I agree with Mr. Sibley. It would be impossible for each of us to weigh all of
the evidence available on every issue and come up with our own rational
conclusions based on that evidence, independent of others. We just don't have
that much time. When we learn, we rely on teachers who give us information,
which we believe to be true, especially with mathematic and chemical equations,
as previously mentioned. In science, however we are allowed to question our
teachers and are even encouraged to do, which is not as common in (some)
religions. In science we may call these things assumptions instead of beliefs.
Besides, who said the universe operates in a rational way? That, in itself, is
a belief. At least it is a concept that is untestable. We may able to explain
how certain things happen but can we ever know why they happen? Or if there is
a reason at all? Most of the things in my life, fortunately or not, are
completely irrational. Many scientists choose to see the world in a rational
way but the majority of people just do what they feel and it doesn't make any
sense (to me anyway).
I don't think it is fair to say that most scientists are not religious or
spiritual either. Besides, is
it really appropriate to generalize religious people any more than it is
to
generalize by race or ethnicity? I know many biologists and ecologists who are
spiritual people and good scientists. They are not hypocrites and the two are
not necessarily at odds. It just means they are thinking people. They are
considerate in the strictest sense of the word. They don't blindly follow
evangelists or adhere to radical ideas without good cause (i.e., evidence).
There are many scholars from many different religions that are thinking people
like this; not charlatans simply trying to convert as many people as quickly as
possible; monks and yogis for example that may very well have understandings of
the universe very different but equally as valid as that of scientists.
Frank Marenghi
> Date: Fri, 14 May 2010 11:42:56 -0700
> From: s1b...@yahoo.com
> Subject: Re: [ECOLOG-L] Science and Religion Dogmatic conflict?
> To: ECOLOG-L@LISTSERV.UMD.EDU
>
> I've jumped into this conversation late, so I apologize if this has already
> been mentioned, but Annie Dillard addresses the dilemma of meshing the
> concept of a creator with modern science quite eloquently in her book Pilgrim
> at Tinker Creek.
>
> Something to think about: scientists have endeavored to explain just about
> every phenomenon in the natural world. Some of these explanations are easy to
> understand and are easily testable, but some are not. Some aspects of quantum
> physics, space-time distortion, etc... are not easily testable and are only
> fully understood by a few brilliant minds. They cannot convey the explanation
> of these phenomena to me because I would not understand it: I take it on
> faith that their calculations are correct and that those who conduct a peer
> review on their work are able to catch every error.
>
> A few more examples:
> - I am looking to solve a problem in my micrometeorology class, and I come
> across an equation in a textbook which will give me the answer I need. I
> don't know who came up with the equation, how they tested it, how many times
> it has been validated (especially newer equations), and how rigorously the
> reviewer who allowed it into "the literature" thought about it. As I'll be
> using dozens of equations throughout the semester, I'm not going to gather
> any of this information myself. I take it on faith that the peer review
> process has produced a quality product.
> - The East Anglia Climate Research Unit recently took a lot of heat for not
> being able to produce the original data by which their global climatologies
> were produced. Now think of all the data products out there for which people
> have not asked for the original data. Could every scientist retrace every
> step they took to come to their final conclusions? Can every scientist point
> to the data they used to make every graph in every paper they have written?
> No: nor does every reviewer ask for the data, nor can they catch every error.
> The scientific method and peer review are the best things we have for
> validating scientific observations and discoveries, but there is room for
> errors to slip through the cracks. Or even worse: no scientist likes to think
> this, but the scientific method and peer review are not impervious to
> purposely falsified data, especially in studies that involve direct
> environmental observation. Sure, experiments are supposed to be
> reproducible, but how long do ecology and environmental science experiments
> go before a second group of researchers tries to replicate them? Sometimes
> years, if ever.
>
> The basic point I'm trying to make here is that unless you yourself
> understand on a fundamental level every scientific concept you have used, you
> are involved in a faith based process of discovery. If you've ever said "I
> don't know why this works but I trust it does," that is faith. Conclusions
> based on non-laboratory observation of the natural world also require faith
> in the integrity of the research group conducting the study.
>
> Thank you,
> Adam Sibley
>
>
>
>
>
> ________________________________
> From: William Silvert <cien...@silvert.org>
> To: ECOLOG-L@LISTSERV.UMD.EDU
> Sent: Fri, May 14, 2010 12:24:13 PM
> Subject: Re: [ECOLOG-L] Science and Religion Dogmatic conflict?
>
> Certainly one can be a religious scientist, so long as one's areas of
> interest do not overlap. I see no reason why a chemist or hydodynamicist
> could not believe in creation, but for a biologist or geologist it would be
> more difficult, and for a paleontologist pretty well impossible.
>
> James writes that "Most or all religions are capable of accommodating the
> view that, if scripture says something that conflicts with science, then that
> bit of scripture is not literally true." Certainly not all, and I doubt the
> "most". And of course not all science is universally accepted as fact. The
> underlying issue is whether we base our opinions (I deliberately avoid the
> word "beliefs") on rational evidence or on beliefs with no logical foundation.
>
> Bill Silvert
>
> ----- Original Message ----- From: "James Crants" <jcra...@gmail.com>
> To: <ECOLOG-L@LISTSERV.UMD.EDU>
> Sent: sexta-feira, 14 de Maio de 2010 16:14
> Subject: Re: [ECOLOG-L] Science and Religion Dogmatic conflict? Re:
> [ECOLOG-L] evolution for non-scientists textbook
>
>
> > On Thu, May 13, 2010 at 9:01 AM, Sarah Frias-Torres <
> > sfrias_tor...@hotmail.com> wrote:
> >
> >> Science is based on fact.
> >> Religion is based on faith.
> >> They don't mix.
> >
> >
> > These statements, and some others that have come up, show how narrowly
> > religion has come to be defined in western cultures. In America,
> > particularly, fundamentalist Christianity has come to be equated with all
> > religion. We have come to think that religion is about believing in
> > specific supernatural things in the absence of any evidence, and even
> > believing in certain natural things in spite of all the evidence (e.g., that
> > species do not evolve or the earth is 6,000 years old). Even to many people
> > who consider themselves religious, that would be the definition of faith.
> >
> > Religion and faith are not necessarily about believing in invisible supermen
> > who reward their worshippers and punish unbelievers. Science has proven to
> > be highly compatible with Buddhism and Judaism, for example, and the Jesuits
> > have made significant contributions to science. I've known very good Hindu
> > and Muslim scientists (well, one of each), too. I also worked three growing
> > seasons for an evangelical (not to say fundamentalist) Protestant Christian
> > ecologist, and we debated religion almost every week through that whole
> > period. In all that time, I could find no way in which his religious
> > beliefs conflicted with his science or made him a worse ecologist.
> >
> > Most or all religions are capable of accommodating the view that, if
> > scripture says something that conflicts with science, then that bit of
> > scripture is not literally true. Science and religion seem incompatible
> > partly because many scientists don't share the need many people have for
> > religion or spirituality, and partly because the popular and political
> > influence of fundamentalist Christianity makes religion seem to serve only
> > to delude people into believing things that are demonstrably untrue.
> >
> > Jim Crants
>
>
>
_________________________________________________________________
Hotmail has tools for the New Busy. Search, chat and e-mail from your inbox.
http://www.windowslive.com/campaign/thenewbusy?ocid=PID28326::T:WLMTAGL:ON:WL:en-US:WM_HMP:042010_1
