[lbo-talk] Neo-Lamarckianism???? Come on!

[John Thornton]

Miles Jackson wrote:
> John Thornton wrote:
>   
>> Miles Jackson wrote:
>>   
>>     
>>> I'm not seeing the essential incompatibility of doing science and 
>>> believing in a god.  
>>>     
>>>       
>> Believing that an omniscient omnipotent being who can create the 
>> universe is integrated into which branch of science?
>>   
>>     
> Your argument is based on the flawed premise that scientists only 
> believe things that are supported by scientific evidence.  Scientists 
> have many beliefs that are not related to science at all.  For instance, 
> a scientist can believe "I love my husband", "24 is a stupid, jingoistic 
> TV show", "Kurosawa is the greatest director of the 20th century", and 
> so on without basing those beliefs on scientific evidence.  Religion, 
> like many aspects of social life, is not part of a scientific 
> discipline; thus applying the scientific standards of evidence to 
> religion is as silly as applying religious standards to evaluate 
> science.  For almost all scientists, their religious beliefs, like their 
> beliefs about art and literature, are just irrelevant to their 
> scientific work.
>
> Miles
Which is why I wrote:
"The fact that one can work in a science field and believe in a god 
doesn't change the fact that the two are incompatible. People believe 
contradictory things all the time. This is just one more example. In 
most instances the contradiction will never manifest itself so no 
problem will arise."
Science isn't compatible with god but that doesn't mean the conflict 
between the two is inevitable in every person.

John Thornton