Re: [Phys-l] Richard Dawkins Answers Reddit Questions

[Spinozalens@aol.com]

In a message dated 11/21/2010 7:45:38 AM Eastern Standard Time,  
kst24@cam.ac.uk writes:

Everyone  is of course entitled to their own views, but when you say:

At 05:16  -0500 21/11/10, Spinozalens@aol.com wrote:
> Just about everything in the  Bible and Koran are in total conflict 
> with  everything science  has learned about the Universe. To suggest 
> otherwise  seems to me  rather amazing.

I have to this is intended as rhetoric rather than a  serious point.

I do not know enough about the Koran to comments, but I  find a 
statement such as

"Just about everything in the Bible [is]  in total conflict with 
everything science has learned about the  Universe"

makes about as much sense as saying that just about all the  lyrics of 
Sgt. Pepper's are in total conflict with everything historians  have 
found out about the Roman empire. Some people choose to read science  
or pseudo-science into the Bible. You are of course at liberty to do  
that, Bob, just as much as the fundamentalists you criticise, but it  
is not a book of science and most Christian scholars would argue that  
it was clearly never intended to be. If you want to argue that the  
Bible contradicts science you have to play the fundamentalist game 
and  choose to interpret the Bible that way.
 
))))))))))))))))))))))))))))))))
 
BZ 
 
 
According the Bible the earth the Sun goes around the earth pi equals 3,  
and the everything was created in six days is a rather perverse order. I 
think  these assertions  are in some disagreement with modern science. I know of 
 course that liberal religionist skirt these issues with a very loose 
reading of  the Bible, but I don't think it's intellectually honest to do this. I 
fail to  see why they just can't admit these are bronze age myths. As for 
moral teachings  the Bible is a mixed bag. While there are some proscriptions 
that any decent  person cannot quarrel with, there are also appalling 
things which reflect  their origin, a primitive tribal culture. So using the 
Bible as a source to  ground our moral teachings let alone inform us about the 
nature of reality seems  problematic to me. 

))))))))))))))))))))))))))))))))))))))))))))))

Without  wishing to be provocative, as an outsider I don't understand 
why  fundamentalist Christian religion seems to be so influential in 
US  education, when so many other aspects of US public life are 
clearly  influenced very little by Christian values and principles. 
I'm thinking,  for example, of the high per capita prison population, 
and the use of  legal judicial killing in some states (but perhaps 
those where the  Christian religion is less influential?) - in the 
21st Century! - the  apparent keenness to take military action around 
the world, the relatively  limited provision of public health services 
and social welfare compared  with many European countries, etc. I'm 
not looking to be critical (I'm not  from a country that has a 
tremendous history of good behaviour), but if  Christianity is really 
such an influence, it is either very selective in  how it uses that 
influence within the public sphere, or is a very  distorted (inverted) 
version of the teachings of Jesus  Christ!
 
)))))))))))))
 
BZ 
 
You're right. It is a wonder. But religion often serves to justify  
injustice as part of god's plan and we see this in the fundamentalist churches  in 
the United States. The United States quite simply is a terrible country and  
getting worst every day.  In fairness the more liberal religionists are  
fine people who work hard to make the world a better place but they are a very 
 small minority in American Churches. 
 
)))))))))))))))))))))))))))))))))))))0



Perhaps what Bob finds so toxic is nothing to do with the  tenets of 
the religion, and a lot to do with the politics of  institutionalised 
organisations?

p.s. I would disagree with you  about science and faith, but I see you 
take an instrumentalist perspective  on science, and i  think there 
you can be quite consistent in what  you say. Positivist, realists 
though (if they are still out there), I  think do put in faith in 
certain metaphysical commitments that themselves  can not be 
demonstrated within science.
))))))))))))))))))))))))
 
No, I stand by my assertions I see no connection between science and faith. 
 I think they are antithetical with other. 
 
Bob Zannelli 
 
))))))))))))))))))))))




Keith


-- 
Dr. Keith S.  Taber

http://www.educ.cam.ac.uk/staff/taber.html
http://people.pwf.cam.ac.uk/kst24/

Author:  Progressing Science Education - Constructing the Scientific 
Research  Programme into the Contingent Nature of Learning Science 
(Springer:  2009)

University Senior Lecturer in Science Education

Science  Education Centre
University of Cambridge Faculty of Education
184 Hills  Road
Cambridge CB2 8PQ
United Kingdom

to join an electronic  discussion list on
learning in science
please  visit
http://uk.groups.yahoo.com/group/learning-science-concepts
_______________________________________________
Forum  for Physics  Educators
Phys-l@carnot.physics.buffalo.edu
https://carnot.physics.buffalo.edu/mailman/listinfo/phys-l