Apology to Darwin by the CoE

[MG1962]

I came across this by accident while looking for something else. Perhaps some other groups of Chrisitans can find it in their heart to make similar statements

http://www.cofe.anglican.org/darwin/malcolmbrown.html

Charles Darwin: 200 years from your birth, the Church of England owes you an apology for misunderstanding you and, by getting our first reaction wrong, encouraging others to misunderstand you still. We try to practice the old virtues of 'faith seeking understanding' and hope that makes some amends. But the struggle for your reputation is not over yet, and the problem is not just your religious opponents but those who falsely claim you in support of their own interests. Good religion needs to work constructively with good science – and I dare to suggest that the opposite may be true as well.

[The Man]

I came across this by accident while looking for something else. Perhaps some other groups of Chrisitans can find it in their heart to make similar statements

http://www.cofe.anglican.org/darwin/malcolmbrown.html

Charles Darwin: 200 years from your birth, the Church of England owes you an apology for misunderstanding you and, by getting our first reaction wrong, encouraging others to misunderstand you still. We try to practice the old virtues of 'faith seeking understanding' and hope that makes some amends. But the struggle for your reputation is not over yet, and the problem is not just your religious opponents but those who falsely claim you in support of their own interests. Good religion needs to work constructively with good science – and I dare to suggest that the opposite may be true as well.

Well evolution is a slow but ongoing process.

[Tricky]

I came across this by accident while looking for something else. Perhaps some other groups of Chrisitans can find it in their heart to make similar statements

http://www.cofe.anglican.org/darwin/malcolmbrown.html

Charles Darwin: 200 years from your birth, the Church of England owes you an apology for misunderstanding you and, by getting our first reaction wrong, encouraging others to misunderstand you still. We try to practice the old virtues of 'faith seeking understanding' and hope that makes some amends. But the struggle for your reputation is not over yet, and the problem is not just your religious opponents but those who falsely claim you in support of their own interests. Good religion needs to work constructively with good science – and I dare to suggest that the opposite may be true as well.
That's okay, but they're still using weasle words. Especially the red part.

The opposite, of course, is "Good science needs to work constructively with good religion." Sounds innocuous and friendly, but what it suggest to me is that science should seek "good" religious input for its work, and I find that statement not only wrong but scary. Science does not need to have any sort of "cleared with the Church of England" brand on it. Neither do they need, in any way, to seek theological input on their investigations. What it should have said is "Science should not attempt to use religion to justify its findings and religion should not attempt to use science to justify its dogma."

[UndercoverElephant]

That's okay, but they're still using weasle words. Especially the red part.


Those are not "weasel words". They are in no way intended to discount or devalue any of the statements made about Darwin. They are intended to point out that there are some people who try to make claims in the name of Darwinism which aren't actually supported by Darwinism. Which is true, IMO.


The opposite, of course, is "Good science needs to work constructively with good religion."


"Good science needs to work constructively with good religion" is not the opposite of "Good religion needs to work constructively with good science". The opposite of "Good religion needs to work constructively with good science" is "Good religion does not need to work constructively with good science."


Sounds innocuous and friendly, but what it suggest to me is that science should seek "good" religious input for its work, and I find that statement not only wrong but scary.


Then you're being paranoid. First you state something which you claim is the opposite of what is being claimed by the CofE, then you further "interpret" it to mean something which bears no resemblance whatsoever to the original statement.


Science does not need to have any sort of "cleared with the Church of England" brand on it.


Good job they didn't say anything like that then, isn't it?


Neither do they need, in any way, to seek theological input on their investigations. What it should have said is "Science should not attempt to use religion to justify its findings and religion should not attempt to use science to justify its dogma."

Nope. It might have read "Science should not try to turn itself into a religion."

[UndercoverElephant]

This is what it means to me:

There is good religion and bad religion and good science and bad science (which is better called "pseudoscience".) The CofE statement is clearly anti-pseudoscience, specifically in regard to those forms of religious pseudoscience which contradict Darwinism, but it is also a general claim. As for "good religion" and "bad religion", that's a whole thread in itself, but even the sternest critics of religion on this board must surely admit that some forms of religion are a whole load worse than some others. Islam, for example, includes both the most extreme forms of intolerant, violent and literalistic forms of religion on the planet, and sufism, which teaches things like "blind adherence to any book renders any religion void of spirit." (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Hazrat_Inayat_Khan)

There is no reason why good scientists and good religious people can't work together for a better world. There's no reason why a good scientist can't be a good religious person. Anyone who doesn't agree with that is, IMO, part of the problem, not part of the solution.

[Tricky]

"Good science needs to work constructively with good religion" is not the opposite of "Good religion needs to work constructively with good science". The opposite of "Good religion needs to work constructively with good science" is "Good religion does not need to work constructively with good science."
Ya know, I really don't think they meant it that way. Maybe "converse" would have been a better word than "opposite", but that's not what they said, though I sincerely doubt they meant to make a statement and then deny that statement. I think you are the one misinterpreting their statement because your interpretation would be that they made a self-contradiction.

Then you're being paranoid. First you state something which you claim is the opposite of what is being claimed by the CofE, then you further "interpret" it to mean something which bears no resemblance whatsoever to the original statement.
Oh? Can you not think of situations where science is being stifled by religion? Think "stem cell research". To me, that's what "Having science work with religion" means. But I am willing to listen to alternate explanations.

Good job they didn't say anything like that then, isn't it?
They did say that, although couched in language that seems to say "why can't we all get along" and poorly worded. I think their intent is clear, and it was not to say, "We should do this. And we shouldn't." I find that interpretation ludicrous.

Nope. It might have read "Science should not try to turn itself into a religion."
No, it doesn't It clearly suggests that religion should work with science and that science should work with religion. It is the opposite of saying that they should maintain separate spheres. And in this case, I am using the word "opposite" correctly.

[Tricky]

This is what it means to me:

There is good religion and bad religion and good science and bad science (which is better called "pseudoscience".) The CofE statement is clearly anti-pseudoscience, specifically in regard to those forms of religious pseudoscience which contradict Darwinism, but it is also a general claim. As for "good religion" and "bad religion", that's a whole thread in itself, but even the sternest critics of religion on this board must surely admit that some forms of religion are a whole load worse than some others. Islam, for example, includes both the most extreme forms of intolerant, violent and literalistic forms of religion on the planet, and sufism, which teaches things like "blind adherence to any book renders any religion void of spirit." (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Hazrat_Inayat_Khan)


I don't think it means that at all. I think it means, "We were wrong about this and we will try not to be wrong this way in the future." Very noble to be sure. Perhaps it even suggests that religious extremism, as regards science anyway, is a bad thing. But really, no more than that. And I can agree with that. It is only the last statement that should have been left out.

There is no reason why good scientists and good religious people can't work together for a better world. There's no reason why a good scientist can't be a good religious person. Anyone who doesn't agree with that is, IMO, part of the problem, not part of the solution.
You are absolutely right that good scentists can be religious, and many have, as long as they keep their religion separate, or at least, in a non-judgmental position from their science. But science cannot be religious. It is, at it's most basic, the antithesis of faith. It requires the exact opposite of faith.

Imagine if Gregor Mendel had thrown out certain of his "unnatural" pea plants because his faith demanded it.

[UndercoverElephant]

Ya know, I really don't think they meant it that way. Maybe "converse" would have been a better word than "opposite", but that's not what they said, though I sincerely doubt they meant to make a statement and then deny that statement. I think you are the one misinterpreting their statement because your interpretation would be that they made a self-contradiction.


Oh? Can you not think of situations where science is being stifled by religion?


Of course I can. What do you think the original statement is about if it's not about an attempt by some religious people to stifle science?

"Religion" doesn't DO anything. People do things, and some of them do so in the name of religion or in the name of science.


Think "stem cell research". To me, that's what "Having science work with religion" means. But I am willing to listen to alternate explanations.


Stem cell research has nothing to do with religion. It is a complicated ethical issue which, like abortion, would still be a complicated ethical issue if religion didn't even exist.

[slingblade]

Religion is all fairy stories, and science need have nothing to do with it, any more than science needs a good dose of the Brothers Grimm.

[MG1962]

I think one of the hardest parts for science is the fact that be true to itself and scientific method, it can not allow itself to either have morals. Science should never be in a position to have to second guess itself because of moral implications.

A good example of this is the medical field. Doctors nurses etc are honour bound to do all they can to extend life. No matter what the circumstances. Society has realised that in certain circumstances the quality of life offered by these processes drops to such a level that the life being lived is of now value to the person involved.

However society also realises that each person has a different view or value to their quality of life, hence the evolution of living wills.

Darwin himself faced similar issues, he was a religious man, and knew the publication of his theory would tear a large hole in his faith and understanding of the Bible. He had the courage to take that step, he also had the courage to try and reconcile God with science

[slingblade]

If only he'd had the courage to reconcile the Flying Spaghetti Monster with science, we'd now have pasta trees and meatball mountains. Harvested, of course, by midgets in pirate gear.

[Elizabeth I]

If only he'd had the courage to reconcile the Flying Spaghetti Monster with science, we'd now have pasta trees and meatball mountains. Harvested, of course, by midgets in pirate gear.

Did you ever see that April Fool's Day "documentary" the BBC did on the spaghetti crop and the spaghetti harvest in Italy? A masterpiece! Apparently the spaghetti fields are miles long but only a few inches wide.

[slingblade]

Did you ever see that April Fool's Day "documentary" the BBC did on the spaghetti crop and the spaghetti harvest in Italy? A masterpiece! Apparently the spaghetti fields are miles long but only a few inches wide.

I did, actually. :D

[MG1962]

I did, actually. :D

The Australian version was better

[slingblade]

The Australian version was better

There was one? Funneh! I'll have to look it up. :D

[Piggy]

Doctors nurses etc are honour bound to do all they can to extend life. No matter what the circumstances.

No. They are not.

[MG1962]

There was one? Funneh! I'll have to look it up. :D

LOL I dont mind derailing my own thread

http://www.museumofhoaxes.com/hoax/weblog/comments/5855/

Has the footage

[Tricky]

Doctors nurses etc are honour bound to do all they can to extend life. No matter what the circumstances.

No. They are not.
Piggy's right. Doctors do their best to alleviate suffering. Sometimes they are legally bound to extend life, even if their personal morality disagrees with it. Sometimes they give pallative care to people for whom there is little hope for survival. If what you said were accurate, MG1962, no hospice could ever employ a doctor.

But I understand what you meant. Medical scientists do work primarily on ways to keep people alive.

[UndercoverElephant]

Religion is all fairy stories, and science need have nothing to do with it, any more than science needs a good dose of the Brothers Grimm.

Saying "religion is all fairy stories" is about the equivalent of saying "all politicians lie all of the time" or "science is always correct." It has some sort of basis in the truth, but lacks realism and balance. It's not that simple.

[Aepervius]

Saying "religion is all fairy stories" is about the equivalent of saying "all politicians lie all of the time" or "science is always correct." It has some sort of basis in the truth, but lacks realism and balance. It's not that simple.

It mostly that simple, sorry. Religion mix in some truth , sometimes historical, sometimes physical/on the world, but their BASIS is fully in myth-land.

[UndercoverElephant]

It mostly that simple, sorry. Religion mix in some truth , sometimes historical, sometimes physical/on the world, but their BASIS is fully in myth-land.

That is a subjective viewpoint. I'd say religions tend to be based around metaphysical and ethical claims about which science has little or nothing to say. The fact that the form of communication in question is basically mythology does nothing to change the underlying metaphysical and ethical issues. To take a simple example, the claim "I and my father are one" can be interpreted in many ways. One way, which I see often on boards like this one, is to claim it is just some inexplicable, meaningless fairy-story. This really is an over-simplistic interpretation. It's lazy. The truth is that it is a mythological rendering of a metaphysical claim made in some form or another by all religions and which has been discussed at great length by generations of philosophers. Now...you can respond to this with something like "all religions are equally ******** and philosophy, not being based on science, can also be ignored..." You can, but not if you expect to be taken seriously by anyone who had a decent education which involved something more than just the study of science.

Religion cannot just be dismissed as so many stories about Santa Claus and the tooth fairy. The situation is far more complex than that.

[Beerina]

Good religion needs to work constructively with good science – and I dare to suggest that the opposite may be true as well.
That's okay, but they're still using weasle words. Especially the red part.

In practice, good science works destructively with good (or bad) religion. In every case where science makes a conclusion, it wins. In other cases where it hasn't, neither has religion "won" but for the usual "...and therefore religion wins" fallacy.

[Marduk]

I came across this by accident while looking for something else. Perhaps some other groups of Chrisitans can find it in their heart to make similar statements

http://www.cofe.anglican.org/darwin/malcolmbrown.html

Charles Darwin: 200 years from your birth, the Church of England owes you an apology for misunderstanding you and, by getting our first reaction wrong, encouraging others to misunderstand you still. We try to practice the old virtues of 'faith seeking understanding' and hope that makes some amends. But the struggle for your reputation is not over yet, and the problem is not just your religious opponents but those who falsely claim you in support of their own interests. Good religion needs to work constructively with good science – and I dare to suggest that the opposite may be true as well.

What is this "Good religion" these strangers speak of
:D

[Marduk]

Religion cannot just be dismissed as so many stories about Santa Claus and the tooth fairy.

?????:confused:?????
Santheism ?

StNicholism ?

Good Father Claus and the Virgin Fairy

Kringleism I would be up for, its central tenets are:
1 You only worship 12 days a year
2 Half of them are to be taken off work to get drunk and eat mince pies
3 You must receive presents
4 None of them should be socks
5 You get your stockings filled
:p

I can't wait to start writing the Xmas booke of Revelation
the opportunity for using the term "9 reindeers of the apocalypse" is too good to pass up

[Dave Rogers]

The opposite, of course, is "Good science needs to work constructively with good religion."

Funny, I interpreted it that the opposite was "Bad religion needs to work destructively with bad science". The only word I'd argue with there is "needs".

Dave

[tsig]

snip

Religion cannot just be dismissed as so many stories about Santa Claus and the tooth fairy. The situation is far more complex than that.

Yes it can. No it's not.

Philosophy is just talk. There are no deeper meanings nor secrets. The world is "What you see is what you get".

[paximperium]

Yes it can. No it's not.

Philosophy is just talk. There are no deeper meanings nor secrets. The world is "What you see is what you get".
Philosophy is great at asking questions; it is just completely and utterly useless at providing any answers.

[tsig]

Philosophy is great at asking questions; it is just completely and utterly useless at providing any answers.

Conclusions are anathema.:p

[paximperium]

Religion cannot just be dismissed as so many stories about Santa Claus and the tooth fairy. The situation is far more complex than that.
Myths cannot be just dismissed as so many rationalizations for woo that many pseudo-philosophers and lovers of woo love to do. The formation of the Santa Claus and tooth fairy myth is an interesting study on the human thought process, societal effects and memes...you know, science.

[drkitten]

The opposite, of course, is "Good science needs to work constructively with good religion." Sounds innocuous and friendly, but what it suggest to me is that science should seek "good" religious input for its work, and I find that statement not only wrong but scary. Science does not need to have any sort of "cleared with the Church of England" brand on it.

I think you're being overly paranoic, or perhaps overly sectarianly paranoiac.

Science does need "ethics." I had to take a number of ethical course before I was cleared to work on/with human subjects in my research, in part because scientists qua scientists have been so bad in a number of instances about how they treat their subject. Without Godwinning the thread (Menegle's twin studies?), consider the rather infamous Tuskegee syphillis study, (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Tuskegee_syphilis_experiment) in which "researchers failed to treat patients appropriately after the 1940s validation of penicillin as an effective cure for the disease." As a result of this experiment (and other well-documented abuses), there are now Federal ethical guidelines about what you can and cannot do, and they have teeth.

While religion isn't the only source for morals and ethics, it's a major one. A lot of people look to their religion for guidance about what is and is not permissible to do. And scientists should be willing to "work constructively" with the religious concerns of their community to do this.

It's a two-way street. Scientists need to educate the religious, for example, about what stem cells may and may not be good for, and about what evolution does and does not say. But by the same token, scientists also need to listen to statements about "the dignity of the person" and about how experimental subjects should be treated with respect and compassion commensurate with that dignity.

[Southwind17]

Religion is all fairy stories ...
Close:

http://forums.randi.org/imagehosting/thum_195334aae73f5eabe8.jpg (http://forums.randi.org/vbimghost.php?do=displayimg&imgid=17557)

[Southwind17]

Did you ever see that April Fool's Day "documentary" the BBC did on the spaghetti crop and the spaghetti harvest in Italy? A masterpiece! Apparently the spaghetti fields are miles long but only a few inches wide.
Ah yes:

http://forums.randi.org/imagehosting/19533482666513c8db.jpg (http://forums.randi.org/vbimghost.php?do=displayimg&imgid=12154)

[Southwind17]

Funny, I interpreted it that the opposite was "Bad religion needs to work destructively with bad science". The only word I'd argue with there is "needs".
I'd argue about that too, given that I think you probably recognized that if you replaced "needs" with its opposite (whatever word that is - let's just say "doesn't need", for the purpose of the debate) your statement would, unfortunately, blow your inference clean out!

Oh ... I'd also argue that "religion" is not the opposite of "science", incidentally. ;)

[Dave Rogers]

I'd argue about that too, given that I think you probably recognized that if you replaced "needs" with its opposite (whatever word that is - let's just say "doesn't need", for the purpose of the debate) your statement would, unfortunately, blow your inference clean out!

Good point. Taking the opposite of just about every concept in the sentence, then, we end up with something like "Bad science and bad religion don't need to work together to be destructive." I think I like that better.

I'd Oh ... I'd also argue that "religion" is not the opposite of "science", incidentally. ;)

Science: the principle that we can obtain knowledge about the Universe by its study, and that this knowledge supersedes knowledge not based on its study.

Religion: the principle that there is a higher being or beings whom we worship, carrying the implication that any information derived directly from this higher being or beings must supersede that gained by any other means e.g. study of the Universe.

Pretty darned close, if you ask me.

Dave

[UndercoverElephant]

Religion: the principle that there is a higher being or beings whom we worship...

By that definition, Buddhism and Taoism aren't religions.

[UndercoverElephant]

Religion: a system of metaphysical and ethical beliefs, often presented as a mythology.

That includes religions which don't make the specific metaphysical claim that there is a deity which wants to be worshipped.

[Southwind17]

Science: the principle that we can obtain knowledge about the Universe by its study, and that this knowledge supersedes knowledge not based on its study.
Religion: the principle that there is a higher being or beings whom we worship, carrying the implication that any information derived directly from this higher being or beings must supersede that gained by any other means e.g. study of the Universe.
Which only goes to show that by constructing your own definitions you can justify claiming just about anything! ;)

[Dave Rogers]

Which only goes to show that by constructing your own definitions you can justify claiming just about anything! ;)

Not that anyone has claimed in this thread that science and religion actually are opposites, of course.

Dave

[EvilSmurf]

Funny, I interpreted it that the opposite was "Bad religion needs to work destructively with bad science". The only word I'd argue with there is "needs".

Dave

So Bad Religions next album should include a scathing critique of Homeopathy? I'll suggest the song idea to Greg Graffin, I doubt he'll take it though.

[slingblade]

Saying "religion is all fairy stories" is about the equivalent of saying "all politicians lie all of the time" or "science is always correct." It has some sort of basis in the truth, but lacks realism and balance. It's not that simple.

I've seen politicians and I've done science.

Show me the gods.

[UndercoverElephant]

I've seen politicians and I've done science.

Show me the gods.

What sort of God would allow me to show them to you? Do you think I have power over Gods?

:rolleyes:

Show me your consciousness.

[paximperium]

What sort of God would allow me to show them to you? Do you think I have power over Gods?

:rolleyes:

Show me your consciousness.
Red herrings. A tasty retreat by the woo.

[UndercoverElephant]

Red herrings. A tasty retreat by the woo.

No, just a bit of critical thinking...something which is notably lacking most of the time around here.

[Tricky]

What sort of God would allow me to show them to you? Do you think I have power over Gods?
You don't have to have power over a duck in order to show me a duck. You just have to find a real duck.

Show me your consciousness.
I am showing you my consciousness by posting here and responding in a conscious manner to your request.

[UndercoverElephant]

You just have to find a real duck.


Here is a real duck, sitting on Uranus, a narrowboat parked in front of a pumpout (sewage disposal) station on the Staffordshire and Worcestershire canal:

http://www.cheeseandjamsandwich.co.uk/2003-05-10_ribble/2003-05-14_14-10-21.jpg

Quack.

http://www.cheeseandjamsandwich.co.uk/2003-05-10_ribble/2003-05-11_09-44-37.jpg

[rocketdodger]

Stem cell research has nothing to do with religion. It is a complicated ethical issue which, like abortion, would still be a complicated ethical issue if religion didn't even exist.

Would abortion be a complicated ethical issue if religion didn't even exist?

[rocketdodger]

Show me your consciousness.

Here <--

[UndercoverElephant]

Here <--

Can't see it...

[UndercoverElephant]

Would abortion be a complicated ethical issue if religion didn't even exist?

Of course it would. Religion has historically given ethical guidance to people, for better or for worse, but many of the ethical problems it gives guidance on exist quite independently of religion. Abortion is a textbook example. So are euthanasia, stealing, killing, lying and adultery.

Stealing may not be wrong just because God says so, but it's still wrong.

[rocketdodger]

Can't see it...

I didn't think you would be able to, even though I can clearly see yours.

The difference between us is that I have a clue what I am looking for.

[rocketdodger]

Of course it would. Religion has historically given ethical guidance to people, for better or for worse, but many of the ethical problems it gives guidance on exist quite independently of religion. Abortion is a textbook example. So are euthanasia, stealing, killing, lying and adultery.

Stealing may not be wrong just because God says so, but it's still wrong.

That doesn't seem very "complicated" to me -- you were able to make the proclamation in only 4 words.

[UndercoverElephant]

That doesn't seem very "complicated" to me -- you were able to make the proclamation in only 4 words.

Yeah, but I didn't give any better reason than God did. I just proclaimed it.

[UndercoverElephant]

I didn't think you would be able to, even though I can clearly see yours.

The difference between us is that I have a clue what I am looking for.

What are you looking for?

[rocketdodger]

What are you looking for?

Something like this:What are you looking for?

[UndercoverElephant]

:D