[MikeD]

Just popped in the DVD which came with the They Might Be Giants CD my wife bought for the crumb-snatcher.

Holy CRAP. Thought it was just going to be funny kid's sings.

First song, "Science is Real." Implication being obvious, but the lyrics actually say something about how "there are people who like stories about angels and unicorns, but science is real from DNA to evolution..."

Silver, hope you don't disapprove of the narrow-mindedness...

MD

 

[Pesqueeb]

The sun is a mass of incandescent gas.

 

[MikeD]

the sun is a mass of incandescent gas.

blasphemer!!!!

 

[jonKranked]

the sun is god. Jesus rode a t-rex to fight ghengis khan

 

[manimal]

First song, "Science is Real." Implication being obvious, but the lyrics actually say something about how "there are people who like stories about angels and unicorns, but science is real from DNA to evolution..."



MD

and we all assumed that evangelicals were only in christianity

what's next, naming Darwin and Alfred Wallace as apostles to the Religion of Evolution?

 

[MikeD]

and we all assumed that evangelicals were only in christianity

what's next, naming Darwin and Alfred Wallace as apostles to the Religion of Evolution?

I'm pretty emphatic that science doesn't replace religion or answer a lot of questions. And as far as being "real," I simply consider science "useful." VERY useful when we want to build a computer, send a rocket into space, or even examine the history of life on this planet. Still however not ultimately real or somehow metaphysically privileged in any sense.

But, if someone thinks that the world was simply created as-is by God or an alien experiment or the spaghetti monster (my least-favorite bit of self-righteous internet snark btw), he's just delusional.

If someone thinks it's God's plan, and the progress of life is proceeding according to divine will, I think that's a totally reasonable thing to believe in light of a set of religious beliefs. Not beliefs I share, of course, but sensible from a perspective that's not my own.

I side with Hamlet...There are more things in heaven and earth, Horatio, than are dreamt of in your philosophy. And in the end, I piss off both sides of this polarized debate club. Because you're both wrong...

 

[Pesqueeb]

^^^^^^^^You shut your whorish mouth.

 

[Kevin]

I'm pretty emphatic that science doesn't replace religion or answer a lot of questions. And as far as being "real," I simply consider science "useful." VERY useful when we want to build a computer, send a rocket into space, or even examine the history of life on this planet. Still however not ultimately real or somehow metaphysically privileged in any sense.

What if there is no more to it (metaphysically) then what science tells us or predicts?
Maybe what we see IS what we get without any romantic back story behind it?
Would people ever accept it even if it can never be 100% proven?

 

[Dartman]

Religion is fantasy. When we couldn't figure out a phenomenon we made up a big dude in the sky who made it all magically appear. It's also a useful tool to control frightened panicky people

Science seeks the truth. It may not be able to provide answers for everything yet but at least they keep searching for the proof of the hypothesis rather than just make up some story.

Yeah it's a nice warm fuzzy to think that a rainbow is in the sky because "God" put it there as a promise to never flood the planet again. (Small consolation to the Japanese people whose homes are wiped out by tsunamis.) But it's really just refraction of the visible light spectrum through raindrops. The truth doesn't make it any less beautiful.

Science does need to be tempered with a sense of morality though. Sometimes just because you can doesn't mean you should. But religion isn't the answer there either. Many more people have been killed in the name of a God than in the name of science.

Simply put. Science flies you to the moon. Religion flies you into buildings.

 

[velocipedist]

Science flies you to the moon. Religion flies you into buildings.

full of win, I want a t-shirt

 

[Dartman]

full of win, I want a t-shirt

http://www.zazzle.com/science_flies_you_tothe_moon_religion_flies_yo_tshirt-235521228808680987



Where I first saw it...

 

[ohio]

What if there is no more to it (metaphysically) then what science tells us or predicts?

That's impossible by definition. Science is a tool of continual discovery, learning, and self-correction. Science acknowledges that there are phenomena not yet explained by science, and that our current understanding is flawed. So by definition, there IS more to it. That's why we have a scientific method, and why it's ridiculous to try to call science a belief system. It's a tool, not a religion.

 

[Westy]

The difference between science and religion? Science is still true even if you do not believe in it.

 

[kidwoo]

The difference between science and religion? Science is still true even if you do not believe in it.

Had a minister tell me the same thing once. Cept he pronounced science like 'gee zuss.'

 

[Kevin]

That's impossible by definition. Science is a tool of continual discovery, learning, and self-correction. Science acknowledges that there are phenomena not yet explained by science, and that our current understanding is flawed. So by definition, there IS more to it. That's why we have a scientific method, and why it's ridiculous to try to call science a belief system. It's a tool, not a religion.

Thats why i said "even if it can never be proven for 100%."
No matter how much science proves it will never be enough for people. Some people will allways search for anwsers in religion.

My paradigm works fine without religion tho, and even tho i respect people who have a different view on things, some views are downright stupid.
And I might be an arrogant bastard, but I think religion is obsolete and i live my life in a rightious way without believing anything.

There will allways be more to the world then what science can explain, but in the end it might never require a flying spaghetti monster of any kind.

 

[Westy]

Had a minister tell me the same thing once. Cept he pronounced science like 'gee zuss.'

I work with a guy who is some kind of christian minister by night and an electrical engineer by day. Very interesting dude. I've never got into a serious discussion with him but he is a hardcore physics and religious man. I've asked him about his seemingly paradoxical views, he separates theology and science 100%. Where the two seemingly disagree, he believes that the (his) church based science not on gods word but on what they knew when scripture was written, which in those days was pretty much Aristotle. The A-man was groundbreaking in his day but an ignorant dreamer by today's standard. Coworkers standpoint is what the bible may refer to as science was wrong and based on the opinion of man and easily proven dis-proven. The spiritual side of scripture is the word of god and not able to be proven or dis-proven by man but something that is proven by one's faith.

I can't say I believe in what he says but I respect the **** out of his opinion.

 

[manimal]

The difference between science and religion? Science is still true[until what you previously believed to be true is falsified and a new, more true than the last true, theory is put in it's place ;e.g. phylogeny over the past decade] even if you do not believe in it.

fixed

 

[MikeD]

Thats why i said "even if it can never be proven for 100%."
No matter how much science proves it will never be enough for people. Some people will allways search for anwsers in religion.

Religion and science are often asking different questions. It's not like we can use the scientific method to help us decide us what we should do with our lives.

 

[MikeD]

The difference between science and religion? Science is still true even if you do not believe in it.

Science is a system of inquiry, not anything that's actually true or untrue, real or unreal (sorry, TMBG, but we did know what you were going for.)

And the results of scientific inquiry are human knowledge framed in human terms. The universe operates well outside of our consciousness and abilities to perceive.



Edit: I REALLY wish more religious people were like your electrical engineer friend. He seems to have it right, within his frame of belief (which, like you, I don't share...)

 

[Kevin]

Its funny how people who support religion usually dont know half as much about science as people who support science know about religion.

 

[kidwoo]

fixed

Right. Which is exactly why the system is so strong.


In the meantime the repeatable results fly your planes, aim your bullets and give you access to all the awesomeness that is the PAWN!!

 

[MikeD]

Its funny how people who support religion usually dont know half as much about science as people who support science know about religion.

It's even funnier that people create some artificial opposition between science and religion.

 

[kidwoo]

It's even funnier that people create some artificial opposition between science and religion.

Oh yeah I couldn't possibly see why that would ever happen.


7 days motha****a!!!!


edit: sorry six......crack a cask and relax on the 7th.

 

[Kevin]

Religion and science are often asking different questions. It's not like we can use the scientific method to help us decide us what we should do with our lives.

Religion cant help with that either.
The bible tells a lot of stories, good and bad and we are expected to judge for ourselves which ones we should follow.
If we have to judge ourselves morality does not come from religion but from within ourselves.

Dawkins makes an excelent case for this theory in the God delusion for example.
I merely suggest people read both sides of the story before making up their mind about anything.

 

[Westy]

fixed

Science rarely claims to be 100% right, leaving room for change. 99.9% of religions claim infallibility but regularly change their ethos.

 

[Kevin]

It's even funnier that people create some artificial opposition between science and religion.

Its not artificial at all. And its not funny when people are still forcing their beliefs on other people.

Religion is a bad thing period.
Theres tons of evidence/theory that explains the world would be better of without it.

 

[Kevin]

I realise im an arrogant bastard btw.
Its a side effect from knowing what youre talking about.

 

[Westy]

Sorry Manimal, couldn't resist

"Deuteronomy 22:5 A woman shall not wear man's clothing, nor shall a man put on a woman's clothing; for whoever does these things is an abomination to the LORD your GOD."

 

[BurlyShirley]

Religion and science are often asking different questions. It's not like we can use the scientific method to help us decide us what we should do with our lives.

Religion doesn't "ask questions." It tells you a dumb story and then tells you not to waste time analyzing things too thoroughly, because their knowledge has been provided by the divine, and is therefore true regardless of facts or the results of pesky experiments. And when you eventually do analyze these things and find out the stories are childish nonsense, religion calls you a heretic.

The major problem with religion is that it stifles independent thought and creates zombies to fill collection plates and fly planes into buildings. Science does the opposite of that, and that's where the conflict comes in. One is a system of control rooted in fear mongering, the other is a system that emphasizes exploration of thought and results in enlightenment. I realize that the point of the first post was that "proselytizing" to children in a way that marginalizes the beliefs of others is wrong, but then again the bible beaters aren't going to wait until your child is capable of rational decision making before laying into him with the angels and unicorns crap whenever they can.

So the way I see it is this:
Yes, science and religion ARE in conflict even at their very core. Everyone has a responsibility to raise their children the best way they know how, and we all want our kids to make their own minds up about these things (well those of us who see value in independent thought anyway). But science is the only tool we have to OBJECTIVELY do so, therefore it must come first. If someone conducts an experiment to prove the existence of god, then fine, some religion is legitimate if its consistent with the facts. And just because you can't conduct an experiment on something doesn't give every hypothesis equal legitimacy either. If I say that the universe began as a result of a giant nuclear dildo meltdown (big dong theory) am I suddenly on equal ground with einstein?

 

[MMike]

fixed

You basically don't know ANYTHING about either side of this debate, right?

So you're just going to fling single word replies and :biggrin: smileys around?

 

[Westy]

You basically don't know ANYTHING about either side of this debate, right?

So you're just going to fling single word replies and :biggrin: smileys around?

Manimal will not be replying today. Unlike science the word of god is unchanging and using a tool such as a computer would violate the whole "thou shalt respect the sabbath" thing.

 

[manimal]

Sorry Manimal, couldn't resist

"Deuteronomy 22:5 A woman shall not wear man's clothing, nor shall a man put on a woman's clothing; for whoever does these things is an abomination to the LORD your GOD."

i make a pretty hot chick don't I!

and no..i couldn't reply today, i was at church and then a bike race...besides, i have nothing to defend as my repair of westy's statement is not false; just a paraphrase of the scientific method. pluto used to be a planet

as far as the verse: it's a good thing i'm not jewish 'cause following that whole old testament levitcal law must be tough

mmike - i'm glad that factual statements frustrate you.

 

[kidwoo]

pluto used to be a planet

And chicks who weren't married by 18 used to be witches.

 

[manimal]

And chicks who weren't married by 18 used to be witches.

now their called "activists"

 

[kidwoo]

Booyah!!

 

[Secret Squirrel]

now their called "activists"

So....you're for change....or against activists?....I'm confused...

 

[BurlyShirley]

So....you're for change....or against activists?....I'm confused...

So far as I can tell, he's just advocating dogmatism over refined or improved understanding.

 

[Pesqueeb]

So far as I can tell, he's just advocating dogmatism over refined or improved understanding.

How dare you question church dogma. Get behind me Satan!!!!

 

[MMike]

mmike - i'm glad that factual statements frustrate you.

You are proving my point. And no, the factual statement that you are an ignorant doof doesn't frustrate me at all.

It's obvious from your disdain for "fancy book-learnin' that it's impossible that you would have any true understanding of either side of this debate. Schools are filled with stuck-up elitists apparently, for whom you have no use. And coupled with the things you've actually said in the past, there is very little within your realm of understanding that goes beyond guns, beating people up and bikes.

If you had ever had any actual education in the sciences like say Westy or Burly, or...even *gasp* myself, you might actually understand what they are saying.

So what it comes down to, is that you are adding nothing to the discussion. Your abundant "street smarts" or whatever you like to call it really doesn't have any place in this discussion.

 

[Westy]

Science is a system of inquiry, not anything that's actually true or untrue, real or unreal (sorry, TMBG, but we did know what you were going for.)

And the results of scientific inquiry are human knowledge framed in human terms. The universe operates well outside of our consciousness and abilities to perceive.



Edit: I REALLY wish more religious people were like your electrical engineer friend. He seems to have it right, within his frame of belief (which, like you, I don't share...)

When you start getting down to the nitty gritty of quantum mechanics and the affects of an observer on the duality of energy/matter there are certain problems with the idea that the universe can operate outside of our consciousness (exaggerated for affect). Most physicists care not discuss such ideas as it blurs the line between physics and meta-physics and the fact that the science works brilliantly without such discussions. But as we are now able to demonstrate that complex molecules exhibit the same duality that demonstrate with a photon the questions are getting harder to avoid.