Establishing an ethical relationship between Science and Religion.

[MagnetMan]

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?

 

I wrote a book outlining the whole problem from the roots up. It argues that we are in a whole new paradigm, trying to manage it with outdated tools. The general idea was to raise enough interest to buiild the world's first global stewardship training campus and explore large-scale planet management concepts, while educating a youth corps of global stewards. Would not be a crazy idea if I was a billionaire. But as it stands, everybody and their uncle thinks I'm nuts. Am beginning to believe they may be right.

 

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

Its a robot staring at the heart in the middle of the atom.

[Qfwfq]

This argment is affecting the minds and hearts of our children.

It depends on who you include in 'our'. You didn't say "in the Bible Belt", you said

the most pressing human issue on the planet today

If the issue troubles you, move. The greenhouse effect does involve the entire planet, and so do a few issues of international policy.

[Eclogite]

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..

Sorry, MM. You lost me in your opening sentence. As IfiniteNow and Qfqgw have noted this is hardly the most pressing issue on the planet:

Overpopulation

Poverty

AIDS

Peak Oil

Deforestation

Loss of biodiversity

Warfare

Starvation

Racial prejudice

Religious intolerance

Political Extremism

 

No, I still haven't got to the dispute between science and a small segment of religion, over the status of ID.

You seem to be taking this from a largely US standpoint. In Europe, ID is just a subject of ridicule, nothing more. So, calling this a global problem is just grossly misleading.

 

Personally, I see no conflict between science and religion. True, some (many)scientists are athiests. Some (definitely just some) inappropriately use their science to 'prove' the non-existence of God, but that has nothing to do with science. Science is a methodology, not the practitioners of that methodology.

[ughaibu]

I'm puzzled as to how the teaching of creation by intelligent design is being supposed to foster intuition in students.

[MagnetMan]

Sorry, MM. You lost me in your opening sentence. As IfiniteNow and Qfqgw have noted this is hardly the most pressing issue on the planet:

Overpopulation

Poverty

AIDS

Peak Oil

Deforestation

Loss of biodiversity

Warfare

Starvation

Racial prejudice

Religious intolerance

Political Extremism

 

All pressing issues with millions trying to address them and meeting all kinds of opposition. Education of the next generation of kids attacks all of them in one classroom inside ten years. The problem in the classroom is one-sided (left brain) indoctrination. Empiricism or nothing. Mankin is also a spiritual Being. One side of the brain gets inspired the other side analyzes the inspiration and puts it to practical use. We are neglecting to exercise the inspirational side and gradually morphing into robots. This is because too many educators think we are spiritless.

 

 

You seem to be taking this from a largely US standpoint. In Europe, ID is just a subject of ridicule, nothing more. So, calling this a global problem is just grossly misleading.

What about Catholic Europe, Asia and Africa?

 

Personally, I see no conflict between science and religion.

 

Then why are you disputing the content of this thread?

 

I'm puzzled as to how the teaching of creation by intelligent design is being supposed to foster intuition in students.

 

Work by Sperry has proved that the left and right sides of the human brain respond to different stimulus. The right side is feminine/intuitive. The left side is masculine/analytical. Current school curriculums are almsot exclusively focused on analytical development. The inspirational/religious side of the brain is neglected.

[ughaibu]

That doesn't dispel my puzzlement.

[InfiniteNow]

You should be cautious interpreting Sperry's work so "black and white." There are some basic trends demonstrated more commonly in each of the two hemispheres, but these are hardly gender specific, nor nontransmutable.

 

To me, teaching ID in school is a bit like giving our kids an idiot pill and giving our future a turd. They don't teach that leeches will remove cancer because a better theory and research has replaced it. Same with ID. It's been replaced by something with a much more solid foundation, secure footing, and replicatability.

[Boerseun]

Empiricism or nothing. Mankind is also a spiritual Being. One side of the brain gets inspired the other side analyzes the inspiration and puts it to practical use. We are neglecting to exercise the inspirational side and gradually morphing into robots. This is because too many educators think we are spiritless.

Not trying to nitpick, but I would like a clear and concise definition of what you mean when you say 'Mankind is a spiritual Being'. What is meant with 'spirit' and/or 'soul'? I ran define: spirit on Google, and all I got was a bunch of religious links and definitions, quite a few of them contradictory.

It seems, however, that the religious connection is the statistical winner for a definition on Mankind being a 'spiritual being'.

This means, in other words, that Mankind is by definition a religious animal. And I beg to differ on that score. Humans are religious only to the extend that they have been brought up in a religious house. I have quite a few non-believing friends whose kids seem to grow up without the God-impulse (for want of a better term) and they seem to be fine.

As far as the title of this thread is concerned, the establishment of an ethical relationship between Science and Religion implies the acknowledgment of Religion by Science. And this Science simply cannot do. Science cannot offer any opinions regarding metaphysics or any set of 'beliefs', be it in God, Zeus, Jupiter or Apollo. If Science acknowledges one, it must acknowledge all - and Science deals explicitly in experimentation and interpretation of results, which leads to the refinement of current theories or the invention of new ones, at which point the cycle repeats itself. The Scientific Method leaves no space for the metaphysical, and this isn't an indication of an inherent flaw in Science, it's an indication of Religion not understanding nor accepting the fact that Science and Religion are batting in totally different leagues. If Science must accomodate Religion, then so too must Horticulture. And Bookkeeping.

Religion is continuously trying to elbow into a field of study totally irrelevant to it. The reason Religion picked Science is because Science is saying they need proof before they would even consider the existence of God, like it would do to any other claim being made to be tested by Science, and for some reason Religion has failed (so far) to come up with the goods. And now, maybe, proponents of the Religious side are being nibbled by the nagging suspicion that maybe Science is right - and there is no God! What if the flock should find out? Where are they gonna get pocket change on Sundays now? So now they try to legitimize the Religious approach in Science, and try to force the laughable (Scientifically speaking, that is) concept of ID into our previously innocent classrooms.

What about Catholic Europe, Asia and Africa?

Nope. There was a few articles in the Sunday Times, the Beeld, the Rapport and the City Press in Jo'burg about this new mass stupidity that has taken the Bible Thumpers in the States by storm called Intelligent Design. And that's about it. Even the Hervormde Kerk (remember those guys?) came out against ID in their newspaper.

Then why are you disputing the content of this thread?

That's the purpose of having a debate here. Do you mean to tell me you posted here and only expected affirmations of your opinions?

The inspirational/religious side of the brain is neglected.

In a right-handed individual, the right-hand side of the brain drives creativity, amongst other things. There is certainly no part of the brain hard-wired for the 'religious' impulse.

If you want to get a good approach to changing the education system for the better, read up the stance taken on education by secular humanism.

 

Religious Freedom also means Freedom from Religion.

[InfiniteNow]

There is certainly no part of the brain hard-wired for the 'religious' impulse.

Not disagreeing with your post Boerseun, nor trying to add ammo to the ID side... but,

 

There have been a few MRI studies indicating that a particular region within the temporal lobe (just above and behind the ear) shows greater activation when one is presented with religious images, asked to think about god or higher powers, listen to religious readings, or who read religious texts themselves.

 

Also, by artificially stimulating this same region with an electircal impulse (very weak mind you) subjects report feelings of Oneness with the universe and connections with something more powerful, plus greater sense of spirituality.

 

Here's one article about it:

http://www.bbc.co.uk/science/horizon/2003/godonbrain.shtml

 

 

As for the "better than sex" part of the article, I don't know... can't say that I've ever had sex with God... a few goddesses maybe... :hihi:

 

 

Cheers. :)

[Eclogite]

I think you have to make clear what you intend this thread to be about:

1. Placing more emphasis in your education system on what I'll call the fuzzy stuff.

2. Getting science to acknowledge the validity of religion.

 

Well, on the second point I'm with Boerson: this isn't something science has anything to do with. It's outside its sphere of interest and competence. So, that one is dead.

The problem in the classroom is one-sided (left brain) indoctrination. Empiricism or nothing. Mankind is also a spiritual Being. One side of the brain gets inspired the other side analyzes the inspiration and puts it to practical use. We are neglecting to exercise the inspirational side and gradually morphing into robots. This is because too many educators think we are spiritless.

As far as using both sides of the brain - as far as I am aware this is common practice in any decent educational system. I stand ready to be corrected by someone who knows more about this than I. My experience in this area is relatively limited: four years as a school governor; a career involved in teaching graduate engineers and scientists; a daughter who is currently training to be a primary school teacher.

If this is not happening in the system you are associated with you are right to be concerned.

Then why are you disputing the content of this thread?

For the reasons noted above. I have not been persuaded by your premises, let alone your arguments.

 

To me science (and logic, and analysis) are one side of a coin. On the other is spirit (and creativity, and vision). Not mutually exclusive, but rather wholly interdependent.

[MagnetMan]

That doesn't dispel my puzzlement.

 

Try some right brian exercises and enlightenment will surely follow.

[InfiniteNow]

Try some right brian exercises and enlightenment will surely follow.

Like curls, squat thrusts, and dead lifts? I really have a tough time getting the weight past my corpus collusum, and even then, my thalamus spits sweat all over my hippocampus and the gym staff don't like cleaning that up.

[ughaibu]

MagnetMan: Do you ever back up anything you say?

The study of creation myths comes under comparitive ethnology and as such will be covered by any decent educational program. Intelligent design is a minor phenomenon that a student will encounter as part of the pursuit of an academic inquiry. This encounter will essentially be no different from the student's encounters with, for example, history, so I see no reason for any supposition that the development of intuition would be aided by increasing the time spent on this rather limited and undynamic field.

I would suggest that intuition would be better developed by practicing activities, such as chess, in which intuition plays a leading role.

[MagnetMan]

It seems to me that I made a foolish mistake by not posting this thread as a rhetorical question. When I posted it seemed to resound in my consciousness as a simple plea for the use of our common humanity on a very sensitive issue. I never though that it might be misconstrued as an edict come down from on high. How wrong can one be! Either I am insensitive or you are too sensitive.

How about some middle ground so that we can move on to a constructuive discussion?

 

No one is more aware than I as to the limitations of a dogmatic religious mind-set. It is the very reason that Aristotle rebelled and thereby set us off on a course of empirical research.

 

Why should we resent having respect for ancestral belief in spirit? Is it not an essential attrubute of who we are. We do not define each other as spiritless, or a culture as having no spirit - or a horse as having no spirit. What other word is there that defines our inner motivations so possitively? We are not just driven by intellect. We are driven by the heart as well.

 

I have refered this question specidically to the problem we are having at home and in the classroom, in trying to evoke ethical behavior in our children. Without that inner ethic, excellence cannot be acheived. The resulys we are getting speak for themselves. Only 1% excell. Mediocrity is the norm, dropping out and cheating are epidemic. If we take God out of education, as the Communists did, then what standard do we set for children as an Absolute state of Goodness? The State is corruptible. Society is corruptible. Commerce is corruptible. If we try to use science as the standard of goodness - where do we set the bar?

[Eclogite]

How about some middle ground so that we can move on to a constructuive discussion?

That would be nice, unfortunately, at least for me, too many of my paradigms are in conflict with yours. As a consequence I find myself railing at every second or third utterance you make. This is not good when thoughtful dialogue is desired.

Three quick examples.

The results we are getting speak for themselves. Only 1% excell. Mediocrity is the norm,

I am still grinning at this. Excellence is all but defined as that performance found at the top. The British runner Paula Radcliffe has run marathons in times that would have broken the men's world record half a century ago. Today those times, for men, are mediocre. Yes, mediocrity is the norm and regardless of what we do to our standards, it always will be, unless we all become grey undifferentiated in our genius and physical prowess.

If we take God out of education, as the Communists did, then what standard do we set for children as an Absolute state of Goodness?

This is offensive. You imply that atheists and agnostics are incapable of following, or teaching high moral standards.

The State is corruptible. Society is corruptible. Commerce is corruptible.

And religion is very definitely corruptible.

If we try to use science as the standard of goodness - where do we set the bar?

Who would be dumb enought to use science as a standard of goodness. Please excuse the profanity, but I wish to convey the depth of my amazement. What the **** has science got to do with goodness, or evil for that matter. Science is a methodology for investigating certain aspects of the world. Nothing more, nothing less. Why would you even think of such a nonsensical suggestion?

[Qfwfq]

Alright fellas, let's play down tones a smidgeon.

 

No calling for brain exercises, and it would be enough to say that ethics isn't an aim of science. OK?

[Biochemist]

...Too many religious people try to claim that their faith is logical, when the idea of faith precludes logic. ...

Goodness. I was tracking with you PGD until you said this. Faith certainly does not preclude logic. Please don't conflate the scientific method with logic.

 

It is true that God is not provable by the scientific method. That does not mean it is not logical. There a several credible, logical arguments for the existence of a creator generally, and the specifics of the Christian creator specifically. (See "He is there and He is not silent" by Francis Schaeffer for an example). These are not scientific method proofs, but they are certainly logical arguments.

 

Many things are not demonstrable by the scientific method (affection, altruism, honor), but most of us believe they are true.