Ted Hoffman

Complete Crap. Religion is authoritarian. Many so-called heretics were burnt at the stake and all other forms of torture and persecution were meted on people who did not seem to hold the same dogmas as the mainstream "church" during the middle ages. The whole idea was to intimidate people into silence as the "church" made its ascendancy into power.
Science is not interested in power. Only pursuit of knowledge.
Science has no history of inquisitions.
Science is about discoveries. People who make important discoveries / breakthroughs are given worldwide recognition and even awards.
This is not the case with religion. The "founders" discovered all that there was to discover. They represent the ultimate and anyone "pretending" to bring new ideas is treated with suspicion and even excommunicated.
To try to sweep aside this difference as irrelevant is disingenuous.
A worldview can be arrived at through a method. The two are not necessarily mutually exclusive. This is a non-issue.
Restricts itself? science is the study of natural phenomena. You have a method better than methodological naturalism? You want us to take the pope to a physics lab so that we use his "lab-visions"?
There is no concept of "restriction". This is an argument that you have not supported. You are like someone like saying that swimming is bad compared to walking because swimming is restricted to fluids.
False analogy. The "framework" that science uses is used because it has been tested by other scientists. It makes it easier to progress by eliminating the need to reinvent the wheel. They can always be overturned by new discoveries. The way quantum physics has introduced new ideas not known in classical/ newtonian physics. If a scientist feels Newtons law that says "action and reaction are equal and opposite" is wrong, he wont be burnt at the stake, all he needs to do is to demonstrate using an experiment and that "law" will be changed.
That may well be. All you need to do is to demonstrate that I am indeed, being shallow.
I could say the same about you you know, except, perhaps, being shallow is not my forte.
Even a two year old can say I am shallow. Its the easiest thing to do. It means nothing until you support the claim and illustrate how.
The theists use the religious text, whether or how the statements got incorporated into the religious text is irrelevant. The fact is that the religions are based on the contents of the texts in question. And its very valid for me to juxtapose those texts with scientific text.
So my argument stands.
So we do have a conflict?
Thank you so much. That was my point.
Whether its at a rudimentary level or otherwise is irrelevant. And who are you to classify the level of conflict as being on a rudimentary level or otherwise? Just for your convenience? On what basis do you decide what constitutes as rudimentary? Do you have a scale? If the blinkers you wear make you dismiss them as rudimentary, I am sorry I don't have the same blinkers.
In any case, I would think, the more rudimentary, the better. Anything thats not a formative in a religion is superficial (or the work of the so-called apologetics) and does not represent the actual position of a religion.

For christs sake we have christians who argue the creation story in the bible is a narration of the big bang.
Orthodox Jewish law dealt with classification of animals? Please provide links.
NOMA? I believe if you are introducing a non-english word, its best to bring out its meaning in some way. Otherwise, sophistry is written all over your statement.
Whatever supernaturalism claims to explain, it has been found to be false. We don't come from soil and people don't resurrect from the dead.
Supernaturalism poses untestable claims and does nothing to support the claims. Naturalism supports every claim it makes. Its about human experience. Not human claims.
Whenever religions or religious bodies have made testable claims, it has been demonstrated to be false. Galileo Galilei was placed under house arrest and forced to recant for contradicting the church. In 1983 the church made its mea culpa.

Religion is authoritarian, science is authoritative. We have scientific laws and OTOH we have religious dogma.
Complete undeniable conflict in common areas.

Bede

I was waiting for this:

{quote]Religion is authoritarian, science is authoritative.[/quote]

Well done, it's the best sound bite available in this discussion. Can you see the difference? I can't.

Comparing the Middle Ages today is invalid - we have no idea what a different dogma might have done. But as scientists develop chemical and biological weapons, patent medicenes so the Third World can't afford them and insist on the primacy of their knowledge I'm not sure they have much moral high ground to occupy.

I'm a bit more disappointed with Michael who should (actually he does) know better. He also knows the idea that ancient Christians were worse burners that the pagans they replaced is as much a myth as them believing in a flat earth in the Middle Ages. The worldview point was Bill's not yours although I should have been clearer.

By the way, have you read Tony Huff? You may be interested as he seems to be one of the few authors to deal with Chinese/Islamic interaction with Europe in science history.

Yours

Bede

<a href="http://www.bede.org.uk" target="_blank">Bede's Library - faith and reason</a>

Vorkosigan

Originally posted by Bede:
I was waiting for this:

Religion is authoritarian, science is authoritative.

Well done, it's the best sound bite available in this discussion. Can you see the difference? I can't.

Well, I guess you about summed it up there.

Comparing the Middle Ages today is invalid - we have no idea what a different dogma might have done. But as scientists develop chemical and biological weapons, patent medicenes so the Third World can't afford them and insist on the primacy of their knowledge I'm not sure they have much moral high ground to occupy.

Science never claimed to occupy the moral high ground, so don't see your point. I have already stated that scientific values are in conflict with religious values, and mentioned a few examples. It's your turn to deal with the argument as it is actually made.

I'm a bit more disappointed with Michael who should (actually he does) know better. He also knows the idea that ancient Christians were worse burners that the pagans they replaced is as much a myth as them believing in a flat earth in the Middle Ages.

I said this where? All I said was that Xtians suppressed and burned pagan works. Nowhere did I deny that non-Christian religions are different. If you were a pagan, I'd discuss the problems of paganism.

By the way, have you read Tony Huff? You may be interested as he seems to be one of the few authors to deal with Chinese/Islamic interaction with Europe in science history.

Thanks! I'll hunt him down.

Michael

Daydreamer

Religion says "This is". The scientific menthod (not science itself as you seem hell bent on making it) says "This is how you find out what is". The utility of the latter over the former, as well as the larger degree of freedom, are what separates the two.

First, the vast majority of these patents etc. are held by the organization who financed the reearch - The weapons by the gov't and the vaccines by the pharmacuticals. The scientists are guilty of their creation, but not their use.

Second, who formed the first anti-nuclear weapons conference directly after the completeion of the Manhattan Project? The Manhattan Project physicists. Who leads the fight against pollution, global warming, etc. by researching the problems and informing the gov'ts, who in turn inform the masses? Ecologists, Meterologists, Oceanographers, Geologists, and Biologists mainly.

Third, the Middle (or more colloquially, Dark) Ages ARE a valid comparison, not as a strait parallel, but as an example of what happens when religious authority goes unchecked. Replace the witches of back then with the homosexuals and abortionists of today, and voila!

[ April 16, 2002: Message edited by: Daydreamer ]

[ April 16, 2002: Message edited by: Daydreamer ]</p>

Ted Hoffman

Well done, it's the best sound bite available in this discussion. Can you see the difference? I can't.[/QUOTE]
Let me break it down or you:
Authoritarian:
1. Characterized by or favoring absolute obedience to authority, as against individual freedom.
2. expecting unquestioning obedience.synonyms: dictatorial

Authoritative:
1. Having or arising from authority
2. Of acknowledged accuracy or excellence; highly reliable
3. Having, or proceeding from, due authority; entitled to obedience, credit, or acceptance; determinate; commanding.

You still dont see the difference?

In other words, science acquires due authority. It earns an authoritative/ commanding position by its excellence and reliability.
Religion arrogates authority upon itself and has no room for individual freedom. And it demands unquestinable obedience. Its about extracting blind and subservient obedience NOT providing accepted guidance or command.

This is historical evidence in the way religion manages its "affairs". It uses persecution to silence dissenting voices. Science does not.
Who are "they" scientists? third worlders?
Moral ground? Are you trying to change the subject?
How do you know this?
You are more than unclear, even now.
You have ignored the salient points I raised. Is this your approach to debating issues? You ignore salient points, pick on semantic nuances, label valid points as rudimentary and suggest books people should read?

[ April 17, 2002: Message edited by: IntenSity ]</p>

madmax2976

Still waiting on Bede's criteria for validating supernatural claims.

I'm curious as to how its done and how it differs from the way natural claims are validated.

Ted Hoffman

Just don't hold your breath.
LinuxPup fled, Atticus_Finch Fled many others have fled when the heat is on.

Daggah

1) Chemical weapons (nerve toxins, mainly) were discovered in the search to design a better pest control - so that more food would be spared from being ravaged by insects. Chemical weapons themselves are a byproduct of the hunt to make more food available TO the world.

2) Biological weapons are a byproduct of the hunt to discover how infectious diseases work and how to combat them.

3) While I don't always agree with the way the medicine industry works, patenting their medicine allows them to concentrate more money on scientific discovery in order to combat new diseases and save more lives.

I don't know of many (I can't think of any, actually) scientific discoveries that don't have both a good side and a bad side to them. Discovery itself is morally neutral - it is how humans use the products of our discoveries that matters, not the discovery itself.

Ted Hoffman

redundant - sorry

[ April 18, 2002: Message edited by: IntenSity ]</p>

Ted Hoffman

Daggah, I hope Bede appreciates your clarification. But The question of moral ground is tottaly irrelevant. And Bede introduced it as an attempt to change the subject. Bede, what you need to do is to concede that Xstianity(the dominant religion) does conflict with Science, or else refute my points.
I know you have heavily invested in this topic emotionally (you have a website on it to boot), just be straightforward about this.