Staredit Network

Actually I think in the scientific community that would be known as a "hypothesis". Anyways, that is a good point.

"Fortune-cookie prophet"? I don't Jesus is quoted to have said "You will find love on May day" or any such thing.

Also, has it ever occured to you that parts of science do possess qualities of religion? Of course, I don't mean the process of science; the Bible itself isn't a religion. Religion is always based upon people who interperet it.

According to the correct science, man evovled from single-celled organisms which were created out of inorganic compounds spontaneously coming into existance. According to religions, man was created from inorganic dust, and some religions state their god "breathed" life into them. People from the cult of science state that the Scientific Method is the key to knowledge and understanding of the universe. People from the cult of religions state that their manuscript, whether it be the Bible, Quran, or other compilations, is key to true knowledge and understanding of their god. Both sides so dearly hold on to their scriptures and raise them up high like a sword of judgement, using them to cut through what is true and what is false.

"But religions have prophets, predicting the future." you may say. Galileo, Newton, Einstein, Socrates: THEY are your prophets. Did not the minor prophet Edmond Halley during the time of the great prophet Galileo predict the return of the mighty comet? Did not the great builder of the Temple of Periodics, Mendeleev, accurately predict the properties of Gallium and Germanium before they were even discovered? One then, taken aback, would obviously state that the difference would be that religious prophets claim their authenticity through the divine creator, which would supposedly be nonsensical. On the contrary, this method of claiming their predictions by word of the most knowing is a common practice in the sect of Science as well. Did they not believe all laws were constant as the wise Newton preposed? These beliefs were changed by a Jesus figure, namely Einstein, and he went to show what was really true and what was really false.

"Religions have Gods." one might protest. "It cannot be a religion if you do not have a God." Buddhism is a religion, but it never started with a god (it integrated with Shinto). In any case, "gods" are the supposed highest power in the universe usually never seen or heard, but sometimes reveal themselves to a chosen few which we call the prophets. Is not science a god? It is supposedly the highest power that usually can never be seen or heard, and it never reveals itself except for a chosen few. And Science reveals itself through its gospel, the book of Scientific Method, which those who study vigourously become greatly ranked among fellow believers.

So, according to your post, much of Science should be outed from school along with religions?

Although what I am about to say is rude, it must be said because it is absolutely true.

What? You mean like how evolution wiggled ITS way into the school system and became "science"?

-------------
Edit: In other words, religion wouldn't be "taking over" a new throne, it would be "taking back" its old throne.

Kirby:

Science is not religion. Science must under go experimental or observable processes with large amounts of evidence before it is considered as fact.

I don't hold anything "dear" in science. I believe it because it is backed up with evidence. If new evidence would contradict it, I would become skeptical; if overwhelming new evidence point in the opposite direction, I would not only change my belief in the scenario but also try to understand why the original was false.


Abiogenesis is not part of evolution. Stop confusing the two.

(I currently do not support any abiogenesis theories)

As I go to catholic school, am catholic and generally not hassled by our priests I believe religion should be free to be taught in schools, if people have to learn about things like the holocaust so to should they learn abotu religions. For the atheists it's a good leason of "Know the past so you don't repeat their mistakes." For the religious it's a good chance to grow deeper with their faith.

I voted for the world religion class, as where I live it's already a course offered and things are working out fine.

Wow, my little experiment worked! By presenting one of the hostile subjects in the world in a poll with compromises, flaming is at an all time low. I'm proud of you guys.

You see, compromise can be indefinitely more pleasant than bickering about who is right! By presenting religion in a historical context, those who want it to be taught in school can have it, while those that don't want it as science can have their way as well. The introduction of other religions acts as a buffer, so that no religion is singled out.

Being a lab rat is one thing. But being a lab rat and getting no cheese, now THAT'S another.

Allow it as optional. Mention it briefly in any class if nessacary, but don't force Christianity down people's throats in schools.

The term christianity isn't in the topic. just any generic religion, they're all basically the same if you go deep enough.

I was using christianity as an example, since most people are aware of what it is.

mmmm maybe its been awhile since you read the text of the constitution but here it is.



http://www.house.gov/Constitution/Amend.html

Yeah so show me where it says taxes/etc... please

You need to read interpretations of the constitution from the supreme court as well as the definition of "law".

Well in my History/Social Studies classes we've already been learning about religions. It ties into ancient civilizations and other times like the Renaissance and Middle Ages when religion was a big part of society. To ban anything having to do with religion completely would take away a big part of what learning about the past is about. We've studied how a few religions started and a few of their main beliefs.

Schools should keep teaching about religions but not preaching.

Oh, but religion should definitely be kept away from science.

Read this letter :
http://www.venganza.org/

Ah yes, the ubiquitous FSM.

Which makes it different than any other religion... how? Don't ALL religions use observational evidences to make sure they're true? Did not Paul applaud people in Romans for reading up on the Old Testament, which were written down by people of the past? Did not people believe in their "gods" by the miracles presented to them? Does not the sect of scientists believe in observations by their prophets long told ago?

"But the cult of the correct Science looks into things and constantly revises their results, while religion stays the same, despite new evidence." Did not Judiasm change into Christianity by a change of perception as to why their "god" made them keep rules? What difference do these two have?

Do you not hold up the Scientific method as the key to knowledge? Do you not keep it dear to your mind, as religions keep their scriptures dear to their mind, heart, and soul?

It does not matter if abiogenesis is or is not, for the point is that both the correct science and religion agree that we came into existance from dust.

CheeZe, there is only but one difference that you could see between religion and science. But, until you find it, all will see that religion and science are exactly the same.

It's beyond me how you came to this conclusion. Want to know an interesting difference?

The majority of religious texts were written thousands of years ago.

Now, many of the scientific fields that are investigated today also have their roots in the same time periods. The defining feature here is that there has been more progression in the sciences that the people of those times could ever begin to conceive. Adversely, religious texts, and their principles, from the same historical periods have remained almost static.

There has been astronomically more change among the countries and peoples of the Earth in the last 100 years than in any other century, or even millenium, in history. How is it that the old religions are in any way alike to scientific fields?

Note:
When I say "testable", then whatever event has happened should be able to be repeated given enough conditions.

When I say "observable", then it means that the given event can be seen in current times. It can be seen throughout the universe in multiple scenarios that are not related to one another.


Religion claims things that cannot be tested nor observed. Example? The very idea that there is a being that is more powerful than anything else is one idea. As the basis of religion, I think it is enough that this one example shows that there is a large gap between religion and science.


Of course not! An omnipotent being that has no evidence of its existance besides the words of "priests"? No. That isn't evidence; that's opinion. Show me evidence of this being's existance and I will consider it.


A miracle does not point to god. I miraculously won the lottery. Shall I worship an infinite being because of it? No! That would be absurd; most, if not all, people would blame it on luck.

However, if a person (of this time) can claim a miracle (not something obvious, a true miracle) prior to it happening multiple times (thus becoming observable), then I will consider it a true "miracle" that received power from unknown origins.


Assuming they weigh religion over science, sure. But from the statistics I've seen, scientists are usually either agnostic or atheist. Those who are religious try to balance science with religion rather than refuting one altogether. Why? Because they understand the two are completely separate.


Tell me any changes that have been made in the christian belief (since it's the most popular) from the enlightened era to now. Tell me how it has significantly changed the believer's lives because of these changes (if they exist).


The scientific method has proven itself (testable and observable) to be a reliable source of accurate information. If you can point out when the scientific method has failed (must provide proof that all of the steps have been thoroughly completed), I will then consider the validity of it.


Science only has theories on origin. Religion has definite ideas on origin.

The only reason many people accept the "Big Bang Theory" is because there is some evidence pointing to it. I say some because it is not an extremely well-supported theory.

My point being, science doesn't actually agree with itself on the origin; if this is so, how could it possibily agree with religion on the same subject? It can't.


Try completely different genres. But there is one difference that has bothered me. Ignorance. The refusal to accept what is true and continue with what has been proven as false. Luckily, this difference is only for the small majority.

Equal here.
That is because of how beliefs in science work; they prover themselves wrong every twenty years, so scientists rewrites its conclusion. So does this mean that scientists are more open-minded/progresssive, or that the other religions have their conclusions almost right the first time? That I cannot answer for you. And the "scientific texts" have changed? I see the scripture of scientific method has not changed.

"But wait a minute." you may pose. "I'm talking about from the SAME historical periods. The scientific method was WAY after that." Why of course! Unlike religions, where many think that people got together and think "Hey let's make up a god, and he's good, and he's powerful, and we have to obey him.", science was a lot slower in fully forming. The religion of science did not exist at the same time as other religions. Neither did the prophet Muhammad who wrote the Quran, but you seem to forget that. Many people think religions were "invented" in maybe, a day, a month, or possibly less than a decade. The religion of science, on the other hand, had a very slow start. Science originated in multiple areas in 4th century BC. It's main start, though, was from Socrates, and really started to pick up wind when Martin Luther made people challenge their current religion.

To make it all nice and tidy, many religions was formed and done in 7 days, while supposedly the correct science took millions and billions of years to fully form.

Indeed there has been more change in the 1900's. People became more corrupt, became hippies, became "immoral" by some religious standards, and we end up here in the confused generation of 2005. And their change is affected by science.. how?

Corruption is a human quality. People have been corrupt as long as imaginable.

Also, we're still adapting to our new freedom and ways of thinking. By trial and error we improve society. Look at Bush - approval ratings of 35%. It took a natural disaster to get it that low, but people obviously aren't happy with him.

Or perhaps you would like to use the modern democracy as part of your argument? Political science is a science.

>>Kirby
I'm pretty sure you missed the entire point of my post, which was that religious principles have remained largely the same, while the sciences have adapted with new technology and new ideas.

Oh wait, that defies your absolutist point of view. It must be wrong!

Science = Flexible
Religion = Diverse, yet inflexible

It's enormously improbable that some middle eastern folks from 4,000+ years ago slowly developed the Old Testament and afterwards they were like "Hey, this is some biznatchin' stuff. It must be 100% correct in the societal doctrines department." Your whisper campaign proves nothing.

Scientists look for what is right or wrong in past discoveries and theories based on what they have to look at in the present. If they find inconsistencies, they form a new hypothesis or modify the current one, because something in the mix changed.

Science claims things that cannot be tested nor observed also. For example, when saying that "evolution" happens, all we can see is two bones. Do scientists actually see the process of evolution? NO! In these religions, one has enough observable evidence to believe. You cannot "test" if gods exist because gods supposedly do not show up very often in seeable form, if at all. But, the occurances when these gods have been seen have been written down. All religions have some connection to parts of the past that cannot be observed nor tested, but still believed in.
Science that has no evidence of its existance besides the words of "scientists"? No. That isn't evidence; that's opinion!
If you were thrown into a blazing fire and sat there for three minutes and walked out alive with no singe marks, surely one would not claim luck was with them.

Well of course religions have conflicting opinions on subjects! They think they're right and everybody else is wrong! Duuuuhhhhhh....

---------
Do not scientists still believe that man came from single-celled organisms made out of inorganic compounds? Doesn't matter WHERE they came from...

Ah... sweet sweet ignorance.. oh how I long for thee..

Evolution has been tested. Evolution has been observed.

Test: Scientists have already shown natural selection (the stepping stone of evolution) by genetically enhancing certain creatures.

Observed: The DNA of a chimpanzee (what is thought to be the closest human relative) is extremely close to that of human. The fossils only further support this arguement (for evolution).

However, I am not here to discuss about evolution. The title is for religion in schools; I am trying to show why religion should not be in schools. When I say this, I only mean school supported activities that deal with it; if it's a student organization, I really don't care because it would be voluntary (and not unconstitutional).


And what would those be? The "miracles" that never occured? The largely exaggerated truths?


That is exactly why it is different from science! Religion offers to explain how an event happened (Example: God got angry; thus, hurricane). Science tries to explain why (Example: Hurricanes are caused by ...).


And none of them can be observed nor tested. Explain how that is scientific if you will.


Then I don't understand what you are arguing. You admit that religion is believed in; how is this science? Science isn't faith; science is experimentation. If evidences points one way, then that will be the logical choice. If faith points another (while contradicting the evidence), how is it scientific to go with faith?


Scientists work hard to make sure their tests are able to be reproduced. If you were given the ability to test (assuming you have the skills required), the results should be the same.

If one were to get the same results, how would this be opinion? It wouldn't be. It would be evidence pointing to a conclusion with the assumption of a correct inference.

Reproducibility is part of the scientific method. It's becoming clear that you don't actually know all the steps; perhaps a visit to wikipedia?


Nope. I would first check to see if that person was wearing some sort of fire-resistant clothes. If he wasn't and he was very healthy after coming out of the fire, I would very much call it a miracle.

Now tell me how many times this has happened in the last 500 years.


Thus, including religion (or religious ideas) in school is wrong!


I already told you my opinion on abiogenesis. Perhaps someone else can give you theirs and you can argue that (in a different thread).

Kirby, if you need us to actually sit down and waste hours of our life to explain to you in detail why science is not a religion, then I just don't know.

Science is not a religion because science is taxed and religion is not.