What constitutes anti-religious bigotry?

[GTripp0012]

It seems ironic to me that organizations of science want to claim that theres no debate about how the world came to be. There may be significant evidence to suggest that Darwinian Evolution explains this, but I'm seeing it as sort of an arbitrary cutoff since evolution doesn't exactly hold up to the Scientific Method either.

It is not observable, testable, nor falsifiable. Which in no way means that it's wrong. Just that while maintaining the scientific method is important, it's helpless to help us explain why the world was created. Thus it's suspended regarding reasoning to why things are the way they are.

But there in lies the question: if science itself is in sufficient to turn the Theory of Evolution into the Law of Evolution, doesn't it seem a bit self-righteous for academics to declare the debate to be over? What about the non-Creationists who reject Big Bang on the premise of question of insufficient evidence, such as the Red Shift movement? What keeps them from getting a platform to explain why they hold majorty opinion to be wrong?

Once it becomes heresy to debate scientific theory, does science really have meaning anymore? I don't have the answer to this question, but I suspect it's 'no'. Science can only be good science as long as people are allowed to debate the facts. Once a debate is declared to be dormant, it's no longer science that is being taught, I think.

I feel like this is a bigger issue than we all realize.

[JoeRedskin]

Originally Posted by GTripp0012

Once it becomes heresy to debate scientific theory, does science really have meaning anymore? I don't have the answer to this question, but I suspect it's 'no'. Science can only be good science as long as people are allowed to debate the facts. Once a debate is declared to be dormant, it's no longer science that is being taught, I think.

I feel like this is a bigger issue than we all realize.

Once a theory can no longer be debated and must be accepted as true even though it cannot be proven as fact, it becomes a matter of faith. Similarly,religions, at the core, contain an ultimate leap of faith as God's existence or non-existence cannot be proven or disproven.

Science and religion are more similar than different. Both seek answers to difficult questions, and both require discipline and study in order to work towards these answers. To me and in a very general way, the ultimate difference is that science's is a fact based inquiry. Religious inquiry is spiritual in nature and presupposes a leap of faith. IMHO, when science requires us to take a leap of faith, it can no longer be considered science but rather it takes on some of the worst aspects of religious practice.

[FRPLG]

Originally Posted by JoeRedskin

Once a theory can no longer be debated and must be accepted as true even though it cannot be proven as fact, it becomes a matter of faith. Similarly,religions, at the core, contain an ultimate leap of faith as God's existence or non-existence cannot be proven or disproven.

Science and religion are more similar than different. Both seek answers to difficult questions, and both require discipline and study in order to work towards these answers. To me and in a very general way, the ultimate difference is that science's is a fact based inquiry. Religious inquiry is spiritual in nature and presupposes a leap of faith. IMHO, when science requires us to take a leap of faith, it can no longer be considered science but rather it takes on some of the worst aspects of religious practice.

I believe true science is but it seems to me that much of science has been perverted by dogmatic faithfulness. Tripp makes good points about evolution and similar ones can be made about global warming or a bevy of other accepted scientific "truths". They are both fine theories with decent rational thought and a little indicative proof but neither is "proven" as a matter of fact with stringent procedural scientific methods. I think the dismissal of religous belief goes hand in hand with this shift away from honest skepticism in science. Skepticism isn't just about not believing it is about understanding that you simply don't know. To make a definitive statement, presented as fact, based on any level of faith is intellectually dishonest to me.

[firstdown]

Originally Posted by GTripp0012

It seems ironic to me that organizations of science want to claim that theres no debate about how the world came to be. There may be significant evidence to suggest that Darwinian Evolution explains this, but I'm seeing it as sort of an arbitrary cutoff since evolution doesn't exactly hold up to the Scientific Method either.

It is not observable, testable, nor falsifiable. Which in no way means that it's wrong. Just that while maintaining the scientific method is important, it's helpless to help us explain why the world was created. Thus it's suspended regarding reasoning to why things are the way they are.

But there in lies the question: if science itself is in sufficient to turn the Theory of Evolution into the Law of Evolution, doesn't it seem a bit self-righteous for academics to declare the debate to be over? What about the non-Creationists who reject Big Bang on the premise of question of insufficient evidence, such as the Red Shift movement? What keeps them from getting a platform to explain why they hold majorty opinion to be wrong?

Once it becomes heresy to debate scientific theory, does science really have meaning anymore? I don't have the answer to this question, but I suspect it's 'no'. Science can only be good science as long as people are allowed to debate the facts. Once a debate is declared to be dormant, it's no longer science that is being taught, I think.

I feel like this is a bigger issue than we all realize.

Not sure why it suprises you that organization of science don't want this debated as they do this all the time. Just look at Global Warming. While most agree that the earth has warmed over the years if you don't agree with science that its man made then your nuts. Even though other scientest disagree the majority think they know it all and they won't even debate the subject. I personaly don't care how man came about.

[Trample the Elderly]

Big can of worms here. I tend to only bitch about the government. I think that Evolution is still a theory but anyone who doesn't subsribe to that theory is considered an ignorant hick. That to me is anti-religious bigotry.

I'm a non-believer just for the simple reason that you can't prove most of the things that religions state. The same goes with science. They take all of the information and make an educated guess? That's what theory is. I do believe that people who say there was no Jesus or is no God are not only bigoted but arrogant. How do you they know? Were they there?

This country was founded on Christianity, classic liberal thought, and by a lot of people who didn't give a damn and just wanted to make some money. To totally scrap those concepts is stupid because you have to replace them with something. It seems to me that it has been replaced with secular, anti-Christian, socialistic, modern day liberalism to a degree. I tend to take the how do you know approach to both sides. I subscribe to neither.

The best way to see anti-religious bigotry is to see who is funding those that are making the most noise against Christianity (You can say all religions, but no one gives Hindus, Muslems, and Hebrews as much flak as the Christians get today IMO). It's usually someone who doesn't like it IE: other religions, rabid-atheist, or people who think they're God. They all have special interest groups they fund to be their mouth pieces. Usually you can trace all of these groups back to one man or a small group of very rich people who have a beef with religion and or capitalism.
(Many people use the argument that there is seperation between church and state. This is flawed arguement because most of the colonist were Protestant or at least sided with Protestants if you drew a line in the sand. They just didn't want a Church of England in America where the King was also the head of the church.)

I'm not one of those people. So don't chew me out on this one. I've no dog in this hunt. Bray to who ever you like. If someone answers you, put in a good word for me or get a shrink. Either way, it's your deal.

[GTripp0012]

Originally Posted by firstdown

Not sure why it suprises you that organization of science don't want this debated as they do this all the time. Just look at Global Warming. While most agree that the earth has warmed over the years if you don't agree with science that its man made then your nuts. Even though other scientest disagree the majority think they know it all and they won't even debate the subject. I personaly don't care how man came about.

I would argue that Global Warming is something that is testable and falsifiable though the Scientific Method.

Unlike Evolutionary theory, the evidence that has been found in recent times adds futher support for Global Warming/Climate Change. Darwinian Theory remains only as strong as it was on the day he published it (scientifically, that is).

Both have strong cases, and I'm not trying to disprove either. Just trying to show where the similaries end; basically show the limits of the scientifc method.

I also think that scientific advancement organizations are lacking in credibility now. Not science itself. Don't confuse the two.

[FRPLG]

Originally Posted by GTripp0012

I would argue that Global Warming is something that is testable and falsifiable though the Scientific Method.

Unlike Evolutionary theory, the evidence that has been found in recent times adds futher support for Global Warming/Climate Change. Darwinian Theory remains only as strong as it was on the day he published it (scientifically, that is).

Both have strong cases, and I'm not trying to disprove either. Just trying to show where the similaries end; basically show the limits of the scientifc method.

I also think that scientific advancement organizations are lacking in credibility now. Not science itself. Don't confuse the two.

Perhaps, but testable here only will give us a snap shot, based on pretty sketchy information by the way, of basically one moment in time of our planet. That may be testable but what it tells us is pretty much nothing.

[That Guy]

Originally Posted by GTripp0012

It seems ironic to me that organizations of science want to claim that theres no debate about how the world came to be. There may be significant evidence to suggest that Darwinian Evolution explains this, but I'm seeing it as sort of an arbitrary cutoff since evolution doesn't exactly hold up to the Scientific Method either.

It is not observable, testable, nor falsifiable. Which in no way means that it's wrong. Just that while maintaining the scientific method is important, it's helpless to help us explain why the world was created. Thus it's suspended regarding reasoning to why things are the way they are.

But there in lies the question: if science itself is in sufficient to turn the Theory of Evolution into the Law of Evolution, doesn't it seem a bit self-righteous for academics to declare the debate to be over? What about the non-Creationists who reject Big Bang on the premise of question of insufficient evidence, such as the Red Shift movement? What keeps them from getting a platform to explain why they hold majorty opinion to be wrong?

Once it becomes heresy to debate scientific theory, does science really have meaning anymore? I don't have the answer to this question, but I suspect it's 'no'. Science can only be good science as long as people are allowed to debate the facts. Once a debate is declared to be dormant, it's no longer science that is being taught, I think.

I feel like this is a bigger issue than we all realize.

if you have proof, the whole point of the scientific method is that you can question results if you can show they may (or are) wrong in part or in whole.

seriously, could i not discriminate against a job to teach mathematics because the interviewee believes that 1 + 1 = 3?

the proof of one is MUCH MUCH greater than the proof for the other, so science uses the best model available until something better comes along.

[GTripp0012]

Originally Posted by That Guy

seriously, could i not discriminate against a job to teach mathematics because the interviewee believes that 1 + 1 = 3?

Well, I would hope you would explain to them why they are missing a part of the equation that prevents it from being complete.

I suppose you could write them off as a crackpot for choosing a line of work they don't seem cut out for, but if doing that grants you any sort of self-satisfaction, I know some organizations that are looking to increase membership

[JoeRedskin]

Originally Posted by That Guy

seriously, could i not discriminate against a job to teach mathematics because the interviewee believes that 1 + 1 = 3?

Well, you possibly could but the guy would just quit and go work in the financial markets.

Oh wait....

[That Guy]

Originally Posted by JoeRedskin

Well, you possibly could but the guy would just quit and go work in the financial markets.

Oh wait....

zing!