Suggestion to Wong...

[Ai Phling Pu]

You know, most of the stuff in the "Science and Logic" forum is actually about "Politics and Religion". Doesn't that seem like it should be a forum unto itself?

[Wicked Pilot]

A study of religion is a good exercise in how most people lack basic logic in their thoughts. And don't forget that the number one enemy of scientific advancement has always been religion, politics, or a combination of them both.

[Skelron]

Wow so False in it's basic assumption. That Science is directly oppossed to religion in all cases!! A common mistake made due to a few event's that have become the focus of the world. Added to this is the Fundamentalists, who as a very Vocal, and well organised group become linked in many minds to mean religion full stop. It would surprise people I am sure to learn that (I think it was either Thomas Aquina's or St Augstine) Well before Darwin said that he believed that we all came from the smallest living things. (A small paragraph in a larger work, in which he pointed to Evolution) or that early scientists where all member's of the Clergy.

[IDMR]

Indeed. And unless one includes the creationist threads there are only five religious thread, most of which related to the pledge, arguably also applicable here as an example of poor logic...

[Mr Bean]

Religion by some peoples defiintion is the defintion of poor Logic

[IDMR]

Religion by some peoples defiintion is the defintion of poor Logic

Religion may or may not be. Blind faith, however, is an altogether different affair.

[David]

Any belief that you hold to without proof, in other words through faith, is a religion.



Webster's NinthNew Colligiate Dictionary: a cause, pricipal, or system of beliefs held with ardor and faith.

[Mr Bean]

Plus its tax free!
Religion always annoys me
You want to take part in the goverment yet you don't want to pay taxes

Guess they have *Faith that the goverment does not need money to run...

[IDMR]

Any belief that you hold to without proof, in other words through faith, is a religion.



Webster's NinthNew Colligiate Dictionary: a cause, pricipal, or system of beliefs held with ardor and faith.

I rather think we were thinking of the OED 1st definition: 'a particular system of faith and worship'.

At any rate, that is the sort of thing we mock in this forum!

[Darth Wong]

Wow so False in it's basic assumption. That Science is directly oppossed to religion in all cases!!

That is a misrepresentation of the original point, which was that religion is (by definition) an irrational way of looking at things, and therefore stands in opposition to the scientific method on principle. That must be differentiated from your strawman that religion and science must invariably be "directly opposed to religion in all cases".

It is entirely possible for a religious mindset to arrive at a valid conclusion. However, the difference between religion and science is that if a religious mindset ever does so, it would only be through sheer dumb luck.

[Mr Bean]

However, the difference between religion and science is that if a religious mindset ever does so, it would only be through sheer dumb luck.

Ahh Yes Dumb-Luck, One should never Underestmate it, why if it could be Harnese think of the possibiltiys!

Eh normaly those Religious concluses are quick struck down and their creaters Declared Hertics
Well at least in Christianty
They do it in Hindiusm some-what and Judisim does it also but Buddism, Islam and Confisuiusm has not to my knowledge

But every religion has its change Haters
How they keep breeding I'm not sure..

[Darth Wong]

You know, most of the stuff in the "Science and Logic" forum is actually about "Politics and Religion". Doesn't that seem like it should be a forum unto itself?

I would prefer not to split forums unnecessarily. The fact is that politics and religion are both superb object lessons in scientific ignorance and/or logical fallacies, therefore it is virtually impossible to discuss science and logic without mentioning politics or religion sooner or later.

In fact, I would be shocked to find a comprehensive compendium of logical fallacies which does not employ any examples from politics or religion.

[Steve]

And to think that politicians rule the world....

[Ai Phling Pu]

Here's a question: what happens if you take the words, "religion" and "science", and swap them? Same with "logic" and "faith"? We start to see statements not unlike those we may have heard during the Inquisition. Isn't that funny?

[Darth Wong]

Here's a question: what happens if you take the words, "religion" and "science", and swap them? Same with "logic" and "faith"? We start to see statements not unlike those we may have heard during the Inquisition. Isn't that funny?

Actually, it's complete and utter bullshit, and you should be ashamed of posting such nonsensical tripe on the Internet.

No one here has suggested that religious people be killed or persecuted. We are only pointing out that their belief system is irrational. It is impossible to equate this to a crusade or inquisition mentality unless you have the intellect of a squirrel.

If the original Inquisitioners and Crusaders had stopped at saying "I think you're wrong", they wouldn't have gone down in history as a crime against humanity.

[Grand Admiral Thrawn]

We aren't burning people at the stake.

[Skelron]

Wow so False in it's basic assumption. That Science is directly oppossed to religion in all cases!!

That is a misrepresentation of the original point, which was that religion is (by definition) an irrational way of looking at things, and therefore stands in opposition to the scientific method on principle. That must be differentiated from your strawman that religion and science must invariably be "directly opposed to religion in all cases".

Sorry I was actually answering USAF pilot's claim that the number one enemy of scientific advancement is religion, I should have quoted him to avoid confusion.

It is entirely possible for a religious mindset to arrive at a valid conclusion. However, the difference between religion and science is that if a religious mindset ever does so, it would only be through sheer dumb luck.

Oh I'm not so sure, but first of let me make one thing perfectly clear. (My expression is never 100 percent perfect and I want to avoid confusion in this post) I am not advocating religion as a reasonable method to scientific advancement. My view has always been that of most Liberal Christians, (These days anyone who dosn't go running around screaming the 'Bible is the dictated word of God, all in it is the exact truth, and not in many cases a Parable or analogy, despite it being a common method of explaining teachings at the time...) That Science is the 'How' how do we discover for example how humans came to be look to Evolution and science, not to Genesis. Religion is too me the 'Why' are we here, etc.

What I wanted to point out through that Relgion does not necersary have to simply arrive at answer's through shear blind dumb luck. An interesting facet of the Christian faith is the belief in one God, that created the Earth. Why is this so interesting, and what does it have to do with science you ask, one God faith's allow for an understandable universe why, because unlike multi-god Faith's event happens for a reason other than God's fighting. (For example take the Viking religion, a Thunderstorm was caused by Thor fighting Giant's in the heavens, but in a one-god religion there is no god rushing around fighting in the skys so it must be something else...)
This theory, it's fullest advocats claim is one of the reasons why despite China inventing Gun powder the west turned it into a weapon first.

Personally I have my doubts about this theory, but it is a valid approach. You see my problem is too often we attack religion for somehow damaging science, (We see one or two famous example's and set them up as the rule instead of the exception. Never seeing the rest of the argument of the work by Religion in the early days.

[Darth Wong]

Sorry I was actually answering USAF pilot's claim that the number one enemy of scientific advancement is religion, I should have quoted him to avoid confusion.

He was oversimplifying, but he was essentially correct. The religious approach to conceptualizing the universe is the exact opposite of the scientific approach. Therefore, widespread propagation of this mindset is indeed the number one enemy of scientific advancement. The reason creationism and other forms of fundamentalist idiocy can take root in America is the popularity of Christian thought. People are predisposed to think in a manner that makes them amenable to the creationist message.

That Science is the 'How' how do we discover for example how humans came to be look to Evolution and science, not to Genesis. Religion is too me the 'Why' are we here, etc.

That is a common approach, which is fine as long as you can effectively divorce the two in your mind. The problem comes when one subconsciously applies the religious mindset to scientific matters and becomes susceptible to problems such as creationist pseudoscience.

What I wanted to point out through that Relgion does not necersary have to simply arrive at answer's through shear blind dumb luck. An interesting facet of the Christian faith is the belief in one God, that created the Earth. Why is this so interesting, and what does it have to do with science you ask, one God faith's allow for an understandable universe why, because unlike multi-god Faith's event happens for a reason other than God's fighting. (For example take the Viking religion, a Thunderstorm was caused by Thor fighting Giant's in the heavens, but in a one-god religion there is no god rushing around fighting in the skys so it must be something else...)

So you're basically saying that instead of one silly superstitious explanation, Christianity predisposes its followers to choose another one? Sorry, but if that approach arrives at the truth, it's still dumb luck. In neither case is there a methodical approach which is based upon tests against objective reality.

This theory, it's fullest advocats claim is one of the reasons why despite China inventing Gun powder the west turned it into a weapon first.

That is not a case of Christian religion helping the western world find an answer. The science of gunpowder was developed by the Chinese. Done deal. You are confusing "application" with "discovery". The Europeans turned gunpowder into an effective weapon because they were fractious and warlike, not because the Christian faith gave them other avenues of scientific investigation.

Personally I have my doubts about this theory, but it is a valid approach.

No it isn't.

You see my problem is too often we attack religion for somehow damaging science, (We see one or two famous example's and set them up as the rule instead of the exception. Never seeing the rest of the argument of the work by Religion in the early days.

It's not a matter of famous examples; it is a matter of basic philosophy. The Judeo-Christian-Muslim trimvirate teaches that truth comes from authority, and that independent investigation is evil (see Adam's apple). It teaches that blind faith and obedience are virtues. It teaches that it is a sin to question authority and that diversity of opinion is bad. Science, on the other hand, is based on the logical fact that authority is worthless, and that instead of looking to ridiculous methods such as divine prophets or "personal revelation", we can try to approximate reality by continually refining descriptive physical models through constant testing against objective reality. Rather than discouraging diversity of opinion, science requires it.

The two approaches are inherently opposed. The more devoutly religious one is, the less likely it is that he can be scientific. Conversely, the more scientific one is, the less likely it is that he will be religious. This is not a coincidence.

[Skelron]

[/i] to conceptualizing the universe is the exact opposite of the scientific approach. Therefore, widespread propagation of this mindset is indeed the number one enemy of scientific advancement. The reason creationism and other forms of fundamentalist idiocy can take root in America is the popularity of Christian thought. People are predisposed to think in a manner that makes them amenable to the creationist message.

Actually the spread of Fundamentalism has always been linked to political problems, the fundamentalist message is strong in the South of the United States,, and has been since the Civil War, it's initial growth was linked to people from the North after the war coming down with new ideas. They could no longer fight against the North so they became entrentched in the Fundamentalist ideal, this pattern has been repeated in other countrys/areas where Fundamentalism has arrisen. In Country's with a Strong Fundamentalist presence you invariably find a point when the ideals of that area where threatened by an outside agency that they can not fight off military, and so they became more Hardline in their approach.

That Science is the 'How' how do we discover for example how humans came to be look to Evolution and science, not to Genesis. Religion is too me the 'Why' are we here, etc.

That is a common approach, which is fine as long as you can effectively divorce the two in your mind. The problem comes when one subconsciously applies the religious mindset to scientific matters and becomes susceptible to problems such as creationist pseudoscience.

agreed.

You see my problem is too often we attack religion for somehow damaging science, (We see one or two famous example's and set them up as the rule instead of the exception. Never seeing the rest of the argument of the work by Religion in the early days.

It's not a matter of famous examples; it is a matter of basic philosophy. The Judeo-Christian-Muslim trimvirate teaches that truth comes from authority, and that independent investigation is evil (see Adam's apple). It teaches that blind faith and obedience are virtues. It teaches that it is a sin to question authority and that diversity of opinion is bad. Science, on the other hand, is based on the logical fact that authority is worthless, and that instead of looking to ridiculous methods such as divine prophets or "personal revelation", we can try to approximate reality by continually refining descriptive physical models through constant testing against objective reality. Rather than discouraging diversity of opinion, science requires it.

many would argue that is only the dream goal of science but at it's core you are correct about science. (I would argue that Scientists do not live up to that ideal, but it would be a pointless argument to make as it has little bearing on your point)

The two approaches are inherently opposed. The more devoutly religious one is, the less likely it is that he can be scientific. Conversely, the more scientific one is, the less likely it is that he will be religious. This is not a coincidence.

Not true in the slightest! http://www.luc.edu/libraries/science/jesuits/index.html I'm also looking for a Jesuit homepage, to check on what I believe to be the case about the Jesuit order but cannot be sure, I'll post in a seperate post if/when I find it. It is my understanding that to be a member of the jesuit order you must have a Bachelorate... and it is does not have to be in a Theology. http://www.jesuit.org/Pages/jebident.htm is the closest I've found so far will keep looking for a more worldwide/informative site.

The 2001 New Priests in the Jesuit Order page (http://www.companysj.com/v184/newjesuits2001.htm) includes the following people with following degrees:- Fr. Christopher Nguyen, 37, from Vietnam, has BAs in biology and psychology from the University of California Irvine, Fr. José Luis Salazar, 44, from Leyte, Philippines, received a BS in chemical engineering at Divine Word University in the Philippines, Fr. Thomas Schwarz, 45, from Bonn, Germany, has a doctorate in mathematics from the University of Hagen in Germany and an MA and PhD in computer science and engineering from the University of California San Diego. . Dwayne Varas, 34, from Tampa, has a degree in civil engineering from the University of South Florida

Sorry for going overboard, I do that but once I started I couldn't seem to stop. The page also includes people I admit with Degrees in Theology and the like, but hay it is a Religious order... what do you expect!

[Darth Wong]

The two approaches are inherently opposed. The more devoutly religious one is, the less likely it is that he can be scientific. Conversely, the more scientific one is, the less likely it is that he will be religious. This is not a coincidence.

Not true in the slightest! http://www.luc.edu/libraries/science/jesuits/index.html I'm also looking for a Jesuit homepage, to check on what I believe to be the case about the Jesuit order but cannot be sure, I'll post in a seperate post if/when I find it. It is my understanding that to be a member of the jesuit order you must have a Bachelorate... and it is does not have to be in a Theology.

That hardly disproves the point. There are a vast number of bachelor's degrees that are handed out from questionable institutions or for non-scientific or marginally scientific endeavours. The Jesuits, like all other religious orders, teach that blind faith is the ultimate path to truth. This is simply not conducive to scientific endeavours.

The 2001 New Priests in the Jesuit Order page (http://www.companysj.com/v184/newjesuits2001.htm) includes the following people with following degrees:- Fr. Christopher Nguyen, 37, from Vietnam, has BAs in biology and psychology from the University of California Irvine, Fr. José Luis Salazar, 44, from Leyte, Philippines, received a BS in chemical engineering at Divine Word University in the Philippines, Fr. Thomas Schwarz, 45, from Bonn, Germany, has a doctorate in mathematics from the University of Hagen in Germany and an MA and PhD in computer science and engineering from the University of California San Diego. . Dwayne Varas, 34, from Tampa, has a degree in civil engineering from the University of South Florida

Congratulations. You found 4 people with somewhat scientific-sounding credentials. Unfortunately, some of them are a little fishy (computer science is a nebulous term that may just as easily refer to a programming genius as a scientist, and "Divine Word University" does not inspire confidence), and none of them are "hardcore scientists", ie- theoreticians. How does this disprove my statement that there is an invere correlation between strength of religious faith and scientific aptitude?

Consider the analogy of education and income. There is a correlation between the two. Is this correlation rendered "not true in the slightest" if you can find 4 (or even 400) examples out of the hundreds of millions of people in North America who have poor education yet became wealthy?

According to Stephen Hawking, less than 1% of his elite-science associates consider themselves religious in the traditional sense (ie- go to church, believe in the Bible). This is much lower than the ratio in the general population, and it is indicative of a much broader trend than your 4 examples can prove or disprove.

Sorry for going overboard, I do that but once I started I couldn't seem to stop. The page also includes people I admit with Degrees in Theology and the like, but hay it is a Religious order... what do you expect!

No offense intended, but I expect a lot of people who are not particularly rational.

[Skelron]

The two approaches are inherently opposed. The more devoutly religious one is, the less likely it is that he can be scientific. Conversely, the more scientific one is, the less likely it is that he will be religious. This is not a coincidence.

to be a member of the jesuit order you must have a Bachelorate... and it is does not have to be in a Theology.

That hardly disproves the point. There are a vast number of bachelor's degrees that are handed out from questionable institutions or for non-scientific or marginally scientific endeavours. The Jesuits, like all other religious orders, teach that blind faith is the ultimate path to truth. This is simply not conducive to scientific endeavours.

The Jesuit order also does not go in for easy to obtain degree's they are a exacting order that expect the best, and runs several universities, (including the University of San Francisco) That a University is a Church ran one does not detract from it's abilty to teach, and yet by it's name alone you judged the university suspect, have you looked into it? An example of what I mean is that one of the best Senior Schools in Britain is run by an order of Monks, Ampleforth Collage, my mum always said when I was still in Senior school that if she ever won the National Lottery she would send me to it.

The 2001 New Priests in the Jesuit Order page (http://www.companysj.com/v184/newjesuits2001.htm) includes the following people with following degrees:- Fr. Christopher Nguyen, 37, from Vietnam, has BAs in biology and psychology from the University of California Irvine, Fr. José Luis Salazar, 44, from Leyte, Philippines, received a BS in chemical engineering at Divine Word University in the Philippines, Fr. Thomas Schwarz, 45, from Bonn, Germany, has a doctorate in mathematics from the University of Hagen in Germany and an MA and PhD in computer science and engineering from the University of California San Diego. . Dwayne Varas, 34, from Tampa, has a degree in civil engineering from the University of South Florida

Congratulations. You found 4 people with somewhat scientific-sounding credentials. Unfortunately, some of them are a little fishy (computer science is a nebulous term that may just as easily refer to a programming genius as a scientist, and "Divine Word University" does not inspire confidence), and none of them are "hardcore scientists", ie- theoreticians. How does this disprove my statement that there is an invere correlation between strength of religious faith and scientific aptitude?

Ahh you want a Hardcore Theotician, how would a Palentolgist, involved in the finding of the Peking Man suit you? http://www.jesuit.org/resources/Teilhard.html 'As a palaeontologist he worked in many places - in China where he established and directed a museum and laboratory, in India and Burma, and in Mongolia where his discoveries provided the first evidence for the existence of Palaeolithic Man. He was in China when Hiroshima was bombed and had his work seriously affected by the Maoist revolution. He lectured in palaeontology in Paris, with a laboratory at the Paris Museum and was eventually elected as a member of the Académie des Sciences.'

Consider the analogy of education and income. There is a correlation between the two. Is this correlation rendered "not true in the slightest" if you can find 4 (or even 400) examples out of the hundreds of millions of people in North America who have poor education yet became wealthy?

Not a similar situation out of the people who became Fr's in the Jesuit Order in 2001 I found 4 with Science degree's (Actually 5 but one had the same qualification as another so putting it down was pointless.) it is in fact 5 out out of 23 roughly therefore 22%. For your analogy to be correct it would have to be a much smaller cross section or to prove similar number's I was not taking a sample as large as you did, mine was from 23 people.

According to Stephen Hawking, less than 1% of his elite-science associates consider themselves religious in the traditional sense (ie- go to church, believe in the Bible). This is much lower than the ratio in the general population, and it is indicative of a much broader trend than your 4 examples can prove or disprove.

Interesting but not what I was trying to say, you where claiming that a belief in Science leads to a lack of belief in religion that the more scientiic you are the more it followed you had to be less religious and vice versa. that it happens that Stephen Harking knows very few traditionaly religous individuals is anyhow irrelavent. I myself do not attend Mass, apart from Christamas to appease my Mother, am very Liberal and untraditional in my views on God, yet am religous (As I think I have proven too many times on this Board ) So the fact that he says they don't go to mass does not follow that they are necc non believer's it means that they are not traditional, you need to prove that they are not religous full stop, that they are Atheists. That Stephen Hawking said they are not Traditionally religous is a very interesting use of words I feel, if he wanted to say they where atheists I believe him to be intelagent enough to actually say they where so, but he dosn't.

No offense intended, but I expect a lot of people who are not particularly rational.

Non Taken.. but I'd be very careful, and do more research into the Jesuit order, you may be surprised by what you find.

[Darth Wong]

The Jesuit order also does not go in for easy to obtain degree's they are a exacting order that expect the best, and runs several universities, (including the University of San Francisco) That a University is a Church ran one does not detract from it's abilty to teach, and yet by it's name alone you judged the university suspect, have you looked into it? An example of what I mean is that one of the best Senior Schools in Britain is run by an order of Monks, Ampleforth Collage, my mum always said when I was still in Senior school that if she ever won the National Lottery she would send me to it.

If it is run like a secular school, it could be a good university. If it is run like a Bible school, it won't be a good university. Some Christian organizations have demonstrated the ability to run institutions in a secular manner; this hardly disproves the point.

Ahh you want a Hardcore Theotician, how would a Palentolgist, involved in the finding of the Peking Man suit you?

You seem to be missing the point, which is that you are talking about anecdotal evidence rather than broad trends. You can't address that point by bringing up another anecdotal example.

Not a similar situation out of the people who became Fr's in the Jesuit Order in 2001 I found 4 with Science degree's (Actually 5 but one had the same qualification as another so putting it down was pointless.) it is in fact 5 out out of 23 roughly therefore 22%.

Your entire sample size is 23 people? This proves my point for me.

Interesting but not what I was trying to say, you where claiming that a belief in Science leads to a lack of belief in religion that the more scientiic you are the more it followed you had to be less religious and vice versa.

Nope. I was saying that a scientific approach is incompatible with religion, and that there is a general inverse correlation between scientific approach and religious conviction. People who merely have a "belief" in science are simply replacing one god with another, rather than comprehending the method. Such people are very easily swayed to religion, if they ever left it in the first place.

that it happens that Stephen Harking knows very few traditionaly religous individuals is anyhow irrelavent.

Who said he knows very few religious individuals? He knows many religious people (like he. he married a Christian, which forcibly introduces you into a community of Christians), but not among his professional colleagues. That is the point I was making. In my own university class, I did not know anyone who believed in the authority of divine prophets or the accuracy of Christian myth. My study partner went to church sometimes. He said he went because it was a good place to pick up girls. My science-aware and religious acquaintances have a funny habit of not intersecting, and the demographics bear this trend out; the most devoutly religious parts of the United States have distinctly below-average education levels.

So the fact that he says they don't go to mass does not follow that they are necc non believer's it means that they are not traditional, you need to prove that they are not religous full stop, that they are Atheists.

Perhaps I should have anticipated ths kind of loophole-finding retort, and used more careful language. OK, I will be more specific: he said that almost no scientists believe in a personal God. It is an unfortunate and typical symptom of the constant marketing campaign inherent to Christianity that many scientists' words have been twisted to make it appear as if they do.

[IDMR]

Here's a question: what happens if you take the words, "religion" and "science", and swap them? Same with "logic" and "faith"? We start to see statements not unlike those we may have heard during the Inquisition. Isn't that funny?

So the Inquistion merely disagreed vehemently and mocked heretics and heathens? And here I was thinking they were bad.

[Iceberg]

If it is run like a secular school, it could be a good university. If it is run like a Bible school, it won't be a good university. Some Christian organizations have demonstrated the ability to run institutions in a secular manner; this hardly disproves the point.

We're talking about fully-accredited Catholic universities that have been in existence for decades or centuries here, not some diploma mill run out of a fourth-floor apartment.

[Wicked Pilot]

the most devoutly religious parts of the United States have distinctly below-average education levels.

Being from that part of the country, I can say from personal experience that the above statement is indeed very true.