it reveals any truth at all about us, or the universe.


I see a lot of people trying their damndest to retcon religious claims into scientific claims. It's always thin and transparent, and highly inaccurate when you dig deep into the claim, I have found.

What it seems to say is that if one is to embrace both religion and science, it is necessary to consider that the bible may not hold any truths at all. But perhaps I am misreading that.

And I am assuming by "retcon" you mean retroactive continuity. Again I am making an assumption, but what you seem to be saying is that people have to modify their religious beliefs when there is new scientific evidence. I think that is true, as it should be. The problem comes up when they don't modify those beliefs.

Like when people try to show the Koran indicated the universe is expanding. Or when Schroeder tries to show the biblical account of genesis is 6 days prior to the 3rd creation, being 4bn, 2bn, 1bn, etc, in half-life epochs.

Schroeder is wrong, because when he came up with his numbers, the universe was thought to be about 15bn years old. Then it was 16bn. He just adjusted his ratio. Now it's about 13.7 and he's off by more than 2bn years. I call it recton, because he doesn't care what the evidence says, he just adjusts his claim to fit.


I think if the bible and similar faiths aren't total fabrication, they must show some intrinsic truth about ourselves or the universe. I don't think any of them do. If they don't I see no ability for 'co-existence', let alone a desire to maintain such a link.

about ourselves or the universe? That makes absolutely no sense to me. Why in the world would you care or need to define what the bible is or is not for others? Why would anyone need to prove to you whether religious texts are truth or fabrication?

Co-existence does not imply a link. It acknowledges that the two areas are different but can each exist in a way that does not threaten or impede the other.

it.

That's why I care. That's why I cannot escape societies that care. That build, for instance, laws constructed around a human view of morality, based on it or in reference to it, or social traditions based on it.

If it didn't make such claims, then you'd be right. Be weird for me to care. But it does make such claims, it does claim that we hold some special or unique place in the universe, it does make claims about the origin of the universe, and its destiny.


They cannot co-exist in a manner that does not threaten the other. You cannot have two diametrically opposite claims and hold them both to be true simultaneously. I mean, you can. It's actually a useful debate/rhetorical foil, but it doesn't help us actually understand the world, the universe, life, our place in the universe, etc. Attempting to do so within that context is actually counter-productive.

And I can't seem to get religious people to wholesale drop the 'truth' claims of the bible. Soooo..

but are taking the position that those that do should be able to somehow prove to you that what they have is the truth?

Please correct me if I am getting that wrong. But if I am not, I would again wonder why in the world you think anyone needs to prove anything to you.

You reject the whole thing, right? So as long as they are not using it to impose upon you or others, why in the world would you care?

Who is the "it" you refer to? The fundamentalists? The literalists? Certainly "it" is not all believers, because not all believers make the claims you say they make.

What are the diametrically opposed claims of science and religion?

See, this whole argument about science and religion not being able to exist together is lame. The fact that they are so different is exactly why they can co-exist. Religion does not help you personally understand the world, the universe, life or your place in the universe. What you really struggle with is the fact that it does do so for others.

You appear to want that not to be true, to somehow strip people of that belief even when it causes no harm to themselves or to you. You want them to "prove it", it seems.

But why?

If they want to pass a law. Start a war. Restrict an activity. Exclude some group. Build a social mindset, etc.

If they make positive claims they should be able to back it up.


'It' in that context, was XYZ non-specific religious worldview. Irrespective of degree to which it is believed.

"What are the diametrically opposed claims of science and religion?"

Means of how the universe was created.
Our place in the universe.
How the universe will end.

There's three, but there are literally thousands of truth based claims in the bible that are either relevant to the fields of physical sciences, or sociology.

"What you really struggle with is the fact that it does do so for others."

No, what I struggle with is that they ACT on that.


"You appear to want that not to be true, to somehow strip people of that belief even when it causes no harm to themselves or to you. You want them to "prove it", it seems."

It absolutely causes harm to me. From not being able to buy hard alcohol on sunday, to fending off all these motherfuckers trying to harvest my poor kid into their goddamn cults left and right. He's only FIVE and I literally cannot shield him from all the evangelizers of so damn many religions. He's not ready to critically analyze and choose between them, or none. Totally naked and unprepared. He shouldn't even have to deal with it.

This is what I mean when I say I cannot escape it.

When a classmate of his died, and some motherfucker starts telling him how the kid is 'in a better place', I HAVE to do something about this bullshit.

If they want to do the things you list, you have a case. But i've not seen anyone among the believers here do so and they represent a significant segment of believers.

Creationism is also not a concept presented here and I agree that it should be challenged as it presents an area of educational harm.

As far as our place in the universe or how it will end, science offers no more clarity than religion.

I don't know where you live, but perhaps, if possible, you should consider moving your child to an environment that offers some options and has more tolerance towards believers of all kinds and non-believers. If you are unable to do this, then you clearly have a battlefield in which you must engage.

Everyone has to learn to deal with groups that present ideas that do not coincide with those of their parents or the ones they develop for their own. The problem you seem to describe is that your child is the only one who is being raised to see things differently.

There is no problem, imo, if someone believes their dead child has gone to a better place. Why would you HAVE to do something about that, other than tell your child that that is one POV but that there are others as well.

I'm not a fan of blue laws, but not being able to buy hard liquor on a Sunday should not be more than an inconvenience and certainly not something worth getting this worked up about. Those laws are generally old and have changed a lot over the years.

More every day.

As to moving, I would have to leave the United States of America. The blue laws are an example. A symptom.

Just over 10 years ago, we went to war with a nation, because our President felt god gave him a mandate to do so.
http://www.commondreams.org/headlines05/1007-03.htm

In a nation that has a supermajority (or just a hair shy) of believers, and elects creatures like Bush, this is something I feel I *must* fight.

If the parents of a dead kid believe he's in a better place, fine. But don't tell MY kid he or she is in a better place. Now I have to deal with the problems that come along with that sort of mindset, like maybe him thinking death isn't so bad. Misplacing risk. Not valuing *other* people's lives/circumstances.

As to your first point: "Insisting that someone offer proof when you know it's not available is very weak soup."
No, it's CRITICAL. It's desperately needed.

You most definitely would not have to leave the US. There are many, many areas of diversity, tolerance and acceptance in this country. YOu apparently do not live in one.

You again make these broad assumptions that all believers are something you need to fight, when, in fact, a very large number of them voted against Bush. It reminds me of the knee jerk response I experience in Europe the day after the 2nd election. I was screamed at for being from the US, even though I had worked hard to not re-elect Bush.

It's these kinds of judgements and assumptions that are the problem.

Thinking death isn't that bad? It is really not hard to have these discussions with a child, even one as young as your own. He's going to be exposed to all kinds of ideas that you don't agree with, so you better get used to it because you are not going to extinguish any of those people.

There is no proof or disproof. Demanding it doesn't make it more likely.

Live your own life. Raise your child in a non-religious household. Explain to him that everybody has their own views on this and it's important to respect others even when they are different than you.

Teaching your child that segments of society that are different than you are inherently bad people is teaching him bigotry. It is far preferable to teach him to be inquisitive and to learn how to distinguish when those ideas (be they religious or political or about diet or what kinds of clothes are cool) are potentially harmful and when they are just different ways of experiencing the world.

He is no doubt picking up on what appears to be your rage when it comes to this topic.

I encounter this shit on a daily basis. (I work within jogging distance of the catholic school that fired a principle for being gay, in recent headlines)

"You again make these broad assumptions that all believers are something you need to fight, when, in fact, a very large number of them voted against Bush."

Not enough of them. And not enough called for impeachment or criminal investigations after. On a myriad of executive misbehavior.

"I was screamed at for being from the US, even though I had worked hard to not re-elect Bush."

A sentiment that is not fair, but should be understandable, given that the US has the power to destroy any nation at a whim, and has done so in living memory.

"Thinking death isn't that bad? It is really not hard to have these discussions with a child, even one as young as your own. He's going to be exposed to all kinds of ideas that you don't agree with, so you better get used to it because you are not going to extinguish any of those people."

I'm not looking to extinguish people. You've accused me of that before, don't try to slip that bullshit into this conversation too.

"Live your own life. Raise your child in a non-religious household. Explain to him that everybody has their own views on this and it's important to respect others even when they are different than you."

Respect people? Yes. Ideas? Only on their merits. I don't have to respect shitty ideas, and neither do you.

"Teaching your child that segments of society that are different than you are inherently bad people is teaching him bigotry. It is far preferable to teach him to be inquisitive and to learn how to distinguish when those ideas (be they religious or political or about diet or what kinds of clothes are cool) are potentially harmful and when they are just different ways of experiencing the world. "

There you go again. Final warning. Don't attribute this bullshit to me again, or you will be put on ignore. You have done it repeatedly across many conversations, even after I have clarified my position thoroughly.

I won't stand for it anymore. It is dishonest.
Do it again, and you will be the sole occupant of my ignore list.

other than religious "cults"?

My step-sister and her wife have raised their asian born child in Seattle and have somehow been able to find tons of opportunities for her and for all of them that are free of prejudice and not influenced by religious right wingers. If you can't find it there, I doubt that you will find it anywhere.

Not enough people in general voted against bush or called for investigation/impeachment. To put this only on the religious is beyond ridiculous.

Final warning? Please. I understand that you don't like what I have to say and you are perfectly within your rights to ignore me. It makes no difference to me at all.

I wish you the best of luck in raising your child to be a loving, inquisitive, tolerant and happy person.

And our public schools are still poisoned with it. Seattle Public School District #1, of which I am a graduate, is STILL, in Seattle, the bluest heart of the bluest county in a strong-blue state, has religious horseshit inside it's halls.


"I understand that you don't like what I have to say and you are perfectly within your rights to ignore me."

Especially when what you 'have to say' is attributing a smear and a deception to me.


My child is the most inquisitive, loving, and tolerant/happy person I know. Why do you think I want to keep religion the HELL away from him?

You ended this with a base smear against religion. You stated pretty clearly that you think religion would poison your child and keep him from being an inquisitive, loving, tolerant and happy person.

Sorry, but that is base prejudice. In saying that, you imply that all religion is bad and that your child has to be shielded from all of it.

So much for encouraging inquisitiveness.

Multiple religions tell my kid my neighbor is a sinner.

He isn't. He's gay. That's not a sin. The best my religious compatriots have apparently been able to drag themselves up to, is 'hate the sin but love the sinner and judge not'. Sorry, it's NOT A SIN. PERIOD.

Calling it a sin, is no better than disparaging my neighbor directly.

Telling my other neighbor that abortion was a sin, not acceptable either. It implies she did something wrong.

I will raise my son free of that shit, believe it.


Keep pretending that shielding my son from prejudice is prejudice itself, fine. Be as dishonest as you like.

But your experience is only your experience and you can not see that others have had very positive experiences.

That includes many gay people, some of whom are prominent posters in this very group, that have found religion a very positive force in their lives. You seem to think that all churches or other religious institutions say homosexuality is a sin. That's just flat out not the case.

You can raise your son free of that shit, but if you don't also tell him that that is a sub-group within religion and that there are many others POV and religious people who will love and embrace him for who he is, he may get a distorted view of the breadth, depth and diversity among the religious.

I'm not pretending anything. You can shield your son from prejudice, but he will still experience it and not only from religious people. And he may miss the opportunity to seek support in a place or way that includes the religious.

I will not, and cannot deny him that right.


As an outsider, I do not understand religious people of a faith that is built upon a foundation of bigotry against them. I genuinely do not understand it. It's like Chris Rock's comment; "If you're a black Christian, you have a real short memory", and variations thereof.

I don't know what 'truth' or positive force individuals are seeking for within such magisterium, but if they find it, it requires they ignore the foundation upon which it is built. A troubling scenario, to me.

At a certain point, there is a high likelihood that your child may pursue that which you most vigorously oppose.

Your assumptions are what colors your perspective. You assume that religion is built on a foundations of bigotry against certain people. That's not the case. While some religious groups and individual hold that position, others have exactly the opposite. I was raised with a religion that completely and absolutely rejected that bigotry.

You have defined a foundation that is not based in reality but only a by a distorted perspective where it appears that you are unable to see the variations and distinctions.

I understand the scenario you are painting. Kids do it from music to... everything really.

I only tell him what I believe, when he asks. Short, to the point. I make suggestions for him to look at, or consider, but I tell him nothing, insofar as what he should believe.

Same thing when my wife asks me how to vote on an issue. I don't give her that answer. I saw my father instruct my mother on how to vote too many times. I simply articulate how I intend to vote and why, and I give the pros and cons as clearly and unbiased as is possible.

"You assume that religion is built on a foundations of bigotry against certain people."

I don't assume. It IS. In the Abrahamic tradition, it relies upon the old testament to construct the 'truth' of the whole thing, and the bigotry is part and parcel of it. You can separate it out, but you are engaged in special pleading if you do so.

Much like our Constitution institutionalized slavery at its founding. It's been amended out, thankfully (a more material revision than the people who 'reject that bigotry', having actually edited the source document) but the poison will always be there to see. So too with violations, like the internment of Japanese-American citizens.

It makes the reality of it plain to see. It is not different, really.

"You have defined a foundation that is not based in reality"

No, it's based in their own source documentation. They can edit and throw it out. That's a healthy start. I don't know on what grounds/authority they do so, but some do, and that's cool. As I have mentioned, there are religious people I will stand shoulder to shoulder with, under some circumstances. They are good candidates.

That school that you live near that fired their principal, that's the school where the kids and much of the community protested the decision vehemently, right?

Clearly there are like-minded people in your community.

An encouraging footnote in a sad debacle.

science and religion never in conflict when left to themselves. It's the imposition of belief (or disbelief) on either side that causes trouble.

Science is based on the following paradigms:
1. Anyone can understand the universe, if he invests enough time, work and mental capacity.
2. You are fallible and will produce and encounter errors along the way.

Religion is based on the following paradigms:
1. Only chosen ones, with a supernatural vision or guided by a prophetic figure, can understand the universe.
2. The explanations are infallible and absolute.

much past the headline on this one.

The article basically states that those surveyed WANT science and religion to coexist in peace.

The practical difficulties for mixing science and religion are explained in the quotes: The religious method of information-gathering is simply too unreliable.


If you gather data, the various data-points have varying degrees of credibility. This credibility is taken into account in statistics by two parameters: "robustness" and "purity".
If you aim for high purity, you discriminate against all data that might be compromised in any way. But by doing so, you might have produced a prejudice that will deliver skewed results when analyzing the data.
If you aim for high robustness, you try to take as much data as possible into account to gather all relevant information. But by doing so, you also include data that is clearly the product of errors and noise and will disturb your final results.
(The trick is to find the right balance between robustness and purity.)

Religion aims for purity when seeking an explanation and conveniently ends up with one foregone conclusion.
Science aims for robustness and comes up with many possible conclusions.

but it doesn't respond to the article at all.

It's about co-existence not overlap. The methods are clearly different, as are the goals.

It is only when someone feels that one must vanquish the other that we run into trouble.

That's exactly the problem with people who like the questions science asks but not the answers it delivers (is that a Stephen Colbert-quote?).

"God created Earth 6000 years ago."
"That's impossible for these geological, archeological and cosmological reasons."
"Well, in that case, God created the Big Bang."

They revise the starting-points of their arguments over and over again, yet somehow always end up with the same conclusion they had before.


What about moral overlap? The Bible says that women are inferior and that homosexuality is bad. But science says that those assertions are incorrect.
-> How can tolerance and intolerance co-exist? Are we supposed to tolerate intolerance? Are we supposed to do so when intolerance is the intolerant's fault?


Last year, a plane in Asia was about to crash and it was averted at the last minute. The black-box revealed that, when disaster struck, the co-pilot started praying instead of trying to save the plane physically. Please tell me how this isn't a conflict between spiritual and material priorities.

hard science should rule. I am fully in support in pushing back hard against the creationists or those that use their religious beliefs to want to control women's choices or deny rights to GLBT people or do nothing about climate change. There is harm done when this happens and the science is clear.

But when there is no overlap, there is no need for a winner. There are philosophical question for which science offers pretty much nothing, but religion does for many.

The bible has to be read in cultural context of course. YOu won't find believers here who embrace the concepts of women being inferior or homosexuality being an abomination. They represent an important group of believers and are fully on the same side as non-believers who are dedicated to the causes of women's and LGBT civil rights.

How do you know that the co-pilot prayed instead of trying to save the plane? How do you know that he wasn't doing both? How can you assert that this wasn't an example of co-existence and that praying didn't give him the focus and strength he needed to address the problem?

You may have information that supports your position on that, but I have looked and can't find an article to support it.

I trust in scientific theory to try To figure out creation. I believe God created the laws of nature or allowed them to develop this way.

I trust in scientists to decipher this. I trust in God for my souls redemption.

The same standard underlays my criticism of this notion and delusional thinking in general-- truth is not at all related to the number of people who profess a wrong opinion. Just the opposite, because ignorance demonstrably is. In any event, I suspect the real message of this poll is that most people have no idea what they're talking about when asked whether science and religion are compatible world views. For example, "38 percent of all people surveyed indicated a belief that scientists 'should be open to considering miracles in their theories or explanations.'" Thanks, but no thanks.

Those that tightly hold onto a belief set (like saying that religious people are delusional) despite clear evidence to the contrary (like the scientific literature and professional organizations present) are much more likely to fit the definition of delusional than a religious person.

They have no understanding of what science is or how it works, and they apparently have no clue why "miracles" will never cited as causative mechanisms in nature. Why do you think their opinions about something they're so utterly ignorant of have any relevance?

It's also obvious that the Templeton Foundation promotes religion, so it's no surprise they'd release the results-- containing that absolutely nonsensical call for appealing to superstition in scientific theory-- under a misleading title touting broad agreement about the compatibility of science and religion. Discerning readers are not fooled, however. Granting authority to delusional thinking via mass agreement is one of the oldest fallacies of all. Everyone can see that the world is flat!

Do you have the education, training or experience to make psychiatric diagnoses? Do you have any credentials at all that would give you the right to make psychiatric diagnoses about large groups of people that you have not even examined?

I agree that they do not understand science or the scientific method and that that is a big problem. But that doesn't make them delusional

And I think we as a society have a responsibility to improve education so that people do understand science and to do it in a way that does not threaten their religious beliefs (unless those beliefs are contradictory to scientific evidence).

They reported the data but in no way called for appealing to superstition in scientific theory. In fact, they reported that framed by Krause's remarks.

Discerning readers are needed in many areas and armchair psychiatrists are not.

de·lu·sion (dih-loo-zhuhn)
noun

1. an act or instance of deluding.

2. the state of being deluded.

3. a false belief or opinion: delusions of grandeur.

4. Psychiatry. a fixed false belief that is resistant to reason or confrontation with actual fact: a paranoid delusion. (emphasis added)

Would you agree or disagree with two important premises?:

First, religious explanations of the world are internally inconsistent with one another, i.e. if the Christian accounting of creation, deities, etc is correct, then the Hindu etc. accounting must be incorrect because they contradict one another in important ways. Therefore, at best, most religious beliefs must be false, and perhaps all are false. But at minimum, only one contradictory dogma can be correct, and the others must be incorrect.

Despite the high probability that any single dogma is a false belief as defined above, most religious believers are extremely resistant to reason or confrontation with actual facts regarding those beliefs. So much so that they readily resort to violence with one another over them, killing their neighbors and even their family members over differences in dogma.

If those are true statements, then it seems any reasonable person would have to grant the delusional nature of religious faith.

appears to have a fixed false belief that is resistant to reason or confrontation with actual fact. That would make you delusional, and I learned long ago that arguing with the delusional is pointless.

See what happens when you use a simplistic definition from dictionary.com and don't have the education, training or experience to really understand what a delusion is.

BTW, I don't really think you are delusional, but you do fit the definition that you have provided.

Which does not by itself nullify these results, but it does speak to its purpose, which is to promote religion.

More importantly, these results are irrelevant. It does not matter what people think or how many people think it. The extent to which religion treads on the toes of science is the extent to which science and religion are at loggerheads. This is in spite of what people think or how many think it.

Glaringly, 38% of survey respondents and 60% of the Protestants think that scientists "should be open to considering miracles in their theories or explanations." To any rational human that is a horrifying finding and undermines any conclusion that science and religion should work more together. If religion wants to work with science it has to work within the scientific methods. They don't get to redefine science.

Anybody wanting science and religion to work together has to address this very important matter.

It shows a very poor understanding of scientific method or no understanding at all.

That's why the recent proposals for presenting science in a way that does not threaten religionists is compelling, imo. When it is presented as adversarial, problems are sure to arise. But if the case can be made that these two areas can co-exist and there is no need for one to reign supreme over the other, there may have an opportunity to move the believers towards a better understanding of science.

I think (and hope) that is exactly what NDT is trying to do in his new series.

Tell that to the 38% of people (60% of Protestants) who think that science should include miracles. Those are the very people who feel threatened by science and who are making such a big stink in public policy on science all over the country. By the way, just about all of the Republican Party are amongst those people.

This is a very important issue to me. I don't see that reaching out to people like that is going to be productive. In fact, I would be flat against it. If the religious want to support science, they are welcome to, and I'm sure they'd be welcome. That is as far as I would be willing to support anything like this.

On edit: yes, NdGT is trying to reach out, but the fundies are already screeching about Cosmos.

I say fuck em.

would have to reconsider that position. Just wishing that they didn't think that way would require a miracle indeed. Taking the opportunity to provide science education in a non-threatening way is what is needed here.

I disagree that just about all of the republican party are amongst those people, though I would suspect that they are mostly republicans.

Saying "fuck em" solves nothing other than to push them further into their corner and make them more adamant.

I absolutely disagree with that approach.

And much of what they do politically undermines science education, including attempting at the state level to redefine it as including miracles. These bills and Board of Education policies are being put forth across the country in many states and have been for decades, always by Republican members. So I will stand by my claim that they are substantially Republicans. (Although it is not currently popular for scientists to make this a partisan issue, DU is a partisan site so I won't worry about that here.) I see absolutely zero evidence that these folks are willing to change their opinions. They are true believers who likely never will. And again, we've been fighting this battle for many decades. The Scopes trial was in 1925.

However, the congregations may be a different story. I will grant you that. There may be some outreach there. I would encourage that. I don't know if the new Cosmos will accomplish much there. It could be good for some religious sects. However, the response to Cosmos from the religious right seems to be universally negative. So you should consider that, my friend.

Those are my reasons for my opinion.

I am willing to change my opinion if there is information that it is or would do some good. But I just don't see anything that science can do to effect the situation. I think change has to come from religion before any science outreach can be effective. Note, that I don't want anybody to think that I am saying all religion here, only those who make up that 38%. They are the problem and I don't see how outreach to them changes that. They must be opposed politically and religiously. But I don't think many scientists feel qualified to critique their religion, only their science (which is what scientists do). Would you suggest changing that? If so, how?


As always, I appreciate your responses.

want to work with scientists and science itself.

Calling them names or saying "fuck em" will not get us there.

I believe that much of what the republican party has done has been driven by their own political motivations and not so much by their true religious beliefs. I also believe that they have co-opted the truly religious in order to achieve those goals.

A reasonable and possibly effective approach, imo, would be to show the truly religious the benefits of supporting the democratic party. If they are truly religious, then they are truly interested in civil liberties, economic equality, social justice, taking care of the poor, etc, as these are fundamental values in christianity.

We won't be able to help them with the issues of abortion or marriage equality, but there are many other areas where we could, including improving the quality of their children's education.

I'm not saying it would be easy,but the republicans have very effectively targeted local elections (particularly school boards) and made great gains. I see little evidence of the same effort from democrats.

And, as always, I very much value your take on these topics as well.

My take is the contrary. The Religious Right and Christian Coalition have co-opted the Republican Party. They began this in the late 70's by running religious people for precinct delegates. They distributed literature and held seminars and workshops, mostly hosted at their churches. They established groups on the ground in state after state. Once they had a majority of delegates in a county, they controlled the selection of district delegates. Once they had the districts in a state, they controlled the selection of state delegates. Once they had them, the national delegates were theirs. It was neatly done and hardly anybody has written about it.

We saw it happening when I was politically active in Kansas in the 80's and 90's. They bided their time until they could take control of the machinery of one of the two major parties in the country. We are now living with the results of that.

The long time congress critters and nationally known Republicans may not all be crazy fundementalists, but they have to live with the fact that the entire party machinery is. They have basically little choice in following the lead of the fundies. How moderate Republicans like Susan Collins can continue with this GOP is beyond me. Many have not. And this is why.

We ignore this at our peril.

I hope I am wrong about this, but I don't think I am.

and I have had the opportunity to see a few documentaries that had different takes.

And, in the end, it was probably a combination of things.

I think the neocons saw a golden opportunity to rally a formerly pretty apolitical but well organized group. They chose two issues (abortion and GLBT rights) and lit a fire under the religious right. I think, but can not be sure, that they never really intended to vigorously pursue either of these issues. And while they made some small inroads, they failed pretty miserable in their stated objectives.

OTOH, they created a voting base that got W elected twice. Having and holding the white house was always much more important than reversing Roe v. Wade.

At some part, though, the tail started wagging the dog and the neocons lost control. I think that is what we have seen over the past few years.

But there are factions within the religious right, and in particular some evangelical groups, who think they were duped and they are none too happy about it.

They may be ripe for the picking, so to speak. But if we approach them in a denigrating fashion and a mocking attitude, we haven't got a chance.

That is another thing I think we ignore at our own peril.

Maybe that is the source of my tough stand.

Maybe you can help talk me off the metaphoric ledge.

that science can be presented properly and NOT offend some religious people. Not surprising, since it can't be done. At least not without telling science to get down on its knees and kiss religion's ass, which is, I'm sure, what you'd like to see. But science works…and if people's religious beliefs don't agree with science, the religionists are the ones who have to conform or cope. Period. There will always be those too addled for that, and they should be left by the roadside in favor of those still capable of enlightenment.

Most Jews have no issue here.

With Moses being a myth and non of the events in Exodus happening?

I am not sure why Moses has to be a myth or the exodus story is false. However I am convinced that science and the Torah can be reconcile. A number of Rabbis and Jewish scientists have addressed the apparent conflict. Here is a good explanation http://www.huffingtonpost.com/rabbi-geoffrey-a-mitelman/why-can-judaism-embrace-s_b_880003.html

I recently had a conversation with a neuroscientist, who also happened to be a self-described atheist. He knew I was a rabbi and so, in the middle of the conversation, he very tentatively asked me, "So ... do you believe in evolution?" I think what he was really asking was, "Can you be a religious person who believes in science?" And my answer to that question is, "Of course."

While some people think of science and religion as being inherently in conflict, I think it's because they tend to define "religion" as "blind acceptance and complete certainty about silly, superstitious fantasies." Quite honestly, if that's what religion really was, I wouldn't be religious!....

Instead, when Jews read the Bible today through a rabbinic worldview, we are trying to answer two separate questions: First, what did the text mean in its time, and second, how can we create interpretations that will give us lessons for our time?

Indeed, the Bible shouldn't be taken simply literally today because circumstances, societies, norms and knowledge have all changed.

A great example of that comes from how the rabbis interpret the verse "an eye for an eye." While that is what the Bible says, to the rabbis, that's not what the verse means. Instead, the rabbis argue, "an eye for an eye" actually means financial compensation, and they go on for multiple pages in the Talmud trying to explain their reasoning. They don't read that verse on its simple, literal level, but through the lenses of fairness, of common sense, of other verses in the Torah and of the best legal knowledge they had at that time.

So now we can also see why in Judaism the beginning of Genesis is not in conflict with the big bang theory or natural selection. On the one hand, for its time, the Bible provided an origin story that was a story that worked then, but now, science provides a much better explanation for how we got here.

But the Bible isn't meant to be taken only literally -- it's designed to be a source of study and exploration for the questions of our time. The point of the Creation story is really to challenge us with questions like, "How should we treat people if everyone is created in the image of God? What are our responsibilities to this world if God has called it 'good'?"

In Judaism, there's no concept of "God says it, I believe it, that settles it." Instead, Judaism pushes us to embrace the text for what it was back then, and to create new ways of reading the text for what it can be now.

I understand the explanation.

or whether astronomical discoveries can be reconciled with Quine's New Foundations

if Bach music contained lyrics with scientific/legal/moral suggestions, and certain Bach fans believed those lyrics should be taken seriously and treated as a basis for our scientific theories and legal system.

So apart from failing completely, your analogy is spot on.

Sorry about your failed analogy.

Can people practice and believe in both?

But I'm guessing that's not the point you are getting at; and in response to that I'd say that while Science can be a harsh discipline, comparing it to slavery is a bit beyond the pale.

Bryant

You did miss the point.

Try again.

I'd point out that while some believers do see a conflict between religion and science, just as many don't, because they feel like the two answer different questions. Science answers questions about how the universe works, while religion answers other questions. The two aren't actually in conflict, except at those times when someone wants to make points, puts them in conflict - like that Ken Hamm guy. He obviously makes a lot of money trying to convince his fellow believers that you can't believe in both science and religion. And of course many agree with his proposition that to believe in Science is to reject Religion and to believe in Religion is to reject Science.

In contrast, slavery and democracy do cover the same territory and so are at least partly in conflict. The principals of Democracy seem to conflict with the Principals of Slavery, and it strikes me that it would be hard to believe in them both at the same time. That said, obviously for the first decades of this nation, we did believe in both Democracy and Slavery, after a fashion, but we did it through the expedient of declaring that blacks weren't really people and so didn't count.

Bryant