Important quote about the difference between science and religion...

[Lindacooks]

My DH read this quote last night, and it's so true:

From Carl Sagan:

In science it often happens that scientists say, 'You know that's a really good argument; my position is mistaken,' and then they actually change their minds and you never hear that old view from them again. They really do it. It doesn't happen as often as it should, because scientists are human and change is sometimes painful. But it happens every day. I cannot recall the last time something like that happened in politics or religion.



I have heard politicians say this, and I've changed my mind (to a more liberal slant) quite a few times. But in religion, 100% true.

[nothingshocksmeanymore]

1. Sagan (I think from that same conversation said)

Science does everything it can to prove itself wrong..religion does everything it can to prove itself right.

[jayctravis]

16. Brilliant! (n/t)

[nothingshocksmeanymore]

2. Sagan (I think from that same conversation said)

Science does everything it can to prove itself wrong..religion does everything it can to prove itself right.

[cags]

3. Not so true

Was raised by a Baptist fundie mother. I used to be that girl knocking on your door, passing out literature.

Then education and learning cleansed my mind of the brainwashing.

I think a lot of people let go of religious dogma and change thier minds.

Granted my fundie mother has not changed but some people do.

[ultraist]

5. Yes, you changed but the religion didn't

You may have moved on, but the religious leaders are teaching the same dogma and rhetoric that was penned pre Science. In the case of Christianity, it's the Bible of course.

[CindyDale]

6. The religons change, too

So far as I understand.

I think what he means that science tends to be skeptical and constructed from observation and logic (using intuition to form the hypotheses) rather than values. Many religious and political thinkers construct their ideas the same way, though, I would think.

On the other hand, when scientists are political, they may tend to throw out the truth in favor of their employer. I don't really see a big difference between some of the scientists and some of the religious leaders in that regard.

I think he's just cheerleading.

[Lindacooks]

7. What religion has changed?

Religions and 'religious thinkers' do not use logic or observation at all - they depend on a book, or one of many different variations. There are thousands of versions of Bibles, and each little segment thinks their own special book is the absolute truth.

And please give an example of how scientists throw out the truth 'in favor of their employer'. I do know that the Bush* White House certainly does that:

Scientists Accuse White House of Distorting Facts:

http://www.nytimes.com/2004/02/18/science/18CND-RESE.html?ex=1108270800&en=7fbff902728f92ca&ei=5070

"The Bush administration has deliberately and systematically distorted scientific fact in the service of policy goals on the environment, health, biomedical research and nuclear weaponry at home and abroad, a group of about 60 influential scientists, including 20 Nobel laureates, said in a statement issued today.

The sweeping charges were later discussed in a conference call with some of the scientists that was organized by the Union of Concerned Scientists, an independent organization that focuses on technical issues and has often taken stands at odds with administration policy. The organization also issued a 37-page report today that it said detailed the accusations.

Together, the two documents accuse the administration of repeatedly censoring and suppressing reports by its own scientists, stacking advisory committees with unqualified political appointees, disbanding government panels that provide unwanted advice, and refusing to seek any independent scientific expertise in some cases.

"Other administrations have, on occasion, engaged in such practices, but not so systematically nor on so wide a front," the statement from the scientists said, adding that they believed the administration had "misrepresented scientific knowledge and misled the public about the implications of its policies."

<snip>

[ultraist]

8. Well done Linda!

:kick:

[Az]

12. Religions change

They don't admit it. But they do. A religion that doesn't change runs afoul of changing social values. It tries to pressure the society to keep in step with its dogma. But if it cannot it has to change to stay viable.

Simply put its a matter of survival. A religion that cannot either force the society to remain static or cannot adapt to change when necissary will simply die out.

Consider Christianity. Slightly over 500 years ago Christian Churches ruled society. Literally. They had control of the seats of power. Kings sat on their thrones by the Church's leave. Their positions and doctrine were far more strident and draconian. The bible itself was forbidden to be owned by common people for most of its history.

But then the age of enlightenment struck. It enfused society with notions of rights and exploration of ideas. It toppled the church from its position of civil rule. The church had to adapt to these new humanist ideas or perish.

Now believers frequently combine church doctrine with humanist ideals without even realising it. The idea of tolerating another belief and not trying to convert them is relatively new to religious thought. To have not accepted this notion would have lead to the eventual rejection of mainstream institutions such as the Catholic Church.

While the script remains the same the interpretation of it can ebb and flow. This is where the religion gets enough flexibility to adapt to the changing society.

[CindyDale]

15. Good post, Az!

[CindyDale]

14. They all change

How do you think we got so many religions? They all respresent changes, and the original religions changed, too. Nothing lasts if it doesn't change.

>>Religions and 'religious thinkers' do not use logic or observation at all - they depend on a book, or one of many different variations. There are thousands of versions of Bibles, and each little segment thinks their own special book is the absolute truth.

I don't understand what you mean, but religious leaders use observation and logic very frequently. The Bible itself was written using observation, intuition, and logic. How do you think the writers knew that eating a certain food would cause disease? Do you think God told them? Have you ever heard of theologicians? Religious thinkers depend on books no more or less than scientists depend on their literature. You take a very narrow view here, IMO.

It is hard to generalize about such broad disciplines as science and theology.

>>And please give an example of how scientists throw out the truth 'in favor of their employer'.

Check out almost any public policy book put together by scientists. Some of them are outright hilarious.

One I recall is "Before It's Too Late: A Scientist's Case for Nuclear Energy." That was from back in the 80s. Some scientists have a double standard, not telling the truth when it comes to public policy, just as some religious leaders.

Sorry if this offends anyone, but it is the truth.

[hootinholler]

18. Well, Martin Luther introduced a small change n/t

-Hoot

[Az]

11. The religion didn't change

You did. World of difference.

[superconnected]

13. Yes, I know plenty of people that have let go the religious dogma

Ton's of people that were raised religious change. Many people just consider themselves spiritual now and not part of organized religion - for the ones who kept spirituality. Many also became athiests.

The freepers of course are a main exception.

When I hear people say - religious leaders - as if all religious leaders, kept the dogma, it kind of shows me how much they get out. Not much because many churches now a days are are totally non-dogmatic and have new age stuff going on. These churches are sometimes pro christian, buddahim and everyting else at the same time, or none of the above, also.

[CindyDale]

4. I changed from an agnostic to a believer

and from an Independent to a Democrat.

What is Sagan talking about? LOL

[ultraist]

9. IMO

I think he generally means that Scientists build on a body of knowledge and employ reason which allows the field to evolve opposed to Religion which relies solely on an existing body of knowledge and on faith (not reason).

Dark ages vs. Enlightenment

[Undercover Owl]

10. Sagan also said

something like:
..religious people often say that man was created in God's imagination. Actually, God was created in man's imagination.

[CindyDale]

17. Yes, probably that is what he means