hmm. Things that are black and white are easily defined. Some of the bases of ideas are the solid facts we don't need to question. Most judgements though are just that, because they are deemed to be the most likely correct answer. Is an opinion on a fact a right to doubt it?Quote:
Science isn't about what we would prefer to be true - you can't have an opinion on a fact.
Science = discovery
Religion = a search for truth
Strongly disagreeing with teaching creationism unless it is made painfully apparent that this is what some people BELIEVE and not necessarily what ACTUALLY happened.
It certainly doesn't belong in a Science lesson.
Well, I blogged about this just today (Sam Butler Blog Archive Creationism or Evolution: Should science decide?) but to be honest it's not a simple matter. I think creationism is a bit unscientific to be propounded in school science lessons, but we certainly shouldn't be doing something in those lessons that would seem to invalidate those or any other beliefs. I found that sometimes a teacher can get carried away and start denouncing them. What do you think?
Exactly Sam. Very well put.
It gets tricky with some people's beliefs. All Christianity, as far as I know, bases some of it's ideas on physical fact. These facts have to be accepted, which then brings you into direct conflict with science.
As Dorkins said, Christians compromise their beliefs by not taking the bible literally. Of course this is nonsense but true at some level I think. You can't look at the Bible entirely symbolically. The interpretation won't hold water. Or does it?
I'm not sure. As I said in my blog post, the only place creationism really came up in my R.E. classes at school was in discussing the symbolic interpretation of Genesis and indeed the entire Bible. An Evangelical Christian is unlikely to agree with such an interpretation, but in my regard it seems to be a growing thing; some Christians I know do hold this belief that the bible is symbolic rather than to be literally heeded. Actually it's interesting to note the first post here because I'm a Scientologist :hat:
eh? atheism is not a religion.
atheism is the opposite of theism, ie
atheism is the absence of belief in the existence of any gods.
If you know that a person is an atheist, then you know that he or she lacks belief in gods — nothing more, nothing less.
Can I throw a cat among the pigeons by quoting a remarkably close to the truth entry on uncyclopedia?
Religion is a widespread mental illness, of which the defining feature is delusional belief in a powerful invisible being who is always watching you and will punish you if you don't follow their will (the paranoid delusions found in schizophrenia are often remarkably similar). The illness comes in various strains, of which the most severe is Islam, symptoms of which include virulent antisemitism and homophobia. Almost matching in severity is scientology, the system in which aliens blew up a volcano, creating life. People not afflicted by religion are called atheists, and they can be identified by their ability and willingness to use rational thought.
Har har. So anyway, was the atheist/theist comment in response to something?
Another point is the big bang theory actually has observable evidence.Quote:
Perhaps the most religious people I know are atheists
I believe that atheism and religion can co-exist without causing each other harm. If anything religious followers should be confident that science will one day prove that their religion is right? On the contrary science has done nothing but disprove religion since day one. We now know the sun will still rise even if we do not make human sacrifices to the sun god. We know that the earth is not the centre of the universe. We know the earth is billions of years old. We know that animals and humans arose through evolution...
The problem for me arises when religion actively interferes with science, when it is taught in a science classroom, when children are taught religion from a young age at home instead of science and so forth.
I hear ya mister. The subsequent words should serve to clarify, although my blog and this thread are similar and not the same, so I think we should try to stay on topic. Here's the verbiage:
Mockery of religion in the media? The Uncyclopedia article, while I'm sure intended to be a bit of fun, is an extreme example of this. To bring it all back down to Earth, I think we have to avoid that happening in the education system. I think somewhere between denying the existence of religion and preaching it in geography classes would be preferable. It's a wide playing field though...Quote:
“What?!” you say. Well if we’re going to talk about ‘religious’ in terms of firmly set beliefs and a kind of stubbornness toward changing them, then to me it’s those who believe that ‘religion’ is nonsense who are the most guilty. I, of course, am willing to deal with that, as I do every day in our increasingly secular society, isolated from religion by an increasing mockery of it in the media.
Actually I'm going to quote myself again. This was the conclusion of my blog post:
Destruction of an opposing reality is far from the nicest thing one can do. That’s not to say we should be passive about radical ideas that could have a negative impact, nor that we should teach the theory of evolution as a mere ‘belief.’ In a school science lesson however, the possibility of other, perhaps spiritual factors, in shaping the course of evolution, should not be attacked. It probably shouldn’t be promoted either, as this would be seen as unscientific due to the lack of tangible evidence. But there is no tangible evidence for the existence of ‘chance’ either, and scientists should be reminded of this. In my opinion, creationism is not a matter of scientific interest. The Big Bang then, should always be taught as a theory until such a time as more evidence becomes apparent. But the opposition of science and religion should not be brought into the school system and nor should their separation.
Scientologists. Being 'taught' religion shouldn't be seen as a replacement for science and learning to think with reason.
I think we basically agree that science and religion aren't exactly opposed to each other in principle, but some people like to set them head-to-head and watch the, er, big bang. I have always taken the scientific approach to my own beliefs and where I see evidence, I'm more convinced. I have never really studied Big Bang Theory extensively, so I'll check out that page on evidence of it. I don't think it's entirely implausible either, to be frank.
I think we're at least close to being on topic :p
Now, how to use IT in R.E. classes... I think slowly the religion of IT will take over the world. Its followers will worship Charles Babbage, because his name is most memorable and rhymes with a certain vegetable. There is also tangible evidence that he actually existed. See if the Flying Spaghetti Monster can beat that. :hat:
Thanks for your input Sam. The Scientology reference alludes to a record breakingly long thread that started with a discussion on it.
I did read your blog post and thought it very well done. I'm a Christian, and I believe some of the Bible, including the torah, to be symbolic rather than literal. I believe that to be the great majority opinion of mainstream Christians.
It's those people that like yourself, are willing to accept there may be other answers and that we don't know everything, that are the truly religious. Without doubt and questioning it's all entirely worthless.
You've made reference to Richard Dawkins. As a scientist, do you think his statement that there is actual proof of evolution that creationists deliberately ignore to be incorrect?