Science only "converges" when you exclude everyone who purports to do science but is "doing it wrong".
If you do the same for any definition of the right way to approach religion, religion probably doesn't diverge either.
Tectonic plates? Evolution? Age of the universe? Existance of black holes? Standard model? The list goes on. There have been many "fights" in science about these things, but in the end evidence has proven them to be correct, hence consensus. Now how many christian denominations are there? (and then I'm only considering christianity - let alone all the other religions).
Because it has been tested and shown to provide value in some form for the person possessing it, pretty much the same way as the "knowledge" that sensory inputs have some relationship to an external reality can be called "knowledge".
I'm willing to consider that the sun orbits the earth. Then I think of all the evidence we have of the opposite and the discussion is closed. This goes so fast you might not even notice the doubt, and think I'm unwilling to discuss it at all. I don't, you just first have to disprove Newtons' Laws, come up with a good answer as to why interplanetary probes arrive on target despite our faulty world view and describe the laws that make all the other solar object go around in their now twisted paths. Also, please locate the centre of mass of the sun-earth system. Good luck, have fun and come back when you're done.
But a majority of scientists interviewed viewed both religion and science as "valid avenues of knowledge"
Here's a WTF moment.. While science converges to a view of how the world works (by observation, hypotheses and testing), religion just diverges and diverges. How can "revealed knowledge" even be called knowledge? If there is a disagreement amongst a churches' members, there is one path they can follow: a split. If a single atheist is put on a panel against a whole bunch of representatives of different religion, this is simply because those folks cannot come to an agreement between themselves of who this god is and what he wants us to do. So really,cut the crap.
Another 15% say the two are never in conflict
Now that's just scary. What world are they living in?
Overall, under some circumstances even the most religious of scientists were described in very positive terms by their nonreligious peers; this suggests that the integration of religion and science is not so distasteful to all scientists.
a religious person can do valid science, but I bet you his papers are not mentioning how god created DNA. It only works if you keep them separate, so how this integrates religion and science is a mystery to me. Science is blind to personal opinions of scientists: if a racist does valid science does that mean science and racism integrate well? If a great scientist likes hip hop, does that mean that science and hip hop integrate well? If there is a good way to demonstrate how stupid you are, making such a claim must be it.
Oh I have nothing against any of the tools by old Peter Norton, it is just the catch with those is this: How many folks are gonna have a copy of a tool from 1997?
That's a weird question. If it comes from something else (e.g. God), then it follows that it is not part of reality, and thus it does not exists. So your question does not make sense logically.
Also, the last outbreaks of polio in the Netherlands was in the highly religious regions, where reformed Christians didn't want to get vaccinated because they saw disease as a punishment of God (oh the irony). And of course, the Vatican is helping the spread of the HIV virus. And "Holy water" in churches is just standing water where all the visitors put their hands in - they're one big bacterial hotspot.
That you'll end up worse without religion, is an hypothesis that's just as baseless as religion itself. If it were true, atheists would already be doing this and countries where religion no longer has its foot in the door would be collapsing. This is not the case. In fact the most religious places are the worst shitholes of the world. And when your solution to problems is praying and relying on your imaginary friend (he has a plan!), it should come as no surprise that tomorrow you'll wake up in the same shithole.
Even if religion is a symptom, it is worth adressing it just as it is worth addressing a strong fever. Especially if the religion spreads intolerance (submission of women, hatred against gays,...), misinformation (literal interpretation of bible stories), interferes in public life (praying in schools), receives tax money, opposes scientific progress (creationism/ID) or swindles people(in practice: any clergyman with a private jet or a castle should be hanged).
It's just a way to get poor people off american streets, into iraqi streets. Garbage disposal, you might say. And it's cheap too, even profitable! (according to Dick Cheney).
Even when he's ruining Pluto, he does a great job explaning why it makes a lot of sense. It's a very important lesson, learning the distinction between facts and catergorisations, and learning that categories can be fluid and always have fuzzy borders. You can also use that to explain why racism is so stupid (how white do you have to be)?
Slashdot Mirror
You can buy Al powder at any store that sells chemical supplies. It's quite a mess to work with, however, it's dusty and sticks to everything.
Science only "converges" when you exclude everyone who purports to do science but is "doing it wrong".
If you do the same for any definition of the right way to approach religion, religion probably doesn't diverge either.
Tectonic plates? Evolution? Age of the universe? Existance of black holes? Standard model? The list goes on. There have been many "fights" in science about these things, but in the end evidence has proven them to be correct, hence consensus. Now how many christian denominations are there? (and then I'm only considering christianity - let alone all the other religions).
Because it has been tested and shown to provide value in some form for the person possessing it, pretty much the same way as the "knowledge" that sensory inputs have some relationship to an external reality can be called "knowledge".
Same about astrology.
Finally, Christianity is the religion of truth. Isn't truth what a scientist is ultimately seeking?
And how do you know that? Because the bible says it is? Don't make me laugh!
I'm willing to consider that the sun orbits the earth. Then I think of all the evidence we have of the opposite and the discussion is closed. This goes so fast you might not even notice the doubt, and think I'm unwilling to discuss it at all. I don't, you just first have to disprove Newtons' Laws, come up with a good answer as to why interplanetary probes arrive on target despite our faulty world view and describe the laws that make all the other solar object go around in their now twisted paths. Also, please locate the centre of mass of the sun-earth system. Good luck, have fun and come back when you're done.
But a majority of scientists interviewed viewed both religion and science as "valid avenues of knowledge"
Here's a WTF moment.. While science converges to a view of how the world works (by observation, hypotheses and testing), religion just diverges and diverges. How can "revealed knowledge" even be called knowledge? If there is a disagreement amongst a churches' members, there is one path they can follow: a split. If a single atheist is put on a panel against a whole bunch of representatives of different religion, this is simply because those folks cannot come to an agreement between themselves of who this god is and what he wants us to do. So really,cut the crap.
Another 15% say the two are never in conflict
Now that's just scary. What world are they living in?
Overall, under some circumstances even the most religious of scientists were described in very positive terms by their nonreligious peers; this suggests that the integration of religion and science is not so distasteful to all scientists.
a religious person can do valid science, but I bet you his papers are not mentioning how god created DNA. It only works if you keep them separate, so how this integrates religion and science is a mystery to me. Science is blind to personal opinions of scientists: if a racist does valid science does that mean science and racism integrate well? If a great scientist likes hip hop, does that mean that science and hip hop integrate well? If there is a good way to demonstrate how stupid you are, making such a claim must be it.
Oh I have nothing against any of the tools by old Peter Norton, it is just the catch with those is this: How many folks are gonna have a copy of a tool from 1997?
I'm sure I have it on a floppy somewhere...
That's a weird question. If it comes from something else (e.g. God), then it follows that it is not part of reality, and thus it does not exists. So your question does not make sense logically.
Erm... yes...
How can the belief in an invisible sky-daddy ever be called rational?
Also, the last outbreaks of polio in the Netherlands was in the highly religious regions, where reformed Christians didn't want to get vaccinated because they saw disease as a punishment of God (oh the irony). And of course, the Vatican is helping the spread of the HIV virus. And "Holy water" in churches is just standing water where all the visitors put their hands in - they're one big bacterial hotspot.
That you'll end up worse without religion, is an hypothesis that's just as baseless as religion itself. If it were true, atheists would already be doing this and countries where religion no longer has its foot in the door would be collapsing. This is not the case. In fact the most religious places are the worst shitholes of the world. And when your solution to problems is praying and relying on your imaginary friend (he has a plan!), it should come as no surprise that tomorrow you'll wake up in the same shithole.
Even if religion is a symptom, it is worth adressing it just as it is worth addressing a strong fever. Especially if the religion spreads intolerance (submission of women, hatred against gays, ...), misinformation (literal interpretation of bible stories), interferes in public life (praying in schools), receives tax money, opposes scientific progress (creationism/ID) or swindles people(in practice: any clergyman with a private jet or a castle should be hanged).
And where does God come from?
It's just a way to get poor people off american streets, into iraqi streets. Garbage disposal, you might say. And it's cheap too, even profitable! (according to Dick Cheney).
Oops, that's true, how stupid of me (ouch).
If that son of a bitch returns, you do what you would do with any zombie: wooden pike through the hart.
If you watch porn you're a perv? Ouch.
I'm sure a pointy haired boss was involved.
Here's Neil deGrasse Tyson's view on the matter, it's one of the best videos on logical thinking I've ever seen:
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=zfAzaDyae-k
So, it is a computer version of Derren Brown?
Why would anyone admire the pope? An idiot with a silly hat, that's all there is to him.
Even when he's ruining Pluto, he does a great job explaning why it makes a lot of sense. It's a very important lesson, learning the distinction between facts and catergorisations, and learning that categories can be fluid and always have fuzzy borders. You can also use that to explain why racism is so stupid (how white do you have to be)?
And if you watch a video of him (use google videos) you'll notice he has always retained the curiosity of a small child. Great man.
"Religious" and "nuts" are two words that fit perfectly together.
I'm all in favor of public hangings for adults who can't get their units straight. It would have saved at least one innocent space probe.
If you're wondering whether I'm sarcastic: I'm not sure...
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Military_budget_of_the_United_States#Budget_Breakdown_for_2011
I know nothing, heh? Fucktard.