You can't separate science from philosophy but religion? Don't embarrass yourself
Do you know what epistemology is? What branch of academia does epistemology belong to?
It's the study of the limitation of knowledge, and it's philosophy i fail to see your point The limitations of religion (if you want me to apply it to that) are pretty obvious for all to see, there is absolutely no proof at all
Just because a religious individual can ignore scientific facts and make a leap of faith doesn't mean it is their religious duty to do so at all times. There is no inherent contradiction, you can believe in God and recognise that evolution and the mechanics by which it works can and have been demonstrated. We don't get this bullshit over gravity, also a scientific theory. There's no campaign to have an invisible strong man pushing things down in proportion to their mass taught alongside gravity, why should there be for evolution.
Dawkins argues that there is an inherent contradiction.
You can't separate science from philosophy but religion? Don't embarrass yourself
Do you know what epistemology is? What branch of academia does epistemology belong to?
It's the study of the limitation of knowledge, and it's philosophy i fail to see your point The limitations of religion (if you want me to apply it to that) are pretty obvious for all to see, there is absolutely no proof at all
Epistemology is the study of knowledge and how it's acquired. Science bases itself on epistemology. Therefore if science and religion contradict each other, this contradiction MUST be resolved. You cannot merely say, oh this is science's realm and this is religion's realm. They comment on the same thing. Therefore they cannot be separated.
They both comment on epistemology and you cannot say religion concludes that the Bible or Koran or Talmud is the ultimate source of knowledge and science says that the scientific method is the ultimate source of knowledge. Only one can be right.
If a kid comes to science class and says "The bible says that evolution isn't true."
The teacher either has to say: 1) The bible is wrong and science is right.
or
2) The bible and science agree that evolution is true.
or
3) Don't worry about the bible, science says evolution is true.
If you go with scenario 1), you are teaching him that his religion is wrong. If you go with scenario 2), you are teaching him that his own (or his parent's) interpretation of his religion is wrong. In essence, you are teaching him religion in science class.
Both scenario 1 and scenario 2 are unacceptable.
Scenario 3 however leaves the kid to choose either scenario 1 or scenario 2 on his own. The teacher is still indirectly teaching religion.
There is no scenario where the kid can come to the conclusion that the bible says evolution isn't true and science says evolution is true and both are correct. The kid cannot logically come to that conclusion.
I certainly hope she means what she said. Allthough I disagree completely with her opinion (that ID should be taught in science class), at least she is truthful when saying that. Omfg pageants are so fucked up. If people can't even give their opinion on matters without being out of the race then why do the contendants get asked these questions. Why cant they just take their pictures, no interviews, no talking, and then people can vote for whoever is prettiest in this vain, shallow world.
Gl Anna. If you're just saying stuff that you don't really mean to avoid losing votes then I am very dissappointed in you!
On June 15 2011 05:26 Ballack wrote: I certainly hope she means what she said. Allthough I disagree completely with her opinion (that ID should be taught in science class), at least she is truthful when saying that. Omfg pageants are so fucked up. If people can't even give their opinion on matters without being out of the race then why do the contendants get asked these questions. Why cant they just take their pictures, no interviews, no talking, and then people can vote for whoever is prettiest in this vain, shallow world.
Gl Anna. If you're just saying stuff that you don't really mean to avoid losing votes then I am very dissappointed in you!
Wait pageants have interviews and questions? This is really fucked up... its a BEAUTY pageant and its shallow. Therefore these questions are unnecessary.
On June 15 2011 05:27 Lightningbullet wrote: Let me ask this: How did the Miss USA pageant vote thread get turned into an argument about science/religion?
Sorry, can someone explain to me how exactly she has helped the community? I don't follow the gossip too much, but I haven't heard of her doing anything useful. Additionally, why should we consider her contributions to the SC community, whatever they may be, in voting for her for Miss USA? I was under the impression that social aspect of Miss USA was more about helping the needy/homeless, not making some nerds feel confident that girls DO like their favourite game.
Just because a religious individual can ignore scientific facts and make a leap of faith doesn't mean it is their religious duty to do so at all times. There is no inherent contradiction, you can believe in God and recognise that evolution and the mechanics by which it works can and have been demonstrated. We don't get this bullshit over gravity, also a scientific theory. There's no campaign to have an invisible strong man pushing things down in proportion to their mass taught alongside gravity, why should there be for evolution.
Dawkins argues that there is an inherent contradiction.
"If there's any use to religion, it's not to serve as a science text-book."
Conclusion, top 3 things you can do to harm the planet:
3) Genocide an entire race 2) Start a nuclear war 1) Teach creationism in schools
Neil Tyson makes it very clear in his speech, that every time in human history that science met religion. Progress stopped. Teaching religion in science class is the worst thing you can do to humanity.
Disgusting attitude from anyone defending intelligent design. You should be ashamed of yourself. I'm no longer supporting Anna, I hope she loses so her malign ideas don't spread any further.
Just because a religious individual can ignore scientific facts and make a leap of faith doesn't mean it is their religious duty to do so at all times. There is no inherent contradiction, you can believe in God and recognise that evolution and the mechanics by which it works can and have been demonstrated. We don't get this bullshit over gravity, also a scientific theory. There's no campaign to have an invisible strong man pushing things down in proportion to their mass taught alongside gravity, why should there be for evolution.
Dawkins argues that there is an inherent contradiction.
Dawkins isn't a philosopher or a theologian.
Agree, beside that normal people believing in evolution and god don't hurt anyone so there is no reason to confront them. That is the difference between a personal with normal believes and a fundamentalist denying science and promoting the spread of false informations
On June 15 2011 06:30 Barrin wrote: BTW I think you misunderstand me... I'm not religious at all. I also don't think there's enough evidence to suggest that there isn't a god. I am very agnostic.
You're inverting the burden of proof. There isn't enough proof to suggest there IS god. That's how science works, you propose a theory then provide proof to support it. You don't assume something might be possibly true because you cannot prove it's wrong. That's a logical fallacy called argument from ignorance.
According to the scientific method. There is no god. And the evidence to support this, is exactly that there isn't enough evidence to support god.
Anyone saying "you cannot prove god wrong" doesn't understand science. You cannot prove unicorns wrong too. But there's actually more evidence to support that unicorns might exist than there is to support that god might exist.
I don't get how Evolution = Atheism, the catholic church and the pope are certainly not atheists but have accepted the theory of evolution....
Also, I feel there can be agnostics without them just being polite atheists, Dawkins is kind of an extremist and while he is correct a ton of the time, I feel he's a little over the top in a lot of places.
Bottom line, creationism has no place in schools, the end.
On June 15 2011 04:13 Barrin wrote: All we have to do is be clear that it is a THEORY, and guess what, the "theory of evolution" has the word "theory" in it's name.
Yes, but theory doesnt mean hypothesis - gravity is theory also. People seem to misunderstand this difference and then they say "blablba evolution is JUST a theory!!!!".
So if the theory of evolution is on the same level as the theory of gravity, then can there seriously be a problem with teaching it in our schools?
BTW I think you misunderstand me... I'm not religious at all. I also don't think there's enough evidence to suggest that there isn't a god. I am very agnostic.
On June 15 2011 03:48 randplaty wrote: Dawkins on Atheismhttp://www.youtube.com/watch?v=VxGMqKCcN6A
Stop fooling yourselves. Teaching evolution in schools is the same as advocating atheism. Watch the video above. Dawkins knows that evolution = atheism. That is why religious people want ID taught alongside evolution.
You cannot separate science from religion and philosophy. That's a fallacy and a complete misunderstanding of epistemology.
Very untrue... it's advocating agnosticism not theism.
All we have to do is be clear that it is a THEORY, and guess what, the "theory of evolution" has the word "theory" in it's name.
Go to 20:45 in that video... Darwin himself considered himself agnostic.
Dawkins makes the argument that agnosticism is only a polite version of atheism.
I see :o I was about to finish watching it before I read this post edit: oic hehe I guess I was distracted when I watched that part
Anyways I think that that's more than likely true for a lot of people, but I personally have not been presented with enough evidence to suggest that there is no god.
Since we're talking about smart people, if you do some research on Albert Einstein, he is most decidedly a theist (drawn from his own logical conclusions which are quite interesting).
Anyways I think (from my own research) all major religions are like ~40-60% good/right and ~40-60% wrong/bad. Each one of them has some very strong moral values. But there's a lot of bullshit on top of that. If there really is a god then I don't really think any religion is actually completely in-tune with him (or even close to it).
I also don't think there's enough evidence to suggest that there is no god. i.e. just because we haven't found intelligent life on other planets doesn't mean it's not there. We just do not know (...yet?).
Pretty much an incomplete statement, agnostic atheist or agnostic theist?