The never ending debate that isn't a debate...Creationism rears it's ugly head again.

[PoseyBuster]

Threads always seem to lose quality once this Wickabee guy comes along.

I learned about many religions, some pretty far in depth at a public high school. It was one of my favorite classes I took back in the formative years.

[Wickabee]

I can't tell if you're serious or not.

[ravens_creed]

I've enjoyed my dialogue with Wickabee and many others here in these threads. I know we each take our turns being on the offensive and the defensive in the talks that go on, but I think we've all come to respect each other's differences for the sake of quality philosophical discussion.

As for what were talking about specifically, I wouldn't say I meant to imply anything sinister with my comments. It was more about the idea that a scientist should be abiding by scientific principles and ideas, that's sort of their lot. It seems like they are making exceptions, and if I wanted a scientific perspective on something, I'm not sure I would prefer one coming from a source that was willing to make exceptions and veer from the path, as it were. That's all I was really getting at.

I guess you could say the same thing in reverse. I think part of the reason why I drifted away from the church was because the church we went to was so loose with its views on things (United Church of Canada, in the US its equivalent would be a Calvinist or Methodist Church). A part of me felt like if you expect me to believe some of this stuff, it might be best if you weren't so loosey goosey in how you allow me to interpret and understand some of these things. A lot of the uncertainty and grey area is what caused me to question things more seriously. They did a poor job at indoctrinating me. :P

[Wickabee]

All I will say is I did not know absolute disbelief in God is a scientific principle.

Actually, I will ask a question. Are you talking about how it could be done in a perfect world, or just how it's been done thus far?

[dscards]

Kinda, yeah. A scientist who abides by his/her own beliefs and not by the scientific principle isn't exactly a scientist. To me, it's contradictory.

I think this is a very silly statement. My mother is an epidemiologist and also is religious. I don't believe that going to church on Sunday makes her groundbreaking work on birth defects in children any less valid. I think if you ask any of the kids that had severe medical problems at birth and have had their quality of life improved dramatically by the work of her team, well, I don't believe any of them would say "Yeah well, she believes in God, so she's not a real scientist."

To jump topics. I don't have a problem with religion being taught in school in this manner: "There is a segment of the human population that believes (insert religion). Some of the rituals/practices/beliefs they have are (insert here). They follow the (insert holy text). Here's how this group has had an impact on history (insert here). Now in contrast, a different segment of the human population believes (....and so on).

I think that refusing to acknowledge the impact that religious groups have had on world history is doing a disservice to world history. Whether you believe a religion or not, you can't deny that many religious groups of varying faiths have helped write our history books. Simply ignoring religion as a motivating factor in history would lead to an incomplete account and inaccurate history classes. Agree? Disagree?

[ravens_creed]

If God truly existed, do you (your mother?) think birth defects are all a part of his master plan? It seems an awful lot like the writing is on the wall, but your mom chooses to ignore it.


Also, kudos to her and the work she does. Very important stuff!

[ravens_creed]

All I will say is I did not know absolute disbelief in God is a scientific principle.

Actually, I will ask a question. Are you talking about how it could be done in a perfect world, or just how it's been done thus far?

In a perfect world, that's how it would be done. Philosophically, that would be the consistent way of doing things.

Disbelief in God might not be a scientific principle, but science also has absolutely no evidence to offer for the existence of God, so perhaps it should be. I don't think it is unreasonable to expect scientists to follow the scientific principle. That is, basing your conclusions on the evidence gathered, and not on beliefs.

[shrewsbury]

Religion has been in every culture and society since humans have been around. To ignore its significance is to ignore human nature and to not understand religion equates to not allowing yourself to understand humans.

If God truly existed, do you (your mother?) think birth defects are all a part of his master plan? It seems an awful lot like the writing is on the wall, but your mom chooses to ignore it.

Freewill, human sufferage, and distancing ourselves from the holy could all answer why there are birth defects. Do you think that a god would plan out everything, step by step? what would be the need for this?

to try and make science vs religion is the need to have empirical evidence because your mind is limited by the need of the tangible.

[Wickabee]

In a perfect world, that's how it would be done. Philosophically, that would be the consistent way of doing things.

Disbelief in God might not be a scientific principle, but science also has absolutely no evidence to offer for the existence of God, so perhaps it should be. I don't think it is unreasonable to expect scientists to follow the scientific principle. That is, basing your conclusions on the evidence gathered, and not on beliefs.

Thing is, science has, in the grand scheme of things, has proven very little overall. To me, the scientific principle is the search for truth. As such, until something is 100% proven or disproven, it can't be held to the status of "scientific principle"

So, I'm going to say, no, it shouldn't be.

[ravens_creed]

How did we end up disagreeing? At one point, we were in full agreement that creationism, something faith-based, should not be taught in a science classroom, because it is not science, it does not follow scientific principles. All I'm adding is that it seems to me to be contradictory for a scientist to abide by scientific principles in their professional life and then abide by a completely different set of principles in their personal life. If I wanted a scientific perspective/explanation for something, I would prefer it coming from a scientist who doesn't make contradictory exceptions. I guess that's my personal preference.

I know what you mean when you say that to you, the scientific principle is the search for truth. However, in actuality, the scientific principle, by its definition, is more specific. It insists that the method of inquiry be based on empirical and measurable evidence that is subject to specific principles of reasoning. If we choose to find "truth" in other ways because we choose to for our own reasons, that is cool, but it is not based in science, it is based in faith, something we choose to believe in that has limited or no evidence and cannot be measured or proven. (I would say that these are usually things that we WANT to be true, regardless of whether or not they, in fact, are.)

As for science proving very little overall, I will have to humbly disagree, especially as I sit here in my chair that becomes a bed on-board the newest luxury passenger jet liner, while looking out the window at a space shuttle launch and thinking about the astronauts who have a chance to explore beyond our planet, while video-calling my friend in Jerusalem to express my excitement that my laser eye surgery was a success and that I am very grateful to be living in a time that affords a heliocentric view of things, while he patiently prays at the dome of the rock for God to provide him with better insight.