MIT Survey on science, religion and origins

Pterist

Interesting read and graph:

*****I'd been warned. A friend cautioned me that if we went ahead and posted our MIT Survey on Science, Religion and Origins, I'd get inundated with hate-mail from religious fundamentalists who believe our universe to be less than 10,000 years old. We posted it anyway, and the vitriolic responses poured in as predicted. But to my amazement, most of them didn't come from religious people, but from angry atheists! I found this particularly remarkable since I'm not religious myself. I have three criticisms of these angry atheists:****

*** Most atheists advocate for replacing fundamentalism, superstition and intolerance by careful and thoughtful scientific discourse. Yet after we posted our survey report, ad hominem attacks abounded, and most of the caustic comments I got (including one from a fellow physics professor) revealed that their authors hadn't even bothered reading the report they were criticizing.*****

http://www.huffingtonpost.com/max-tegmark/angry-atheists_b_2716134.html?utm_hp_ref=religion

cofty

The author doesn't tell us why some people objected to his findings so its not a very interesting read.

What did you find interesting about it?

Whatever Max Tegmark says, faith and science are diametrically opposed.

tec

I am not surprised.

Fundamentalists, young earth creationists... these do not pose a 'threat' to someone's denial of God. These ones are more easily argued, and also more easily dismissed.

It is the faith that is not in conflict with science (that might even be corroborated by science - or at least the audacity of some with faith to claim this) that causes anger in some, because it is not so easy to dismantle. Some people even think it makes sense. Can't be having THAT ;)

Imo, from my experiences.

Peace,

tammy

cofty

It is the faith that is not in conflict with science...

There is no such thing.

Faith asserts things to be true based on insufficient evidence.

Faith resorts to supernatural explanations.

Faith is anti-scientific.

Pterist

Tammy *** It is the faith that is not in conflict with science***

Right, its not always black or white :)

tec

Some faith is those things, Cofty.

But God is not any of those things. God, the Father of Christ... and so faith in Him is not in conflict with science at all.

No conflict between God and science, at all. If God is real (and He is) then there cannot be a conflict. Science is the discovery of the world/universe/whatever. The only conflicts are between our (mis) understandings or lack of knoweldge of one or the other.

Peace,

tammy

cofty

God, the Father of Christ... and so faith in Him is not in conflict with science at all.

Yes it is. The scientific thing to do is to humbly acknowledge there is no evidence for the supernatural.

Pterist

Faith in a first cause does not exclude the wonders that science can discover and manipulate, it acknowledges "his" authorship.

cofty

Why bother jumping to supernatural placeholders?

Why not just accept that we don't yet know about the origin of the unviverse?

tec

My faith is based on evidence. That some do not accept that same evidence, or have not experienced that same evidence, does not make it any less true. Just makes it something they have not yet seen or heard or experienced.

I think it is unscientific to make a statement that science and God would be in conflict... but that does not stop some from making that statement.

Faith and science are not in conflict. How can they be? Some statements of faith are in conflict with some discoveries and/or theories of science... but that is a different matter. Science not speaking to something is not the same as science being in conflict with something.

Peace,

tammy

MIT Survey on science, religion and origins

Share this