morality god and science a book

[Utsanomiko]

Because all you are doing is quoting other people's beliefs, without any support of your own. So what if Einstein grouped science and religion together? Are you trying to make an appeal to authority, or are you just adding some fluff material? Either way, it all sounds like a Sophomore Oral Comm paper.

They don't go together because they operate on two totally different principles. It's like trying to meld nihilism with a perky, 'groupie' mindset. Religion is not rational; it has never even tried to be. The whole reason it deals with the 'unknown' is becasue it wants to promote its ideals as the highest priority, so it's best if it doesn't obviouisly contradict with observable facts. It's not out to answer anything, just to keep things in order.

And it's quite obvious you aren't trying to keep facts in mind, either. And I really don't care that you 'feel' the two go together. They don't. Tough Shit.

[Durandal]

Sorry that i have been gone for such a long time, and that it has taken me such a long time to respond to argue my point further. Although you all have many valid points, i would like to quote Einstein, "Science without religion is lame, religion without science is blind."

Unlike other disciplines, scientists cannot use quotes as a valid form of evidence. That may be acceptable in your poetry or English classes, but it's an appeal to authority. Yet another reason you shouldn't be writing a book on science.

And, if we've all made valid points, why don't you simply do what we say and admit that science and religion are two completely different and incompatible enterprises?

Now i would like you to tell me how science and religion cannot mix. They obviously can because it has been done and there are many courses i have seen that teach general theories on the convergence of science and religion.

Oh really? What are those theories? Do they make predictions? Can they be tested or proven wrong? Not everyone who says he is a scientist is a scientist. Sociologists claim to be scientists, but their methods are grossly unscientific, and this is exactly the kind of tripe I'd expect to see out of one of them. Either present these bullshit theories so we can tear them apart or stop appealing to authority.

i would also like to quote from a journal i have read, "After centuries of battle, scientists and theologians are finally forging a grand unified theory. Think eternity = MC (squared)."

What journal is that? A physical science journal, or some English or philosophy journal? What the fuck does "Eternity = mc^2" mean? Oh, and that's three appeals to authority, now.

I think i'll try for a few more quotes this by Jacques Monod 1970 winner of the Nobel Prize, "the ancient covenant is in pieces: man knows at last that he is alone in the universe's unfeeling immensity, out of which he emerged only by chance."

That's now four appeals to authority. Do you even have an original argument?

Monod believed he had proven god does not in fact exist at all. steven weinberg then retaliated in 1977 with ,"The more the universe seems comprehensible the more it also sems pointless."

Five appeals to authority.

in 1981 the national academy of sciences declared, "Religion and science are seperate and mutually exclusive realms of human thought."

And you, a sophomore in high school who happens to be a good poet, think you have the necessary education and training to refute the National Academy of Sciences? This gets better and better all the time.

Recently though Astronomer Allan sondage declared that the big bang can only be explained as a miracle.

Appeal to authority by you (number six), appeal to ignorance by him.

Charles townes a nobel prize winning physicist stated once - discoveries of physics seem to reflect intelligence at work in natural law

Appeal to authority number seven.

- biologist christian de duve also nobel prize winning has stated science argues neither for nor against the existance of deities there is no sense in which atheism is enforced or established by science

Appeal to authority number eight. Atheism is presumed in science, because no scientist ever ascribes the working mechanisms of a process to deities which cannot be shown to exist. Deities are extraneous terms, since they do not lend any predictive capacity to a theory. Fucking Hell, don't you get it, yet?

- and francis collins director of of the national human genome research institute insists that " a lot of scientists really don't know what they are missing by not exploring their spiritual feelings."

Appeal to authority number nine. Can you squeeze another one in here to make it a perfect ten?

In recent years science has begun to back away from it's case closed attitude toward the transcendant unknown recently there have been many conferances that bring together physicists and theologians at places such as the smythsonian and harvard. and the american association for the advancement of science now sponcors a "dialogue on sceince thics and religion."

There we go! Number ten! Unfortunately for you, it's a simple political maneuver because the scientists aren't asking theologians how their views of how the universe works, but on the ethics of the research they conduct.

and scientists who once shrugged at faith are now retracting statements such as e.o. wilson stephen jay gould and carl sagan-they are now endorsing some form of reconciliation between science and religion.

Wow, number eleven. Twelve, if you give one appeal to both Gould and Sagan.

So now i ask why you denounce my writing so whole heartedly.

Because you DON'T HAVE A FUCKING CLUE AS TO WHAT YOU'RE TALKING ABOUT. ALL YOU DO IS QUOTE OTHER PEOPLE