Re: [ECOLOG-L] Science and Religion Dogmatic conflict? Re: [ECOLOG-L] evolution for non-scientists textbook
But Bill, Feyerabend meant that the verdict was rational and just within the context of church DOCTRINE at that time. And, remember, that was at the time that the Pope Urban VIII. He had a list of his own foibles to worry about, so it isn't clear whether Feyerabend's opinion was actually well-founded. However, I think we could say that science should be evidence-based, while religion is not based on evidence. And, I think all religions (if by religion we mean belief in a god or gods, or a supernatural force running the show) are not evidence-based. Once we recognize that, we will also recognize that there is no way to reconcile the two such that there are common grounds for discussion. After all, one group will always be argue using evidence, while the other group will never argue using evidence. A person who is a scientist and has religion must recognize that when they are being "religious", they have just left the realms of science. Almost seems like a split personality to me. Cheers, Jim On Sat, May 15, 2010 at 07:57, William Silvert wrote: > On another list I recently posted the following, which is relevant to > Derek's comment: Should Galileo have been prosecuted?. The philosopher Paul > Feyerabend said "The Church at the time of Galileo kept much more closely to > reason than did Galileo himself, and she took into consideration the ethical > and social consequences of Galileo's teaching too. Her verdict against > Galileo was rational and just." > > Bill Silvert > > - Original Message - From: "Derek Pursell" > > To: > Sent: sábado, 15 de Maio de 2010 1:40 > > Subject: Re: [ECOLOG-L] Science and Religion Dogmatic conflict? Re: > [ECOLOG-L] evolution for non-scientists textbook > > > Science and religion are indeed compatible, providing that people do not > use the ideas and methodologies of one to override or undermine the other... > -- 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 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 --
Re: [ECOLOG-L] Science and Religion Dogmatic conflict? Re: [ECOLOG-L] evolution for non-scientists textbook
On another list I recently posted the following, which is relevant to Derek's comment: Should Galileo have been prosecuted?. The philosopher Paul Feyerabend said "The Church at the time of Galileo kept much more closely to reason than did Galileo himself, and she took into consideration the ethical and social consequences of Galileo's teaching too. Her verdict against Galileo was rational and just." Bill Silvert - Original Message - From: "Derek Pursell" To: Sent: sábado, 15 de Maio de 2010 1:40 Subject: Re: [ECOLOG-L] Science and Religion Dogmatic conflict? Re: [ECOLOG-L] evolution for non-scientists textbook Science and religion are indeed compatible, providing that people do not use the ideas and methodologies of one to override or undermine the other...
Re: [ECOLOG-L] Science and Religion Dogmatic conflict? Re: [ECOLOG-L] evolution for non-scientists textbook
Science and religion are indeed compatible, providing that people do not use the ideas and methodologies of one to override or undermine the other. An open mind for a different view goes a long way, and as Aristotle said, "It is the mark of an educated mind to be able to entertain an idea without accepting it." I think the biggest boundaries between meaningful, peaceful bonds between the religious and scientific communities are the common assumptions that are made. Many people have these assumptions based upon how people dress, act, or speak, and these assumptions typically lead to false conclusions. To keep this personal anecdotal example short, as a scientist and a Jew who regularly wears his yamaka, I have received many confused looks and curious questions about why I am wearing religious garb while I normally "preach" (to play with words) rationalism, logic, the virtues of the scientific method and the need for empirical evidence in human endeavor. Not to take the conversation too far into the anthropological realm, as Mr. Silvert said, but the fact remains that mysticism, spirituality, and religion are nearly universal in the human condition, however they are expressed. These belief systems, as long as they do not conflict with the ideals, principles, and functioning of science, rationalism, education, and intellectual discourse, do not present problems for each other. Mutual exclusivity is not something that applies, as long as people keep an open mind and understand that faith and reason, while fundamentally different concepts, are both valid ideas and tools of the human mind. - Derek E. Pursell --- On Fri, 5/14/10, James Crants wrote: From: James Crants Subject: Re: [ECOLOG-L] Science and Religion Dogmatic conflict? Re: [ECOLOG-L] evolution for non-scientists textbook To: ECOLOG-L@LISTSERV.UMD.EDU Date: Friday, May 14, 2010, 11:14 AM On Thu, May 13, 2010 at 9:01 AM, Sarah Frias-Torres < sfrias_tor...@hotmail.com> wrote: > Science is based on fact. > Religion is based on faith. > They don't mix. These statements, and some others that have come up, show how narrowly religion has come to be defined in western cultures. In America, particularly, fundamentalist Christianity has come to be equated with all religion. We have come to think that religion is about believing in specific supernatural things in the absence of any evidence, and even believing in certain natural things in spite of all the evidence (e.g., that species do not evolve or the earth is 6,000 years old). Even to many people who consider themselves religious, that would be the definition of faith. Religion and faith are not necessarily about believing in invisible supermen who reward their worshippers and punish unbelievers. Science has proven to be highly compatible with Buddhism and Judaism, for example, and the Jesuits have made significant contributions to science. I've known very good Hindu and Muslim scientists (well, one of each), too. I also worked three growing seasons for an evangelical (not to say fundamentalist) Protestant Christian ecologist, and we debated religion almost every week through that whole period. In all that time, I could find no way in which his religious beliefs conflicted with his science or made him a worse ecologist. Most or all religions are capable of accommodating the view that, if scripture says something that conflicts with science, then that bit of scripture is not literally true. Science and religion seem incompatible partly because many scientists don't share the need many people have for religion or spirituality, and partly because the popular and political influence of fundamentalist Christianity makes religion seem to serve only to delude people into believing things that are demonstrably untrue. Jim Crants
Re: [ECOLOG-L] Science and Religion Dogmatic conflict? Re: [ECOLOG-L] evolution for non-scientists textbook
On Thu, May 13, 2010 at 9:01 AM, Sarah Frias-Torres < sfrias_tor...@hotmail.com> wrote: > Science is based on fact. > Religion is based on faith. > They don't mix. These statements, and some others that have come up, show how narrowly religion has come to be defined in western cultures. In America, particularly, fundamentalist Christianity has come to be equated with all religion. We have come to think that religion is about believing in specific supernatural things in the absence of any evidence, and even believing in certain natural things in spite of all the evidence (e.g., that species do not evolve or the earth is 6,000 years old). Even to many people who consider themselves religious, that would be the definition of faith. Religion and faith are not necessarily about believing in invisible supermen who reward their worshippers and punish unbelievers. Science has proven to be highly compatible with Buddhism and Judaism, for example, and the Jesuits have made significant contributions to science. I've known very good Hindu and Muslim scientists (well, one of each), too. I also worked three growing seasons for an evangelical (not to say fundamentalist) Protestant Christian ecologist, and we debated religion almost every week through that whole period. In all that time, I could find no way in which his religious beliefs conflicted with his science or made him a worse ecologist. Most or all religions are capable of accommodating the view that, if scripture says something that conflicts with science, then that bit of scripture is not literally true. Science and religion seem incompatible partly because many scientists don't share the need many people have for religion or spirituality, and partly because the popular and political influence of fundamentalist Christianity makes religion seem to serve only to delude people into believing things that are demonstrably untrue. Jim Crants
Re: [ECOLOG-L] Science and Religion Dogmatic conflict? Re: [ECOLOG-L] evolution for non-scientists textbook
Science is based on fact. Religion is based on faith. They don't mix. To illustrate. Let's say you have a deadly bacterial infection. Science, (based on fact) shows that the use of a wide spectrum antibiotic will take care of the infection. Religion (based on faith) tells you to pray to your god. Then, choose which path you take. Sarah Frias-Torres, Ph.D. http://independent.academia.edu/SarahFriasTorres > Date: Wed, 12 May 2010 20:18:44 -0700 > From: a...@coho.net > Subject: Re: [ECOLOG-L] Science and Religion Dogmatic conflict? Re: > [ECOLOG-L] evolution for non-scientists textbook > To: ECOLOG-L@LISTSERV.UMD.EDU > > How about: Science is trying to discover the world as it is, religion is > trying to develop a world as it should become. > > Warren W. Aney > (503) 246-8613 > > -Original Message- > From: Ecological Society of America: grants, jobs, news > [mailto:ecolo...@listserv.umd.edu] On Behalf Of William Silvert > Sent: Wednesday, 12 May, 2010 14:50 > To: ECOLOG-L@LISTSERV.UMD.EDU > Subject: Re: [ECOLOG-L] Science and Religion Dogmatic conflict? Re: > [ECOLOG-L] evolution for non-scientists textbook > > My preferred definition is that science is about seeing the world as it is, > religion about seeing the world as we would like it to be. > > A good example is the Copernican revolution. Copernicus and Galileo showed > that the earth was not the centre of the universe, but the church insisted > that it was and that man was god's favoured creation. > > Bill Silvert > > - Original Message - > From: "Wayne Tyson" > To: > Sent: quarta-feira, 12 de Maio de 2010 19:49 > Subject: [ECOLOG-L] Science and Religion Dogmatic conflict? Re: [ECOLOG-L] > evolution for non-scientists textbook > > >> Science is about questioning one's assumptions; religion is about what's >> right and what's wrong.
Re: [ECOLOG-L] Science and Religion Dogmatic conflict? Re: [ECOLOG-L] evolution for non-scientists textbook
For those of you who do not think that this debate is divisive, just check out the gubernatorial campaign in Alabama. Both sides are going against evolution to gain supporters! On Thu, May 13, 2010 at 00:18, Warren W. Aney wrote: > How about: Science is trying to discover the world as it is, religion is > trying to develop a world as it should become. > > Warren W. Aney > (503) 246-8613 > > [image: S-CanITeachEvolution.gif] <>
Re: [ECOLOG-L] Science and Religion Dogmatic conflict? Re: [ECOLOG-L] evolution for non-scientists textbook
How about: Science is trying to discover the world as it is, religion is trying to develop a world as it should become. Warren W. Aney (503) 246-8613 -Original Message- From: Ecological Society of America: grants, jobs, news [mailto:ecolo...@listserv.umd.edu] On Behalf Of William Silvert Sent: Wednesday, 12 May, 2010 14:50 To: ECOLOG-L@LISTSERV.UMD.EDU Subject: Re: [ECOLOG-L] Science and Religion Dogmatic conflict? Re: [ECOLOG-L] evolution for non-scientists textbook My preferred definition is that science is about seeing the world as it is, religion about seeing the world as we would like it to be. A good example is the Copernican revolution. Copernicus and Galileo showed that the earth was not the centre of the universe, but the church insisted that it was and that man was god's favoured creation. Bill Silvert - Original Message - From: "Wayne Tyson" To: Sent: quarta-feira, 12 de Maio de 2010 19:49 Subject: [ECOLOG-L] Science and Religion Dogmatic conflict? Re: [ECOLOG-L] evolution for non-scientists textbook > Science is about questioning one's assumptions; religion is about what's > right and what's wrong.
Re: [ECOLOG-L] Science and Religion Dogmatic conflict? Re: [ECOLOG-L] evolution for non-scientists textbook
My preferred definition is that science is about seeing the world as it is, religion about seeing the world as we would like it to be. A good example is the Copernican revolution. Copernicus and Galileo showed that the earth was not the centre of the universe, but the church insisted that it was and that man was god's favoured creation. Bill Silvert - Original Message - From: "Wayne Tyson" To: Sent: quarta-feira, 12 de Maio de 2010 19:49 Subject: [ECOLOG-L] Science and Religion Dogmatic conflict? Re: [ECOLOG-L] evolution for non-scientists textbook Science is about questioning one's assumptions; religion is about what's right and what's wrong.
Re: [ECOLOG-L] Science and Religion Dogmatic conflict? Re: [ECOLOG-L] evolution for non-scientists textbook
Not on ecology but neatly (albeit a bit old) great book on Eastern religious beliefs were way ahead of nuclear physics is of course Fritjof Capra's The Tao of Physics http://www.amazon.com/Tao-Physics-Exploration-Parallels-Anniversary/dp/1570625190/ref=sr_1_4?ie=UTF8&s=books&qid=1273701010&sr=8-4 He also has other interesting books On Wed, May 12, 2010 at 1:49 PM, Wayne Tyson wrote: > Ecolog: > > What a pity that evolution scares away religious students. With the > exception of some professional bible-thumpers and other immoral > manipulators, I find most religious people attracted to various dogma > because they are fundamentally (npi) good, and are as sick and tired of > institutionalized indifference of the domineering quality of civilization as > the rest of us. Belief is only easier than thinking because the dominant > cultures do not want their victims challenging their authority; thus there > is no "Thinking 101" taught anywhere that I know of. Princeton? Fifth grade? > > Thinking is the natural, easy, hard-wired brain function. To overcome this > automatic habit, children "have to carefully taught." It "has to be drummed > in[to] their dear little ears" to quote the song from "South Pacific." > Thinking and believing can't be done at the same time, but if the cataracts > of dogma can be lifted a bit, with patience rather than mimicking the very > kind of fundamentalism that created them in the first place (in "scientific" > clothing), the thought process can begin to soften the sclerotic encasement > that confines the mind.* Perhaps one place to start is to stop asking > whether or not people "believe in" evolution. > > Science is about questioning one's assumptions; religion is about what's > right and what's wrong. A real reading of, say, the Vedic "scriptures," the > Koran, the Bible, and other ancient tracts of uncertain and probably > multiple authorship, rather than taking the rantings of some self-righteous > demagogue as "gospel" will reveal that much thinking has gone into those > once flexible tracts that have been perverted through mistranslation and > modification to suit the expediencies of money-changers in priestly shrouds > that have constructed hierarchies that have silenced the custom of > consultation that once was an integral part of their development. > > The Demagogues of Dogma (title of an essay upon which I am still working) > find it expedient and effective to demonize "unbelievers," and "science" > itself tends to silence heretics, hence it is not immune from some of the > same processes that have perverted religions, which once were centers, foci, > of honest philosophy as "disciplined" (not conformist) thought. > > Why "scientists" fear religion is no mystery. The fear has an origin common > to both what passes for science but is actually restrictive, in much the > same way as dogma insists upon conformity to the interpretations of the > current crop of authoritarians. There is much in the history of religious > thought to interest scientists; there is much in science that is not > inconsistent with true religion. They both are signposts in the history of > human thought, and both contain elements which, if subject to continuous > challenge, might contribute to a transformation from the rigidities of > civilization to a reconciled state of being which has been my life-quest > since the age of fifteen: To reconcile the needs and works of humankind with > those of the earth and its life. > > WT > > *I strongly recommend "Breaking Through: Essays, Journals, and Travelogues > of Edward F. Ricketts" By Katherine A. Rodger, with a foreword by Susan F. > Beegel. It is not a text, but I am reluctant to term it "additional > reading." > > > - Original Message - From: "Madhusudan Katti" < > mka...@csufresno.edu> > To: > Sent: Wednesday, May 12, 2010 9:08 AM > Subject: Re: [ECOLOG-L] evolution for non-scientists textbook > > > Just following up on my earlier suggestion, there is a positive review > of "The Tangled Bank" in the recent American Biology Teacher: > > http://www.bioone.org/doi/abs/10.1525/abt.2010.72.3.13 > > “For students of evolution or scholars who want to know the specifics > about particular evolutionary processes, this is an excellent read. The > fact that it is understandable to beginners and fascinating to > scientists makes this book truly unique and valuable.” > > I would also recommend Carl Zimmer's excellent blog The Loom > (http://blogs.discovermagazine.com/loom) as a companion to any course on > evolution. > > I like some of the other suggestions in this thread as well, especially > Sean Carroll's book. Coyne is very good too, and Dawkins new book is > probably dependable in getting the students' attention (I haven't read > it). The Selfish Gene is too old to be used as a general text for a > course on evolution. Moreover, with Coyne and Dawkins, I'd worry about > alienating some of the religious-minded students. I would hesitate to > use those
[ECOLOG-L] Science and Religion Dogmatic conflict? Re: [ECOLOG-L] evolution for non-scientists textbook
Ecolog: What a pity that evolution scares away religious students. With the exception of some professional bible-thumpers and other immoral manipulators, I find most religious people attracted to various dogma because they are fundamentally (npi) good, and are as sick and tired of institutionalized indifference of the domineering quality of civilization as the rest of us. Belief is only easier than thinking because the dominant cultures do not want their victims challenging their authority; thus there is no "Thinking 101" taught anywhere that I know of. Princeton? Fifth grade? Thinking is the natural, easy, hard-wired brain function. To overcome this automatic habit, children "have to carefully taught." It "has to be drummed in[to] their dear little ears" to quote the song from "South Pacific." Thinking and believing can't be done at the same time, but if the cataracts of dogma can be lifted a bit, with patience rather than mimicking the very kind of fundamentalism that created them in the first place (in "scientific" clothing), the thought process can begin to soften the sclerotic encasement that confines the mind.* Perhaps one place to start is to stop asking whether or not people "believe in" evolution. Science is about questioning one's assumptions; religion is about what's right and what's wrong. A real reading of, say, the Vedic "scriptures," the Koran, the Bible, and other ancient tracts of uncertain and probably multiple authorship, rather than taking the rantings of some self-righteous demagogue as "gospel" will reveal that much thinking has gone into those once flexible tracts that have been perverted through mistranslation and modification to suit the expediencies of money-changers in priestly shrouds that have constructed hierarchies that have silenced the custom of consultation that once was an integral part of their development. The Demagogues of Dogma (title of an essay upon which I am still working) find it expedient and effective to demonize "unbelievers," and "science" itself tends to silence heretics, hence it is not immune from some of the same processes that have perverted religions, which once were centers, foci, of honest philosophy as "disciplined" (not conformist) thought. Why "scientists" fear religion is no mystery. The fear has an origin common to both what passes for science but is actually restrictive, in much the same way as dogma insists upon conformity to the interpretations of the current crop of authoritarians. There is much in the history of religious thought to interest scientists; there is much in science that is not inconsistent with true religion. They both are signposts in the history of human thought, and both contain elements which, if subject to continuous challenge, might contribute to a transformation from the rigidities of civilization to a reconciled state of being which has been my life-quest since the age of fifteen: To reconcile the needs and works of humankind with those of the earth and its life. WT *I strongly recommend "Breaking Through: Essays, Journals, and Travelogues of Edward F. Ricketts" By Katherine A. Rodger, with a foreword by Susan F. Beegel. It is not a text, but I am reluctant to term it "additional reading." - Original Message - From: "Madhusudan Katti" To: Sent: Wednesday, May 12, 2010 9:08 AM Subject: Re: [ECOLOG-L] evolution for non-scientists textbook Just following up on my earlier suggestion, there is a positive review of "The Tangled Bank" in the recent American Biology Teacher: http://www.bioone.org/doi/abs/10.1525/abt.2010.72.3.13 “For students of evolution or scholars who want to know the specifics about particular evolutionary processes, this is an excellent read. The fact that it is understandable to beginners and fascinating to scientists makes this book truly unique and valuable.” I would also recommend Carl Zimmer's excellent blog The Loom (http://blogs.discovermagazine.com/loom) as a companion to any course on evolution. I like some of the other suggestions in this thread as well, especially Sean Carroll's book. Coyne is very good too, and Dawkins new book is probably dependable in getting the students' attention (I haven't read it). The Selfish Gene is too old to be used as a general text for a course on evolution. Moreover, with Coyne and Dawkins, I'd worry about alienating some of the religious-minded students. I would hesitate to use those in a non-majors class here in the central valley of California, for example. In fact, I suspect that Coyne's book may have played a role in pushing one of my own students (a grad student no less!) away from Biology because the evidence/arguments in that book were too strong for this religious student to handle. Of course that end result was good in some ways, but it depends on what your goals are with the class. Besides, your audience in Princeton (presuming it hasn't changed in the decade since I was there) wil
