being to bringing the crucifiers to justice ... no, that has never been accomplished they have been in charge since the 1st century, the authoritative despots, all 3 desert religions.

You sound interesting, but I don't get you. Excuse my ignorance if that is what is making me ask you to explain.

My assumption was that by "all 3 desert religions" you meant Judaism, Christianity and Islam. But by calling Jews "the crucifiers," it makes me think that you support Christianity?

I'm asking out of ignorance, obviously. So any answer would be appreciated.

 

[BreezeWood]

You sound interesting, but I don't get you. Excuse my ignorance if that is what is making me ask you to explain.

My assumption was that by "all 3 desert religions" you meant Judaism, Christianity and Islam. But by calling Jews "the crucifiers," it makes me think that you support Christianity?

I'm asking out of ignorance, obviously. So any answer would be appreciated.

- the 4th century c bible is written by the same 1st century crucifiers, 400 years latter after persecuting the original adherents of the 1st century events, liberation theology, self determination - there were never etched tablets from the heavens w/ 10 commandments the basis for all three desert religions that have abandoned the prescribed religion of antiquity for their own self serving purposes.

the true religion as prescribed, the triumph of good vs evil is all their is from the heavens to free ones spirit for judgment and admission to the everlasting. there is not and never will be a messiah.

 

[ding]

These two explanations contradict each other and both cannot be true.

Not to me they don’t. To me it shows the incredible power of consciousness without form willing the material world into existence to produce beings that know and create.

God loves science. He created it.

 

[ding]

If humans are made "in God's image" and you look closely at humans you will see they are little more than "beasts of the field" who can talk.

Made in God’s image means we are beings that know and create. We are different than God’s other creatures because we have have knowledge of good and evil. So no, we are more than “beasts of the field” who can talk. We can contemplate abstract ideas like good and evil.

 

[ding]

there is literally nothing different between me and my dog here in terms of basic ontology.

Incorrect. The concept of good and evil is a human construct because the concept of good and evil are artifacts of intelligence. Every argument you make is a moral argument about fairness. When you violate the concept of good and evil rather than abandoning the concept you rationalize you didn’t violate it. This holds true for all humans. That’s how deeply imbedded the concept of right and wrong is imbedded in humans. We can’t get rid of it.

 

[ding]

I sense you are about to completely miss my point. I wish it were otherwise but it appears to be that...




Yup...I was right. You blew right past my point. I don't know why I wasted time writing out my thoughts if they were going to be ignored.



Nothing.




Animals create as well. Perhaps you have missed the tool usage and creation by various apes and even crows. But, again, that's not even close to my point.

Let me try again:

My point is humans are simply animals. Yes we are special to other humans because we are humans. But we are not fundamentally different from other animals. We share a common chemistry and largely just variations on a consistent set of biochemical processes. We are made up of literally the same stuff and vast amounts of our genetic code are shared by other animals.

THAT was my point.

And it was in response to someone noting that we are not just "beasts of the field". When, in fact, we are.



I couldn't agree more with you in respect to how we should treat each other.

But, again, that isn't really related to my point in any way whatsoever.

I’m pretty sure she got your point and was arguing against your point. Quite effectively I might add.