Extremes in popular religious opinion

Re: Extremes in popular religious opinion


If that's what we're teaching our children, then we're unfortunately misrepresenting science, in which theories are true pending falsification. Scientific theories are testable, and anyone who can is free to test them and report that they do or don't work. If that were the model of science "we" (whoever "we" are) were using, would you find it more palatable?

Happy Medium? Is that a contented seance conductor or is the famous Swedish middle way?

Miracles? Are they just coincidences?

At school I was taught about the big bang theory, more or less as fact.
Then on sundays I went to sunday school were i was also taught the creation story as fact.

I just think its wrong to brainwash children in this way.

The Pentacle Queen- I think that there is a tendency of people, when they fiercely reject something, that they become ardent supporters of its opposite, be it religion, politics, or simply a long held opinion. It is a way for the mind to cope with change, and to reinforce the concept that the original concept was worth abandoning.

Over time, I think that there is a tendency to move towards a middle ground. Once we realize that we don't have to "prove anything", we can look at an issue more dispassionately. We then can acknowledge that little is black and white, and that there is value in different "takes" of a concept. I like to use the expression of "not throwing the baby out with the bathwater" to illustrate this idea.

Re: Extremes in popular religious opinion


Except in rare circumstances, the word "theory" in science means "proven fact."

I disagree completey.
Why then in reference to creation is there the 'big bang theory' and the 'steady state theory.'
Are both of them proven facts?

You are just another example of the bias.

Much of those parts of science which are not subject to replication, such as cosmic origins, are held to be most probable, and based upon confirming observations, as the theories underlying them infer would be the evident effect of the cause. The "steady state theory" was last sustained by Fred Hoyle, and has been discredited for nearly half a century, both because there are no confirming observations, and because there are confirming observations for what is popularly known as "the big bang." (That term, in fact, was invented by a Belgian priest--scientists use it just because it has become so common.)

There really is no significant body of scientists who adhere to the steady state theory. One does wonder, though, when and where you learned your "science." In the final analysis, "science" as taught in elementary schools and high schools is necessarily imprecise, and often taught by men and women who are not well versed in the subjects they teach--and that's because, unlike academic and research scientists, they have little opportunity to keep fine-tuning their education.

Where I learned my science?

By the way, you object that there are scientific theories of "creation" (that's not true) which conflict, being "big bang" and "steady state." Apart from the fact that few reputable scientists any longer accept the "steady state model," it is a false view of science to think that it proves, or attempts to prove anything--all science is subject to revision if the data no longer fit the theories in use.

But religion is never subject to revision--you believe it or you are a heretic. However, on the subject of "conflicting theories," just which of the thousands of versions of creation are we supposed to believe? Are you so naive as to think that christian stories of creation are the universal, religious model?

Yes, one wonders where and when you learned science if you think that is any serious, significant conflict between the "big bang" model and the "steady state" model. The "steady state" model simply doesn't account for the available astrophysical data.

What kind of an idiot do you take me for.

Steady state and Big Bang theories was just an example- I'm not a scientist and i will admitt that.

Of course there isn't just one kind of religious creation story.
I don't get what you are arguing against.

I'm arguing against your claim that science and religion are equivalent belief sets. They are not. I did not claim you are an idiot--after all, you were the one who introduced the idea that there are conflicting scientific "creation" theories, to wit, steady state and big bang. I've got nothing to work with about what you do know other than what you write here.

PQ,

If you have three apples, and you eat one, how many have you got left? My scientific theory says "two".

Religious theory says "God will make sure you have enough to eat, if you pray and put your complete trust in him".

My theory is testable, and open to revision if it doesn't turn out to be true. The religious one is not.

That is what science is. That's it. One can refuse to "believe in it" but only because one wants to...if one is happy to ignore reality in search of something more exciting and interesting....like gods or dragons.

Yes eorl exactly.
And I object to the fact I was taught (and many others are being taught) them simulaniously as fact.

Im not going to argue which one is correct eorl, thats not what its about.

When I reached (a Catholic) college, I discovered that BOTH the religion I was taught in high school and some the chemistry were misleading. There was a general agreement at the time that subjects must be simplified to the point of being incorrect in order to teach them to teenagers. That's the subject matter.

Setanta addressed another aspect of education: the teacher or the purveyor of the subject matter.

The third leg of the triangle is implied by my statement, and that is how the student, or receiver of the information, receives it.

When I was in sixth grade, someone asked a question about evolution. The teaching sister (Sr. Thomasine) answered in a way that I thought was acceptable: You can believe that there were apes here on earth and that God created them and watched over them as they grew and developed. At some point, God took the most intelligent ape and breathed a soul into him and called him Adam. He then took the most beautiful ape and breathed a soul into her and called her Eve."

Change the story so that instead of evolution, it is about the Big Bang. God created elements in the void of space and watched them come together until they had enough mass to explode into the stars, planets, galaxies and more that fill the universe today.

How is that against either religion or science? It simply inserts a knowing creator into the process.

BTW, it is akin to most traditional creation myths.

Finally, even at 12, I hated the sexism and not the theology of Sr. Thomasine's remarks.

I think it quite charming.