Should Science Speak To Faith?

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: )

[Choobus]

Of course science should speak to faith. It should say "hey, faith, go fuck yourself you retarded cumchugger".

[WITHTEETH]

I've actually already have started to discuss this, heres part of the convo with the theist.

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?

[Smellyoldgit]

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.

[Kamikaze189]

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."

[Philboid Studge]

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.

Kamikaze189 wrote

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/

[Eva]

moo?

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...

[Eva]

::belch::

[anthonyjfuchs]

Lily wrote

Nah, just a mer---

You get the same answer that Xans got, because you are a:

[WITHTEETH]

Hehehehehhaaha!1!!!one!11!

[calpurnpiso]

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.

anthonyjfuchs wrote

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.

[anthonyjfuchs]

Then have another dollar. You've earned it, you insufferable: