And the big bit, the only real reference to the article's headline claims, is a silly survey that included dentists, engineers and technicians as "scientists." Hey, why not take it a step further? The fundamental parts of the scientific method are used by everyone every goddamned day. Like when they open the fridge to see if the milk has expired, rather than praying to the spirits for enlightenment. If we expand the pool to include everyone, we might in fact find that the population of "everyone" will have the religious characteristics of the population of "everyone." Imagine.

I'll grant the article writer that their survey (which they talked about so little I can only assume they were embarrassed about) probably is the best ammo they have. That is, other than the old "there isn't *necessarily* a conflict between (incredibly broadly defined) religion and science" canard. Yeah, if you define religion broadly enough, you can pretend that. There exists a realm of possible religion which is not inconsistent with possible science. So what. That has fuck-all to do with our actual, obvious, and incredibly damaging conflict between actual religions and actual science. If there weren't, then nobody would feel the need to write or link to silly, vapid, useless puff pieces like the article above.

If you are referring to the battle between actual science and actual religion, that battle is massive, ongoing, and completely fucking unavoidable. Like the Steven Novella bit in one of your links explicitly says. I'm on that side. Because actual religion really is actually incompatible with actual science. Pretending that religious nutbags will cotton to scientific realities if only we tiptoe around the difficult parts, or advertise them better, is more insulting to the religious nutbags than calling them "religious nutbags" is.

If by "battle" you mean the battle over what to do about the battle, then I can't help you there. Not much. Religious nutbags are only reachable in the sense that they don't *necessarily* need to remain religious nutbags. But the vast majority of them will. And populations are what matter here. That battle isn't over them, it's over their children. They know that. They acknowledge that. They are throwing vast quantities of money and effort at exactly that. And they aren't doing it by pretending there is no conflict, when there obviously is a conflict.

As for that goddamned survey, it really is the crap I say it is. It measures something, sure. And it probably measured that something very well. With respect to the part of the survey that religious apologists keep throwing up, what it did was broaden the pool of people engaged in "science." Magically, unaccountably, it found that when you extend the definition of science enough people engaged in science start looking more like the general population. Fucking astounding. Your courtiers-reply like answer that I don't understand the deep deep depths of that survey does not fucking compute. The survey measured what it measured. What it measured was trite and irrelevant.

Back to the battle. Several societies, the Romans among them, used to talk about different sorts of peace. There were good kinds of peace, and bad kinds of peace. The good kinds of peace involved one of two things: finding an actual basis for mutually-respecting peace. Actually burying the hatchet. Obviously, this wasn't a very common sort of peace. Actual religion, as it is currently practiced in the world, will never make this sort of peace with science. The other kind of good peace was the one in which you left you enemy completely broken, so that they simply would not be able to make war on you for the foreseeable future. That was the more common sort of good peace. And finally, there was the bad peace. The kind where you defeated an enemy, left them with even *more* reason to hate you, and left them with enough capacity to wage war again in the near future. That kind of peace was almost always doomed.

Actual religion and science are actually incompatible. Not in theory, perhaps. But in reality it is overwhelmingly so. The only kind of peace religion and science can have is the kind where loser has no real power to harm the winner. Or the kind that will simply erupt again in flames for every single fucking spark, from here till the end of goddamned time. We've only ever had the second kind, except in some places where religion or science have won something like the first. Most of the best places to live are places where religion has, at least for the time being, unconditionally surrendered to reality. The worst places are mostly the reverse.

the only concessions they seem to want made are BY science FOR religion. One-way unconditional surrender by science whenever they conflict.

It is not necessary for there to be a winner and loser here. There are good and bad things that come from science, just as there are good and bad things that come from religion.

Some embrace one over the other while some can embrace both. Those that embrace either in an attempt to destroy the other are fighting a hopeless war in which no one will win.

Do you think all religious people are nut bags or just some of them? If it's just some of them, how do you define that subset? Do you reject the notion that one can be both religious and scientific without any problem?

I might call you an insurgent, but other terms might equally apply.

I agree with you that the peace lies where neither science nor religion has the power to harm the other. I would add that they can indeed help each other if someone is so inclined to follow that path.

Where do you find the best places to live? I am living in a highly religious environment where religion and science appear to be getting along without either having surrendered, as you put it.

Where would you choose to live?

Though baking seems suspiciously like alchemy...

I often feel like I am in a laboratory when I am cooking.

But there is an art to it as well that sometimes defies science. Individual taste is very hard to quantify.

cooking can be both. I don't see any defiance, rather, complementary understanding.

http://modernistcuisine.com/

There need not be any defiance between religion and science, though at times there clearly is. But I would argue that there can indeed be a complementary understanding.

And would that not be wonderful?

religions didn't purport to provide revealed truth about the universe that conflicts with the universe.

I don't think saying there's no, or need be no conflict between science and art is anywhere the near the same as saying there is no, or need be no conflict between science and religion.

Art doesn't purport to provide revealed truth about the universe.

see a whole lot of that. Although the numbers aren't as good as I would like, most people do not see a conflict between their religion and evolution or really any other scientific facts that I can think of. What ones are you referring to?

Philosophy purports to provide truth about the universe. Some writing does. People have felt at various times that drugs do. And I would suggest that for some, art, music and dance do.

Many religions purport to reveal such a thing.

Some schools of philosophy attempt to, but they are not impelled by a absolute divine author/judge. Philosophy is debatable. Commandments from a supernatural god, if you accept the premise, are not.

I would argue the items you listed as counterweight are simply tools we use to help observe or interpret the universe, not provide truth/reveal absolute truth.

I would argue that religion is often simply a tool that some use to help observe or interpret the universe. Not all religious people feel it has provided them with absolute truth and many see it only as guidance down a path during this lifetime.

on the 'moral constant' question, a creator (a begged question the universe itself does not yet support, in our observation of the evidence) and moral law would imply/require a moral universe.

If you accept the religious idea of a creator, you have already started on the path of accepting 'revealed truth'.


I look around, and I don't see a creator. I don't see any evidence that I can interpret as revealing, or requiring a creator. So there's a starting point 'revealed truth' that religion purports to supply. Kind of the ultimate starting point, really.

There is only a handful of non-theistic religions I am aware of that make no claim WRT a creator/truth.

that is why they are theists.

Since nobody knows which of you is right, there seems no point in condemnation in either direction for not seeing things the same way.

In the end, your way is no better or worse than theirs. It's simply a different path.

One makes a positive claim WRT truth: that something exists.
I make no claim that it DOESN'T exist.

I freely admit that I cannot disprove the existence of a purportedly omniscient, omnipotent, and omnipresent being that does not wish to be perceived.

I am not the one making a positive truth claim.

The two positions are not equal. They are not simply different paths.

"your way is no better or worse than theirs."

If I'm right, then yes, theirs is intrinsically bad, because it will mislead people about the nature of the universe. What possible good could come of that?

If you say that my belief that something exist is wrong (your word), then you are most certainly saying it does not exist.

you'll find it only exists in the post you posted it.

That said, there's much more nuance than Boolean true/false. For instance, if a Christian believes in the trinity interpretation of 'god', they can be 'wrong' if the still-Abrahamic, but Islamic interpretation of allah is accurate.

Both can be wrong if any number of impersonal creator god interpretations is correct.

ALL of them can BE wrong if there is no creator, without regard to my opinion on whether it was wrong or not.


A positive claim is either correct or it is wrong. Advancing no such claim is not exactly the antonym of such a position.

"Nearly 60 percent of evangelical Protestants and 38 percent of all surveyed believe “scientists should be open to considering miracles in their theories or explanations.” "

So, most evangelical American Protestants are in conflict with science. And 38% of Americans.

The general resort of religions to the supernatural (reincarnation, souls, deities that can perform miracles, afterlives, claims that prayer works) are problems. They go against the principles of looking at evidence that science depends on.

You need to understand a good deal of science to be a good cook.

I am with enki. That would be loading the dice. It's the same thing the Discovery Institute does with their vapid "scientists who don't accept evolution" list, which has very few actual biologists on it, let alone scientists. Of course, the NCSE has Project Steve and the ever popular Project Steve song.

and that the more inclusive that becomes, the more likely you are to see religiousness.

I can't watch your video, sorry.

It was originated, in part, by Robyn Williams, long time Australian broadcaster and host of The Science Show on ABC (Australian Broadcasting Corporation). BTW, the program is available as a podcast as is one of the best programs of its type. I never miss a download. Robyn Williams always has absolutely fascinating stuff and is a soft spoken, consummate professional. Highly recommended.

Paying by the "bit" these days and audio or video streaming is completely out of the question.

But will try to see it at a time when I have access.

If not scientists, then philosophers, are leaning heavily toward atheism. Says Phil Paper's digital philosophy survey

http://philpapers.org/surveys/results.pl

It is not surprising at all.

to make blanket statements about scientists.