Goddess Pele

[OnoOno]

You are so spot-on with this analysis. What really irks me is when people assert that there is no morality sans religion.

IMHO, Pele is nothing but a quaint euphemism for volcanic activity, and absolutely nothing more. I am not against references to "her", but in a figurative, not literal, sense.

quote:

---

Originally posted by wakan

On the Topic of religion and science.

Science is based on experimental proof. Religion is based on blind faith.

Science demands critical reasoning. Religion demands uncritical reasoning.

Science is an open-ended discipline designed to continually challenge even its own established ideas about how the world is. Religion is a closed ideology that is resistant to change, and in its strictest forms, does not even allow for questioning its precepts.

Any scientific theory must have an element of "falsifiability" (disprovability) built into it--which means there must be a way to objectively test it (and perhaps prove it wrong). Sometimes it takes a while for technological abilities to catch up to theory, but the theory must, at least, have a theoretical potential for experimental proof. Otherwise, it's not considered a scientific theory.

Religions are based on dogmas that, in most cases, were composed thousands of years ago (when the state of human knowledge was in a far different place). These religious dogmas further insist (in most cases) that their precepts are fixed and eternally constant from the time they are written down in sacred texts or articulated in chants and ritual. They are immutable and not open to change with the passage of time--nor do they accept any degree of cultural or geographical relativity.

When a scientist comes up with a new idea or theory (through deductive or inductive reasoning), he/she then subjects it to experimental verification. If the results support the hypothesis, the scientist then publishes the results in a peer review journal where all the experts in that field (those who most understand the fine points of the theory and the experiment) read it over and proceed to do everything they can to disprove it. If these experts cannot reproduce the same positive experimental results, the theory does not survive. Cold fusion is a well known example. It's a rigorous process that is designed to filter out any subjective distortion of the facts.

Which system can be more realistically depended upon to advance our knowledge of the world around us and the Universe at large. Open ended experimental/scientific methodology that allows for changes in time of our understanding of reality or closed minded religious dogma that resists change and demands blind faith as an approach for our understanding of reality.

Newton, Galileo, Copernicus, and Kepler were not only under the threat of the external religious authorities of their time. They were also living at a time when their own internal mental processes had been shaped by the overwhelming place of religion in European culture. Their discoveries were not only a challenge to the prevailing religious views of the Church; they were also a challenge to their own internal cultural values.

And it is true that there are some scientists, even today, that are not atheists--however surveys are clear that most legitimate scientists are, in fact, atheists. And most of those that continue to practice a religion are not of the fundamentalist type mentality. Michael Behe, who has written several books that challenge the Darwinian Theory of Evolution (The Edge of Evolutionbeing a notable brilliant work) is an excellent example. Though Creationists love to use him as an example of a modern day scientist who trashes Darwin, he doesn't actually trash the idea of Evolution. In fact he argues for the obviousness of "Common Descent" (which is actually what evolution is all about) So even though he argues against Darwinian Theory, his ideas are contradictory to Biblical teaching. So Beware of claims that "many" scientists are practitioners of religion.

Scientists are human beings, so they are fallible. And of course there are scientific pecking orders, pressures to publish, competition for tenured positions in universities, and theoretical turf wars. Like everybody else, scientists have egos that want their pet theories to survive, and they want recognition from their peers. So their is always some amount of subjectivity in the work of scientists, but the antidote is peer review. A theory that is wrong may last for a period of time, but it will eventually be overturned by some ambitious young scientist. Science is a revolutionary as well as evolutionary endeavor. It is always re-inventing itself.

So with all this being said, I don't really see much room for the integration of science and religion. Evidentiary proof and blind faith just don't mix.

---

Ono - So Fast - So Tasty!