Conquer Club

It would be more accurate to say that Scientists battle to discover truth and certain groups battle to defend ignorance.

It's a real shame to see people buying into this whole religion vs. science debate. As a scientist until recently, I knew plenty of good scientists who were either religious or happy to accept the role of religion. But, of course, there are those people in both communities that feel threatened by the presence of the other. The media knows this and so they hype it up to generate sales / hits. There is your "battle". Most media reporting around science is, unfortunately, crap. Lazy and crap.

A brutral take down of Scotty's lazy thinking, courtesy of SMBC via Haggis.

Haggis_McMutton wrote:today's SMBC:

BigBallinStalin wrote:There's a science v. religious (Christian predominantly) "battle" on the issue of stem cell research.

What is meant by science here? There is a tendency to think of science as being a homogeneous collection of people with identical opinions, but this is far from the truth. If there is one defining characteristic of a scientist, it is the challenging of any idea presented to them. There is no set of beliefs that must be held to "belong" to science. So what is meant by "science vs."? I'm pretty sure there are some scientists that think that stem cell research is unethical.

It suits the media for us to think of science as the homogeneous collective because then they can paint personal disagreements as holy wars.

In that example, there is an ethical battle between those who want stem cell research and those who do not. This does not equate to scientists and religious people respectively.

Also, look out for "scientists say...". This is journalist shorthand for "I spoke to two scientists and will extrapolate to the entire global population of scientists".

A new, non-goose-stepping poster! Nice to meet you D4

D4 Damager wrote: The media knows this and so they hype it up to generate sales / hits. There is your "battle". Most media reporting around science is, unfortunately, crap. Lazy and crap.

But, at the same time, I would argue that the whole "drawing a line between science and religion" is mostly fiction -- or something put out by people with various "agendas".

Both religion and science effectively try to answer truth. Science, in its easiest to understand form, uses the idea of established fact and proofs... but only moves forward by challenging & testing accepted thinking and perceptions. Religion starts with a fundamental answer to the really big questions, in one sense. Yet.. it also evolves and changes as people learn new things and, I would say "grow" as societies.

My experience is that while scientists are pretty clear, have very narrow guidelines for what they will say is proof, fact and publish... are very open to broad discussions of philosophy and religion. The stereotype is that religious individuals are narrow and "debate" only narrow meanings of text, memorizing tracts and spitting them out, not really challenging their thinking. But, again, my experience is that most religious individuals do wrestle as much as scientists with questions. However, the basis for what they consider fact can hinge partially upon texts.

Except.. those two different ways of approaching things, when it comes down to it, are not all that different, because both scientists and religious individuals rely upon a combination of learned facts and principles, plus what they see/observe and experience. Both can and do use all of that to come up with new ideas.

BigBallinStalin wrote:

Woodruff wrote:

Phatscotty wrote:There is a battle between science and Religion. I don't think anyone would deny that.

I will deny it. Science doesn't give a rat's ass about religion. Some scientists are religious personally. Some people who are religious have a problem with science, and those few are usually having a problem with it because they believe that science takes away some of their power/influence in using religion.

But there is no battle at all between science and religion, as they are not competing philosophies...they don't intersect. One is based on faith and one is based on verifiability. Any "battle" is taking place only in the mind of the ignorant.

There's a science v. religious (Christian predominantly) "battle" on the issue of stem cell research.

Incorrect. For a "battle" to be occurring, there must be aggression on both sides of the situation. The science side of things is not attacking religion. Some on the religious side of things are attacking science.

D4 Damager wrote:

BigBallinStalin wrote:There's a science v. religious (Christian predominantly) "battle" on the issue of stem cell research.

What is meant by science here? There is a tendency to think of science as being a homogeneous collection of people with identical opinions, but this is far from the truth. If there is one defining characteristic of a scientist, it is the challenging of any idea presented to them. There is no set of beliefs that must be held to "belong" to science. So what is meant by "science vs."? I'm pretty sure there are some scientists that think that stem cell research is unethical.

It suits the media for us to think of science as the homogeneous collective because then they can paint personal disagreements as holy wars.

In that example, there is an ethical battle between those who want stem cell research and those who do not. This does not equate to scientists and religious people respectively.

Also, look out for "scientists say...". This is journalist shorthand for "I spoke to two scientists and will extrapolate to the entire global population of scientists".

"Science" as in the group which supports stem cell research with the expected benefits offsetting the costs. This can include the scientists involved, but also anyone "pro-science," as in anyone in favor of promoting stem cell research. The opposition would be "the religious," which is the group that appeals to the government to ban or vastly constrict stem cell research, and their reasoning is predominantly Christian/The Holy Three.

Does that clear it up for you?

Woodruff wrote:

BigBallinStalin wrote:

Woodruff wrote:

Phatscotty wrote:There is a battle between science and Religion. I don't think anyone would deny that.

I will deny it. Science doesn't give a rat's ass about religion. Some scientists are religious personally. Some people who are religious have a problem with science, and those few are usually having a problem with it because they believe that science takes away some of their power/influence in using religion.

But there is no battle at all between science and religion, as they are not competing philosophies...they don't intersect. One is based on faith and one is based on verifiability. Any "battle" is taking place only in the mind of the ignorant.

There's a science v. religious (Christian predominantly) "battle" on the issue of stem cell research.

Incorrect. For a "battle" to be occurring, there must be aggression on both sides of the situation. The science side of things is not attacking religion. Some on the religious side of things are attacking science.

Banning the advancement of knowledge is a constriction of the property rights which one enjoys. This infringement of rights was caused by the "religious" (explained above) and enforced by the government. That counts as "battle" enough for me.


"For a "battle" to be occurring, there must be aggression on both sides of the situation."
So, if army A attacks army B, and army B immediately runs away, then there was no battle? What was it then?

PLAYER57832 wrote:

D4 Damager wrote: The media knows this and so they hype it up to generate sales / hits. There is your "battle". Most media reporting around science is, unfortunately, crap. Lazy and crap.

But, at the same time, I would argue that the whole "drawing a line between science and religion" is mostly fiction -- or something put out by people with various "agendas".

Both religion and science effectively try to answer truth. Science, in its easiest to understand form, uses the idea of established fact and proofs... but only moves forward by challenging & testing accepted thinking and perceptions. Religion starts with a fundamental answer to the really big questions, in one sense. Yet.. it also evolves and changes as people learn new things and, I would say "grow" as societies.

My experience is that while scientists are pretty clear, have very narrow guidelines for what they will say is proof, fact and publish... are very open to broad discussions of philosophy and religion. The stereotype is that religious individuals are narrow and "debate" only narrow meanings of text, memorizing tracts and spitting them out, not really challenging their thinking. But, again, my experience is that most religious individuals do wrestle as much as scientists with questions. However, the basis for what they consider fact can hinge partially upon texts.

Except.. those two different ways of approaching things, when it comes down to it, are not all that different, because both scientists and religious individuals rely upon a combination of learned facts and principles, plus what they see/observe and experience. Both can and do use all of that to come up with new ideas.

I dont question the main thrust of your argument but it fails to reflect the fact that fundamentalism is on the increase in the religious world , literal acceptance of historical fables and dogma does not equate with a search for truth.

I don't think Player will argue with you on that one.

BigBallinStalin wrote:"Science" as in the group which supports stem cell research with the expected benefits offsetting the costs. This can include the scientists involved, but also anyone "pro-science," as in anyone in favor of promoting stem cell research. The opposition would be "the religious," which is the group that appeals to the government to ban or vastly constrict stem cell research, and their reasoning is predominantly Christian/The Holy Three.

Does that clear it up for you?

Yes. You are defining science to be people that are pro-stem-cells and "religious" to be anti. Did you even read what I wrote? The reality is that there is an admixture of scientists and religious people on both sides of the argument. Also, the scientists involved are representing personal ethical opinions, not "science".

Fairly convincing poll btw PS.

Stupid people are so ffn funny.

D4 Damager wrote:

BigBallinStalin wrote:"Science" as in the group which supports stem cell research with the expected benefits offsetting the costs. This can include the scientists involved, but also anyone "pro-science," as in anyone in favor of promoting stem cell research. The opposition would be "the religious," which is the group that appeals to the government to ban or vastly constrict stem cell research, and their reasoning is predominantly Christian/The Holy Three.

Does that clear it up for you?

Yes. You are defining science to be people that are pro-stem-cells and "religious" to be anti. Did you even read what I wrote? The reality is that there is an admixture of scientists and religious people on both sides of the argument. Also, the scientists involved are representing personal ethical opinions, not "science".

Sure, there's a mix, and yeah, I'm aware of the dangers of homogenizing and holistic thought. Let me put it this way:

if it weren't for those religious beliefs held by the "Holy Book Threesome," would the opposition against stem cell research wither away?

BigBallinStalin wrote:

D4 Damager wrote:

BigBallinStalin wrote:"Science" as in the group which supports stem cell research with the expected benefits offsetting the costs. This can include the scientists involved, but also anyone "pro-science," as in anyone in favor of promoting stem cell research. The opposition would be "the religious," which is the group that appeals to the government to ban or vastly constrict stem cell research, and their reasoning is predominantly Christian/The Holy Three.

Does that clear it up for you?

Yes. You are defining science to be people that are pro-stem-cells and "religious" to be anti. Did you even read what I wrote? The reality is that there is an admixture of scientists and religious people on both sides of the argument. Also, the scientists involved are representing personal ethical opinions, not "science".

Sure, there's a mix, and yeah, I'm aware of the dangers of homogenizing and holistic thought. Let me put it this way:

if it weren't for those religious beliefs held by the "Holy Book Threesome," would the opposition against stem cell research wither away?

And let me answer it this way: Absolutely, and obviously.

BigBallinStalin wrote:

Woodruff wrote:For a "battle" to be occurring, there must be aggression on both sides of the situation.

So, if army A attacks army B, and army B immediately runs away, then there was no battle? What was it then?

Correct. There is no battle. That is called a surrender.

or a Polish battle

Woodruff wrote:

BigBallinStalin wrote:

Woodruff wrote:For a "battle" to be occurring, there must be aggression on both sides of the situation.

So, if army A attacks army B, and army B immediately runs away, then there was no battle? What was it then?

Correct. There is no battle. That is called a surrender.

But if one man within the retreating army fights back, does that constitute as a battle?

Can't you still have a tactical withdrawal within a battle?

BigBallinStalin wrote:

Woodruff wrote:

BigBallinStalin wrote:

Woodruff wrote:For a "battle" to be occurring, there must be aggression on both sides of the situation.

So, if army A attacks army B, and army B immediately runs away, then there was no battle? What was it then?

Correct. There is no battle. That is called a surrender.

But if one man within the retreating army fights back, does that constitute as a battle?

Can't you still have a tactical withdrawal within a battle?

Absolutely, you can have a tactical withdrawal within a battle. That's not what you described. I believe this is called "moving the goalposts".

Woodruff wrote:

BigBallinStalin wrote:

Woodruff wrote:

BigBallinStalin wrote:

Woodruff wrote:For a "battle" to be occurring, there must be aggression on both sides of the situation.

So, if army A attacks army B, and army B immediately runs away, then there was no battle? What was it then?

Correct. There is no battle. That is called a surrender.

But if one man within the retreating army fights back, does that constitute as a battle?

Can't you still have a tactical withdrawal within a battle?

Absolutely, you can have a tactical withdrawal within a battle. That's not what you described. I believe this is called "moving the goalposts".

Relax. I'm looking for clarity from you.



"For a "battle" to be occurring, there must be aggression on both sides of the situation." -Woodruff

So, if any individual on any side of the stem cell research issue engaged in any aggression, then there must be a battle. Any aggression at all. And, I've already explained what I meant by the "science" v. "religion" battle, so scroll up to refresh yourself.

In this light, do you honestly think that at least one side did not engage in any aggression against the other side?

AAFitz wrote:

BigBallinStalin wrote:if it weren't for those religious beliefs held by the "Holy Book Threesome," would the opposition against stem cell research wither away?

And let me answer it this way: Absolutely, and obviously.

Well I like the question but I just don't see how it's as black and white as that. Firstly, there are a lot of people that go to religion because it fits with their existing beliefs. If you removed religion, those beliefs may still survive. Just consider "spiritual" people. I'm not going to argue this too much though, because I mainly agree.

Anyway, we dropped the references to "science" so I'm happy.

D4 Damager wrote:

AAFitz wrote:

BigBallinStalin wrote:if it weren't for those religious beliefs held by the "Holy Book Threesome," would the opposition against stem cell research wither away?

And let me answer it this way: Absolutely, and obviously.

Well I like the question but I just don't see how it's as black and white as that. Firstly, there are a lot of people that go to religion because it fits with their existing beliefs. If you removed religion, those beliefs may still survive. Just consider "spiritual" people. I'm not going to argue this too much though, because I mainly agree.

Anyway, we dropped the references to "science" so I'm happy.

Oh, there is no question that some of the crazies would still argue against it, it just that there would be less crazies, and therefore, the opposition would be irrelevant as it should be.

Lootifer wrote:Fairly convincing poll btw PS.

I know! We're gonna win another one little buddy!

BigBallinStalin wrote:

Woodruff wrote:

BigBallinStalin wrote:

Woodruff wrote:

BigBallinStalin wrote:

Woodruff wrote:For a "battle" to be occurring, there must be aggression on both sides of the situation.

So, if army A attacks army B, and army B immediately runs away, then there was no battle? What was it then?

Correct. There is no battle. That is called a surrender.

But if one man within the retreating army fights back, does that constitute as a battle?

Can't you still have a tactical withdrawal within a battle?

Absolutely, you can have a tactical withdrawal within a battle. That's not what you described. I believe this is called "moving the goalposts".

Relax. I'm looking for clarity from you.

I've been perfectly clear from the beginning. You're simply trying to change the argument.

BigBallinStalin wrote:

Woodruff wrote:For a "battle" to be occurring, there must be aggression on both sides of the situation.

So, if any individual on any side of the stem cell research issue engaged in any aggression, then there must be a battle. Any aggression at all. And, I've already explained what I meant by the "science" v. "religion" battle, so scroll up to refresh yourself.

In this light, do you honestly think that at least one side did not engage in any aggression against the other side?

I definitely do not think that science has made any aggression toward religion, no. And frankly, religion doesn't care much about aggression toward science. It is simply the perversion of religion which results in any aggression against science. That same perversion causing aggression against religion does not exist in science because by the nature of science, it is readily disputed and debunked (as unnecessary).