Bringing Science into the Churches

That would add an entirely new and interesting aspect to sunday school, that's for sure.

no longer could any sunday school teacher just give the answer: "because god made it that way" to any child's question about the nature of some aspect of the world around them.

... and since science has nothing to do with the concept of "state", pushing for inclusion of science in religion certainly wouldn't be negated by any part of the constitution, would it?

so... theoretically, how would one go about getting grass roots support for such an idea?

Evangelism, of course.

(don't hit me don't hit me don't hit me) lol....

Christopher Hitchens hit on a similar idea not too long ago:

That would be fun for about a week. Then we'd run out of beliefs to test.

hmm, realistically, if we flipped the religion in school argument around, we would actually have to find a church where lots of parents wanted science taught along with scripture.

I doubt it would be that common of an occurence.

then again, there is the psuedo-science approach of Ross that PvM noted in another thread not far below this one.

what if we went to Ross' actual congregation and asked them if they wanted scientific debate as part of their weekly scripture?

they appear to like Ross' approach, so it would at least be a good place to test drive the idea.

Of course it really is a serious matter. Separation of church and state exists at least as much to prohibit the government from "preventing lies" (which it probably would do, as was the case in the USSR, but other lies were introduced) at the churches as to prevent IDists from mandating vague religious impulses to be taken to be science in the schools.

The fact is that if the latter happens, the former is no longer prevented as such. What begins in a fit of religion, in the hopes of misusing government in the service of religion, could readily be turned against religion when science is politically stronger. The thinking would be, 'if religion can force lies into the teaching of science, shouldn't we at least insist that the truth be told in churches?'

We are not, I hope, fighting simply to keep religion out of gov't sponsored schools, but to keep the gov't out of religion. It's not a joke that religion could very well end up shackled by government if the churches are so mindless as to cut through the protections we live under. Obviously the erosion of the separate estates need not progress that far in any particular event or era. However, the danger is real, if not immediate.

the slate piece mww mentions is yet another reminder that it does indeed seem like we are arguing with the old-tyme flat earthers from time to time. the difference is even worse tho, flat earth was based on the "science" of it's day, not religion, so it was actually easier to argue against it.

I don't think evangelicals view their ideas like flat-earther's did.

It's not a joke that religion could very well end up shackled by government if the churches are so mindless as to cut through the protections we live under

Priest (chanting voice): The force of gravity is proportional to mass and inversely proportional to square of the distance. Congregation: f equals G, m-one, m-two over r squared. Narrator: In a surprising development the Supreme Court allowed a compromise that creationism could taught in schools in exchange for physics lessons in church. Priest (chanting voice): Let us calculate together. (Lifts calculator) [Pan to confused member of the congregation with his calculator overlooking what is on another member's calculator.]

If their beliefs are not sound, or at least not demonstrably sound, then there will be no such consensus.

Part of the kick of religion lies in believing things that are obviously counterfactual. If any religious tenet ever turned out to be literally true, the faithful would quickly lose interest in it.

It's not a joke that religion could very well end up shackled by government if the churches are so mindless as to cut through the protections we live under.

William Roper: So, now you give the Devil the benefit of law! Sir Thomas More: Yes! What would you do? Cut a great road through the law to get after the Devil?

really, your quote should be read back to those from TMLC who represented the dover school board.

the ACLU now represents Thomas More more accurately than does the TMLC!

Well said Jim

The mystery of mysteries
The great unknowable unknown
The joy of magic
And for some removing the dull certainty of everyday life.

If life is a journey there can be an inward and an outward one
(Nothing new here I've cribbed from Campbell... I know...don't tell me.... again)

For some science is the great outward journey and is no different than the voyages of the ancient explorers the only faith they needed was that they didn't sail off the edge of the world (and being mariners that was counter intuitive anyway) reality is no problem because they were immensely practical and rational thinkers each new discovery is a reward in itself.

The counter to this is the inward journey not unlike schizophrenia, facing demons, doubt and a disjointed reality which if by the end of the journey one succeeds in creating a sane reality makes one better able. It is not an accident that some versions of religion can create a mass psychosis no different from group schizophrenia.

Quite Right STJ
The thing is, the irony would be completely lost on them.
More (the latter) thinks he is descended directly from Adam and probably fantasizes he is the son of God. He is certainly big headed enough.

Objection 1. It seems that sacred doctrine is not a science. For every science proceeds from self-evident principles. But sacred doctrine proceeds from articles of faith which are not self-evident, since their truth is not admitted by all: "For all men have not faith" (2 Thessalonians 3:2). Therefore sacred doctrine is not a science. Objection 2. Further, no science deals with individual facts. But this sacred science treats of individual facts, such as the deeds of Abraham, Isaac and Jacob and such like. Therefore sacred doctrine is not a science. On the contrary, Augustine says (De Trin. xiv, 1) "to this science alone belongs that whereby saving faith is begotten, nourished, protected and strengthened." But this can be said of no science except sacred doctrine. Therefore sacred doctrine is a science. I answer that, Sacred doctrine is a science. We must bear in mind that there are two kinds of sciences. There are some which proceed from a principle known by the natural light of intelligence, such as arithmetic and geometry and the like. There are some which proceed from principles known by the light of a higher science: thus the science of perspective proceeds from principles established by geometry, and music from principles established by arithmetic. So it is that sacred doctrine is a science because it proceeds from principles established by the light of a higher science, namely, the science of God and the blessed. Hence, just as the musician accepts on authority the principles taught him by the mathematician, so sacred science is established on principles revealed by God. Reply to Objection 1. The principles of any science are either in themselves self-evident, or reducible to the conclusions of a higher science; and such, as we have said, are the principles of sacred doctrine. Reply to Objection 2. Individual facts are treated of in sacred doctrine, not because it is concerned with them principally, but they are introduced rather both as examples to be followed in our lives (as in moral sciences) and in order to establish the authority of those men through whom the divine revelation, on which this sacred scripture or doctrine is based, has come down to us.

Lateral thinking here.

If the Mystics- Jesus, Buddha, etc etc have evolved (I won't say ...are Apes...dang) then for the Fundies that's tantamount to saying they can't be the Son of God or that religion evolved with man... they are that un-self aware, they don't have any concept of infinity or if they do denial of it must drive them partially mad.

they don't have any concept of infinity or if they do denial of it must drive them partially mad

Only if the mystics were only man, like us, it would drive them mad. If they were "Mystics" and had a concept of infinity maybe they had a way of dealing with the knowledge that didnt injure their psyche.

If they were "Mystics" and had a concept of infinity maybe they had a way of dealing with the knowledge that didnt injure their psyche.

Beautiful STJ
The 2 sides of Zen
1.all of us are inherently subject to the same madness tho, yes?
2.you posess the same knowledge inherently

No I do not.

k.e.

Wouldnt 2. be

2. [if] [all of us] posess the same knowledge inherently

kenan

Hmmmmmm

A link to a story might be in order here.

http://www.pandasthumb.org/archives/2005/10/oh_the_irony.html

Have you read "The Hero With a Thousand Faces" ?

he was quoting me directly, instead of paraphrasing.

he understood exactly what i was saying.

and it's got little to do with mysticism, per sae, tho it might sound a little strange on the surface.

I was simply trying to define the concept of infinity, as i perceived KE was pointing to.

we're getting a bit off topic here, but many of us believe that all of us posess the same inherent knowledge that the "Mystics" possesed to deal with the knowledge of the infinite. At the same time, most of us exist in denial of that which drives us slowly mad.

I've always viewed this as being one of (the only?) core duality of many belief systems and religions.

which is why i always find it puzzling when someone says they can't become Jesus, or Buddha, because they don't posess the knowledge to do so.

no and that link was lame, it just seems like that statment would make since if it was " [if] [all of us] posess the same knowledge inherently " not the other way. but i'm no "Zen Bhuddists" so maybe i just don't understand.

I see and this is getting way off subject.

Comments so far have been as coherent as Denyse o' Leary's!!!!

There needs to be sense not prejudice

well, we've been waiting for a more substantive turn, care to provide one?

STJ
"i always find it puzzling when someone says they can't become Jesus, or Buddha"
That seems to be the problem in a nutshell when ....what did they say ???

they said:

"No I do not."

we've moved on.

snap

The words quoted in comment 57514 are Robert Bolt's, not Thomas More's so far as I know, so it's not quite as crazy as you suggest for the TMLC to take a different view.

Where "you" = Sir_Toejam; sorry for unclarity.

You might want to take a closer look at the sainted Sir Thomas. He was an enthusiastic hunter of heretics and mostly a loyal henchman to the king. "A Man for all Seasons" is something of a whitwash, despite its moments of wisdom.

He fits the TMLC better than they would want to admit.

thanks, g. i was wondering. so is marc's quote from Man... incorrect, or is the book itself misquoting?

"i always find it puzzling when someone says they can't become Jesus, or Buddha"

A Man for All Seasons is a play, not a transcript ;-)

Posted by Sir_Toejam on November 14, 2005 11:26 PM (e) (s) It's not a joke that religion could very well end up shackled by government.... How does anyone convince someone with that kind of attitude that putting their own religion into government wouldn't end up giving them exactly what they want? Not to be too trite, but isn't that what Orwell was afraid of?

Bah! meant Dover trial not trail

A Man for All Seasons is a play, not a transcript ;-)

What I fail to understand is...if/when the Dover trail bans teaching ID. Will you still have to fight, over and over again, the same action in area after area?

Thing is STJ; over here in England...the church (C of E) is run by the state.

It would be worthwhile to point out the history of how it got that way, imo. I'm not as up on UK history as I'd like, do you have some insight on that?

uh, that's a bit more of a nutshell than i was shooting for.

I guess i should have asked more how that incident has become codified into UK modern parliamentary government.

which then provokes another question;

would you condider that situation to be in any way similar to a public majority forcing a parliamentary government to adopt a specific religion and codify into law?

If you want to know more:
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/History_of_the_Church_of_England

thanks, wiki does a decent job of tracing the history of the COE, but I was more aiming at the effects of COE on the evolution of parliamentary government in the UK.

Did you run across any references along those lines?

specifically, i was wondering what Stephen's take is on what real effects the COE has had on a democratic government.

I guess i should have asked more how that incident has become codified into UK modern parliamentary government.

The Church of England officially broke with Rome again in 1559, when Parliament recognised Elizabeth as the Church's supreme governor, with a new Act of Supremacy that also repealed the remaining anti-Protestant legislation.

One religious denomination in the United Kingdom is formally recognised and given a privileged status by the state. It is the "established" church of the nation. That church is the Church of England or Anglican Church. The Anglican Church alone is protected from expressions of contempt for its beliefs. The common law offences of blasphemy and blasphemous libel limit free speech only when the Church of England is the subject. The head of state is required to be a member of that church and not marry a Catholic. The head of state is indeed the titular head of the Church of England. She or he has the right, which is exercised through the Prime Minister, to appoint the head of the Church, the Archbishop of Canterbury, and other senior officers of the church. When a new Archbishop is required a Crown Appointments Commission sends two names to the Prime Minister at the end of a secretive process. The Prime Minister then forwards one to the queen for appointment as chief bishop, or refers both back to the Commission. In 2002 a High Court judge was chosen to head the commission in its search for a new archbishop. [...]

http://www.centreforcitizenship.org/church1.html...

I was more aiming at the effects of COE on the evolution of parliamentary government in the UK. Did you run across any references along those lines?

Amidst fears of a Roman Catholic succession, the Glorious Revolution of 1688 deposed James II in favour of the joint rule of Mary II and William III whose agreement to the English Bill of Rights introduced a constitutional monarchy, though the supremacy of the Crown still remained clear.

For the relevance of the above, see:

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Glorious_Revolution

Neal Stephenson's "Baroque Cycle," a science-fictional account of the history of English natural philosophy and history leading up to the Glorious Revolution, is an entertaining way to access this period--accurate in overview and a good deal of the detail.

Blast, we're talking three thick volumes here, with a fourth in press, and a lot of the words are pretty long. You may want to give these a pass.

specifically, i was wondering what Stephen's take is on what real effects the COE has had on a democratic government.

Example; it is still in law that all Englishmen should practice archery on a Sunday (think this dates back to the 100 years war and the effect of the longbow).

quite a different prospect.

I think it's clear how different the effects of religion on government are when we compare the UK and the US tho, yes?

the church (C of E) is run by the state while over here we are in danger of the opposite: the state being run by the church of evangelism.

You are possibly in a position to have to go through it all over again.

I know it's OT, but Buddhists don't say you can't become a Buddha.

http://groups.yahoo.com/group/GDS-list/message/30 11/9/05 Gainesville Daily Statement Biologists Fight Back Michael Adler, staph writer In response to what they see as the religious right interfering in public school science curricula, some biologists have decided that the best defense is a good offense. They have formed an association in Topeka Kansas to do just that. Naming themselves the Assembly for Quality Religious Instruction, they are lobbying for a law to require all church Sunday schools to teach alternatives to the theory of immaculate conception. "There are holes and gaps in the theory of immaculate conception" said geneticist David Suzuki. "We think churches should discuss the shortcomings with their Sunday school classes, and let the students know that alternative theories exist to explain how Mary became impregnated with Jesus." The group's theory, called "intelligent insemination," requires the existence of a fertile man, but they do not go on to say who that man was. The theory holds that the process of reproduction is so complex that it must have happened through normal biological processes, not supernatural ones. Asked if the proposed law is unconstitutional, Suzuki responded "Of course it is, but so is putting religious instruction into public schools. Constitutionality concerns have never stopped our opponents, so it won't stop us either." He continued, "Our country was founded on secularism and the principle of open debate and a free exchange of ideas. Clergy have been defrocked in retaliation for daring to suggest that Jesus may not have had a virgin birth. We think that such suppression of ideas is damaging to the public discourse, and that the retaliation, on the part of Christian churches, against their own priests is reprehensible." Janet Bacon, a Kansas Sunday school student, said "We're becoming the laughing stock of not only the nation, but the entire world," Adding "and I kind of like it."

intelligent insemination

"We're becoming the laughing stock of not only the nation, but the entire world," Adding "and I kind of like it."

Some people argue that the difference is due to the fact that Europe has state religions while the U.S. does not, but I think this is a post hoc argument that doesn't bear up under scrutiny.

Is the fact the the COE is legally encoded the reason why many Muslims feel currently "repressed" in the UK, even if in practical terms they are not?

What I fail to understand is...if/when the Dover trail bans teaching ID. Will you still have to fight, over and over again, the same action in area after area?

so am i getting the correct impression that folks view the encoding of religion into law in the UK to be rather archaic, but maintained as a point of tradition, rather like the monarchy? legal, but not used on point often enough any more so of little everyday importance? as an aside: Is the fact the the COE is legally encoded the reason why many Muslims feel currently "repressed" in the UK, even if in practical terms they are not?

or is that just silly?

On Church / State
Spinoza proposed a model that offered a logical neutral God
and that the Church/s should be under the control of the Head of State.
I'm fairly certain that his Tractatus Theologico-Politicus
was one of the major inputs to the US Const.

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Spinoza

I can't find a summary of

Theological-Political Treatise
Benedict de Spinoza

But its worth a scan

STJ
I have often thought about that property of human nature myself.
Is there an evolutionary advantage to the species if the brain is more plastic (I'm thinking Early in life) and receptive to abstract ideas (Think:- horror stories to keep kids in line, learn to hunt, and group think).
I've noticed that around the adolescent to adult transition those ideas become set in concrete. Then they are then taught by rote to the offspring.

Lenny I can't become JFK :>

Lenny I can't become JFK :>

woof

Only if going off the deep end of sociobiological fantasy is silly. :-)

woof

otoh, i can formulate plausible selection pressures in my mind, and unlike lutsko's hypothetical, there are actually precedents in the peer reviewed literature.

unfortunately, the negatives associated with the mere term 'sociobiology' have a tendency to quash intellectual discussion on human behavioral evolution.

I do remember a debate we had here a while back about one of the publications suggesting genetic components to religious behavior that got quite heated.

I personally think it is just as worthy a 'thought experiment' as lutsko's was, if not more so, and more relevant.

If anyone wants to brave what undoubtedly will turn into a very heated discussion, I'm game.

just say "go" and i'll start a post over on ABC tommorrow.

Mu.

Sorry -- we Buddhists were just having a quick conversation. ;>

nobody interested in starting a discussion about migration patterns, selection pressures, and human sociobiology?

hahahaha
STJ
Mu is Chinese/Japanese for woof and show up in Zen Koan's
Essentially metaphyical puzzles for sharpening the mind.

Blast, we're talking three thick volumes here, with a fourth in press, and a lot of the words are pretty long. You may want to give these a pass.

— Steviepinhead

"There are holes and gaps in the theory of immaculate conception" said geneticist David Suzuki. "We think churches should discuss the shortcomings with their Sunday school classes, and let the students know that alternative theories exist to explain how Mary became impregnated with Jesus."

Pedant point: The immaculate conception has nothing to do with the conception of Jesus. It is the doctrine that Mary herself was conceived and born free of original sin

The immaculate conception has nothing to do with the conception of Jesus. It is the doctrine that Mary herself was conceived and born free of original sin

as noted by Stephen, "there was a lot of persecution that happened over here because of the state church combination" in fact, wasn't that part and parcel of why many migrated to the US to begin with?

— Sir_Toejam