Faults on both sides, as my favorite profound writer P.G. Wodehouse used to say. :)

One side: Tyson is not my favorite guy in world once he starts on the connection between religion and anti-science or anti-intellectualism -- because the larger thesis (not necessarily the details) has been disproved. His notions of history, or at least his PHRASINGS about history have provoked me to raise an eyebrow occasionally. I suspect he suffers from a common malady of scientists -- shared by Dawkins -- of approaching the humanities with a touch of arrogance -- because they can't possibly be as difficult as the science he has mastered, right? In a youtube vid, Tyson said something about the history of Islamic thought that I have been meaning to verify because it just sounded wrong -- as in wrong because history NEVER works that way. I really think he could profit from some tutoring on this subject so he can go on including it in his presentations without making people who know just a stitch of history go -- Say what?

Okay, all that out of the way, the Other Side has the much stronger case.

1. Racism -- yes -- but in the crowd attacking Dawkins, we can take not only take racism for granted, we can take for granted that they will attack in some low fashion anyone who crosses them. If the presentations were made by Sarah Seager we'd get to hear (oh yay!) all kinds of sexism punctuated by body, rape, and sex talk.

2. I understand Tyson's frustration with the religious right and the way they are mucking up science. I really do. In that larger picture he is so right, but as I stated on the One Side, it wouldn't hurt Tyson to master a more nuanced view of the conflict so that he doesn't suggest inaccurate history (science and religion have not always been opposed). I think it would be a Smart Move to team up with the other side, as there are clergy and religious folk aplenty who accept science and are trying to be heard. Tyson could sign on with the Clergy Letter Project, for example and could give such people a platform. The way he tackles the subject seems likely to make people simultaneously think -- I can't be a person of faith and accept contemporary science! and Hmmm -- Did Tyson skip history doing his generals? And neither of these are messages I think ANYONE would want to send.

http://www.huffingtonpost.com/michael-zimmerman/profiles-in-evolutionary_b_644733.html

"In a polarized society, it's never easy taking a position that isn't at one end of the spectrum. And yet, often at significant personal risk, that's exactly what thousands of clergy members all across the United States, as members of The Clergy Letter Project, have opted to do. They've chosen to stand together, respecting their faith while making it clear that they also appreciate, understand and value science.

"Theirs isn't an easy position to be in because they're being attacked from all sides."

Finally, from the first of this thread, I have wondered about the SOURCE -- which is so important in evaluating an argument. The Federalist is a highly partisan right-wing blog. They are biased, to put it bluntly. Whatever the personal understanding of the editors of science, and for that matter, Neil deGrasse Tyson, they post with a purpose -- to toss red meat to the always ravenous hoards who are their followers. Those hoards are not interested in the finer details of the conflict between religion or science and whether Tyson -- or anyone else -- gets them right. They are a lynch mob. They are out to hang Tyson because his compelling series might make some people -- including their own children -- THINK -- and those thoughts might well include, "Wow. Dad is full of it!" And even worse, it might make viewers think "Wow. My congressman is full of it." I can't take their nitpicking of Tyson's words much more seriously than I will take their nitpicking of Hillary's speeches to come. These are not honest intellectual efforts to get to the bottom of things, and they should not be mistaken for such. As others have pointed up further up the thread, their own debunkings need sometimes to be debunked. I would run a Snopes on any of their claims.



Edited 1 time(s). Last edit at 09/19/2014 11:54AM by janeeliot.

They have an axe to grind against Tyson and want to take him down. Just look at their other headlines and you can tell they are interested in propaganda, not truth.

I can well imagine poor Carl spinning in his grave about now. Unless that is if he was cremated.

In any event, he left some mighty big shoes to fill to say the least.

Thing is I don't remember anyone taking pot shots at him such as we now see Neil being pelted with.

More evidence of entropy methinks.

I agree with Tyson. You can't do science as well if you are religious. Science deals with facts, but religion has all kinds of unproven and unprovable weird stuff.

So let us suppose that you are a geologist studying some very old rocks. Because you are religious, you know that although these rocks are very old, they cannot be any older than 6000 years. Suppose you are looking at the sediments of a certain area. you know that somewhere in these layers are the sediments deposited by Noah's flood, but you are not exactly sure where.

Perhaps you as a geologist can compartmentalize well and essentially have two brains, one for work and the real world, and one for Sunday and church. Perhaps you are not real devout and disbelieve a lot of what you are taught about science at church. Perhaps you are an apologist and bend and twist reality to your will practicing masterful spin control. But in reality, you would be a better geologist if you were not religious. You wouldn't waste so much time, effort, and integrity playing mind games, and would focus more on the real world and your work.

Oh,please. You are assuming all religious people are young earth creationists and that is completely false.You are also assuming that religion and science are always incompatibe.Wrong again!

bona dea unregistered Wrote:
-------------------------------------------------------
> You are also assuming that
> religion and science are always incompatibe.Wrong
> again!

But...whether they're "compatible" or not is irrelevant.
Religion is belief without facts or evidence in things that have not and cannot be demonstrated by evidence, and which are in many cases shown false by evidence.

Science is a proven reliable method for finding out facts about the universe that relies entirely on demonstrable facts and evidence.

It's only religion that "cares" about the supposed "compatibility" of the two. And usually only when facts we learn through science show religious claims false.

Science doesn't care about religion, and shouldn't -- "compatible" or not. Religion doesn't use the scientific method, so it's irrelevant to science. As it should be.

And my point stands. You can be religious and believe in science. Many people,including scientists,do just that.

Gravity is proven regardless of belief. The attractove force between two objects is proportional to the mass of the objects and the square of the distance between them. All evidence is in the favor of this, and no evidence contradicts it. Oh wait.. there is evidence which contradicts it... It seems that when mass travels at very high speeds it violates newtons theory and begins to increase at very high speeds. How do we KNOW this? Is it because people "believe" it to be true? Nope.. It is those who DOUBTED that demonstrated empirically that mass and speed is equal to energy. Science is NOT a belief system. And those Atheists, Theists, pantheists, etc. who think that belief has ANYTHING to do with it can lump it!

Lesson for today ended. If only the non scientists would shut the hell up...

HH =)

And you are a scientist? Thanks for the lecture on gravity even if it has nothing whatsoever with my point which is that science and religion are not necesarily incompatible. You can believe in God and gravity at the same time.You can also believe in the big bang and evolution along with God.

Yes. I am a scientist. I have practiced both the hard and soft sciences. I have a number of peer reviewed publications in professional journals. How about you BonaDea?

My point is that, in the end, they are i impatience because science is about skepticism, and religion is about faith. one is about proving thing wrong, and the other is about accepting things without SUFFICIENT (a word you do. Ot seems to grasp) evidence.

So, my point stands... Science corrects religious beief with objective, replicable, verifiable fact, and religion simply gives way, and will continue to do so, because they are incompatible.


HH =)

Your statement is true of some,and only some religion.You may be a scientist but you paint with a very broad brush.

All religions make claims which must be accepted on faith. Science accepts nothing on faith. In fact, science is the method by which we prove things false. Therefore, science and religion are incompatible.

The premises are valid, and the conclusion sound. Argue the logic here. It does NOT get more simple to refute than this.


HH =)

Because something cannot be proven does not necessarily mean it is false.Some religious beliefs can be disproven such as youmg earth creationism .Many others are open to debate.

If it can not be proven, or falsified it can not be believed because it has no support. That is the point. Science is doubt and religion is faith. In opposition. You have supported my claim, and refuted your own.

Per usual

HH =)

"Gravity is proven regardless of belief. The attractove force between two objects is proportional to the mass of the objects and the square of the distance between them. All evidence is in the favor of this, and no evidence contradicts it."

COMMENT: You described gravity by stating the relationship between abstract quantities. This does not tell us what gravity is. Moreover, the view that gravity is a "force" is a Newtonian view. Gravity from Einstein relativity is not a force at all, but rather simply the curvature of space.

"Science is NOT a belief system. And those Atheists, Theists, pantheists, etc. who think that belief has ANYTHING to do with it can lump it!"

COMMENT: No! Science is very much a belief system. It represents a worldview (belief system) that generally holds that scientific facts reflect a reality independent of the human mind that reveals it, i.e. "realism." Note, however, that this requires an inference from sense experience to ultimate reality. Moreover, it involves an inference that "reality" is reductionist; i.e. that we can understand the whole by understanding certain of its parts.

Henry,

Your delusions are adorable.

HH =)

Henry Bemis Wrote:
-------------------------------------------------------

> Gravity from Einstein relativity is not a
> force at all, but rather simply the curvature of
> space.

Curvature of SPACETIME, not simply of space.

bona dea unregistered Wrote:
-------------------------------------------------------
> And my point stands. You can be religious and
> believe in science. Many people,including
> scientists,do just that.

Yes, you can. Yes many do.
What you can't do is *use* religion to do science. :)

Agreed and I never said otherwise.

ificouldhietokolob Wrote:
-------------------------------------------------------
> It's only religion that "cares" about the supposed
> "compatibility" of the two.

And Stephen Jay Gould, with his separate magisteria.

But...whether they're "compatible" or not is irrelevant.
Religion is belief without facts or evidence in things that have not and cannot be demonstrated by evidence, and which are in many cases shown false by evidence."

COMMENT: Religion is NOT belief without facts. Religion is belief based upon an interpretation of facts. Moreover, religion is not per se faith without evidence. Most often it is based upon some level of evidence, including personal experience and reports of human experience, whether one considers such evidence "scientific" or adequate, or not.

Although such evidence can often be interpreted without religious connotations, this does not mean that religious interpretations are per se false. They are only false if science can demonstrate that alternative explanations are correct. Thus, 6000 year old earth is false, but whether God exists remains an open question.

"Science is a proven reliable method for finding out facts about the universe that relies entirely on demonstrable facts and evidence."

COMMENT: Here, your use of the word "entirely" is misplaced. Science often relies upon speculative hypotheses that include factual assumptions that have not been demonstrated. Theoretical physics and cosmology in particular engage in such speculations.

"They are only false if science can demonstrate that alternative explanations are correct."

No, they're worthless until shown corrrect by verifiable evidence.
Claims aren't "true" until they're proven false.
They're just empty, undemonstrable, unproven claims -- worthless except perhaps as a testable hypothesis -- until "proven" true.

"I'm right unless you can prove me wrong" is fallacious, arrogant, and rather silly.

I think compartmentalizing does the trick very well. If I'm not mistaken, it's an essential human trait. Michael Shermer wrote about that, but he is evil, of course, so that doesn't count.



Edited 1 time(s). Last edit at 09/19/2014 01:35PM by rt.

Heretic 2 Wrote:
-------------------------------------------------------
> Because you are
> religious, you know that although these rocks are
> very old, they cannot be any older than 6000
> years.
>

Helluva broad brush there.

Or maybe I'm just not true Scotsman.

janeeliot Wrote:
-------------------------------------------------------
> Faults on both sides, as my favorite profound
> writer P.G. Wodehouse used to say. :)
>
> 1. Racism -- yes -- but in the crowd attacking
> Dawkins
>
>
> Finally, from the first of this thread, I have
> wondered about the SOURCE -- which is so important
> in evaluating an argument.

Hi janeeliot,

I appreciate your take on this. A couple of reactions:

I've never quite understood the value of labeling a person involved in a position as an "ist" or "ic" (racist, homophobic, sexist, misogynist, etc.) These observations may go toward understanding _why_ someone holds a position, but don't necessarily bear any reflection on the validity of a given position.

We can immediately discount pure examples of each "ist" or "ic" (women are . . . , blacks are . . . , etc), but in discussions about someone's honesty, or the validity of a scientific theory, those types of labels are more inclined to induce an ad hominem fallacy. One poster on the previous thread suggested that criticism of Tyson is rooted in racism. I would hope not, but even if it is, that is irrelevant in determining if the criticism of Tyson is valid. A lie told by a black man is still a lie even if the person pointing it out is a racist.

A racist can look at a black politician and declare them a liar, but is the lie somehow true if the color of the politician's skin is altered -- or if the lie is pointed out by a non-racist? I know many conservatives were confounded to learn that their long-held political positions were converted from "conservative" to "racist" among some on the other side of the aisle when the race of the president changed.

Likewise for evaluating the source of information. It's informative about motives but bears no real weight on the validity. It will inform your skepticism, but you cannot completely discount a position simply because of the source. Even the KKK likely has accurate clocks, and may give good directions to the local market.

So, I would suggest that a person's bias and the leaning of a source will help us understand their motives and perhaps their potential for unreliability. But the only way to truly render a decision on the value of any given information is to examine the actual information. Discounting information by attacking the messenger is classic ad hominem fallacy.

This is why our Lady Justice statues at courthouses are blindfolded. Absolutely no regard is paid to the identity of those seeking justice. Truth is rendered impartially based solely upon the validity of the evidence presented. Both the rabid racist, and angelic saint should be offered the same hearing and unbiased evaluation of their claims.

Moron apologist defend absurd mormon doctrine. You've coined the term mormonesque.


Apparently Tyson has lead me to adopt some silly belief that I am now defending in mormonesque fashion.

Can you tell me what belief I am apologetically defending?



Edited 1 time(s). Last edit at 09/19/2014 04:44PM by thingsithink.

And furthermore BD, why not consider the notion that God IS gravity.

Too much for the scientific mind to wrap around?

And perhaps a little too woowooey but still.

Why not?

I am starting to think the word "God" has no meaning

Is "woowooey" a scientific term? :)

snb Wrote:
-------------------------------------------------------
> Is "woowooey" a scientific term? :)


depends on woo you ask

:o)