Dear Marnie, > I think you misunderstood the 3rd point that Warren made Ok, I felt that Warren was implicitly defending the usefulness of the Christian religion (he used the word "religious heritage") alongside science, as well as the compatibility between the teaching of the two, in his third point. I may have inferred this a bit fast indeed. If this is not the case, then my comments are irrelevant.
> I am a scientist that strongly believes there are too few that > contemplate our science in the cosmological context. I can only agree with the intent. Now it depends what methodology you use to get to this point. > If the fact that Warren is teaching about these complimentary > processes in a church educational program is the source of trouble Oh definitely not. Such endeavours are utterly positive in my opinion. Again, I probably misunderstood, but I was feeling that Warren was defending the compatibility between the preaching of catholic catechism and the teaching of science. Even if it is desirable to teach science to believers, I believe that it should always remain clear that science and Christian teachings are incompatible. @Warren: I am sorry if I misunderstood your position. > Instead of using the scientific method to shoot holes into religious > theology, why are we not using it to find the similar patterns > represented in the mathematical nature of cosmology, biology & > geology in conjunction with the corresponding patterns/validations in > our mythologies & ancient civilizations (lumping all religions here)? I have to disagree here. First, science will always "shoot holes" into religious beliefs when these are wrong (which has almost always been the case in the last two millennia, as they are groundless). It is precisely the essence of the scientific method to differentiate what is true from what is false. As a consequence, when the scientific method is presented with groundless and false religious ideas, it is its duty and its nature to disprove them (if it can) and to bring to public knowledge the wrongfulness of the ideas. Second, why do you absolutely want to merge two things which are opposite by nature and incompatible (again, I persist, but please show me how to conciliate the process of belief with the scientific method)? I see no logical reason for this, only political (not to say religious) ones. The idea of merging science and what you call "mythologies" reminds me of Freud's nonsensical "scientific myth". > I think it is time to reconcile science & spirituality, which is > ultimately how we are going to answer the biggest question posted, > "Why are we here?" Science and philosophy, certainly. Science and spirituality, I doubt it. Please give me one single example of advancement of our knowledge about the universe or enhancement of the condition of Mankind that has been brought by several millennia of spirituality. Spirituality is not based on anything rational, which is why, like religions, it has always been conflicting with science, and science always "won". Please give us any counter-example. As illustration, you talked about cosmology before. The only results in this area have been coming from physical cosmology (the Big-Bang theory), while metaphysical cosmology has never given any result. Again, I agree about the need to reintegrate more Holism in scientific thinking, and to reintroduce philosophical thinking in science teachings, but in no way can I support religions/mythologies/spirituality as anything more than stories to distract the mind. (By the way, you will notice that what were considered as religions thousands of years ago (Greek mythology, Celtic mythology, etc) have remained nowadays only as simple stories studied in literature...) Sincerely, Christian Vincenot On 12/09/2011 11:06 PM, Rout, Marnie wrote: > Dear Christian, > My response is more about the confusion between the terms religion & > cosmological, rather than the original thread on overpopulation/over > consumption. I think you misunderstood the 3rd point that Warren made > regarding teaching "...cosmological, geological and biological evolution in > my church's youth and adult education programs." Your response to this > teaching used the term "religion" when the term was "COSMOLOGICAL". These are > not the same. Cosmological, geological & biological origins are often mirrors > of one another and are complimentary processes. These are not to be confused > with religion - which is a construct of man that is not only used to attempt > to give meaning to life, but also to control mankind. I am a scientist that > strongly believes there are too few that contemplate our science in the > cosmological context. If the fact that Warren is teaching about these > complimentary processes in a church educational program is the source of > trouble, I will simply ask this: Are we to ignore an opportunity to educate others simply because the venue is a "church"? If a church is open to this line of education, I see that as a good thing. I do agree with you that the scientific method is a wonderful tool -not your words, but the take-home of your message. Instead of using the scientific method to shoot holes into religious theology, why are we not using it to find the similar patterns represented in the mathematical nature of cosmology, biology & geology in conjunction with the corresponding patterns/validations in our mythologies & ancient civilizations (lumping all religions here)? I agree with Warren on this. I think it is time to reconcile science & spirituality, which is ultimately how we are going to answer the biggest question posted, "Why are we here?" > > Very interesting dialog. Sorry if this took things a bit off the main topic. > > Marnie E. Rout, Ph.D. > Affiliate Research Faculty > The University of Montana > Division of Biological Sciences > 32 Campus Dr > Missoula, MT 59870 > [email protected] > > > ________________________________________ > From: Ecological Society of America: grants, jobs, news > [[email protected]] on behalf of Christian Vincenot > [[email protected]] > Sent: Friday, December 09, 2011 2:03 AM > To: [email protected] > Subject: Re: [ECOLOG-L] overpopulation and the abuse of facts by religon > > Dear Warren, > >> First, the basic problem is not so much overpopulation as it is >> overconsumption. > I totally second your point of view. Nevertheless, we sadly have to > recognise that the two problems are basically entangled and synergistic. > >> Second, many religions, including mainstream Protestants, promote or >> at least tolerate birth control and other limits on procreation. > Indeed, some of them do, but the fact is that the Christian church on > the whole does not. > Moreover, most of the religions that tolerate birth control also promote > the idea that having a large family is "healthy". > Finally, religion is a factor of quarrels (not to say wars...), and > pushes its members directly or indirectly to overwhelm the other > religions through nativity. This is a real problem that can be observed > as much in radical Islamic movements, as in "mainstream" Christianity. > For example, even among the US Protestants that you mention, I don't > need to tell you that the Quiverfull openly state that it is part of > their missionary duty to procreate as much as possible to propagate > their beliefs. > >> Third, I can teach (and have taught) cosmological, geological and >> biological evolution in my church's youth and adult education >> programs. > I disagree quite strongly on this, but I am afraid that this discussion > is off-topic anyway. Still, I will summarise my point of view. Religion > is based on a process of belief that is TOTALLY antagonistic and > incompatible with scientific reasoning and methodology. Our predecessors > have learned to the cost of their lives how much religions have been > deceiving and incompatible with a methodological scientific approach to > the analysis of our world. This has been true since Copernicus and > Galileo until nowadays. > Therefore, I do not know how one can sincerely teach science and > religion at the same time without seeing any internal conflict or > contradiction. With all due respect, what would somebody like you have > taught a few centuries ago then? That the Earth was flat or not? What do > you teach nowadays? Creationism or Darwinism? Also, ultimately, what > prevails inside of you: the scientific proof or the religious belief? > > (Do not get me wrong. Believing inside of oneself that something MAY be > true withtout any proof is one acceptable thing I think. We do it as > scientists ourselves. On the other hand, what is unacceptable is the > formation of lobbying groups from which a real diktat emerges to enforce > their groundless suppositions as a truth and which create visions of the > world and rules of how to live which shall be applied to everyone. THIS > is what the mainstream religions have always been about, and this is > also what distinguishes philosophy from religion.) > >> The myths and metaphors of our religious heritage (what >> you call "lies") frequently parallel current science. > With all due respect, what I call "lies" ARE lies and not metaphors. The > list of all the "facts" that have been openly stated and ENFORCED by > religions and which proved to be blatantly false would be too long to > enumerate (just a few random examples: flat Earth, the heretical nature > of medical sciences, the Evil inside divorced or even pregnant women, > possession and exorcism, etc). Let's not have such a short-term > memory... Also, this dual nature of the religious teachings - once > metaphoric, once strictly unequivocal and direct - is in my opinion an > ultimate way of fooling people. "Sure, this was told and enforced > stricto sensu by our church during centuries, but actually people were > misunderstanding the metaphoric nature of the holy statements at that > time". Sincerely... > >> And they try to answer questions that current science cannot answer, > > e.g., "Why is there something instead of nothing?" >> "Why is there life?" "Why is their human intelligence and >> cognition?" "Why are humans altruistic to other humans outside their >> genetic clan?" "Why are we here?" > The problems are the methodology for hypothesis creation and what is > done with this so-called "truth" afterwards. > First, proofing these hypothesises can only be done by science. If you > can propose any religious methodology for proofing any of the groundless > suggestions that can be made based on the theological approach, I would > be glad to discuss it. As a consequence, religions do not generate > knowledge and never will. > Second, philosophy can help develop theories for subjects that science > is unable to tackle due to their nature. Actually, some questions that > you mention are typical philosophical questions. No religion is needed > for this. > Third, religion would in no way bring any satisfying answer to these > problems. Actually, it has never done so. You mention about the origin > of life... if we were still believing the Catholic church, we would > still be thinking that life was created by an omnipotent omniscient god > in six days. Catholic theology has never challenged this point of view > (and AFAIK it still defends it). The only reason why we progressed on > this is thanks to Cartesian reasoning. > > I am sure that you will understand that nothing in my post was meant to > offend you personally. > > Sincerely, > Christian Vincenot > > > On 12/09/2011 04:26 PM, Warren W. Aney wrote: >> You make some good points, Christian, deserving a better response than I'm >> going to provide right now at 11 p.m. >> First, the basic problem is not so much overpopulation as it is >> overconsumption. According to one source I've read, the average U.S. >> citizen has a consumption footprint as large as 90 Bangladeshis. >> Second, many religions, including mainstream Protestants, promote or at >> least tolerate birth control and other limits on procreation. >> Third, I can teach (and have taught) cosmological, geological and biological >> evolution in my church's youth and adult education programs. The myths and >> metaphors of our religious heritage (what you call "lies") frequently >> parallel current science. And they try to answer questions that current >> science cannot answer, e.g., "Why is there something instead of nothing?" >> "Why is there life?" "Why is their human intelligence and cognition?" "Why >> are humans altruistic to other humans outside their genetic clan?" "Why are >> we here?" >> >> Warren W. Aney >> Senior Wildlife Ecologist >> Tigard, OR 97223 >> >> -----Original Message----- >> From: Ecological Society of America: grants, jobs, news >> [mailto:[email protected]] On Behalf Of Christian Vincenot >> Sent: Thursday, 08 December, 2011 18:56 >> To: [email protected] >> Subject: Re: [ECOLOG-L] overpopulation and the abuse of facts by religon >> >>> Why is this forum arguing about the influence of Judaic religions on >>> population growth? >> I believe that Nathan answered this question in the very first post. Simply >> because there is indeed an obvious dogma coming with these religions (and a >> few other ones) that forbids abortion and/or promotes uncontrolled >> procreation while spreading flat lies about the carrying capacity of our >> Earth. This in turn obviously impacts demography. I find the link >> straightforward and the original question raised in this thread legitimate. >> >>> If the population growth of the earth is going to be impacted it won't be >>> by coaxing popular religions like Catholicism and Christianity to be >>> less"fruitful". >> Will it be by acknowledging or even ignoring what these religions preach >> then? >> >>> Despite the predominance of these religions in countries >>> like the U.S. and Britain, the growth rate in these countries are >>> decreasing and have been steadily for years. Why? >> Of course, education and birth control played a role... but the decrease of >> power of religions also did. Actually the two are linked. Education >> generally lowers the belief in archaic mysticisms like religions. (Actually, >> I am pretty sure that the strength of belief in religions could be seen as a >> metric to measure the level of education of countries.) >> Also, note that the US or GB are not really examples of extremely religious >> countries relatively to the rest of the world (although they definitely are >> compared to other developed countries). >> >>> On the other hand, the countries with the highest population growth rates >>> such as Liberia, Burundi, Afghanistan, W. Sahara, E. Timer, Niger, >>> Eritrea, Uganda, DR Congo, and the Palestinian Territories, etc have what >>> sort of women's rights? What do you know, (...) >> With all due respect, most of the countries that you cite are Christian >> countries (i.e. Liberia, Burundi, DR Congo, Uganda, East Timor), and on top >> of this, all of them are way more religious than the US or GB. >> >>> Take a look at all the countries with growth rates higher than 2% and then >>> look at how women are treated in that nation. >> Take a look at all the countries with growth rates higher than 2%, and then >> look at how religious they are. You will also be surprised. Again, your >> argumentation against the importance of religions in this issue does not >> stand. Take a look at this survey: >> http://farm4.static.flickr.com/3423/3277768007_e06378be14_b.jpg >> >> What you are ignoring is the opposition between religion and education. Of >> course education would and hopefully will solve the issue of overpopulation, >> but it will do so by explaining the flat lies that religions carry, and >> which prevent women from enjoying their rights and freedom in terms of >> birth control (and others). Therefore, you cannot deny the fact that, in >> many cases (like in the one originally brought up by Nathan), there is a >> link between religion (especially what you refer to as "Judaic religions") >> and demography. You cannot fight one without fighting the other. >> >> Best regards, >> Christian Vincenot >> >> > > > -- > Christian Vincenot, PhD > Biosphere Informatics Laboratory > Department of Social Informatics > Kyoto University, JAPAN > > クリスティアン・ヴィンセノ > 博士後期課程 > グローバルCOE 研究助成 > 社会情報学専攻 生物圏情報学講座 > 京都大学 大学院情報学研究科 > 〒606-8501 京都市左京区吉田本町 > Tel: 075-753-3136 > Fax: 075-753-3133
