Slashdot Mirror
Ask Dr. Robert Bakker About Dinosaurs and Merging Science and Religion
With his trademark hat and beard, Dr. Robert Bakker is one of the most recognized paleontologists working today. Bakker was among the advisers for the movie Jurassic Park, and the character Dr. Robert Burke in the film The Lost World: Jurassic Park is based on him. He was one of the first to put forth the idea that some dinosaurs had feathers and were warm-blooded, and is credited with initiating the ongoing "dinosaur renaissance" in paleontology. Bakker is currently the curator of paleontology for the Houston Museum of Natural Science and the Director of the Morrison Natural History Museum in Colorado. He is also a Christian minister, who contends that there is no real conflict between religion and science, citing the writings and views of Saint Augustine as a guide on melding the two. Dr. Bakker has agreed to take some time from his writing and digging in order to answer your questions. As usual, ask as many questions as you'd like, but please, one question per post.
Let the mud slinging BEGIN!
A central tenant of science is that you could be wrong, that seems to conflict with religion. Which is not to say you can't have faith and be a scientist. Just that you would have to keep a fair amount of mental separation between the two. I would even go so far as to say that to be a good scientist you would have to question your faith.
"Have you ever thought about just turning off the TV, sitting down with your kids, and hitting them?"
So what is your take on the human footprint inside of the dinosaur footprint in the one creation museum near the Dinosaur Valley State Park in Texas?
-- Many men would appreciate a woman's mind more if they could fondle it
He is also a Christian minister, who contends that there is no real conflict between religion and science, citing the writings and views of Saint Augustine as a guide on melding the two.
Really? Surely as a paleontologist, you must realize that we are but a blink in time compared to the Earth's age let alone our Universe's age. Take, for the purpose of discussion, the Christian creation story written by God through man. So Saint Augustine, Thomas Aquinas, etc proposed that the six days of creation were merely a loose framework for what actually happened in the creation of where we are now. How is it that you dig up these fossils of massive beasts easily more impressive than humans in every feature save the brain and yet you never wonder why God didn't tell whoever wrote the Book of Genesis about this amazing history of the Earth and Universe? Why was everything described only the present day stuff in a seemingly random order? Why weren't things that would advance medicine like viruses and bacteria described by God instead of the obvious stuff? Why was something as trivial as the moon described as one of "the two great lights" in Genesis 1:16 while something as important as black holes, dinosaur killing asteroids, super nova, etc didn't even deserve a foot note? Doesn't this vex you endlessly? That an all powerful all knowing being decided to serve us up the stuff we already knew in His codex of life and then to give us a convoluted framework? The skeptic in me feels like you could pull a random paragraph from a Sears magazine and it would do an equally good job of providing a framework creation story for our actual creation.
My work here is dung.
It seems to me that a lot of the conflict in Christianity about whether evolution exists comes down to the official timeline of events. Evolutionary science claims it took millions (and billions, etc.) of years for changes to occur on our planet, particularly changes in plant and animal life forms to get us to where we are today. Christians can't accept those terms, either because of a preconceived age of the earth or because they feel the Bible asserts that creation occurred during the first week and that week only, and that none could occur at a later date - thus invalidating evolution. Do you feel that there is any way to reconcile the broader Christian theology with observed evolution, and if so, how?
As humans, we express wonder at certain arrangements of digits, 666, 3.14[3/14] (Pi day) 12/21/2012, etc. However all of these are base-10, the same as the number of fingers we have. (Though some tribes did use fingers as base-2 digits) Computers are base2, with hexadecimal being a convenient short hand. If divinity is universal, surely God has a universal number base. I would assume e. What do you think God uses, if he uses math at all?
Slashdot's rate-of-post filter: Preventing you from posting too many great ideas at once.
Hello Dr. Bakker,
Has your thinking regarding mass extinctions, particularly the Cretaceous–Paleogene extinction event, changed or evolved from the time of your writing THE DINOSAUR HERESIES?
Thanks sincerely -
There is a lot of speculation about dinosaur behavior. For example people talk about how velociraptors hunted in packs or how they hunted. When these things are discussed in the media the ideas are stated with a great deal of certainty. How do you react when these theories are stated as being definite facts? What do you, as a scientists, try to do to try to get reporters to understand the nature of science and the role of dialogue/debate and uncertainty within the scientific community?
Charles Darwin a life long student of nature very aptly commented concerning evolution "what a book a devil's chaplain might write on the clumsy, wasteful, blundering low and horridly cruel works of nature"
How can one reconcile the long suffering and blundering low and cruel works of nature with the notion of a powerful omniscient and omnibenevolent being?
Maybe a better way to phrase this question is "How seriously do you think we should take the Bible considering that you must agree, as a scientist, that there are factual errors in it?"
It is my observation that reader comments on science article quickly follow a Godwin-like trajectory to a flame war between those who hold to religious (though many are scientists) beliefs and those who hold to scientific (usually atheist) beliefs. The two factions spew hate, obscenity, and generally impugn the intelligence of the other.
Question: What advice can you offer to help the readers, and thus the comment posters, to strike a balance? Can there be some kind of 'kumbaya manifesto' to skip the quarreling and get to the matter at hand? Climate change, dark matter, even human colonization need well-tempered minds, of all persuasions. How do we get there?
Dr. Bakker,
I'd just like to say thanks for the good childhood memories from your book, Raptor Red... I still have my signed copy of it, and should definitely re-read it some time.
I guess I should ask a question, too... If Raptor Red were being written today, are there any new discoveries in the last two decades that would neccessitate significant changes from how you wrote the original?
Christianity is very species centric. That is, according to Christian beliefs humans are allegedly the center of the universe and a focus of God's concern. With the modern realization that humans and the earth are not at the center of anything how does a Christian handle the obvious species centricity of Christianity.
"God of the Gaps" (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/God_of_the_gaps)
Whether the Bible is or is not based on divine revelation, it was written by pre-industrial people for pre-industrial people.
The moon was many times more important to them than black holes.
And the Bible's purpose is moral, not to "advance medicine".
The purpose of the creation story in Genesis is to establish God's authority as creator and ruler of man, not to teach science.
Wow, where to start with this? Maybe because sheep herders wouldn't have understood anything more technical than what they were given. Maybe because the answers to those questions are too complex for our little minds to handle. Maybe because knowing about dinosaurs and blackholes weren't the type of information those people needed to survive the world they lived in. Maybe because you have a kindergarten view of religion, spirituality and philosophic thought and trying to understand why quantum mechanics wasn't included in the first book of the bible shows you just asked the questions without really thinking about what your were asking. Each of your questions can be answered with a little common sense, you only asked them because you have a preconceived idea of what the answer is without even considering that your preconceived ideas might be wrong. FYI; the universe is a lot more complex than you will ever grasp.
Is it possible that they used tools like some mammals?
If humans are indeed the resultant work of an intelligent designer, then why do we need toilet paper?
How can a whole class evolve of animal evolve to another class so completely (reptile->bird)? What could have to changed in their DNA/lifestyle that would cause something so drastic?
"When life gives you lemons, don't make lemonade. Make life take the lemons back!" -- Cave Johnson
I was a velociraptor in a previous life.
Sig. Sig. Sputnik
I have a bunch, but yes, only one question per post. So:
Dr. Bakker, people are incredibly fascinated with dinosaurs, and with good reason. But there's a huge swath of very interesting creatures that lived life on earth prior to the end-Permian event. Lots of really interesting creatures like members of the labrynthodonts and sauropsids. Although children's imaginations and movies like Jurassic park focus on dinos and their immediate relatives, have you ever thought about promoting the diversity of creatures prior to the end-Permian in cultural ways? In other words, will we ever see a giant flesh-eating Anomalocaris in a movie? Can you make that happen please?
I am aware of many ideas that "young Earth believers" foster to explain the stratigraphy of fossils in a 6K-year old Earth.
Question: What explanations have you heard? What answer can you offer from the middle ground between a scientist (whose expertise relies on that stratigraphic record) and a man of faith who reads the same Bible that the "young Earth believers" do?
n/t
so you think the bible is supposed to be a non-fiction work, dictated by God to a bunch of writers? Maybe you need to put your thinking cap on. Mankind was on this planet for tens (hundreds even?) of thousands of years prior to the invention of writing. Think of the bible more as a collection of stories that were handed down from one generation to the next, in order to preserve bits of history, teachings, knowledge gleaned, morals, ethics, and laws. Now think about this: Of all the civilizations that have emerged on this planet, with all kinds of different teachings, knowledge, morals, ethics, and laws, the oldest surviving civilization is that which based their life upon the bible; namely, Judaism.
Having been an Atheist and a Naive Rationalist in the past, it appears to me differences in the use of language obscures religion to modern Rationalists and Realists. I have come to see the essence of religion as a pure skepticism of human ability to describe and understand reality beyond experiencing it directly.
It seems that many in both Science and Religion tend to take their beliefs too seriously - resulting in fundamentalism. Do you think Skepticism, Humor and a Common Language based on it could help bridge the gap between positions? If so, how?
what is the difference between science and religion?
Of all the things to choose to study, you picked dinosaurs. What inspired you to go that route rather than something that could potentially be easier to merge with your religious beliefs?
The gods was created to explain the nature, now we have science to explain the nature. What is the purpose of the different gods now ?
Ceci n'est pas une Signature !
If humans are indeed the resultant work of an intelligent designer, then why do we need toilet paper?
Because even no-wipers need one wipe to check!
The Bible lists a bunch of individuals who lived 900+ years. Do you take this literally? If not, how do you interpret this?
Just a thought... the moon controls tides. We have calendars based on it. Many real world applications of the moon, so to speak, exist. What's a real world application of a black hole? Does a black hole affect my daily life? Does it "govern" it in any way... like the moon does?
Whether the Bible is or is not based on divine revelation, it was written by pre-industrial people for pre-industrial people.
So an omnipotent and omniscient being's intent is undone by mere mortals. Good to know we're that powerful. Why didn't The Holy Spirit just take over the body of the writer and make it all perfect and then simply stop anyone from altering those words? I mean, you are infinitely powerful but that's too much effort?
The moon was many times more important to them than black holes.
Really? I bet if you described to them that there was something out among the stars that was capable of destroying everything they knew in the blink of an eye without any care or concern or remorse, they would be a lot more interested in it than the moon.
And the Bible's purpose is moral, not to "advance medicine".
Is not advancing medicine a moral good? I'm sorry, do religious texts not contain medical advise?
The purpose of the creation story in Genesis is to establish God's authority as creator and ruler of man, not to teach science.
Really?! Is that why there's so many versus on what you can and can't eat and what is clean and unclean? Take Leviticus 13:2-5 for example:
2 "When anyone has a swelling or a rash or a bright spot on his skin that may become an infectious skin disease, he must be brought to Aaron the priest or to one of his sons who is a priest. 3 The priest is to examine the sore on his skin, and if the hair in the sore has turned white and the sore appears to be more than skin deep, it is an infectious skin disease. When the priest examines him, he shall pronounce him ceremonially unclean. 4 If the spot on his skin is white but does not appear to be more than skin deep and the hair in it has not turned white, the priest is to put the infected person in isolation for seven days. 5 On the seventh day the priest is to examine him, and if he sees that the sore is unchanged and has not spread in the skin, he is to keep him in isolation another seven days.
So God is going to tell us how to quarantine but not how to use make and use soap? That above passage is about morality and not put in there to save lives?
My work here is dung.
But it did so well that the Jews were left so nearly untouched by the black plague that there was belief they started it.
See also that Revelation pre-supposes (not predicts, pre-supposes) at least 20th century technology.
Remember, RELIGION. Not faith. Not God. Religion.
Show me one that makes claims that concur with science and I'll show you one created in the last few years to do only that.
But religion makes claims about this world.
Claims that are absolutely nonsense.
Hell, it makes claims about itself which are absolutely nonsense!
It's possible to have FAITH and have science. But no religion so far made (apart possibly from Spinoza's God) can manage to be accepted in the face of science. Because religion says its words are Word From God. And when that word turns out to be bullshit, either
a) God is a bullshitter. Goodbye religion's followers.
b) The revelation was human not godly in origin. Goodbye religion's followers.
You are an expert in two fields: paleontology & theology; please compare and contrast the quality of the evidence that supports the theories in each field and how the theories are objectively and repeatably tested.
Please pay particular attention to: independent verifiabilty of evidence; tests that could be performed which would show these these theories to be false (and, presumably, how the theories have been found to surive such tests); how the theories have been modified over time in the light of new evidence that has been discovered; independent critical peer review of writings about each set of theories; how full evidence is widely and completely made available; objective comparisons with competing theories; how critical discussion of competing theories happens in a calm manner without ad-hominem attacks.
This may be slightly outside your field of expertise, but I'd like to ask anyways:
There's a huge argument right now about what caused the end-Permian event, with lots of scientists thinking it was the Siberian Traps as the main culprit. Even with the end-Cretaceous event being thought of as a result of of a bolide impact, there's some scientists who think that the Deccan traps had to play a role. Now, I've read a number of books, especially "When Life Almost Died" that shows what appears to me to be a fairly strong relationships between bolide impacts and extinctions, but which also show the great possibility of these large eruptions causing the extinctions. There are some scientists who think that there is an antipodal relationship between bolide impacts and "bulges" or "plumes" going through the earth and causing large eruptions on the other side of the planet over time, thus contributing to or causing extinctions. (I also find it very interesting that in general, when positing the Siberian traps as the cause of the end-Permian event, no one ever really talks about what might actually have caused such a massive series of eruptions..)
As far as I know, the research on this effect is pretty limited, but to me as a non-scientist, I can say the relationship appears to be more than coincidental. But a real scientist can't say that, of course.
1) What is your opinion on antipodal bolide events causing or contributing to mass extinctions?
2) Do you have any recent information on research that is being done in this area that you could point me to? Any links? Thanks.
- and there are certainly many things which science does not explain.
Which does NOT mean religion is right - or any other system without evidence; which unfortunately for the uneducated masses means "science can't explain it so religion is right!"
My favorite explanation for this comes from Isaac Asimov: http://sumware.com/creation.html
My sci-fi novel, Ghost Thief, is now available from Amazon.com.
I am an atheist, but I will concede that science does not conflict with religion as a general idea (the belief in God, or things outside of science), but science often does conflict with specific religious beliefs.
My grandparents raised some of their children religious and some not religious. My parents are atheist but I have aunts and unlces who are missionaries and cousins who are young Earth creationists. They reject sciences like paleontology, geology, and astronomy as hoaxes because they all point to an Earth much older than their church tells them. Of course, they "know" evolution is wrong, though they have a weak grasp on what it actually is.
The question: how can the deeply religious be convinced (or reassured) that accepting what science teaches does not require rejecting their faith?
Part B: have you ever convinced someone to change their mind about accepting those sciences?
Help! Help! I'm being repressed!
So rather shortsighted to neglect a blink of geology later that people would still be reading this crap, isn't it. Hardly omniescent.
Yet the bible has many many things in it that sheepherders wouldn't have understood and this doesn't seem to have worried this god writer. Waters above and waters below? firmament?
The bible is nonsense.
Even if its god exists, the bible was never written nor inspired (except in as much as Gilgamesh inspired JKR to write Harry Potter) by him.
Dr. Bakker, what is the current status of the digging going on in southern Utah...do you expect to see new species found soon, or are they finding mostly duplicates of known species? Specifically, I'm really interested in the ceratopsids. I am fascinated by weird ones like Medusaceratops, and so I'm wondering if you think that they will find additional new specimens similar or even weirder than that one. Also, tell the naming committee to keep naming dinosaurs with very cool names. Medusaceratops is fantastic. Maybe...Shoggotheratops or Balrogeratops for the next one? Just a suggestion.
Why do you assume that all Christians are Biblical literalists?
Quidnam Latine loqui modo coepi?
Whats your favorite personal discovery? /. interviews are more IT/CS/programmer types so I ask them for their favorite piece of code they personally wrote. /. if you fell in eternal love with the first trilobite fossil you ever saw, we're not gonna judge (well, not too much... mostly)
Usually
I guess for a paleontologist the comparison would be your favorite discovery.
Not one line, not a book, just a paragraph. No weasel words, no membership either as leader or distant drone, by direct personal discovery as in YOU found it.
I know there's more lab work in your field than most people think so a story not involving test tubes or whatever instead of swinging hammer is perfectly OK.
Also no "big project" allowed like a book. I'm looking for one individual personal precise discovery.
Insights or scientific papers are OK, doesn't have to be a physical thing.
As an example of what I'm looking for, if you have a PHD and it is your favorite thing in the world, go for it and gimmie a paragraph about it. If its not your favorite thing, well something you did similar that you actually happen to enjoy...
Don't be afraid to geek out, this is freaking
"Science flies us to the moon. Religion flies us into buildings." - Victor Stenger
Maybe because he realized that if he told us all these things there would be a lot of unemployed paleontologists and other scientists. Are you one of those people who needs to be spoon fed everything? It's often the the joy of discovery that makes the journey worth while.
Do they ask you to pick them up, Dr. Robert?
Or about drinking from your special cup, Dr. Robert?
Circumcision is child abuse.
Really, just look at the questions. Half of them are attempts to get you to say that Christianity is (in part or in whole) false, with the implication that if you say otherwise you are discrediting yourself as a paleontologist. Most of the readers of this forum have already decided their beliefs to the point where they believe that they do not have beliefs but are entirely guided by evidence, and will down-mod anyone who provides any counter-evidence.
Richard Dawkins makes a couple of good points in a recent talk. 1) If God exists, he has to manage a universe filled with billions of galaxies, each with billions of stars, and we're located on the outskirts in an ordinary solar system in an ordinary galaxy, only one species of potentially billions upon billions. Why does he care about sin and or our morality? That and 2) Using supernatural explanations for phenomenon is a way to chicken out, so you don't have to do real work to find out the real answer to said phenomenon.
Mark Anthony Collins
How can one reconcile the long suffering and blundering low and cruel works of nature with the notion of a powerful omniscient and omnibenevolent being?
Assuming god exists, the obvious answer is that god chooses not to interact or interfere with mortal undertakings (yikes, that would make liars of nearly all mainstream religions). The next possibility is that god exists, but is unaware of our existence (hey, the universe is a big place, not to mention what lies beyond). Another possibility is that god exists, and is also aware of us, but is unconcerned with mortal undertakings (i.e. god is apathetic towards mortals). The last possibility is that god exists, but chooses to commit aggression against mortals.
If you can't tell, I am agnostic, and to an agnostic, atheism is as much a religion as theism. With that said, I certainly do hope that god exists and that I spend eternity in heaven. Who the hell wouldn't?
The parent comment shows a lot of "intellectual integrity"
Christianity commands all Christians believe in monogenism. Everyone comes from Adam and Eve, because only through the story of their fall, do all humans acquire the stain of original sin. From original sin comes the need for redemption, which is only provided for by Jesus Christ. The question is: How do you rectify the conflict between religion and science when it comes to monogenism?
Religion is defined as the belief in and worship of a superhuman controlling power, esp. a personal God or gods. Since there is no evidence gods exist and science is based on fact and evidence religion, by default, is bullshit and is therefore incompatible with religion.
"And the Bible's purpose is moral"
You have to be fucking joking, genocide, child abuse, homophobia, mysogeny to name a few
"The hands that help are better far than lips that pray." - Robert Ingersoll (1833-1899)
Why is Raptor Jesus "off topic"? The man is a world-class dinosaur scientist, and Christian minister to boot. You'd be hard pressed to find anybody on the surface of the Earth better qualified to discuss it.
(-1: Post disagrees with my already-settled worldview) is not a valid mod option.
Even today, we have people like you who cannot come up with simple logical answers to your questions.
Don't complain about syntax, grammar, or spelling. There is no.hell like input on android.
Dr. Bakker,
I would appreciate your thoughts on the following extracanonical "saying" from the perspective of theology, evolution, and/or the sociopolitical conflict between the preceding two.
Jesus said, "When you see your likeness, you are pleased. But when you see your images which came into being before you, and which neither die nor become manifest, how much you will have to bear!"
--Gospel of Thomas
Thank you.
~ Whence do you come, slayer of men, or where are you going, conqueror of space?
It seems likely that our knowledge of genetic manipulation will continue to advance to the point where it will be possible to build dinosaur-like creatures. Whereupon it will probably be done, because the PR value would be huge.
However, would doing it be beneficial for our knowledge of real dinosaurs? Or would it just help to reinforce the wrong ideas we have about them?
if they are not literalists then they aren't true religionists, they are cherry picking people too scared to go the final step and admit god has no probability of existing. Fundementalists are the true christians whether you like it or not and they are nutjobs
"The hands that help are better far than lips that pray." - Robert Ingersoll (1833-1899)
Really? I bet if you described to them that there was something out among the stars that was capable of destroying everything they knew in the blink of an eye without any care or concern or remorse, they would be a lot more interested in it than the moon.
Why? Let's say you're a pre-industrial fisherman. Your livelihood, indeed, your day to day survival depends on fish and your understanding of the ocean or seas. You probably have at least some inkling that the tide and the moon are in some way related (even if only in a relation of time rather than gravity). Someone comes to you and tells you that there are these invisible forces out there in the universe "capable of destroying everything you know in the blink of an eye, without any care or concern or remorse", you are powerless to stop it, powerless to change it and for that matter even powerless to know about it until it is too late. These forces are also thousands or millions of lifetimes away, where you would never have a hope of ever getting to. Why would you as a pre-industrial fisherman be more interested in these "black holes" than the moon which daily impacts your life?
You try to second guess a bit too aggressively why the guy wakes up in the morning to do his job. Should a paleontologist be upset because he was inspired by scientifically inaccurate childhood stories, or because he still secretly hope to become a celebrity despite the overwhelming amount of evidence that that will not happen ? The real problem is that somehow, he needs to explain it and use his reputation to try to change the mentality in a country that shamed itself by giving too much political clouts and credibility to what should have been an extremist minority.
In the first world, "Reconciling" religion and science seems to be mainly a US-centric problem. Except for a few touch point (abortion, ...), other countries don't even seem to see the problem at all. Having the guy making an interview on /. is sad, really.
Why did God wipe out the dinosaurs?
Why did he create them if he was just going to wipe them out?
The purpose of the creation story in Genesis is to establish God's authority as creator and ruler of man, not to teach science.
Really?! Is that why there's so many versus on what you can and can't eat and what is clean and unclean? Take Leviticus 13:2-5 for example:
2 "When anyone has a swelling or a rash or a bright spot on his skin that may become an infectious skin disease, he must be brought to Aaron the priest or to one of his sons who is a priest. 3 The priest is to examine the sore on his skin, and if the hair in the sore has turned white and the sore appears to be more than skin deep, it is an infectious skin disease. When the priest examines him, he shall pronounce him ceremonially unclean. 4 If the spot on his skin is white but does not appear to be more than skin deep and the hair in it has not turned white, the priest is to put the infected person in isolation for seven days. 5 On the seventh day the priest is to examine him, and if he sees that the sore is unchanged and has not spread in the skin, he is to keep him in isolation another seven days.
So God is going to tell us how to quarantine but not how to use make and use soap? That above passage is about morality and not put in there to save lives?
Leviticus is neither part of the creation story nor is it part of Genesis. If you're going to try to argue with someone, it helps to read their argument.
There are many other parts of the Christian Bible you have chosen to ignore where there are specific instructions for how to stay clean. The quote you gave is about how to deal with someone who is already diseased. I'm not a doctor, but I'm pretty sure soap doesn't cure leprosy.
The science-religion dialog/debate/war is a confusing enterprise, largely because there are many different things called 'science', and many more different things called 'religion'. If science refers to our current best set of theories about the history and functioning of our universe, then religion can be roughly divided into two groups: (1) Those who embrace science and attempt to integrate their religious beliefs with our best scientific understanding. (2) Those who reject parts of science that don't match their religious traditions. Many are proclaiming harmony between science and religion of type (1). And they are right. But a large segment of religious believers on our planet fall into category (2), and this produces major problems. One specific instance is the large number of children being taught that some core scientific principles are dangerous, which creates in them an inoculation against scientific understanding that is difficult to overcome (at least it had that effect on me). I would like to know how Dr. Bakker interacts with religious believers of type (2) and how he recommends scientists should engage them.
Nice observation, but not really a question for the man is it?
Let me fix it for you: Dr. Roberts, what is your personal take on the following statement?
How you resolve your cognitive dissonance is your personal matter. You abandon intellectual integrity and the practice of science when you talk rubbish.
Has the poster's opinion as to intellectual integrity any validity?
And the Bible's purpose is moral, not to "advance medicine".
Rebutted with:
2 "When anyone has a swelling or a rash or a bright spot on his skin that may become an infectious skin disease, he must be brought to Aaron the priest or to one of his sons who is a priest. 3 The priest is to examine the sore on his skin, and if the hair in the sore has turned white and the sore appears to be more than skin deep, it is an infectious skin disease. When the priest examines him, he shall pronounce him ceremonially unclean. 4 If the spot on his skin is white but does not appear to be more than skin deep and the hair in it has not turned white, the priest is to put the infected person in isolation for seven days. 5 On the seventh day the priest is to examine him, and if he sees that the sore is unchanged and has not spread in the skin, he is to keep him in isolation another seven days.
And to answer your vapid response:
The quote you gave is about how to deal with someone who is already diseased. I'm not a doctor, but I'm pretty sure soap doesn't cure leprosy.
Welcome to ReligiousDot.org where today we'll consider everything that is infected is leprosy and God can tell you how to treat disease but not prevent it because he's both omniscient and stupid at the same time.
Can you comment on the apparent irony that sauriscian dinosaurs like the theropods may have developed feathers before the ornithiscian?
I'm not an expert on the either the Bible or evolution but here is the most important point:
"The Satan is the beast" / "Mark of the beast"
Bestial behaviour refers to men behaving like animals would do - the same thing as devilish / Satanic behaviour
Since humans evolved from animals, if they behave without sophistication, or without displaying the properties that separate them from their ancerstor species, we call them barbaric (don't know the scientific term)
The two are the exact same concept.
TL;DR: Satan = behaviour unbecoming of evolved intelligent creatures.
Why isn't this common ground given more publicity by the scientific among the clergy - the Jesuits, for instance.
Longer version: Why isn't science propagated as a technique of knowing God better? It is, if you study nature well.
The very premise of evolution is randomness. Natural selection seems to occur not due to a specific design, but rather, a lack of design. In fact, if you try to add intelligent design to evolution (God directed evolution), the whole concept falls apart. If you can accept this premise to be true, how can you accept a god as a supreme being who seems completely useless? If you do not accept this to be true, we will have to disagree with the fundamental concept of evolution as "natural selection."
Central America still have a society.
Other societies lasted longer.
And, frankly, Judaism isn't christianity by a long shot, and that latter one is not even 2000 years old yet.
How do you feel that Slashdot has become such a shithole that it would throw an AMA guest under the bus for the sake of starting a religion vs science comment flamewar?
and thus no original sin.
If that is the case, then what did Jesus die for?
Religion is defined as the belief in and worship of a superhuman controlling power, esp. a personal God or gods.
I can quote a few religious beliefs where the idea of a superhuman controlling power is absent or not required. Feel free to find a few as a homework for your own elucidation... or not, if you are the type to be content with spewing nonsense in the hopes of sounding avant garde.
Since there is no evidence gods exist and science is based on fact and evidence religion,
I like how you take the science banner while at the same time relying on a argumentum ad ignorantiam fallacy (quoted in bold above).
by default, is bullshit and is therefore incompatible with religion.
That's an invective, not an argument. The nuisance is missed to most. I'm not saying whether you are right or wrong, but any truth values on your propositions are merely coincidental, and nothing to do with your actual understanding and application of the scientific method and the construction of logically-sound arguments.
St. Augustine's "Confessions" contains a large segment towards the end based around the Biblical creation account. In this, Augustine doesn't care the least bit about using the account as "a loose framework for what actually happened in the creation of where we are now." Instead, the creation story is re-worked into an extended metaphor using baptismal symbolism to describe a believer's "new creation" in Christ --- a personal/allegorical/spiritual interpretation that doesn't depend on, or care about, the paleontological accuracy of the creation story. Hard-headed insistence on the "scientific accuracy" of Biblical accounts is a much later heresy in the Western church, which only really arose alongside and in response to the development of scientific thought in the 18th century.
With the identification of feathered dinosaurs over the past several decades, what other discoveries likely exist that will upend, or leap-frog current understanding and thinking of paleontology?
A/gnoscic and a/theist are orthogonal.
a/gnosticism is about knowledge (I don't know/I do know a fact about god)
a/theism is about belief (I do/do not have a belief in god)
An atheist doesn't ***believe there is no god***. They don't believe in one.
It is not a religion.
And if you don't believe in a god, then you're an atheist.
If you don't know there isn't one, you're agnostic atheist.
If you know there isn't one, you're gnostic atheist.
If you know there IS a god, you're a gnostic theist.
If you believe in one, but don't know that he does, then you're an agnostic theist.
Please, before you ***pretend*** to be so much higher and better than an atheist, realise this: YOU ARE AN ATHEIST.
Young Earth creationists have some rather incorrect beliefs regarding dinosaurs.
http://www.answersingenesis.org/articles/2000/04/03/dinosaurs-on-noahs-ark
Do you see any to get them to accept the scientific consensus?
No, the argument is as old as human thought.
What governs the world? Magic or mechanism?
Science assumes that mechanism defines how things are the way they are, and how things change.
Religion assumes that magic defines how things are the way they are, and how things change.
The two thoughts are completely oppositional.
Magic fortunately, will not win this war, because only mechanistic thinking has the theory of information behind it. Mechanism defines that in order for anything to happen, or be changed, information is required to do it. Magic on the other hand requires no information beyond a "vague idea" about what occurs.
Consider for example a great and powerful "Oz" that can summon powerful things to happen at the drop of a wand. Perhaps a mighty "castle" simply appears at the top of a mountain, seemingly out of nothing.
Actually creating a castle requires a huge amount of materials, tools, a huge labor force, lots of time, and especially lots of thought. Using information theory we can show that it is perfectly inconcievable that anyone, including a "great wizard" could weild such power with such little thought ahead of time. Unless the wizard already has "pre-packaged" castles at his disposal, it would need to be thought out completely "on site". Doing an "on site" creation would require an assessment of exactly what kind of casle to create, and anyone who has ever had a house designed knows, we don't always know what we want, when we want it.
Extending this example a bit, with "the castle" now in existance, we walk in and find a trap door. We ask the great wizard "What is this trap door for?", and "For what reason was it made "1 meter by 1 meter?", and "Why use oak to make it with?", and "Was it nailed or glued?", and "How long did the tree live from whince it came?", and "What is that bit of gravel stuck in the middle of the timbers?", and on and on, and on the questions come.
Reason requires that we understand everything in our environment, and how it works. Magic on the other hand does not, and seems to invent information from nothing. Information from nothing is an absurd idea, as much as energy or matter from nothing is. We rightly understand that we already have matter and energy, and vast amounts of information floating around just ready to be picked up and changed.
In essence religion depends upon magic, and the religious have a kind of mental retardation that will prevent them from ever truely understanding information theory to its final inevitable outcome of thought, which is "There can be no being that could ever prevent the universe from existing. The universe must always exist, although it can change forms over time, and the first line of the judaic bible is completely and utterly false."
Dear Dr. Baker,
Does faith in the existence of objective truth predispose you to a science field in which you can "absolute prove" things to be true or false? Does atheism and moral relativism predispose you towards a science field in which two renowned experts in the subject can (and most often will) reach opposite conclusions from the same data, as happens with economy, psychology, pedagogy, sociology, climate science, antropology, philosophy, literature, history or ecology?
Hello again Dr. Bakker,
What do you make of efforts by Jack Horner and others to 'reverse-evolve' a dinosaur from chicken embryos?
Thanks -
Please answer one question for me?
What is the end result of human evolution? (i.e. if humans continue to evolve for another million or more years what will we look like, what abilities will we have? Will we be powerful enough to create life in our own image? create a planet, galaxy, or universe of our own? manipulate matter with out minds? teleport? shed our physical bodies?)
I am interested in your thoughts on this and how it differs from Christians belief in a supreme being.
Science is the antithesis of religion... A central tenant of science is that you could be wrong, that seems to conflict with religion. Which is not to say you can't have faith and be a scientist. Just that you would have to keep a fair amount of mental separation between the two. I would even go so far as to say that to be a good scientist you would have to question your faith.
The Catholic church is fine with science. I believe they have officially stated that scientific discovery is not in conflict with faith, this includes evolution. The church operates an observatory and does real science and collaborates with various universities. The man who developed the Big Bang Theory was a Catholic priest in addition to being a cosmologist and physics professor. The scientific method was established in Western culture by medieval clergymen.
I believe various other Christian churches hold similar beliefs and attitudes towards science. Basically they accept scientific discovery as the explanation of the mechanics of God's universe. How things work from elementary particles to the cosmological. That science and religion address mutually exclusive fields, science the mechanics of the universe, religion the intentions and expectations of God.
If you could travel in time, would you rather visit an episode from the remote past of dinosaurs, or some episode from religious history? Which episode, and why?
Much of the commentary strikes me as theology for twelve year olds working it out for themselves. Hell, I'm not a Christian and I can answer most of the"gotchas" from a Christian point of view. Rather than just bitch about it, though, let me give one example.
In what way would a book written to be understood by those without the foundation for, say, modern chemistry or physics constitute "mere mortals" undo[ing] "an omnipotent and omniscient being's intent"? A Christian likely would say that God framed His words to be understood in a meaningful way by the people who were the audience of those words, knowing that those who followed after would understand that context, and be able to recontextualize the words to their own knowledge, abilities and experiences. The fact that you choose to be deliberately obtuse to this (in, ironically, much the same way that young Earth creationists are obtuse to it) says things about you, not the book or the mind(s) behind it. More directly, though, take a child of five and a forty year old physicist. It is not possible to describe physics precisely enough for the physicist yet comprehensible to the child. That is a human limitation not in the writing, but in the facility of understanding. It would be a much more reasonable argument to ask why there are no more modern prophets to give God's words modern form and meaning. The Mormons, at the very least, have an answer to that one. The Catholics and the Orthodox do as well, but their hierarchies and doctrines kind of get in the way of them actually realizing that.
Look, there are many ways of knowing something to be true enough given the venue. The rules of evidence in law are different from those in medicine, and different again from those in science, and different again from those in religion. As long as the rules of evidence in law are used in coming to a final judgment, rather than attempting to dictate, say, the value of pi, all is well. The rules of medicine are useful for determining a course of treatment, and knowing when that course needs to be changed. They would hardly be helpful in determining the rules of biochemistry on which the rules of medicine depend. Similarly, the rules of science work for those things which are natural, repeatable, measurable, objective and observable, but can say little about that which is not, say, observable. (For example, science takes as a fundamental assumption that the laws of science are true in every time and place. If that's not so, then much of our scientific reasoning is out the window.) Religion deals with morality, ethics, the nature of things beyond the boundaries of the universe and other concepts which are generally not objective, or not natural, or in some other way not within the realm of science. Certainly, there are places where different domains of knowledge and different ways of knowing overlap, and in those cases, we argue to an understanding. But to claim that any one way of seeing is the One True Way, and all others are heresies at best and infidel at worst, hardly seems likely to lead to valid understanding of what is true, and it's ironic that it more often comes from those who see Science as nearly a religion, than from those who actually are religious.
-- Two men say they're Jesus. One of them must be wrong. - Dire Straits
I just reviewed the common definitions of "agnostic" and "atheist" which only confirmed that I have it right. Give me a reference that clearly explains your understanding of these concepts and I'll gladly educate myself. Until then I will assume that you're merely playing word games with a concept that you personally consider "too simplistic to be true".
FYI, most things in life ARE simplistic. And no, I don't pretend to be "better" than anyone, even those who try to tell ME what I'm thinking.
"Not all religions have a rigid dogma, or even believe in a single God"
But never even mentioned one.
Probably too busy being butthurt and crying about it to say so, hmm?
(PS if you're going to blurt "Bhuddishm", which sect: most actual sects do have a god and have a rigid dogma, whilst the "Bhuddism" that most hear about here in the west is the philosophy not the religion)
Will Pterosaurs ever be reclassified as Dinosaurs? They seem to far better fit as dinosaurs than reptiles yet a 100+ year classification seems to still lock them into being reptiles. The main argument I've heard was concerning hip rotation but that seems to be disputed. Is it really dogma keeping Pterosaurs classified as reptiles?
Living in this sad world has made me into a gnostic atheist.
I have mystical knowledge that there is no god.
Science is the process of understanding, or at least generating workable knowledge, through observation, theorizing, and testing. The process of science is antithetical to faith since it requires that you test everything.
No. The scientific method was established in the west by medieval bishops. In more recent times the Catholic church has stated that scientific discoveries are not in conflict with faith, this includes evolution. Various other Christian churches hold similar beliefs. Basically that faith addresses areas that are beyond human observation and discovery, the intentions and expectations of God.
Which side do you find less open to considering the ideas of the other?
(Assuming there are two sides, of course.)
Tom Geller
I keep wondering if the bird/dinosaur connection is far more about parallel development than a direct tie? They've found feathered reptiles and Archaeopteryx was not a proto-bird but a failed evolutionary line. Tree up seems the likely path for bird evolution as opposed to ground up yet where are all the tree climbing dinosaurs? Feathered reptiles seemed to climb trees so they appear to be the more likely ancestors of birds than dinosaurs?
And the Bible's purpose is moral, not to "advance medicine".
You mean how it is moral to stone woman for adultery? Or how it is moral to commit genocide and keep the woman as spoils? Or how it is moral to mutilate the genitalia of newborns? Or how it is moral to kill witches? Or how it is moral to stone a man for collecting sticks on the Sabbath? Perhaps you meant the story of Lot, not Lot's wife, but how he thought it more moral to give his daughters to a narcissistic mob rather than let them have sex with his male guest. Or maybe it's the rest of Lot's story where his daughters get him drunk and rape him.
Maybe I'm just blind, but I don't quite see what the bible has to do with morality.
"All tyranny needs to gain a foothold is for people of good conscience to remain silent." [Thomas Jefferson]
As a firm believer in Christianity and also an engineer that has taken a fair amount of science courses in my time, I am often amazed why there is any debate between science and religion. If science says the universe is billions of years old, that does not impact my belief in the existence of God. I recognize that within the Christian community I am in the minority but here is how I look at things...
1. Existence of God: I find it ironic that people will quickly deny the existence of "God" but just as readily believe that we are not alone in the universe. We can't prove either point but for some reason believing in "God" is bad but believing in the possibility of "aliens" (in whatever form) is okay. We are a grain of sand in the ocean and yet people dare to say they know without a doubt that "God" (in whatever form) doesn't exist?
2. Age of Earth: Why my fellow Christians get so hung up on trying to debate this is beyond me. Earth can be as old as you like it and yet I can still believe in the concept of a 6 day creation. Why you ask? Simple, because when God "created" things, He created them with age. The Bible doesn't say God created eggs, it says he created birds. He didn’t create seeds, he created trees and plants. Everything he created HAD to have been of some sort of predefined age. So why couldn't he have created a planet or universe with age as well? As a Christian, I accept your scientific explanation that the universe is billions of years old because that is the way God created it.
Religion and science need not be exclusive of each other and should not be used to deny the existence of the other. The only difference between you and me is that I believe "God" created it all and you believe it magically appeared from nothing. So what is the difference exactly?...
I understand that there's no conflict between science and religion. They don't operate in the same domains. Science seeks knowledge of the world through observation and experimentation in order to develop coherent, extensible hypotheses through a fundamentally democratic process. One which transcends cultural and political boundaries notwithstanding the occasional personal rifts between individuals. Religion depends upon dogma, and it's not above violent reprisal, even today. Case in point, the schism in the Episcopal Church over homosexuality.
Scientists have developed interdisciplinary, cooperative approaches in pursuit of improved hypotheses or practical application of existing knowledge. Local churches cooperate occasionally in order to address local problems, but it doesn't change the nature of religion, itself, because religious belief is rigid. It's a wonder the Pope accepted heliocentrism.
New religions are purely political constructs which arise either through individual prophecy, without evidence, or via political division leading to a schismatic subset forming its own sect. Mormonism and Scientology exemplify the former, Shi'a and Sunni, the latter. On the other hand, ecology was a scientific area of study which didn't exist until the 20th century. It arose out of need and without conflict because science isn't a dogmatic or fundamentally political discipline. The differences are stark.
Paul Crutzen, the Nobel atmospheric chemist, coined the term Anthropocene in order to highlight the magnitude of man's influence on the earth's atmosphere. James Hansen championed the subject of Climate Change from within the U.S. system of government in a manner that no religion or religious leader is capable because his domain lies within the logical, the observable and practical.
What I would like you to address is, how long do you suppose it will be before religion and religious leaders find the courage or the wisdom, within their own domain, to acknowledge the fundamental challenges that Man poses to our environment and this particular subset of God's creation? Do you believe that religious scientists can overcome their cowardice and challenge the world's religious leaders to respond according to their self-proclaimed responsibilities, particularly within Abrahamic traditions?
(P.S. - I'm interested in Mr. Bakker's opinions. All you overly prolific Slashdotterers should start your own thread with your own question.)
I've heard it said both that no dinosaurs survived the K/T event and that a handful survived for a few million years after the event. Which is it? Was it a sudden end or did they slowly die due to climate change?
I've read some preliminary research on dinosaur brains based on imaging of fossilized brain cases. Many of these articles make conclusions about certain sensory capabilities of dinosaurs. However, I have yet to see any comprehensive research on specific brain structures and how they compare to modern birds or other extant animals. Are you involved in or aware of any such research? or is it simply a matter of not enough information left in the fossil record?
Dr Bakker,
How do you respond to claims that scientific groups selectively hide evidence concerning dinosaurs that doesn't fit their pre-established scientific "doctrine", for example at http://creation.com/c14-dinos ... have you seen this type of behaviour, and is their any validity in their claims?
Thanks
If God created the world millions of years ago with the intent of life evolving (presumably under direction) why are we so poorly evolved and why did he include so much suffering in his plan?
If I were to create a species of intelligent, creative and spiritual beings I would have created them in such a fashion that their memory and intelligence was independent of their bodies. If anything happened to someone they would simply download into a new physical form. I would also create them in such a fashion that their energy source would be based on radioactivity so that they could go for centuries without refueling or eating. I would create them in such a fashion that they could communicate more directly and over much greater distances (perhaps through radio waves). I would create them so that they could operate comfortably and easily from -50c to nearly boiling. I would create a being made of nano particles that could re-assemble if broken, with redundant critical systems so that a lost limb would be an inconvenience not a life threatening and historically nearly certainly fatal injury.
We have the capabilities as humans to create creatures with nearly these capabilities (if not the AI yet but that's not terribly out of line with future software/microchips). And these seem like easy basics upon which to create life. Instead you think God created life in such a fashion that an endless holocaust of suffering would persist for centuries and mostly randomly make a slightly better creature than a sea slug but still suffer from most of its failings. What sort of divine creature would A) permit such an inhumane process to be his instrument of creation and B) pick such a poor evolutionary starting point as a slug for his template upon which to build his future race?
If you say he didn't choose the template and it was in fact Satan then he is not our creator, Satan is responsible for our creation and he is our God. If you say that God didn't choose the lowly slugs and worms as our basis then again he didn't create us... and what exactly is he doing for us and why isn't he doing more? Certainly evolution is a deterministic process. So he knew exactly what the outcome would be otherwise he wouldn't be responsible for our existence. Or if he doesn't know the outcome, why does he get credit for creation? Is he not then just simply an observer as are we?
Do you ever tire of all the stupid, inane questions (see above) about god and religion and whatnot that you get asked, solely by virtue of the fact that you identify ideologically as a Follower of Christ?
I've only been exposed to the questions asked of you on this thread, and I'm already tired of it.
An enigma, wrapped in a riddle, shrouded in bacon and cheese
You may have heard and even visted. It's still there.
Greece: invaded and colonised ding dong.
Rome: Now you really mean italy, right (which should tell you something), but its been invaded ding dong. Germans, Picts, Huns, Mongols. Greeks....
Mexico still exists. You can go there.
Either your calls of "Invaded!" are invalid or your claim for judaism to be the longest lasting civilisation is likewise complete bollocks by the same interruption (hell, they didn't even have their own state until 1947!).
You probably have at least some inkling that the tide and the moon are in some way related (even if only in a relation of time rather than gravity).
So surely then, that is described in The Bible? Oh, wait, it's not?
Apparently this topic was a no humor zone :( /. topic and it becomes a flame war.
Should have guessed though, bring religion into any
12,500.
Free unix account: freeshell.org
Dr. Bakker, What are your thoughts on the discoveries Dr. Mary Schweitzer has made of blood cells, intact proteins, and DNA in dinosaur bones vis-a-vis the claims of biochemists that even collagen completely breaks down in under 3Ma and DNA in a maximum of 6.83Ma?
The Catechism you reference explicitly says that genesis uses figurative language. The difference between science and faith seems to only be with respect to a "soul" not the material body.
...
"390 The account of the fall in Genesis uses figurative language, but affirms a primeval event, a deed that took place at the beginning of the history of man. Revelation gives us the certainty of faith that the whole of human history is marked by the original fault freely committed by our first parents."
http://www.vatican.va/archive/ENG0015/_P1C.HTM
"Theistic evolution or evolutionary creation is a concept that asserts that classical religious teachings about God are compatible with the modern scientific understanding about biological evolution. In short, theistic evolutionists believe that there is a God, that God is the creator of the material universe and (by consequence) all life within, and that biological evolution is simply a natural process within that creation. Evolution, according to this view, is simply a tool that God employed to develop human life.
Papal pronouncements, along with commentaries by cardinals, indicate that the Church is aware of the general findings of scientists on the gradual appearance of life. Indeed, Belgian priest Georges Lemaître, astronomer and physics professor at the Catholic University of Louvain, was the first to propose the theory of expansion of the universe, often incorrectly credited to Edwin Hubble. Under Cardinal Joseph Ratzinger, the International Theological Commission published a paper accepting the big bang of 15 billion years ago and the evolution of all life including humans from the microorganisms that formed approximately 4 billion years ago. The Vatican has no official teaching on this matter except for the special creation of the human soul"
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Theistic_evolution
I can't believe we get TWO FAMOUS PALEONTOLOGISTS IN TWO WEEKS.
On to my first question:
So, let's pretend the extinction event that wiped out the dinosaurs never happened and they somehow survived into the Holocene. How do you think that would have affected the world's ecology? How would dinosaur evolution have progressed? Assuming humans had still come onto the scene would we have driven the dinosaurs to extinction by now?
Let's say that various dinosaur populations were dropped into remote places in the modern world right now. How do you think they would do in today's ecology? Could they survive contact with modern humans? What other creatures do you think that dinosaurs themselves would drive to extinction?
There's a book I've found helpful regarding some of these -- and other -- issues: "Is God a Moral Monster? Making Sense of the Old Testament God" by Paul Copan.
As a minister _and_ a biologist, you must encounter all manner of young-earth creationists who are firmly dismissive of evolution. What approach do you take with them? Do you have a go-to response that you find successfully lowers their defenses and gets them to consider that there just _might_ be something to all this evolution nonsense?
I know this is not really your area, but what are your thoughts on the recent discovery that early humans interbred with at least Neanderthals and Denisovans? Do you think there will be further discoveries of different Homo species that our ancestors associated closely with?
There's a book I've found helpful regarding some of these -- and other -- issues: "Is God a Moral Monster? Making Sense of the Old Testament God" by Paul Copan.
No need to buy a book. "God", as described in "The Bible", is a mythological deity created by primitive people. The one in the Old Testament was indeed a moral monster. Then he was updated in the New Testament to be a nicer guy. Still a vain asshole, though.
The Dali Llama recently answered this question pretty succinctly -- ""If science proves some belief of Buddhism wrong, then Buddhism will have to change. In my view, science and Buddhism share a search for the truth and for understanding reality. By learning from science about aspects of reality where its understanding may be more advanced, I believe that Buddhism enriches its own worldview." I'd be really curious how other theists rationalize the existence of their various deities, given that the very definition of faith makes a mockery of the scientific method. Ontology is not the answer, btw -- god is not a falsifiable hypothesis, so the assumption that a deity must exist means that religious belief will never be compatible with the scientific method.
It seems to me that when a prominent person's views are so out of touch with reality as to be laughable, it falls to us to put up a worthy challenge to those views and encourage their re-examination.
Hypothesis:
there is no real conflict between religion and science
Liberty.
I understand that you reconcile your scientific and religious beliefs by not interpreting Genesis literally. However, as a minister I assume you take an essentially literal view of the New Testament (eg, that Jesus was born of a virgin, performed miracles, and rose from the dead). How do you justify that heterogeneity of approach?
Dr. Bakker, It seems to me that those Christians who reject evolution and dinosaurs are viewing God as some kind of puppeteer who guides every action and reaction in the universe. Applied to free will, that view basically means that we're little more than Calvinistic slot cars running around a track.
How involved do you think God has been in the evolution of life on Earth? Were the dinosaurs intentionally killed off or was it just one of many possible outcomes for them?
Thanks for doing what you do.
However, by those pretending to be "better" than those *nasty* atheists (who won't let those religious people have their way, the meanies!), it's done to make it "but *we're* nice. please walk on us!".
Even the common usage of agnostic has nothing to do with a/theism. "I don't know" is available to both a- and theist.
Here's an xkcd to help:
http://xkcd.com/774/
I just reviewed the common definitions of "agnostic" and "atheist" which only confirmed that I have it right. Give me a reference that clearly explains your understanding of these concepts and I'll gladly educate myself. Until then I will assume that you're merely playing word games with a concept that you personally consider "too simplistic to be true".
FYI, most things in life ARE simplistic. And no, I don't pretend to be "better" than anyone, even those who try to tell ME what I'm thinking.
The problem with "common" definitions is that they do, with time, gravitate toward the simplistic, thus losing any fine distinctions, nuances and tomes that originally existed. When the original definition encompassed a broad range of meanings and depended on context for disambiguation, the "simplification" will most often drop all but one. Then, how would you communicate a concept when there are no longer words to describe it?
Regardless of what the words "atheist" and "agnostic" are currently accepted to mean, we still need a distinction among the various concepts, mainly because "lacking a belief in god(s)" is not the same as "believing there is/are no god(s)".
I was a velociraptor in a previous life.
The murderous chicken? Shoulda gone with the T-Rex... way scarier. :)
The ONLY thing science and religion have in common is that if you make something sound good despite it being fact or fiction people will believe it. A lot so called "science" isnt real, its just someone with something that sounds believeable because it was presented in a way that people will believe purely because "it sounds good" and nothing else.
Other than that science and religion have nothing in common. Religion is purely based on superstitious beliefs of a weak minded race. Religion was born out of a time when people were stupid, uneducated and dumb and religion was a way for the powers that be to control them. Thats why religion is based around men being the ones in control, women the subserviant of the species, all of its rules and lessons are based arounds rules and lessons the ones in control put into place, and is used as a easy answer that allows small minded people to have a answer for things that cant be answered like what happens when we die and it lets people excuse themselves of wrong doings because they can simply ask god for forgiveness and it lets people get their minds around things they have no control over.
I argue that religion in general has caused more small minded mentalities, more judgemental mentalities, more pain, more suffering, more lack of human evolution, more death and more negative activity than anything else ever in the history of man kind. Religious people hate gays, they cock blocked stem cell research for decades, they judge others that dont believe in what they do, they waste time and energy praying to an invisible man, and so on. They actually hate people who dont believe what they do like april fools days is a day invented by christians to make fun of pagans for not following alone, easter is christians attempt at getting rid of pagans by stealing their holiday and same thing with halloween, christmas and basically every pagan holiday.
Science is based around the furthering of man kind, discovering truths in our enviornment, discovering facts and so on. Religion is based solely on fictional stories and abstract ideas and thus has no place in science.
If we all grew up being told that jack and the beanstalk was indeed fact then we would all believe it as known fact, but that doesnt really mean it was true, but we would believe it to be true. So if fairy tales dont belong in science then why exactly do stories of a man parting a ocean, or a man building a boat big enough for 2 of every animal on earth to live on, or a invisible god sending his son to earth to heal the sick and die for our sins and so be a part of science?
Science should be unbiased, cold, calculated, hard fact. There is no room for people who believe in gods and fictional stories in science. Sure a scienctist can be religious if he or she wants, but they shouldnt let their personal beliefs skew or alter their search for science. And that is the trick because I find religious people can never truly seperate their religious ideals from their lives, Im sure some can but very few.
The only way you can reconcile faith (in anything, a god, your mother, a book) is to put artificial limitations on the applicable domain of science
Really. Suppose I tell you that I have faith that a scientific theory called Supersymmetry will be discovered at some point in the future. I accept that I could be wrong or that my current understanding of the concept of Supersymmetry might be flawed and will need to change when more data become available or may even possibly be ruled out altogether at some point (although really scientific theories are rarely every excluded they just get restricted to the point that they no longer solve the problem they were thought to). Is this faith in a scientific theory which has not yet been proven restricting science? If so I hoenstly cannot see why or how.
;-).
Now, why can't the same be true of religion. Why can't I treat it as a theory which has not yet been proven? I might need to adjust it as we collect more data and rule out certain things e.g. we know the world was not created in 6 days but dropping that literally hardly undermines the core of christianity and it is exactly what we do with scientific theories e.g. the Standard Model of particle physics was amended to include neutrino mixing with very little change to the overall theory.
Note that I did not say "scientific theory" because it is exceedingly hard to prove or disprove the claims of many religions so, in that respect, they are not scientific. Also this implies an acceptance that future evidence may prove your religious beliefs wrong - you might not believe that will happen but you have to accept it is a possibility. With those caveats where is the conflict? The last caveat might be wholly unacceptable to fundamentalists but if you are willing to accept this I don't see any conflict between science and religion: religion is just a theory which some believe to be true and others do not. The only significant difference is that there are no fundamentalist supersymmetrists who use violence against non-supersymmetrists (although I've been in one debate where it might have come close!
Although some subset of Christians seem to be very disturbed by the implications of the fossil record (and phylogenetics from DNA sequencing, if they pay attention), there is a good case to be made that these details of the history of life on earth are not wholly incompatible with the Christian world view.
However, recent findings in cognitive science and neuroscience are perhaps more directly challenging. Whether it is religious experiences induced by magnetic fields (or certain types of supposedly spiritual experiences seeming identical to certain types of epilepsy caused by defects in neuronal biochemistry), or the inseperable nature of mind and brain (as shown by reams of brain injury data, effects of psychoactive substances, fMRI imaging, sensory deprivation experiments, and so on), or the degree to which our morality and actions are instinctive and not necessarily fully within our control, scientific research seems to be painting a very different picture of man-the-sometimes-thinking-animal than has Christianity or other traditional religions. In particular, notions of will and soul that appear central to an understanding of Christianity seem increasingly at odds with neuroscience.
What is your opinion on the compatibility of Christinaity with cognitive science? Must one or the other adapt in order for the two to exist harmoniously, and if so, what form might that take?
To even propose the phrase of 'merging science and religion' shows a lack of understand of the subjects or at least the relevant religions.
The first tenant of a religion is to bootstrap the meme with faith in the unknown. If you can believe that, your brain has been rooted and almost anything is possible. Science requires assertions, constraints, and verifications not required by religion and often in contradiction to their first tenant. Science also requires openness to the possibility that anything can be incorrect. From a religious perspective this is often blasphemous and might even get you killed if the religious are given their way.
A big contention is that between modern science and genesis 1. Science does not, by design, touch on metaphysics yet spiritual development requires that one pays attention to metaphysics. In the philosophy of science we see a system of reasonable assumptions which underlie all science, are not and cannot be scientifically verified, and yet are not questioned by the working scientist. Genesis 1 offers a compact explanation of our origins which does not build on the metaphysical philosophical foundations assumed by science. You cannot use one to argue against the other. Personally I accept both, within separate metaphysical frameworks within which each makes rational sense. This meyaphysical separation is necessary, so science vs religion arguments are really a waste of time.
... to put forth the idea that some dinosaurs had feathers,
Then please inform us what life was really like back in the middle of the eighteen hundreds when the first feathered dinosaur was discovered? http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Archaeopteryx
Also FatPhil on SoylentNews, id 863
Having to wheel-on scientist-believers just illustrates how lacking in conviction the true believers are in their own brand of woo-ism ..
reference
Science is concerned with testable, reproducible, physical phenomena .... Science cannot and does not say things like "There is no God" for several reasons, including:
As a result, reputable science has always placed some things, like God, in the realm of "untestable" and reputable scientists will say they have no proof/evidence of God (a perfectly honest statement secular and religious people alike can agree with). This is very different from saying that if science cannot prove a thing then the thing does not exist. This is not just some whacky "religious exception" to the theme "science rules!" Science also cannot take a position on whether a particular neandethal was named "ug" and on March 1st, 200K years ago barfed-up his lunch; there may well have been such a neandethal whose friends called him "ug" who did indeed barf up his lunch on that exact date (so this might be entirely factual) but science has no way to test it. Historical facts are simply not testable if they have left no trace. There are other examples where science is left shrugging its shoulders. This is not a knock on science; it's having a proper understanding of what science is, how it works, and how it is properly used (and sometimes improperly abused)
"Then disprove the existence of Russel's Teapot that is orbiting the sun between Mars and the Earth? How about disproving the existence of the Flying spaghetti monster, the Invisible Pink Unicorn, the Tooth Fairy, Santa Claus, the Easter Bunny, or the Great Pumpkin?"
Science does not apply to everything the way you seem to think it does .... We use legal tests in courts (sometimes supplemented by science testing certain facts) but no court runs on the scientific method. We use historical tests in other circumstances. Consider the question of what Abe Lincoln ate for lunch on Jan 4th, 1850 .... science has nothing to say about that ... but there is certainly a FACT there (if he ate lunch that day, he ate some specific items of food) There is no scientific test that can tell us what the fact is. A historian, however, might know where somebody has a journal that records what somebody served to Mr. Lincoln for that particular meal an would therefore be able to provide what science cannot
Probably all of them. Since he is the Creator, it is quite possible that he test drove them all on his heavenly dinosaur test track before letting them loose on earth.
There is a basic conflict between science are religion. The basic mode of arriving at conclusions is entirely opposite.
In science, a theory is held to be good if it
Additionally, in science, questioning an established theory based on new information is an essential element of how science is done. Theories are often incomplete and are sometimes at odds with other accepted theories, but the inconsistency is at least recognized and regarded as a problem.
In religion, a belief is held to be true if it
In religion, there is no requirement that beliefs be consistent. Multiple inconsistent dogmas often exist in the same religion. This frequently goes unrecognized by adherents to the religion but is easily recognized by others familiar with the beliefs. Beliefs that are at odds with real data are not questioned on that basis. Beliefs are neither validated nor invalidated by facts
I see it all the time: people who present themselves as "educated" and "literate" and then pose dumb questions like this one.
You need not believe the religious connotations of a Bible to actually read one; indeed one cannot properly claim to be an educated westerner and NOT have read a Bible (given that it was one of the biggest influences in Western Civilization and without understanding it you cannot understand many of the characters and events of the past 2K years in the western hemisphere in their full context.) If you had bothered to inform yourself by actually READING the BOOK you would have had the answer to your question. Try it. Take a little time off from the web and read a few important books. After you finish the Bible, try some Shakespeare .... then you won't have to ask why some character named Romeo killed himself. Try reading some Jules Verne ... you might get a clue about why the US Navy named its first nuclear submarine the "Nautilus" .....
Sheeeeesh! What has happened to our educational system over the past few decades??????
Late-night comics pander to drunk audiences with throw-away lines like yours... it's the sort of drivel one expects from a fake intellectual like Bill Maher...
the "God made pain and evil, therefore he's a jerk" line (there must be a hundred variations...)
[God] "chose to cause us pain and suffering for no reason. "
FAIL. You are arguing about the God of the Bible, in which case you have been given your reasons.... very-conveniently in that very same book... if you cannot be bothered to read the entire book, so you get it all in context (as you would read any other book) then you are just advertising your own ignorance
"could have created a world without pain and suffering and still achieved the desired results."
Huh? If you do not know his "desired results" how can you possibly postulate that an alternate method to achieving those results would be sufficient? .... and to think... people like you usually try to accuse religious people of being irrational!
"It's one of the most obvious holes in the fairytale!"
um, no, the only hole is the place where the substance of your argument should have been
"An all knowing and all powerful god who is limited"
some particular individual might have imagined some limit on the God of Abraham, but the Bible places no such limit
"reduced to creating a violent world and surprised by it."
The Bible [a] does not say he created the world as a violent place (quite the contrary) and [b] never indicates that he was surprised by anything. I've never actually met a Christian or a Jew who claimed God was surprised by ANYTHING.... you have some very odd ideas with dubious traceability. As for the violence in the world, the "good book" is rather clear about the idea that we humans are being allowed to face the bad effects of our own actions. Funny.... nobody complains when science says "for every action there is an equal and opposite reaction" (how CRUEL!) but if a God says "you are free to decide to do evil... but you'll pay a price for the evil" you get offended....
That was funny... if you're a geek
I disagree. An omnipotent god would have thrown out all the dietary/hygiene rules in the OT and replaced it with "Boil your water, cook your food, wash your hands, shit downstream from where you live". These 4 simple instructions are VASTLY superior to all the rubbish that masquerades as "divinely inspired" nonsense in the OT. They are easier to remember, easier to do, and about 1000 times more effective. Why isn't that information in the Bible? Because the ignorant shepherds who wrote it didn't know about germ theory.
To paraphrase Sam Harris, imagine how incredible the Bible would be if it was actually written by an omnipotent being.
.there is enough of everything for everyone.
As an aside, pretty much all offerings to god would end up with soap.
Don't complain about syntax, grammar, or spelling. There is no.hell like input on android.
If you reject "survival of the fittest", your belief is now just emotional. Why believe in science at all at that point.
What's that? you're not going to murder anybody who gets in the way of you surviving an reproducing? (even if you could avoid getting caught?) Why do you bury or burn your dead? (seems like a waste of protein.... yum)
Need I go on?
You meet a lot of "religious" people in a lifetime, NONE of whom life in perfect consistency with what they claim they believe... but most at least make some attempt to try. I have never met an a-theist who believes in evolution and all the rest who even attempts to live consistently with that set of beliefs, and who never falls back onto an argument that involves morality, justice,equality, etc.
Sciligion?
Hey - don't forget us ignostics! (Those for whom the term "god" remains insufficiently defined for there to be any sense in discussing existence or non-existence thereof. (And even if it were to be defined, most definitions would cause us to dismiss the concept as meaningless.))
Also FatPhil on SoylentNews, id 863
Dear Dr Bakker While we don't share concurrent personal convictions on the validity in taking a middle road regarding the use of science or religious teaching to explain the world around us, I have a deep respect for your approach. I am interested to know how it feels to see the works you've produced, which are themselves some of the foundational ideas in your field, get used on either side of the debate to debunk or challenge the strongly held beliefs of the other side? Here I'm referring to some of the conflicts where science observes things that conventional religions simply cannot or will not explain, with each side latching on to their view and discarding the evidence or convictions of the opposing view.
Or what? Just a thought. On all these words.
I'd like an evidence based answer.
If you were blocking sigs, you wouldn't have to read this.
I wasn't a slashdotter, got to have sex, and not live in my parents basement, in a previous life!
Self proclaimed typo king, and inventor of the bear destroying coffee table (patent not pending).
There are different views on creation held by Christians. For each viewpoint, there are some good arguments for holding that belief and some less rational ones.
Some viewpoints include: Pure Evolution, Theistic Evolution, Intelligent Design, Old-Earth Creationism with old life, Old-Earth Creationism with young life, Young-Earth Creationism
Question: Can you suggest some good resources with some of the better arguments for some of these viewpoints (whether or not you hold that position)?
I would be interested in books, articles, lectures/debates (audio or videos), or web sites.
If any Slashdotters can provide some resources with a quick comment on whether they think they provided good arguments (whether or not they agree with them), please do so.
Fish can be caught cooked and eaten today. I wonder, if one existed 280-250 million years ago and were able to go fishing, would fish have tasted the same or even haven been able to be eaten?
Do you really believe in God, or is it just a good way of meeting girls?
To have a right to do a thing is not at all the same as to be right in doing it
Your post is (deliberately?) obtuse.
Are you claiming that, with what we know now, that all of the dietary/hygienic instructions in Leviticus are:
.there is enough of everything for everyone.
Do you trust your 5 year old to wash his hands properly? We have bacterial soap(a modern stupidity) what did they have? Sure their fat offerings would end up with soap but did they use it?
How long did it take modern humans to not think believing in tiny invisible things that make you sick is looney? Do you know how many people still don't believe in germs? Stop using your modern viewpoint to judge past viewpoints, it doesn't work.
Don't complain about syntax, grammar, or spelling. There is no.hell like input on android.
What's funny is that this e-mail exhibits an effect of original sin- denial of authority.
To drag this back on topic though I'd like to ask Dr. Bakker what he thinks of the Pope's Proclamation on Reason and Creation yesterday.
SJW: a person who perceives an injustice, and while correcting it, commits a greater injustice.
Question:. . . How do we get there?
Answer
Adding A collapse Thread button in Slashcode would do wonders.
It only takes an astute reader seeing 5 or 6 posts before they realize that the current replay chain has gone hopelessly off the rails, with no hope of recovery.
It seems that so may stories on slashdot are hijacked in this way, more so than back in the day.... We need a tool to tell these kids to get off our lawn.
Failing that, give us a "Honey I shrunk the Kids" button, so they disappear into the grass.
Try clicking the subject line of the parent post, that works for me. If you're suggesting putting a button with similar function on every post (recursive collapse parent post?), I could get behind that, although I can see problems with it, too.
"Space Exploration is not endless circles in low earth orbit." -Buzz Aldrin
What is the purpose of dinosaurs?
And why should I give/allow authority to that nutjob? There are plenty of sane/rational people for that.
Self proclaimed typo king, and inventor of the bear destroying coffee table (patent not pending).
Hi Dr. Baker-
Evolution clearly depends on: Something getting rewarded [i.e. becomes more plentiful] for reproducing better than other things.
My question: What is that "Something?" DNA? Biomass? A Selfish Gene? Something else?
Thanks,
William E. Kimberly, wmekimberly@gmail.com
As a Christian scientist (Engineer, so pardon if I make a mistake in the nomenclature), here is the question I would like to ask a Christian paleontologist: The Bible clearly distinguishes humans as spiritual beings from all other earthly beings, who cannot sin and do not need a saviour. Since our understanding of science has thinned out and almost extinguished the line between our species and other primates, both current and from the fossil record, do you think there remains any physical or biological distinctive feature that separates spiritual humans from non-spiritual primates or hominids?
Who is General Failure, and why is he reading my disk?
Serious question (honestly). Given that birds are descended from dinosaurs, would dinosaurs taste like chicken, (or possible more correctly, does chicken taste like dinosaur)?
Sure enough, the cow costume was hanging up next to the superhero outfit and sailors uniform. (S,Spud)
I have summed this up as four principles:
God is a loving Parent to all humankind - and Who made the universe such that we could live in it.
God is Unique and is One, each human being is unique and different, and so humankind is diverse.
God is Perfect, we are imperfect - therefore God has made us diverse, so that, in our diversity, we can approach, but never reach, Perfection.
God has given us free will, and wants us to grow in understanding - to grow towards, even if we never reach, His Wisdom.
See http://www.godsgrownchildren.org/.
In a sense, ancient texts, including the Bible, are little-children's books that God inspired His Prophets to write for us, so that things will be explained to us. Even though the Biblical accounts of the Creation of the Universe are not scientific, they do contain moral lessons which we should still heed.
I'm sure I'm very ignorant on the topic of Dinosaurs, but I'm curious what caused a 'Renaissance'? During your work were there any interesting breakthroughs that opened the door? Did new tools become available or new methods for analyzing things? Was there some piece of information that changed how we understand things or just an "a-ha" idea that opened the door to better understanding things? Or is it just a case of increased interest and slow persistence?
He's far more rational than any atheist I've ever met. The only people who don't think so are bigots who have never bothered to read his stuff on it's own merits.
SJW: a person who perceives an injustice, and while correcting it, commits a greater injustice.
First off. I'm a Catholic. That guy was not rational. Good examples of rational, sticking in the theistic realm, would be St. Francis of Assisi (a little odd, but rational) or Pope John Paul II.
You have manage to, ironically, make the first biggoted statement in this thread - and boy is it a doozy. I was only considering ONE individual as nuts, you just claimed a whole crowed. Admittedly most of them that I've seen are quite short sighted - not realizing their atheism is actually a religion even if it lacks a deity - and is not more or less rational than any deific belief system - since there's no proof either way. Then again, I've seen many sane and rational atheists too, not trying to push atheism on others, just arguing it is what they believe.
Self proclaimed typo king, and inventor of the bear destroying coffee table (patent not pending).
I'm interested to hear how you reconcile Genesis with the fossil record - what view do you take on how what the Bible tells of creation, the Flood, etc fits in with the observable fossils and geological records (being that presumably you have belief in both the Bible and nature being sources of truth)? Additionally, do you think that young-earth creationism can fit with the fossil record?
P.S. I am a Christian myself - I am interested to hear what a real expert says on the topic, rather than second- or third-hand variations of the facts, or repetitions of uninformed bias (from various sides).
Dr. Bakker,
Are there any major (or even minor) changes you would like to see in the taxonomy system now generally accepted? Do you in any way feel the current system could be better organized to more accurately reflect those taxa of your expertise and their interrelationships?
Thanks -
Dear Dr. Bakker,
What is your opinion of the likelihood of the Amphicoelias Fragillimus (known only from a single, now lost holotype vertebra) actually having existed, and actually having originated from a roughly 60 meter specimen? What might have been the factors limiting the maximum size of land-dwelling dinosaurs?
Thanks sincerely-
DS