I agree with all of you, and I believe that if the originator Hi All, I agree with all of you, and I believe that if the originator of this topic has followed the discussion, he or she now has more information to aid in discussions/exchanges with students. This "Topic" and entire discussion has been the diverse expression of the same energy seeking equilibrium; Expressed through our "different" languages(terminology combinations).
I agree that for conversation to be most effective, common terms are necessary in the "translation" process. This has produced the seeming "conflict" in any discussion, including this one, but all of the conflicts are derivatives of the same root cause expressing across "seemingly" endless combinations of individuals/processes/systems/life/existence. This is what string, super-string and M-theory seek. Irregardless of what humans use to describe/understand the root cause(discipline, language, terminology, physics, biology, chemistry, sociology, economic, art etc)....; common terms have been, are and will be effective for the majority of the species in their respective environment. Now humans are approaching a global "social" environment/relocation/translocation and will require translations from respective local "languages" to agree on common terminology. This very discussion is a part of that same larger process that has been, is and will be. We all believe versatility/diversity/multiple languages will allow "educators" to be more effective in their attempts to reconcile the "seeming conflicts". Photons, Neutrinos, Up/Down/Charrm/Strange/Top and Bottom Quarks, Gluons, Muons, Gravitons etc...offer reconciliation for quantum mechanics and general relativity. This reconciliation offers great insight into languages, beliefs, lack of belief(actually just a different belief), "fitness", atoms, pushing boulders up hills, brick mortar, galaxies, heating tea pots, cellular processes, speciation, stars, "sunlight", balancing your checkbook, bubble gum, hormones, mood swings, joy, boredom, daydreams, why surplus "young" must be produced in excess of that which can survive from one year to the next, carrying capacity, multiple definitions for a "species", purpose, computers, literature, music, wars, economies, governments, cloud formation, plasma televisions, "selfish genes", American, Irish, Chinese, bad energy, good energy, "what goes around comes around", gravitational/electromagnetic/strong and weak forces and everything between. That does not mean we will all see it that way, as is obvious, and it will take a lot of "work" for even a majority to agree on "common terms". The growing human population(s) and the desire for improved "living conditions" are pressured by a complexity that is hard for anyone to "describe", but these ever-changing conditions will select for ever-changing adaptations/derivatives and yes, explanation(s). It is amazing how the inevitable differences provide insight to our similarity! I have thoroughly enjoyed presenting and hearing "opinions", and I believe we all agree that having "open minds" will allow us to communicate/"translate" more effectively. Respectfully, M. Moore ________________________________ From: James J Roper <[email protected]> To: [email protected] Sent: Wed, May 26, 2010 9:54:15 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 ------------------------------------------------------------------------
