Jim Roper and Ecolog:
The track has proven to have a lot of forks and branches; that doesn't
bother me, as I'm in this to learn, not to instruct.
It started with evolution and losing a grad student because of his/her
religion. As I recall the particular religion wasn't specified, and no other
details were given. That keeps the issue simple while opening the door to
all sorts of possibilities and interpretations.
The issue seemed to be around the conflict between "religion" and
science--or shall we say between disciplined thinking and believing? There
seemed to be two choices: Insist upon the primacy and authority of science
or insist upon the primacy and authority of religion. Some responses
implied that there might be some middle ground, or maybe even some other
foundation upon which to build a systematic examination of the nature of the
two, with emphasis on finding common ground or at least areas where there
was little or no conflict. There were a lot of "deviations" from this core,
such as about "fundamentalist" or dogmatic notions of religion based on
ancient myth, and of scientific evidence that indicate that the literal
interpretation of those myths (such as the age of the earth) are
quantatively different. This sort of thing tends to produce a standoff based
on conclusions rather than engagement on the relative merits. This is a lot
like playground politics about "my dad can lick your dad," "can," "can't,"
ad infinitum.
The implied question was something like "How do scientists, teachers, and
other disciplined thinkers resolve these differences?" A lot of opinion, all
of it interesting in its own way followed, much of it rooted in examples of
religious dogma that oppose concepts of perceiving reality like evolution.
It appears that some major organized religions have taken positions that the
concept of evolution is not (no longer) considered to be inconsistent with
their beliefs. It appears that "religion," even organized, "dogmatic"
religion, has made concessions (or "seen the light?") to science, and on one
of its most "fundamental" concepts at that.
A lot of what attracts people to religion consists of things like
"brotherhood" and other social values--values which a lot of scientists,
even "atheists" share. In the realm of "scientific" dogma, the social
sciences are not considered sciences at all--and indeed, they have not
offered a set of laws which can be demonstrated by experiment and reduced to
mathematical formulae. "Philosophers," and others who attempt to understand
"why" questions are all but stoned by much of those who consider themselves
"scientists."
Let he or she who is without error cast the first stone, eh? Otherwise, a
bit of patience with those with whom we disagree might keep us all from
throwing the babies out with the bathwater. In spite of spite on both
"sides," is appears that a trend toward reconciliation is, whether we like
it or not, slowly taking place. Is it impossible to agree on, say, the evil
of child abuse or the murder of innocents and the ostracism of those who
would otherwise be colleagues?
WT
----- Original Message -----
From: "James J Roper" <[email protected]>
To: <[email protected]>
Sent: Wednesday, May 26, 2010 7:54 AM
Subject: Re: [ECOLOG-L] Science and Religion are we getting off track?
Wayne et al.,
I think we have gotten a little off-track. After all, if we accept that
science is or should be evidence-based, then the putative "uses" of
religion, as well as the number of gods there are in the universe, are
not in the purview of science. If a scientist is also superstitious
(and by superstitious, I mean believes in things that are not
evidence-based and makes choices following those beliefs), then she must
recognize that the superstitious part of her is not scientific. I
assume that superstitious scientists must compartmentalize their science
from their superstitions and the twain shall never meet.
If we are going to have a morality discussion here, then we really are
going to have to define some common terms first - otherwise we will be
like freshmen students asking how we know we are really here.
Sincerely,
Jim
Wayne Tyson wrote on 25-May-10 12:11:
Bill and Ecolog:
This is exactly why I took care in my initial post to emphasize DOGMA.
"Religion" suffers the semantic fate of a lot of terminology; it
simultaneously covers everything unscientific and cherry-picks
extremes. That is why the discussion took off on an infinite number of
tracks, and a "value-free" observer does well to "let it all hang out."
Meanwhile, back on the track, the issue is how to best reconcile the
fact of dogmatic tendencies in religion tar all "philosophy" and are
not so entirely unknown in "science" as many inside those ivory towers
insist. How, for example, should a science teacher handle the dogmatic
student?
This is a common and ongoing challenge. While perhaps magnified a bit
in the academic context, the nature of this conflict may have roots
far deeper into the ways humans have come to interact. It seems that
there is, to paraphrase Margaret Mead, "conflict enough to go around."
She actually said "There's love enough to go around." Maybe she was in
a rare mood of wishful thinking, maybe not, but love in the form of
ENGAGEMENT might be fertile grounds for the beginning of a
reconciliation revolution.
One thing seems certain. The present "system" could use some refinement.
WT
----- Original Message ----- From: "William Silvert"
<[email protected]>
To: <[email protected]>
Sent: Friday, May 21, 2010 2:39 AM
Subject: [ECOLOG-L] Science and Religion are we getting off track?
While I have found the animated discussion interesting, I think we are
getting away from the original issue of actual conflict between
science and
religion. This began with a student who dropped science because of the
evolution issue, which is (or was) fairly common -- my step-father never
could teach his physical anthopology course without getting into a fight
with students who believed in creation. One can of course be religious
without getting into a bind -- no reason why a scientist cannot go
home and
pray, attend religious services, and so on. But direct conflicts are
only
the tip of the iceberg.
If we compare our mostly secular modern society with that of the past
few
centuries or millenia then the difference between a society based on
observation and reason, which is basically what science is all about,
and
one based on religion is clear. Consider for example the matter of race.
Even on the fringes of modern society, the people who think that blacks
aren't smart enough to be quarterbacks, or the scientific extremes
represented by The Bell Curve, there is some awareness of our common
ancestry and the essential human nature of non-white races. In the
past on
the other hand, slavery and genocide were justified by the religious
doctrine that only white people have souls, and that humanoids
without souls
could be treated like animals. Now of course the issue of souls is
not one
where science and religion are in direct conflict, no scientist can
determine whether or not the soul really exists. But the fate and
lives of
millions of people were determined by whether the religious
"knowledge" that
they had no souls took precedence over the scientific evidence that
all of
the races of man are fundamentally similar.
Societies have been shaped by religion, and not always
constructively. Serfs
were held down not only by armed might but by belief in the divine
right of
kings -- even today many people believe that hereditary aristocrats are
superior to commoners. Whether the priests who accompanied Pizarro
went in
support of his greedy goals or really just wanted to save souls, they
certainly help subjugate the natives. We still see religion as
sometimes an
obstacle to social development. Consider the frequent mine disasters
that
have been in the news recently. No doubt many of the widows console
themselves with the thought that this was god's will and was
foreordained,
and that they will meet their husbands in heaven. This is fine, I am
all in
favour of consoling the sad and alleviating emotional suffering. But
there
also has to be a scientific investigation into the causes of the
disaster
that leads to improvements in mine safety, and the grieving widows
should
support this. All too often the religious explanation (god's will) is
seen
as a valid alternative to the scientific one (negligence). But of
course no
scientist can prove that these disasters are not god's will!
For me the fundamental issue is whether we act scientifically, that
is to
say on the basis of evidence and reason, or whether we defer to
religious
belief. This leaves plenty of room for mysticism and the kind of ecstasy
that E. O. Wilson wrote about, for prayer and holy celebrations. But
to act
irrationally on the basis of one's religious beliefs in a way that
causes
harm to people or to anything else in our environment is in my
opinion an
abomination.
Bill Silvert
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------
No virus found in this incoming message.
Checked by AVG - www.avg.com
Version: 8.5.437 / Virus Database: 271.1.1/2893 - Release Date:
05/24/10 06:26:00
--
James J. Roper, Ph.D.
Ecology, Evolution and Population Dynamics
of Terrestrial Vertebrates
------------------------------------------------------------------------
Caixa Postal 19034
81531-990 Curitiba, Paraná, Brasil
------------------------------------------------------------------------
E-mail: [email protected] <mailto:[email protected]>
Telefone: 55 41 36730409
Celular: 55 41 98182559
Skype-in (USA):+1 706 5501064
Skype-in (Brazil):+55 41 39415715
------------------------------------------------------------------------
Ecology and Conservation at the UFPR <http://www.bio.ufpr.br/ecologia/>
Home Page <http://jjroper.googlespages.com>
Ars Artium Consulting <http://arsartium.googlespages.com>
In Google Earth, copy and paste -> 25 31'18.14" S, 49 05'32.98" W
------------------------------------------------------------------------
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------
No virus found in this incoming message.
Checked by AVG - www.avg.com
Version: 8.5.437 / Virus Database: 271.1.1/2897 - Release Date: 05/26/10
06:25:00
