Darwin or the Devil?

If a selected group is polled then you can get selected results. The media is good at that to promote their point of view. I find it hard to believe that an educated person could not conceive Darwin Theory.

"Or you could also ask what if the Darwin theory was conceived by an American"

That maybe so but we will never know since at the time we were busy building a nation and exploring the new land. I would like to think that if he was an American Darwin idea's would have been better received by his peers here than the were in his home country.

You ever think that the same narrow minded type peoples that presented this poll are of like mind as those that Darwin hid his thoughts from to be kept from being called a heretic.

That is a very well balanced reply Steve, my hat of for some new ways of looking at the issues that all too often cause more friction than open minded debate, That is what I was looking for and it goes well so far.

Would you know if there were other theories that are forming equal difficulties, or rifts, for other religions around the world?

I seriously do not know how evolution is perceived in predominantly muslim worlds or by Hindi for instance.

Maybe other readers can comment.

"I also don't believe that one's religious beliefs preclude one from doing good science"

In total agreement with the statement but how often is mankind set back because the results of good science is at conflict with religion or even go against the beliefs of those whom dominate research in the field.

Right On the Money!!!

I don't have a good link right now, but I read stuff before suggesting that Darwin was not exactly original in his theory. Apparently as a kid he was told off at school for drawing a cartoon of one of his teachers as a monkey ! The idea was not new at that time. I've also heard odd snippets of news about creationist teaching in the USA. Another one I read was about some guy in the Royal Navy who got the authorities to acknowledge his right to practice Satanism.

You may have kicked of a slight controversy case !

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=3FRtkek-Et4

Darwin was not the only one in his time thinking the way he did. There was a guy called Alfred Russel Wallace (1823 - 1913), who co-discovered the theory. Darwin was urged by his friends and peers to stop his thinking and publish the theory as he did. Darwin always thought it was too early but the fact that Wallace was almost ready to publish his findings, Darwin caved in to this pressure.

With regards to any controversy, I am afraid it is all down to how the thread runs. I just want to provoke open minded debate and scrutiny for the article. The previous replies already point out you can never trust a poll without knowing the full structure of that poll. Even if you get 150,000 people to contribute, the outcome can be predicted if you are left to design the questions for a purpose. This is what lawyers do in court.

I can't back this one up with a reference, but I remember hearing something about Darwin proving his own evolution theories wrong . Has anybody heard something along these lines? If so, I am curious and would like to follow up on any references.

"I've also heard odd snippets of news about creationist teaching in the USA."

Such as this one perhaps?

Arh. that be right.. I think there are other current situations re creationist teaching as well.

The poll result does depend on the constituency of the poll. The education level of that constituency in turn determines whether the devil or Darwin is chosen as the object of belief.

I live in a poor area. Probably 95% would choose the devil. Some might go so far to say that Darwin was the instrument of the devil.

It will take conscientious, creative, careful, promotion of science to open the minds of religiously indoctrinated populations. Look at how bad the situation can be. Consider the teacher in Somalia who's life was in jeopardy for treading on sacred ground.

It takes time for minds to gradually open to truth. Galileo's persecution by the church is my favorite example.

I am not entirely comfortable with the implied analogy here.

Religious tendency does not imply low educational level, neither does it in reverse!

Galileo was not necessarily persecuted for his belief in science, which went against the grain with his peers, but maybe more so for the fact he countered their authority rather than what they stood for.

This promotes a different thinking as the faith of the ones in power at the time is pulled into doubt by this. They may have adhered more importance to their power than their belief, this is not uncommon in human life.

I realise that the story goes for the first explanation and history books will tell you so but I am trying to get things to move on a bit here. Hypocrisy is not beyond any person alive or dead.

It is not like there is an inherent inferiority in believer vs. non-believer. Or educated vs. non-educated. We are the product of our environment and circumstances. I simply suggest we expose people to known good environments. That includes useful and true knowledge in the best way we can devise.

It's not the religion itself is that is the problem. It is the dedication to studying "texts" instead of the latest textbook knowledge that is verifiable.

The problem is the brain is limited in the knowledge it can hold. It is important to expose it to the best knowledge we can. I can say this after studying the "text" fervently. I would have been much better off if society had resolved that those are just old stories written long ago so that we could all move forward together. There are some wise lessons in the stories, and we can realize that.

I have nothing against belief in God. Belief or non belief can be argued for. If God created the universe, give respect by studying it. Darwinism is one tool for doing so.

This may be a bit off track, and Cees, feel free to moderate, but I am a bit concerned that in the post modern culture of the first and second world countries that scientists and engineers have become the new shamans. To the world at large (accountants and shop keepers, lawyers and politicians) we seem to have magic at our beck and call, and it makes me very uncomfortable when engineers and scientists make comments like:

"It's not the religion itself is that is the problem. It is the dedication to studying "texts" instead of the latest textbook knowledge that is verifiable."

Since when did science and engineering claim to have the ultimate truth? And when did we become mediators of truth? Are we now the new high priests? Do we really believe our own propoganda to the point that if a guy writes a science or engineering text book it must be right and there is no room for debate or disagreement?

This is my main problem with the global warming debate, global warming has become the new global religion, and pity the infidel that questions the authority of the "science." (Oh and in the future don't name your class teddy bear Gaia!)

In the interest of "open mindedness" I consider pronouncements by science to be generally suspect (especially in regard to the health effects of coffee and cell phones). Science has been wrong a lot. So has religion. As an engineer I have been wrong a lot also. If you are never wrong it probably means you are not doing anything valuable.

To make this more on topic, maybe Darwin is wrong as well, but for now his work is helpful in understanding biological systems..

There are no atheists in fox holes... And there are no Luddites in cancer clinics.

Faith cannot and does not replace science and science cannot and does not fill the hole of you have no faith. Einstein himself said he believed in something, it just did not happen to be a god. That is also faith to me.

I was looking at the remarks at first and almost replied but then decided to wait as I would have shot my foot of. I fully agree with you but moderation is not the way forward either. As it should be possible to discuss this issue in an open manner, we should also be able to disagree without wanting to eradicate immediately.

If somebody is wrong it only means he or she is wrong according to your own views, that much we have established already.

As far as life and death and how the national budget is spent is concerned, it all breaks down to this... What do you believe?

Those that need to believe in the hand of God causing creation will believe this. Those that believe that some form of evolution (Darwin wasn't mentioned) gave rise to humans, will believe that.

We somehow think that in this modern age we can escape the visceral instincts of man, and its need to believe that it will go on forever. People are the same as they were 1,000 years ago - Give me immortality or please don't give me death!!!

"I must stress the importance of the term "verifiable" which was completely overlooked in that reply to my earlier quote. The verification needs to be by independent and open minded individuals or groups."

Sorry, I did not overlook the term verifiable, I did not consider it important to my point. Have you never seen a engineering project team make a huge mistake? The bane of my life is sending out reports or drawings to my colleagues for comment and input, and after weeks of no comments I publish it final and then the objections come! Independant and open minded groups (true independance and open mindedness is hard to find) doing "verification" proves nothing, especially if it is not done rigerously or if it is done with an agenda (common). The laws of electricity work well on a macro level, millions of electrical installations have verified the realtionship between voltage, current and resistance but I would hesitate to conclude that humankind truly understands electricity.

I turn back to Ptolmey, for hundreds of years his earth centric description of planetary motion worked, was used for navigation, and was really elegant, while being based on completly wrong assumptions. After hundreds of years, Galileo made the right observations to verify that the earth is not the center of the universe..

As for scientists that use "mental manipulation" have you never heard of a scientist that published conclusions based on falsified data? Or a scientist who came to a conclusion based on sketchy data or preconceived notions? I see that all the time in the engineering world. That is a characteristic of being human I'm afraid. And finally,

"true science is not a body of information as much as a process of searching for and finding it."

I would suggest that a slightly more precise way of stating this is:

"True science is not a body of information, as much as a process of using the accumulated body of information as one part of the process of searching for and finding truth."

But then again, my definition, also applies to philosophy and theology in addition to science.... and in my opinion that body of information inculdes both "texts" and "textbooks."

"Sorry, I did not overlook the term verifiable, I did not consider it important to my point."

I accept your apology. It was just that the thought depended greatly on that word.

"As for scientists that use "mental manipulation" have you never heard of a scientist that published conclusions based on falsified data?"

It is the type of thing sullies the image of legitimate science.

"texts"

I have a low opinion of "texts" because I have seen them placing a big impediment in the way of truth seeking. I have seen people close their minds to discoveries pertaining to fossil records, genetics, astronomy and other areas because they get fearful if they don't agree with it or religious teaching. It leaves them vulnerable to blindly follow when they ought to do extra examination. I have seen it especially with regard to evolution. Is it good for social progress for presidential candidates to say they believe in Creationism? It is quite different from Creation.

I have a high opinion of "texts" and a low opinon of close mindedness, on both sides of the discussion, and I have seen close mindedness on both sides of most discussions. I would argue that certain scientists are close minded as well, Richard Dawkins (since we are speaking of biology) comes to mind immediately.

We are in complete agreement that the science associated with the fossil record, genetics, astronomy, and other areas should and needs to be considered in a rational search for truth. I do not fear the truth, St. Thomas said "All truths are God's truth." We are also in complete agreement that some religious people feel their "faith" threatened by certain scientific approaches. I am not yet sure how to solve that, but you'll be happy to know I am working on it...

I am also of the opinion that certain scientists feel threatend by the concept that there may indeed be a God and by people who understand the nature of the universe in those terms, and I think that is a pity as well.

As for public policy and social progress, that is another can of worms that perhaps deserves it's own thread...

one should not increase, beyond what is necessary, the number of entities required to explain anything

Good one, had not heard of that before.

We, people, are too complicated to just agree or disagree. It stands to reason that therefor anything we can think of is too complicated to just agree or disagree. Harmonious life is a blend of compromise and sacrifice.

That almost sounds like script but it is in fact just common sense.

"The Church actually agreed that Galileo's findings were correct, but they asked that he not publish because the rest of the faithful were not ready to hear the truth. The Church actually feared that Europe (and the Church) would fall into chaos. Thus, Galileo was silenced for social reasons, and part of this was due to the fact that Europe was already beginning to strain at the leash, and was challenging the Church's authority."

This is a case of persons within the church striving for power among men rather than what they are taught in their "texts". As is mentioned in a later post, the main goal of most religions is dealing with a man's attitude and behavior toward God and other men. I don't recall any Sunday School lessons about how to run a country or prevent a popular uprising. Maybe I missed that week. Unfortunately the church on Earth is headed up by men who are not perfect and frequently fall short. The true goal is to follow God rather than men...at least that is how I understand the "texts".

Interesting that the priest-class was a significant component to power in most early civilizations. If the King, Pharaoh, or Kahn went too far, the priests were usually capable of bringing the ruler down. Akhnaton was ultimately deposed (even if after death) by the very priests that he had undermined.

Today, this still has some truth to it. Consider what would happen if George W. Bush suddenly proclaimed that he was an atheist!!! Currently, we're witnessing a very historic moment in US history - a woman and an African-American are running for president! So far, both seem to have a good chance. However, what would be the fate of any politician that proclaimed their atheism?

Rome in its early days was very non-religious and actually persecuted many religions. It would be hard to argue that you can't have a non-religious society. It just took a lot of brutality and suppression at the time to keep it in place.

There are self-proclaimed atheist politicians. They can probably make it in local elections, but may have difficulty gaining acceptance when they have to meet the expectations of a broader base of people. Similarly, I don't have problems with Hillary as being a woman. I just don't agree with her policies.

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

Doesn't sound totally non-religious etc ?

Nate, Both good points!

Here's an interesting, little known factoid... By the time the Christians had come along, the gods of Rome had developed away from human-like characters and more toward esoteric forces; though they were still worshiped nonetheless.

At that time, Rome had no particular grievance against Christian, except for that one, little commandment "Thou shall have no other gods before me." Christian (and, especially, the adoption of the Christian faith) became a danger to the state because they would not additionally worship the Roman gods, which Rome believed would bring harm onto the empire - and that was why the Christians (citizens or not) were persecuted.

Interestingly, it was this same situation that caused the persecution of the Hebrews by the Greeks.

Not to mention they are still bound to uphold the constitution, basic laws and provisions that were written by men with profound religious beliefs and those precepts built into the very fabric of the American society and culture helping to make America, for better or for worse, still a nice place to live in global comparison.

What a shame that one facet of people can't change the American Government to their own personal religious/scrupled beliefs like they have in Venezuela.

Athens went through the same problems which eventually played a major role in the decline of a world power. The government officials and senators became so bogged down in petty causes that they could not take care of nor differentiate between critical state civilization debate vs. why are the tapestries in the Parthenon depicting an Owl holding olive branches, when the rat catchers think it ought to show the owl holding a mouse.

And what about kids saying the pledge of allegiance to the flag in classrooms???? We have spent millions of dollars and countless hours in court, pulling that doctrine out of our elementary schools...because some atheist in California decided he didn't want his 5yr old saying "under God".

P.S. The five year old liked to say the pledge.

Well Vermin I obviously disagree, perhaps you can expand on that opinion a bit...

Ptolmey's work was used for 1400 years...

I submit the History of Mathmatics at St. Andrews as the basis for my comments,

http://www-groups.dcs.st-and.ac.uk/~history/Biographies/Ptolemy.html

And your counter argument? I am very interested in your volumes that vary vastly from the common knowledge... If I have learned folklore in my research, where should I go for the facts?

I do not think science is wrong or bad, but it can be used as a social control mechanism.

The Ptolemaic system worked well enough for calender making, considering that only two objects were concerned: the Earth and the Sun. This rendered mute the question of who revolves around whom. Furthermore, the Moon was just another constant body that actually did orbit the Earth as the center of its local Universe, though I believe the Ptolemaic system could not predict eclipses.

The real driving factor that had men of learning baffled by the Ptolemaic system, was the irritating fact that it could not explain why the planets would move across the heavens, stop, reverse direction, stop again, and go back to their original movement. Many attempts were made to explain this phenomenon, which culminated with the concept of epicycles. However, as the ability to accurately measure the movements of the planets increased, it was then necessary to rely on the theory of epicycles within epicycles within yet more epicycles. According to Wikipedia (forgive me), the Ptolemaic system was so complex, it was unusable by the 16th century.

A lot of those who would eventually be called astronomers (scientists) by history, were constantly looking for a better answer - that answer lay in adopting the heliocentric model of the solar system.

So, to tie this one off, it was the men of learning that brought the Ptolemaic system down, not because it couldn't make a decent calendar, but because its structure was useless when it came to explaining many problematic observations.

By the way, look at the CR4 logo at the top of the screen... Do you perceive anything to be problematic?

"...adopting the heliocentric model of the solar system..."

To a great degree it still dominates our classic, Newtonian model, to any grand scale: even about mass-soup of galaxy-clusters revolving around common, mutual mass-centers

As far as I know, everything that NASA does is calculated using Newtonian mechanics - And that seems to be accurate enough to pass a space probe through a gap in the rings of a planet over a billion miles away.

"By the way, look at the CR4 logo at the top of the screen... Do you perceive anything to be problematic?"

Dang! How could I have missed that? You're most observant furry one.

Dear Vermin,

I do not disagree with your findings in this, or most other, post from you in this thread but I have a question.

Which of the modern scientists have ever brought us a theory that worked for 1400 years? I do not need an answer as there is none. Just as there will not be any scientist that gives us the truth without ever being found wrong ever.

The wrongness of the theory does not matter as that is a finding you now have at your disposal with our modern day science. In the days of these theories no person could come up with a better working model, no matter how wrong they all knew it was. That is science in its own right. Right until proven otherwise.

In this light, why does it feel to me that we are stabbing at religion here? Steve is the first person I have read posts from to try to reconcile belief with science in a friendly and tolerant manner, without trying to diminish either.

It seems to me that you cannot tolerate a view other than your own and that is starting to show through in your answers.

Greatness does not come from chopping others down, it comes from standing taller"

Case491,

You wound me! It was not my intention to prove anyone wrong. I simply wanted to state what I had heard - that was why I prefaced my comment by IMHO.

Furthermore, Steve asked me to elaborate on my statement regarding the Ptolemaic solar system. As I pointed out, the Church actually agreed with Galileo, which meant the Church itself was involved in science!

Perhaps, I should have made it more clear in my post that the Church wasn't acting out of greed or need for control. However, at the time, much of government was dependent on the existence of the Church. I do not see the Church at the time trying to control people. Rather, I see a very important branch of society looking at what could have been the complete ruin of European civilization and the fall of the known world into complete chaos! Thus my vision of the Church was an intelligent and well informed group of men that found themselves to be the only thing standing between civilization and a new dark ages. This I believe was the motivation for the silencing of Galileo.

Does this help to clarify my point?

"...the Church actually agreed with Galileo, which meant the Church itself was involved in science..."

Even today's Roman Church maintains modern-science committees in Rome, which convenes with top scientists on regular basis.

For real.

Trivia. Go on.

Yes it does, I missed the feeling of your reply and that is wrong in its own right as well.

It remains good however to keep on reflecting on both sides and to formulate the arguments so that at all times it is possible to keep your pride on both sides and walk away in disgareement. The need to drive to a final conclusion is blighting many discussions and it is not always needed in my opinion.

Still I think we managed a very civilised conversation about this issue which normally get loaded with much heated debate.

Congratulations to all here, very good thread with excellent contribution from all. Thanks to all involved.

Case491

Great post, man

Regarding the studying of "texts" VS textbooks, etc. I believe that we should be more concerned about the former when it comes to the matter of how to get along with each other. Far too much importance is given to trying to prove or disprove the scriptures or other theological writings. Much of the writings have to do with the nature of mankind and how we should deal with each other. If we heeded the scriptures properly, we would go far towards reducing poverty and war, etc.

I am in agreement of that and would like to add that you do not need to be a believer of any faith, to follow the morals of any faith.

Compassion and tolerance is not exclusive to faith.

Good going doc.

I like this idea. But I think we need some revised behavioral texts, though. There is so much culturally outdated or even abhorrent teaching in them like stoning adulterers and insolent children. In other places, texts require the subjects of the writing to put the war vanquished to the sword. I know at least one acquaintance who conducts his behavior to various degrees based on such teachings.

Doubtful interpretation of the Bible by religious groups or eras are usually responsible a lot of hardship, conflict etc. It is no wonder that feelings are the way they are.

I agree with Steve's feelings - for myself I have seen and measured evolution (Changes caused by outside influence) and practise it indirectly by way of breeding animals. (actively cause changes).

As for Muslims I am not an expert but believe they accept the first books of the Bible and are even stronger against the theory. They are very sincere in following their religion.

The Hindu I believe goes for reincarnation or some of them at least. (but again I am not an expert)

I think the tread is necessary and also hope that it can be conducted peacefully.

It remains a very touchy point and I hope as well that it will develop in an open minded discussion involving all sorts of backgrounds.

It is entirely down to all that participate to keep it as it has been so far but isn't the fact we feel it necessary to keep pointing this out already influencing the run of this thread? Why do we tread so carefully when all we are doing is discussing the merrits of science in relation to religions?

Sounds a bit like positive discrimination which has a tendency to go overboard on "corrective" measures to sort of undo what was done wrong in the past.

Hi, cengo!

Thanks for that good answer!!!

Most Christians haven't the slightest idea that the devil as we know him today, only goes back to about the thirteen hundreds. In deed, the word "Satan" simply meant one that placed a stumbling block in front of you. If God sent an angel to stop you from going someplace, that angel was known as a "Satan."

What people fear as the "evil one" was most definitely cast in our own desires, image, and sick imaginations.

I concurr vermin. cengo did a nice job of showing that all religeons have differing sects. 'Satan' is only a name and the general concept of 'bad' must have been around as long as 'good'. Plato's cave is one way of showing it ? Life's all about fear and desire. http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Allegory_of_the_cave

Well, I guess the "Book of Wisdom" is not Wiki after all, since it references this:

"In the Book of Wisdom**, the devil is represented as the being who brought death into the world."

Most scholars agree that the Old Testament was composed and compiled between the 12th and the 2nd century BC

** Book of Wisdom or Wisdom of Solomon. It is one of the seven Sapiential (wisdom) books of the Old Testament, which includes Job, Psalms, Proverbs, Ecclesiastes, Song of Solomon (Song of Songs), and Ecclesiasticus (Sirach)

I agree with you vermin, that Satan, or a devil, is constituted mainly as a "stumbling block" (in one's own mind). Therefore, if it be placed there, it is only oneself that did the placing!

Dr. Frankenstein may disagree, but that's just his opinion.

That's just about Right. "Satan" is a Hebrew word (in Arabic it's "Shaitan", in Aramaic "Sitra" - meaning "side" - From which "Satire" is derived), and it means "inciter, instigator" - "the one which side-tracks one from their path, from your concentration".

Just mentioning some trivia. Go on.

And Cengo, I am a Christian that accepts Darwin as a model for biological systems as well (notice I qualified that a bit, I am not 100% necessarily).

There was a time when scientists and engineers were also theologians and philosophers, poets, artists, and musicians. I think the world would be a be a better place if we engineers were not so vocationally focused......

Case,

I sort of feel like I hijacked your thread and perhaps took it in a direction you did not intend. If so, my apologies.

-Steve.

My dear friend Steve,

We are all here to participate and if I wanted a story to go my way, I would find a publisher and write a book. What I mean to say is that if I did not want others to twist and turn this debate, I should not have put it here.

I tried to read one of Richard Dawkins books a long time ago and did not make it past the first few paragraphs. I think he is a self righteous pompous quasi scientist who jumped somebodies bandwagon and got rich. This is how modern publishing works you know, look at Harry Potter as an example. (p.s. I am not a person of religious faith so my opinion of Richard Dawkins is not biased by the good book, I just disliked him from the word go)

You are a fine contributor and you manage to keep a very difficult but well maintained balance in a subject that normally would have decended into flaming and mudslinging by now.

What , if any, are your opinions of Carl Sagan? I admit his reasoning was very influenced by the cold war and it shines through in his work, both writing and film, but he is the reason I am still peering up at the night sky now and again with unlimited awe.

I think he is a self righteous pompous quasi scientist who jumped somebodies bandwagon and got rich.

I would like to give you a great big slobbery kiss ! Well said triangle one ! I am with you 100 %. He just wants to shit people off. When I was a kid my physics teacher explained atoms by saying 'thats just the way god made them'. I couldn't give jack for anyone else's personal belief, but live and let live I say. Science and religion are not incompatible.

Bet that is going to annoy a few folk.

Hi Kris... "Science and religion are not incompatible."...

Oh, no... They are totally incompatible... ... Sorry...

Hi George,

Question (to all ) : Could the 'big bang' be considered God ? I have no idea, but I like to stir it up a little. My old Physics teacher loved Science, but at the same time considered himself religious. It's not my thing, but somehow the guy reconciled the two in his head. Perhaps religion can function as an answer to the real big question of 'what was there before time ?' The problems seem to arise with how people put their own brand of faith into practice. Maybe the issue is one of semantics and interpretation. I'm on the Dawkins side of things, but I dislike religion bashing as much as I do creationist teaching in Schools etc.

Kris

Kris,

St. Thomas was a big fan of Aristotle, and Aristotle posited the un-moved mover. To simplify things if you use Newtonian physics (not a great approach but simplifies things), then all the motion in the universe must have started somewhere. An object at rest tends to remain at rest unless acted on by an outside force.

So Aristotle and St. Thomas suggest that at the beginning God put things into motion. I think that idea is consistant with the big bang. In the beginning God created a singularity, and the result was the big bang, and velocity has increased since...consistent with object in motion remaining in motion unless acted on by an outside force.

The problem with many theories of where things started is they either have something coming into existance out of nothing (which I don't buy), chance creating things (chance is a matmatical description things do get created by chance), or they assume an eternal universe, which is not consistant with current scientific observations.

Based on logic and observation of creation, my conclusion is that there is a God. Others may conclude otherwise...

Thank you Steve, you have explained a concept I was stuggling to describe. Whatever created us is our 'God' in whatever terms we define/describe it. Nice job.

Oh, no... They are totally incompatible... ... Sorry...

On the other hand, I think there is some room left for fields not based on observation (religion, philosophy and whatever) to give answers (non-scientific though) about why the Cosmos is the way it is, why the natural laws work the way they do, and so on. Of course, scientific discoveries may provide us with extra insight about those issues in the future. But who knows, maybe we will not be alive by then... Or, the Supreme Being is so much sophisticated and elusive for the human capabilities that we will never be able to explain His/Her/Its way of thinking. For those issues we can only lay back and philosophize.

What I cannot accept though, and I agree to your point, is that doctrinal faith is not fit in giving answers to phenomena that can be conceived by the senses (with the extra aid of instruments sometimes). By doing so in the past, it just ridiculed itself so many times. Science's and religion's methodologies for seeking the truth are really incompatible indeed, so only by chance they can arrive to the same conclusions.

But in order to tell how incompatible (if at all) science and religion are, I cannot help but posing this question: Can a specific religion be taken only as a part of the initial package, given that every day coming, science strips it more and more from doctrinal beliefs? For example, can a Christian be called Christian, if he only accepts the interference of God in the creation of the universe, but on the other side, doesn't accept flat earth, immaculate conception, Papal infallibility and the like? Can such a person be called religious, and if yes, to which religion does he belong to? So when we talk about the clash between science and religion, we have to clarify, what do we mean with the term religion.

Hi Tkot... "On the other hand, I think there is some room left for fields not based on observation (religion, philosophy and whatever) to give answers (non-scientific though) about why the Cosmos is the way it is, why the natural laws work the way they do, and so on."... What kind of answers can religion gives in all these issues???... Answers like: "The Cosmos is the way it is because the God wanted so" or "The natural laws work the way they do because this was the will of God..."...

I.e. question:"how the Universe was born" → answer:"the God created the Universe"... O.k. that's a sufficient answer for the religion... and we are huppy... let's sleep now peacefully... ...

Easy answers with no research, no labour, no sweat... There is no even need for asking because the humble humans cannot (and they will never) understand the supreme wisdom of God... What a sad, defeatist approach... ...

I.e. question:"how the Universe was born" → answer:"the God created the Universe"... O.k. that's a sufficient answer for the religion... and we are huppy... let's sleep now peacefully... ...

When I was referring to the questions that religion or philosophy can answer, I had in mind the sort of questions like e.g. "why natural laws are the way they are and not some other" or "what is the purpose of the universe". Of course, sooner or later, even these questions can be answered using the scientific methodology. Only that this time is, maybe, far in the future and consequently ourselves will not have the privilege to know the answer in the ultimate question about "Life, Universe and Everything" . Until then - and given the internal need of us humans to feel fit and meaningful in this cosmos - we seek comfort to ideas not induced by observational data. I see it as a human need (inflicted by our genes maybe?), certainly not as a proposed frame of thought!

By no means I can accept the idea that we can relax with easy explanations given by any holly scriptures, especially when they have been proven wrong so many times in the past. Certainly, scientific theories have been proven wrong in the past too. The difference is that, what is considered as scientific truth gets revised whenever new data don't fit the theory, so I trust we have the most updated scientific idea about nature. On the other hand, we have to accept (not necessarily endorse) that wherever there are no data, religion may slip in.

So GK,

Tell me how physics really differs from theology, or philosophy? I would maintain they all engage in the same game, and I would suggest that modern physics is much closer to philosophy or theology than it is to engineering.

All three develop truth models about the very essence of creation to explain phenomonon that are not readily observable. I hate to keep harping on electricty, but our math to describe electricy is based on an observation of effects, not on observation of electrons. The universe exists, that is an effect you and I have observed. How is positing mathmatical constructs regarding string theory, or chaos, quantum mechanics, or the variety of sub atomic particles, etc really different than having a discussion of philosophy or theology?

Hi Steve... "Tell me how physics really differs from theology, or philosophy?"... The difference relies on the experiment and observation... A philosopher approaches the reality mentally and suggests some theories (and I'd prefer to say "ideas or opinions")... A theologist does the same thing but, also, he claims that whatever he says is the "absolute truth" (and if anyone doubts, the hell is waiting for him... brrr... ... ) [So, I prefer a philosopher rather than a theologist]... A scientist does a mental and practical approach of the reality by the means of the maths, logic, observations and experiments... The theories that he suggests are substantiated and any time can be proven false or true by anyone else... Every theory is subjected in the scientific "torments" of the observations and experiments... If a theory explains (in a logical and mathematical way) a specific phenomeno and many observations or experiments (made by other scientists) confirm its results and consequences, then the scientific community tends to accept this theory... Just one observation or experiment, that gives an opposite result, is enough to destroy a theory and lead to its abrogation or its revision...

So, (from all the above) what's the similarity between science and religion???... Between a scientist and a theologist???... Unfortunately, none... ...

[BTW, there are scientific fields where the limits between science and philisophy are blury... i.e. in quantum physics... ...]

"...how physics really differs from theology, or philosophy..."

In that it's subject to concrete, physical, real-world measurement and repeatable, unbiased (by specific interested party)verification, not just argumentative debate, dialectics and theoretical re-arrangement.

You do the math. I too believe in divine creation, but I wouldn't dare contradict or challenge it, by the use of my own dogmatic ideas of how creation is more likely to be neat according to my acquired concepts. For me, modern physics (and natural sciences in general: chemistry, biology, cosmology etc) is the most trusted evidence to the glory of creation.

I don't try to impose my ideas, of, say, chronological scope of creation, taken as-is from ancient scriptures, be they beloved and treasured as they are, to clash with actual measurements and sighting. If trusted proven isotope and chromatography dating says the cosmos is 18 billion years old, so be it, until better trusted method says otherwise, not to mention that it corresponds to myriad of other facts we know, not some thorn in our cushion of diversified knowledge.

The love of God does not have to automatically mean rejection of the sighted and measured, as if we have to conform to some fantasy, otherwise we have no future in heaven.

The acceptance of the emerging reality is a clear sign of respect to creation, not the other way around.

Hi tkot,

You said "Can such a person be called religious, and if yes, to which religion does he belong to?"

It's called Unitarianism and summed up by this excerpt:

"They believe that reason and belief are complementary and that religion and science can co-exist and guide them in their understanding of nature and God."

Unitarianism is a more modern form of Deism.

-John

Hi, John... "Unitarianism is a more modern form of Deism."... It's the first time that I see the term "Unitarianism"... These two don't seem to be the same though (as far as I can conclude from the definition of "Unitarianism")...

He George,

Maybe I should clarify. Unitarianism is a modern, modified form of Deism as best I understand it.

"Deism is generally considered to have died out as an influential school of thought by around 1800. It is probably more accurate, however, to say that Deism evolved into, and contributed to, other religious movements. The term Deist fell into disuse, but Deist ideas and influences did not. They can be seen in 19th-century liberal British theology and in the rise of Unitarianism, which adopted many of its ideas."

"[Modern] Deism is a reason-based faith that postulates a belief in God through a foundation of Reason, Personal Experience and Nature (nature of the universe) with emphasis on freethought rather than a foundation of Divine revelation(s) and Holy texts. Essentially, through the use of Reason, God's existence is revealed by the observation of nature and our own personal experiences. For the Deist, the order and complexity found in nature coupled with our rational experiences of nature leads to a belief in God."

I hope that helps,

-John

hi johnjohn,

I have to admit to not having done much research on this thread. The links you have input are excellent, and have added to my knowledge in an area that I would probably never have read about otherwise. Nice one !

Kris

Thank you "skwerel" (as Case491 would say).

Actually, Deism was big in the U.K. in years past and most likely originated there:

"Lord Herbert of Cherbury (d. 1648) is generally considered the "father of English Deism", and his book De Veritate (On Truth, as It Is Distinguished from Revelation, the Probable, the Possible, and the False) (1624) the first major statement of Deism."

-John

To be honest I don't know enough about Sagan to comment. BBillions and BBillions is basically what I remember about him, and his work with SETI and the movie with Jodie Foster wasn't it?

I did a quick internet check on him and some of his ideas sound interesting. I'll have to go take a deeper look when I have a chance...

I personally think there is little chance that mankind will cause itself to become extinct, however I do think there is a very great chance that we will experience dire reductions in population due to disease or war. As an engineering optimist I think that most human problems are solvable engineering problems, and that resource limitation is not an issue as there is a whole universe of resources out there to spread into.

I would be thrilled to find life elsewhere in the universe (I grew up in New Mexico BTW and I have visited the Radio Astronomy array from the movie), but as of right now I am thinking that life is extremely rare...

I found his tv series on dvd via e-bay and watched it immediately after some 30ish years of seeing it as a kid at home. Carl Sagan's Cosmos was a real eye opener for me and maybe the biggest influence for me to become academic rather than anything else. I did not know this at the time and it is of course an afterthought which is most likely based on falsehoods as well but I like the thought anyway.

It was also him who showed the concept of sceptisiscm as the most important tool needed for finding truths.

I read the book first and did not like the film, sorry. This is often the case when you like the first contact you have with some form of media, you do not like an alternative even if that was the original in the first place. I see this with my daughter who likes remade copies of good films better than the originals.

I do like the seti program but it is an incredible task and not very rewarding so far. I do believe, like Carl did, that it is unimaginable that we are alone.

Unfortunately Carl was not very kind to religion as in his times the cold war often used religion as a background to justify hatred. Even he himself was not perfect I suppose.

Just one thing you may not be taking into account regarding Richard Dawkins' writing. I don't think he just popped up and got published. I have a feeling that the reason for his popularity is that the public (in general) now feels comfortable to entertain these types of ideas.

I'm not suggesting that we're looking at the dawn of atheism as some sort of popular cult, but the public is now curious. Prior to Dawkins' writing, Madeline Marie O'Hare was the champion of atheism, and had a devil of a time (pun intended) drumming up any attention whatsoever. She was available and was writing, but no one wanted to hear during her time. I think the times they are a changing.

Dawkins' Extended Phenotype and Gene-Preferred Natural Selection (also called the Selfish-Gene theory) are considered today as the "most regarded mainstream" in both Ethology and Genetics respectively, which is in absolute contrast to the initial ridicule het got when first published in 1976.

Today he is considered THE guru in his field(s) worldwide.

Well folks, I have spent way more time on this thread than I should have. I have final exams next week (45 years old and still sitting for exams...) and my time is better used preparing for that...

I really hesitated to comment here. I have read some of the other threads that relate to science and religion and some have been pretty ugly, and now that I have "outed" myself I am concerned that presuposition will color your reaction to my posts in the future. I hope not. Thank you all for remaining very civil in this discussion.

If there was any point in all this, it was to try and make some of you think about, well to put in bluntly, to think about your arrogant attitude in regards to science. Science is not the be all and end all. Science is not pure and absolute and without its problems. Observation and peer review is fine but are no guarentee against balderdash. Anyone that has ever submitted a paper for peer review knows that the failings of mankind, politics, ambition, jealousy, laziness, arrogance, all effect the scientific process. To think that these things don't effect science is naive.

Science is after all a human enterprise...it's not God...

"Science is after all a human enterprise...it's not God..."

True, but sometimes a little humor helps to keep things in proper perspective...

Steve S.,

I do not disagree with a single thing that you just said. I concur with your skepticism of science and scientists... If you doubt me, ask anyone on this thread about my feeling regarding Neils Bohr.

Also, practitioners of ANY religion are not persecuted on CR4. Also, their posts do not become suspect or of less worth.

"...now that I have "outed" myself I am concerned that presuposition will color your reaction to my posts in the future. I hope not..." ... Of course not... I have, also, "outed" myself through my posts (as a science supporter)... I just try to convince people to have some trust in science (in spite of its problems and defects) and that the science is a fairly secure way to find our path to the truth... And this path is very long and hard to go through... But it's very exciting too... Some times we fall in traps or we lost our way... But we go on... The science is an adventure... Let's enjoy it... ...

(Is really a blessing that we live in these times where the science has done significant progress and we are free enough to talk about subjects such as religion in such a civilized way... ...)