Do You Think Science And Religion Are In Conflict? You Are On One Fringe Or Another
http://www.science20.com/science_20/do_you_think_science_and_religion_are_in_conflict_you_are_on_one_fringe_or_another-153994By Hank Campbell | March 20th 2015 07:30 AM
America has the luxury of being able to dash from one culture war to another, primarily because we are a wealthy country with plenty of food and medicine and energy, providing ample opportunity for people who have never lacked for any of those to be opposed to science related to food, medicine and energy, while others can claim pollution is our friend or worry about abstract ideas like the conflict between science and religion.
You would never know we are not doomed by this looming science/religion conflict if you read science and political media over the last decade or two - a chunk of science media thinks that if some rogue school district tries to present a zany alternative to evolution we will become a third world nation while some in religion think scientists are amoral activists ruining Western civilization with in vitro fertilization.
Rice sociologist Elaine Howard Ecklund discussed findings from the "Religious Understandings of Science (RUS)" project recently, with a focus on evangelicals. RUS is a mixed-method compilation of survey, observation, document analysis and interviews and when you have a survey of 10,000 Americans and then 300 interviews, 140 of which were evangelical Christians, it is going to be skewed, thus some of the results pertain mostly to evangelicals but since they often get magnified in stories about anti-science religious people, it makes sense to provide a little more balance.
It can also make other findings look a little strange when the data is mixed in with those that are more representative. If we survey Whole Foods shoppers in Marin County about genetically modified foods or vaccines and then the rest of the local population on something else, Marin county would seem disconnected scientifically if we only mentioned those two.
more at link
= new reply since forum marked as read
Or rather, I give up.
If you are going to respond to every question with the chant "straw man" then I'm willing to call it a draw. You believe that you and members of your faith (and possibly all religious believers of all kinds including Pastafarians) are not gullible (by your definition of "gullible" (or perhaps your definition of "true" (It depends on what the meaning of "is" is.))) and I believe that all religious believers are gullible (by Websters definition of "gullible" and the accepted definition of "true"
and since there is no common ground to serve as a starting point, there is no possibility of discussion; only the tiring repetition of "I'm right and you're wrong".
Given that fact, I withdraw from the "discussion". I have better things to do with my time.
I kind of wish, though, that you had not kept evading the questions about whether or not you believe in Zeus, and if not, why not; and why is it that God needs servants.
or stop responding, and come back later in a thread like this one and start the whole waste of time over again. I will answer your current questions, but if I get the sense you are not discussing this in good faith, I will excuse myself from this thread fork.
noun \ˈfāth\
: strong belief or trust in someone or something
: belief in the existence of God : strong religious feelings or beliefs
: a system of religious beliefs
The only sense 'faith' ever applies to anything in respect to me, is in the usage of 'trust' in that first definition. When I get in a plane to go somewhere, I don't have 'faith' that it will get me, alive, to my destination. I have trust based on the design, testing, MTBF, historical track record of similar/same model aircraft (I refused to fly on McDonnell Douglas Super-80 derived designs for a few years there), the carrier's reputation, crew training/competency, safety record, etc. I find the odds of survival, as well as reaching my intended destination, and finally, on time, to be acceptable, and find trust in the craft/crew.
I know there is a chance it may not get there on time. (This has happened to me.)
I know there is a smaller, but real chance it may not reach its intended destination at all. (This has happened to me.)
I know there is a smaller, but real chance the plane may crash, and I may survive with or without injury.
I know there is an even smaller, but real chance, I may die horribly at any time after stepping foot inside the craft. (This has not yet happened to me.)
My trust in that process/service/craft/crew may be very strong, but I would not describe it as 'faith', and if I knew less about the nuts and bolts/functionality/regulations of the aircraft, crew, and employing carrier, I would not have that body of trust, and would probably not choose to risk flying. This is a big differentiator from faith, because faith doesn't require evidence to bolster it. People have faith despite complete and total ignorance of the mechanics of the subject at hand, whatever it may be.
So no, I do not have 'faith' in anything, including myself/my integrity, in the manner you are using that word. If you want to use it as a shorthand description of the above, you may, but that's not what it means for me, and we are then not speaking the same language, even if the words sound familiar. At best, you have so far suggested that I am a subhuman. Especially since I know what 'integral' means. ("essential to completeness"
But by all means, prove away.
But it's such an intellectual-sounding phrase!
Oh wait - you must be a scientific literalist. The other extreme, as cbayer notes. Because on every topic there MUST be two extremes that are equally wrong and extreme. All clear? 
...from Wikipedia (with references) Y chromosome and X chromosome:
The idea that the Y chromosome was named after its similarity in appearance to the letter "Y" is mistaken. All chromosomes normally appear as an amorphous blob under the microscope and only take on a well-defined shape during mitosis. This shape is vaguely X-shaped for all chromosomes. It is entirely coincidental that the Y chromosome, during mitosis, has two very short branches which can look merged under the microscope and appear as the descender of a Y-shape.[7]
The idea that the X chromosome was named after its similarity to the letter "X" is mistaken. All chromosomes normally appear as an amorphous blob under the microscope and only take on a well defined shape during mitosis. This shape is vaguely X-shaped for all chromosomes. It is entirely coincidental that the Y chromosome, during mitosis, has two very short branches which can look merged under the microscope and appear as the descender of a Y-shape.[13]
Nucleus of a female amniotic fluid cell.
Top: Both X-chromosome territories are detected by FISH. Shown is a single optical section made with a confocal microscope.
Bottom: Same nucleus stained with DAPI and recorded with a CCD camera. The Barr body is indicated by the arrow
"only 15 percent of Americans are creationists."
align with the very graph she uses
[img]
[/img]
Seems at least 40% of Americans, if not more, are creationist.
I gotta remember those emote thingies. 
I thought I had finally pushed you over the edge.
I'm no socio-anthropologist by any means, but it is a neat linkage of some sort. There's something there, there.
I tend to think it is because people across cultures ask the same question, wish for the same answers, but I don't know that for sure.
Happy Solstice to you, pinto!
It's like, well, christmas!
Hope that you finally got some sleep, m'lord.
It may not have been you, but I did make the point to someone the other day that "moot" does not mean what you think it means.
Just want to help you keep from embarrassing yourself.
You have a blessed Saturday!
as it really just shows how the US used a term wrong so often that it became acceptable.
His point is that religious myths are the end result of untold centuries of cultural wisdom handed down generation to generation and while this wisdom uses mythical allegories (e.g. "God" , it contains The Truth and is therefore worthwhile to understand. From that point of view, disregarding religious myth as "stories of iron age goat herders" is a bit condescending.
(For what it's worth, I totally disagree with his conclusions. I present them here as an alternate viewpoint from the other side of the argument.)
I agree with you regarding "revealed truth " and "because GOD" being the answer. My friend pretty much evokes the "because GOD" explanation for every single thing we discuss. His answer is always of this exact form:
1. The universe is infinite.
2. Humanity's capacity for knowledge is not.
therefore
3. Humanity can never fully understand the universe.
therefore
4. Trying to understand the universe with science is prideful.
Believe me, refuting this wildly fallacious logical argument over and over and over gets extremely tiresome.
In my friend's case, he invokes God as the answer to everything because he himself does not understand the methods of science and does not care to expend the effort to gain understanding of it. To assuage his ego, he tries to take a philosophical high road that avoids any discussion of messy details and distills every question down to the same conclusion: the universe is infinite, everything we do is irrelevant, everything that happens is predetermined, there is no free will.
For my own part, I try not to be as dogmatic in my thinking. I'm happy to let religious scholars ponder the big questions of metaphysics as long as they don't try to tell me how old the Earth is.
I gave you an answer, and even suggested a specific denomination with cool video ads.
If your question wasn't serious, that doesn't make my answer incorrect.
It just means that you weren't serious about your question, and didn't really want to know the answer.
...whether or not you should accept your gay relative, or pretty much any question with the word "should" in it.
Religion might very well have those answers for you, if you choose wisely.
Which is a question about human capacity, not about God. I have not claimed that human capacity is unknowable, so your response and your sense of irony are both misplaced.
I asked what ways you would suggest of comprehending the experience other than words (the way I suggested that you think is "arbitrary" .
And that is good news indeed.
alongside evolution. I think that's allowing their beliefs to interfere with their accepting science, and to interfere with children's education (not just their own children, either).
As for their views on climate change, here's something scary:
Americans from different religious backgrounds vary in their willingness to attribute the severity of recent natural disasters to the biblical end times. White evangelical Protestants are substantially more likely to attribute the severity of recent natural disasters to biblical end times (77%) than climate change (49%). While nearly three-quarters (74%) of black Protestants also agree that natural disasters are a sign of the apocalypse, they are about as likely to see these natural disasters as evidence of climate change (73%). Substantially fewer Catholics (43%), white mainline Protestants (35%), and religiously unaffiliated Americans (29%) see recent natural disasters as evidence of the biblical end times.
http://publicreligion.org/site/wp-content/uploads/2014/11/2014-Climate-Change-FINAL.pdf
77% thinking we hitting the biblical end times?
Whether or not to build a Nuclear Weapon is a question for Religion.
Perhaps there is a division of labor here?
Since when was reality determined by majority consensus?
I stopped caring what "most" people "think" around the time American Idol topped the fucking Nielsen Ratings.
There are good people everywhere.
And their goodness would be recognized by vast majorities in most civilizations. Caring individuals who respect and help others, and contribute by their inputs.
Morality is the judgment of the vast majorities. Does not rely on any known book.
Many good people in all societies join religions because religions say they embody goodness.
It is a fallacy.
This assumption only survived to this day because until the beginning of the XXth century, the majority was uneducated, and social sciences tell us it takes 6 to 8 generations for deeply ingrained concepts to be completely overturned.
But the fact is, the 'holy books' are full of mistakes and offer no distinct morality.
From a purely logical point of view, they have nothing to offer.
Contrarily to atheists like Hitchens or Dawkins, I am not angry at religions.
I just see them like one would see cockroaches: useless and best gone.
Meanwhile, enjoy Ted Cruz and ISIS.
In your post #294, you raise two objections to which I feel I already answered. To wit:
Objection #1
Already addressed. I can expand if it seems unclear:
Some of the facts might be wrong due to ideological biases of scientists (see Galileo)
Such errors do not make Science irrational, they make it wrong/flawed.
But inexorably, scientific truth wins because correct Science brings proof.
Objection #2
I also addressed that question already, but I will restate and make my point:
-1- Not a single religion brings any unique positive moral value. Jesus might have been the best publicist for the golden rule, but it was put forward word for word by many other philosophers before him, Confucius included.
But
-2- each monotheism brings distinct unnecessary divisive evils:
a- Judaism: the land of Israel belongs to us (even though no etnic group stays unchanged)
b- Christianity: you can only be 'saved' through Christ
c- Hinduism: Hindu Gods = the Nation. (d- Myanmar Buddhists say the same thing)
e- Islam: the choice to unbelievers: conversion, submission or death (literal quote)
If you think any of the specific religious 'values' a to e bring anything positive to the world,
please let me know.
PS: you seem fixated on learning whether I am a scientist.
while I won't answer, I will tell you the author I know whose thinking you most closely resemble: Karen Armstrong. She loves all religions. Ancient Greece Gods, monotheisms, Zen, everything goes, she can't any evil in any religion.
If I dare say, despite the evidence (a to e)
But hey, the soul, God, spirituality, all these undefined terms can't be empty, can they?
Hopefully, the legends about him being drowned at the hands of his more rational fellow Pythagoreans for his heretical irrational beliefs is not true.
I'm more of a "New Age Pythagorean", myself.
Over the centuries, we've learned to live with irrationality without getting so bent out of shape over it, so the current debates over the subject seem more like a throwback to previous millennia to me.
We're rehashing the same old stuff that I though was settled centuries ago.
