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

I think, focus on bettering yourself in your own way. Seems like I remember that scripture teaches that debating will not persuade and science should only speak for the facts, so what's to debate? Science uses educated guesses in unproven circumstance and you could say faith sometimes works similarly. The only problems are between our ears and elbows. Work on the inside not faith and science.
As each generation grows to find its own path through life, so new religions - or revivals of older faiths will wax and wain. This descension has always been and will allways be. by their stringent rules, all religions must alienate everything foreign to themselves. Science has the advantage of cohesion as each generation builds upon the previous one. I think the future will see more new religions that, by necessity, fight less with science and nature while the older faiths will be abandoned
There seems to be some confusion between God and religion.  The two have nothing to do with each other.  Remember our motto, "In God We Trust."  It does not say, "In religion we trust."
Separation of church and state equates to the separation of moral and ethical conduct from our elected office holders.
Wherever you see the word "god" in any of the comments above, try inserting the words "Santa Claus" or "Flying Spaghetti Monster". One can invent any imaginable mythical being, but no amount of faith (alone) can make it real.
Carl Sagen said:   "I would rather know than believe."  This sums up the science vs. fath issue.
Why is this even a discussion? Religion has NO place in politics. When you are talking about the conflict between science and religion here is the break down. Science uses math to prove it's theories and form solid facts. Religion makes the crap up and say's it is fact. There should be no debate!
To be honest, there is truth in both.  When it comes to government policy, science should be the driving cause because that is something that can be shown to other people and proven for the most part.  Faith and religion can be harder to explain to people.  Without the ability to explain a concept or set of rules as to how the world works, then it is not really something that should be in the government sector.  

When it comes to public schools (high school and lower), religion and faith should not enter the science classroom at all unless as a historical reference.  If we are going to teach science and math in schools, then there needs to be only those subjects in those classrooms.  If it were a philosophy, religion, english or other class, then religion is fine with me as long as it is not a belief system that is being told as something that one should believe.  

Faith and belief in the Divine should be up to oneself and discussed amongst friends, co-believers as well as those who are willing to listen.  Faith, belief and religion should not be really brought into the political and scientific arena because those subjects are verifiable and can be refined as well as having tangible results.  Faith, belief and religion don't have 100% tangible aspects.  Yes, buildings and books are tangible, but concepts are not.  
Einstein himself said "Science without religion is lame; religion without science is blind".  Dr Martin Luther King said that the purpose of science is to ask 'how', while the purpose of religion is to ask 'why'.  We need both.  We have BOTH.  We just need to learn to talk to each other again.  The extremists at either end of the spectrum won't do that, so it's up to us in the middle to do it. Looks like there's plenty of talk going on here! thanks for the opportunity to deal with these vital issues. Let's keep the conversations going.
Great article!!!  It is so sad that you never see any information on this topic discussed.  Everyone it seems has become complacent.  It is just easier not to worry about the truth.  If they say it is fair and balanced then it is easier to accept it than to research it.
"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."

It's not a question of rendering it irrelevant per se.  Well, maybe it is.  The scientific method provides answers and processes that work whether you believe in God or not.  If there's any competition, it's from people who believe that science, by providing valid explanations for phenomena previously described only by religion, somehow threatens the religion itself.  That's only a logical conclusion if you believe that religion should have temporal as well as spiritual power, which is the real issue at hand here.

Throughout the history of mankind, religious movements have not been satisfied with spiritual power, but insist on wielding political power as well.  They play on one of the most basic fears of mankind: "if you aren't with me, you're against me".  If there's anything that the scientific method reveals, it's that the laws of the physical universe are the same no matter your race, gender, or creed; and there is no rational justification for preferring any particular spiritual point of view over another.  This is anathema to those who profess to hold the "one true faith."

Mankind will never truly progress out of its Dark Age until fundamentalism and superstition is completely weeded out of our political process.  There is no reason why our religions cannot provide a moral foundation for human society, as long as they don't claim to possess a monopoly on truth.  We have merely to look at Iraq to understand why I say this.
"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."

You're being mutually exclusive; who is to say that the scientist isn't a theist(or vice versa)?

I'm not too familiar with the Baptist version of Christianity, but I'm pretty sure they have a faith-based "truth" that is the age of the Earth.

To make a generalized statement that scientists are not equipped to discuss philosophy is hogwash. We've all had anywhere from 4 to 11 years of college education, which requires proficiency not just in science, but also in communication, the arts, and social sciences (usually a choice of religion and philosophy). Many of us were raised in religious families and went to religious primary and secondary schools.

Science is ever-changing. It adapts. Something that was widely-accepted last week could change with new developments.

Religion is grounded in the Old Ways and is resistant to change. This is why they conflict.  The problem, from my perspective, is when science says, "after thorough experimentation, reproduction, and peer-review, this is what we have found," and then the theists say, "But that's not what God said! You're wrong!"

Of course, the theists have every right to think that way. But just as they are secure in their faith, others are secure in their science.

The realm of science doesn't tell theists how to live. Theists, on the other hand, are constantly telling science what it can and cannot do.

Theists have a right to believe whatever they want. Really. Science doesn't care. Personal faith is just that! Personal! Science shouldn't have to change or stop because you think it is doing something that goes against your faith. We're not bound by your religious codes. We have laws (a non-denominational set of rules to live by) to keep us in check... except when those laws are based on faith, which is another topic altogether.



Truth is never discovered ideas become accepted then once accepted they become truths. If you disagree simply look at how many things once held as truth we now believe to be false. Truth is a very dangerous concept to believe in it moves with time, knowledge and perception.
Believing in evolution (w/out divine influence) takes as much faith as believing God created the universe.  Athiesm/evolution is every bit its own 'religion' as Christianity.  Every comment above puts its author in one bucket or the other.

Either way, we're all choosing our 'religion' and supporting its bias to the best of our abilities.
I am not a religious person, nor do I worship science. Wha I am though, is extremely courrious. I enjoy learning, I am almost cumpulsed to discover the who, what, when, where, why, and how of it all.
I do consider myself to be Christian, yet not in the traditional way.
I do believe in the Bible when studied in the original Hebrew, Chaldaen, and Greek, before translation injected personal opinion into the text. I also believe in science, I am a suporter of stem cell research, medical cloning, technology of all kinds and the furtherance of our limited human understanding. I myself do not see a conflict between true science and true Godliness. I am a strong supporter of the seperation of church and state as in my opinion they are two seperate forms of government, but I believe that should be respected on both platforms-just as the church has no place in politics and government, neither does the state (government) have dictatorship over the church. That is, after all, the foundation on which America is built-if the foundation fails the entire construction will crumble.
I also support the seperation because Christ himself was a supporter it.  

"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".
Jeff Knight

I agree, it is absurd to attempt to believe that Earth is a mere 6000 years old-yet I do support creation; neither do I accept the notion that God inspires our advances in science and medicine, I do, however believe that he (God)created us with the intelligence, it takes to improve our human condition and the ability to advance. He even states that knowledge will increase, the more we learn the faster we learn.

I also wih that polititions would pay attention to science and promote it. There are some truly awesome, useful, and even sobering scientific findings being brough to our attention on a DAILY basis.
Let's face it America, our country has been in RAPID decline since Carter.
Well nature itself is evidence that to every natural thing there is a beginning and an end, things apear, grow, mature, age, decay, and die-could it be that America has had a long and prosperous life is now in the decay prosess with death watching as we lurch along, awaiting our final fall?
PRIDE COMETH BEFORE A GREAT FALL-I am sure that Rome did not forsee their demise.

Seperation of church and state-what a novel idea, come on America-take off your blinders, see the big picture and allowing your emotions guide your votes.
The battle between religion and science was caused by religion intruding into the domain of science, IMHO. Fundamentalist believers started making pronouncements about evolution and the age of the Earth that were disproven by science. They then pushed the idea that a person could not be a "good Christian" if that person believed the scientific explanations over religious dogma.

An atheist does not espouse belief in a religion, but a lack of belief in one due to insufficient evidence. Fundamentalists try to claim that atheism is a religion, because "it takes faith not to believe." (Say what?!) No, it doesn't. It just takes the guts to take a good look at the evidence and pronounce a verdict that is not popular in our cultures.

Religion needs to keep its nose out of the science's purview. Religious people should not be shocked when science disproves something that their dogma holds is true. It just means that religion has overreached (again!) in its quest for power over human minds.

The religious frequently allude to the "soul, the divine spark," which is just another nebulous concept. They cannot locate it and show it to anyone...they simply believe that it is there "somewhere" inside every human.

Somebody nailed it right on the head when they said that "science is hard, religion is simple."  That explains in a nutshell the continuing popularity of religious belief here in the 21st (!) Century.  Like it or not, faith is for the weak and the stupid, and it's an unfortunate fact of life that the vast majority of the human race consists of mentally-deficient cowards.
Fuel for thought.

Our political leaders, religious leaders, science leaders, and media leaders all have egos the size of our universe. These egos must be routinely fed by increasing their notoriety, influence, and wealth.

Therefore, our leaders must broadcast support for those things that many people stronly believe in, they must develop large flocks of followers, and they must scheme lots of money from their flocks.

What better way to get what they want than by keeping us divided into many flocks of differing strong beliefs, who praise the ground our leaders walk on, and give our leaders all our spare change.  

Flock members go along with our leaders because each of us has a need of belonging and in no way do we want any other flock to be the right flock and our flock to be the wrong flock.  Our leaders know this and they easily manipulate us, with our blessings.

Rather than arguing among ourselves about beliefs, maybe each of us should look at himself or herself and self determine how he or she is feeding the division frenzy.

If we strongly disagree on a subject, why not stop the argument and stop pushing our beliefs on the other flocks.  Each flock has the right to their own beliefs. Only when a flock's strong beliefs harm others should we all intervene.

Isn't it obvious that we need to begin a search for new leaders that are more interested in the welfare of humans as a whole rather than in just themselves and their flocks.  

Sooner or later each of us will transpire and at that time the truth will be revealed.
 When did religion become Fundamentalist Christian.  There are many other religions, sects, denominations, whatever in the world which contain a belief in God as a central tenet.  But whenever the 'debate' of science v. religion or the supposed separation of church and state envisioned by the founding fathers arise Christianity is attacked and Christians portrayed fools,racists,intolerant.  Science & Religion are all looking for the truth.  Maybe, unfortunately many are just looking for 'their' truth, the one they held before they started looking.  Scientists & 'the religious' have biases.  Generally you find what you're looking for; if you are looking for God, you'll find Him (yes, I am a Bible-believing Christian), if you are looking for signs of evolution, you'll find them. Personally, I would rather believe in God & find I'm wrong when I die than act as is there is no God and find out I'm wrong when I die.    
Science vs. Religion is a false dilemma, it really is.

Karl Popper demonstrated that Science cannot *verify* any hypothesis; the best it can do is *falsify* hypotheses and leave us with an empirical faith (yes, faith) in what's left.  Science is an analytic tool for modelling the Universe - we need to understand that the model *is not* the Universe, it's just something we can work with.  Even scientific *laws* govern the model, not the Universe.  Theoretically (and if you believe Podkletznov et al., practically), the Law of Gravitation only applies until empirical evidence of anti-gravity is provided.

Religion, on the other hand, doesn't deal with empirical entities at all - the Humean fork of "is/ought" separates scientific contentions from religious ones.  Religion concerns itself with two fundamentally distinct kinds of question: questions of ethics, and questions of metaphysics.

For example, if a meteorite strikes Earth, Science is well-equipped to test hypotheses of what happened and how it happened - questions of identity and process, effectively.  But Religion can pose answers to the question of why it happened and whether it was a good thing.  Most of us as humans can probably arrive at answers for all four questions to some extent, which contributes to the blurring of the lines - and this is made worse when you introduce Politics, which is the mechanism of vesting authority in individuals.  It is desirable for anyone seeking authority to wield both the scientific authority to say what a thing is, and the moral authority to pronounce judgement on it; so it's in their interest to fudge science and religion to further their agenda.

Science and religion aren't incompatible - they just have to be understood for what they are and employed appropriately.  And there's an extent to which science can evaluate religion, and vice versa, but the minute anybody tries to present such an evaluation authoritatively, politics gets mixed in and muddies the waters - see climate change, stem cell research, the nature/nurture debate on homosexuality, evolutionary theories, and so on.
Is there a God or isn't there? Hmmm. I guess all you [...] will have to make a choice and be prepared to live with it (and die with it). You deny God, He denies you.  Your call. Use your free will.  [...]  Use your Internet skills to read up on Pascal's Wager.  He used common sense.
"Problems are seldom solved at the level they are created". Maybe the question isn't 'who is right', but just as "There is no spoon", maybe "There is no Truth" (with a capital T).  Maybe there is only my truth and your truth, one not diminishing the other.

I know very little. What I can say I KNOW is:
1. God is. NOTHING to do with religion of any kind.
2. "Fighting for peace is like screwing for virginity".
3. If I can make you afraid, I OWN you, body and soul.
4. What I 'know' changes daily. My truth at 59 years is much different than my truth at 18.

Lastly, in the entire series of comments above, I was disappointed to see the word 'tolerance' only once. I think this says volumes about the whole discussion.
Sagan is no longer an atheist... he has met his creator and bowed his knee.  Be thankful Jesus is being patient with those who still have a chance to turn to him.  I am thankful for some candidates who do not pander to the arrogance and foolishness of those who manipulate facts to perpetuate the foolishness of atheism without realizing the detrimental effects it will have on the value of life and morality.
Most people of faith, have little understanding of the scientific hypothesis or the vast present day extent of knowledge resulting form it application.

The pursuit of scientific knowledge has made my life an unfolding revelation of the majesty of creation. I feel that science has brought me closer to, and made me more capable of making religious affirmations.

I can't think of any better approach to confirm religious belief's than through the continued expansion of our (currently very limited) knowledge by scientific means.    

Religion should embrace science for its affirmation. Science should embrace religion for its inspiration.
Only then will our civilization have the best prospects for sustained development in the ages to come.  
The solution to this conflict lies in understanding the sources of these two domains.  Science, indeed all of the great intellectual adventure, is a product of the intellect, whereas religion comes from the heart. I won't comment on science because all of the messages I have read seem to come from intellectuals, but people travel the path to God because they fear for the ones they love, they want to love God as Jesus commamded, or their hearts are in agony.  This is not something to be understood it is something to be experienced. The goal is not understanding it is unconditional love.

Can the heart and intellect agree?  This is a meaningless question, they can coexist however.  Shakespeare said- To be wise and love is beyond man's might. Perhaps coexistance is the best we can hope for.

I see this debate as a parallel to the nature of light debate.  Is light a wave or a particle? After two hundred years of study the conclusion was that it was both.  In the same way both the heart and the intellect are needed to describe human reality.

The way out of the argument is for the intellects to accept that the path of the heart is a valid lifestyle and for the religeous to require reasonable religions.  You may not know it but there are reasonable religion.  Both Buddhism and Hinduism have tests of reason.  Perhaps Christianity could adopt the same.
"Religion is the opiate of the masses." - Karl Marx

Though I don't necessarily believe in everything he wrote, Karl Marx hit the nail on the head writing that. Religion is nothing more than something to help the masses deal with all the negatives in the world and their inevitable death.

The weight religion has in such an "advanced" society as ours is not only very disconcerting, but also embarrassing.

Religion and science can not coexist, and religion will certainly lead to the complete destruction of human society unless it is abolished.
Linda from Durban had the best comments on the subject,

"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!"

however I believe there is an alternative; natural selection will take of the problem. They all kill each other in the name of their gods.
Hooray for secularism!  It will bring us all happiness, just like it did in, um, Communist Russia.  No, wait.  I mean revolutionary France.  You know, the Terror.  Because atheists aren't guilty of the horrible crimes that religion has been guilty of.  You can trust them, and look to them for...salvation?

Never mind.

What is the point of a discussion where nobody is going to listen to an opinion that dissents from his own?  The only thing that would be more useless than that would be accepting what other people say without examining it for yourself.
"Sagan is no longer an atheist... he has met his creator and bowed his knee."

Assertions are not facts.

"arrogance and foolishness of those who manipulate facts to perpetuate the foolishness of atheism"

There's definitely a lot of manipulation of facts.
No mystery why foolish people think those who disagree with them are foolish.

"... realizing the detrimental effects it will have on the value of life and morality."
1.  Accepting statements as true or false based on their outcome is a logical fallacy.
2.  People are often fearful of the consequences of things they don't understand.  Few religious people have any understanding of atheism, except the rumors they've shared with their other churchmen.  The idea that atheism produces hedonistic murders is as nonsensical as the idea that theism produces a bunch of selfless saints.
My only hope is that the candidate who becomes President, whomever he or she is, makes their decisions based on logic, reason and observable facts and not on personal beliefs or biases. Remember, we are electing the leader of a Democracy, not a Theocracy.
Science never declares that God (or Gods don't exist) -- it's just that science seeks natural answers.  Scientifically empirical proof of any divinities have, thus far, eluded absolutely everyone, but each item we've ascribed to divinities, in the past, have been (more and more) proven by science as due to natural, explicable causes.

Stuff like the sun and moon being lights in the sky (as per the Bible) where Bill Nye mentioned that the moon is less of a light and more of a -- umm.. rock (a dusty rock, not a shiny object and very hardly even reflective!) thus it could not be considered by anyone as a light.  And the Sun was thought driven through the sky every day by Apollo or Helio, and lightning was thought to have been cast by gods as well - well, we've demonstrated that to be wrong too.  The Sun isn't driven through the sky at all (the Earth, instead rotates about it's own axis).

For each theory science makes and each phenomenon science explains, the items we attribute to supernatural explanations become fewer and fewer.  Over time, there will be but a handful of items that even the most devout would solely ascribe to the supernatural.

Scientists aren't saying that there is no God -- just that MOST of what God does is more easily explained by natural causes.

Eventually religion and science will be reversed in that religion will be the discipline that looks for the scraps to cling to, items where there is so little evidence that they can claim them as miraculous or of divine causality.  

And as per the "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."

The logic is entirely backwards.  The person implied that most religious people are intolerant of science or scientifically aliterate.  To counter that the responder mentioned that most scientists believe in God.  That is irrelevant.  

Since there are far more religious people than athiests, then it would follow that there would probably be less athiest scientists too, simply by virtue of pure percentages.

But most "true believers" would have swallowed that counter-argument as persuasive at face-value since logical deduction and critical thinking is not their collective strong-point.
"Sagan is no longer an atheist... he has met his creator and bowed his knee.  Be thankful Jesus is being patient with those who still have a chance to turn to him.  I am thankful for some candidates who do not pander to the arrogance and foolishness of those who manipulate facts to perpetuate the foolishness of atheism without realizing the detrimental effects it will have on the value of life and morality." Phil, Port Angeles, Wa

I forget when it was that Jesus brought peace to the world again. Maybe you remember that time in history when we were nice to each other. Especially Christians, they have been horrible to each other over the milenia. They burned each other, hung each other, and enslaved each other. They even had to get away from each other, hence why they came here to the Americas and did all those bad things all over again.
"Sagan is no longer an atheist... he has met his creator and bowed his knee.  Be thankful Jesus is being patient with those who still have a chance to turn to him.  I am thankful for some candidates who do not pander to the arrogance and foolishness of those who manipulate facts to perpetuate the foolishness of atheism without realizing the detrimental effects it will have on the value of life and morality."

Your right to believe what you wish ends the moment you try to convert me to that belief.  I can live a spiritually fulfilling life without obeying whatever particular interpretation of "God's Law" you subscribe to; yet you ignore scientific fact at your own peril.  Belief in the Lord's Salvation doesn't stop a bus from killing you when it runs you over, nor a virus when you have unprotected sex.  I have no issue with people who want to live a morally fulfilling life, but I do have an issue with anyone who claims to have the "one true way".

Who is more hypocritical?  The person who says, "There's no evidence for God's existence; therefore I will live the life that I want to live regardless of your morals;" or the person who says, "I am a true believer in the love and peace of the Lord," while condemning everyone who disagrees with him to an eternity of suffering in Hell?

Besides, atheism/agnosticism does not equate to immorality.  There's a rational, logical basis for most human morals that does not require religious explanations.  Moral behavior, by definition, is behavior that promotes the welfare of you, your family, and your tribe - and by extension, your town, city, country, and the entire human race.  You don't need God to tell you that hurting and killing people is wrong.  It should be obvious to anyone with even the slightest trace of common sense.
Jesus, a man of the times, charismatic and intelligent. A person who could call upon the masses of Middle Eastern societies and gain their trust. Of course Jim Jone did this is Guyanna and David Koresch did it in Waco. Most people of the time were uneducated and very easily swayed to believe. Jesus probably found it very easy to get shelter and a meal just by telling stories of wild and chaotic events and miracles. The wilder his stories the more that he had following. Stephen Kings the Talisman reads like a bible with people jumping into other worlds. What get me about religion especially the Christian religion is it is all based in fear. If you don't believe in the one God you will burn in hell for eternity, wow, screw that. So if their belief is so real and of such importance where then are any artifacts that would lend to the belief? Tha Arc of the Convenent, no where to be found, the actual tablets of the Ten Commandments again not to be found. We have found The Code of Hammurabi which was written 1700 years before the birth of Jesus but no ten commandments. Dinosaur bones have been discovered and no Arc, for that matter no Noah's Ark. Find these and you may have something to use to convince an Athiest to at least become Agnostic. Otherwise religion is nothing more than a guy getting people to feed and shelter him.
In a few centuries, scientists will cling to the works of Darwin and study his theory of evolution and accept its truthfulness based on faith.  Will they have personally observed the evolution of species?  No.  Therefore, according to some of these posters, evolution isn't science.

Don't forget that religion is actually based on something:  there are a plethora of written works by people claiming to have communicated with the higher being.  Christianity isn't the only one, but for some reason, it is being assaulted on this forum.

Ironically, as science purports to be the cure for all of humanity's ailments, it was science that caused most of it:  cancer caused by genetically modified this and that and radio waves all around, the ability for humans to have huge families (now they claim that the earth is overpopulated), war (science brought about advanced weapons).

Of all the sciences, the only one worth while is medicine.  All of the others are a complete waste of time, from a practical viewpoint.  How does the study of rocks help us live our lives?  It's a science, so shouldn't it be automatically superior to religion?  At least geology is earth-based.  The study of the cosmos holds even less for humans.  So, we figure out what caused the big bang.  Wow.  That will solve our energy crises and improve our longevity.  Yet astro-physics is a science, so shouldn't it be automatically superior to religion?

Lastly, the atheists in this forum are the most militant and intolerant of the bunch.  So, when "religion dies" and is replaced by an atheistic society, we can all look forward to societies like Russia, China, Cambodia, where more people were killed in the name of godlessness than by any religious war.  And every resource will go to finding another earth-like planet in a solar system light years away, or to finding out why cell phone users somehow get brain cancer.
Many secularists are talking these days as if religious people should be disenfranchised in the United States. Huckabee has just as much right to run for president as any other U.S. citizen. If you don't like his religious persuasion, don't vote for him! Put up your own atheist candidate. And, if s(he) get all atheists' votes s(he) will get a grand total of 3%. Pretty funny!
As an ex-fundamentalist minister, and seminary dropout I realized that "FAITH" is just another word for wishful thinking.  Faith has no scientific standing by its own definition. It appeals to our most basic nature and most motivating emotion: FEAR.  Religion was dreamed up to explain our mortality and our place in the universe by ancestors out of the igonorance of how the universe works.  And it is that ignorance that is the fuel for its propulsion today.  As long as people fear the unknown or unknowable there will be religion. Just don't pretend that it is a reasonable answer to those questions.

It would be very difficult to recruit suicide bombers or crusaders to kill in the cause of making sure that Pluto is still listed as a planet.  But, it is apparently not quite so hard to find humans to kill and be killed in the name of an imaginary, capricious, bi-polar deity. I suppose madness breeds madness.
As a scientist, the real issue I have is against irrational thought. When you have a 60 plus million dollar "museum" showing people lived with dinosaurs, when you have guided "scientific" tours down the grand canyon demostrating that it was made in a single "great flood", when 40 percent of americans believe the world is 6,000 years old, then we have a serious problem.  This problem is not inherent in being religious but happens to coincide with the fundamental christian right in our country.  Quite frankly it is down right scary.  See "Jesus Camp" or read "American Fascists".  That there are millions of people playing a video game the Rapture where "righteousness" can kill off everyone else including other "christians" that are not part of the dominionist bent of the fundamental right, it is not religious freedom anymore but hate crimes and discrimination.  
John from Bethlehem, I agree.  Science is about observable and reproducible facts.  The question then arises, has any scientist in any scientific discipline been able to observe and reproduce one species changing into a completely different species.  Faith is required for both evolution and creation.  For evolution, you must have faith in something that happened randomly over billions of years and yet has not been observed or reproduced.  For creation, you have to believe that "In the beginning, God..."  It really is that simple.
"How we can expect people to care about arcane Science experiments, while fighting a Global Holy War?"

Come, now. We managed to go to the Moon, during a southeast Asian war. The directions and flavor are up for debate, but we can walk and chew gum at the same time...

"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."

Because those are two different things, requiring a different interest and skill set. This sounds so much like the 'If you're so smart, why ain't you rich?' question.

Suppose we wake up one morning and find cures for canccer, AIDS, and every other disease you can imagine. Then suggest; 'Why don't we take the guys who did that, and have them get us back to the Moon/to Mars?'

That would sound silly.

Yet so many people say the reverse, which is just as meaningless. Typically, doctors aren't engineers, or vice-versa.

You do whatever you think your calling is, not what someone else thinks is Politically Correct.

Well, the fundamentalists weighed in as we might have predicted.  And of course (un)believers are an 'arrogant & foolish' bunch that have sealed their own fate in hell.  Self-righteous piety is a beautiful thing!!  Spirituality is not the problem here - inflexible and dogmatic religious fundamentalism is.  Scientists don't believe they've solved all the mysteries of the universe by a very long shot! And by the way, atheism is the absence of theism (belief in dieties) - and that's all it is.  

To see what a number of the world's most famous quantum physicists had to say about mysticism and spirituality, read 'Quantum Questions' by Ken Wilbur.  The world's great minds speculate on both science and metaphysics simultaneously, knowing there is a place for both.  

Read 'Wholeness and the Implicate Order' by David Bohm or 'Science and the Reenchantment of the Cosmos' by Irvin Laslo to see where great minds go when they take metaphysical journeys in their quest for grand solutions.

Carl Sagan was that kind of thinker as well - always looking for solutions to the big questions, but wanting evidence and facts to back up speculation.
Yes, science builds on existing paradigms but one thing to recognize about science is it's willingness to change directions based on new evidence.  A theory works until it doesn't or until it's replaced by a better theory.  Unfortunately we don't see that with the conventional orthodox approach to religion - instead religion continues to preach the same 'revealed truths', doctrines and dogma in perpetuity.  Religion does not change and yet everything else does.....how is that??

Religion is a function of humanity and of being human, and yet sets itself above it's own audience.  Religion is not divine in any sense - it is a human creation and as such is subject to the vicissitudes of change based on new information and new discoveries - just like science. Instead, too many religionists insist on living in the Dark Ages - where sin and iniquity reign supreme.  

I say get over yourselves, get with the program and go back to school.  There's still plenty to learn and change is the only thing we can be sure of.
 
NO ONE'S IMAGINATION IS SUFFICIENT 2 CONCEIVE OF SOMETHING OUT OF NOTHING. HOWEVER IT IS THE INCONGRUOUS
CONCEPTION OF THE INVISIBLE GIANT BEING BENEVOLENT THAT DEFINES IGNORANCE. DISCUSS WHAT, DEBATE WHAT, NARCISSISM?
I have to chuckle at those who claim they are secularists, but wholeheartedly embrace Al Gore's religion of "Man Made Global Warming". It is indeed a religion, with its own medieval Indulgences: buying carbon credits, and calls anyone who disagrees with their beliefs an imbecile. Even though more and more scientists are coming around to realize that it is a hoax, the followers of Al Gore's religion are doing everything in their power to denounce them.
Carl Sagan's beliefs contradict at least 2 scientific principles of thermodynamics: that something can be created from nothing, and that objects can spontaneously increase in complexity over time. We know that objects break down into their individual elements over time. Nor has any scientist ever successfully created a living being out of inanimate matter. Only God has that power.
By the way: Anyone who thinks that the Founding Fathers believed in Separation of Church & State has a warped view of history. I suggest reading "America's Providential History" by Stephen McDowell & Mark Beliles to see what the Founding Fathers truly believed about this country's founding.
"I am that which Ye call Thing, and that which Ye call No-Thing.
I remember these words as our scientists begin to explore the nature of "dark matter."  It may be that there is no emptiness in the universe.  I feel that god will periodically (say every trillion years), regather the stars and the "void" into that primal molecule of pure energy and reannounce "let there be light."  Another "big bang" will follow as it has for trillions of times, and will continue for trillions of times to come.  If God should ever want to reawaken my consciousness, He will know where to find me.  
Indeed.  Religion has no place in politics.

In the USA, we think of Christianity as a "safe" religion, as it has been for the last couple of centuries, but here in England, you get reminders that it was not always that way.    It's two miles from my house to the cobbled patch on Broad Street, Oxford,
where three Anglican Bishops were burned at the stake in 1534, by their fellow Christians.

They were burned by the Queen and Parliament, burned because they had the wrong brand of Christianity.  Burned because of an unholy mixture of politics and religion.    They died in a peculiarly horrible fashion, and if we learned anything from their deaths,
it is that religion and politics should not mix.
Christianity is one of many religions.  How do those of other faiths experience science?  How do these other major religions affect the regional politics?  Perhaps there are some significant common denominators.
"To be clear, I'm a scientist and engineer by training, and Catholic by the grace of God."

That is RIDICULOUS. God had a hand in your birth and a hand in your religious upbringing?  I am pretty sure god had nothing to do with either of those two.  

If he is that involved in people's lives, I wonder how much he is involved with baby girls born into starving Muslim households to mothers with AIDS who then have their genitalia mutilated (by the millions).  How involved is he producing baby girls for families in offshoot Mormon religions who give their teenage daughters to grown men to become wives. [...]
The argument that "science and religion are the same because they both seek truth" is fundamentally flawed.  The difference in seeking truth is how you do it.  
Religions invent answers that meet a philosophical need in us, but the answers were still invented.  Science searches for answers and then tests the answers for correctness and completeness.  It is a slow tedious process, but it gets the job done.  

When a truth is questioned in religion it is because the person who asked it is in league with the devil and is seeking to destroy religion.  When the truth is questioned in science it is because the person who asked it saw something others did not and was seeking to build upon science.  These fundamental differences in how science and religion operate make one of them cumbersome and dangerous and the other uplifting and progressive.

The other reason religion and science differ is that religious truth is intangible.  How many times has a religious person said that it takes "faith" to believe?  A scientist believes something because he can hold it, measure it, observe it happening.  This requires no faith at all.  Nor does it require that the holder of this truth perform a miracle in order to demonstrate his connection to God and thereby a connection to “truth.”  So it can be bothersome when religion and science seek the answer to the same question.  The religious "know" they are right, but can't prove it, while the scientist "knows" he is right and has tangible proof.  Neither will yield but only one is right.  

In public rumor mills religion may come out ahead with their convincing faith argument because most people are intimidated by large data sets and scientific jargon and don’t like feeling ignorant, but science will always trump faith in a court of evidence based truth when the facts are laid plain for all to see.

As a scientist I personally don’t like when someone tells me 2+2=banana, and that it is my lack of faith that has kept me from this realization, especially when I can quite easily prove that clearly 2+2= 4.

Science is also not democratic.  Someone once asked me that if two thirds of the world believed something then isn’t it likely to be true?  I answered that if everyone in the world believed that the sky was red (not in name, but actually red) it would still be blue.  Truth is truth.
Most of what is falsely labeled "science vs. religion" is really a dispute over ethics. But science is completely silent on the subject of ethics. Rather, ethics is a branch of philosophy and a central concern in every world religion. Politics must often deal with ethical issues and therefore cannot avoid religion.

For that reason, if for no other, I care what the religious beliefs of the candidates are. I am a Christian and I am more comfortable with a leader who shares my basic worldview. Many of you are atheists and you feel exactly the same way about your own worldview. That's perfectly legitimate.  The Constitution forbids the enactment of any religious qualification for office, but that in no ways prohibits the individual voter from taking the religious beliefs of the candidates into account. In this country we have long separated church and state, but we have never separated religion and politics. Nor should we.


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