Science, Scripture & Scrutiny
False
General
Science, Scripture & Scrutiny
Discuss non-medical topics
click here for larger image. Discuss the above... [Keep it clean and respectful please - this discussion is being started primarily because I am interested in the perspectives of other people
0
Cat:OffDutyForum:General
Cat:OffDutyForum:GeneralDiscussion:3b7f59fb-1eb2-4b42-a084-87e995892dae
|
Science, Scripture & Scrutiny
posted at 19/9/2012 3:06 PM BST
on bmj.com
|
Posts: 85
First: 20/5/2010 Last: 22/5/2013 |
 click here for larger image. Discuss the above... [Keep it clean and respectful please - this discussion is being started primarily because I am interested in the perspectives of other people - If you do not share this interest, please don't bother commenting!] |
|
Re: Science, Scripture & Scrutiny
posted at 19/9/2012 4:53 PM BST
on bmj.com
|
Posts: 1266
First: 13/4/2010 Last: 21/5/2013 |
Sorry David - but it's a false question. To portray evolution (or science) as faith (as this cartoon does) is errant nonsense which only makes sense if we say that the whole of science is a "belief" in which case the world we live in and everything we do in it, including me typing this response, might as well be described as make believe. To describe evolution (or science) as "faith" is to show one's ignorance of science. A scientist, by defintion, is always open to the possibility of changing views based on the evidence available.or what is observed. Faith, by definition, is unchanging, even in the face of evidence to the contrary or what is observed. You would be as well asking "Who are more bigotted - cheese farmers or tango dancers?" And, by the way, show me an example where a scientist called for a person of faith to be killed because they didn't believe science or because they posted a cartoon poking fun at science (like this one)... |
|
|
Re: Science, Scripture & Scrutiny
posted at 19/9/2012 7:47 PM BST
on bmj.com
|
Posts: 3045
First: 27/3/2012 Last: 20/5/2013 |
I do agree with the concept of this portrait, it's not a cartoon! It should be readily accepted that blind faith in anything, even scientifically proved, is not wise. Every study be judged by ourselves & subjected to a careful & critical scrutiny, the results should not be accepted blindly. |
|
|
Re: Science, Scripture & Scrutiny
posted at 19/9/2012 9:12 PM BST
on bmj.com
|
|
|
Re: Science, Scripture & Scrutiny
posted at 20/9/2012 11:44 AM BST
on bmj.com
|
|
Posts: 85
First: 20/5/2010 Last: 22/5/2013 |
@TimReynolds. I totally agree but also find it very irritating that these are the people given the greatest platform by the media. It frames the debate poorly I think, and portrays both perspectives badly. @skyesteve. You make some interesting points though I generally disagree. I think that there is an element of faith in science. For example we believe that everything in the cosmos can be rationally intelligible. A better example might be statistics... upon which science is based: We can never have absolute certainty that something is true, but we have faith that something is true because the odds are overwhelmingly in favour that it is so. Take evolution for example... As the fossil, genetic, and other evidence mounts the statistical odds that the theory is false decrease, yet we can never have absolute certainty. In other words we have faith that it is true based on overwhelming odds... and yet those odds imply that there is a minute chance it may be false. Am I making sense? So I think that faith does exist within science (and probably within pretty much everything!) and I am totally confortable with that. You alse say that "A scientist, by definition, is always open to the possibility of changing views based on the evidence available." I would argue that this isn't a definition that fits all 'scientists'. The definition you provide is actually the definition of a 'good scientist'. But scientists (like the Pope!) ARE NOT INFALLIABLE. Let's not forget that there are some scientists out there argueing against evolution(!). So, I would argue against your point that "Faith, by definition, is unchanging, even in the face of evidence to the contrary." I would rather define faith as: 'trust or confidence in something or someone' Consequently, I think that faith is changeable and, at it's best, is based on evidence. My cartoon is not an attempt to "poke fun at science" (I'm sorry you felt this) but rather to poke fun at blind (baseless) faith, which I think exists within the spheres of both science and religion (and probably should be eradicated from both). |
|
|
Re: Science, Scripture & Scrutiny
posted at 20/9/2012 1:44 PM BST
on bmj.com
|
Posts: 2948
First: 10/3/2009 Last: 23/5/2013 |
if faith does not make your wise, compassionate and empathetic it is not faith but dogma.It is fragile and not robust. You are are a fraud and your faith empty. you will be old one day but not wise and loving. If science does not make you wise, humble and lost in wonder you are a fool. Look at the night sky and love all men and know you are but a grain of sand on the beach and the Milky Way that serpentine river of jewels that waters the night sky. I care not whether you are Christian, Jew, Moslem or an atheist. We are all on that same great river delta which empties into the same great sea. |
|
|
Re: Science, Scripture & Scrutiny
posted at 20/9/2012 3:45 PM BST
on bmj.com
|
|
Posts: 1266
First: 13/4/2010 Last: 21/5/2013 |
Hi David - thank you for you kind, generous, tolerant and considerate response. I hope you will allow me to reciprocate. I apologise if what follows get a bit long-winded and waffly but here goes... The illustration at the top of your post and the use of the word bigot implies a direct comparison between religious faith and science - my argument is that you cannot make one (hence my allusion to cheese makers and tango dancers). That is not to say one cannot have/do both. There are many great scientist who also had/have religious faith and there are many religious figures who recognise the value of science. Please don't confuse militant atheism with science. Yes, Mr Dawkins is a scientist but that's not why he is a militant atheist and many militant atheists are not scientists and do not claim to be. You say that science is based on probability. That's true as far as it goes. But i would say that it is more based on mathematics. Now the mathematics behind something like sub-atomic particles are way beyond the ken of my puny brain but in essence all maths follows on from the fact that 1 + 1 = 2 and that's all you need to "believe". No true scientist has "absolute certainty" - doubt and questioning are the quintessence of science. Any "scientist" who says their view is infallable is not a scientists. There are no "bad scientists" and no "bad science". The books and web sites of that name are actually talking about non-science - or mumbo-jumbo if you prefer. So homoeopathy, fish oils for school kids, NLP, etc. are not "bad science" - they are simply not science. Likewise there is no room for teaching creationism in a biology class or evolutionary biology in an R.E. class. It's true that scientists come up with "models" to try an explain the world around us and that is what religions do but there remain fundamental differences in approach. Religious faith depends on some unquestioning beliefs which are handed down to you and which you have no direct way of demonstrating (unlike science where two different people in two different parts of the world can do the same experiment and come up with the same result - again and again and again). Hence, to quote George Michael, "You gotta have faith". So to be a Chirstian you have to believe that Jesus was the son of God and that he was resurrected. To be a Muslim you have to believe that The Prophet (peace be upon him) delivered the direct word of God. If not you cannot have these faiths. And if you stop believing these things you are said to have lost your faith. A scientist who changes their view on something is not said to have lost their faith and cannot be regarded as having done so. Rather they have behaved like a true scientist. Don't worry I take no offense at anyone having a go at science - as i said, doubt and questioning are the quintessence of good science. It is not scientists who are killing doctors at family planning clinics or passing death sentences on authors, film makers or cartoonists. |
|
|
Re: Science, Scripture & Scrutiny
posted at 20/9/2012 4:18 PM BST
on bmj.com
|
|
Posts: 85
First: 20/5/2010 Last: 22/5/2013 |
Hey skyesteve Again, interesting perspective but I'm not sure if you're missing what I'm getting at. "bigot implies a direct comparison between religious faith and science" - not my intention - the question is asking if discussions within the science/faith arena are dominated by people who are bigotted. Not whether one is superior to the other. I agree one can "do both" and that it doesn't have to be an either/or. (Though there are clearly those on both sides who would disagree with us here.) I am not confusing militant atheism with science; though there are militant atheists who are scientists and (see my last comment to TimReynolds) I think dominate science/religion discussions. To be more accurate I think they co-dominate alongside militant-religious people. So is the image really poking fun at militancy?? I find your interpretation of the image really interesting and this is precisely why I posted it: To see how others would receive, interpret, and respond to it. It's really interesting contrasting you interpretation and response to my own and thanks for responding :) I hope you realise I am not "having a go at science" |
|
|
Re: Science, Scripture & Scrutiny
posted at 20/9/2012 4:28 PM BST
on bmj.com
|
Posts: 322
First: 12/11/2010 Last: 20/5/2013 |
For some reason a post I sent last night has disappeared. Religion and science are in one way identical: Stories to explain the world around us. They are also entirely different: Religion codified explanations millenia ago with no underlying evidence and then states that there can be no argument, that's the way it is. Essentially this boils down to a simple set of rules. Rule 1: What we tell you is the truth; Do not argue Rule 2: If you think you can prove me wrong, see rule 1. I think this fits pretty well with the left image in your cartoons. Science has the opposite method. It proposes what is thought to be the correct version of the truth and then positively challenges someone / anyone to provide evidence that the current theory is wrong, so that a new improved truth can be developed [A bit like washing powder, except that when a new improved Daz enters the market, it is the same as the old one but with a higher price tag]. This means that the second image is utterly wrong "I will not question evolution" should actually be "I must question evolution", and instead of bowing down in front of the altar, the scientist should be hitting it with something heavy.  Click to enlarge |
