http://www.huffingtonpost.com/sam-ha...i_b_13153.html

Should scientists be doing more to show people how wide the gap really is between science and religion? (IE evolution destroying the idea of Adam and Eve, etc.) Are scientists complicit in people's ignorance because they prefer not to explicitly contradict religious beliefs, even if their findings do so? (IE finding out our atoms are traceable to stars which strongly suggest we are simply a part of the rest of the natural universe)

I would say the answer to these is yes..what can be done?

Science should concern itself with what it is falsifiable and advancing knowledge, not religion/politics or other human endeavours where motive can always be questioned.

It certainly shouldn't actively seek to destroy anything. Science with such an agenda has no credibility.

I may have mislead you in my earlier comments. I agree with you science should not have an agenda. In short, it should not go out of its way to disprove religions claims.

But once for whatever reason it does retains facts that do disprove religious claims, are scientists more often than not, too polite in the ways in which they describe their findings? Either because of outlandish respect for religions, or because they simply wish not to be controversial. And is this politeness complicit in America's enormous ignorance of science, as well as their ability to compartmentalize their religious beliefs?

Well...the most important thing for science by far is neutrality, and that people see it as neutral. You don't want science to come off as anti-religious because that casts legitimate doubt towards any findings it makes.

Like my old physics teacher in high school said "You don't believe ghosts exists? Come to the blackboard and write up the calculations to show me why"

His point wasn't that ghosts might/might not exist or that we should or should not believe they did (well, I suppose that wasn't his point because he never said why, the old bastard), but more that one has to keep conclusions within the method and models you actually have.

If science declares war on religion, you will most likely just get backlash and you could end up with the opposite result. Best to let science do what it does best, let the ideas trickle out into the general consciousness, and views will slowly change over time. No need to bring down religion in one fell swoop: that would have other undesirable results. Slow social change is usual the most stable way.

Look how badly the credibility of climate science has been damaged even though an agenda has never been stated or proven.

If science announced had an announced agenda against religion, there would be a huge backlash. It would probably set science back to the days where scientists were considered occultists.

Thats pretty much how things are now. Science will pretty much always have enemies.

I think a very important step to doing this is to attempt to make discussing religion less taboo. Both logically and historically.

There are 2 Things that science will never have access to them:
1. Death
2. Dreams

I don't know why you've put such an emphasis on "politeness." This reminds me of Eddi's "taking the gloves off" post. I don't even know why you think "politeness" has anything to do with the "intellectual discourse" that you set apart in bold from the article.

Here is the statement that you seemed to have latched onto:

Do you believe that fear of provoking religious hatred is the primary cause of whatever it is that Harris is claiming that it is doing?

(BTW - It seems that he intends to win the argument on a "political front" by re-defining the opposition. I think this is hardly a successful route to "intellectual discourse".)

Science and scientist should not venture past their boundries.

Science and scientist have no clue nor chance of analyzing the spiritual realm or the things of God. The things of God and the spriritual realm are outside of scientists reach to understand, its one giant step they can never take, its a whole different realm.

So my suggestions to science and scientist is to stick to what they can understand and leave the things of God alone.

That is also my suggestion to all the whiney atheist on this forum who for some strange reason, in thier flawed logic have though that its logical and worth their time to debate about something they do not believe in.

A+.


Your thread title OP sounds like something out of Orwell's book "1984".

If (that's a big if) science could even dominate religion for a while what would come out of it would most likely be too ugly to contemplate. Given that man has spiritual properties to his brain and that no human being handles repression too well I think there would be a worldwide uprising the likes of which the world has never seen before if science could act authoritarian in such a manner as described above.

One of the best things about science is its objectivity and when you marry it to politics it loses that. People's opinions become biased and its no longer about the truth of the facts any more.

This statement from the OP above is grossly exaggerated: "The success of science often comes at the expense of religious dogma; the maintenance of religious dogma always comes at the expense of science." (The second half of the sentence is particularly exaggerated. If you buy into such cariacatures so easily I really don't think you are in touch with reality. The world is always a complex amalgamation of things that make up reality, progress, etc. not this black and white relief pic you like to construct.)

The negligence of rational people with regards to the bad arguments for and against religion is a bad thing.
Agree/disagree?

So how does one acquire the ability to understand the spiritual realm?

You must have spirit in order to understand and see spriritual truths and the things of God.

This spirit is biblically called "holy spirit" which can be recieved by believing and obeying Romans 10:9,10.

Rom 10:9 That if thou shalt confess with thy mouth the Lord Jesus, and shalt believe in thine heart that God hath raised him from the dead, thou shalt be saved.

Rom 10:10 For with the heart man believeth unto righteousness; and with the mouth confession is made unto salvation.

Jhn 3:3 Jesus answered and said unto him, Verily, verily, I say unto thee, Except a man be born again, he cannot see the kingdom of God.

Once you are actually born again you have the ability to understand and see the things of God.

Jhn 3:5 Jesus answered, Verily, verily, I say unto thee, Except a man be born of water and [of] the Spirit, he cannot enter into the kingdom of God.

Jhn 3:6 That which is born of the flesh is flesh; and that which is born of the Spirit is spirit.

All men are born of the flesh, but not all men are born of the spirit. Only Christians are born of the spirit.

disagree.

religion can be scientifically studied as much as any soft science can...which is a lot. there is a mountain of knowledge to yet be unearthed about the link between humans and their religious superstitions. and science is the only working body capable of discovering these things.

leaving it alone is a part of the problem. and the longer humans ignore this curse, the longer it will contine to wreak havoc.

"if you do what we say, we'll give you something magical...we promise"

Science doesn't have an agenda anymore than math has an agenda, or a longbow has an agenda.

from the article -
On the other hand, an archer, a mathematician or a scientist may decide to use the tools he's familiar with to deal with a problem in society. The writer is saying to the scientists "if you're not going to do it, who is".

LOL @ mathematicians having a useful impact on society. This is the type of stuff that we worry about.

A little more seriously, though, what is the problem in society that the scientists are supposed to deal with?

issues that religions give credit to god for? imo

this wasnt at the top of my list til pletho opened her big mouth, but i reallllllly hope we somehow manage to defy a bunch of physics and hit the "edge" of the universe while she is alive.

I wouldn't give you anything if it was my choice, but God will.

Wha ha ha ha !!!!

/thread

Best first reply I've seen in a while.

The entire idea of "science vs. religion" is flawed. If science makes a finding that happens to conflict a particular religious belief, then that doesn't automatically make all of science the antagonist to all religions.

Have you read the article? Cliff Notes:
"Scientist must do more, they must do more! What can they do? No idea."
Then why did you write that essay in the first place, you moron!