CULTURE 




Clash in Cambridge 
Science and religion seem as antagonistic as ever 
By John Horgan 


In the very first lecture of the Templeton-Cambridge Journalism Fellowship in June, a University of Cambridge biologist assured the 10 journalists in his audience that science and religion have gotten along much better, historically, than is commonly believed. After all, scientific pioneers such as Kepler, Newton, Boyle and even Galileo were all devout Christians; Galileo's run-in with the Church was really a spat between two different versions of Catholicism. The notion that science and religion have always butted heads is "fallacious," declared Denis Alexander, who is, not coincidentally, a Christian. Other lecturers, who included four agnostics, a Jew, a deist and 11 Christians, also saw no unbridgeable chasm between science and their faith.
As the two-week meeting unfolded, however, conflict kept disrupting this peaceable kingdom. Lecturers and journalists argued over a host of questions: Without religion, would humanity descend into moral chaos? Are scientific claims in some sense as unprovable as religious ones? Can prayers heal, and if so, is that evidence of the placebo effect or of God's helping hand? Why does God seem to help some people and ignore others? By the end of the conference, the gulf between science and religion--or at least Christianity--seemed as wide as ever....continued at Scientific American Digital

Hyper how can you possibly look at all the magnifigance of the universe and not wonder something

what exactly are you asking me?

the "wonders" of the universe are mundane. what is, is! Yes, we know so little, but being ignorant is not an excuse for deification in my opinion.
[right][snapback]810762[/snapback][/right]

yes, "its existance is its meaning"!  anything else is human construct.

science explains "what is", "what was", and predicts "what will be" (also makes what will be in applied science).  "wonder" is a term of meriment and confusion.  The natural world is not a wonder, but the natural.  What is, is.  I do not see it as wonderous that something is what it is.  The rock is the rock, the scorpion the scorpion; both born of the same ultimate origin, both a result of unfolding natural paths. 
[right][snapback]810781[/snapback][/right]

thats fine by me you don't have to see wonder if you choose not to, I would not define wonder as analogous with confusioin, but.... I think wonder adds a depth to my experiences that weren't there otherwise, Nmamaste sheri

Oh I just thought that evryone who thought of a god or God was religious. Or had religious beliefs.
[right][snapback]811107[/snapback][/right]

The motion of nature
is cyclic and returning.
Its way is to yield,
for to yield is to become.
All things are born of being;
being is born of non-being.

not at all! before there was religion or religious beliefs there was thoughts of "gods". I claim they stem from the pineal gland. Others disagree.
[right][snapback]811338[/snapback][/right]

Belief in and reverence for a supernatural power or powers regarded as creator and governor of the universe

I'm not forgetting that at all.  Whether the term religion was used or not, belief in gods/spiritual entities is still religion.  The term homosexuality is only a new term - does that mean gay's (also a new term) practicing single sex relations before the term was coined were not homosexual?
[right][snapback]811954[/snapback][/right]

My point is that you have a specific (and narrow) definition and refuse to look at any definition which does not conform to your understanding of the term.