Wayne et al.,
I think we have gotten a little off-track. After all, if we accept that
science is or should be evidence-based, then the putative "uses" of
religion, as well as the number of gods there are in the universe, are
not in the purview of science. If a scientist is also superstitious
(and by superstitious, I mean believes in things that are not
evidence-based and makes choices following those beliefs), then she must
recognize that the superstitious part of her is not scientific. I
assume that superstitious scientists must compartmentalize their science
from their superstitions and the twain shall never meet.
If we are going to have a morality discussion here, then we really are
going to have to define some common terms first - otherwise we will be
like freshmen students asking how we know we are really here.
Sincerely,
Jim
Wayne Tyson wrote on 25-May-10 12:11:
> Bill and Ecolog:
>
> This is exactly why I took care in my initial post to emphasize DOGMA.
> "Religion" suffers the semantic fate of a lot of terminology; it
> simultaneously covers everything unscientific and cherry-picks
> extremes. That is why the discussion took off on an infinite number of
> tracks, and a "value-free" observer does well to "let it all hang out."
>
> Meanwhile, back on the track, the issue is how to best reconcile the
> fact of dogmatic tendencies in religion tar all "philosophy" and are
> not so entirely unknown in "science" as many inside those ivory towers
> insist. How, for example, should a science teacher handle the dogmatic
> student?
>
> This is a common and ongoing challenge. While perhaps magnified a bit
> in the academic context, the nature of this conflict may have roots
> far deeper into the ways humans have come to interact. It seems that
> there is, to paraphrase Margaret Mead, "conflict enough to go around."
> She actually said "There's love enough to go around." Maybe she was in
> a rare mood of wishful thinking, maybe not, but love in the form of
> ENGAGEMENT might be fertile grounds for the beginning of a
> reconciliation revolution.
>
> One thing seems certain. The present "system" could use some refinement.
>
> WT
>
>
> ----- Original Message ----- From: "William Silvert"
> <cien...@silvert.org>
> To: <ECOLOG-L@LISTSERV.UMD.EDU>
> Sent: Friday, May 21, 2010 2:39 AM
> Subject: [ECOLOG-L] Science and Religion are we getting off track?
>
>
>> While I have found the animated discussion interesting, I think we are
>> getting away from the original issue of actual conflict between
>> science and
>> religion. This began with a student who dropped science because of the
>> evolution issue, which is (or was) fairly common -- my step-father never
>> could teach his physical anthopology course without getting into a fight
>> with students who believed in creation. One can of course be religious
>> without getting into a bind -- no reason why a scientist cannot go
>> home and
>> pray, attend religious services, and so on. But direct conflicts are
>> only
>> the tip of the iceberg.
>>
>> If we compare our mostly secular modern society with that of the past
>> few
>> centuries or millenia then the difference between a society based on
>> observation and reason, which is basically what science is all about,
>> and
>> one based on religion is clear. Consider for example the matter of race.
>> Even on the fringes of modern society, the people who think that blacks
>> aren't smart enough to be quarterbacks, or the scientific extremes
>> represented by The Bell Curve, there is some awareness of our common
>> ancestry and the essential human nature of non-white races. In the
>> past on
>> the other hand, slavery and genocide were justified by the religious
>> doctrine that only white people have souls, and that humanoids
>> without souls
>> could be treated like animals. Now of course the issue of souls is
>> not one
>> where science and religion are in direct conflict, no scientist can
>> determine whether or not the soul really exists. But the fate and
>> lives of
>> millions of people were determined by whether the religious
>> "knowledge" that
>> they had no souls took precedence over the scientific evidence that
>> all of
>> the races of man are fundamentally similar.
>>
>> Societies have been shaped by religion, and not always
>> constructively. Serfs
>> were held down not only by armed might but by belief in the divine
>> right of
>> kings -- even today many people believe that hereditary aristocrats are
>> superior to commoners. Whether the priests who accompanied Pizarro
>> went in
>> support of his greedy goals or really just wanted to save souls, they
>> certainly help subjugate the natives. We still see religion as
>> sometimes an
>> obstacle to social development. Consider the frequent mine disasters
>> that
>> have been in the news recently. No doubt many of the widows console
>> themselves with the thought that this was god's will and was
>> foreordained,
>> and that they will meet their husbands in heaven. This is fine, I am
>> all in
>> favour of consoling the sad and alleviating emotional suffering. But
>> there
>> also has to be a scientific investigation into the causes of the
>> disaster
>> that leads to improvements in mine safety, and the grieving widows
>> should
>> support this. All too often the religious explanation (god's will) is
>> seen
>> as a valid alternative to the scientific one (negligence). But of
>> course no
>> scientist can prove that these disasters are not god's will!
>>
>> For me the fundamental issue is whether we act scientifically, that
>> is to
>> say on the basis of evidence and reason, or whether we defer to
>> religious
>> belief. This leaves plenty of room for mysticism and the kind of ecstasy
>> that E. O. Wilson wrote about, for prayer and holy celebrations. But
>> to act
>> irrationally on the basis of one's religious beliefs in a way that
>> causes
>> harm to people or to anything else in our environment is in my
>> opinion an
>> abomination.
>>
>> Bill Silvert
>
>
> --------------------------------------------------------------------------------
>
>
>
>
> No virus found in this incoming message.
> Checked by AVG - www.avg.com
> Version: 8.5.437 / Virus Database: 271.1.1/2893 - Release Date:
> 05/24/10 06:26:00
>
--
James J. Roper, Ph.D.
Ecology, Evolution and Population Dynamics
of Terrestrial Vertebrates
------------------------------------------------------------------------
Caixa Postal 19034
81531-990 Curitiba, Paraná, Brasil
------------------------------------------------------------------------
E-mail: jjro...@gmail.com <mailto:jjro...@gmail.com>
Telefone: 55 41 36730409
Celular: 55 41 98182559
Skype-in (USA):+1 706 5501064
Skype-in (Brazil):+55 41 39415715
------------------------------------------------------------------------
Ecology and Conservation at the UFPR <http://www.bio.ufpr.br/ecologia/>
Home Page <http://jjroper.googlespages.com>
Ars Artium Consulting <http://arsartium.googlespages.com>
In Google Earth, copy and paste -> 25 31'18.14" S, 49 05'32.98" W
------------------------------------------------------------------------
