At their core, Buddhism and Hinduism are equally incompatible with science because they posit the existence of supernatural beings or unprovable things like reincarnation.
I don't deny that a great many religions people fully accept the scientific method. They just put aside their religions when they do that, and I have no problem with that.
I would no more want Buddhism or Hinduism taught in a science class than Christianity.
Show me where those things are in the new testament.
Burning witches: Revelation 21:8 "But as for the cowardly, the faithless, the detestable, as for murderers, the sexually immoral, sorcerers, idolaters, and all liars, their portion will be in the lake that burns with fire and sulfur, which is the second death.”
Owning slaves: 1 Timothy 6:1-2 "Christians who are slaves should give their masters full respect so that the name of God and his teaching will not be shamed. If your master is a Christian, that is no excuse for being disrespectful. You should work all the harder because you are helping another believer by your efforts. Teach these truths, Timothy, and encourage everyone to obey them." and also Ephesians 6:5: "Slaves, obey your earthly masters with deep respect and fear. Serve them sincerely as you would serve Christ."
Thing is, science itself is being elevated to the position of religion
No, not at all. Inasmuch as I "believe" in anything, I believe in science because it actually works. When I get on plane, I'm pretty confident that Bernoulli got it right and that the engineers who built the plane have solid scientific reasons to believe it will fly.
I would certainly not get on a couple of two-by-fours and be flung off a mountaintop just because some religious leader had "blessed" the two-by-fours and assured me that by the grace of God [sic] they would fly.
Christianity, or any religion for that matter, does not have to be incompatible with scientific reason
I disagree. Ultimately, at their cores, every religion is incompatible with science because every religion claims to derive its legitimacy from an omnipotent, omnicient, always-correct supernatural being (or maybe a bunch of such supernatural beings.)
Such an assumption is directly at odds with science, which at its core believes that natural phenomena all have natural causes that can be used to derive theories that make falsifiable predictions.
I find science so much more compelling than religion is that it actually works. Scientific progress has enriched humanity immensely. Religious progress? Not so much.
Because, if science can't ever get us all the answers, then there's something else...
And that "something else" should not be taught in science class. It should be taught in the "something else" class.
Besides, no-one can ever get us all the answers. The Universe does not exist for the convenience of people. It's extremely likely that we'll never understand many things about the Universe, and falling back on silly fantasies is an infantile response to the great mysteries of the Universe.
Knowing the theory of evolution really doesn't help 99% of people in their daily lives.
Ignoring it hurts us all, though. Remember that if you're ever in hospital with nasty chemicals coursing through your blood trying to fight off antibiotic-resistant bacteria.
It has to be taken on faith or it'd be unfair as an "open competition" according to the original terms and conditions with Satan after the Adam and Eve apple incident.
*boggle*. Satan and the "Adam and Eve apple incident":) ?? Awesome!:) And from that you go on to talking about teaching science?
Parent can be paraphrased as "Bah, get off my lawn", so I'll just take issue with one thing: Back then, we did not have school shootings, knifings, etc.
Wikipedia says you're wrong, listing school shootings in 1902, 1959, 1975, and so on. And I bet there were plenty of knifings too... most likely too many to create a WIkipedia article.
So why do we get so uptight about a few people wanting us to believe...
I have no problem with people believing whatever fantasies float their boat. I have a huge problem with their wanting to force said fantasies on kids under the guise of teaching science. As the post below said, teaching creationism in science class = child molestation.
Why just the Holy [sic] Bible? If you're gonna drag one fantasy in, drag them all. Ancient Egyptian creation myths. Japanese and Chinese creation myths. Greek and Norse creation myths. Bring 'em on! Flying Spaghetti Monsters! Douglas Adams' Great Green Arkleseizure!
They're all as plausible as the Christian version, so why not teach them all?
Just because Islam is a particularly vile and disgusting religion doesn't mean we shouldn't rebut Creationists. We have time and energy to oppose Islamic fundamentalists as well as Christian ones, you know.
why people really ought to expand their thinking to consider all possible theories.
Yeah, OK.
Christianity's (or any other religion's) creation mythology is not a theory in the scientific sense, so I don't waste time "considering" it. It's not falsifiable and it makes no testable predictions, so it's not a theory.
Your simulation idea is a nice science-fiction theme, though not terribly original. But again: Not falsifiable, no predictions ==> not a theory. Let's not waste time considering it.
So tell me, what scientific theories other than evolution through natural selection are there left to consider? Hmmm???
While I happen to believe that large parts of the Bible are indeed fiction, I'm not aware of any science teachers who go around telling students that in the context of a science class.
And sorry, but religion has no place whatsoever in the public school system, so I am fully supportive of schools that ban citation of Bible verses in school, just as I'd support the banning of teach of Torah, Qu'ran, or whatever in the public school system outside of a comparative religion course.
The Christian fantasy and the simulation fantasy don't solve anything. They just say: "You can't ask questions about X because {the deity / the simulation} has declared it just so."
That's not a scientific theory and it certainly doesn't explain or solve anything.
Further, a longitudinal study comparing Montessori and public schools shows that a large amount of our social pathologies can be traced back to pedagogical methods used by public schools.
Not only that, a cross-cultural neo-Darwinian study showed that a substantial number of semi-literate subpar I.Q. holders believe that multi-syllabic language tokens show utility in promoting an argument.
There's actually more logical evidence and less holes in the theory at the universe is a giant simulation.
Righto, matey. GIve me some testable predictions of your Simulation theory.
Evolution? We predict that organisms will change in response to changing conditions and we have observed it in action with the rise of antibiotic-resistant bacteria. Prediction followed by confirmation.
Why just 3 theories? What about the Flying Spaghetti Monster? What about the Universe being sneezed out of the nose of the Great Green Arkleseizure? Those "theories" are just a plausible as your Christian or your Simulation theories.
Evolution, on the other hand, makes testable predictions, something none of your other "theories" can claim, which makes then not theories at all in the scientific sense.
I suggest you go back to Grade 9 science class. You obviously need a refresher.
I bought it on ebay about a year ago and I love it. Why do you need to replace your N900 if it works? And if it doesn't work, why not buy another one? I'm sure you can find one online.
The question "How many gates does it take to implement this algorithm?" is stupid. It's like asking "How long is a piece of string?"
There will always be a time/space tradeoff, even with translating an algorithm to hardware. You can save time by throwing more gates at the problem to increase parallelism, or you can save space by reusing gates in sequential operations.
Slashdot Mirror
At their core, Buddhism and Hinduism are equally incompatible with science because they posit the existence of supernatural beings or unprovable things like reincarnation.
I don't deny that a great many religions people fully accept the scientific method. They just put aside their religions when they do that, and I have no problem with that.
I would no more want Buddhism or Hinduism taught in a science class than Christianity.
Meh. I was brought up Jewish, so to me the entire New [sic] Testament is a bizarre acid trip anyway. :)
Show me where those things are in the new testament.
Burning witches: Revelation 21:8 "But as for the cowardly, the faithless, the detestable, as for murderers, the sexually immoral, sorcerers, idolaters, and all liars, their portion will be in the lake that burns with fire and sulfur, which is the second death.”
Owning slaves: 1 Timothy 6:1-2 "Christians who are slaves should give their masters full respect so that the name of God and his teaching will not be shamed. If your master is a Christian, that is no excuse for being disrespectful. You should work all the harder because you are helping another believer by your efforts. Teach these truths, Timothy, and encourage everyone to obey them." and also Ephesians 6:5: "Slaves, obey your earthly masters with deep respect and fear. Serve them sincerely as you would serve Christ."
Gawd, the Internet makes things easy. :)
Thing is, science itself is being elevated to the position of religion
No, not at all. Inasmuch as I "believe" in anything, I believe in science because it actually works. When I get on plane, I'm pretty confident that Bernoulli got it right and that the engineers who built the plane have solid scientific reasons to believe it will fly.
I would certainly not get on a couple of two-by-fours and be flung off a mountaintop just because some religious leader had "blessed" the two-by-fours and assured me that by the grace of God [sic] they would fly.
Christianity, or any religion for that matter, does not have to be incompatible with scientific reason
I disagree. Ultimately, at their cores, every religion is incompatible with science because every religion claims to derive its legitimacy from an omnipotent, omnicient, always-correct supernatural being (or maybe a bunch of such supernatural beings.)
Such an assumption is directly at odds with science, which at its core believes that natural phenomena all have natural causes that can be used to derive theories that make falsifiable predictions.
I find science so much more compelling than religion is that it actually works. Scientific progress has enriched humanity immensely. Religious progress? Not so much.
Are you saying that anything not agreeing with your own personal philosophy should be banned from public schools?
Of course not. You can teach the Bible, the Torah, the Q'ran in a comparative religion course in a school... that's fine.
Just not in science class or outside the proper context of a comparative religion class.
Because, if science can't ever get us all the answers, then there's something else...
And that "something else" should not be taught in science class. It should be taught in the "something else" class.
Besides, no-one can ever get us all the answers. The Universe does not exist for the convenience of people. It's extremely likely that we'll never understand many things about the Universe, and falling back on silly fantasies is an infantile response to the great mysteries of the Universe.
Knowing the theory of evolution really doesn't help 99% of people in their daily lives.
Ignoring it hurts us all, though. Remember that if you're ever in hospital with nasty chemicals coursing through your blood trying to fight off antibiotic-resistant bacteria.
It has to be taken on faith or it'd be unfair as an "open competition" according to the original terms and conditions with Satan after the Adam and Eve apple incident.
*boggle*. Satan and the "Adam and Eve apple incident" :) ?? Awesome! :) And from that you go on to talking about teaching science?
Sigh. The OP probably won't even see the irony.
Parent can be paraphrased as "Bah, get off my lawn", so I'll just take issue with one thing: Back then, we did not have school shootings, knifings, etc.
Wikipedia says you're wrong, listing school shootings in 1902, 1959, 1975, and so on. And I bet there were plenty of knifings too... most likely too many to create a WIkipedia article.
Creationists have their tax money taken (whether they have kids in school or not) and used to fund schools that teach evolution.
So? The job of science class in public schools is to teach science. End of story.
So why do we get so uptight about a few people wanting us to believe...
I have no problem with people believing whatever fantasies float their boat. I have a huge problem with their wanting to force said fantasies on kids under the guise of teaching science. As the post below said, teaching creationism in science class = child molestation.
Why just the Holy [sic] Bible? If you're gonna drag one fantasy in, drag them all. Ancient Egyptian creation myths. Japanese and Chinese creation myths. Greek and Norse creation myths. Bring 'em on! Flying Spaghetti Monsters! Douglas Adams' Great Green Arkleseizure!
They're all as plausible as the Christian version, so why not teach them all?
Just because Islam is a particularly vile and disgusting religion doesn't mean we shouldn't rebut Creationists. We have time and energy to oppose Islamic fundamentalists as well as Christian ones, you know.
why people really ought to expand their thinking to consider all possible theories.
Yeah, OK.
Christianity's (or any other religion's) creation mythology is not a theory in the scientific sense, so I don't waste time "considering" it. It's not falsifiable and it makes no testable predictions, so it's not a theory.
Your simulation idea is a nice science-fiction theme, though not terribly original. But again: Not falsifiable, no predictions ==> not a theory. Let's not waste time considering it.
So tell me, what scientific theories other than evolution through natural selection are there left to consider? Hmmm???
...read the entirety of Christ's teachings before commenting on them.
Yeah, ok. You read all of science starting from quantum mechanics going up to natural selection before commenting.
While I happen to believe that large parts of the Bible are indeed fiction, I'm not aware of any science teachers who go around telling students that in the context of a science class.
And sorry, but religion has no place whatsoever in the public school system, so I am fully supportive of schools that ban citation of Bible verses in school, just as I'd support the banning of teach of Torah, Qu'ran, or whatever in the public school system outside of a comparative religion course.
The Christian fantasy and the simulation fantasy don't solve anything. They just say: "You can't ask questions about X because {the deity / the simulation} has declared it just so."
That's not a scientific theory and it certainly doesn't explain or solve anything.
Further, a longitudinal study comparing Montessori and public schools shows that a large amount of our social pathologies can be traced back to pedagogical methods used by public schools.
Not only that, a cross-cultural neo-Darwinian study showed that a substantial number of semi-literate subpar I.Q. holders believe that multi-syllabic language tokens show utility in promoting an argument.
I suppose that explains your post?
There's actually more logical evidence and less holes in the theory at the universe is a giant simulation.
Righto, matey. GIve me some testable predictions of your Simulation theory.
Evolution? We predict that organisms will change in response to changing conditions and we have observed it in action with the rise of antibiotic-resistant bacteria. Prediction followed by confirmation.
Your turn.
Why just 3 theories? What about the Flying Spaghetti Monster? What about the Universe being sneezed out of the nose of the Great Green Arkleseizure? Those "theories" are just a plausible as your Christian or your Simulation theories.
Evolution, on the other hand, makes testable predictions, something none of your other "theories" can claim, which makes then not theories at all in the scientific sense.
I suggest you go back to Grade 9 science class. You obviously need a refresher.
I bought it on ebay about a year ago and I love it. Why do you need to replace your N900 if it works? And if it doesn't work, why not buy another one? I'm sure you can find one online.
Why do you need a remote management tool for Linux? There's SSH fer cryin' out loud and if you really need desktop access, use VNC.
Wait, what? You pay for TV?
I have an antenna in my attic and get about 15 channels for free. That's all the TV I could ever watch.
Pay for TV???? What a concept!
The question "How many gates does it take to implement this algorithm?" is stupid. It's like asking "How long is a piece of string?"
There will always be a time/space tradeoff, even with translating an algorithm to hardware. You can save time by throwing more gates at the problem to increase parallelism, or you can save space by reusing gates in sequential operations.