Religion vs. science vs. politics

steve smyth — Fri, 21 Dec 2007 01:15:06 GMT

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...

Religion vs. science vs. politics

David Dothager — Fri, 21 Dec 2007 01:25:54 GMT

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.

Religion vs. science vs. politics

b whitten austin tx — Fri, 21 Dec 2007 01:47:11 GMT

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.

Religion vs. science vs. politics

David Heiser, Carmichael, California — Fri, 21 Dec 2007 02:20:40 GMT

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".

Religion vs. science vs. politics

Razz — Fri, 21 Dec 2007 02:30:11 GMT

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

Religion vs. science vs. politics

Dani, Middleburg, FL — Fri, 21 Dec 2007 02:45:30 GMT

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.

Religion vs. science vs. politics

Bob, Oklahoma City, Oklahoma — Fri, 21 Dec 2007 03:30:03 GMT

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.

Religion vs. science vs. politics

David, Southern IL — Fri, 21 Dec 2007 04:11:54 GMT

"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/

Religion vs. science vs. politics

TheFallibleFiend, Lorton, VA — Fri, 21 Dec 2007 04:20:56 GMT

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.

Religion vs. science vs. politics

Daniel Williams — Fri, 21 Dec 2007 04:23:57 GMT

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.

Religion vs. science vs. politics

A in Pa — Fri, 21 Dec 2007 04:44:20 GMT

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).

Religion vs. science vs. politics

roberta Santa Fe NM — Fri, 21 Dec 2007 04:58:43 GMT

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.

Religion vs. science vs. politics

Alan, Laguna niguel CA — Fri, 21 Dec 2007 05:01:46 GMT

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.

Religion vs. science vs. politics

Peter, Fresno, CA — Fri, 21 Dec 2007 05:08:47 GMT

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.

Religion vs. science vs. politics

JOE MATSON, ATLANTA, GA. — Fri, 21 Dec 2007 06:28:43 GMT

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

Religion vs. science vs. politics

John Q.Public, McAlester, Oklahoma — Fri, 21 Dec 2007 06:40:24 GMT

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?

Religion vs. science vs. politics

Donnie Davidson, Summerfield, Florida — Fri, 21 Dec 2007 07:17:02 GMT

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.

Religion vs. science vs. politics

Linda, Durban, South Africa. — Fri, 21 Dec 2007 07:19:07 GMT

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!

Religion vs. science vs. politics

Cadmus — Fri, 21 Dec 2007 07:29:10 GMT

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.

Religion vs. science vs. politics

Dan, Oxnard, CA — Fri, 21 Dec 2007 07:31:13 GMT

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.

Religion vs. science vs. politics

Linda, Durban, South Africa. — Fri, 21 Dec 2007 08:13:53 GMT

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.

Religion vs. science vs. politics

J. Dunn — Fri, 21 Dec 2007 08:57:48 GMT

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 vs. science vs. politics

John Hinger, Fort Leonardwood, MO — Fri, 21 Dec 2007 11:09:06 GMT

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.

Religion vs. science vs. politics

Steven F Durst — Fri, 21 Dec 2007 12:40:08 GMT

" 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....

Religion vs. science vs. politics

ed — Fri, 21 Dec 2007 13:02:50 GMT

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.

Religion vs. science vs. politics

Mark DeChambeau, Washington D.C. — Fri, 21 Dec 2007 13:04:16 GMT

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.

Religion vs. science vs. politics

Steve Mollett — Fri, 21 Dec 2007 13:17:08 GMT

>"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.

Religion vs. science vs. politics

Will , Brunswick, Ga. — Fri, 21 Dec 2007 13:40:08 GMT

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

Religion vs. science vs. politics

Doug Fingles, Warner Robins, GA — Fri, 21 Dec 2007 13:45:04 GMT

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.

Religion vs. science vs. politics

Vince, Houston, Texas — Fri, 21 Dec 2007 14:16:24 GMT

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.

Religion vs. science vs. politics

Terry — Fri, 21 Dec 2007 14:34:05 GMT

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.

Religion vs. science vs. politics

John, Bethlehem, PA — Fri, 21 Dec 2007 14:41:51 GMT

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.

Religion vs. science vs. politics

Jeff Knight, Miami, FL — Fri, 21 Dec 2007 14:42:53 GMT

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.

Religion vs. science vs. politics

Bob, Winchester, Kentucky — Fri, 21 Dec 2007 15:30:31 GMT

Science is right. Religion is wrong. It's that simple.

Religion vs. science vs. politics

Maryann, Rochester, NH — Fri, 21 Dec 2007 15:46:17 GMT

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.

Religion vs. science vs. politics

Gordon Cain Richmond, VA — Fri, 21 Dec 2007 15:50:38 GMT

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 vs. science vs. politics

E.Knight, Philly, PA — Fri, 21 Dec 2007 16:04:26 GMT

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.

Religion vs. science vs. politics

Bob Larys — Fri, 21 Dec 2007 16:06:33 GMT

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.

Religion vs. science vs. politics

Frank, Dallas, TX — Fri, 21 Dec 2007 16:11:37 GMT

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.

Religion vs. science vs. politics

Dan, Prairieville, LA — Fri, 21 Dec 2007 16:16:30 GMT

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.

Religion vs. science vs. politics

Rachael, Shawnee, OK — Fri, 21 Dec 2007 16:20:46 GMT

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?

Religion vs. science vs. politics

Jon, Ygn., OH — Fri, 21 Dec 2007 16:33:47 GMT

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.

Religion vs. science vs. politics

Daniel Traverse City, Mi — Fri, 21 Dec 2007 16:37:09 GMT

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

Religion vs. science vs. politics

Jason S. Irvine, CA — Fri, 21 Dec 2007 16:42:53 GMT

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

Michael Wood — Fri, 21 Dec 2007 16:44:48 GMT

"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.

Religion vs. science vs. politics

Pastafarian — Fri, 21 Dec 2007 16:50:59 GMT

Prove to me that the Flying Spagetti Monster does not exist, an I shall stop believing.

Religion vs. science vs. politics

Dennis, Richmond VA — Fri, 21 Dec 2007 16:52:16 GMT

The same people who can discount the facts and believe that evolotion did not occur, can discount the facts and believe Iraq has WMD.

Religion vs. science vs. politics

T. Stark — Fri, 21 Dec 2007 16:58:47 GMT

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?

Religion vs. science vs. politics

John, Bethlehem, PA — Fri, 21 Dec 2007 17:02:57 GMT

"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.

Religion vs. science vs. politics

Steve, Jacksonville, FL — Fri, 21 Dec 2007 17:04:11 GMT

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

Religion vs. science vs. politics

B Jones — Fri, 21 Dec 2007 17:15:49 GMT

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.

Religion vs. science vs. politics

OneVoice, Frederick MD — Fri, 21 Dec 2007 17:20:05 GMT

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

Religion vs. science vs. politics

Fri, 21 Dec 2007 17:30:56 GMT

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."

Religion vs. science vs. politics

Andy, LaPlata, MD — Fri, 21 Dec 2007 17:32:08 GMT

Separation of church and state equates to the separation of moral and ethical conduct from our elected office holders.

Religion vs. science vs. politics

Mike Columbus Oh — Fri, 21 Dec 2007 17:32:29 GMT

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.

Religion vs. science vs. politics

Ron Carter — Fri, 21 Dec 2007 17:54:17 GMT

Carl Sagen said: "I would rather know than believe." This sums up the science vs. fath issue.

Religion vs. science vs. politics

Oregon Disabled Veteran, Sherwood, Oregon — Fri, 21 Dec 2007 18:06:41 GMT

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!

Religion vs. science vs. politics

S.B. Stein E.B. NJ — Fri, 21 Dec 2007 18:09:41 GMT

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.

Religion vs. science vs. politics

Drea Walker-Skye, Cushing, OK — Fri, 21 Dec 2007 18:11:59 GMT

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.

Religion vs. science vs. politics

Adam, Gaithersburg MD — Fri, 21 Dec 2007 18:17:47 GMT

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.

Religion vs. science vs. politics

John, Bethlehem, PA — Fri, 21 Dec 2007 18:29:29 GMT

"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.

Religion vs. science vs. politics

Steve, Millersville, PA — Fri, 21 Dec 2007 18:30:50 GMT

"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.

Religion vs. science vs. politics

Stewart — Fri, 21 Dec 2007 18:40:15 GMT

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.

Religion vs. science vs. politics

Todd, Seattle — Fri, 21 Dec 2007 18:44:11 GMT

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.

Religion vs. science vs. politics

Lisa Bloomberg, Kalamazoo, Michigan — Fri, 21 Dec 2007 19:04:02 GMT

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.

Religion vs. science vs. politics

GreggB — Fri, 21 Dec 2007 19:09:48 GMT

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.

Religion vs. science vs. politics

Len, Chicago, Illinois — Fri, 21 Dec 2007 19:27:25 GMT

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.

Religion vs. science vs. politics

Bill, Henderson, NV — Fri, 21 Dec 2007 19:33:51 GMT

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.

Religion vs. science vs. politics

Vicki, Grinnell, Ia — Fri, 21 Dec 2007 19:42:39 GMT

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.

Religion vs. science vs. politics

Rich, Vidalia, GA — Fri, 21 Dec 2007 20:01:38 GMT

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.

Religion vs. science vs. politics

Mike Konkel, Fort Wayne, Indiana — Fri, 21 Dec 2007 20:05:51 GMT

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.

Religion vs. science vs. politics

Rocky — Fri, 21 Dec 2007 20:12:57 GMT

"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.

Religion vs. science vs. politics

Phil, Port Angeles, Wa — Fri, 21 Dec 2007 20:13:13 GMT

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.

Religion vs. science vs. politics

Mike, Des Moines, IA — Fri, 21 Dec 2007 20:27:10 GMT

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.

Religion vs. science vs. politics

Ron from Oak Ridge — Fri, 21 Dec 2007 20:29:14 GMT

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 vs. science vs. politics

Andrew, Tampa FL — Fri, 21 Dec 2007 20:29:31 GMT

"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.

Religion vs. science vs. politics

Andrew, Tampa FL — Fri, 21 Dec 2007 20:32:35 GMT

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.

Religion vs. science vs. politics

Jed, Iowa — Fri, 21 Dec 2007 20:35:19 GMT

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.

Religion vs. science vs. politics

TheFallibleFiend, LORTON, VA — Fri, 21 Dec 2007 20:43:08 GMT

"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.

Religion vs. science vs. politics

Ron Jeffers, Arizona Independent — Fri, 21 Dec 2007 20:48:08 GMT

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.

Religion vs. science vs. politics

Tim — Fri, 21 Dec 2007 20:57:16 GMT

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.

Religion vs. science vs. politics

Alfonso, Miami FL — Fri, 21 Dec 2007 20:58:12 GMT

Religion vs. science vs. politics

John, Bethlehem, PA — Fri, 21 Dec 2007 21:02:43 GMT

"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.

Religion vs. science vs. politics

Jerry Oklahoma City, OK — Fri, 21 Dec 2007 21:09:00 GMT

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.

Religion vs. science vs. politics

Mario A. — Fri, 21 Dec 2007 21:26:54 GMT

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.

Religion vs. science vs. politics

Rich Deem, Los Angeles, CA — Fri, 21 Dec 2007 21:41:10 GMT

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!

Religion vs. science vs. politics

Nolan Warner — Fri, 21 Dec 2007 21:47:05 GMT

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.

Religion vs. science vs. politics

Brian Aufderheide, Mt Baldy, CA — Fri, 21 Dec 2007 21:52:25 GMT

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.

Religion vs. science vs. politics

Russell, Temecula — Fri, 21 Dec 2007 21:53:48 GMT

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.

Religion vs. science vs. politics

Frank Glover Rochester, NY — Fri, 21 Dec 2007 22:00:06 GMT

"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...

Religion vs. science vs. politics

Frank Glover Rochester, NY — Fri, 21 Dec 2007 22:07:19 GMT

"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.

Religion vs. science vs. politics

Terry — Fri, 21 Dec 2007 22:10:38 GMT

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.

Religion vs. science vs. politics

Hugh Walden — Fri, 21 Dec 2007 22:15:27 GMT

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?

Religion vs. science vs. politics

John Bartlett, Phila. PA. — Fri, 21 Dec 2007 22:38:22 GMT

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.

Religion vs. science vs. politics

Howard D. Reed — Fri, 21 Dec 2007 22:59:41 GMT

"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.

Religion vs. science vs. politics

Greg Kochanski, Oxford, UK — Fri, 21 Dec 2007 23:00:06 GMT

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.

Religion vs. science vs. politics

Marty, Seattle — Fri, 21 Dec 2007 23:34:13 GMT

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.

Religion vs. science vs. politics

Len Grady — Fri, 21 Dec 2007 23:42:04 GMT

"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. [...]

Religion vs. science vs. politics

Mike, New York, New York — Fri, 21 Dec 2007 23:57:41 GMT

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.

Religion vs. science vs. politics

Bill Hensley — Sat, 22 Dec 2007 00:22:19 GMT

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.

Religion vs. science vs. politics

David, Southern IL — Sat, 22 Dec 2007 00:42:46 GMT

"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."

Not irrelevant at all. The assertion that most people of faith are scientifically ignorant implies that few scientists are people of faith. This is not the case.

Religion vs. science vs. politics

Delmar Fairchild, Barron, Wisconsin — Sat, 22 Dec 2007 01:11:46 GMT

No one will ever know whether there is a God that created the Universe or if the Universe created God. What we can ever hope for is that we have the ability to keep looking in both directions. Maybe we will meet each other along the way someday and discover the answer.

Religion vs. science vs. politics

kat newkirk, Cleveland, OH — Sat, 22 Dec 2007 01:24:21 GMT

I'm not sure religion is the problem, but perhaps the TYPE of religion. I'm a very religious pagan, trying to revive Ancient Egyptian practices and beliefs. There are several versions of Creation Myth in AE, each containing details lacking in the others, and each considered spiritually valid. I think when you move beyond the typical right/wrong POV, and began to accept the validity of different viewpoints, then you can start making progress. Sadly, the majority of the world seems to belong to one or the other of the monotheistic religions, and when you start (and stay) with the idea that your belief is the only correct one, nothing happens except strife. Maybe we need more pagans, or at least more ppl with open minds who can work to solve common problems without the need to convert/brainwash new followers.

Religion vs. science vs. politics

John, Bethlehem, PA — Sat, 22 Dec 2007 01:36:37 GMT

"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."

Once again, we see how the science of evolutionary theory is twisted and misrepresented to make it seem less solid than it actually is. Yes, scientists have observed speciation in progress, and there are countless examples to draw from. Because of the basic nature of the mechanisms of natural selection, it's far easier to observe this phenomenon in species with very short generations, such as insects and small mammals, than it is with long-lived species like humans; but the basic theory remains the same. It's also easiest to observe speciation in situations where humans create the pressures that drive evolutionary change, again because we tend to accelerate the process. Evolution on a global scale occurs over the course of thousands and millions of years, and we have an enormous body of archaeological and paleontological evidence to draw from that supports the theories of species evolving, living, and dying out.

In fact, the concept of chance as the engine of evolutionary change is by far the simplest possible explanation for the complexity we see around us. Take any one random combination of organic molecules - the chances of it producing life are astronomically low. But take quadrillions of random events over billions of years and the probability approaches certainty. If you want to start applying Occam's Razor, think of all the creation theories scattered across the thousands of religions that humans subscribe to. They can't all be correct. Science presents a singular view that has the twin benefits of fitting all available evidence and being testable. I challenge you to produce God and have him demonstrate Creation.

To John Bartlett of Philadelphia, PA:

Three agents in the universe increase complexity by known scientific formulae: gravity, stars, and life. Gravity condenses interstellar gas and dust to form stars and planets; stars synthesize increasingly complex elements in their nuclear factories and scatter them across the cosmos in their death throes; and life synthesizes increasingly complex molecules to increase the diversity and capability of life. All of these act against entropy. Will it all turn to dust in the end? Sure - in five billion years or so, the Sun will run out of hydrogen and collapse into a dwarf star, and the Earth will freeze. Eventually the universe will expand to the point where matter and energy is too sparse to sustain stellar fusion - or it will collapse under its own gravity and form a new supersingularity, waiting for a new Big Bang cycle.

But these things are remote enough that we need not worry about them in our day to day lives. And all of them are governed by simple physical laws. Could a divine Creator have set all this in motion? Sure. But is a Creator required to comprehend the basic physical facts of our universe? Nope.

Religion vs. science vs. politics

Jasmine Toynbee, Mahia, NZ — Sat, 22 Dec 2007 01:54:29 GMT

This is an understanding of Religion, (and seems that Christianity is the only major player in the USA) that may differ from yours and is the only one i have found i can reconcile myself with.

I think thinking about things in this way leaves scientists free to pursue their deduction of reality, politicians free to pursue what they truly believe is important without having to pander to any religious/business interests and the religious free to pursue themselves and their search for something more than themselves.

This view demands that people have high levels of self inquiry- rather than unquestioningly believing in a sole truth told to them by another. Only when EVERY human being pursues insight into themselves can there be true peace.

For me it takes the essence of old stories and allows them to remain relevent in our modern context. The trappings of stories are beside the point- Stories will always the clothed in the age in which they were written.

God created Adam in his image: A metaphor for humans having the first inkling of themselves as conscious independent creatures. - this idea is common.

Eve ate the apple: Humans asked "why do i exist?" "what am i?". They searched for purpose amd meaning in life. They searched for knowledge.

Booted out of Eden: Eden is an internal heaven - ignorance is bliss. Being aware of yourself leads to you realising that you are totally separate from other consciousnesses and this leads to suffering. While in this state of exsistence you are never truly with another - you merely glimpse others through the clumsy, hazy filters of speech, sight and touch.

Searching for purpose brings suffering and pain. The forbidden fruit brings them to painful realisations about themselves, but it also takes them beyond the state of an animal. Animals can be aware of themselves in a limited degree but they don't search for purpose in their exsistence.

The ultimate goal is true Faith in God, (the story of Abraham. I love Kierkegaard's second person view of this in "Fear and Trembling'. also, sorry about my spelling:) )
The ultimate goal is true faith in uncertainty. Faith that things are ok (even joyous or funny depending on how you choose/prefer to feel about events) no matter what happens. I think this is true freedom.

All 'religions' (i detest that word) seem to me to hold the seeds of these ideas. Chistianity uses metaphors/parable/story format and people need to search within themselves to find the inherent meaning. Buddhism spells it out with less opportunity for unfocused minds to bend those stories to their own agendas.

There are infinite ways to the top of the mountain.
Everything is as it should be.
There is no debate, there only is
(and how you choose to feel about it)

click
(well, i guess if there is debate, then debate 'is' :p)

Religion vs. science vs. politics

JAVED USMANI — Sat, 22 Dec 2007 02:16:43 GMT

For both--Every stone is not a gem.

Religion vs. science vs. politics

Chris,Brookfied,Wi — Sat, 22 Dec 2007 02:34:02 GMT

Belief in a creator and how science through observation and measurement can explain how things work are compatible.The real question is what one believes as a foundational starting point. Do you believe that the universe has always been here so it's a waste of time to think about it's beginning? Do you believe it and life came about from inanimate material that just happened to come together? The odds are probably worse that winning Power Ball. Or do you believe that a higher being(God) put it all together and holds it together? Have you read the Bible completely? Do you know why you believe what you believe? If there is a God, he might have a large say in how things will ultimately end. He might have a large say in how we should lead our lives.That is a problem for those who wish to define their own set of behaviors.
The separation of church and state requires no establishment of a state religion. But to require those who run for office to deny or hide their faith wasn't required by the founding fathers. In one way or another we all put our faith in something or someone. Rigid religiosity can be oppressive. But the basic tenets of the major religions have stood the test of time. The Bible is God's letter to us explaining how things got started, what our relationship to him is all about and how we should live while here on earth. He's told us what pleases him and how we have freedom to enjoy all he provides. He also gave us permission to turn our back and reject him. That's real power and we take advantage of it all the time. He was compassionate enough to tell us the conquences of our actions while allowing us to deny him for a time.
Politicians would do well to live out their faith day to day. You have to earn the right to be heard before trying to outdo each other when it comes to beliefs.

Religion vs. science vs. politics

Kenn Storck — Sat, 22 Dec 2007 04:57:43 GMT

Do we live in the tyranny of the "or," or the genius of the "and"? It is science and religion not science or religion! Both contribute to the pursuit of truth and ongoing human evolution!

Religion vs. science vs. politics

Michael D. Hafer, Fort Wayne, Indiana — Sat, 22 Dec 2007 04:58:00 GMT

The process of natural selection is a fact. The Theory of Evolution is a scientific theory that takes that fact into account. Carl Sagan was an amazing man. Next to Carl's light, Mike Huckabee's idea of "truth" is dim indeed. Watch Carl's best video ever: http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=p86BPM1GV8M
This video is from an atheist (or at most, agnostic or deist). Tell me us Atheists are "devoid of hope" or any of that bs. It is possible to be full of hope, love, and wonder without the fear of god or believing in a blood sacrifice fairy tale.

Again: http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=p86BPM1GV8M

Sagan's "Pale Blue Dot." Enjoy.

Religion vs. science vs. politics

Ron Parker, Chelsea, Alabama — Sat, 22 Dec 2007 04:59:37 GMT

BRIDGE between science and Christianity: Many physicists believe parallel universes are possible. And Christians would agree that God is powerful enough to cause such things to happen. At the risk of sounding as wacko as Aristarchus of Samos did in his time, I propose that reality as presented by science, as well as reality as presented in the Bible, can both be believed as possible.

Religion vs. science vs. politics

JC, Fairbanks, AK — Sat, 22 Dec 2007 05:23:33 GMT

The Catholic Cardinal who refused to look through Galileo's telecope is the perfect symbol of why the Science vs. Religion argument persists. The good Cardinal refused to see the moons going around Jupiter (and NOT around the Sun), something which was contrary to his church-prescribed belief. Such selective blindness, and demands that Reality be bent to fit ones beliefs,(rather than vice versa) is absolutely alive in western religion today. As long as religion cannot change it's beliefs to fit the facts of the Universe, *I* will have zero respect for it. And whenever religion uses practices like the Cardinal mentioned above, I will have contempt for it.

Religion vs. science vs. politics

Alan Boyle — Sat, 22 Dec 2007 08:15:45 GMT

Jasmine, you sound like a pretty enlightened soul. Thanks for that, and blessings upon you all for the holidays.

Religion vs. science vs. politics

tomulcak — Sat, 22 Dec 2007 12:19:54 GMT

those who believe in religion and god do not want to learn or solve problems. they know it all because they have god in themselves and anyways, its god's will. if he means for us to die from global warming, then there is nothing we can do or should do. this is the attitude that is so deadly. it kills the intellect first and then the body, but, most of all, it kills any meaning we may give to our lives. this thinking is so pervasive in the world we live in, i see no hope for humankind. we are on that short walk to the gallows and whatever life humankind has left is short and without any meaning. we are killing ourselves and our kind because of the belief in god. humans really can twist anything to perversion.

Religion vs. science vs. politics

Dave, Lansing, MI — Sat, 22 Dec 2007 15:06:22 GMT

Both pure faith and pure science are positive forces. They have each provided an incredible amount of good to the world. Yet each also has been used to inflict vast amounts of destruction and misery on humanity. Scientists such as Druyan should not attack religion without acknowledging the terrors their science has unleashed, and still continues to unleash. Nor should fundamentalists disdain science without acknowledging their historical extremism.
Still much of our knowledge and science comes from religious scientists. Historically, Catholic and Muslim scientists are responsible for the bulk of our scientific knowledge. And most scientists today profess a religious belief. Science and religion are not mutually exclusive
Atheists, whether scientists or not, and fundamentalists who refuse to accept scientific results, lose credibility in this argument. You cannot resolve the interaction of two belief systems by denying the validity of the other, especially when hundreds of millions of people accept them.

Religion vs. science vs. politics

AJ,Utica,NY — Sat, 22 Dec 2007 15:28:35 GMT

If we let the religious right dictate the way this country is run,we will become a third country nation. We need progressive people running this country,not stone aged Bible thumping rature loving politicians. This country needs to progress,not regress. No American Taliban nation ever!

Religion vs. science vs. politics

Jose C — Sat, 22 Dec 2007 18:40:02 GMT

Whether we like it or not, science is indispensable in providing the only model of our understanding of the world that is based on objective reality--recording it, measuring it, and having others confirm the data. Religion is a totally different system. Its definition of truth is elusive and arbitrary and does not yield a clear, universal interpretation even among followers of the same religion. Unlike science, religious truths do not have internal coherence and predictive value. Religious conflicts result in strife and war. Scientific disagreements are eventually settled by data and can only produce a stronger theory.

Religion vs. science vs. politics

Nelson Link M.D. Bristol, Tn. — Sat, 22 Dec 2007 22:40:19 GMT

I'm not sure we need to rehash Carl Sagan's Cosmos series again some thirty years later. Why not wait and present a new series with updated informaion on the Cosmos and evolution of the universe and life on this planet. Jeff Knight of Miami confuses Intelligent Design with Young Earth Cretionism and should research both subjects along with Progressive Creationism, Theistic Evolution and God of the Gaps theory. He would find that Intelligent Design is quite different from the various types of creationism. By using scientific methodology and inductive reasoning, ID inserts design into the evolutionary mix, which certainly may confuse some that ID is a form of creationism. However, as pointed out above, one does not have to believe in God to accept ID.
Robert Pennock, author of “Tower of Babel: The Evidence Against the New Intelligent Design” points out, “If we really think that genetic information is like the signals from space in the movie Contact (which specifies intelligence) shouldn’t we infer we were designed by extra-terrestrials? Intelligent-design theorists do sometimes mention extra-terrestrials as possible suspects.” (Pennock 2002)Perhaps we were visited by beings from some other planet in our galaxy or perhaps from another universe if there are Multiverses. The line of reasoning that there is life elsewhere in our universe and that earth was visited by extraterrestrials or superior beings from outer space, who had the intelligence to create life forms, is a possibility and should it be proven in the future; it certainly would not conflict with Intelligent Design Theory but rather confirm it. Intelligent Design Theory does not depend on being able to identify the designer. The designer may never be identified by the scientific method.
Neither is it a substitute for ignorance and does not substitute a “God for the Gaps” in evolutionary theory. ID does not claim that design must be optimal; something may be designed even if it is flawed nor does it tell us the identity of the designer. Intelligent design is not biblical creationism. A person need not believe in God to infer ID in nature. Intelligent design is compatible with some aspects of evolution. For example, I.D. doesn’t deny the reality of variation and natural selection on small scales (microevolution) it just denies that those phenomena can accomplish all that Darwinists claim they can accomplish. Neither does it maintain that all species were created in their present form. Intelligent design theory agrees that Darwin’s theory of common descent is correct. There is little question that all species on earth descended from a common ancestor or common ancestors.
Intelligent Design theorists are approaching evolutionary theory from the standpoint that there is scientific evidence to support a place for design in evolution. Unfortunately, some scientists either knowingly or unknowingly insert their own prejudices into the debate on evolution. “Evolutionists, who place their faith in a cosmic roulette, arguing for the purposelessness of the universe, are not articulating scientifically established fact; they are advocating their personal metaphysical stance.” (Owen Gingrich. “God’s Universe” 2006)
Richard Dawkins claims that evolution makes atheism intellectually fulfilling.
On the other hand, Milton Munitz declares that “Our cosmology leads logically to the idea of a transcendence situated beyond time and space, giving the lie to the notion that the cosmos is all there is or was or ever will be.” Both of these statements cannot be proven by scientific facts. They are metaphysical stances or prejudices.

Religion vs. science vs. politics

Jeremiah — Sun, 23 Dec 2007 07:17:20 GMT

ALL WE NEED IS LOVE - Beatles John Lennon

Religion vs. science vs. politics

Rob, Seattle, Wash — Sun, 23 Dec 2007 07:30:23 GMT

Druyan, who is one of the most spiritual atheists I know, said "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,"

My Biggest concern is the fact that in this day and age people still believe that they can MISQUOTE the constitution and no one is going to call them on it. NOWHERE IN THE CONSTITUTION IS THE PHRASE SEPARATION OF CHURCH AND STATE, PERIOD. I just wish that the very few leftist LIBS. in this country would stop trying to spread that lie, It's a quote from a letter written by Thomas Jefferson to a group of baptist preachers and meant just the opposite as its use to day. The goverment was meant to stay out of the church's business of education, charity, and morality. It is time for Christians to take back our country, our media, our schools and towns.

Religion vs. science vs. politics

Raymond Swenson, Idaho Falls, Idaho — Sun, 23 Dec 2007 09:45:05 GMT

There is no logically necessary conflict between being a scientist and being religious in a very full-bodied way. Newton's strong religious beliefs did not interfere with his ability to do fundamental science, and in fact most of the science leading up to Newton was done by those with the best educations available in that era, namely clerics and monks. Despite the growth in popularity of materialism among scientists, there are still many--around a third according to some surveys, the same as 50 years ago--who have a strong commitment to one or the other traditional religious faiths.

The people who believe the Bible requires a belief that the arth was created in either 7 literal days or 7,000 years are incorrectly interpreting Genesis, which does NOT assert creation out of nothing, but rather begins with an already existent background of chaotic matter, "the waters", and in fact is describing, not the creation of the entire universe, but only of the earth. So the first sin of the Young Earth Creationists is against the Bible. It is only their second sin to reject all of modern cosmology, geology, biology, paleontology and archeology in favor of a very modern notion that is not really in the Bible. After all, most of the bible is insistent that Jehovah is "Alpha and Omega", from eternity to eternity. There is no reason to think that such a being needed to rush the creative process.

On the other hand, materialists who dogmatically reject the notion that there might have been some level of outside manipulation of the evolutionary process are acting like it is impossible for intelligent life to exist outside the earth, or for it to have existed before homo sapiens. At bottom, that is exactly the kind of man-central egotism that the Copernican Principle is supposed to avoid. After all, we are sweriously contemplating how to turn Mars into an earth-like world, with life, and could achieve it within the millenium. How do we know that someone slightly ahead of us on the evolutionary highway did not do exactly the same thing for earth? The insistence that God not be a "material" being is not out of the Bible, but rather is from the portion of the Nicene Creed, that is literally plagiarized from Aristotle, a pagan. If Christians would give up being the last people in the world who take ancient Greek science--the dichotomy between earthly matter and celestial "spirit"--to mean anything in reality, amd accept God as the material being he is depicted to be in the Bible, scientists could call this hypothetical being "the ancient ET" and Christians could call it "Jehovah" but the idea would be largely the same, at least for the study of life on earth, the genetic manipulation of which does not require a large amount of energy. Indeed, such a super alien is a common trope of Science Fiction, but it bothers materialists because it really does coincide with the functional aspect of god at the level of creating life and its diversity. Yet there is absolutely no materialist reason why such a being, with powers at that level, could not exist.

To summarize: If Christians would get rid of unnecessary and nonbliblical concepts about the nature of God, and of his creation of the earth, and materialists could get over their fear of anything that even slightly resembles God, the two groups could agree on the feasibility that an already existing super being could play a significant role in the creation of life (which science has no decent theory to explain) and the ongoing evolution of life. The Christians would affirm that this hypothetical being really exists, based on what he told men on earth. The materialists would simply agree that the limited god hypothesis is reasonable and consistent with known science.

Many Christians complain that such a being is not "god enough" for them, since he is not literally "infinite" in power. But he clearly has so much power that it is not clear we could ever measure it, so it is for all practical purposes infinite. Why not agree on this?

Religion vs. science vs. politics

Raymond Swenson, Idaho Falls, Idaho — Sun, 23 Dec 2007 10:04:33 GMT

Intelligent design is NOT young earth creationism. ID starts only from scientific assumptions. It does NOT make assertions based on an interpretation of scripture. People who are afraid of the arguments that ID makes inscientific terms try to avoid responding to them by claiming it is only young earth creationism, is therefore ridiculous, and therefore does not need an answer. That response is just plain dishonest. It is like saying that Muslims are just Christians because they have some similarity of beliefs, such as that Jesus was a holy man born of a virgin, even though Muslims don't believe in the resurrection, while Christians do. ID scientists do NOT embrace the rejection of science about the age of the universe and the earth and life on earth. That is all the difference in the world, literally. ID scientists do NOT argue "believe in God as creator because it's in the Bible." They have a limited hypothesis, namely that much of the evidence, considered mathematically, weighs on the side of the theory that, at least in some cases, it is more likely that an intelligent agent was at least a partial cause in increased complexity of living functions, rather than random mutation, which in the real world we avoid like the plague out of fear of cancer. Random mutation destroys function rather than creates it, in the cases where we observe in real time. Second, random mutation can make only small changes, which might be eough to alter a protetin or some other item, but precisewly because they are small are unlikely to create a significant benefit of differential survival of the mutant. The normal variation in the characteristics of individuals within a group of the same species shows that small variations that are not in and of themselves deleterious generally do not interfere with survival, so there is no natural selection operating on the mutation, so there is no reason for the mutation to be favored or preserved in following generations. So there is no natural selection toward accumulation of small but insignificant variations. Darwin did not explain how random mutations can really create anything novel, as opposed to minor modifications of existing functions, like beak length or other simple dimensional changes. The notion that random mutation can be sufficiently creative is a denial of the truths of statistics and probability. A billion years is not nearly long enough for the diversity that blossomed within a few million years of the Cambrian Explosion.

Religion vs. science vs. politics

zzz — Sun, 23 Dec 2007 13:33:54 GMT

The Faithful all say that the end is near, and that the final conflict will be against the good forces of somebodys god and the evil forces of somebody else's god.
We scientists need to build a big orion, and blow ourselves into orbit, then watch the conflict from way up high, and then drop big rocks down on to the heads of the winners, so we then can reclaim our planet. All in the name of intellegence.

Religion vs. science vs. politics

TheFallibleFiend, Lorton, VA — Sun, 23 Dec 2007 19:58:08 GMT

Few people, if any at all, misquote the constitution in talking about church and state. We all know the phrase "wall of separation of church and state" does not appear in the constitution. We know instead that it appears in the writing of Thomas Jefferson and we also know that it most certainly did not mean the opposite of what it means today. He was just as concerned with the Kook fringe in his day as we are now.

Religion vs. science vs. politics

Ennis Jones, St. Louis, MO — Sun, 23 Dec 2007 22:42:01 GMT

In the Gospel of John, CH 20,v 25, Thomas says to the other disciples after they told him they saw Jesus alive, "Except I shall see in his hands the print of the nails, and put my finger into the print of the nails, and thrust my hand into his side, I will not believe." Then after eight days Jesus appeared to all his disciples. And what did he say to Thomas? Verse 27 says, "Reach hither thy finger, and behold my hands; and reach hither thy hand, and thrust it into my side: and be not faithless, but believing" I find it interesting to note that Jesus NEVER condemned Thomas for his attitude, and that he NEVER said "Damned are they who will only believe what they can see and touch" Kind of makes you go, "Hmm!" Doesn't it?

Religion vs. science vs. politics

B.W."Doc"Smith, Austin, Tx. — Sun, 23 Dec 2007 23:15:53 GMT

It is clear, from the opinions I have read on this page, that the point is still being missed. It is not a question of Belief vs. non-Belief nor Science vs. God. God, if one exists, has dominion over a Realm so vast that no Human mind will ever come close to comprehending the most minuscule part of, if we don't wipe our selves off the earth by greedy and unmindful use of resources or slaughter each other over which knee to bend at worship or which Prophets version of this or that is the latest news direct from above. Not even if humanity survives for a Billion more years. The Point is much simpler than all that. Life, The World and all of us in it are in a constant state of Flux. Change is an integral part of our day to day lives, has always been and always will be. But. There is nothing human beings are more opposed to, though after all this time past, the reason escapes me, we as a race are violently opposed to CHANGE. Our desire to control our environment and fellow humans, heaps great regard on continuity. If you don't believe me look at your Kids, look at your relationship with your Parents. Your Kids fight you at every turn to get their new ways, You fought your parents for change. [Review the last forty years of history. Key words: Civil Rights, Women's Lib etc.] It's the same on the macro level. Countries fight other countries not over land or just for the fun of conquering, or whipping other Heroes in Glorious combat any more. Now they fight because they don't agree with the manner that one controls his/her environment and/or people, or over whose Prophet has the ear of God. Why? Fear of change, it was good enough for my Dad and his Dad before him it should be good enough for you! Change shakes the foundations of the entrenched it musses the Status Quo. Science says the damn Universe is INFINITE....we are just a dust speck in the void. That means that God is not, or that He is at least much greater than the Personal God of the Faiths of the more established religions. I don't see the conflict, if God is indeed that awesome He would still be aware of us. If on the other hand, we are alone I think that that would make the Sanctity of the Human Race even greater. How precious a rare Pearl. The good thing about change is that after a while you get used to it and it becomes the Status-Quo, and I, like you will do my damnedest to protect it against CHANGE!

Religion vs. science vs. politics

Rocky, Rochester, NY — Mon, 24 Dec 2007 01:37:19 GMT

Man's greatest creation is God.

Scientist is not on a quest to prove that there is no god. The Bible is the word of God and the foundation of Judo-Christian beliefs. The problem comes from the fact that what true science has learned to date about our earth is in total contradiction to what the Bible teaches.

Anyone suggesting that science and religion is in agreement through some kind of warped philosophical logic is only fooling themselves.

Religion vs. science vs. politics

Rocky, Rochester,NY — Mon, 24 Dec 2007 01:41:50 GMT

T. Stark, God is a safe route? There is the problem in a simple sentence. When we don't have an answer we are willing to invent one molded in our own image, a fools answer if I ever heard one.

Religion vs. science vs. politics

Corey Kreischer, Bloomsburg, Pennsylvania — Mon, 24 Dec 2007 02:44:17 GMT

When we cannot prove what is true we must rely on faith, otherwise we have no truth.

Religion vs. science vs. politics

Brenda Murphy Omaha, Ne — Mon, 24 Dec 2007 04:08:31 GMT

I am a nurse in a busy Critical Care unit and I see the blurring of technology and religion all the time. I also am aware of the cost of care, which technology has increased, for better or worse. Medicine is now able to "save" or "keep alive" those who would have died years ago, or today in less fourtunate countries. I fear that the only way to fix the heathcare issues in the USA are going to have to include some big decisions, that a lot of people are not going to like. Yet, how much money can the tax payers afford to spend to save, then keep alive an illegial immagrant, when there are children and senior citizens, who are citizens, that can't afford immunizations, medications, and adequate nuttrition?
It is going to be interesting to watch the reforms take place, since nothing I have seen is going to really help the system, just cost taxpayer more money eventually.

Religion vs. science vs. politics

Jonathan Brophy, Upstate New York — Mon, 24 Dec 2007 04:39:47 GMT

Nothing that any scientist works toward when trying to discover origins affects man's scientific knowledge of the world around him today. in other words chemistry of today is chemistry of tomorrow. the fight is only over weither a person can indulge their every desire without any reprisal after they are dead.
do I set the rules or does god?
that every human being wants and is compelled to set their own rules proves there is a god, we have rebelled against him, and we need his forgiveness

Religion vs. science vs. politics

C.J.Forbes, Jacksonville, FL — Mon, 24 Dec 2007 13:48:54 GMT

Until you have had the personal experience of remembering that Totality of Power, (which humans call God, but IT has no need of a human name) that transcends all puny little human thoughts and words, you will never be able to glimpse the magnitude that is YOU. And that, in Truth, YOU are indistinguishable from that Power. "Scientists", as the continual alleged 'objective' observer, forget to include themselves into having this experience in a misguided race for 'truth'. They forget that 'science' IS the collective mind of the scientists themselves, always affecting the outcome of their experiments and 'reasoning' processes. They do have the capability to reason their minds towards accepting the experience of this beyond-description Magnitude, if only they would allow themselves to have it. What are they so afraid of? Losing their ego-based claim to proving their existence and to 'fame?' Take another look, dear ones, you are more than you think you are, and this place in which you find yourselves is so little; and as quantum physicists are now confirming, so unreal and non-existent. Surrender to your willingness to have that experience of the shift in your minds and I guarantee you will Know of the Power of what I speak. And then you can go about faithfully using your 'science' to help your world become more peaceful and loving, --which is all we ever wanted anyway.

Religion vs. science vs. politics

Rocky — Mon, 24 Dec 2007 17:23:26 GMT

[...] Nature on a grand scale is responsible for the chance of us being here, we don't know truly what nature means and certainly inventing God to substitute for lack of understanding is bad data.

The Bible, the so called word of God, can't even get it straight. Genesis 32:30 says man has seen God face to face but John 1:18 says no man has seen God.

We all should concentrate on saving humanity by our actions here on earth while we are alive and don't expect a non-existing entity to do it for you ..... it WILL NOT happen.

Religion vs. science vs. politics

Charlie Kohm Staten Island, New York — Mon, 24 Dec 2007 19:33:09 GMT

There isn't any debate between science and religion, nor has there ever been one. All religions appeal to people who seek magical cures for everything that is unattainable in their lives.

It wasn't so long ago in America that people with mental illness were considered to be possessed by demons and put to death as witches. Education through science ended that practice, which by the way is still practiced in many tribal societies today.

The human species as a whole has not advanced intellectually beyond superstition and fear based reasoning, and will for the foreseeable future remain vulnerable to the proselyte teachings of religion as an explanation for their ailments and fears.

Politicians only pander to this base to enable themselves and their positions of power. Does anyone think there is a difference between the tribal leaders of Islamic states and the Christian fundies of America or the orthodox Jews in Israel. They are all using fear to drive their followers and they are effective. Religious superstition will not disappear in the face of science. In fact the divide will grow as the world's human population grows and resources are denied to the poorest among us. More wars, not fewer wars can be expected and religion (fear) will be used as the tool to galvanize one group against another in order to secure their access to limited resources.

Religion vs. science vs. politics

Thomas Walsh Groton, MA — Mon, 24 Dec 2007 20:34:35 GMT

Rodger Boskovich; Scientist or Cleric? In his time, or ours, could he ever lead his church - No Chance.

Religion vs. science vs. politics

p melson — Mon, 24 Dec 2007 21:10:36 GMT

one of the main issues with science vs religion is that the majority of people do not bother to study either.... science courses require people to think... to explore and to question... most dont want to...it is not popular to be smart and educated..."know it all".... and it is not encouraged in religon to study and know and understand.. to do the research and the deep study.... after all.. if we did that think of all the questions our ministers, priests, imams, rabbi's ect would get.... we want pop, psuedo, quasi religon and science, spoon fed and age appropiate...until that changes we will be having this debate of no substance and a lot of dogma from both sides

Religion vs. science vs. politics

Mark, Jackson, MS — Tue, 25 Dec 2007 03:40:15 GMT

Bob,

Atheism is most certainly a religion. Religion is defined as belief by faith. As an atheist, you believe (faith) that there is no God. You can't know that there is no God without knowing everything that there is in the universe to know, or you yourself would be god. So please don't think that atheism is not a religion.

By the way, God doesn't believe in atheists.

Religion vs. science vs. politics

a p garcia — Tue, 25 Dec 2007 04:41:27 GMT

I am a student of Cell and Molecular Biology as well as Genetics. These fields back up Darwin and his evolution of the species. I doubt that when Sagan was studying for his PhD these fields were as enlighten as they are now. Even the "Big Bang Theory" seems to defy known laws of Physics and seem to point to a "devine" force. Like Eintein once said, "God does not play dice with the universe".

Religion vs. science vs. politics

Dan Barnes — Tue, 25 Dec 2007 08:19:05 GMT

Although gun control issues (I'd hate to be defenseless) and out of control spending along with some real stupidity make me nervous about Democrats I vote Democrat anyway out of terror of the "Religious Right". Here is a theory to consider for why separation of religion and state is SO important and should be as rigorous as possible:
SETI (Search for Extraterrestial Intelligence) has never picked up signals of life: I believe sentient species almost never have enough time to colonize space in their "photo finish" with weapons of mass destruction. Underlying almost every final war is a "God given rectitude" exploited by a leadership reflecting a perverted greed. Religion is always part of evolution - E.O. Smith has even made a point of suggesting that for atheists to deny this is a big mistake. Thus religion follows sentient life - Neanderthals had burial customs. Even elephants will spend hours pondering over bones of departed family members.
For humans the 3 major Abrahamic religions will be much involved in the end of life of Earth. Perhaps not for many decades, but think how long it's been since men landed on the Moon in 1969? A century might not be long enough to establish a self-sufficient colony.
Here is an example of how the "Religious Right" thinks and the danger: People only remember Germany for WWI and WWII. Relative to population the 30 Years War was worst since half of all Germans perished during that time. What was the 30 Years War about? Protestants vs. Catholics. Yet today someone thinks of putting up the 10 Commandments in a public place (for other than historical reasons along with the Magna Carta). I ask, which should be the official version, Catholic or Protestant? Oh yea, those wars were years ago, why worry? What precedent is set when Islam is growing and growing? Best policy: DON'T GO THERE.
I heard of one state that allowed women in one Christian sect to cover their faces on their drivers licenses. Yet almost everywhere Islamic women have to show their faces. I think EVERYONE should have to show their face to make it clear who has the trump card.
It absolutely amazes me how the "Religious Right" keeps supporting Republicans who vote farm a huge farm subsidy for American cotton farmers. Yet millions of Africans who pick cotton for a dollar a day are on the brink of famine. Yet it's almost heresy to question this - the time of Gerald Ford who would ask "what is the right thing to do?" is over.
Look at this way, Isreal can't recognize the Armenian Holocaust for geopolical reasons. God does not exist for the state, God exists for the individual.
Religious lunatics have a big advantage over an "atheist" like me though. They never have to say they were wrong if there's no one left to say anything.

Religion vs. science vs. politics

Rocky, Rochester, NY — Tue, 25 Dec 2007 16:43:26 GMT

The "Big Bang Theory" seems to defy known laws of Physics and one hypothesis is that there is a divine force. A hypothesis is a tentative statement that proposes a possible explanation to some phenomenon or event. A useful hypothesis is a testable statement which may include a PREDICTION. Religion as come to the conclusion that there is a God without testing that predicition and in so doing has excluded all other hypothesis.

Einstein’s phrase "God does not play dice with the universe" is a metaphor simply for the idea that whatever is responsible for the actions and behavior of energy in time and space is not a chance and random event, it can all be explained if only we search for the answers.

True science follows a process to find and verify the answers to these questions we ask, it is very open to all possibilities even God if there is one. Even though I say there is no God I am wrong because what I should say is we have not found evidence of the existence of God. The Bible is the hypothesis statement and it is illogical to think and accept that it should be self-proving and supporting evidence does not exist other than by faith. Faith is the substance of things hoped for, the evidence of things not seen.

One of my predictions (maybe not properly phrased) is that we will never find entities called God, Allah or any supernatural being as described by the Bible, Koran or other religious based scriptures.

Religion vs. science vs. politics

Ben Winter, Ardmore, Okla. — Tue, 25 Dec 2007 18:51:06 GMT

Theology must solely depend on its instigation, the Bible, and not on extraneous ramblings. Therefore, any science or opinion attempting to justify 'God' theory has obligation to the symbology and numerology shading its intent or purpose. The science of interpretation, hermeneutics, remains elusive to those many generations wishing to participate in the original innovation; such legal-historicity remains cloaked in symbol and number cleverness. Symbols and numbers conformity, then, are the secret to monotheism truths. Contextual integrity is so often slighted in order to create 'belief' from personal desire. Such is folly, of course, because belief can be defined only as 'justification without cause.'
My website, at www.winterbriar.com, leads toward proper symbols and numbers understanding.
Indeed, there is a science to proper interpretation; and interpret you must to unravel the Bible's twisted and intentionally difficult prose.
Ben Winter

Religion vs. science vs. politics

Chris Townsend, Portales, New Mexico — Wed, 26 Dec 2007 04:15:43 GMT

This debate is completely pointless. The fact is (as others have pointed out), science is used to justify one's underlying beliefs, not to develop them. A Christian will see scientific evidence point to God, an atheist will see the same evidence as pointing to God's nonexistence.Science is amazingly fickle and weak when it comes to things like this, and to use it to win this debate would be like using a toothpick to hit a home run. Impossible.

Neither will be swayed by the other's "logic", and since the two cannot even agree on a subjective standard to view the evidence, it will be endless bashing of heads. Besides, what is the point?

Do atheists really believe that mere science can disprove a faith that has withstood a thousand years of persecution and has grown all the while?!Do they think something a pathetic as science crush a faith in such an awesome God?! That is complete nonsense!

And do Christians believe that by winning a mere argument they will win a soul for Christ? Christ gained converts through his love, not his wit, though the bible does say to be prepared to give an answer for the joy within you. However, defending one's faith is one thing, spreading it another. Christianity is spread through love, not something as fickle as science.

Religion vs. science vs. politics

Frank, Miami, FL — Wed, 26 Dec 2007 04:23:04 GMT

I think that it is so strange that people that defend science so strongly still cling to religious beliefs such as good, morality, or ethics. To be truly scientific you must acknowledge that greed is good and that charity is bad. Evolution natural selection says the strong survive. Why care for the elderly or the disabled? Shouldnt we do away with physical abnormalities to keep the gene pool strong? Shouldnt we eradicate everyone with aids to obliterate the disease? What makes our societies beliefs and ethics right? Your beliefs are instilled in you by the society in which you are raised. Why is rape and murder bad? Animals dont ask for consent and they kill the weak and take what they want. The debate on God vs. Science? Imagine a world without religion a world based on scientific absolutes isnt it a beautiful thing?

Religion vs. science vs. politics

matt, st, anthony Idaho — Wed, 26 Dec 2007 05:03:35 GMT

the main problem is how a person thinks, If you are a "faithfull" person you are unwilling to accept scientific fact that opposes your "faith". And if you are a person who trusts knowledge then you are unwilling to accept anything that cannot be proven.
These thinking conditions are primarily taught after birth, and niether are permenant. However one question will be answered before this is resolved.

That question is this. the answers to all problems can be solved. but who will supply the means to the answers. one of the many "gods" or one of the many "people"

ultimately, history has shown us that it is the "people" who have provided us with all answers that we now have, this includes all "godly" answers as well.

Religion vs. science vs. politics

robert ferguson — Wed, 26 Dec 2007 05:21:23 GMT

I always find it interesting to read these discussions. There is a consistent assumption that Christians are non-reasoning, yet i have read (and taught) several books on logic, all written by Christians. I have yet to see a good on written by an athiest. I also see many comments stating that science only deals with facts, and assuming that facts mean that with is sense perceptible. It is also assumed that these facts are the only things that are true. The only problem is that this "fact" (that science is the only source of truth) is in fact a metaphysical statement and a statement of faith. Both Christianity and Athieism are religious statements in that they deal with questions of origins, the nature of man, and whether or not there is meaning to life.
One last point: there have been several comments on the Universal Statement that there is no God, and that the burden of proof lies in the positive, not the negative. A few minutes of classical logic will lay that idea to rest. I find it so very interesting that those who so willingly condemn their opponents as being unreasonable are themselves guilty of not knowing that ancient science.

Religion vs. science vs. politics

Jeff, Philadelphia PA — Wed, 26 Dec 2007 07:55:40 GMT

"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."

I dare you to prove that there isn't a giant invisible umeasurable flying unicorn over your head right now. Religious believers have set up gods that are impossible to disprove. They exist nowhere and cannot be detected. I dare you to even explain how god COULD be disproved.

I'm so sick of this "militant atheist" rhetoric. When was the last time an atheist came up to you and tried to "convert" you. I can't tell you how many Christians have tried this to me.

And finally, just because it's impossible to disprove god does not make his existance a 50/50 proposition.

Religion vs. science vs. politics

Sean in Virginia — Wed, 26 Dec 2007 15:19:35 GMT

There's conflict in the religious realm, not just between religions, but also with in the religions themselves. I.E. Christianity has so many different sects because say a group of people within one church didn't like what another group said/did/has so they broke away from that church and formed their own church, tailoring their belief to what they consider true.This needs to be resolved before there can be any kind of debate in the science vs religion.

I view religion as a big teddy bear that helps people sleep at night, and I can understand that. Who wouldn't be comforted by the belief that there is someone with greater power watching over you, there to protect you and make sure you are safe? On the other hand, I discarded my teddy bear when I was 6 or 7 years old. Me personally, I think the human species has to socially evolve alot more before any kind of resolution can be made.

Religion vs. science vs. politics

Mark, Oviedo, FL — Wed, 26 Dec 2007 15:44:53 GMT

SCIENCE AND RELIGION WERE CREATED BY MAN TO ANSWER THE SAME QUESTION. AND WE ALL KNOW WHAT THAT QUESTION IS....

Religion vs. science vs. politics

Rocky, Rochester, NY — Wed, 26 Dec 2007 16:40:05 GMT

Goodness, ethical and moral behavior are not religious virtues, they are human virtues brought on by the highly evolved intelligence in homo-sapiens. To be human is to do the un-natural. It is within us as homo-sapiens to want to kill, steal, rape and pillage but we truly become human when we are able to override those desires. All religion did (at least some) was to codify those virtues within the context of their beliefs (i.e.: The Ten Commandments) and say that if you did not follow these laws you would not enter the kingdom of heaven … mind control.

Atheists are human, we contribute to all manner of causes to help our fellow man, we cry when we see others in pain and want. It is pure nonsense and utter illogic to imply that since atheists subscribe to evolution, survival of the fittest and gene pool issues that we would want to kill all the sick, the old and less than normal humans in our society. This is just an attempt to demonize us. When the Indians and Eskimos abandoned the old, infirm to die did they do it with smiles and happiness for the situation, were they inhuman? They did it because that is the best they could do if they were to survive and was accepted by their society. It is a different world we live in and therefore we can do differently.

Last, as I and others have said before, science is not on a path to prove or disprove God, it is religion that constantly throws that in the mix when the evidence does not support biblical history and teachings. Religion has come to the absolute conclusion in ancient times that there is a God based on speculative assumption that is being used as facts. Evidence is being manipulated in the effort to support the conclusion.

There is so much to learn about our world and universe and so science is on a perpetual quest of discovery. Science is ever changing and refining itself as more is learned. It will abandon ancient science and myths as knowledge and information replaces those old ideas. If the path of discovery leads to God then I will accept it but until then my prediction is there is no God which is far more valid than an acceptance of things hoped for and the evidence of things not seen.

Religion vs. science vs. politics

TheFallibleFiend, Lorton, VA — Wed, 26 Dec 2007 18:41:45 GMT

Wow. I've read a number of books on logic and I have no idea what religion most of their authors subscribe to.

"Classical logic" doesn't change an argument from ignorance into brilliance.

Religion vs. science vs. politics

NEW YORK CITY, NY AARON B — Wed, 26 Dec 2007 18:42:53 GMT

IF THERE IS NO GOD, HOW CAN YOU EXPLAIN HOW THE SUN IS SO PERFECTLY POSITION FROM THE EARTH WE DONT BURN AWAY. ALSO HOW CAN YOU EXPLAIN THE INTELLIGENCE OF ANIMALS?

Religion vs. science vs. politics

Sean in Virginia — Wed, 26 Dec 2007 18:59:31 GMT

From Mike, NY, NY

"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."

I love this answer however it does have one tiny little flaw. If everyone believe the sky was red, then red would be blue and blue would be something else. It's a matter of labeling.

Religion vs. science vs. politics

David Brewer, Tucson, Arizona — Wed, 26 Dec 2007 21:19:38 GMT

It seems to me that scientific truth and religious truth fulfill complimentary roles in human societies, as pointed out by many of the posts here. If so, then they should not be totally mixed together to the point it becomes impossible to discern which is religious belief and which is science. Science concerns itself with discovering physical causes of physical processes. A science that has to resort to "God" or "gods" to explain a physical process is no longer science. At best, it is metaphysics, at worst, superstition. If attempts are made to shoehorn religion and science into each other then there is a further danger of what could be called the "sectarianization" of science. Scientists would then be judged right or wrong depending on their religious affililation or lack of religion or whichever sect happens to be in power. Nazi Germany showed what could happen when those in power hounded Jewish scientists and disregarded any research founded on "Jewish science". Also, if religion were injected into science, I imagine all of the various religious groups of this country would want either equal say in the textbooks or their own science texts based on their own beliefs. Christianity is not the only religion here - there are Jews, Muslims, Hindus, Wiccans, Asatru, Zoroasterans etc. This would make it impossible to maintain any kind of standard science curriculum. As a final note, the last time people completely combined religion and science they either put scientists under house arrest for heresy or burned them at the stake. I hope we have learned better.

Religion vs. science vs. politics

Gordon, Stockton, Ca. — Wed, 26 Dec 2007 21:59:57 GMT

People have been bringing the two together for years with positive results. Religious Science International teaches the science of mind and God. Of course if your mind is already made up on the subjesc you would be wasting your time.

Religion vs. science vs. politics

Wade Whitlock, Aberdeen, MD — Wed, 26 Dec 2007 22:41:19 GMT

Every year the same babbling. Can't we just celebrate the Winter Solstice in peace, Alan?

Shall we agree that the freedom of religion also includes the freedom from religion? If you propose something, at least be prepared to prove it. Science. I have faith, I can't prove anything, but you better believe or I or something will get you. religion.

Let's get real. Trot your "supreme being" out and let's see him, her or it. Otherwise, keep your superstition to yourself.

Religion vs. science vs. politics

Rocky, Rochester, NY — Wed, 26 Dec 2007 22:58:43 GMT

AARON B: The plausable scientific explinations to your questions are only a keyboard touch away. Google evolution and a history of earth and you will find plenty if you really want to know the answers.

Religion vs. science vs. politics

Phillip Wynn, South Bend, Ind. — Thu, 27 Dec 2007 05:34:35 GMT

I yield to no one (well, few) in my respect for separation of church and state. But as far as a debate, I would like to see a standpoint that's not either/or, but a reasoned expression of the possible compatibilty of faith and science. More to the point, our current "intellectual" world cries out for it to be established, as clearly as we hear it pontificated that religion at times encroaches on science's turf, that science has absolutely nothing to say about the ultimate spiritual realities. Why? Science does not prove materialism, and never can. Why? Remember your Euclid? Materialism is an axiom for the scientific paradigm. It cannot be either proved or disproved by science. Religion cannot tell us about the mechanics of the Big Bang, or about the realities of evolution. Science can tell us nothing about God.

Religion vs. science vs. politics

Rocky, Rochester, NY — Thu, 27 Dec 2007 13:34:58 GMT

Phillip: Science can tell us nothing about God, is very absolute statement.
Religion has not and will not tell us anything about anything because the answers are all in the Bible, no forward movement no new discoveries there. Religion is in a defensive position, it invents answers to counteract the findings of science.
Science is always working to unravel the mysteries of our world and universe, that is what science is. Given time science will tell us a lot about how our DNA makes us and what will hurt us, our disposition to specific diseases etc. Given time it will even tell us more about God if there is a God.

Religion vs. science vs. politics

gonzo marx — Thu, 27 Dec 2007 17:47:10 GMT

ok, this is really much easier than most would think

science - the discipline of utilizing empirically proven, repeatable and verifiable data to advance an hypothesis into a Theory

religion/faith - because someone said so

just that simple, really

science has very rigorous procedures, and peer review of data, to go over and argue about every little detail that goes into the postulates/axioms that make up an hypothesis

in religion, it's ALWAYS taken as unquestioning Faith when someone asserts that "god told me..."

metaphysics and Faith do have their places in the human experience...but as has been proven many times, science works..every time

nuff said?

Religion vs. science vs. politics

Thomas Ashby, Calgary — Thu, 27 Dec 2007 18:03:13 GMT

This article speaks more along the line of the real truth about western religion and "Christianity".

http://www.infidels.org/library/magazines/tsr/1994/4/4zoroa94.html

As for mixing science, politics and religion (faith), the 3 are mutually exclusive. Big business and the military-industrial complex owns and runs government. Always has, always will.

Religion vs. science vs. politics

Thomas Ashby, Calgary — Thu, 27 Dec 2007 18:59:16 GMT

There's only one reason why Huckabee is in politics and not a minister, it pays better!

Religion vs. science vs. politics

Patrick Bishop, Caldwell, NJ — Thu, 27 Dec 2007 19:28:10 GMT

All politicians are suspect, regardless of how they engage voters' trust. I have always worried that anybody who would volunteer for a job like President of the United States is probably the wrong person for the job.

Nevertheless, if a candidate gains popularity because of his or her spiritual or religious views, it can only be because whatever he or she is saying is resonating with certain closely-held cultural aspects. In other words, the cultural climate is not presently conducive for a separation of spiritual from political matters.

Lamenting or "debating" this fact is futile; cultural roots that run so deeply will resist any attempt to engineer a change. Cultures must evolve (ha) naturally, or not at all. Forcing change leads only to recidivism and or the emergence of counter-cultures; hardly progressive in either case.

Religion vs. science vs. politics

Jonna Rogers Seattle ,WA — Thu, 27 Dec 2007 23:42:13 GMT

As to the famous and infamous SEPARATION OF CHURCH AND STATE clause in our constitution. Read the constitution, then read the history surrounding the idea and it's development and you will find that it addresses the idea of a church-condoned government; that is no religion would be or should be endorsed by the government.
That doesn't preclude politicians, activists and just little ole' you and me from speaking about our own personal faith privately or publicly. If Carl Sagan's widow thinks that the current US administration has great harm to that so-called division; then she should consider life under a Caliphate ruled by Shar'ia Law.

Religion vs. science vs. politics

LP — Thu, 27 Dec 2007 23:50:53 GMT

First, i just want to say that there are so intelligent and insightful comments posted.

Second, i just wanted to point a out a quick note:

["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."] - David, Southern IL

the quote to which you were referring does not make any indication about scientists, but of 'people of faith'. Taking it a step further and assuming (jsut an assumption) that ALL scientists believed in God, based on the quote "Most people of faith, have little understanding of the scientific hypothesis", ALL those scientists who believe in God can still make up only the minority of the 'people of faith'. i forgot which fallacy this falls under, or if it is a fallacy at all; i just have a Venn Diagram in my head.

Religion vs. science vs. politics

James, Walnut, CA — Thu, 27 Dec 2007 23:54:32 GMT

"Science without religion is lame. Religion without science is blind." - Albert Einstein

i love that one.

Religion vs. science vs. politics

Phililp Wynn, South Bend, Ind. — Fri, 28 Dec 2007 01:53:33 GMT

Rocky: Maybe science can tell us nothing about God is too absolute. I apologize. You say science is always working to uncover mysteries of our world and universe. Don't you see? Your very question presumes materialism. I repeat: Neither you, nor anyone else, can prove materialism, ever. That I stand by. What mystery can't science solve? See if you can answer this question: What does it mean to see with the eyes of the heart?

Religion vs. science vs. politics

Jeff Causey Colorado Springs Co — Fri, 28 Dec 2007 06:00:21 GMT

Science has proven that the bible is true; if you study what the bible says and then look at the archeological evidence the facts are over whelmingly true. Time & time again science has shown artifacts to be from the time periods stated in the bible. Mankind would not be where it is today if it were not for christians. Slavery in may time periods; killing sports such as the Roman Gladiators, Woman in many cultures having gained rights, any the list goes on, all can be contributed to christians working to tell the world about our savior Jesus Christ and how the bible tells us how to treat others.
As for Politics our Founding Fathers knew who GOD was and that his teaching's were the basis for every aspect of living including Government. (Check the personal diaries of the Founding Fathers) The "So called seperation of Church & State" was meant that the government would not tell it's citizens how they would worship as the govenerment in England was doing at that time. Once again you don't need to take it on Faith just check the facts; look at History.

Science canot prove that evolution is true there is not enough fossil evidence to prove it & many Scientist will agree.
I thank God that I live in America & that we have the freedoms that we do, at the sacrifice of many. Jeff C.

Religion vs. science vs. politics

Pat Lund, Brooklyn, NY — Fri, 28 Dec 2007 13:06:36 GMT

Oh, what’s all the gloomy doomy drama about anyway? –The answer is so simple.
Something created “life.” Whether that “something/some being” had a plan, who knows?
We’re all born babies. Babies are good or they’re bad; but basically humans are good. Drop a baby on its head, you get brain-damaged thinking…based on that drop. Treat humans well, they reciprocate. Hurt them…they get weird.

Life didn’t come from an inanimate rock. Energy is every where, so energy evolved. It became life--took form with different kinds of energies. Did something/someone plan it? We don’t know, but if that something/someone was so smart, he/she/it could have done a better job. For example: The food chain sucks! Right there that was a mistake. –Big time “fear” among animals and cannibals’ weaker victims. If the creator or accident wanted a really kool life on earth, like the cows have to be milked, it/he/she could have made animals shed its meat, instead of being slaughtered for it. Got my drift?

Science is good—it figures out most “miracles.” Religion is good—it gave uneducated cavemen something their tyro brains couldn’t figure out for themselves and basically taught humanitarianism. Atheists? --Smug know-it-alls, who are just as ill-informed as the cavemen. The combinations of both are BI-POLAR. (LMAO!)

No supreme being came down or appeared to humans and instructed them to write the bible…at different times. (Yeah, seven-headed dragons. I hated that one, lol) The bible is the best of the “informed intelligence” for the writer’s time-frame. Remember, minds and intelligence were and still are developing!!! Umm Humm! All these guys trying to make sense of the whole damn thing called “life” and where did we come from? So, superstition was born/developed/hatched. Hey, the chit sounded good at the time! And ya got that male-superego at play here. Would a good holy god treat women like these cavemen did? I doubt it. Now, I ask you, “Could the caveman get away with treating women like inferior beings today with all our found knowledge and women’s equal rights and just as “superior” brains?” (Although, I know, you’re gonna tell me the “caveman” mentality is still at play. Of course it is, but it’s not as powerful as olden days, 'cause women grew BALLS and learned how to fight back! LOL

If Jesus came back for the second coming—he’d be declared a nutcase and be committed to an institution for the mentally insane! Ha, don’t we know those nuthouses are loaded. Hope the real Jesus didn’t get Prozac!

Hey, people, scientists, think-tankers…RELAX! All this will be worked out. Next generation is even gonna be smarter!! ;)

Religion vs. science vs. politics

G Pratt Sandston, VA — Fri, 28 Dec 2007 15:00:30 GMT

It is my opinion there are two truths; one scientific and one religious. The first proven by analytical process, the second by faith. The problem with both is the "spin" put on each by those wanting to achieve some goal. For example, Al Gore's spin on science to blame mankind to be the sole cause of global warming conflicts with many of the scientific facts that actually don't support his position. Or the religious extremist that convince their followers that murdering others through suicide bombings is somehow holy, doing god's will. God commanded mankind "Thou shall not kill" so clearly suicide bombings are niether holy or doing god's will. In both cases man spins the truth to mean something other than what the truth is, in an attempt to achieve fame, power, financial gain, etc. I believe science is the means we have for discovering God's secrets in how these things have come to be, from the creation of the universe to the creation of man. If people approach both science and religion with an open mind, you may discover the truth both have to offer.

Religion vs. science vs. politics

Hoover, Indianapolis, IN — Sat, 29 Dec 2007 04:59:20 GMT

I think it's time for another tea party. I'm heading to Boston. On the subject of politicians, how long does a democracy really last? Do we think we've got the exclusive on it now? Surely the Romans had fewer issues to resolve yet their empire eventually fell too. The United States is due for another wake-up call. God help us...even those who don't believe He exists...

Religion vs. science vs. politics

Don Edlin, Coral Springs, Florida — Sat, 29 Dec 2007 13:11:03 GMT

Lets see - Just how did those Dr's of the Sciences get their Phd's? Well, they developed a "Theory" and then had to "Defend" it. And when their defense was accepted nd applauded by a panel of scientific autocrats, kaboom, another Phd has arrived! They didn't have to "Prove" it because as we all know, a "Theory" is quite simply a mental viewing. Like Einstein's "Theory of Relativity" or for that matter any of Carl Sagan's many "Theories" about the universe.

So can we equate those Scientific Theories (ie: mathematical theories that are forever morphing; medical theories that one year tell us what foods are bad for us and then 5 years later tell us we should have been eating that food all along; scientific theories that claim an Ice Age is starting and then 30 years later claim that we tiny blibs on the universal radar screen are causing Global warming) - to - Religious Theology (ie: a belief that there is some omnipotent power known as God, Allah, Lord, Jehovah, etc., etc., to whom reverence and love must be given and will be returned; that there are basic morals by which we must live as spelled out in a number of books written, no doubt, by a group of very wise men; that we must always seek good and not bad; that we should continue to search for the truth; and if we do those things we all will benefit universally.

You know, I like science and I like religion, but this whole debate sounds to me like when I was in 3rd grade arguing that my Dad could beat up your Dad!

Religion vs. science vs. politics

AHDavid, Dallas, texas — Sat, 29 Dec 2007 13:57:14 GMT

Who came down from on High and decreed that everything HAD to be either/or?

Any of you guys ever contemplate the really radical concept of both/and?

If and when you do, then blather on the blogs. You might write something worth reading.

PS: Both groups are both right and wrong. true science and true faith are soulmates, NOT deadly enemies.

Religion vs. science vs. politics

glenn, Whittier, NC — Sat, 29 Dec 2007 15:46:42 GMT

To those who think religion hasn't helped science. Get this: and get specific if you want to say there's errors in the Holy Bible.What do archeologists say about the places and events mentioned in the Bible? Quote from Dr. Nelson Glueck, probably the greatest modern day authority on Israeli Archeology. " No archeology discovery has ever controverted the Biblical referance. Scores ofarcheological findings have been made which confirm in clear outline or in exact detail historical statements in the Bible. And,by the same token, proper evaluation of Biblical descriptions has often led to amazing discoveries."
Want another quote from Sir William Ramsey, Professor at Cambridge and Oxford Universities.( Regarded as one of the greatest archeologists to ever live.) Regarding the Gospel of Luke and Acts.... " You may press the words of Luke in a degree beyond any other historian's and they stand the keenest scrutiny and the hardest treatment." The "Dead Sea Scrolls" have proven that the Bible is 99.95% true and proved. Ever hear of Pontius Pilot?? Check him out on the web and you will see he was a scribe who even was ordered to find out if the emperor would have any trouble from him or his followers after Jesus was resurrected. These records and Bible records are the best supported work of all ancient writings. The next most supported work is Homer's Lliiad of which 650 greek manucripts rremain, but are datedapprox. 1000 yrs. after. While theNew Testament is within 100-250 yrs. from it's start to finish. There are over 8352 total prophetic verses. 28.5% of Old Testament and 21.5% of the New Testament. 125 seperate predictions about Christ's first coming-all of which were full filled 100%. 1800 verses deal with the 2nd coming. I will stop here. Science has it's place in our time but never doubt that Religion does too. These are just a few facts anyone who really wants to LEARN can look up. Darwin even said he made a mistake and accepted Christ. The box of bones people talk about all the time about apes?? well, it doesn't have even a fourth of one body in it. It has several bones from several places and anyone can mix match to fit almost anything. Science is suppose to be about facts. Most of science is based on false impression from one scientist or other without a shread of evidence.

Religion vs. science vs. politics

David Garrick, Timmonsville , South Carolina — Sat, 29 Dec 2007 16:31:14 GMT

I think that everyone is missing the truth of the whole debate , religion vs. science. With each new discovery in the realm of science , new problems are discovered. Problems that seem to indicate that man without the aid of a 'Higher Power', is on a collision course with self annihilation through means of nuclear proliferation, pollution, corruption (which has been always the pre-cursor to the fall of the great empires of history), and other selfish and self-centered endeavours that seem to start out wanting to do good but with time seems to end up bad.
Religion is man's attempt to find that 'power' to solve the problems he has created. Unfortunately, because it is often man-made, it to is corrupt, laced with greed, selfishness, steeling, lying etc.
True religion that originates from a loving God would not teach such things. The problem is that science and man made religion do not want this type of God.To do so, would mean to admitting that neither will ever discover solutions but just more problems.
In the end , it really does not matter what science says or what man made religion preaches. What will really matter , is what Carl Sagan and all those that have preceded him in death have discovered once they have breathed their last.

Religion vs. science vs. politics

Amy St. Louis MO — Sat, 29 Dec 2007 16:55:15 GMT

Hmm...for all those who think Catholicism doesn't contradict science...are you kidding me? They were (and if you live in a 3rd world country, still are) THE contradictators of science. They are constantly lying & contradicting science, whether it be against safe reproductive care, stem cell research, health classes, etc. They might have better PR, but they are just as phobic about science as protestant evangelicals. I don't get the self-righteousness among some Catholics on that point- well, yes I do, they were told Catholicism is pro-science at church and believed it without looking at facts or outside of the religion.

I think religion and science could get along, but it just seems a lot of people don't want them to...and I agree, the only time politicians care about religion is when they want a vote. Unfortunately, as others are saying, pandering to religious crowds- at whatever the cost to science, health, well-being, rights, research, Americans, etc.,- is what gets votes. Repulsive.

How about scientists reaching out to people like religious people reach out to people? Set up shop at stores, pass out literature, etc.- make science unintimidating and friendly?

Religion vs. science vs. politics

Melissa, Umatilla, Fl — Sat, 29 Dec 2007 19:08:29 GMT

I think the majority of people in the world have lost sight of the goal of this life. We all have to find our own truth and meaning of life. There would be no reason for this world to exist if we all knew exactly what path we are to follow. There is a huge trend toward neopaganism, the most ancient "religion" (for lack of a better term.) Paganism dates back to the Palaeolithic era pre-dating christianity; however even the neanderthals buried their dead with ceremonies, including flowers and grave decorations to prepare the dead for their next life. Then Christianity came into the picture and changed what we call the "horned God" (which is actually the Pagan equivalent to the christian God) into Satan and all the pagan holidays where changed to the Christmas, Easter, etc. They did this in hopes that it would make it easier for the pagans to switch to christianity. With that said, Freedom of Religion is what this country was founded on, the fact that politicians are using religion to achieve their goals, and get votes is unconstitutional. Organized religion has gotten in the way of many scientific advancements (such as stem cell research for example which very well could save millions of lives. In essence organized religion is doing the very thing it preaches is wrong! People will go on having abortions, why not use that to our advantage to save a little 5 year old girl with cancer? Again that was just an example.) Science and religion can coincide rather well together. But as the constitution says there needs to be separation of church and state. The politicians need to see both sides of the coin and base their decisions on fact, not their religious beliefs!

"It's [religion] a falsehood designed to make you feel better about a the scientific fact that you are eventually going to die." And you know what? No one will ever know who was right until we die, so why does it matter what someone else believes?

Religion vs. science vs. politics

Geri, Mead, OK — Sat, 29 Dec 2007 19:15:07 GMT

Personally it is my belief that regardless of the belief system to which one subscribes, each person does have their own vision and interpretation of what constitutes a Heaven or hell on earth whether or not you subscribe totally to the views of science or religion or combine the two. Furthermore, each person will think, feel, and act in line with their vision and interpretation of these two things. This is probably why judgement is forbidden and even un-necessary. In other terms: What you believe in your heart and mind to be true will be true for you. What you admire most, that you shall become.

A recent example in the news: Former Prime Minister of Pakistan, a Muslim was blown up by another Muslim last week. Each one believed in the tenets of their faith, each were willing to martyr themselves, but each held in their own mind's two different visions and interpretations of what constitutes Heaven and hell on earth, and each person died for these same reasons. Both were paranoid, both were fearful, both were in their own way fanatics. It is also obvious that Masharif, bin Ladin, the Taliban, the politicians and policy makers of the United States have their own individual interpretations of these same themes. All were involved with this event to one degree or another for the same reasons. Call it a cosmic equation of sorts just as the events of Katrina or 9/11 were. In these cases awareized energy doesn't form into objects but into world events.

To quote a founding father and former president of the United States, and I would relate this to not only every person on earth but to the areas of science, religion, politics, economics, and education as well: Power always thinks it has a great soul and vast views beyond the comprehension of the weak, and that it is doing God's service when it is violating all His laws. (John Adams)

We are each scientific and religious by nature, we are each curious and we all quest for the truth in whatever way we think both significant and pertinent. Neither religion or science holds all of the answers but I do appreciate both imaginative approaches to life since both are built on their own myths and legends, methodologies, rituals, and procedures.

Religion vs. science vs. politics

Bob, El Dorado Hills, CA — Sat, 29 Dec 2007 19:29:30 GMT

God, Mohammad, Allah, Jesus, Rah, Elohim, Kami, Etc., Etc., Etc., SAVE ME FROM YOUR FOLLOWERS!!!!!!!

The human race will no doubt cause its own destruction as a result of its divergent religious beliefs.

Religion vs. science vs. politics

Greg, Umatilla, FL — Sat, 29 Dec 2007 19:41:25 GMT

This is all a bit of an understatement. The darkages threw us back in our own evolution of science at least 600 years and the greatest advances of our time so far have usually occured out of necessity during wartime. What's that bumpersticker? If you learned something, thank a teacher, if you love freedom thank a soldier? How about, if you like turning your lights on in the house, thank a scientist? I do have to say that as a society with the people in control of the government, we will never get anywhere because half the nation, if not more, is pathetically ignorant or blissfully unaware. It hasn't been "who's the best candidate?" for years. May I remind you all that it's been, "who's less likely to screw up the most in 4 or 8 years?" But even that notion is out the window... now...

Religion vs. science vs. politics

RangerDan, White Lake, MI — Sat, 29 Dec 2007 22:46:35 GMT

I am a believer in a supreme creator and have no problem with science. The only problem I have is people that try to explain the non-existence of God. Ten thousand years ago we still lived in caves, but now we know EVERYTHING? I think it is they themselves that have proved that we evolved from monkeys not so long ago (I do believe this. Now these elitist know it alls think they have figured out everything. I think that we are listening to the same types that scoffed at great scientific discoveries in the past. Very short term thinking, small minded, overly confident, hucksters. I wonder if the society of amoebas that live on the bottom of my shoe have figured out that I don't exist?

Religion vs. science vs. politics

Judy H., Albuquerque, NM — Sat, 29 Dec 2007 23:21:29 GMT

Steve in Jacksonville, you seem to be confusing "scientists" with "blog-posters."

scientists don't make pronouncements about the existence of God as a result of any scientific discoveries or theories - poorly informed laymen do that, then their opinions are posted as "the gospel of the scientists."

just goes to show: anyone can have an opinion, and anyone can misattribute that opinion as fact... even Roman Catholic scientific engineers.

Religion vs. science vs. politics

J.D. Mariner — Sun, 30 Dec 2007 01:03:57 GMT

I stand regal in definition, from within you I will creep. We flow in all directions in force and power we do keep. Fathom the abyss and you will know it all starts within (you).

Religion vs. science vs. politics

Ron Coleman — Sun, 30 Dec 2007 01:44:56 GMT

David Dothager hit the nail on the head when he said that both science and religion should be after the same thing - the TRUTH. And he's not the first one who said so. The same opinion was once expressed by Albert Einstein.

Religion vs. science vs. politics

Roger, Trenton, MO — Sun, 30 Dec 2007 06:49:03 GMT

'Because atheists aren't guilty of the horrible crimes that religion has been guilty of.'

Jed in Iowa, You mean Hitler and Pol Pot and Stalin did not kill as many as the Roman Catholic Church did during the Spanish Inquisition. I taught both science and religion in the public schools and have a science degree from a public university. You need to read up. I hate to get in a battle of name calling and such, but there have been atrocities in the name of both religion and anti-religious people. All are selfish acts of violence against human dignity and freedom. I don't support either and am a life long Christian believer. The church of Jesus is not a man made device, but forming a church is not intrincically evil. It should follow the ideas promoted by Jesus.

Religion vs. science vs. politics

David Eddy Port Orchard Washington — Sun, 30 Dec 2007 08:39:27 GMT

There are as many fallacies in science as there are in politics and religion. for one thing; apes have always walked upright; their knuckles drag because they have long arms. I agree that religion should deal with spiritual reality not science. Science should deal with varifiable facts about physical reality. Politics should be replaced by statesmanship. Philosophy should deal with wisdom. Philosophy is often the forerunner of science and the subjective conclusions of science.
Logic, truth and humanitarian priniples should be applied to all of human inquiry. Form follows function and function provides insight about form.

Opinion is a flitting thing but truth outlasts the sun. Emily Dickinson

Religion vs. science vs. politics

Jake — Sun, 30 Dec 2007 14:35:13 GMT

As an ordained minister with a Phd in theological studies once told us about religion,"None of this stuff was ever meant to be taken literally".

I just don't see how all these lines in the sand get drawn in the first place. Some of us are taking things way too serious.

Religion vs. science vs. politics

Chuck — Sun, 30 Dec 2007 16:45:58 GMT

Why is it easier for some people to believe that God created "everything" than it is to believe that "everything" just exists? All of us can see, touch, feel "everything" directly. Why do we need to make up something else - God - that just exists - but that most of us can't see, touch or feel directly.

"Hmmm...this is a complicated place. It couldn't just happen! Someone must have MADE it! Oh- I know - GOD made it! Whew!" Problem solved.

But who made God? Wouldn't a God who can create everything have to be even MORE complicated than everything? Incredibly it's easy for those same folks - who can't believe that the things they see and touch and feel could "just happen" - to believe that a more complicated, invisible, unknowable and incredibly divisive being could just happen.

It's an infinite regression. Our flat world is sitting on top of a turtle held up by four elephants standing on a camel and so on, ad infinitum.

Religion vs. science vs. politics

Dave, Stillwater OK — Mon, 31 Dec 2007 05:17:50 GMT

Certainly, the burden of proof lies with those who claim there is a God. However, the standard of proof depends upon the audience. Atheists seek scientific proof of the existence of God. I think this is a silly request, as most faiths declare that God is in some way infinite, or otherwise completely beyond human understanding. The scientific standard of proof can prove the existence of some finite God, such as Zeus, if and only if Zeus exists. Science has a measurement scale that can measure some very large things, but anything measured can only be measured finitely. That is, infinity is not a number. The perfect, all-knowing, eternal, simultaneously infinitesimal/infinite, perfect-in-every-way, God "without body, parts, or passions" cannot be quantified by scientific measurement. Any other "higher power" humanity might discover cannot be proved by scientific methods to match the general description proffered by Christianity. The truth is, we can neither measure the infinitesimal not the infinite. We cannot measure the mass of the smallest subatomic particles known to man, nor can we logically say that the universe is finite. The only thing that remains finite is our ability to see beyond what we can see. We will never see or otherwise measure what is beyond this threshold. Science cannot conceivably prove the existence of the infinite, nor can it prove a universal negative. In short, the supernatural, the infinite, and the otherwise unknown are the realm of faith. Maybe we can let them remain so. Even Atheism lies within the realm of faith, especially for those who base their Atheism on scientific knowledge, as the God for whose existence we seek proof is unprovable by science.

As for how religion should inform political debates, I think presidential candidates should have as much right as anyone else to voice their own religious views, especially when ad hominem attacks have focused on religious preference. Should such expression inform how voters vote? Probably not, yet it still will.

Science cannot tell us when a fertilized egg becomes a human life. This remains a matter of conscience, not science. Science cannot tell us what ethical code is right as a basis for law. We must vote according to conscience, or otherwise it will simply be enforced by power-hungry dictators.

Ethics and conscience dictate personal convictions. To me, religion does not simply entail a belief in God. A belief is not a religion. A religion includes actions inspired by a belief.

There are certain beliefs that we all hold to be self-evident, that cannot be proven by science, such as the belief that one and one make two, one and two make three, ad infinitum. These "truths" cannot be proven because they are definitions. We all accept them based on consensus, and we all base our everyday lives, to some extent, on the collective perception of the number line. Is this reasonable? Reasonable enough for me.

What I fail to understand is why or how people become atheists. I can understand being agnostic; since science cannot prove the existence of an infinite God, we cannot know whether there is one. But to actively believe that there is none? Is there a scientific basis? Or does Atheist belief simply stem from some philosophical argument that if any god existed he/she/it would make it possible for us to prove that existence? Or perhaps from the belief that everything, known and as yet unknown by humanity, can be explained without the existence of a higher power? Either of these seem about as circular as the "prime mover" argument espoused by early Christian philosophers. Really, if you are adamantly Atheist (not just agnostic), please tell me how and why.

It seems to me that unless we somehow become individually infinite, like the proposed Christian God, we cannot really know the whole truth, whether by science or religion. We are all limited in our understanding, and if you do not share this limitation, I can only comprehend you in part, so don't bother telling me your all.

I think all people practice some kind of religion, and should be open about it - not to offend others - but so that we all can more easily understand the ethical codes of those around us. Neither religion nor science can explain everything for us. We will always have to do without explanations of some of the things that vex us most. There will always be disagreement about destroying embryos. Folks will always have differing views about gay marriage. Good science does not try to tell us what is right or wrong. Good science tells which hypotheses are probably true; it is based in statistics. Science should not prescribe a course of action; it should describe the natural world. It should attempt to tell us what is happening and how. The purpose of our existence, assuming there is one, is certainly beyond the scope of science. On the other hand, religion seems superfluous in describing natural phenomena and their mechanisms.

In the past we have made laws that restrict scientific advancement, and we would be wise to continue to do so. There are several scenarios in which unrestrained scientific experimentation could lead to disastrous consequences. The trouble is that in retrospect we will never know whether laws that regulate science based on conscientious voting have stifled or promoted human progress. Tough cookies.

Religion vs. science vs. politics

Constantine, Palm bay ,FL — Mon, 31 Dec 2007 11:42:45 GMT

There is a reason why science and religion exist; both are reaching for the same goal, an understanding of our vast universe, to justify and fine the reasoning for existence. If people were a little open-minded they would be able to see that science and religion go hand in hand.

Religion vs. science vs. politics

George, St Petersbug, FL — Mon, 31 Dec 2007 13:45:29 GMT

I don't understand, can not all of these theories; big bang, evolution & creationism, be apart of how we all came to be!! I'm far from being religious but it seems pretty obvious to me. Just putting the idea out there.

Religion vs. science vs. politics

George, St Petersburg, FL — Mon, 31 Dec 2007 14:06:43 GMT

Why does there have to be a God?

Can not all of us make up who God is?

I feel each one of us is "God", of course not in the physical but in spiritual form and with out us there would be no "God".

Religion vs. science vs. politics

Dr. TANSTAAFL — Mon, 31 Dec 2007 15:52:19 GMT

I fear we as a race are headed for another Dark Age. The parallels are too significant to ignore. I fear that IF it does come to pass, it will be a very long one indeed.

When people lack understanding, it is easy for them to ascribe divine influence over the situation. In the middle ages when a child was born with a deformity it was said to be “God’s will” or a punishment placed upon the child for some imagined sin committed by a parent. They were ignorant of the science of genetics and much of today’s science in general. Thus the only possible answer to a mysterious situation was a religious one.

Note I didn’t say the people of the middle ages were STUPID, I said they were IGNORANT. Ignorance implies a lack of knowledge correctable by education, stupidity implies not being able to comprehend, i.e. the person is not able to be educated.

Today there are many people in the world who are both ignorant and under the sphere of influence of fundamental or radical religious preaching. Note again I did not say TEACHING. Those who attempt to use religion to sway opinion do NOT want you to understand, but rather to accept their word as truth. A teacher (a responsible one at any rate) attempts to get their students to understand the concepts and apply critical thinking skills on their own.

We see in the poorest regions of the world today children who are raised in an educational vacuum because of weak or nonexistent central governments. Because Humans by nature seek understanding, they allow the void to be filled by fundamental or radical religious preaching. As a result we have children believing that strapping explosives to their bodies and blowing them selves up in a crowd of people who have different beliefs than them is God’s will. Entire generations have been raised to hate because of their ignorance of those they hate.

It terrifies me to hear otherwise intelligent people dismiss scientific data because their religion or more accurately their clergy tells them it is false or wrong. The crisis is not one of science versus religion but EDUCATION versus SUPERSTITION.

Religion vs. science vs. politics

Wayne, Alamogordo, NM — Mon, 31 Dec 2007 20:44:20 GMT

As I've stated before, religion refers to how one worships their Creator. Please quit confusing religion with Creationism. Belief in a Creator means that you believe we are here on this earth for a purpose, not just by accident. Someone earlier wrote that science is hard, religion is easy. They were right. For me to believe that we are accidentally here because trillions and trillions of exotropic events occured in just the right sequence is very hard to swallow (not to mention that it goes against the Law of Thermodynamics). In reality, this debate is not about religion or science, but about "Are we here by accident, or not?". My personal belief (faith) is that I'm not an accident, my life is important and has reason, my faith is what I choose because it makes me feel better, and my HOPE is that there's life beyond this mortal existence. So, don't put me down because you don't understand it, don't get mad because I choose to express it, and don't belittle people because they believe it. And to finally bring politics into the debate, there's one simple solution. This November, vote for the people who support your beliefs. Then remember, if they don't win, then your opinions and beliefs are still in the minority.

Religion vs. science vs. politics

David Eddy Port Orchard Washington — Mon, 31 Dec 2007 22:32:25 GMT

Good post Dave Stillwater,
There is a continuum of intelligence and we may be at the top of the list on earth but when considering all of reality; we may be anywhere on the scale.
The purpose of physical reality is to provide life and that abundantly. The reason for intelligence is to cope with physical reality. We are the reason for existence from our own personal view point. But, we need to understand what reality is all about if we are going to survive as a viable entity. Our greatest concern should be self-destruct because of our survival of the fittest nature.

Religion vs. science vs. politics

Mark Odin, Il — Wed, 02 Jan 2008 19:10:38 GMT

Every thing is as it's suppose to be... stars, dirt, germs, fire ect. Except us theres no just in us.JUSTUS! That's just how simple it is. What makes us right when one or the other is proven wrong.

Religion vs. science vs. politics

Thomas Ashby, Calgary — Thu, 03 Jan 2008 01:14:12 GMT

James, Walnut,CA

Read The God Delusion and you will get a true understanding of that quote. Einstein was in no way a believer in a monotheistic God. Or anything remotely associated with a supernatural religion.

Religion vs. science vs. politics

TheFallibleFiend, Lorton, VA — Sat, 05 Jan 2008 10:14:55 GMT

It is only through a very poor understanding of thermodynamics that one can conclude that it disproves evolution.

http://youtube.com/watch?v=c7ma_7XM4FU

Religion vs. science vs. politics

John, Raleigh, North Carolina — Mon, 21 Jan 2008 04:40:48 GMT

This dialogue is an example of the beginning global Internet discussion regarding the need for reconciliation between Religion and Science. Made possible by the World Wide Web, the growing Internet forum presents great potential for a global dialectic regarding the reality of religion and science. As humans look back to planet Earth from the International Space Station, and soon again from the moon, a new dimension of reality unfolds. The new reality of Space, and our destiny as humans in Space, will create a challenge for Religion and Science to converge in a single rational and factual basis. Already a website has been published that calls for a consideration of how religion will need to evolve to meet the challenge: http://www.SpaceAgeReligion.com.

Religion vs. science vs. politics

MUHAMMAD AJMAL — Thu, 24 Jan 2008 01:42:00 GMT

I BELIEVE NOBODY SHOULD PLAY RELIOGION.LEAVE IT ALONE DO THE RIGHT THINGS,WITHOUT INTERFERING RELIOGION,BECAUSE GOD DOESN'T LIKES IT,HENCE HE ALOWS THE BELIEVERS TO EXPLOR THE UNIVERS AND ALSO SAY "SHOW ME ANYTHING YOU MADE FROM YOUR OWN".ANYTHING SCIENCE DEVOLP IS MADE OR BASED ON ANY METRIAL EXISISTING ALREADY.NOTHING RAW METERIAL WE MADE OUR OWN,SO DO THE RIGHR THING.

Religion vs. science vs. politics

Emma B, Surrey, England — Tue, 26 Feb 2008 19:35:14 GMT

I think that this whole argument should be left to rest.
Maybe scientists will never stop exploring the ways of how we came to be on this planet, but I feel that there shouldnt be pressure on the people who have faith.
I am not a religious person but i do have beliefs. If someone believes in something so strongly, then what right does someone else have to disprove that belief?
It is a astonishing question about how life began. As stephen hawking once said "the usual approach of science constructing a mathematical model cannot answer the question of why there should be a universe for the model to describe. Why does the universe go to the bother of existing?"
Emma B, 13

Religion vs. science vs. politics

Bill kean , Peterview Newfoundland canada — Sat, 08 Mar 2008 22:14:36 GMT

The reason science and religion are so often in conflict is because the creator wanted it so and I don't believe they will ever be reconciled while things remain as they are. Science walks by sight and the believer by faith. One lifts up his soul and sees God everywhere and the other has his back to God and sees him nowhere. There was one great man who walked this planet who had the nerve to teach "I am the way the the truth and the life" This is a just too much for science to take. And real Christianity (Jesus and His teachings) must be thrown in with the whole pot of religious thinking which includes the ridiculous ... From old men using religion so they can get their paws on young girls to people who will blow up a hospital in the name of God. But even in spite of it Christ and His teachings continue to resurface and with its resurrection raise up the culture that has the courage to embrace it.

Religion vs. science vs. politics

D. RHODY, FRANKFORT, KY — Wed, 26 Mar 2008 05:18:54 GMT

I WANT TO THANK TERRY, JOHN, BOB, BOB LARYS, JOHN OF PA, AND ESPECIALLY "E. KNIGHT" AND THE OTHERS OF SIMILAR THOUGHTS FOR THEIR INTELLIGENT OBSERVATIONS OF THE UNIVERSE THAT CARL SAGAN AND PEOPLE LIKE US LIVE IN. WHY DOSEN'T STEVE KNOW WHAT THE CATHOLIC CHURCH DID TO GALILEO FOR HAVING THE NERVE TO SAY THAT "THE EARTH WAS NOT FLAT, BUT ROUND, AND THAT THE EARTH WENT AROUND THE SUN, AND NOT THAT THE SUN WENT AROUND THE EARTH," AS THE CHURCHES TAUGHT FROM THE BIBLE." MOST SUCH GENIUSES ARE REBUKED BY CHURCHES BECAUSE RELIGION IS AFRAID THE TRUTH WILL CAUSE THEM TO LOSE POWER OVER THE "BRAIN WASHED" FLOCK AND THEIR MONEY. THE REAL GOD OF THE UNIVERSE WANTS US TO LEARN EVERYTHING THAT IS POSSIBLE TO KNOW, AND OUR INTELLIGENCE IS JUST NOW BARELY SCRATCHING THE SURFACE. THE TOWER OF BABLE IS JUST ONE OF MANY GOOD EXAMPLES OF RELIGION AND THE ABSURBITIES THAT IT TEACHES THE POOR UNEDUCATED "BRAIN WASHED' FLOCK. WHAT A SHAME THAT SOME OF US TEACH OUR CHILDREN THESE FAIRY TALES OF THE BIBLE, IT IS THE WORST CASE OF CHILD ABUSE THAT THERE IS. THE REAL GOD DOES NOT WANT THIS TO HAPPEN. THE REAL GOD GAVE US THE BRAINS TO OVERCOME IGNORANCE AND GAVE US THE ABILITY TO USE MATH, SCIENCE AND ECT., TO USE SO THAT WE COULD TRY TO LEARN ABOUT WHAT HE HAS MADE FOR US IN THIS UNIVERSE, CALLED PARADISE. "IT IS SURLEY A (SIN) TO WISH FOR A BETTER PLACE TO GO TO, RATHER THAN WHAT THE REAL GOD HAS GIVEN TO US," THE REAL AND AWESOME PARADISE....WHERE WE LIVE. WE NEED MORE MEN LIKE CARL SAGAN.

Religion vs. science vs. politics

K.Magendane — Fri, 04 Apr 2008 16:17:31 GMT

Please, don't ever try to mix religion with politics or science. I am commenting but I am sixteen years [old]. But a few years later you are going to read my publication about something we hear politics religion and science, I just need help to publish it.
thanks everyone.

Religion vs. science vs. politics

Daniel, San Diego CA — Wed, 18 Jun 2008 09:09:29 GMT

Democracy can only function as well as the people behind it. The fact that religious fundamentalists dare to deride scientific findings in order to protect their irrational viewpoints brings to question their functionality in democracy. It saddens me also that politicians must find support from these same people. These polititians, for the most part, are mere puppets for our failing pseudodemocracy. As for religin in general, blind faith should never serve as a legitimate reason to say something is true or false. Only objective analysis can provide such insight.

Religion vs. science vs. politics

ron johnston, pahrump, nevada — Thu, 31 Jul 2008 19:43:31 GMT

Science is the proof God exists! Science is based on mathematical equations. the laws of physics. The grand design! This knowledge allowed man the ability to be a creator!
And God created man in his own image and breathed life into man.
But if one believes man evolved form apes...so be it!

Religion vs. science vs. politics

Halit Ture, Istanbul, Turkey — Sat, 06 Sep 2008 18:37:53 GMT

There are no ethics for the nature itself. Its our very human essence that declares what is good or not. If there is a god, I doubt he cares about our daily strugles. He may be a child playing with godly physics. Or maybe he does not exist in the first place. I have just mentioned I have reffered to God as `he`. I might have reffered to god as a `she` if i was living in a different society. Well, some questions are not really easy to answer...

Religion vs. science vs. politics

Matthew Bowers, Buffalo, NY — Sun, 07 Sep 2008 02:57:58 GMT

This is my take on religion, science, and economics.
bad parts: religion is used as the justification and motivation of the masses of almost every war in the history of the planet, economics ie money is the motivation of all these wars for the leaders, and science has created worse and worse weapons to fight these wars.
on the good side
religion and science both help to give us perspective and drive us to ask why though more progress on why seems to be done with science. religion can give us a moral compass, science can help us to care for our fellow man. and the benifits of economics is motivation for man to do anything but that is a lazy motivation that causes many of the wrong kinds of progress to happen ie treatments for simptoms of illnesses instead of cures so that you will keep on buying from them and insurance companies who instead of providing insurance often only offer false hope. the world needs science and religion what it doesnt need is money. but this problem is almost solved, once we can have cheap abundant energy and the ability to make whatever we want from just the base part(perfect recycling) money will be irrelevent of course this is still 50 to 100 years away but if we can make it that long i have hope for the future. PS I know i cant spell.

Religion vs. science vs. politics

Doug Martin, California — Sun, 21 Dec 2008 05:56:56 GMT

I agree with John Q Public. "Representatives" are no longer necessary to political decision-making. The referendum phenomena in California and elsewhere could be made even more clear through electronic means. When, back in the day, information was not only not instantaneous, but had a many-month lag, representatives had some value. Today, with the ability to instantaneously communicate with the electorate, they are superfluous.

Religion vs. science vs. politics

Tim in PA — Thu, 15 Jan 2009 20:25:47 GMT

Religion kills people. Science saves people.
For example:
Just about every war ever fault was over God!! Not to mention The Inquisition that killed you if you didn’t convert to their religion.

Science gives you the modern calendar, MRI, Medications, & Life saving surgeries.

You can interpret the Bible a 1000 different ways.

You can interpret E=MC2 only 1 way.
Have fun ;) God bless science!!!

Religion vs. science vs. politics

Jim Rousch — Fri, 20 Feb 2009 17:05:33 GMT

We need as many Carl Sagans as we can find. It's churches we can do without. They stick in their noses, take all your money, snatch your freedoms from underneath you and continue to persecute scientists.

I'd rather follow a scientist who is using stem cells to cure a three-year-old of cerebral palsy than a God who gave that child CP in the first place.

I'd rather follow a scientist who unlocks the mystery of the Big Bang than a God who punishes people because of their search for knowledge.

Religion vs. science vs. politics

Jim Rousch — Fri, 20 Feb 2009 17:10:18 GMT

God has His agenda. We have ours. Look at the progress we have made since we realized that God doesn't care about the human race and decided to go our own way.

While God exists, He doesn't really care about us. Just ask any child who was abused in one of His churches. Once the human race decides to kick it's addictions to God and Satan, we will become invincible.