Reply
 
Thread Tools Display Modes
Old 06-20-2007, 10:35 AM   #1
Wakkun
Guest
 
Posts: n/a
I put this in Science because it's a debate between scientists and it's in the Scientific American. I dunno how much it is about science per se, it's freaking huge and I haven't had time to read it yet. It's probably a print out and read on the bus job. Anyway, I thought it would make a change from the Atheist vs Theist Muslimer debates.

Should Science Speak to Faith? (Extended version)
Two prominent defenders of science exchange their views on how scientists ought to approach religion and its followers
By Lawrence M. Krauss and Richard Dawkins.

Although the authors are both on the side of science, they have not always agreed about the best ways to oppose religiously motivated threats to scientific practice or instruction. Krauss, a leading physicist, frequently steps into the public spotlight to argue in favor of retaining evolutionary theory in school science curricula and keeping pseudoscientific variants of creationism out of them. An open letter he sent to Pope Benedict XVI in 2005, urging the pontiff not to build new walls between science and faith, led the Vatican to reaffirm the Catholic Church’s acceptance of natural selection as a valid scientific theory. Dawkins, an evolutionary biologist, prolific author and lecturer, is also an eloquent critic of any attempt to undermine scientific reasoning. He has generally shown less interest than Krauss, however, in achieving a peaceful coexistence between science and faith. The title of Dawkins’s best-selling book The God Delusion perhaps best summarizes his opinion of religious belief. These two allies compared notes from the front lines during breaks at a conference devoted to discussing clashes between science and religion held at the Salk Institute for Biological Studies in San Diego late last year. In a dialogue they re-create here, the authors explained their respective tactics for engaging the enemy and tackled some of the questions that face all scientists when deciding whether and how to talk to the faithful about science: Is the goal to teach science or to discredit religion? Can the two worldviews ever enrich one another? Is religion inherently bad? And science can ever test the “God Hypothesis”?(An abridged version of this dialogue appeared in the July 2007 issue of Scientific American)

Teh hole thing:
http://sillyurl.com/wax-does-woo-your-fibs

(Sillyurl is one of those services like tinyurl, only, the URLs are, uh, silly :thumbsup: )
  Reply With Quote
Old 06-20-2007, 10:47 AM   #2
Choobus
I Live Here
 
Choobus's Avatar
 
Join Date: Apr 2005
Location: prick up your ears
Posts: 20,553
Of course science should speak to faith. It should say "hey, faith, go fuck yourself you retarded cumchugger".

You can always turn tricks for a few extra bucks. If looks are an issue, there's the glory hole option, but don't expect more than ... tips.
~ Philiboid Studge
Choobus is offline   Reply With Quote
Old 06-20-2007, 11:43 AM   #3
WITHTEETH
Obsessed Member
 
WITHTEETH's Avatar
 
Join Date: May 2005
Location: Where the flowers are always in blossom.
Posts: 1,257
I've actually already have started to discuss this, heres part of the convo with the theist.
Quote:
Quote:
You are using the fallacy that "science" is the knowledge learnt from observing the world, the book of facts and laws therein derived from same ... the codex.

Science is the mental discipline of only accepting as true what can be demonstrated, predictably, from observed phenomena. It is a rigour of denying what is merely comfortable or convenient to find what is TRUE.

You are dodging the spirit of the science by trying to adhere to the letters it is written in.
I always find it interesting that you use the word fallacy to describe the other side in a disagreement. Science is the codex. The mental discipline of science is not science. It is a philosophy, but not science. I'm not dodging the spirit of science. I would rather see science as the set of rules. That's not a weaker position, by the way. If we use science as the basis for our observable world, and ethics and morality as our reaction to it, then science is beyond reproach. It works both ways, then. Science cannot speak to faith, true. ...But then faith cannot speak to science.

At this point, I would like to establish an basis for agreement. Can we agree that science, as a set of laws or rules, does not care about morals or ethics? Can we agree that Science simply has no stake in the argument. Then, can we agree that those who study science can apply the things they learn through science to enhance their world view?

Frankly, despite your clever post, I'm not dodging the issue at all. I sincerely do not believe that science will ever be the basis for ethics or morals. I think I'm I adhering far more rigorously to the spirit of science by separating it from the moral argument than you are by putting it in the middle.

Untill we establish that morals and ethics are a purely sentient construct, then I don't see this issue moving at all.

"I didn't know anyone was insulted; for my part I'm just trying to clarify a misconception you have."

"I'll leave aside your scientist-bating for the moment. (Why can't science give guidance for morals? That is the very basis for humanism, after all. Are you denying humanism exists?)"

I didn't know if you meant science-bating or if you'd meant to say science-baiting. Either way, it seemed as if you'd taken insult.

At any rate, I have no misconception. However, I will let you take the last word. We all know the famed meta constitution and, short of spending the rest of my life answering the arguments you fabricate and attribute to me, I just don't think I can compete. The floor is all yours, meta. :Cant's smiling at meta with a raised eye-brow icon:
Neither post is mine.
The theist poster focuses on the topic title heavily. "Should SCIENCE speak to faith?" Hes bascially saying how can science speak to faith since all it is is a method to explain the world around us.

What do you guys think of that answer? Frankly it annoys the piss out of me, because hes making it into a argument. Thats like asking the paper to talk to science right?

"We are a way for the Cosmos to know itself."
Carl Sagan
WITHTEETH is offline   Reply With Quote
Old 06-20-2007, 01:18 PM   #4
Smellyoldgit
Stinkin' Mod
 
Smellyoldgit's Avatar
 
Join Date: Jul 2006
Location: Britland
Posts: 13,568
Of course Mr Science can talk to Mr Faith.
At some point Mr Faith will always say – “bugger me, you’re right – but I can’t admit it”
Mr Science will move on and learn, whilst Mr Faith will keep finding ways to not admit he’s clinging to the wreckage.
Mr Science has a process in place to test himself, challenge and deal with his own problems.
Mr Faith has no such mechanism for change – but he’ll turn blue in the face (sorry Wak) arguing from stupidity - so imagine just how stupid his goat-herder based “knowledge” will sound in 2000 years time.

Stop the Holy See men!
Smellyoldgit is offline   Reply With Quote
Old 06-20-2007, 01:33 PM   #5
Kamikaze189
Senior Member
 
Kamikaze189's Avatar
 
Join Date: Jun 2005
Location: Giant rock hurtling through space
Posts: 767
Quote:
WITHTEETH wrote
Hes bascially saying how can science speak to faith since all it is is a method to explain the world around us.
And religion isn't? The way I see it, religion and science serve the same basic purpose of explaining the world. That's why they were both invented, or at least why religion was bought into. The differences are that religion isn't self correcting and doesn't involve evidence. This makes science a much better answer. Unfortunately, many people let religion override because of "faith."

“Whoever attacks the popular falsehoods of his time will find that a lie defends itself by telling other lies.” - Robert Ingersoll
Kamikaze189 is offline   Reply With Quote
Old 06-20-2007, 01:47 PM   #6
Philboid Studge
Organ Donator
 
Philboid Studge's Avatar
 
Join Date: Mar 2005
Location: Beastly Muck
Posts: 13,136
Aquinas once said that Christ-pounders should take a breath once in a while from all the cumchugging, or atheists would laugh at them (or words to that effect.)

Unfortunately, he also held that science was a subset of knowledge, and that if you drew a Venn diagram, the bigger circle would contain a lot of bending over and taking it up the pooper. The faithful don't need "explanations" for this douche-wizardry, and the non-faithful aka atheists can't possibly understand it.

So yeah, Science can speak to Faith until its lungs burst, and Faith will still be standing there like Terri Schiavo after jello shots.

~~~~~~~~~~~~~
La propriété, c'est le vol ...
Philboid Studge is offline   Reply With Quote
Old 06-20-2007, 02:29 PM   #7
Lily
Guest
 
Posts: n/a
Quote:
Kamikaze189 wrote
Quote:
WITHTEETH wrote
Hes bascially saying how can science speak to faith since all it is is a method to explain the world around us.
And religion isn't? The way I see it, religion and science serve the same basic purpose of explaining the world. That's why they were both invented, or at least why religion was bought into. The differences are that religion isn't self correcting and doesn't involve evidence. This makes science a much better answer. Unfortunately, many people let religion override because of "faith."
You are half right, I think. Thomas Kuhn explains the half that I don't think your answer covers. Or, at least, Thomas Kuhn as hijacked by general philosophy.

http://plato.stanford.edu/entries/thomas-kuhn/
  Reply With Quote
Old 06-20-2007, 02:32 PM   #8
Eva
Super Moderator
 
Eva's Avatar
 
Join Date: Jun 2004
Location: Puerto Rico
Posts: 9,775
moo?

One of the most irrational of all the conventions of modern society is the one to the effect that religious opinions should be respected....That they should have this immunity is an outrage. There is nothing in religious ideas, as a class, to lift them above other ideas. On the contrary, they are always dubious and often quite silly.
H. L. Mencken
Eva is offline   Reply With Quote
Old 06-20-2007, 02:34 PM   #9
Lily
Guest
 
Posts: n/a
Quote:
Eva wrote
moo?
Nah, just a mercy visit since y'all have been turning on each other in some really ugly ways, since I left.

Don't make me come back.


Moooving along...
  Reply With Quote
Old 06-20-2007, 02:36 PM   #10
Eva
Super Moderator
 
Eva's Avatar
 
Join Date: Jun 2004
Location: Puerto Rico
Posts: 9,775
::belch::

One of the most irrational of all the conventions of modern society is the one to the effect that religious opinions should be respected....That they should have this immunity is an outrage. There is nothing in religious ideas, as a class, to lift them above other ideas. On the contrary, they are always dubious and often quite silly.
H. L. Mencken
Eva is offline   Reply With Quote
Old 06-20-2007, 03:28 PM   #11
anthonyjfuchs
Obsessed Member
 
anthonyjfuchs's Avatar
 
Join Date: Jan 2006
Location: North Carolina
Posts: 4,765
Quote:
Lily wrote
Nah, just a mer---
You get the same answer that Xans got, because you are a:

atheist (n): one who remains unconvinced.
anthonyjfuchs is offline   Reply With Quote
Old 06-20-2007, 03:59 PM   #12
WITHTEETH
Obsessed Member
 
WITHTEETH's Avatar
 
Join Date: May 2005
Location: Where the flowers are always in blossom.
Posts: 1,257
Hehehehehhaaha!1!!!one!11!

"We are a way for the Cosmos to know itself."
Carl Sagan
WITHTEETH is offline   Reply With Quote
Old 06-20-2007, 04:20 PM   #13
calpurnpiso
I Live Here
 
Join Date: Jun 2005
Location: Chandler- Arizona
Posts: 14,227
Quote:
Philboid Studge wrote
Aquinas once said that Christ-pounders should take a breath once in a while from all the cumchugging, or atheists would laugh at them (or words to that effect.)

Unfortunately, he also held that science was a subset of knowledge, and that if you drew a Venn diagram, the bigger circle would contain a lot of bending over and taking it up the pooper. The faithful don't need "explanations" for this douche-wizardry, and the non-faithful aka atheists can't possibly understand it.

So yeah, Science can speak to Faith until its lungs burst, and Faith will still be standing there like Terri Schiavo after jello shots.
Well, the schizophrenic Aquinas writings are excellent for comic relief. One just has to read his Summa Theologica. It has one delusional idiocy after another. The man was truly a Christian, aka insane. He is only surpassed in delusional idiocies by that other retarded delusional sexually frustrated moron, Augustinus of Hippo. He is the greatest exponent of the Christ-psychosis schizophrenia type disorder.

Christians and other folks infected with delusional beliefs think and reason like schizophrenics or temporal lobe epileptics. Their morality is dictated by an invisible friend called Jesus.
calpurnpiso is offline   Reply With Quote
Old 06-20-2007, 04:59 PM   #14
Lily
Guest
 
Posts: n/a
Quote:
anthonyjfuchs wrote
Quote:
Lily wrote
Nah, just a mer---
You get the same answer that Xans got, because you are a:
http://www.political-news.org/images...-hollywood.jpghttp://images.1strowseats.com/300x180/RonWhite300.jpg
Thanks to this gracious message I am now a whole dollar richer. I bet someone that you would respond like an ass ... inine boor and you didn't let me down! :thumbsup:

Well, really, it was a sucker bet.
  Reply With Quote
Old 06-20-2007, 05:49 PM   #15
anthonyjfuchs
Obsessed Member
 
anthonyjfuchs's Avatar
 
Join Date: Jan 2006
Location: North Carolina
Posts: 4,765
Then have another dollar. You've earned it, you insufferable:


atheist (n): one who remains unconvinced.
anthonyjfuchs is offline   Reply With Quote
Reply

Thread Tools
Display Modes

Posting Rules
You may not post new threads
You may not post replies
You may not post attachments
You may not edit your posts

BB code is On
Smilies are On
[IMG] code is On
HTML code is Off
Forum Jump


All times are GMT -7. The time now is 12:22 AM.


Powered by: vBulletin - Copyright ©2000 - 2019, Jelsoft Enterprises Ltd.
Copyright © 2000 - , Raving Atheists [dot] com frequency-supranational frequency-supranational