Originally posted by al8+October 20, 2007 04:21 pm--> (al8 @ October 20, 2007 04:21 pm)
Originally posted by Sickle of
[email protected] 19, 2007 09:01 pm
Originally posted by
[email protected] 19, 2007 03:37 am
Sickle of
[email protected] 18, 2007 02:07 am
i would say they are ultimately destructive to both, because of their polarizing effect.
One can be a scientist and still be religious (probably the most sensible thing for a scientist to be is agnostic, since neither existance or nonexistance can be proven conclusively, therefor a scientific diagnosis would be "more research needed") but because science and religion are always presented as opposing, more and more scientists are becoming scornful of religion, and more and more religious people are refusing to beleive even science that is completely unrelated to their beleifs.
There was i time when one could beleive in both evolution and creationism, but now the two are sworn enemies. and all all this does is make proponents of both theism and atheism into bigtime assholes.
Everything you say is wrong.
why?
Ah, where to begin?
1.Atheism (in its full sense) and and a scientific world view are mutually inclusive. And are not destructive to each other but supportive. If this natural bond polarizes someone, then it is polarizing the right kind of people - the enemies of reason.
2.A scientist can't be religious unless s/he's schizophrenic. That s/he completely compartmentalize his or her view on religion on the one hand and science on the other.
3.You can't be agnostic about the existence of the grand sky-daddy unless your blind to the historic prosession of that idea. Which has changed shamelessly through force of whim or just plane convenience. Its far from senseble to treat such a blatent falsification or its subsidiary modifications with any respect, and the least not from scientist since the idea has so consiously been molded into not being a testable hypothesis - an idea that scientists can work on. So when you talk about testing this idea scientifically, off or on, you act in line with the obscurantists themselves by presenting this idea as inherently testeble - on par with other scientific hypotheses posited in the spirit of seeking truth. This is a grave error to make.
[more to come...] [/b]
1)... okay...? for the most part i agree. i'm not saying that scientists should not be atheists, but rather that a scientist should not write off the possibility of "something else". the problem is not that scientists dislike religion more (although i sometimes find this annoying), but rather that the religious, who could otherwise be a bunch of harmless, head-in-the-clouds, dreamers instead become bible thumping neo-faschists whose intense hatred for logic and reason is the galvanizing force behind most of the modern north american right wing. and when science is blatantly atheistic, it becomes far easier for fundamentalists to demonize it.
2) yes they can. science doesn't understand everything. in the middle ages, something like "electricity" would be a religious concept. scientists can be religious, but would likely be non-theistic and have a very different understanding of religion.
also, i know scientists who are religous. christian even. it hurts they're scientific credibility at times, but they're still scientists.
3)again, i'm not necessarily talking about dogmatic, organized, religon, or even theism. the negative affect on science is that it is increasingly convinced that it knows everything, inhibiting research. Just because christianity, islam, judaism, etc are easily disprovable doesn't mean that there is nothing beyond materiel existance. and my whole POINT is that they arn't scientifically testable. although any scientist worth their salt can prove evolution, i've never heard conclusive proof that there isn't an afterlife. never.
and although christian science is proposterous, for the entire scientific community to oppose any sort of religion creates a bias, which hurts scientific process.