Re: [Phys-l] Richard Dawkins Answers Reddit Questions

["LaMontagne, Bob" <RLAMONT@providence.edu>]

I agree that religious methodologies are not appropriate for science.

However, I am getting a little annoyed with some people on this thread painting all people with participate in religion as somehow anti-science. As I have posted before, thinking about the existence of deities plays little part in my life. However, I do work at a Catholic college. The Catholic church, for the most part, is highly supportive of science. At the upper levels, the Vatican Observatory has been a constant contributor to serious astronomy. Down in the trenches, the church supports the teaching of evolution and never gets involved when our biology instructors discuss human reproduction and the growth of the human fetus. Their feeling is that one can only have an honest Faith if you are educated to all the alternatives.

I am amazed how some on this list who profess to be so liberal (in the classic sense) and free thinking can come out with this knee-jerk bigotry regarding religion.

BC - this was not aimed at you - I just used your email to respond to the thread in general.

Bob at PC

________________________________________
From: phys-l-bounces@carnot.physics.buffalo.edu [phys-l-bounces@carnot.physics.buffalo.edu] On Behalf Of Bernard Cleyet [bernardcleyet@redshift.com]
Sent: Wednesday, November 17, 2010 12:38 AM
To: Forum for Physics Educators
Subject: Re: [Phys-l] Richard Dawkins Answers Reddit Questions

Seems like an analytic statement to me.  Define religious habits and especially ways of knowing, compare w/ scientific habits and ways of knowing and you'll find they are incompatible.

bc thinks JM forgot what he wrote, and (bc) sometimes has great difficulty understanding the religious mind.

p.s.  I don't think it's anti-religious; it's just don't expect to get very far using religious methods in the lab. Just like don't expect to get very far using arithmetik to solve a differential equation -- well not very good example, as one can use numerical methods which are arithmetik.   If it were a good example, would anyone believe my statement was an attack against arithmeticians?

Initially string theorists were compared to believers, because their results were not testable; well that's changed according to G. Kane (current PT).

On 2010, Nov 16, , at 15:13, William Robertson wrote:

> You stated:
>
> but I would maintain that anyone who brings traditional religious
> habits and "ways of knowing" into the lab with them, at the very least
> operates under a very significant handicap.
>
>
> Okay, so I substituted severe for significant. In what other way did I
> misrepresent what you said?
>
> Bill
>
>
> William C. Robertson, Ph.D.
>
>
> On Nov 16, 2010, at 4:10 PM, John Mallinckrodt wrote:
>
> > William Robertson wrote:
> >
> > > You state that anyone with religious beliefs is operating under a
> > > severe handicap when doing science.
> >
> > Nope; sorry.  Not what I said.  Read it again.
> >
> > > That's not just an unbiased, objective view. It's anti-religion. To
> > > make such a statement as if it's obvious to everyone is rather
> > > arrogant and certainly not fair-minded. I believe that's the kind
> > > of comment that raises Rick's ire.
> >
> > If you want to take issue with what I said, I'm all ears, but please
> > don't construct and then attack straw men.
> >
> > John Mallinckrodt
> > Cal Poly Pomona
> > _______________________________________________
> > Forum for Physics Educators
> > Phys-l@carnot.physics.buffalo.edu
> > https://carnot.physics.buffalo.edu/mailman/listinfo/phys-l
>
> _______________________________________________
> Forum for Physics Educators
> Phys-l@carnot.physics.buffalo.edu
> https://carnot.physics.buffalo.edu/mailman/listinfo/phys-l

_______________________________________________
Forum for Physics Educators
Phys-l@carnot.physics.buffalo.edu
https://carnot.physics.buffalo.edu/mailman/listinfo/phys-l