Faith-based scientists. 'T will be a shock to the system of the 'naive realists' of

[Joe Chi Minh]

this 'ere parish.

http://www.guardian.co.uk/commentisfree/belief/2010/jan/31/charles-taylor-philosophy-religion-science

[KILL THE WISE ONE]

1. reading it hurt my brain

this is how they make ZOMBIES ? :hurts:

[lazarus]

2. nonsense

Semantic games in that article. Paradigm shifts are what happens when new information is discovered. That's all.

To really play semantic games, we all need faith every second of the day. I have faith that if I move my fingers a certain way, words will appear on the screen of my laptop. That doesn't mean I have a religious connection to my laptop. I have faith the sun will rise tomorrow. I don't worship the sun, though.

The author seems unclear as to what actually makes something a religion and what makes it science.

[Moostache]

4. Actually, before the desert tribal 'god' came along....

the sun worshipers of antiquity had it pretty close to on the mark. (So did George Carlin, but I digress!)

If any single object in the solar system could be considered the life-giver and "creator" of us all, it must be the sun due to the laws of thermodynamics - without the continual energy inputs of the sun to the Earth's biosphere, life would never have had a chance to evolve in the first place. So in a very real sense, the sun IS our true sky daddy!

[lazarus]

5. yes, but

Worship of the sun is just silly. Is the sun going to be more energetic because I sacrificed a goat to it?

[StClone]

3. There's one Big problem

I can show you my Science can you show me your God?

What extramundane writing for sure. I assume the author's theme is that procedurally Scientist have "faith" in their system as do Religions.

[TZ]

6. Shouldn't this be in R/T?

Why do you keep posting your woo IN THE SCIENCE FORUM. Maybe you ought to read the rules here.

[RainDog]

7. this person doesn't understand the difference between revelation and insight

or, more to the point, this author is dishonest and elides the difference.

Across disciplines it is possible to observe the weight of accumulated knowledge that then sees something new bought to the conversation. that something new, of course, requires reproducible results and peer review by experts. That something new is incorporated into the history of accumulated results and some will use this to form a new hypotheses or paradigm which then undergoes peer review.

there is nothing like this process for religious revelation. to compare the two is the height of stupidity, sloppy thinking and dishonesty.

the problem with literalist/fundamentalist religion is that its adherents do not require any proof outside of themselves nor do they subject their beliefs to historical and scientific questions - those that do are required to engage in a huge "paradigm shift" because the basis of their beliefs are not grounded in either history or science.

[HiFructosePronSyrup]

8. Hey atheists, if there is no God then who warned Noah about the flood?

:crazy:

[IndianaGreen]

9. Where is the evidence for the sort of flood described in the Bible?

Nowhere to be found anywhere in the geological record.

[RagAss]

11. LOL !......

[damyank913]

10. After wasting 10 minutes of my life reading this crap, I feel somewhat dumber...

This isn't ordinary stupidity--this is advanced stupidity.