Will Religion Kill Science

karen3212

PDN wrote:

I can only see 2 reasons why this should happen. One would be if scientific institutes are pursuing methods of research and experimentation that would be opposed by religious people on moral grounds. Of course this is not just a problem in relation with religion, there are plenty of non-religious people who would oppose, for example, using animals for experimentation on moral and ethical grounds.

The second reason would be if science is seen as setting itself up in opposition to religion. If you are working as a scientist in a society where the majority of the population see themselves as religious, then there should be no problem in pursuing research that will benefit that society. But if you choose to attack religion, and portray those who hold religious views as being stupid or illogical, then you're not exactly making friends for yourself. If any branch of science and the arts wants public funding, then it makes sense not to deliberately antagonise those who pay the taxes that provide such funding. You might get away with that in a dictatorship, but not in a democracy.

From this post PDN I can see that you think Scientists should limit themselves to research that is seen as moral by religion.

Science in the West already has a Code of ethics do you not think that code is law enough.

Aslo you state that it is only a religious fringe of Fundamentalists that are trying to teach pseudo religious Science in the US, I think you will find it is a very well funded powerful "fringe". In my opinion the want a large uneducated underclass to keep them well funded and powerful and rich.

I don't think the masses realize that the Scientific method is the best way humans can find out about our world, and it should not be limited by religious thinking, that seems to explain everything already.

rockbeer

PDN wrote:

Here is a prime example of the abuse of scientific knowledge. Biologists demonstrate that animals manifest homosexual behaviour. So far so good, that is the proper function of biology, to reveal such facts.

Now the assertion is made that, if animals manifest such behaviour, then that somehow contradicts the biblical view of homosexuality among humans as being sinful. That assertion is not scientific, it is based on rockbeer's prejudice against monotheistic religion, particularly Christianity. It is pseudoscience, and to present it as if it were science is to drag the name of science through the mud.

Not so. Leaving my prejudices out of it for now, it is self-referential (i.e. flawed logic) to take an unsubstantiated hypothesis - in this case, that of the bible, which explictly applies different standards of behaviour to humans than to all other animals - and use it to justify your argument. To make your argument stand up, you need to objectively substantiate the contention that behaviour commonly demonstrated both in humans and in close genetic relatives of ours is appropriate in our relatives but not in us. This is not done to an acceptable degree of scientific rigour by quoting from a religious book.

Furthermore, if we accept the scientific theory of evolution then we can form hypotheses about how such behaviour may have evolved. It is one valid hypothesis that homosexual behaviour in humans and other animals may derive from behaviour that evolved in a common ancestor. I don't have the data or knowledge to support this, but I do know that even the fact that such a hypothesis is valid demonstrates the falseness, scientifically, of arguing that no behaviour in any other species bears any relation whatsover to behaviour observed in humans, as you seem to be arguing with your spider example. And if the common ancestor hypothesis could be proved scientifically, where would that leave your concept of sin in relation to science?

PDN wrote:

The fact is that the manifestation of a behaviour among animals does not in any way carry implications as to whether a similar behaviour is sinful for human beings or not. For example, many female spiders eat the male after mating - but I am sure that most of us would be appalled if any religion declared that it was OK for a woman to kill and eat her male partner the morning after a night of passion. We would have howls of protest and threads galore here on this board declaring that religion was evil on the earth.

I've seen you use this argument before - and I'm glad you later acknowledge it to be absurd, because it is in truth deeply flawed. The fact is, the behaviour you refer to is not observed commonly in humans.Therefore if observed on occasion it can reasonably be concluded to be aberrant. However, it is observed routinely in certain spiders, so scientific method concludes that this is 'normal' behaviour for those spiders. It would make no sense, scientifically, to conclude otherwise, even if we don't understand why it happens.

Now, if we routinely observe a particular behaviour in humans - let's say eating fruit - observational scientific method leads us to conclude similarly that this falls within the range of 'normal' behaviour for humans. This is not because scientists 'presume' it is normal, but because it is widely observed. Similarly, homosexual activities are so widely observed throughout human societies as to fall well within the range of normal behaviour. On what scientific grounds do you make an exception for this behaviour, when you accept the conclusions reached through scientific observation in relation to other behaviours? In judging such behaviour as wrong or sinful, your bible is in conflict with the conclusions of scientific method.

So how do you resolve that contradiction while still maintaining that religion and science are 100% compatible?

If human females eating their partners after sex was widely observed behaviour amongst humans, the same scientific method would apply. It would be nonsense to dismiss it as sinful or abnormal if it were observed widely enough - we would have to adapt our morality to encompass it.

PDN wrote:

The problem with your argument is that this "new" information can change at the drop of a hat. You seem to view scientific advances as if they have been 100% proven, and therefore incapable of contradiction, but in reality they are simply the best available explanations and, as such, are subject to modification or even rejection in the future.

Quite the opposite - I totally agree with your point that all knowledge is only the best available explanations at any given time, but utterly fail to see how that is compatible with a religious outlook which predetermines certain beliefs irrespective of whether objective support exists for them.

I see my position as infinitely flexible to accommodate new information as I fully accept that whatever beliefs I (or any of us for that matter) hold are the consequence of imperfect knowledge. It seems to me that religious faith is a much higher barrier to the adoption of additional information because it has to find ways to cling to its predetermined articles of faith no matter how contrary these are to current knowledge.

Correct me if I'm wrong, but I think you're saying that where such contradictions exist you believe this is simply because science has failed to reach the 'right' answer yet (which of course immediately places you in conflict with science by totally contradicting the most fundamental principle of the scientific method, that of basing conclusions on observable data).

Anyway, you haven't really answered my question... I'm a bit disappointed that you've chosen to focus so firmly on my example and not on the question itself. I could easily come up with another example that might be less contentious.

Finally, please explain how is it an extremist position to note that religion is fundamentally at odds with science in relation to the question "is there a god", because it presumes to know the answer without recourse to scientific method.

This is a simple observation of fact.

Zombrex

PDN wrote:

Here is a prime example of the abuse of scientific knowledge. Biologists demonstrate that animals manifest homosexual behaviour. So far so good, that is the proper function of biology, to reveal such facts.

Now the assertion is made that, if animals manifest such behaviour, then that somehow contradicts the biblical view of homosexuality among humans as being sinful. That assertion is not scientific, it is based on rockbeer's prejudice against monotheistic religion, particularly Christianity. It is pseudoscience, and to present it as if it were science is to drag the name of science through the mud.

It is neither science or pseudoscience, it is ethics and morality. "Sin" has nothing to do with science either way, sin is a human moral concept, or at the very least a god moral concept.

How is this an "abuse" of science?

PDN wrote:

The problem with your argument is that this "new" information can change at the drop of a hat.

Very true, but having said that it is rather unlikely that it will be discovered that all modern scientific models of the universe are actually wrong and what is actually reality is described in the Bible.

Given the choice between of 300 years of millions of scientists working on scientifically model the universe and a bunch of religious men living 3000 years ago in a small corner of the Middle East, my money is on the scientists.

Models can certain change, but if a model is predicting accurately a large number of outcomes it is very likely that most of the model is accurate.

Newton's model of physics was incorrect and has been replaced by more detailed models such as general relativity. But when I say it was incorrect I don't mean that it was completely wrong, as in everything it produced was rubbish. We know that what it produced wasn't rubbish because you can do a simple experiment yourself and observe a result predicted by this model. Newton's model predicted things quite well up to a certain point of accuracy.

Newton's model of gravity for example wasn't accurate enough to predict something like a geo-stationary satellite. But that doesn't mean the prediction of the moon was way off, or that things actually fall upwards.

PDN wrote:

For example, at one point it was argued that Moses could not have written any of the books of the Pentateuch because one branch of science, archeology, had conclusively proved that writing was not yet invented in the time of Moses.

Science never "conclusively proves" anything.

PDN you are throwing the baby out with the bath water. There is little point in saying that unless science can conclusively prove something I'm simply going to reject it and hope that some time in the near future they will come across a theory or model that matches what I want it to match. Why would someone do this?

Even if science came up with a workable theory of say a 6,000 old universe, that wouldn't be proven either. The Creationists would have little grounds to go "see! we where right all along"

The point of science isn't to hang on every word produced by science hoping that eventually they will prove a belief true or not beyond all doubt. The point of science is to accurately model the universe

PDN wrote:

Or let's take your example of animals manifesting homosexual behaviour. Now, let's suppose for just a moment that I am really stupid enough to swallow your bad logic and believe that such behaviour carries a necessary consequence that anything animals do must be OK for humans.

Firstly, science and morality have nothing to do with each other. Science will not make a moral judgement on anything, and if anyone says otherwise kick them in the face.

Secondly, from my reading of Rockbeer's post he was not asserting that homosexuality is morally ok because other animals do it (I would imagine that Rockbeer would say that homosexuality is ok because it involves two or more consenting adults).

He was asking the valid question of why would God produce gay animals? What purpose does this serve?

PDN wrote:

Do I continue to reject my book, even though that rejection was decided as a result of false information?

I think the more important question is why do you accept your book in the first place?

Under what rational logic do you accept a book write 2000+ years ago when it describes issues such as the nature of the universe or human morality?

Zombrex

Scofflaw wrote:

I'm not quite clear on how a moral stance can be "based in part on scientific observation"?

Someone while experimenting with apes notices that the ape appears to recognize itself in the mirror.

Someone else goes "Hold on a minute, if an ape can understand itself in the mirror that would suggest an advance brain. It would be immoral for us to cook and eat him"

The science isn't saying anything about the morality of cooking and eating Fred, but the 2nd person is making a moral judgment based on information gained from scientific observation.

Scofflaw

Wicknight wrote:

Someone while experimenting with apes notices that the ape appears to recognize itself in the mirror.

Someone else goes "Hold on a minute, if an ape can understand itself in the mirror that would suggest an advance brain. It would be immoral for us to cook and eat him"

The science isn't saying anything about the morality of cooking and eating Fred, but the 2nd person is making a moral judgment based on information gained from scientific observation.

Well, the moral stance is "it is wrong to cook and eat animals with advanced brains", which, again, has nothing to do with science. Science's contribution is to show that the ape has an advanced brain.

I don't claim my morality is derived from my eyesight, although I would need it in order to see that the ape was recognising itself.

cordially,
Scofflaw

Zombrex

Scofflaw wrote:

Science's contribution is to show that the ape has an advanced brain.

I agree 100%, and I think that is what bonkey meant.

The scientific observation that a ape has an advanced brain leads to the moral decision that cooking and eating an ape is wrong.

It is the combination of the original moral framework (don't eat things that are like us) coupled with the information about the specific issue in question (apes are like us)

Bonkey was contrasting this to religious doctrine, that in this example might say that cooking and eating an ape is ok because God created all animals under us.

PDN

karen3212 wrote:

From this post PDN I can see that you think Scientists should limit themselves to research that is seen as moral by religion.

Has today been designated as a special day for making unwarranted assumptions about other posters? I do not think that scientists should limit themselves to research that is seen as moral by religion, nor have I argued such a thing. I am simply making the point that scientists cannot expect taxpayers to stump up public money for research that is morally unacceptable to the majority of those tax payers. This would apply irrespective of religion - for example in the area of animal experimentation.

Aslo you state that it is only a religious fringe of Fundamentalists that are trying to teach pseudo religious Science in the US, I think you will find it is a very well funded powerful "fringe". In my opinion the want a large uneducated underclass to keep them well funded and powerful and rich.

And you are entitled to your opinion. Again, I think you are misquoting me, but I'm getting used to that by now. It appears to be a tradition of this board.

I don't think the masses realize that the Scientific method is the best way humans can find out about our world, and it should not be limited by religious thinking, that seems to explain everything already.

You may well be correct that "the masses" are less enlightened that you are. But as long as you want the masses to fund scientific research you will have to take their opinions into account.

robindch

PDN wrote:

I think you are misquoting me, but I'm getting used to that by now. It appears to be a tradition of this board.

Not suggesting anything one way or the other, but have you considered the possibility that you may not be expressing yourself clearly?

PDN

rockbeer wrote:

If human females eating their partners after sex was widely observed behaviour amongst humans, the same scientific method would apply. It would be nonsense to dismiss it as sinful or abnormal if it were observed widely enough - we would have to adapt our morality to encompass it.

I think it would be fair to say that people killing other people on religious grounds has been observed very widely among humans. So, according to your reasoning, this must mean that is nonsense to dismiss religiously motivated murder as being sinful or abnormal. :eek:

Tim Robbins

PDN wrote:

I am at a bit of a disadvantage here since history, rather than science, is my area of particular interest. However, I understand that William Thompson or Lord Kelvin (1824-1907) stated that his theological views inspired his development of the second law of thermodynamics. Also, Guglielmo Marconi (1874-1937) attributed his interest in radio waves as stemming from his understanding of how prayer reached beyond the horizon to God. Thomas Edison (1847-1931) attributed his persistence to the conviction that somewhere in creation God must have designed a material that would make the perfect filament. Louis Pasteur (1822-1895) frequently cited his devout Catholic beliefs as a motivating factor in his discoveries.

You should check out John Houghton, working the IPCC and climate change and committed Christian.
http://www.pbs.org/moyers/faithandreason/portraits_houghton.html

I am sure you would get something from Le Maitre as well , who ended up being right saying the Universe was expanding and showing Einstein wrong.

PDN

robindch wrote:

Not suggesting anything one way or the other, but have you considered the possibility that you may not be expressing yourself clearly?

I think the problem is more to do with stereotypes rather than clarity of expression. As a published author I do consider myself able to express myself very clearly in the English language.

Sangre

PDN wrote:

I think the problem is more to do with stereotypes rather than clarity of expression. As a published author I do consider myself able to express myself very clearly in the English language.

Ah....but are you a successful published author?

Scofflaw

PDN wrote:

Has today been designated as a special day for making unwarranted assumptions about other posters? I do not think that scientists should limit themselves to research that is seen as moral by religion, nor have I argued such a thing. I am simply making the point that scientists cannot expect taxpayers to stump up public money for research that is morally unacceptable to the majority of those tax payers. This would apply irrespective of religion - for example in the area of animal experimentation.

True - sauce for the goose, sauce for the gander.

PDN wrote:

And you are entitled to your opinion. Again, I think you are misquoting me, but I'm getting used to that by now. It appears to be a tradition of this board.

I think there's a general assumption that because you say that you are a conservative Christian, you automatically subscribe to the positions usually associated with conservative Christians, even though you haven't said that you do.

It's just standard stereotyping - like everyone assuming you're an anti-scientific socialist because you vote Green, or immoral because you're an atheist.

PDN wrote:

You may well be correct that "the masses" are less enlightened that you are. But as long as you want the masses to fund scientific research you will have to take their opinions into account.

Up to a point. It seems that the same doctrine does not hold for the arts...where instead it is generally held that the masses are to be educated into changing their opinions. I'm not sure why that doesn't work for science.

cordially,
Scofflaw

I-like-eggs,mmm

Scientology's bad m'kay...?

Zillah

For the record PDN has previously stated that he is in favour of making "civil unions" the standard for everyone, hetero and homo, not to mention any two people that wish to gain the same legal benefits with each other. From a religious point of view he'd only consider such a union between a man and a woman as a "marraige", but crucially there would be no legal difference.

rockbeer

PDN wrote:

I think it would be fair to say that people killing other people on religious grounds has been observed very widely among humans. So, according to your reasoning, this must mean that is nonsense to dismiss religiously motivated murder as being sinful or abnormal. :eek:

Sadly this kind of behaviour does seem to come disturbingly close to normal for humans. I don't have a clue, from a scientific point of view, what kind of incidence or distribution would need to be observed in order for the behaviour to be considered 'normal' but I'd be very interested to know.

I'm saying that established scientific methodology for establishing what is 'normal' behaviour for animals is by observation of their habits. We don't start studying spiders by deciding "they shouldn't eat each other" and then condemn them as aberrant when we discover that they do.

I'm interested in whether you think this is also valid scientific methodology for studying ourselves? If not, why not? What alternate methodology would you suggest? And what view do you take from a faith-based perspective when observed 'normal' human behaviour differs from that which your faith deems acceptable?

By the way, PDN, prejudice is an adverse opinion arrived at without just grounds. My views on monotheism are based on evidence, reasoned argument, and grounds that I consider just. Imperfect evidence, possibly, but for the time being I remain open to the possibility of change on the discovery of new information. Just because you don't agree with me doesn't make me prejudiced.

PDN

Scofflaw wrote:

Up to a point. It seems that the same doctrine does not hold for the arts...where instead it is generally held that the masses are to be educated into changing their opinions. I'm not sure why that doesn't work for science.

Ah, yes, well I have a problem with that one as well. I object strongly to the tax revenue of the many being used to subsidise activities (such as opera) which are predominantly the preserve of a social elite.

bonkey

Scofflaw wrote:

Up to a point. It seems that the same doctrine does not hold for the arts...where instead it is generally held that the masses are to be educated into changing their opinions. I'm not sure why that doesn't work for science.

To be fair, it does work for science to an extent as well.

Indeed, with few notable exceptions, it is governments and not moral majorities who decide what is and is not to have money spent on it.

While the two overlap to a greater or lesser extent, when they diverge it is not always the MM who win.

Tim Robbins

PDN wrote:

As a published author I do consider myself able to express myself very clearly in the English language.

Can you send us a links to your publications?

Scofflaw

Tim Robbins wrote:

Can you send us a links to your publications?

Rather a breach of online privacy. I would take PDN at his word, myself.

cordially,
scofflaw

PDN

Sangre wrote:

Ah....but are you a successful published author?

I wish!

bonkey

Scofflaw wrote:

I'm not quite clear on how a moral stance can be "based in part on scientific observation"?

I probably expressed myself badly.

Scientific observation allows us to discard inaccurate hypotheses. While I stop short of saying it give us the facts, I would say that modern science gives us the best odds in being right.

In this sense, it helps us to base our moral stances on fewer inaccurate assumptions.

Of course, this doesn't necessarily make the moral stance easier to make.

A case in point could be monogamy. Scientifically, we can see that there appear to be monogamous species, and that they are few and far between. We can observe that Homo Sapiens is not amongst these species. Does this mean that monogamy is not the moral choice? Not in the slightest. However, it should mean that we do not decide that monogamy is the moral choice because it is some "natural state" for man and woman (or indeed for any / all species) as the evidence says otherwise. We can say with reasonable authority that people who are not monogamous are not deficient in any physical sense. Its not an illness or a condition. Its a commonly observed trait.

The point I was trying to make is that scientific observation helps us discard invalid arguments on which morality may be based, rather than that it forms a basis for morality. This is based, of course, on the perhaps-faulty assumption that we choose to believe our morality should be grounded in reason in the first place, and not simply in nebulous "anyone can see..." reasoning.

PDN

rockbeer wrote:

Sadly this kind of behaviour does seem to come disturbingly close to normal for humans. I don't have a clue, from a scientific point of view, what kind of incidence or distribution would need to be observed in order for the behaviour to be considered 'normal' but I'd be very interested to know.

I'm saying that established scientific methodology for establishing what is 'normal' behaviour for animals is by observation of their habits. We don't start studying spiders by deciding "they shouldn't eat each other" and then condemn them as aberrant when we discover that they do.

I'm interested in whether you think this is also valid scientific methodology for studying ourselves? If not, why not? What alternate methodology would you suggest? And what view do you take from a faith-based perspective when observed 'normal' human behaviour differs from that which your faith deems acceptable?

Yes, I certainly think it is valid to judge what is 'normal' behaviour by observing how human beings behave. It is normal for human beings to lie, to commit violence against each other, and to do many other things that you or I would feel very aggrieved at if they were committed against us.

The view I take from my faith-based perspective is that human nature is basically flawed. My faith prescribes a different set of behaviour, one that is not 'normal'. In some cases (if I turn the other cheek when assaulted, or devote my life to caring for lepers in a leper colony) this alternative code of behaviour will be applauded. In other cases (if I verbalise my believe that homosexual acts are sinful, even though I don't attempt to enforce my standards upon non-Christians) this alternative behaviour will be viewed as narrow-minded and intolerant.

PDN

rockbeer wrote:

By the way, PDN, prejudice is an adverse opinion arrived at without just grounds. My views on monotheism are based on evidence, reasoned argument, and grounds that I consider just. Imperfect evidence, possibly, but for the time being I remain open to the possibility of change on the discovery of new information. Just because you don't agree with me doesn't make me prejudiced.

But can you not see that many prejudiced people will make the same argument? A racist, for example, will claim that his feelings toward black people are based on evidence, reasoned argument, and grounds that he considers just. Be that as it may, he is still prejudiced.

PDN

rockbeer wrote:

I totally agree with your point that all knowledge is only the best available explanations at any given time, but utterly fail to see how that is compatible with a religious outlook which predetermines certain beliefs irrespective of whether objective support exists for them.

I see my position as infinitely flexible to accommodate new information as I fully accept that whatever beliefs I (or any of us for that matter) hold are the consequence of imperfect knowledge. It seems to me that religious faith is a much higher barrier to the adoption of additional information because it has to find ways to cling to its predetermined articles of faith no matter how contrary these are to current knowledge.

Correct me if I'm wrong, but I think you're saying that where such contradictions exist you believe this is simply because science has failed to reach the 'right' answer yet (which of course immediately places you in conflict with science by totally contradicting the most fundamental principle of the scientific method, that of basing conclusions on observable data).

Anyway, you haven't really answered my question... I'm a bit disappointed that you've chosen to focus so firmly on my example and not on the question itself. I could easily come up with another example that might be less contentious.

Finally, please explain how is it an extremist position to note that religion is fundamentally at odds with science in relation to the question "is there a god", because it presumes to know the answer without recourse to scientific method.

This is a simple observation of fact.

I think your original question was what would I do if a scientific discovery appears to contradict something I believe to be taught in the Bible.

Firstly, it may be that I am guilty of misinterpreting the Bible. For example, I may have interpreted something literally that should have been interpreted poetically. While I believe the Bible to be inerrant I do not believe myself to be inerrant.

Secondly, it may be that the scientific 'discovery' is in fact a faulty theory. In that case I would be stupid to jettison my religious beliefs to accommodate something that is less than certain.

When I was younger I felt that I had to always make a decision one way or the other. I felt that to admit I was unsure of something was somehow unacceptable. As I have grown older I have accepted that there are many things I am not sure about. Sometimes that means suspending my judgment and waiting to see how things turn out. I am not a scientist, I am a pastor, and my ability to care for those in my flock who are bereaved or suffering will not be adversely affected if, for example, I have no idea of the age of the earth.

Religion is not at odds with science in addressing the question "Is there a God?" anymore than mathematics is at odds with psychiatry by addressing the question of whether the sum of the angles of a triangle equal 180 degrees. Science and religion are dealing with two very different spheres of knowledge. The question of God's existence, in my opinion, is impossible to answer in either the negative or affirmative by scientific method.

I understand that this is why the concept of intelligent design has been struck down by the courts in the US. They were not ruling on whether intelligent design is true or not, but rather on whether it can be taught as science. The courts ruled, correctly in my opinion, that intelligent design is fundamentally an attempt to answer a religious question rather than a scientific question and therefore in breach of the separation between church and state.

Dades

PDN wrote:

As a published author I do consider myself able to express myself very clearly in the English language.

There's a recommended reading thread somewhere feel free to add yourself to it.

PDN wrote:

Science and religion are dealing with two very different spheres of knowledge.

But what contributes to the religious knowledge sphere?

No matter how I try I cannot see religion and science co-existing. I've no problem with speculation about a "god-concept", but a god as defined by a religion is only ever going to clash with the realm of science.

karen3212

My quote was How can we prevent Science being starved of funds, and being mistrusted by the public

PDN wrote:

I can only see 2 reasons why this should happen. One would be if scientific institutes are pursuing methods of research and experimentation that would be opposed by religious people on moral grounds. Of course this is not just a problem in relation with religion, there are plenty of non-religious people who would oppose, for example, using animals for experimentation on moral and ethical grounds.

The second reason would be if science is seen as setting itself up in opposition to religion. If you are working as a scientist in a society where the majority of the population see themselves as religious, then there should be no problem in pursuing research that will benefit that society. But if you choose to attack religion, and portray those who hold religious views as being stupid or illogical, then you're not exactly making friends for yourself. If any branch of science and the arts wants public funding, then it makes sense not to deliberately antagonise those who pay the taxes that provide such funding. You might get away with that in a dictatorship, but not in a democracy.

Could you please explain this properly for me, as I understood it to mean Science should be starved of public funds if it is pursuing research that is deemed immoral on religious grounds. I am referring to the line in Bold.
I am so sorry if I misunderstood, also I notice that you tend to compare the Worst people in Science with the best people from religion who are scientists, there have been millions of scientists in the world.

PDN

karen3212 wrote:

Could you please explain this properly for me, as I understood it to mean Science should be starved of public funds if it is pursuing research that is deemed immoral on religious grounds. I am referring to the line in Bold.

I am stating that science would (whether you or I feel it should is another matter entirely) be starved of public funds if it insisted on pursuing research that is deemed immoral by a majority of people on religious grounds.

For example, it is unlikely that a scientist in an Islamic university in a Muslim society is going to be granted funding to research the beneficial effects of eating bacon. Similarly, a scientist in a society with a Christian majority is going to struggle to get funding for a research programme that involves aborting perfectly healthy unborn babies.

My point was that this is probably not going to affect the majority of genuine scientific research.

However, if you set science up as untouchable then you risk a farcical situation such as the Japanese still hunting whales "For scientific purposes".

I am so sorry if I misunderstood, also I notice that you tend to compare the Worst people in Science with the best people from religion who are scientists, there have been millions of scientists in the world.

Well, to even it up I will give the example of Werner von Braun who claimed that his belief in God helped him to pioneer the NASA space flight programmes. However, he was also a member of the Waffen SS who personally selected slaves from Buchenwald concentration camp to assist in his research on the V2 rockets.

rockbeer

PDN wrote:

Yes, I certainly think it is valid to judge what is 'normal' behaviour by observing how human beings behave.

Perhaps I'm being thick but I still can't seem to grasp how your acceptance of observational methodology squares with your preconceptions of what is 'normal' behaviour.

Are you saying that you believe god deliberately designed us in such a way that aberrant behaviour would be instinctive to us? (As an illustration, I believe science has recently identified a gene that's being called - probably in tabloid speak rather than true scientific language - "the gay gene". According to your pov, god must have either put it there himself or designed us in such a way that it would evolve over time, thus rendering homosexuality instinctive to possessors of the gene.) So is our challenge therefore to overcome these 'aberrations' in order to be saved?

PDN wrote:

But can you not see that many prejudiced people will make the same argument? A racist, for example, will claim that his feelings toward black people are based on evidence, reasoned argument, and grounds that he considers just. Be that as it may, he is still prejudiced.

This comparison is inappropriate for a number of reasons.

Firstly, to use your race example, black people do not choose to be black. Monotheists on the other hand choose to believe in their philosophy. This alters the playing field totally, as nobody is born a monotheist and everybody has the choice of whether to be one.

Secondly, I'm not sure it's meaningful to level an accusation of prejudice against a philosophy. If I was saying I thought all monotheists should be made to live in slums, or be branded, or be burned at the stake, then I think you would have a case. But obviously I'm not saying that. In other words, it's possible to be prejudiced against the adherents to a philosophy. But how does prejudice manifest itself towards the philosophy itself? I consider your beliefs malign, as I would those of a nazi (although not in such an obvious way), but that doesn't equate to prejudice against you personally.

Thirdly, I think the point about prejudice is that any claim that it is based on reasoned arguments supported by evidence must be demonstrably invalid, else it wouldn't be prejudice. Again re: your race example, I've never heard a sound rational argument for the inferiority of one race to another. Such arguments are unfailingly based on emotion and demonstrable falsehoods. However I and others make a compelling case for the malign influence of monotheism, which you can refute in turn by counter-argument but can't show to be false. If and when you demonstrate that such arguments are invalid I'll be the first to withdraw. In the meantime, I don't argue that your disagreement with me makes you an inferior person, or that you should be treated any differently to me, or that you've any less right to your beliefs. I certainly don't claim that you're prejudiced against atheists because you don't agree with me...? I can see why you might think I'm mistaken, or misguided possibly - but prejudiced???



And finally, re your self-acknowledged misinterpretation of the bible - if you can be wrong about some of its contents, is it not equally possible that you could be misinterpreting it in its entirety?

PDN

rockbeer wrote:

Perhaps I'm being thick but I still can't seem to grasp how your acceptance of observational methodology squares with your preconceptions of what is 'normal' behaviour.

Are you saying that you believe god deliberately designed us in such a way that aberrant behaviour would be instinctive to us? (As an illustration, I believe science has recently identified a gene that's being called - probably in tabloid speak rather than true scientific language - "the gay gene". According to your pov, god must have either put it there himself or designed us in such a way that it would evolve over time, thus rendering homosexuality instinctive to possessors of the gene.) So is our challenge therefore to overcome these 'aberrations' in order to be saved?

No, I do not believe that God deliberately designed us with these aberrations. Christians believe that these aberrations are a direct consequence of man's choosing to sin. That is the doctrine of original sin - that a propensity towards that which is wrong and destructive is inherited from our first parents. Of course you will disagree, and if we choose we can get sucked into a huge debate that has nothing to do with the OP.

I doubt very much that scientific research has indeed shown the probability of the tabloids' "gay gene". What I understand has been suggested is that possession of a certain gene may slightly increase one's likelihood to be homosexual. However, even if this highly debatable thesis is true, it would still appear that the great majority of possessors of such a gene are still heterosexual. So to argue that this somehow makes people inevitably gay is very bad science, quite apart from any religious beliefs anyone may or may not hold.

Incidentally, evangelical Christians would not argue that you are saved by overcoming aberrant behaviour. We believe that you are saved by faith in Jesus Christ, not by any works you may or may not do. Good works are a consequence of, not a cause of, salvation.