A Free-for-All on Science and Religion (gloves coming off?)

[Bozita]

http://www.nytimes.com/2006/11/21/science/21belief.html?_r=1&oref=slogin&pagewanted=all


November 21, 2006


A Free-for-All on Science and Religion
By GEORGE JOHNSON

Maybe the pivotal moment came when Steven Weinberg, a Nobel laureate in physics, warned that “the world needs to wake up from its long nightmare of religious belief,” or when a Nobelist in chemistry, Sir Harold Kroto, called for the John Templeton Foundation to give its next $1.5 million prize for “progress in spiritual discoveries” to an atheist — Richard Dawkins, the Oxford evolutionary biologist whose book “The God Delusion” is a national best-seller.

Or perhaps the turning point occurred at a more solemn moment, when Neil deGrasse Tyson, director of the Hayden Planetarium in New York City and an adviser to the Bush administration on space exploration, hushed the audience with heartbreaking photographs of newborns misshapen by birth defects — testimony, he suggested, that blind nature, not an intelligent overseer, is in control.

Somewhere along the way, a forum this month at the Salk Institute for Biological Studies in La Jolla, Calif., which might have been one more polite dialogue between science and religion, began to resemble the founding convention for a political party built on a single plank: in a world dangerously charged with ideology, science needs to take on an evangelical role, vying with religion as teller of the greatest story ever told.

Carolyn Porco, a senior research scientist at the Space Science Institute in Boulder, Colo., called, half in jest, for the establishment of an alternative church, with Dr. Tyson, whose powerful celebration of scientific discovery had the force and cadence of a good sermon, as its first minister.

more...

[Dhalgren]

1. Science IS the "teller of the greatest story ever told."

Hands down, no contest. The story of science is actually true...

[librechik]

2. How about a political party instead? The Science Party

interesting--hope they keep it up. Go scientific reality!

[Demeter]

4. That's A Party I Could Support

It would certainly sort out the worst aspects of the Democrats. As long as the underlying theory is that democracy may be a lousy way to govern, but it's better than anything else!

"It has been said that democracy is the worst form of government except all the others that have been tried."

Sir Winston Churchill

[jgraz]

3. Where do I sign up?

[MrPrax]

5. Nice development...

I always figured that scientists should get a little more aggressive -- to go passive on 'fact' is an acceptance of political acquiescence and expediency.

But we all know -- You can't insult 'the idjits' or anything...no no...the constitution protects public utterances of irredeemably stupid dogma dressed up as 'fact' and religious cynics who accept science totally, should be allowed to manipulate the mean and stupid under the auspices of religious expression for political purposes.

I would personally like to see a more pro-active role on the part of mainline churches who have been just a little too quiet on this and many other subjects and have NOT been very active in pushing a kinder gentler religious view that encompasses science.

Mainline churches have been more than happy to sit on sidelines lately.

[Stalwart]

6. Scientific Thought Structures

We did it once before. Our constitution was the product of reason and thought that produced a model by which to develop our society independent from religious domination.

We can do it again. This time based on reason and thought aided by an entire structure of tools to help organize our thinking. In the end we will arrive at the best way to organize our society and personal actions as a product of our collective thought. Call it "Open Source Democracy".

http://osdproject.com/pages/links

The war is between old time religion that dictates how we should live and our best collective thinking to produce our own system of beliefs about how we should live guided by thought and reason. Always has been.

We are seeing the war being fought today on the business field between proprietary systems owned and controlled by a few today and open source systems which are free to public development, participation and benefit. It is setting the stage for a future war between structured reason and thought (science) and religion as we go from organizing our business and economics using open source thinking to organizing politics and other social institutions like religion.


http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Open_source


We can declare victory when economics then politics then religion is a rational structure that is a product of our best thinking. Reason will take us wherever we follow it. Maybe in the end we will find that our best collective decision on how to live will be nothing more than what a few men gave us long ago on faith that we finally come to understand on reason.

I think that in a hundred years we will be close to that point. If the last hundred years was the growth of the industrial age, this hundred years will show equal progress in the information age as it transforms us into an age of knowledge.

We are on the road to get there.

Its progressive.

[MrPrax]

7. Dangerous idea you have...

Indeed, it is a step in the right direction to start democratizing our societies and open communication based on it's own merit and not ideological or moralistic safeguards. Open source does have enormous potential and great success...but it's evil. ;-)

The big fear I have is that since religion (esp. the Xtian one...come on down Weber) was re-formatted to fit the morality and requites of industrialism, I'll assume the same 'cherished' words of God will be re-interpreted for global corporatism's drive to the same hierarchical 'representative' forms of 'clergy' and 'subject'. Much of the defense of corporatism is quasi-religion wrapped in moralistic underpinnings where 'rational' technology is purposely crippled to prevent...for instance...'theft'?

Imagine...the millennium old dreams and hopes of humanity are still vetted by moral systems invented by illiterates living in deserts...it's amazing really.

[stopbush]

8. A new Age of Enlightenment is long overdue.

[eridani]

9. Whether or not it is the "greatest" story--

--it jolly well IS the only SELF-CHECKING story that our species has ever come up with.

[varun]

10. We should ask questions like the "Age of the Earth" and Noah's ark carrying dinosaurs

from these "religious types".

[Fire Walk With Me]

11. I'm all for unbiased science, but there may be proof of Gods existence.

Ask your friendly neighborhood addict in recovery via a 12-Step program if they would have died from their uncontrollable addiction, and if surrender to a "higher power" removed the addiction with the stipulation of doing the spiritual work...

There should be a scientific study of this phenomenon as there is plenty of source to study.

Oddly, the question is answered in the book "Loving Ganesha". In terms of reincarnation, those with a particularly nasty bent (but not exceptionally satanic) can come back and resolve their negative karma through social and spiritual service. Of course, you have to find enough truth in spirituality to make the leap to accept these concepts to any extent. Make your own decisions, always.

I've read around and see the concept of surrender to a more developed consciousness as a source of great spiritual growth mentioned in Buddhism, Hinduism, and other paths. It can be called Guru Yoga (Yo ga, being a technique for spiritual growth).

So either there is an astonishing placebo effect in the human mind, or there are indeed advanced non-corporeal consciousnesses that will aid in growth if appealed to in this manner.

BTW, there is a question of why God won't intervene in obviously horrific human affairs. The concept of Free Will precludes it, although support and guidance are available through surrender. In the same way that negative energy would make one vulnerable to "triggering" and distraction from negative sources, conscious attunement to positive energy (resonance) would allow for positive guidance. The avenue of intuition bears looking into.

I'm not sure how the concept of a creator would negate the function of evolution. Is a static concept of Man an egocentric one? Not that Man ever considered itself the center of the universe or anything...

[Fire Walk With Me]

12. BTW, this in no way legitimatizes selfish, dominating organized religion.

Another aspect of looking at the recovery groups (the word or concept of God appears some six times in the twelve steps) is that no one seems to be turned away (by God, if truly sought, that is). This brings up the concept of the loving, accepting God and calls into question the judgement organized religions are so fond of (at least in the West). If God told you to hate, then you are free from responsibility for your negative actions. All children want to be free from repurcussion; the problem people in this country do as well, and seemingly seek to alter the nation into a denial fest in order to not have to admit mistakes or weaknesses.

Admitting mistakes and facing weaknesses is how growth occurs. How nice that there is support if you choose that direction.

Science is right if they say that negatively-based organized religion is a scourge. The "do what we say or else" thing is so pre-2001.

[DavidDvorkin]

13. Proof requires just a leeetle bit more than that

No, actually, it requires a huge amount more than that.

[Fire Walk With Me]

14. That's why I called for a scientific study.

There is definitely something quantifiable going on, and it's rather a large question, yes? Someone somewhere should be interested. I am.

[knight_of_the_star]

15. Not sure what to think on this

If you have science starting to behave like religion then you could end up with a VERY nasty situation. Considering how confrontational and divisive society is as is, imagine if you throw in another party that refuses to acknowledge the other parties involved. I think spirituality and science should work together, not in the adversarial fashion they have been for so long.

[shrike]

16. I'm with you

I don't want ANYBODY evangelizing me.

[Bill McBlueState]

17. they don't *really* mean science should behave like a religion

After all, what makes science work is that it's *not* a religion. It's self-correcting, doesn't rely on the argument from authority, etc. When they talk about making Neil Tyson a "priest" of science, they're trying to be funny.

[applegrove]

18. And it took just a short time.. a few years..for scientists to morph into Ninjas.

Thank god.

[mainegreen]

19. The story science tells is more compelling and beatiful than any religious text I've read.

I just don't get religion. Science, well, it gives me goosebumps just thinking about the process of science. Science is what sets our species apart. I seriously would love to see it take a more aggressive role in society, as science, being science, tends to have better data and better plans than the whole "I feel" or the "This moldy old fairy tale says" (ir)rationality.

[varun]

20. The Science Network: A fitting rebuttal for Templeton

Templeton came across as overly religious to me and biased. The Science Network was sorely needed.

BTW, the debate is online now:

http://beyondbelief2006.org/Watch/