Harvard And Science & Religion

[Lycorth]

I also agree that CC is, overall, a better Xian than most.

 

Granted, he'd be better if he just dropped Xianity altogether, but his heavily liberalized take on it is a good thing. Better liberal Xianity than the old-fashioned kind

[Vigile]

Except that you are one of them.

 

I'm gonna part ways with you on this one, Dave.

 

I can't see CC flying a plane into a building. Or bombing an abortion clinic.

 

He's no extremist. If all christians were like CC, they'd still be confused.

 

But they'd be a decent group of folks, overall.

 

And the world would be a better place.

 

I agree Mythra. CC makes the same mistakes that other xians make with logic and emotional reasoning. Nevertheless, he is not pushy with his beliefs and tries very hard to accomodate those who disagree with him. If all xians had these traits, we may still look upon them and wonder how they can believe what they believe, but I doubt they would be making problems for anyone either.

[currentchristian]

Just kidding on the kisses.

 

Ewww! I need to pull out some chest hair now.

 

Did you see the snickers bar commercial in the super bowl? I see there was a pretty good protest over it.

 

I'm gay, so you have to remember that the likelihood that I watch any football game is quite small. For the past three or four years my partner and I have attended a Super Bowl party of primarily gay men. The one or two who were interested in the game watched it in the basement. The ten or eleven who were not interested in the game had the TV on upstairs so we could ignore the game and watch the commercials. This year, we didn't even go to that.

 

So, when you wrote "pull out some chest hair," I had no idea what the sheol you were talking about. Until the Snickers commercial was mentioned, of which I had not heard a word. Youtube provided the commercial; so now I'm in the loop.

 

I agree with someone in a follow-up post who wrote that we're all a bit too easily offended these days. That means everyone, including all of you Brights. (I belong to the Brightest group, myself. )

 

The commercial did not offend me. Of course, it did rely on the stereotype that gays are not "manly," and therefore when the two mechanics accidently kissed, they had to do something manly. But doesn't most humor rely on stereotypes? Didn't my opening paragraph in this post, an attempt at humor, rely on stereotypes?

 

Long live stereotypes! (as long as we are laughing about them and not killing over them!)

 

-CC in MA

[currentchristian]

I agree Mythra. CC makes the same mistakes that other xians make with logic and emotional reasoning. Nevertheless, he is not pushy with his beliefs and tries very hard to accomodate those who disagree with him. If all xians had these traits, we may still look upon them and wonder how they can believe what they believe, but I doubt they would be making problems for anyone either.

 

Thank you, Vigile_del_fuocco1, for calling me illogical and emotional, but not pushy.

 

You are so sweet you deserve a

 

-CC in MA

[currentchristian]

I also agree that CC is, overall, a better Xian than most.

 

Granted, he'd be better if he just dropped Xianity altogether, but his heavily liberalized take on it is a good thing. Better liberal Xianity than the old-fashioned kind

 

This is the sweetest thing you've ever said to me, Varokhar.

 

-CC in MA

[currentchristian]

I agree with Mythra on this one. I don't agree with CC on some fairly big things. I don't think nature is fallen for instance. Nature is what it must be. But despite our disagreements I think CC is alright. I wish more Christians were like him.

 

Thank you, LR. We are a legion, one family, under Whatever You Want To Call It or Don't Want To Call It.

 

-CC in MA

[currentchristian]

That's probably right about the boycott, Dave! I agree.

 

I think the gays who are offended by this commercial would have had no problem with it if the guys had been Brad Pittish and/or George Clooneyish.

 

-CC in MA

[Vigile]

Thank you, Vigile_del_fuocco1, for calling me illogical and emotional, but not pushy.

 

You are so sweet you deserve a

 

-CC in MA

 

Ha ha. when you put it that way I probably deserve a punch in the chops, not a kiss. But I'll take my kisses where I can get them.

[Vigile]

Youtube provided the commercial; so now I'm in the loop.

 

Got the link handy? I've been out of the loop for a few years now and have no idea what you guys are refering to.

[currentchristian]

Got the link handy? I've been out of the loop for a few years now and have no idea what you guys are refering to.

 

Here's the link to the commercial:

 

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=JHkoZ7ngAM0

 

-CC in MA

[Legion]

Thank you, LR. We are a legion, one family, under Whatever You Want To Call It or Don't Want To Call It.

No problem CC. How about this... one family under Natural Law.

[currentchristian]

Thank you, LR. We are a legion, one family, under Whatever You Want To Call It or Don't Want To Call It.

No problem CC. How about this... one family under Natural Law.

 

That's a great way to put it and one, I think, we all can agree to. The D. of I. references both "the laws of nature and of nature's God," but we all agree there are "laws of nature" (Natural Law), whether or not there is a "nature's God" behind it. Natural Law could be the tie that binds!

 

One nation, under Natural Law, indivisible...

 

-CC in MA

[Dave]

One nation, under Natural Law, indivisible...

The problem with using that term is that a political party; the Natural Law Party, determines "natural law" to be what they choose it to be. If it doesn't fit with their politics, or religion, it's not a "natural law." Thus, "natural law" becomes something determined by humans. I just read they disbanded in 2004.

 

The Laws of Nature are "determined" by nature not humans. We merely try to figure them out.

[Ouroboros]

I guess their main opponent is the Un-natural Law Party. If they go Global they can have the acronym GULP.

[Mythra]

One nation, under Natural Law, indivisible...

 

How bout, One Nation, under the SUN, indivisible....

 

Hard to argue that one isn't accurate.

[Dave]

One nation, under Natural Law, indivisible...

 

How bout, One Nation, under the SUN, indivisible....

 

Hard to argue that one isn't accurate.

But we're not "under" the Sun, we're orbiting it.

 

just kidding.....

[currentchristian]

I should add for the record that in the world religions class I am taking this semester, we are reading four books:

 

1. A general history of world religions, concepts, views, doctrines, etc.

2. An anthology of writings and scriptures about each world religion.

3. The book Subverting Hatred: The Challenge of Nonviolence in Religious Traditions

4. The book Letter to a Christian Nation (a.k.a., the First Epistle of Sam to the Christians of America)

 

The choice of readings 3 & 4 offer evidence, seems to me, that a world religions class in a non-sectarian university is not at all about indoctrination, but all about understanding the religion (not converting to it), and even about challenging the world's religions, which are not going away anytime soon, to question their beliefs/actions and discover means to reform/better themselves (a la Harris and Subverting Hatred).

 

-CC in MA

[currentchristian]

This article from today's NYT takes this topic a little off, but it's about science and religion and secular universities and whether or not theists can be good scientists, so I'll post it here.

 

-CC in MA

 

--------------------------------------------------------------------------------

 

February 12, 2007

Believing Scripture but Playing by Science’s Rules

By CORNELIA DEAN

 

KINGSTON, R.I. — There is nothing much unusual about the 197-page dissertation Marcus R. Ross submitted in December to complete his doctoral degree in geosciences here at the University of Rhode Island.

 

His subject was the abundance and spread of mosasaurs, marine reptiles that, as he wrote, vanished at the end of the Cretaceous era about 65 million years ago. The work is “impeccable,” said David E. Fastovsky, a paleontologist and professor of geosciences at the university who was Dr. Ross’s dissertation adviser. “He was working within a strictly scientific framework, a conventional scientific framework.”

 

But Dr. Ross is hardly a conventional paleontologist. He is a “young earth creationist” — he believes that the Bible is a literally true account of the creation of the universe, and that the earth is at most 10,000 years old.

 

For him, Dr. Ross said, the methods and theories of paleontology are one “paradigm” for studying the past, and Scripture is another. In the paleontological paradigm, he said, the dates in his dissertation are entirely appropriate. The fact that as a young earth creationist he has a different view just means, he said, “that I am separating the different paradigms.”

 

He likened his situation to that of a socialist studying economics in a department with a supply-side bent. “People hold all sorts of opinions different from the department in which they graduate,” he said. “What’s that to anybody else?”

 

But not everyone is happy with that approach. “People go somewhat bananas when they hear about this,” said Jon C. Boothroyd, a professor of geosciences at Rhode Island.

 

In theory, scientists look to nature for answers to questions about nature, and test those answers with experiment and observation. For Biblical literalists, Scripture is the final authority. As a creationist raised in an evangelical household and a paleontologist who said he was “just captivated” as a child by dinosaurs and fossils, Dr. Ross embodies conflicts between these two approaches. The conflicts arise often these days, particularly as people debate the teaching of evolution.

 

And, for some, his case raises thorny philosophical and practical questions. May a secular university deny otherwise qualified students a degree because of their religion? Can a student produce intellectually honest work that contradicts deeply held beliefs? Should it be obligatory (or forbidden) for universities to consider how students will use the degrees they earn?

 

Those are “darned near imponderable issues,” said John W. Geissman, who has considered them as a professor of earth and planetary sciences at the University of New Mexico. For example, Dr. Geissman said, Los Alamos National Laboratory has a geophysicist on staff, John R. Baumgardner, who is an authority on the earth’s mantle — and also a young earth creationist.

 

If researchers like Dr. Baumgardner do their work “without any form of interjection of personal dogma,” Dr. Geissman said, “I would have to keep as objective a hat on as possible and say, ‘O.K., you earned what you earned.’ ”

 

Others say the crucial issue is not whether Dr. Ross deserved his degree but how he intends to use it.

 

In a telephone interview, Dr. Ross said his goal in studying at secular institutions “was to acquire the training that would make me a good paleontologist, regardless of which paradigm I was using.”

 

Today he teaches earth science at Liberty University, the conservative Christian institution founded by the Rev. Jerry Falwell where, Dr. Ross said, he uses a conventional scientific text.

 

“We also discuss the intersection of those sorts of ideas with Christianity,” he said. “I don’t require my students to say or write their assent to one idea or another any more than I was required.”

 

But he has also written and spoken on scientific subjects, and with a creationist bent. While still a graduate student, he appeared on a DVD arguing that intelligent design, an ideological cousin of creationism, is a better explanation than evolution for the Cambrian explosion, a rapid diversification of animal life that occurred about 500 million years ago.

 

Online information about the DVD identifies Dr. Ross as “pursuing a Ph.D. in geosciences” at the University of Rhode Island. It is this use of a secular credential to support creationist views that worries many scientists.

 

Eugenie C. Scott, executive director of the National Center for Science Education, a private group on the front line of the battle for the teaching of evolution, said fundamentalists who capitalized on secular credentials “to miseducate the public” were doing a disservice.

 

Michael L. Dini, a professor of biology education at Texas Tech University, goes even further. In 2003, he was threatened with a federal investigation when students complained that he would not write letters of recommendation for graduate study for anyone who would not offer “a scientific answer” to questions about how the human species originated.

 

Nothing came of it, Dr. Dini said in an interview, adding, “Scientists do not base their acceptance or rejection of theories on religion, and someone who does should not be able to become a scientist.”

 

A somewhat more complicated issue arose last year at Ohio State University, where Bryan Leonard, a high school science teacher working toward a doctorate in education, was preparing to defend his dissertation on the pedagogical usefulness of teaching alternatives to the theory of evolution.

 

Earle M. Holland, a spokesman for the university, said Mr. Leonard and his adviser canceled the defense when questions arose about the composition of the faculty committee that would hear it.

 

Meanwhile three faculty members had written the university administration, arguing that Mr. Leonard’s project violated the university’s research standards in that the students involved were being subjected to something harmful (the idea that there were scientific alternatives to the theory of evolution) without receiving any benefit.

 

Citing privacy rules, Mr. Holland would not discuss the case in detail, beyond saying that Mr. Leonard was still enrolled in the graduate program. But Mr. Leonard has become a hero to people who believe that creationists are unfairly treated by secular institutions.

 

Perhaps the most famous creationist wearing the secular mantle of science is Kurt P. Wise, who earned his doctorate at Harvard in 1989 under the guidance of the paleontologist Stephen Jay Gould, a leading theorist of evolution who died in 2002.

 

Dr. Wise, who teaches at the Southern Baptist Theological Seminary in Louisville, Ky., wrote his dissertation on gaps in the fossil record. But rather than suggest, as many creationists do, that the gaps challenge the wisdom of Darwin’s theory, Dr. Wise described a statistical approach that would allow paleontologists to infer when a given species was present on earth, millions of years ago, even if the fossil evidence was incomplete.

 

Dr. Wise, who declined to comment for this article, is a major figure in creationist circles today, and his Gould connection appears prominently on his book jackets and elsewhere.

 

“He is lionized,” Dr. Scott said. “He is the young earth creationist with a degree from Harvard.”

 

As for Dr. Ross, “he does good science, great science,” said Dr. Boothroyd, who taught him in a class in glacial geology. But in talks and other appearances, Dr. Boothroyd went on, Dr. Ross is already using “the fact that he has a Ph.D. from a legitimate science department as a springboard.”

 

Dr. Ross, 30, grew up in Rhode Island in an evangelical Christian family. He attended Pennsylvania State University and then the South Dakota School of Mines and Technology, where he wrote his master’s thesis on marine fossils found in the state.

 

His creationism aroused “some concern by faculty members there, and disagreements,” he recalled, and there were those who argued that his religious beliefs should bar him from earning an advanced degree in paleontology.

 

“But in the end I had a decent thesis project and some people who, like the people at U.R.I., were kind to me, and I ended up going through,” Dr. Ross said.

 

Dr. Fastovsky and other members of the Rhode Island faculty said they knew about these disagreements, but admitted him anyway. Dr. Boothroyd, who was among those who considered the application, said they judged Dr. Ross on his academic record, his test scores and his master’s thesis, “and we said, ‘O.K., we can do this.’ ”

 

He added, “We did not know nearly as much about creationism and young earth and intelligent design as we do now.”

 

For his part, Dr. Ross says, “Dr. Fastovsky was liberal in the most generous and important sense of the term.”

 

He would not say whether he shared the view of some young earth creationists that flaws in paleontological dating techniques erroneously suggest that the fossils are far older than they really are.

 

Asked whether it was intellectually honest to write a dissertation so at odds with his religious views, he said: “I was working within a particular paradigm of earth history. I accepted that philosophy of science for the purpose of working with the people” at Rhode Island.

 

And though his dissertation repeatedly described events as occurring tens of millions of years ago, Dr. Ross added, “I did not imply or deny any endorsement of the dates.”

 

Dr. Fastovsky said he had talked to Dr. Ross “lots of times” about his religious beliefs, but that depriving him of his doctorate because of them would be nothing more than religious discrimination. “We are not here to certify his religious beliefs,” he said. “All I can tell you is he came here and did science that was completely defensible.”

 

Steven B. Case, a research professor at the Center for Research Learning at the University of Kansas, said it would be wrong to “censor someone for a belief system as long as it does not affect their work. Science is an open enterprise to anyone who practices it.”

 

Dr. Case, who champions the teaching of evolution, heads the committee writing state science standards in Kansas, a state particularly racked by challenges to Darwin. Even so, he said it would be frightening if universities began “enforcing some sort of belief system on their graduate students.”

 

But Dr. Scott, a former professor of physical anthropology at the University of Colorado, said in an interview that graduate admissions committees were entitled to consider the difficulties that would arise from admitting a doctoral candidate with views “so at variance with what we consider standard science.” She said such students “would require so much remedial instruction it would not be worth my time.”

 

That is not religious discrimination, she added, it is discrimination “on the basis of science.”

 

Dr. Dini, of Texas Tech, agreed. Scientists “ought to make certain the people they are conferring advanced degrees on understand the philosophy of science and are indeed philosophers of science,” he said. “That’s what Ph.D. stands for.”

 

Source: http://www.nytimes.com/2007/02/12/science/...agewanted=print

[Dave]

This article from today's NYT takes this topic a little off.....

But it does show how christians always whine when their religion is not given special treatment.

[currentchristian]

This article from today's NYT takes this topic a little off.....

But it does show how christians always whine when their religion is not given special treatment.

 

This sounds to me like the fundamentalists who accuse gays of wanting "special treatment."

 

I don't see it this way at all -- about gays or about Christians.

 

This story is about protecting religious liberties (freedom of and from religion) and the right of conscience.

 

That's it. Seems to me.

 

-CC in MA

[Dave]

This article from today's NYT takes this topic a little off.....

But it does show how christians always whine when their religion is not given special treatment.

This sounds to me like the fundamentalists who accuse gays of wanting "special treatment."

Of course it would from your biased position. There is a difference though, and you might even be able to figure it out if you thought about it for a few minutes.

This story is about protecting religious liberties (freedom of and from religion) and the right of conscience.

Of course it would seem that way to you from your biased position. He has a right of conscience, but science doesn't have to accommodate him. Science is about facts, not views.

[currentchristian]

This article from today's NYT takes this topic a little off.....

But it does show how christians always whine when their religion is not given special treatment.

This sounds to me like the fundamentalists who accuse gays of wanting "special treatment."

Of course it would from your biased position. There is a difference though, and you might even be able to figure it out if you thought about it for a few minutes.

This story is about protecting religious liberties (freedom of and from religion) and the right of conscience.

Of course it would seem that way to you from your biased position. He has a right of conscience, but science doesn't have to accommodate him. Science is about facts, not views.

 

Of course you would feel this way, Dave, from your biased and (dare I say it???) fundamentalist point of view. But if you thought about this a little more and applied some reason and logic to the question, you'd soon see how very right I usually am.

 

Do you hear, Dave, how condescending and arrogant such talk is? It's not very pleasant, nor productive.

 

-CC in MA

[Dave]

Of course you would feel this way, Dave, from your biased and....

Gee.... you finally figured it out. Now you just have to admit your biases. Defending something, no matter how wrong it is, is not very pleasant or productive. You know perfectly well that the author you quoted in the OP was not trying to get any kind of world religion class going; the school already had that. It was painfully obvious that they were trying to have religious indoctrination classes imposed on everyone.... and that religion was to be the christian one. That type of class has no place in a public university, or any other public school.

 

I am for a world religion/comparative religion class. There, with the right texts, all religions would be given equal status as cultural artifacts and not as something that MUST be followed or blindly believed. I was born an Atheist and until I got into the 8th grade I wasn't sure why I didn't believe as I was told to. Then I took a class on comparative religions. There I learned that there was no difference between religions, they were all based on the same thing - you were born into it. None of them had the truth yet they all claimed to have the truth. Such a class would help many overcome the inertia and end up thinking for themselves.

 

So, go back and re read that OP and you'll see that that is not anywhere near what the author you quoted wanted.

[currentchristian]

Of course you would feel this way, Dave, from your biased and....

Gee.... you finally figured it out. Now you just have to admit your biases. Defending something, no matter how wrong it is, is not very pleasant or productive. You know perfectly well that the author you quoted in the OP was not trying to get any kind of world religion class going; the school already had that. It was painfully obvious that they were trying to have religious indoctrination classes imposed on everyone.... and that religion was to be the christian one. That type of class has no place in a public university, or any other public school.

 

I am for a world religion/comparative religion class. There, with the right texts, all religions would be given equal status as cultural artifacts and not as something that MUST be followed or blindly believed. I was born an Atheist and until I got into the 8th grade I wasn't sure why I didn't believe as I was told to. Then I took a class on comparative religions. There I learned that there was no difference between religions, they were all based on the same thing - you were born into it. None of them had the truth yet they all claimed to have the truth. Such a class would help many overcome the inertia and end up thinking for themselves.

 

So, go back and re read that OP and you'll see that that is not anywhere near what the author you quoted wanted.

 

Your biases lead you to one viewpoint. My biases lead me to another.

 

But the OP is clear: Harvard students need to understand the basic history, doctrine, and worldviews of the various religions. I can not imagine why this is problematic.

 

Question: You wrote that you were born an Atheist? Can you explain more about what you mean by that?

 

-CC in MA

[Dave]

But the OP is clear: Harvard students need to understand the basic history, doctrine, and worldviews of the various religions. I can not imagine why this is problematic.

 

Because that is not what the Op wanted. The OP is too far back for me to go picking out quotes, I'm not all that energetic, but it did mention stuff about morals and the like stemming from religion and that we were getting away from religious beliefs and he wanted more religion taught in colleges.

 

Question: You wrote that you were born an Atheist? Can you explain more about what you mean by that?

 

There has never been a time in my life that I can recall actually believing in the religious stuff they were telling me. It just didn't make any sense. Everyone is born an Atheist, religion is a learned behavior. In the second grade I was kicked out of a catholic school for being an Atheist. So my Atheism isn't just something I deconverted to on a whim as most religionists would like to believe. From what I've seen, that's not an uncommon story among Atheists.