Science can ask questions without philosophy. It doesn't take socrates to ask where we come from - i think we all do that. I love philosophy too - at least until it gets bogged down in semantical dialectic bullshit that the deconstructionists and postmoderns like to engage in.

__________________
Grow Journals
The latest-> White Berry Big Bud/PPP PPP

rather than trying to build philosophical arguments against science - why not pay attention and learn how science works?

__________________
Grow Journals
The latest-> White Berry Big Bud/PPP PPP

I play in the dirt all day long brother, and my horse was only high once (funny story). I think you might have the wrong impression. I was arguing the differences between science and religion, not my belief system. I disagree with your assertion that science is just another religion, they are fundamentally different, but I do not worship or revere either one.

My personally beliefs are firmly planted in nature, I consider myself a spiritual person, just not religious.

__________________
If you want a picture of the future, imagine a boot stamping on a human face... forever.

Ahh.. I was wondering where you were getting at, and what. Semantics is the thing I think you're trying to bring out here. However, I'm not sure what semantics has to do with the idea of teaching any faith-based ideas in the college lecture/classroom as part of a science class (maybe other than to say creationism/intelligent design ideas exist).Some are arbitrary, and they are necessarily so. In order to communicate in the manner we do, we MUST use words.
What are words?
Symbols.
What are symbols?
Arbitrary representations of an idea, concept, information, places or thing(s).
The problem lies in the vast and often myriad understandings, and misunderstandings, of the given symbol(s) being used. Context can be important. However, again, I fail to understand why this is important here. Faith and science are two different beasts.AHA!!! Zen and the Art (of Motorcycle Maintenance), yeah? Is that where you're headed? Do I get a prize? Yep. That shit does not belong here! I know you're addressing Alpha, but I'd like to speak to this as well. On some levels, on many levels even, you may be right. But, increasingly, science is beginning to explain the biology of religion. Certainly, gentlemen and philosophers Joseph Campbell and Carl Jung could also argue that there is something "inherent" in religion FOR man, something almost instinctive, something that may have been what was required for us to build the societies we have. Science is beginning to bear that out, search for V.S. Ramachandran and his "religious center" of the brain (he didn't coin that term, the press did, it's a bit of a misnomer). Very good and very cool. However, as I was alluding to previously, do we even want to allow science to have a go at religion? Personally, and especially if I were religious, I would say no. Religion and its efficacy, its 'reason for being', lies largely in the faith that is required. Choose any religion in the world, and I believe this applies. Science is the polar opposite. Few, if any, religions make any allowances for variety of opinion, choice, or philosophy. Many require proper bloodlines, others require rejection of the possibility of anything else (other gods/goddesses, more than one god) for true adherence, and may even go so far as to require that its followers accept only one particular dogma borne of the very same religion. This is not science. Scientists, as you know, use the same language, the same mathematics, the same measurements. So as to eliminate, as best as possible, the chance for misinterpretation or misunderstanding, so as to most clearly and objectively record the truth as we humans can experience it.

Religion is a language of absolutes where none exist; Science is a language of qualifications where absolutes may exist. Me, too! Freaky deaky, man.Well.. we are also talking about religion, essentially, and its allowable interaction or interplay with science. And, I'm with you, I don't see them as compatible. The only role religion should play is with regard to moral issues, human cloning, causing suffering, and the like. Science, otherwise, is completely amoral because observations don't require anything other than the capacity to be made.

__________________
Ron Paul doesn't deliver babies.
He reads them the Bill of Rights until they crawl their way to freedom!

Ok i give up.
You have a cut and dry view of what science is and that is obviously not going to change.
Just wanted to have an debate about the blurring of the line between science and religion cause i think they can help each other. I know that karma exists cause i see it everyday, on the other hand i dont know that time exists i just use it to means to an end.
No scientist should be so closed of to the possibility of the amazing or supernatural, as it seems that you folks are.
You make me sad guys.

__________________
This BC budds for you!

By the way i do love that book but Zen is far more intersting for its self.
I dont know how much reilgion you have studied but if you do you may find iteresting parrelels in myth and science.
thats it i am done

__________________
This BC budds for you!

We are not closed to believing in the supernatural - but if it isn't "natural" it isn't science. And if science can study it then it isn't supernatural.

I can believe there is such a thing as the loch ness monster and still be a great scientist - but i can't study it scientifically since there is no scientifically acceptable evidence for it.

Two different worlds, two different goals.

__________________
Grow Journals
The latest-> White Berry Big Bud/PPP PPP

Folks talk as though there is no wonder and awe to be found in science. I challenge anyone to watch the Planet Earth series (hosted by David Attenborough) and not be amazed by the natural, scientific explanations and discoveries contained therein.

__________________
Grow Journals
The latest-> White Berry Big Bud/PPP PPP

Folks talk as though there is no wonder and awe to be found in science. I challenge anyone to watch the Planet Earth series (hosted by David Attenborough) and not be amazed by the natural, scientific explanations and discoveries contained therein.

That's a pretty interesting series. I guess it's up to the observer as to what they take away from it. My own view was that man was doing immense damage to Mother earth, the part about the plastic showing up on the beaches of pacific islands was interesting, throw away plastic from around the world.

__________________
"I suppose I always knew America would eventually break the planet, like some ghastly, hyperactive toddler that gets hold of a mobile phone and then smashes it repeatedly against the edge of a table". Quote from british journalist.

Plastics are an evil conspiracy of the oil corporations to destroy the earth. We need to produce more leather or the buggy-whip sellers will go out of business.

Vi

__________________
Damned right I'm an equal opportunity offender, I'm a Conservative!