Comments on: Facts Are NOT Anti-Religious

By: Jeshua

Jeshua — Wed, 23 Sep 2009 13:47:44 +0000

Facts are indeed anti-religious. Why do you think the church worked so hard to suppress science and oppress scientists during the Middle Ages? The more we know about the natural world, the less anyone needs a “god of the gaps.”

By: brad

brad — Mon, 07 Sep 2009 04:28:03 +0000

On the title: “Facts are not anti religious”

Since when?

By: gsingh

gsingh — Sat, 05 Sep 2009 05:19:20 +0000

Great post! I listen to the SGU regularly actually, so great content all around. It’s amazing to me how Dr. Novella can juggle so many things at once…

By: tmac57

tmac57 — Thu, 03 Sep 2009 23:49:12 +0000

“Everyone interprets the evidence to a conclusion they prefer ”
This may be true informally, but that is not ‘science’. In science , if the conclusion does not fit within the existing framework of science, you must either reject it, or rewrite all of the framework that it does not fit with, which rarely happens. If a student, after looking at all of the “variety of viewpoints” decides that the Earth is flat, or that manned space flight is impossible, or that the Earth is only 6,000 years old, do you think that its a good idea to say “well, okay, I guess that’s your preferred opinion”, or should they be given an ‘F’ grade in science class.

By: Naraoia

Naraoia — Thu, 03 Sep 2009 23:47:46 +0000

As I understand it, the “historic” in prehistoric refers to histories as in writings dealing with history, rather than history as in things that happened in the past.

By: JonoC

JonoC — Thu, 03 Sep 2009 22:43:26 +0000

Even the most anti-religious science lecturer will tell you that the big bang theory and along with it evolution, are scientific theories, not fact. They’re the most sensible interpretation of the evidence we have at hand currently. Even when something is repeatedly empirically tested and observed to true in controlled situations, most respected scientists don’t use the word ‘proven’ lightly. At best, it’s a strongly supported hypothesis.

Apparently ‘neutral’ has taken on the meaning of ‘dogmatically atheist’. Everyone interprets the evidence to a conclusion they prefer – it would be far more healthy to expose students to a variety of viewpoints, and equip them with skills de-construct the inevitably biased presentations of evidence from each perspective, in order to come to their own conclusions.

By: moonflake

moonflake — Wed, 02 Sep 2009 16:37:34 +0000

From the linked article:

“…since the moon has a particular standard of life and atmosphere, if one wants to travel there he has to adapt his material body to the conditions of that planet. Even on the earth planet these restrictions hold true. For example, a human being cannot possibly live in the water nor can a fish live on land. These are the rigid conditions of life, and any attempt to defy them is artificial and will fail.”

I presume then that Krishnas believe that scuba divers and aquariums are also hoaxes?

By: mikekoz68

mikekoz68 — Wed, 02 Sep 2009 14:24:46 +0000

You can interpret any book to mean a number of things that doesn’t give any credibility to the book. I’ve read the bible and jesus’ parables and found them to be a digusting piece of garbage. I can find better metaphors from “The Cat in the Hat”

By: Max

Max — Tue, 01 Sep 2009 20:02:48 +0000

In a comparative religion class, students are not expected to believe in every religion they study, but they’re still expected to study it.

By: Purple Library Guy

Purple Library Guy — Tue, 01 Sep 2009 19:26:33 +0000

Perhaps not Mennonite. I understand there are a couple of different varieties of Mennonites, but the Russian Mennonites at least are *very* pro-education.