Silicon Investor (SI) -- The First Internet Community

STOCKTALK

We've detected that you're using an ad content blocking browser plug-in or feature. Ads provide a critical source of revenue to the continued operation of Silicon Investor. We ask that you disable ad blocking while on Silicon Investor in the best interests of our community. If you are not using an ad blocker but are still receiving this message, make sure your browser's tracking protection is set to the 'standard' level.

Pastimes : Observations and Collectables -- Ignore unavailable to you. Want to Upgrade?

To: TimF who wrote (294)	9/21/2006 10:48:37 PM
From: skinowski	Respond to of 17143

Science reveals, but Revelation is not science. I think both sides in the debate tend to create straw men and fight them. I can't see why a truly religious person would ever want to see "scientific" proof of the existence of God. That would take mystery out of the Divine, and doing the right thing in accordance with one's religion would no longer be an expression of freedom - but rather a plain business calculation. Holy mackerel.... God forbid that some smart arse scientist would rob us of the mystery of the Divine..... I think it is a sacrilege even to think that such a thing is possible.

To: TimF who wrote (294)	9/22/2006 5:46:40 PM
From: Brumar89	Respond to of 17143

Scientists are entitled to hold opinions in areas outside of science. Of course, but the ones I named represent their (anti-)religious views as being based on science. My question is why NO ONE ever says to them, that isn't science? I'm not sure that no one has. I haven't seen it, other than on a post like this where an individual is clearly expressing their own opinion. Newspaper and magazine articles and opeds get published declaring that ID isn't science, for example. But looking at the other side: Daniel Dennett, for example, is treated in the press as a scientific spokesman, though his field is actually philosophy. Zoologist Richard Dawkins gave up doing real scientific work decades ago and has devoted himself primarily to anti-religious proselytization in the name of science for many years, yet he continues to be awarded scientific prizes for his efforts, holds a chair at Oxford, and is treated as a scientific spokesman in the press. It is clear there's widespread bias in this area. If "science" were truly neutral or agnostic on questions of religion, the science - religion conflict would be much less heated. Note the general absence of a significant science - religion conflict in the areas of physics, astronomy, and cosmology - despite the fact that these fields present a universe and solar system billions of years old. It's only in evolutionary biology that the science - religon conflict pops up. There is not an active and highly visible cadre of "scientists" in the other fields promoting atheism in the name of science. In fact, these fields actually have something known as the athropic principle, various versions of it, actually, which seem to be "okay" scientifically.