IF anything religion and scientific institutes have alot in common, hierachal, dogmatic, peer supported/judged, relying on ideas from years before etc. I have a problem with Sciene nowdays as an established discourse which is automatically assumed to be 'true'. people need to keep questioning and challenging both traditional and concrete scietific and religious theories (which most of them are...) but you must challenge it with an open mind, not trying to prove a specific point.
Sure, but why make the two equivalent? What does religious theory have to say about scientific theory, and vice versa? Theology and biology are not remotely similar disciplines.
well thats like saying polka and punk are not remotely the same styles of music, which is true, but yet they share the same musical rules (eg notes,structure, chords etc) both use string instruments and percussion/rythem, yet different types of beats, timing and accentation. I think theology, biology etc are different topics but share the same principles in many areas.
I hear what you're saying but I don't see it like that at all. How does one premise a scientific method with the concept of religious faith? To me, these seem diametrically opposed for reasons already laid out here.
I hear you on Foucault's notions of truth but I'm not suggesting science can arrive at Truth. My point is that however similar the institutions of religion and science may appear, their methods are absolutely divergent and that makes all the difference in this case.
Oh shit, the gig is up! On behalf of myself and my fellow scientists I'd like to apologize to anyone our dangerous philosophy has harmed. Now I'm going to go outside and watch the sun orbit the earth.
Oh shit, the gig is up! On behalf of myself and my fellow scientists I'd like to apologize to anyone our dangerous philosophy has harmed. Now I'm going to go outside and watch the sun orbit the earth.
Here's a blog post by PZ Myers, one of the scientists interviewed for the movie. It exposes the shady tactics employed by Expelled's producers to obtain their interviews...
I mean, seriously, not telling one of the sides in a debate about what the subject might be and then leading him around randomly to various topics, with the intent of later editing it down to the parts that just make the points you want, is the video version of quote-mining and is fundamentally dishonest.
They are equivalent to me in the sense that they try to establish a set of rules and laws which are universally true and applicaple to all, trying to provide a theory of answering the meaning of life, the reasons behind it, and the direction or model which it should encompass, and both will do so in a hierachal manner, with not dissent really toleranted. IMHO.
dollar_bin, correct me if im wrong but isnt a scientific theory by definition required to be falsifiable? I always thought this is what makes religion (inordinately difficult to prove false) no where equivalent to religion.
the two have similar realms of knowledge no doubt... However, science has more rigorous constraints on what is held as valid.
Here's a blog post by PZ Myers, one of the scientists interviewed for the movie. It exposes the shady tactics employed by Expelled's producers to obtain their interviews...
I mean, seriously, not telling one of the sides in a debate about what the subject might be and then leading him around randomly to various topics, with the intent of later editing it down to the parts that just make the points you want, is the video version of quote-mining and is fundamentally dishonest.
According to that post, He hasn't even seen the movie yet. So with that statement he's definitely assuming. They might have misled him so they could get a non biased assesment.
According to that post, He hasn't even seen the movie yet. So with that statement he's definitely assuming. They might have misled him so they could get a non biased assesment.
- spidey
Sure he's a assuming, but it's probably a safe bet. The interview "bait and switch" is a common theme among ID/creationism proponents.
"Teach the controversy" has long been a favorite of mine.
During my atheist years I was marched into a Christo-Fascist's home for some good ol' fashioned proselytizing.
His bread and butter was the 2nd Law of Thermodynamics. He must have prattled on about that for at least half an hour.
When I tried to bring up the fossil record he informed me that carbon dating is unreliable and a hoax perpetrated by scientists with an agenda. When I reminded him that there are other methods of radiometric dating such as uranium and potassium, he pretended to not be baffled and proceeded to draw me a picture illustrating that evolution is a religion. I wish I had kept that, but I have the memories of that fine evening.
It's not everyday you get to sit in the dining room of the leader of what many locals consider a cult.
But what's wrong with my argument? Doesn't look straw to me. Looks like standard philosophy of science. Of course, I wasn't arguing that science is inherently anti-God...just that it's a good method for eliminating bad theories and artificailly inflated ontologies...of which I (personally) take our religions to be a prime example.
Naw man - I was responding to Malus' rhetorical question. Not your response.
Comments
I hear what you're saying but I don't see it like that at all. How does one premise a scientific method with the concept of religious faith? To me, these seem diametrically opposed for reasons already laid out here.
I hear you on Foucault's notions of truth but I'm not suggesting science can arrive at Truth. My point is that however similar the institutions of religion and science may appear, their methods are absolutely divergent and that makes all the difference in this case.
Hilarious
"Teach the controversy" has long been a favorite of mine.
Under ID, wouldn't God have allowed Nazism/Hitler to happen?
Here's a blog post by PZ Myers, one of the scientists interviewed for the movie. It exposes the shady tactics employed by Expelled's producers to obtain their interviews...
http://scienceblogs.com/pharyngula/2007/08/im_gonna_be_a_movie_star.php
... resume lurk ...
dollar_bin, correct me if im wrong but isnt a scientific theory by definition required to be falsifiable? I always thought this is what makes religion (inordinately difficult to prove false) no where equivalent to religion.
the two have similar realms of knowledge no doubt... However, science has more rigorous constraints on what is held as valid.
According to that post, He hasn't even seen the movie yet. So with that statement he's definitely assuming. They might have misled him so they could get a non biased assesment.
- spidey
Sure he's a assuming, but it's probably a safe bet. The interview "bait and switch" is a common theme among ID/creationism proponents.
Here's an earlier example with Richard Dawkins...
http://www.talkorigins.org/indexcc/CB/CB102_1.html
- spidey
During my atheist years I was marched into a Christo-Fascist's home for some good ol' fashioned proselytizing.
His bread and butter was the 2nd Law of Thermodynamics. He must have prattled on about that for at least half an hour.
When I tried to bring up the fossil record he informed me that carbon dating is unreliable and a hoax perpetrated by scientists with an agenda. When I reminded him that there are other methods of radiometric dating such as uranium and potassium, he pretended to not be baffled and proceeded to draw me a picture illustrating that evolution is a religion. I wish I had kept that, but I have the memories of that fine evening.
It's not everyday you get to sit in the dining room of the leader of what many locals consider a cult.
As for Godwin's Law: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Godwin's_law
Naw man - I was responding to Malus' rhetorical question. Not your response.
http://www.stuff.co.nz/stuff/4405729a1861.html
It's completely normal behavior.
Science nazi.