Establishing an ethical relationship between Science and Religion.

[MagnetMan]

It can be argued that the most pressing human issue on the planet today is the disagreement between science and religion regarding Intelligent Design. It interferes in the home where parents rear infants: In the school classroom: Between Church and State: During casual discourse in the public market place and public playground.

 

Because science has established itself as an international brotherhood and sisterhood of like-mindedly trained intellectuals, a huge responsibility lies on its shoulders in helping to smooth out the inter-relationship, not only domestically, but also in both race and international relations.

 

The attitude taken by scientists when the subject of religion is brought up is far too curt and at times even rude. The general attitude is; if you have proof that God exists I will listen, if not, do not try and impose your Belief on me or onto science. When one considers the history of persecution that scientist have suffered at the hands of religion, this attitude is understandable. But it is not excusable. Two wrongs make no right. Just as science has a duty to reach out and teach its disciplines to every new born, so too is it the duty of religionists.

 

Man is both an intuitive and an analytical animal. It is essential that those two halves of the individual and collective psyche remain in harmony. One side provides insight, much of it spiritually profound. The other side analyses that insight and puts it to practical purpose. When the two halves get out of synch, originality suffers and ethics plummet.

 

As science represents the most advanced condition of the evolving human psyche, it needs to take leadership in establishing a rapport with the foundations of our cultural system. Religion was not built on science. It is the other way round. Every scientist today enjoys their learning from educational systems that have been bought and paid for by our religious base. We all enjoy the dignity both at home and abroad, as members of an ancient culture that established its credentials millennia before the lodge of science came into existence. Without that culture our identity would be blurred and the application of science would be meaningless.

 

To deny the existence of a Creator, when one has no proof of this, not only insults every religious, it also insults thousands of generations of ancestral lives and makes the word “culture” superfluous.

 

When confronted by a religious, the ethical response of a scientists has to be – until I can prove that intelligent design does not exist, I will bow my head to our ancestral faith. At the very least, I will not be discourteous.

 

If we can establish such a rapport, I am sure we can then go on to work out a school curriculum that reveals the essential inter-relationship that exists between the analytical and intuitive half of the student psyche. This will allow us to find a way to accommodate the disciples of physics and metaphysics in the same classroom.

[InfiniteNow]

I can appreciate your stance, MagMan... but I personally find the practice of religion old-fashioned... to the power of 100. Religion has served an ancestral purpose, but belief in a creator (as expressed in another thread recently) is inversely proportional to education level. Although I greatly respect many of my peers on this site, as well as their freedom to believe what they wish, I feel (please take this in the best possible way) that beliving in God is silly.

 

Also, you cannot prove that something does not exist... It's hard enough proving that something does.

[MagnetMan]

Although I greatly respect many of my peers on this site, as well as their freedom to believe what they wish, I feel (please take this in the best possible way) that beliving in God is silly.

 

Also, you cannot prove that something does not exist... It's hard enough proving that something does.

 

If I can accept that you do not believe in God and yet not think you silly, why not the reverese, since neither of us can refute each other? What is silly is to call call another silly without any evidence to back it up. This unreasoned disrespect is precisely what this post is highlighting.. It helps nobody to be derogatory

[InfiniteNow]

The misinterpretation seems to flow in both directions.

[MagnetMan]

The misinterpretation seems to flow in both directions.

True. That is why it behoves the scientist to initiate courtesy.

[Boerseun]

MagnetMan, you are trying to place the burden of proof on Science, as per your first post. You, as the proponent of religion and a Creator, should present the evidence for Science to contemplate. That is how Science, and the Scientific Method, works.

The burden of proof is on your shoulders.

Besides that, this thread belongs in the Religion Forum.

[pgrmdave]

Because science has established itself as an international brotherhood and sisterhood of like-mindedly trained intellectuals, a huge responsibility lies on its shoulders in helping to smooth out the inter-relationship, not only domestically, but also in both race and international relations.

 

Science doesn't have this responsibility, people do. People of all walks of life have this responsibility, not just scientists, nor are scientists really the best people for the job - just because you understand chemistry doesn't mean you understand diplomacy and interpersonal relationships.

 

The attitude taken by scientists when the subject of religion is brought up is far too curt and at times even rude. The general attitude is; if you have proof that God exists I will listen, if not, do not try and impose your Belief on me or onto science. When one considers the history of persecution that scientist have suffered at the hands of religion, this attitude is understandable. But it is not excusable. Two wrongs make no right. Just as science has a duty to reach out and teach its disciplines to every new born, so too is it the duty of religionists.

 

I agree, it is okay and understandable to try to convert a person, but don't dress it up and make it sound like science. Too many religious people try to claim that their faith is logical, when the idea of faith precludes logic. I am a Christian, but I would never try to claim that science should accept that without proof - just because I believe it to be true doesn't mean that scientific evidence will agree.

 

Man is both an intuitive and an analytical animal. It is essential that those two halves of the individual and collective psyche remain in harmony. One side provides insight, much of it spiritually profound. The other side analyses that insight and puts it to practical purpose. When the two halves get out of synch, originality suffers and ethics plummet.

 

Do you have evidence of this? Any clinical studies, statistical evidence, any facts leading to this ideology?

 

As science represents the most advanced condition of the evolving human psyche, it needs to take leadership in establishing a rapport with the foundations of our cultural system. Religion was not built on science. It is the other way round. Every scientist today enjoys their learning from educational systems that have been bought and paid for by our religious base. We all enjoy the dignity both at home and abroad, as members of an ancient culture that established its credentials millennia before the lodge of science came into existence. Without that culture our identity would be blurred and the application of science would be meaningless.

 

The ancient greeks believed that the sun was carried across the sky. Everything about our education comes from the Greeks. Does that mean that we have an obligation to teach that the sun is carried across the sky? Of course not, nor do we have any obligation to hold to any organization, scientific, religious, political or otherwise that we have found to be false in some way. Just because we came from them doesn't mean we owe them anything.

 

To deny the existence of a Creator, when one has no proof of this, not only insults every religious, it also insults thousands of generations of ancestral lives and makes the word “culture” superfluous.

 

Few scientists will actively say that there is no Creator, merely that there is no evidence of a Creator - they are very different statements. It is not a hard fact that there is or is not a Creator, but science must assume that there is not until there is strong evidence that there is. So far all evidence that has been provided has fallen short, and not shown conclusively that there must have been a Creator, so the currently accepted stance is a tentative false - there is most likely not a creator.

 

When confronted by a religious, the ethical response of a scientists has to be – until I can prove that intelligent design does not exist, I will bow my head to our ancestral faith. At the very least, I will not be discourteous.

 

This is not applicable to the scientific meathod - science does not hold to tradition, only experimentation, and even old theories are run through experiments to amend them, think of Newton's theory of Gravitation (replaced by Relativity and Quantum theories) or Germ theory, or Atomic theory - all of these ideas are constantly questioned and either the current experimental data supports the old ideas, and the theory is made stronger, or it contradicts the old idea, and we try to develop a new theory.

 

If we can establish such a rapport, I am sure we can then go on to work out a school curriculum that reveals the essential inter-relationship that exists between the analytical and intuitive half of the student psyche. This will allow us to find a way to accommodate the disciples of physics and metaphysics in the same classroom.

 

Why is this necessary? Again, I ask you to cite examples, data, statistics, some sort of facts which back up your idea that teaching in this manner is necessary and best for students.

[MagnetMan]

Science doesn't have this responsibility, people do. People of all walks of life have this responsibility, not just scientists, nor are scientists really the best people for the job - just because you understand chemistry doesn't mean you understand diplomacy and interpersonal relationships.

True, all of us bear the responsibility to behave courtesously to each other. But it is science who has made us doubt thta God exists. Not deliberately of course, but by inference via empirical rules. Diplomacy is a common trait that our parents teach to us, we all know how to exercise if we really want to try.

 

I agree, it is okay and understandable to try to convert a person, but don't dress it up and make it sound like science. Too many religious people try to claim that their faith is logical, when the idea of faith precludes logic. I am a Christian, but I would never try to claim that science should accept that without proof - just because I believe it to be true doesn't mean that scientific evidence will agree.

I remember slamming the door on dozens of 7th Day Adventers.

Recently I have invited them in for tea. Listened to them for a while and given my side in return. It did'nt hurt one bit.

 

Do you have evidence of this? Any clinical studies, statistical evidence, any facts leading to this ideology?

 

Dual brain psycholgy, intuitive/analytical/ masculine/feminine.

I refer you to the work of Professor Roger Sperry and his work on split brain dissection and analysis - for which he received the Nobel Prize.

 

 

The ancient greeks believed that the sun was carried across the sky. Everything about our education comes from the Greeks. Does that mean that we have an obligation to teach that the sun is carried across the sky? Of course not, nor do we have any obligation to hold to any organization, scientific, religious, political or otherwise that we have found to be false in some way. Just because we came from them doesn't mean we owe them anything.

I beg to differ

 

 

Why is this necessary? Again, I ask you to cite examples, data, statistics, some sort of facts which back up your idea that teaching in this manner is necessary and best for students.

 

The heated argument over introducing ID into schools is all over the internet. Go look it up yourself and come back and tell me again that there is no need for some sort of ethical accommodation.

[MagnetMan]

MagnetMan, you are trying to place the burden of proof on Science, as per your first post.

 

I am trying to place the burden of diplomacy on science.

 

You, as the proponent of religion and a Creator, should present the evidence for Science to contemplate. That is how Science, and the Scientific Method, works.

Psyche-Genetics is a meld of both metaphysics and physics, as the title cleary implies. I am a proponent of both science and spirituality

 

The burden of proof is on your shoulders.

It is, mt friemd, on all our shoulders.

 

Besides that, this thread belongs in the Religion Forum.

As it is about human behavior, I believe that it belongs right here.

[Qfwfq]

It can be argued that the most pressing human issue on the planet today is the disagreement between science and religion regarding Intelligent Design.

:eek:

 

I'd say this is a slight exageration!

[InfiniteNow]

:D

 

I'd say this is a slight exageration!

Well, it could be argued, just not very successfully. :eek2:

[MagnetMan]

:D

 

I'd say this is a slight exageration!

 

This argment is affecting the minds and hearts of our children. How we influence them now will determine the future. How much closer to the bone can we get? What other single issue do you think is more urgent?

[InfiniteNow]

What other single issue do you think is more urgent?

This would fall into the realm of someone's personal subjective opinion. It's okay that you feel this way, but others may not.

 

For me, it's overpopulation, global warming, and putting walls up between people -- fostering difference instead of similarity. Religion fosters this difference too...

 

As explicitly demonstrated in your opening post, people believe different things... science and religion being two commonly distinct sets of belief and/or understanding. The "big" problems will remain unsolvable until we stop and see ourselves all facing the same issues. Bickering about whether Jesus or God or Muhammed or Barney the Purple Dinosaur being the supreme leader is just slowing us down as a group of life on Earth.

 

 

Cheers. :D

[MagnetMan]

This would fall into the realm of someone's personal subjective opinion. It's okay that you feel this way, but others may not.

 

For me, it's overpopulation, global warming, and putting walls up between people -- fostering difference instead of similarity. Religion fosters this difference too...

 

Cheers. :D

 

Putting up walls between people is what this post is about. You put it third on your list. I'll buy that. I agree with you on all the others and a lot more. But those problems have been argued over for more than a decade already and are still nowhere near general consensus. Meantime more and more kids are getting educated piece-meal while those wars go on. Therefore I place the problem of education at No 1.

 

There is an imediate solution that will not hurt science or religion, but we have to get our minds open to a new idea before we can discuss it fully with each other. Do do that we have to recognize that there is a problem first. I am not asking anybody to trust my opinion or buy anything, just to look at the new model and decide on the pros and cons for yourself. It is called dual brain education. Sperry won the Nobel for his owrk on it, and nobody has picked up the ball yet. I tried it on my own kids and got exceptional results. They are quite happy to have God and science in the same room.

[InfiniteNow]

...just to look at the new model and decide on the pros and cons for yourself. It is called dual brain education. Sperry won the Nobel for his owrk on it, and nobody has picked up the ball yet.

I'm quite familiar with bihemispherical training paradigms and cortex dependent stimuli focussing, and while it is interesting work, there's more to solving the innumerable problems facing us than this lone theory can handle.

 

 

But those problems have been argued over for more than a decade already and are still nowhere near general consensus.

Wouldn't the general consensus be that we want to fix them?

[MagnetMan]

I'm quite familiar with bihemispherical training paradigms and cortex dependent stimuli focussing, and while it is interesting work, there's more to solving the innumerable problems facing us than this lone theory can handle.

But if it is instrumental in getting the next generation of children more holistically orientated, then at least we have some form of assurance that current problems might actually be handled. The arguments we are facing right now seem intractable. For insance, do you think either you or I will reach agreement over any of the subjects I have broached? If the answer is never. Then what are we to do - if not hope that our children might get on with the job and not waste so much valuable time? I am ready right now to put down my net and get to work on those bigger problems. Are you? Is anybody? Or is it all talk? I tarry in the hope of getting help. In the meantime I have at least four kids on the road, and four more on the way, using the dual brain system.

 

 

Wouldn't the general consensus be that we want to fix them?

 

How will that happen if we keep arguing like this? Every post I have made has been with "let's fix it" in mind.

[InfiniteNow]

It just seems that so many people put the onus of fixing the problem into "let's be better parents." While that IS very much a good idea, what else can we do now?

 

 

By the way, this is a bit off topic, but what is your avatar? It reminds me of a metal dild:omg: