Science, religion collide in Kansas debate - Page 3 - Mercedes-Benz Forum

Reply
 
LinkBack Thread Tools Display Modes
post #21 of 147 (permalink) Old 05-12-2005, 12:50 PM
BenzWorld Elite
 
tcp_ML500's Avatar
 
Date registered: Aug 2002
Vehicle: C 111 Nardo
Location: Exiled
Posts: 9,402
Mentioned: 0 Post(s)
Quoted: 86 Post(s)
RE: Science, religion collide in Kansas debate

Quote:
GermanStar - 5/12/2005 1:33 PM

Quote:
tcp_ML500 - 5/12/2005 11:07 AM

What of philosophy?
Even though sciences were my area of predilection, I enjoyed philosophy very much, further, found that both were necessary to my development and understanding of the world, which, when I think about it, should be a stated goal of any education.
Weren't most brilliant scientifics also philosophers?
Philosophy shouldn't be taught in science class either. Science should be taught in science class, philosophy in philosophy class. We're talking grade school/high school here. I suppose one might redefine the word science to include the teaching of philosophy...
You're right. As a fool, I rushed into this one.
I was not objecting to your view or Kirk's, but misdirected my statement. I meant to say that philosophy is a discipline that I think should be taught (definitely in HS!), yet, it does not fit the "bring me hard facts only" picture painted by Kirk of what is worth to bring in the classrooms, same grounds as his objections about religion.

On a related note.
Sciences do affect our perception/opinion/understading of the metaphysical. It debunked myths, modified the teaching of the Church.
Scientists, as brilliant as they are, cannot escape their beliefs (read religious) even as formulating theories. Yes, a pure science like Mathematics can exist and should be taught without any reference to the spiritual. In other disciplines, maybe even physics, it is not completely inappropriate to pull in God into the science discussion, sometimes to make an anecdotal point, sometimes to show the opposition between the two and examplify the strengths and weaknesses of one or the other, fully understanding that religion is not the matter bein taught, but cognescant of the influence of one onto the other.

Case in point, the most brilliant of all, the man represented in your current avatar.
Einstein rejected quantum theory because it conflicted with his conception of an omniscient God. In Einstein's time, God had not yet visited Vegas. If He had, He would have played craps (player's odds are probably the best at that game than others) and Albert would be OK with that non deterministic, probabilistic view of the sub atomic world.

I feel so miserable without you; its almost like having you here.
-- Stephen Bishop
tcp_ML500 is offline  
Sponsored Links
Advertisement
 
post #22 of 147 (permalink) Old 05-12-2005, 12:51 PM
BenzWorld Extremist
 
79-300SD's Avatar
 
Date registered: Jan 2005
Vehicle: 1979 300SD, 1983 300D Mercedes
Location: Hells Half Acre (Great Falls, Virginia)
Posts: 982
Mentioned: 0 Post(s)
Quoted: 0 Post(s)
Send a message via AIM to 79-300SD
RE: Science, religion collide in Kansas debate

Quote:
kvining - 5/12/2005 1:34 PM

Where is heaven and hell located?
I would say Hell is the San Francisco Bay area...........with purgatory being anywahere ont he left coast....

Heaven is in West Virginia......or as close on earth as you will get to it without actually being there.


----------------------------------------

Speed is a question of money. How fast do you want to go?

----------------------------------------
Proud Owner of a

1979 W116 300SD

1983 W123 300D
----------------------------------------

Come join us at http://schumanautomotive.com/forums
79-300SD is offline  
post #23 of 147 (permalink) Old 05-12-2005, 01:15 PM
BenzWorld Elite
 
azimuth's Avatar
 
Date registered: Jan 2005
Posts: 2,369
Mentioned: 0 Post(s)
Quoted: 0 Post(s)
RE: Science, religion collide in Kansas debate

there is no gravity. The earth sucks.

aborted Shop Forum member

azimuth is offline  
post #24 of 147 (permalink) Old 05-12-2005, 01:32 PM
BenzWorld Elite
 
FeelTheLove's Avatar
 
Date registered: Sep 2004
Vehicle: 83 Astral Silver 280 SL
Location: Planet Houston
Posts: 28,829
Mentioned: 0 Post(s)
Quoted: 8 Post(s)
RE: Science, religion collide in Kansas debate

Quote:
tcp_ML500 - 5/12/2005 2:50 PM

Quote:
GermanStar - 5/12/2005 1:33 PM

Quote:
tcp_ML500 - 5/12/2005 11:07 AM

What of philosophy?
Even though sciences were my area of predilection, I enjoyed philosophy very much, further, found that both were necessary to my development and understanding of the world, which, when I think about it, should be a stated goal of any education.
Weren't most brilliant scientifics also philosophers?
Philosophy shouldn't be taught in science class either. Science should be taught in science class, philosophy in philosophy class. We're talking grade school/high school here. I suppose one might redefine the word science to include the teaching of philosophy...
You're right. As a fool, I rushed into this one.
I was not objecting to your view or Kirk's, but misdirected my statement. I meant to say that philosophy is a discipline that I think should be taught (definitely in HS!), yet, it does not fit the "bring me hard facts only" picture painted by Kirk of what is worth to bring in the classrooms, same grounds as his objections about religion.

On a related note.
Sciences do affect our perception/opinion/understading of the metaphysical. It debunked myths, modified the teaching of the Church.
Scientists, as brilliant as they are, cannot escape their beliefs (read religious) even as formulating theories. Yes, a pure science like Mathematics can exist and should be taught without any reference to the spiritual. In other disciplines, maybe even physics, it is not completely inappropriate to pull in God into the science discussion, sometimes to make an anecdotal point, sometimes to show the opposition between the two and examplify the strengths and weaknesses of one or the other, fully understanding that religion is not the matter bein taught, but cognescant of the influence of one onto the other.

Case in point, the most brilliant of all, the man represented in your current avatar.
Einstein rejected quantum theory because it conflicted with his conception of an omniscient God. In Einstein's time, God had not yet visited Vegas. If He had, He would have played craps (player's odds are probably the best at that game than others) and Albert would be OK with that non deterministic, probabilistic view of the sub atomic world.
I have no problem with religion being presented in a philosophy class, because there it has to stand on its own merits in comparision to other ideas - I object to something much different, the interjection of religion into hard science, with a state-coerced viewpoint that this bullshit has some sort of scientific validity. There is not one shed of proof in the natural world that God has ever or does now exist, or that any cognizant entity played any part in the origin of species. To teach otherwise is to teach children falsehoods based on the religious beliefs of a political movement that has achieved power in the state. There is a word for that.

Recall that earlier generations faced down fascism and communism not just with missiles and tanks, but with sturdy alliances and enduring convictions. They understood that our power alone cannot protect us, nor does it entitle us to do as we please. Instead, they knew that our power grows through its prudent use; our security emanates from the justness of our cause, the force of our example, the tempering qualities of humility and restraint.

-President Barack Obama, 1st Inaugural address
FeelTheLove is offline  
post #25 of 147 (permalink) Old 05-12-2005, 01:55 PM Thread Starter
Administratoris Emeritus
 
GeeS's Avatar
 
Date registered: Aug 2002
Vehicle: 2021 SL770
Location: Fountain Hills, AZ
Posts: 44,915
Mentioned: 2 Post(s)
Quoted: 591 Post(s)
(Thread Starter)
RE: Science, religion collide in Kansas debate

Quote:
tcp_ML500 - 5/12/2005 11:50 AM
Case in point, the most brilliant of all, the man represented in your current avatar.
Einstein rejected quantum theory because it conflicted with his conception of an omniscient God. In Einstein's time, God had not yet visited Vegas. If He had, He would have played craps (player's odds are probably the best at that game than others) and Albert would be OK with that non deterministic, probabilistic view of the sub atomic world.
That's one take on it I suppose. "God does not play dice with the universe" -- surely one of the great lines in the history of science. I've always taken it to mean that Heisenberg's theory was simply inconsistant with Einstein's intuitive grasp of the universe -- and his intuition had served him (and us) so well, it's hard to find fault. In fact, Einstein really did try to accept this stuff and at least bend it to a point that it would fall within the bounds of his reason.

"If spending money you don't have is the height of stupidity, borrowing money to give it away is the height of insanity." -- anon
GeeS is offline  
post #26 of 147 (permalink) Old 05-12-2005, 02:04 PM
BenzWorld Elite
 
tcp_ML500's Avatar
 
Date registered: Aug 2002
Vehicle: C 111 Nardo
Location: Exiled
Posts: 9,402
Mentioned: 0 Post(s)
Quoted: 86 Post(s)
RE: Science, religion collide in Kansas debate

Quote:
kvining - 5/12/2005 2:32 PM
I have no problem with religion being presented in a philosophy class, because there it has to stand on its own merits in comparision to other ideas - I object to something much different, the interjection of religion into hard science, with a state-coerced viewpoint that this bullshit has some sort of scientific validity. There is not one shed of proof in the natural world that God has ever or does now exist, or that any cognizant entity played any part in the origin of species. To teach otherwise is to teach children falsehoods based on the religious beliefs of a political movement that has achieved power in the state. There is a word for that.
I have no objection with your stance as it relates to not wanting to inject religion in the teaching of fundamental sciences such as Math and Physics. Biology should be devoid of such interference as well.

I misinterpreted the folliwing quote of yours
Quote:
kvining - 5/12/2005 12:34 PM
Until then, children should be taught what has been discovered to be real instead of somebody's pie-in-the-sky pipe dream.
as you seeing no value in any teaching that was not grounded in tangible, palpable, irrefutable facts. I see enormous value in it.

I am intrigued by religion. I can see how it has helped, how it is still helping, how it can be manipulated and manipulating. I find that it would often be a lot easier to succomb to the temptation of believing, to have that as a "security" blanket, that it is much harder to go through life without these beliefs. I cannot, however, reconcile religion with what I understand of science. Still, I am fascinated and willing to hear, learn, debate, accept and reject religious claims.

If science can't prove the existance of God, it cannot disprove it either. The more answers science provide, the more glaring the lack of the most basic answers. While we know the state of the universe 1 nanosecond into the big bang, nothing is known of instant 0. If might be scientifically satisfying to say that the question "what was there before the big bang" is a paradox because there is no before, time started with the emergence of that singularity (if you even subscribe/accept singularities, some brilliant minds used to, proved, and later rejected them).
We are satisfied that a short list of laws of physics govern this universe, but should we ever ignore the question of how the laws came into being, wat governed their creation? Once we have the GUT, then what? Sure enough, if all forms of interactions identified in the GUT were not necessary or sufficient for the existance and perpetuation of this universe, we would not be discussing them. Are there more universes? Were there more universes? Did some fail. Why is it that ours after a period of inflationary growth stabilized into a rate of growth that ensures, barely beyond the threshold, that it does not collapse?

Science will always be limited to explaining everything, but not why the laws. All it knows it the laws and their application/applicability. It shows the universe is not eternal, that it had a beginning, but can only go so far as reaching that time horizon! As such, it is incomplete, even if it can fully explain the universe we live in.

Sorry if I forced a bit on the tequila[;)]

I feel so miserable without you; its almost like having you here.
-- Stephen Bishop
tcp_ML500 is offline  
post #27 of 147 (permalink) Old 05-12-2005, 02:12 PM
BenzWorld Elite
 
FeelTheLove's Avatar
 
Date registered: Sep 2004
Vehicle: 83 Astral Silver 280 SL
Location: Planet Houston
Posts: 28,829
Mentioned: 0 Post(s)
Quoted: 8 Post(s)
RE: Science, religion collide in Kansas debate

Quote:
tcp_ML500 - 5/12/2005 4:04 PM

Quote:
kvining - 5/12/2005 2:32 PM
I have no problem with religion being presented in a philosophy class, because there it has to stand on its own merits in comparision to other ideas - I object to something much different, the interjection of religion into hard science, with a state-coerced viewpoint that this bullshit has some sort of scientific validity. There is not one shed of proof in the natural world that God has ever or does now exist, or that any cognizant entity played any part in the origin of species. To teach otherwise is to teach children falsehoods based on the religious beliefs of a political movement that has achieved power in the state. There is a word for that.
I have no objection with your stance as it relates to not wanting to inject religion in the teaching of fundamental sciences such as Math and Physics. Biology should be devoid of such interference as well.

I misinterpreted the folliwing quote of yours
Quote:
kvining - 5/12/2005 12:34 PM
Until then, children should be taught what has been discovered to be real instead of somebody's pie-in-the-sky pipe dream.
as you seeing no value in any teaching that was not grounded in tangible, palpable, irrefutable facts. I see enormous value in it.

I am intrigued by religion. I can see how it has helped, how it is still helping, how it can be manipulated and manipulating. I find that it would often be a lot easier to succomb to the temptation of believing, to have that as a "security" blanket, that it is much harder to go through life without these beliefs. I cannot, however, reconcile religion with what I understand of science. Still, I am fascinated and willing to hear, learn, debate, accept and reject religious claims.

If science can't prove the existance of God, it cannot disprove it either. The more answers science provide, the more glaring the lack of the most basic answers. While we know the state of the universe 1 nanosecond into the big bang, nothing is known of instant 0. If might be scientifically satisfying to say that the question "what was there before the big bang" is a paradox because there is no before, time started with the emergence of that singularity (if you even subscribe/accept singularities, some brilliant minds used to, proved, and later rejected them).
We are satisfied that a short list of laws of physics govern this universe, but should we ever ignore the question of how the laws came into being, wat governed their creation? Once we have the GUT, then what? Sure enough, if all forms of interactions identified in the GUT were not necessary or sufficient for the existance and perpetuation of this universe, we would not be discussing them. Are there more universes? Were there more universes? Did some fail. Why is it that ours after a period of inflationary growth stabilized into a rate of growth that ensures, barely beyond the threshold, that it does not collapse?

Science will always be limited to explaining everything, but not why the laws. All it knows it the laws and their application/applicability. It shows the universe is not eternal, that it had a beginning, but can only go so far as reaching that time horizon! As such, it is incomplete, even if it can fully explain the universe we live in.

Sorry if I forced a bit on the tequila[;)]
Don't give up on 0 nan yet - history has shown a continual contraction of what is considered "of God" and what is explainable by science. Not only that, science and scientists are as likely to contemplate the existance of God in those unknown areas as anyone else is, but in the schools the questions are rarely about quantum mechanics of the Big Bang - they are over the chronological age of the earth and whether or not men descended from monkeys. One side advocates teaching pure ignorance to my children based on their ignorant ideas, while the other wishes to teach science. Since I do not wish my children to learn some redneck idiot's ignorance, I feel science is better taught in its place.



Recall that earlier generations faced down fascism and communism not just with missiles and tanks, but with sturdy alliances and enduring convictions. They understood that our power alone cannot protect us, nor does it entitle us to do as we please. Instead, they knew that our power grows through its prudent use; our security emanates from the justness of our cause, the force of our example, the tempering qualities of humility and restraint.

-President Barack Obama, 1st Inaugural address
FeelTheLove is offline  
post #28 of 147 (permalink) Old 05-12-2005, 02:15 PM Thread Starter
Administratoris Emeritus
 
GeeS's Avatar
 
Date registered: Aug 2002
Vehicle: 2021 SL770
Location: Fountain Hills, AZ
Posts: 44,915
Mentioned: 2 Post(s)
Quoted: 591 Post(s)
(Thread Starter)
RE: Science, religion collide in Kansas debate

Quote:
tcp_ML500 - 5/12/2005 1:04 PM

If science can't prove the existance of God, it cannot disprove it either. The more answers science provide, the more glaring the lack of the most basic answers. While we know the state of the universe 1 nanosecond into the big bang, nothing is known of instant 0. If might be scientifically satisfying to say that the question "what was there before the big bang" is a paradox because there is no before, time started with the emergence of that singularity (if you even subscribe/accept singularities, some brilliant minds used to, proved, and later rejected them).
We are satisfied that a short list of laws of physics govern this universe, but should we ever ignore the question of how the laws came into being, wat governed their creation? Once we have the GUT, then what? Sure enough, if all forms of interactions identified in the GUT were not necessary or sufficient for the existance and perpetuation of this universe, we would not be discussing them. Are there more universes? Were there more universes? Did some fail. Why is it that ours after a period of inflationary growth stabilized into a rate of growth that ensures, barely beyond the threshold, that it does not collapse?

Science will always be limited to explaining everything, but not why the laws. All it knows it the laws and their application/applicability. It shows the universe is not eternal, that it had a beginning, but can only go so far as reaching that time horizon! As such, it is incomplete, even if it can fully explain the universe we live in.

Sorry if I forced a bit on the tequila[;)]
One more hit of orange sunshine should make it all clear. It's all about the multiverse, dude. [8D]

"If spending money you don't have is the height of stupidity, borrowing money to give it away is the height of insanity." -- anon
GeeS is offline  
post #29 of 147 (permalink) Old 05-12-2005, 02:23 PM
BenzWorld Elite
 
tcp_ML500's Avatar
 
Date registered: Aug 2002
Vehicle: C 111 Nardo
Location: Exiled
Posts: 9,402
Mentioned: 0 Post(s)
Quoted: 86 Post(s)
RE: Science, religion collide in Kansas debate

Quote:
kvining - 5/12/2005 3:12 PM
in the schools the questions are rarely about quantum mechanics of the Big Bang - they are over the chronological age of the earth and whether or not men descended from monkeys. One side advocates teaching pure ignorance to my children based on their ignorant ideas, while the other wishes to teach science. Since I do not wish my children to learn some redneck idiot's ignorance, I feel science is better taught in its place.
I must admit that I had lost that perspective and subscribe fully.
I should have known better than giving up on the bottle.[:I]

I feel so miserable without you; its almost like having you here.
-- Stephen Bishop
tcp_ML500 is offline  
post #30 of 147 (permalink) Old 05-12-2005, 02:32 PM
BenzWorld Elite
 
tcp_ML500's Avatar
 
Date registered: Aug 2002
Vehicle: C 111 Nardo
Location: Exiled
Posts: 9,402
Mentioned: 0 Post(s)
Quoted: 86 Post(s)
Care to join me?

Quote:
GermanStar - 5/12/2005 3:15 PM
Quote:
tcp_ML500 - 5/12/2005 1:04 PM
Sorry if I forced a bit on the tequila[;)]
One more hit of orange sunshine should make it all clear. It's all about the multiverse, dude. [8D]
By clicking <a href="http://www.funnyshock.com/files/picture/31055519.jpg" target = "_blank">here</a> you certify that you are of a legal age to view that sort of stuff (note, you'll have to hit refresh when the page has failed to load in a new window).
Disclaimer: No animal was forced into drunkedness, raped, or otherwise violated without her prior consent. In fact, I have a signed "Release of Liability" form.

I feel so miserable without you; its almost like having you here.
-- Stephen Bishop
tcp_ML500 is offline  
Sponsored Links
Advertisement
 
Reply

  Mercedes-Benz Forum > General Mercedes-Benz Forums > Off-Topic

Quick Reply
Message:
Options

Register Now



In order to be able to post messages on the Mercedes-Benz Forum forums, you must first register.
Please enter your desired user name, your email address and other required details in the form below.

User Name:
Password
Please enter a password for your user account. Note that passwords are case-sensitive.

Password:


Confirm Password:
Email Address
Please enter a valid email address for yourself.

Email Address:
OR

Log-in











  • Currently Active Users Viewing This Thread: 1 (0 members and 1 guests)
     
    Thread Tools
    Show Printable Version Show Printable Version
    Email this Page Email this Page
    Display Modes
    Linear Mode Linear Mode



    Posting Rules  
    You may post new threads
    You may post replies
    You may not post attachments
    You may not edit your posts

    BB code is On
    Smilies are On
    [IMG] code is On
    HTML code is Off
    Trackbacks are On
    Pingbacks are On
    Refbacks are On

     

    Title goes here

    close
    video goes here
    description goes here. Read Full Story
    For the best viewing experience please update your browser to Google Chrome