Seats reserved exclusively for men in the House of Lords

[oldjerry]

[quote="demi"]

People being a lost cause are not necessarily stupid, just severely brainwashed. They can be very informed and knowledgeable on other subjects but blindly deny anything that goes against their faith.

....Erm....yes.

[The Riff-Raff Element]

Why do we have to tippee toe around religion walking on eggshells for fear of offending anyone? I have never singled anyone out calling them stupid. I'v said before it's organized religion i have a problem with, not individual people with their own personal beliefs.

I think that referring to them as "brain washed" and "gullible" amounts to the same thing. Did it never occur to you that some people at least might gain religious faith after a long period of consideration and thought? That there are even - horror of horrors - scientists with faith, for whom although science provides a clear "how" it doesn't provide a "why?" Actually, it probably hasn't, has it?

[demi]

I have thought about that. I think some people hold onto, or gain faith because they are scared of there being nothing else.

Maybe they've suffered loss in there family and thats the way they deal with it.

Death is scary, it scares me too when i think about it. My life ending, or my child's life, my husband or anyone else i love and them being gone forever, never able to speak to them again, to see them or hold them. It's a horrible fact of life and i think it is a main reason for a lot of people to feel they need to believe in something because the reality of death is to cease to exist and i think a lot of people don't want to accept that.

[oldjerry]

Or just maybe they find that to explain everything by an infinite number of cosmic coincidences just as, or perhaps even more,ludicrous than by way of a zombie carpenter.

[demi]

Or just maybe they find that to explain everything by an infinite number of cosmic coincidences just as, or perhaps even more,ludicrous than by way of a zombie carpenter.

Now, see, i think those people just aren't informed enough about science.




Here: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Religiosit ... telligence

And this: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Religiosity_and_education
These studies were done in America though so maybe not a good example

[Green Aura]

Rowan Williams is the archbishop of Canterbury, of course he'd say that. He has a degree in theology, not in science.

Indeed, but you did say "especially" educated in science, not exclusively. Most people would find him a highly educated, thoughtful, tolerant man who actively campaigns against nuclear weapons and creationism.

However, maybe these may be more to your liking, now we've clarified who qualify.

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/List_of_Ch ... in_science

[demi]

Rowan Williams is the archbishop of Canterbury, of course he'd say that. He has a degree in theology, not in science.

Indeed, but you did say "especially" educated in science, not exclusively. Most people would find him a highly educated, thoughtful, tolerant man who actively campaigns against nuclear weapons and creationism.

However, maybe these may be more to your liking, now we've clarified who qualify.

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/List_of_Ch ... in_science

Discounting all the ones from the previous centuries and only counting people who are alive and working in scientific research today, there still are only lets say around 10 of them. When you compare that to the total number of working scientists today, it's an insignificant number.



I was just having a look on another forum to see what others are saying and found this: http://forum.thinkhumanism.com/viewtopi ... =45&t=5769
about what will happen if religion comes to an end.

[Green Aura]

So we've gone from "educated" to only "educated in science disciplines" to "currently alive and educated in science disciplines". Hmm. If you want statistical significance then you have to state your parameters and keep to them. And I'm not sure "everyone I know is an atheist " provides much statistical clout.

Without continuing too far down this particular blind alley the link only accounted for a few published or ordained Christians - out and proud so to speak. Those of quieter conviction, of non-Christian faith, or who fear intolerance and ridicule of their beliefs (not unjustifiably perhaps ) are not. I doubt their numbers are large, but I'm guessing not so insignificant.

And that's me done. Back to the thread.

[demi]

So we've gone from "educated" to only "educated in science disciplines" to "currently alive and educated in science disciplines". Hmm. If you want statistical significance then you have to state your parameters and keep to them. And I'm not sure "everyone I know is an atheist " provides much statistical clout.

Without continuing too far down this particular blind alley the link only accounted for a few published or ordained Christians - out and proud so to speak. Those of quieter conviction, of non-Christian faith, or who fear intolerance and ridicule of their beliefs (not unjustifiably perhaps ) are not. I doubt their numbers are large, but I'm guessing not so insignificant.

And that's me done. Back to the thread.

I said originally 'especially scientifically educated people' and i was obviously talking about people alive today and not people from centuries ago.
Also a lot of those people mentioned there are american, i don't they make good examples as they are unusually religious for such a western country

[Susie]

http://www.guardian.co.uk/commentisfree ... -manifesto

I think if my choices are between shameful gullibility and brainwashing/ having to 'educate' myself by watching Brian bloody Cox I'd better google and see if the Rosicrucians have a Cambridge chapter.

edited to add, I actually agree with boboff that we probably shouldn't discuss religion - we always end up inexorably in the same place. I shall bow out now. Namaste ;-)

[MKG]

Oh dear - the old religion versus science thing! There's no comparison in either aims or results. For what it's worth, science contains not an iota of faith - it does, though, depend upon evidence. In a nutshell, a hypothesis is developed from a set of observations and, to be a valid hypothesis, it must be falsifiable (ie it must contain statements which are testable). Goddidit is not testable in any way and so is unacceptable as a scientific hypothesis. Hypothesis is followed by testing, which gives results - and the testing method must be reproducible and, on reproduction, must give the same results. On then to publication and peer review, in which the hypothesis, the testing method and the results obtained are subjected to thorough and often hostile examination and criticism. If, after all of that (a process which can take years), the hypothesis is still standing, it MAY be accepted as a theory (a scientific theory rather than the type of theory developed by TV detectives) and there it stays - either for ever or until it is overturned by new evidence, hypothesis, testing and peer review. This is why evolution and relativity are still theories. What scientists are saying is "this fits everything we can see and it works in every way we can conceive of to test it, and we think it may be the answer - it's the best one we have". What they are not saying is "this is now a fact of life", nor are they saying "I like this one because it fits with the way I think". It's simply evidence.

I have no "faith" in science - but I agree that it is giving us an increasingly accurate picture of the way things work. At no point does science say that there is no god (the existence of god is an unfalsifiable hypothesis). Scientists are often religious (but probably never fundamentally so), often atheistic, and most see no contradiction between the two things. That's because they deal with totally different subjects. Science is not a substitute for religion - something I will say as vehemently as "religion is not a substitute for science".

I have no belief in a deity of any kind, but that's a very unscientific stance to take. If I were a rabid "Sciencian" I would have to say "I can neither prove nor disprove the existence of a deity" and leave it at that. Science has nothing more to say on the subject of religion, though I often find myself wishing that the same was true the other way round.

Never mind - can we please stop using science as the opposite of religion? It isn't.

Mike

[Susie]

Never mind - can we please stop using science as the opposite of religion? It isn't.

Mike

I agree with your post. So that's nice because now I can go off and have my dinner happy.

{Bowing out now}...

[oldjerry]

Two bows? ..........who asked for the encore??....

[demi]

Let's end with a song!

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=fHRDfut2Vx0

And a little bit of comedy

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=pQjqxayxwt4&NR=1

[MKG]

EDIT: Silly me! It had ended, but I got my dates wrong.

I've deleted my post. Pretend I'm not here.

Mike