ABOUT COSMIC LOG

Quantum fluctuations in space, science, exploration and other cosmic fields... served up regularly by MSNBC.com science editor Alan Boyle since 2002.

Alan Boyle covers the physical sciences, anthropology, technological innovation and space science and exploration for MSNBC.com. He is a winner of the AAAS Science Journalism Award, the NASW Science-in-Society Award and other honors; a contributor to "A Field Guide for Science Writers"; and a member of the board of the Council for the Advancement of Science Writing.

Check out Boyle's biography or send a message to Cosmic Log via cosmiclog@msnbc.com.



Religion vs. science vs. politics

Posted: Thursday, December 20, 2007 7:25 PM by Alan Boyle

In recent years, the holiday season has sparked plenty of reflection on the interplay between religion and science. We’re also heading into the prime political season, with science-related issues ranging from climate change to stem cell research. So you’d think scientific discourse would play a role on both those fronts this season. That’s not the case this year – and some of the people who think deep thoughts about science and society are wondering why not.

It's not for lack of trying: This time last year, there were a good number of high-profile books about science and religion sitting on bookshelves, ranging from Richard Dawkins' provocative screed, "The God Delusion," to E.O. Wilson's "The Creation" and Francis Collins' tale of conversion, "The Language of God."

Just in the past few weeks, a high-profile coalition of scientists, politicians and other interested parties assembled under the aegis of Science Debate 2008 to call on the presidential candidates to devote a debate to the scientific and technical issues facing the nation.


MikeHuckabee.com via MSNBC
  CLICK FOR VIDEO: GOP presidential hopeful Mike 
  Huckabee appears in a Christmas TV ad. Click on
  the image for a discussion of Huckabee's strategy
  on MSNBC's "Hardball With Chris Matthews."

So far, however, the scientific perspective is virtually nowhere to be seen in the values debate. Instead, political candidates are in full holier-than-thou mode. One of the holiest (at least according to BeliefNet's God-o-Meter), GOP candidate Mike Huckabee, scoffed at the idea that his views on evolution should carry any weight in the presidential race.

It's a situation that cries out for a reality check from someone with the stature of the late celebrity astronomer Carl Sagan, who died exactly 11 years ago today after a long battle with bone marrow disease. If he had lived, Sagan would be 73 years old now - just a couple of years older than Sen. John McCain.

Sagan's name has come up as the kind of person who could moderate Science Debate 2008 - if the idea could ever get off the ground. "I'd have loved to see Sagan host this," one commentator opined in response to Matthew Chapman's essay on the debate movement.

Ann Druyan, Sagan's widow and the keeper of the "Cosmos" flame, agrees that her husband would have been engaged in the political debate - just as he was during the debates over nuclear war and global warming back in the 1980s. The current times are similarly dire, she said.


Cornell Univ.
Carl Sagan, 1934-1996

"I just can't imagine how Carl would have felt, knowing this sad, dreary lie that we've been on for at least the last seven years, maybe longer," she told me.

Druyan, who is one of the most spiritual atheists I know, said she is increasingly concerned about the latest turn in the scientific/religious/political debate. "What I've been thinking about mostly is how worried I am about what's happened to our Constitution, and the separation of church and state," she said.

Naturally, she's particularly struck by the way Republicans are overtly courting religious believers this time around - including devilish discussions.

"The thing that is, I think, so very, very worrisome is that so many people will not realize how dangerous it is for candidates for the presidency to really pander to the religious resentments of people," she said.

Druyan would love to see someone of Sagan's stature try to turn the agenda toward scientific topics - and that's why she was one of the first advocates to sign up in support of Science Debate 2008. "I really feel like it's been so long since we had an exponent of science, doing it the way Carl did it - without tearing anybody down, but being very direct," she said.

She doesn't think the confrontational approach taken by Dawkins and other militant atheists is doing the trick. In fact, that approach runs the risk of closing off the dialogue and drawing even sharper battle lines. "The frontal assault on religion has not resulted in the degree of communication that was possible even a few years ago," she said.

Despite Druyan's gloom, there are positive signs as well - for instance, the success that former Vice President Al Gore has had in raising awareness about what he calls the climate crisis. Such consciousness-raising efforts may well have contributed to the Bush administration's turnabout at this month's climate talks in Bali.

"I don't understand why Gore doesn't run for president," Druyan said. "I really feel that he would be one candidate who probably the majority of the people in the country would embrace." (Though judging from the feedback to my recent posting on Gore and science advice, I'm not so sure.)

At Cosmos Studios, where Druyan presides as founder and chief executive officer, the news is also positive: For instance, Carl Sagan's "Cosmos" series will be rebroadcast starting on Christmas night on the Discovery Science Channel.

"It's incredibly gratifying," Druyan said. "It's hard to imagine another 30-year-old science series that could be broadcast in prime time."

Druyan also has been working on a totally new TV series that would serve as a successor to "Cosmos" - and she said there would soon be further details to report on that project. She said it wouldn't cover the same territory as the original "Cosmos," but instead would expand Carl Sagan's universe.

"There's just something beautiful about this transgenerational aspect - no generation getthing the total answers to everything, but building on the previous generation," she said.

Around this time of year, we traditionally open a forum to discuss what's ahead for the kinds of deep subjects that science as well as religion address. Feel free to reflect - but please make sure you don't attack the comments of others, or stoop to lecture people about their evil ways, or copy-and-paste long stretches of scripture.

To get an idea of the lay of the land, here are the topics from our past Yuletide symposia on science and religion:

For more about Sagan's legacy, check out Druyan's blog posting to The Observatory, as well as the blogathon under way at Joel's Humanistic Blog. And to learn more about where the candidates stand on scientific issues, check out Popular Mechanics' "Geek the Vote" interactive.

MAIN PAGE

Email this EMAIL THIS

Comments

We do not need any new Carl Sagans...he was a man of his time...it's over...Cosmic Voiced Proseletizing is wearing thin.
How we can expect people to care about arcane Science experiments, while fighting a Global Holy War?
Simply put, it's a friggin' mess.
Neither Science nor Religion will get us out of it.
It will take a complete outlook adjustment...starting with the realization that we are Nature...the ongoing struggle for Man's Dominion over same is futile...everything we do is part of the natural course of events...good or bad...smart or dumb.
Right now, we appear to be killing the goose that laid the golden egg in the natural course of events...even though we know better.
Maybe our so-called superior intellect needs a rest.
Any ideas?
Mine are at...click the name...
Science and religion should both be an honest search for the truth. the problem is that both the Athiests and the Religious are biased, trying to use science to prove thier point of view. The truth should be the truth, but knowng the truth,when you hear it, or knowing how to look for it, is not simple.
I have long wondered if C Sagan was as brilliant as his advocates would suggest why he did not pursue medicine and cure his affliction and so extend his life beyond 62 common years rather expire counting stars.  
From the "thinking" side we have a common area called "compassion". Both atheists and traditional christians can recognize this as something we have in common. It does not require a "belief" to be compassionate to all others. It does not require a belief to "accept others as humans and those humans in need". We all share the same problems.

We also share this thing we call "ethics".
This is a endless argument. Most people of faith, have little understanding of the scientific hypothesis. Similar to the arcane attitude that if it is too complicated for a group to understand, then it must be a Intelligent design. Most world strife is based on religious indifference. It is not only time to smell the roses, but to try to comprehend the research behind the science. Our understanding is not static but a constant change of knowledge base.

Razz
Fundamentalist Christians and Fundamentalist Atheists are the two big reasons I stay hardcore agnostic. Neither side should write off eachother as being totally wrong about where we come from.

On one hand, it seems counter-rational to thump the bible in the face of hard facts and sound theories that beg to be explored further.

On yet the other hand, I dare any scientist to prove that there ISN'T some kind of higher power, whatever you call he/she/it/us.

When it comes down to it, spirituality (or lack therof) is found on the individual scale. No politician, scientist, or preacher can tell you what to believe. Keep it out of the government and in the hearts and minds of Americans.

Truth is only discovered by exploration.
It's probably a good thing the candidates are involved in this discussion.  We would find that they have little use for, or understanding of, science. Sort of like what Alan Alda said when he was on the last season of "The West Wing"- the only time politicians discuss religion is when they want your vote.
"The frontal assault on religion..."

Christians are called paranoid for saying religion is under attack, but Druyan's comments seem to confirm it.

"Most people of faith, have little understanding of the scientific hypothesis." [sic]

I disagree. A study reported right here on MSNBC showed that about two thirds of scientists "believe in God." http://www.msnbc.msn.com/id/8916982/
Sagan pegged the problem and the situation has exacerbated since his death.  He wrote:
"They accepted the products of science; they rejected its methods."

Fundamentalists have a schizoid view of science.  On the one hand they see it has a threat and they want to inoculate people against it.  On the other hand, they realize its hard to argue with results.  And so they make attempts to show how their particular religion is supported by science.

These attempts portray a comic-book version of science - and the striking thing is that believers eat this stuff up like scarabs on an elephant pile - and are irrevocably CONVINCED that they've done actual homework on the subject and they "understand enough."


"The greatest impediment to discovery is not ignorance; it is the illusion of knowledge" -- Daniel Boorstin.
I miss Carl Sagan.  He brought science into my living room in a manner that was understandable and entertaining.  I don't miss his religious views though I don't totally disagree with them.  I think that humans have proved that if there is a God, he (she, it, us ???) is a master prankster.
Sagan is one of my inspirations in life. His book "The Demon Haunted World..." accurately predicted what would happen if scientific knowledge expands exponentially while our "monkey" minds stay occupied with religion and the desire to live life as if we were still in the 1300's. Fast forward 11+ years since the book's release and here we are, as Americans, abandoning any common sense and screaming our traditional "We are the greatest country EVER!!" and acting as the drunken fraternity we really are.

The future of how seriously we take science, how we advance it or stifle it and ultimately, the greatness of our country hinges on whomever is lucky enough to win over the petty nature of the American people, sometime on or around November 4th, 2008 (give or take a month).
We don't need any "religion,  or science" debates. God, our creator (in common) created them both. They don't conflict with eachother. I get so tired of people trying to be God's peers, when they are only the pots he made, and could discard at a whim, if he so desired. Stop trying to compete with your Creator, and do something good for your human brother.
My big problem with the religiousity of some well known evangelical christians isn't their faith. It's the absolute fervent devotion to the ridiculous proposition that "because I believe it, it must be true" view of the world. Belief and truth are two different things, and faith without reason is nothing but superstition.
It's disappointing that the Conservative Christian influence in politics has brought politicians to the point where they must choose between religion and science as their guiding force for policy choices.  Both religion and science, in the forms they were meant to be, are trying to achieve the same goal via opposite means.  Religion is additive while science is deductive.  Religions speak of testimonials and experience, epiphanies and revelations, legends, myths and parables to describe their approach to seeking the truth.  Science takes the whole and whittles it down to include only what has not yet been disproved.  Imagine two sculptors.  One builds her beauty with clay, sculpting by adding and subtracting until finding her Thinker.  The other carves marble, and, as I believe Michelangelo put it, cuts away everything that isn't David.  Both achieve brilliance and beauty and truth.  Both arrive at it via different, yet equally valid methods.
SCIENCE AND RELIGION CAN AGREE. SCIENCE SAYS LIFE EVOLVED IT CAN HAPPEN THAT WAY BUT IT COULD BE GOD CAUSED THE EVOLUTION. AT    EACH STAGE OF EVOLUTION IT   IS CAUSED BY GODS WILL.    WHEN APE WALKED UPRIGHT      AT SOME POINT GOD BREATHED    A SOUL INTO HIM AND HE     BECAME A HUMAN PERSON
A simple solution would be to do away with polititians. In the begining of our technology ignorant history they were necessary but now a government by the people should be just that and not be at the mercy of some egomaniacial know it all. Did I forget crooked lying doubldealing blowhards?
My belief in God the father,the creator of all things
is supereme.  My belief in science is man's way of tring to explain how God did it, nothing more or less.
and anyone who don't defend the seperation of church and state is not an American and have no respect for our founding fathers what so ever period.

The one big problem is how we replace religion, the vast majority of people need a totally mindless creed to cling to because they do not have the capacity to think for themselves. Until the mass of the populations of the world are advanced/enlightened enough to live decently without "the fear of God" keeping them in line, I think we are stuck with religion. If we could come up with some sort of vacination to switch on our higher quality DNA and switch off the less desirable DNA which drives greed and selfishness etc., religion is the sticky plaster which prevent too much poison oozing out!
Whether or not there is a god is a mute point.  The burden for proof clearly lays with the religious side as you can never prove that something doesn't exist, but only that it does.  All the athiestic arguments in the world won't change that, unless scientists can prove that the universe has always existed and therefore has no creator.  There is research on that going on, but I don't know if they'll ever get anywhere with it.  

The discussion is more a political one than a philosophical one.  Politicians who use god as a reason for something to do, or something to believe, are usually doing it for one reason:  They're trying to avoid telling you the truth.  They want you to believe in god and believe that god is behind them so that you will also take what they say on faith, so that you will believe in them, and thereby give them absolute power over your life.

The consequence is what we see has happened to the world in 8 short years. Russia has slid back into dictatorship, North Korea is suckling at our collective teat, and we're fighting a horrible bloody pointless war in the middle east.  All around, paranoia and suspicion are being driven to new frantic highs.  The only salvation will be the use of reason, by maintaining skeptical distance from the emotional issues and cooly deciding what needs to be done with the future. The alternative is chaos.
These are some very thoughtful comments!  I particularly like what David, David, and Dani said (I agree most wholeheartedly with the first David).

Sagan used to be a hero of mine, before he became popular.  But his "evolution is a fact" comment showed that even with him, bias overcame disinterested analysis.  Still, his wonder at the beauty and order of the Cosmos was inspiring.

There are right and wrong ideas about science.  And there are right and wrong ideas about religion.  At their best, both explore the truth.  And when they do, my observation is that they agree to the extent that they overlap.  My father, a physicist, used to say that to know the truth about God, the experiment must be performed personally.  How very true.
Have any of your read "Slave Species of god" by Michael Tellinger?

It helps explain the whole connection between religion and politics, religions are purely there to get the masses to do the dirty work for the real power sharks.
This election year has shown us once again the hilarious spectacle of politicians acting as though they're running for National Pharisee rather than President.  There's a reason our founders created separation of church and state: they'd seen the religious persecutions and violence between Catholics and Protestants in Europe.  It would be nice to see a politician refrain from pandering to those least informed citizens and act like a rational adult for a change.
Religion and science for so long have been forced to be seperate ideas, why is it they can't agree? In my short life and recent studies, I've found that they do agree, more than most would admit. But everything that has to do with our origin is,at this time in history, impossible to prove. You can only use circumstancial evidence and personal experience to show why you believe it. thankfully, at the foundation of religion, and even science, their is a requirement of faith in something you know, but cannot prove. And that might be for a higher reason.
" Now faith is the substance of things hoped for, the evidence of things not seen."
Many people have faith for many different reasons. Why is it that people who want to think they are intellectualy superior to others, attact the faith of thoes others?
One can be quite educated in areas that the world deems intelegent, and also posess faith.
The history of science clearly shows that the most closed minded of people have been the established scientists of each generation. Not willing to accept any explanayion of anything they dissagree with.
People still look to the heavens for a sign, but the only sign given has been given and can be found in the still quiet voice found in their heart.
Religion is an entirely different matter. As there are a wide variety of beliefs to choose to worship from. Thats what is is after all, simply a choice

Merry Christmas to you all....
in 1215, the Magna Carta stated that no king or queen of England can be a ROMAN CATHOLIC. that he/she must be protestant because the church had too much influence. this was written with the consent and endorsed by the sitting pope. it seems like there was more common sense in 1215 than there is now.
The question(s), as I see it, are these:
What is truth and what is fact?
What is faith and what is evidence?
Science is the search for knowledge.  It attempts to explain phenomena in nature and begins with basic questions like 'what?' and 'how?'.  Every once in awhile we get a benny and can answer why something happens. Evolution is, I think, a good example.

Religion is the search for truth.  It begins with 'why?' and uses human imagination to provide answers.

Both are fundamental, human constructs but different in that answers in one discipline are based on a body of evidence and, in the other, on faith that things are the way people who are wiser than us say they are.

Hmmmm, maybe science isn't so different from religion after all.

In conclusion, I think it important to take care that we, as thinking, sceptical human beings do not allow our science to become religious dogma.
>"On yet the other hand, I dare any scientist to prove that there ISN'T some kind of higher power, whatever you call he/she/it/us."

Non-argument.  You cannot prove an unquantified negative.  The burden of proof is always on the claimant to prove the positive.

In other words, it is the burden of the claimant to prove there IS a higher power; not the rest of the world to prove there isn't.
    Everyone is right and of course wrong.  We continue with the (good vs. bad) cause it gets us through the day.  It's sad and yes scary, but this is what and where we are.  We fight wars to bring about peace?  Because my God is better than your God?  Until we learn to really care about our world and everthing on it, there's very little chance for real change.
                        Enjoy the Season, Will
Last I knew, the "scientist" vote was about 0.0001% of the population, whereas Christians are about 85-90%.  Now pick which group will get a politician into office.
To Ann Druyan thank you for the rebroadcast of Cosmos I will set my recorder and enjoy every minute of it.
Cosmos and Carls books open my mind to the universe.
I'm with Ms. Druyan.  In our current political contest, the overall lack of attention to our current administration's Constitutional violations and the obstructive intrusion of religion into the management of governmental affairs are probable signs of harder times ahead. Apparently science remains marginalized as a broad issue, as it has been throughout the Bush administration's tenure.  

Huckabee the political hack exemplifies the tribe of inferior candidates pandering to the religous right that are being foisted off on the voting public.  Huckabee and Romney are shameless in their relentless religious diatribes (Huckabee's checkered political history and closet full of skeletons   notwithstanding).

While I can agree that many would like to have seen Al Gore run, I think he's been there and done that and without an iron-clad guarantee of victory, why bother again??  I believe Al had more wisdom than to let his ego get in the way of real political uncertainty and you have to give him all the credit for that.  When we see how popular these evangelical types are on the stump, you have to believe Al has expertise in reading polical climates in addition to his ability to comprehend global weather reports.  

There is no guarantee that this voting public is truly ready for a change, and that is very disquieting.

As to Carl Sagan's being intellectually over-rated because he couldn't cure his own terminal illnes - this is a perfect example of what I'm getting at.  
This moronic observation may be more typical of the voting public than we'd like to believe.  

In fact, Carl Sagan was a man far ahead of his time in a number of ways and a thinker of very big thoughts.  Among other things, he questioned the validity and veridical substance of orthodox religious traditions - as consisting of much superstitious belief and behavior that was directly contradicted by the findings of modern science.  Of course that did not endear him to fundamentalists and literal biblical types.  

The fact is, science is hard and religion is easy - very easy by comparison.  When it comes to finding something to hang your hat on, believing religious dogma is always very much easier than discovering the real truth of the matter, and that's what Carl Sagan was dedicated to.   Truly an exceptional man in all ways.

We could use another Reformation - this time one grounded in science rather than religion.  Looks like we'll have to wait awhile for The Enlightenment II.
I like what you said, Bob, and I would like to expand it.  Politicians are specialized creatures.  They aren't scientists, nor are they theologists.  They make their living by taking other people's opinions and ideas and promoting them on a public stage.  They may pick a side to stand on based on their own personal beliefs and experiences, but asking a politician to discuss the technical aspects of space exploration or global climate change is as stupid as asking a pop music star to discuss world hunger. ("It's, like, bad, and we need to, like, do something about it.")  What do they know about these subjects that professional scientists or humanitarians don't?

For some reason, we've fallen into the trap of equating fame/notoriety with wisdom.  One has only to look at the headlines to disprove that notion.  The truly intelligent, productive people don't want the spotlight, and for a very good reason.  But it's those people we need to have at the forefront of our decision-making, not people who spend their entire lives as mouthpieces for whichever group pays them the most.  Carl Sagan has never been more missed.
Of course, the advocates of intelligent design would have you believe that everything started 6,000 years ago or less.  It's incredible to think only God could inspire scientists and medical researchers to attempt to improve our collective health and livelihood.
Science is right.  Religion is wrong.  It's that simple.
Comparing science and religion is a discussion doomed to failure.  Science is in the mind, religion is in the soul. The "Mind" and the "Soul" are concepts used to describe non-physical functions (Thought, emotions) of the physical (Brain,heart)  No amount of data, logic, spiritualism or prayer will enable the mind to understand the soul, or the soul to understand the mind.  If Scientists and Theologians cannot reconcile the two, Politicians certainly are not likely to succeed.  
 
I have never understood why it has to be an either/or situation with science and religion...God ( if you believe in God ) created this incredibly complex world with all of these physical laws and principles that keep it intact...science is how we can comprehend this universe on our terms...someone from two thousand years ago would see much of what we do today as magical ( God-like? )-yet it's simply advanced technology, just as we would probably look at our far future descendants in the same way ! My understanding is most scientists do have religious beliefs of some kind, so why do we have to act as though the two are in purpetual conflict..i only wish politicans were more interested in science and technology and less in pandering to religious voters who are ignorant of the world around them...
Religion is outdated and outmoded. It is like the equivalent of the appendix it is a relic that is no longer needed. How many diseases have been cured by prayer? how many technological advances have been made by the church? what is the purpose of God in your life? Religion is the worlds oldest pyramid scheme. It's a falsehood designed to make you feel better about a the scientific fact that you are eventually going to die.
Dani, it's OK to be an atheist. Come out of the closet; I see you peeking around the door!  No one has to prove that there isn't a higher power.  The burden must be on anyone who would claim to know that there is such a thing.  The observable universe is quite consistent with a total lack of any divine guidance or design.  No one has convinced me (or you) that there is sufficient reason to believe in a "Creator."  There are no "fundamentalist atheists" by the way.  Fundamentalism implies strict adherence to a given set of beliefs despite the lack of any evidence to support it.  Atheism is not a religion.
Sagan would say things like "The Cosmos is all that is, ever was, or ever will be" and a theologian would respond "whoa, you're stepping on my turf!".  Sagan was perhaps not a brilliant scientist or a discoverer of new scientific facts, but we was a teriffic populizer of science, and of the idea that the metaphysical can belong to science instead of religion.

Sagan was greatly feared by many theists, and Sagan, in turn, greatly feared the theists.  In some ways, he is actually responsible for some of the divisions between science and religion that his widow now deplores.  She regrets the division, but only because "the other side" doesn't see things her way.

And we do have a new Sagan: Neil DeGrasse Tyson.  Not a super-accomplished scientist, (like Sagan) but he is picking up the torch of popularizing science.  Unlike Sagan, he is careful not to make the gap between Science and Religion any worse though.  He may even be working to close it.
Bob: Oklahoma City:"Sort of like what Alan Alda said when he was on the last season of "The West Wing"- the only time politicians discuss religion is when they want your vote."

Generally true, except perhaps for Mike Huckabee who seems willing to talk about his faith whenever, which is why I suspect he is doing so well among Evangelicals.
Does spiritual faith automatically preclude one from being able to think rationally or form conclusions based on fact?  If not, why is it necessary to extract religion from a scientific debate?  
The secular world view,is in my opinion  the way, the life, the truth.  It (secularism) is the hope of the world.
When all religions finally die, the world will be a better place.
I highly regret that religion and science are seen as opposed.  This is the fault, I fear, of us religious types clinging to untenable positions with regard to science in order to feel warm and safe in our position in the cosmos.  It just gets to be more self delusional as time goes on.  I am solidly Catholic by the way and nothing in my faith contradicts science, but much of what even other catholics think we believe does.  All I ask is that science proceed ethically.  An area where religion has much worthwhile advice.

I would feel much happier voting for a canidate that wanted solid logical solutions to our problems and not just a redistribution of money.

Dan
Sadly the human race remains to this day so incredibly naive as to fall into a simple divide-and-conquer strategy currently being played out in the political/media arena.  As long as we are arguing about faith vs. science (and all the crap that comes with it) then at least nobody is discussing the fact that the 70% of Americans who urgently want a non-interventionist foreign policy and who are dead sick-and-tired of the lying, corrupt government and their lying, sensationalist corporate-media dogs, have absolutely no representation in the main stream political discourse.  Pretty handy.
"RELIGION VS. SCIENCE VS. POLITICS"--What a delightful combination!  Of course, saying that they are somehow mutually exclusive is about a smart as saying "ART VS. ECONOMICS VS. PRODUCTION OF PORK SAUSAGE."  I'm always mystified when otherwise intelligent people seem to think there is some natural dichotomy that prevents any agreement between science and religion.  Most in my experience have little understanding of the philosophy or content of either subject or their histories.  Still, it’s a better topic that what starlet happened to go to rehab this week, and timely given the debates among presidential hopefuls.  Personally, I like to see candidates that have a religious belief they hold seriously—I don’t particularly care which belief, but I like that they think that they are part of something bigger than themselves, their particular party, or even their particular nation or species.  Likewise, I think they should have a basic science literacy, and even if they don’t agree with a particular theory or concept, they do have an appreciation for said concept within the realm of science.  Therefore, I expect their politics to show a tolerance and even acceptance of religious beliefs in public life while at the same time promoting science and education, and using *both* when making public policy.
Prove to me that the Flying Spagetti Monster does not exist, an I shall stop believing.
The same people who can discount the facts and believe that evolotion did not occur, can discount the facts and believe Iraq has WMD.
There is a little, tiny spark or entity that lies within all of us of which we can measure scientifically and spiritually.  That little flick also has to do with just how the universe began.

Something had to have started that 'flicker' or by our logic it was always there.  

It is fairly difficult to think away the chalkboard, as this is just one dimention. Can one think away all dimensions if one doesn't know exactly how many there are?  

God is the safe route.  Just where did we find the spark of God.  It came from somewhere, didn't it?

What I do know, is that I am attached to this universe as it is my home, and I do not want to keep a dirty house, or burn the damn thing down.  I want to make it as comfortable as I can.  Life rewards me.

Life is a gift.  God and all we have are gifts.  What happens to the giver when the gift isn't well received?
"Does spiritual faith automatically preclude one from being able to think rationally or form conclusions based on fact?  If not, why is it necessary to extract religion from a scientific debate?"

Because religion, by its very nature, is based on faith, and faith has no place in science.  Science is about observable and reproducible facts.  "Observable" and "reproducible" are two things that religion will never offer.  The unmistakable trend in human history is towards increasing explanation of the observable universe in mechanical terms.  None of this explicitly denies the existence of a Creator, but it doesn't require it either.  You can believe anything you like, but faith or no faith, the fundamental laws of the universe will still be there.

Politicians who espouse a religious point of view scare me precisely because of my fear that they will willfully ignore basic observable facts in favor of a faith-based agenda.  In other words, it's easier to get votes when you call yourself a Christian than when you speak out in favor of space exploration, yet Christianity offers nothing to solve our long-standing human problems.  At least, nothing that hasn't already been tried for thousands of years without any notable success.
The attitude of "religious types can't understand why science renders their believe system irrelevant" is offensive, and simply ignorant in it's own regard.

To be clear, I'm a scientist and engineer by training, and Catholic by the grace of God. These are not mutually exclusive issues as people try and say. More likely, John Paul II got it right (as he did with everything else) when he made the point that "truth cannot contradict truth." Religious pursuits and scientific pursuits are both pursuing the same thing - truth. Science can inform religion, and religion can guide science...this is not a stretch in the least.

However, I will give you a simple reason why so many people that believe in God seem to push back against science from time to time - sciences makes pronouncements it has no business making. It's evidenced in the answers here - "we discovered x, which in turn implies God isn't there." This happens ALL THE TIME - a scientific discovery is made, yet the scientists cross over from their field of expertise (namely, science) to a field they're not remotely equipped for (philosophy). To those that believe in God, a scientist making a religious pronouncement sounds as stupid as a Baptist making a pronouncement on the age of the earth does to a scientist.

Science should stay with the scientists and philosophy should stay with the philosophers. This doesn't mean that they can't guide each other (if it did, then "scientific ethics" would be irrelevant), but they shouldn't cross over and say "this definitively means that" in the other's sandbox. Maybe when this happens, we can get to a point where we can have the honest discussion about what certain things mean.S


SEND A COMMENT

PLEASE READ: All comments must be approved before appearing in the thread; time and space constraints prevent all comments from appearing. We will only approve comments that are directly related to the blog, use appropriate language and are not attacking the comments of others.

Message (please, no HTML tags. Web addresses will be hyperlinked):

TRACKBACKS

Trackbacks are links to weblogs that reference this post. Like comments, trackbacks do not appear until approved by us. The trackback URL for this post is: http://cosmiclog.msnbc.msn.com/trackback.aspx?PostID=528690

Latest Tech & Science News

Syndicate This Site

Add Cosmic Log to your news reader:
live.com xml
myyahoo msn
bloglines newsgator
google