[alancalverd]

Not me being lazy. I'm asking you what you mean by a word you used.

[DonQuichotte]

Not me being lazy. I'm asking you what you mean by a word you used.

Well, once again , Peter Russell is more qualified to answer that question of yours than i ever could be

[DonQuichotte]

It concerns me that many students are being taught beliefs as facts. Just because a teacher believes something is a fact doesn't make it so.
Religion is a good example often taught as a fact but it is just a belief and today science as got on to this bandwagon. Every teacher has a responsibility to make clear to everyone the difference. Newton believed his view on gravity was a fact until Einstein pulled his rug from under him.

Mod edit: Please phrase post titles as questions, thanks!  You're free to edit it if you'd like a different title.

"More than anything else, the future of
civilization depends on the way the two
most powerful forces of history, science
and religion, settle into relationship with
each other."

Alfred North Whitehead

[alancalverd]

To slighly misquote Dawkins: the one thing religions have in common is that each one teaches you to despise all the others. The sciences, on the other hand, complement each other.

Thus civilisation (which I define as collaboration for the wellbeing of mankind) advances by the acquisition of scientific knowledge, but that advance is frequently mired, halted or even reversed by the influence of religion.

Hence by their very nature, science and religion can only "settle into relationship" if one religion exterminates all others (since the existence of more than one religion necessarily breeds division rather than collaboration) and that religion is indistinguishable from science.

But since religion is founded on the statement "x is true" and science proceeds by asking "is x false?", they cannot be indistinguishable.

[DonQuichotte]

author=alancalverd link=topic=46893.msg416620#msg416620 date=1377048866]
To slighly misquote Dawkins: the one thing religions have in common is that each one teaches you to despise all the others. The sciences, on the other hand, complement each other.

(Projections : Do Dawkins and co. not teach their followers to despise ,ridicule, disrespect ....religions ? ,ironically enough = an understatement )
Is that a fact ? just because Dawkins says so ? : is a fact = simply  quoting someone ? : false assumption : respect of other beliefs , freedom of belief , tolerance ...even under dominant Islam in the past were historic facts and basic Islamic teachings : see how jews were treated by muslims in the past while they were persecuted everywhereelse , especially under the medieval church ...and how christians were treated by muslims ...

Second : different sciences cover different areas ,so, you cannot make that analogy relating to the differences between different sciences and different religions .

Third : religion and science are 2 different things .

Thus civilization (which I define as collaboration for the wellbeing of mankind) advances by the acquisition of scientific knowledge

.

Putting aside this incorrect "definition " of civilization ,what civilization exactly had ever done that , on purpose ? Different civilizations or empires tend mostly to oppress , enslave , dominate , wipe out , colonize other ones...

The modern time is no exception .

but that advance is frequently mired, halted or even reversed by the influence of religion.

Depends on what specific religion you might be referring to : simply because you cannot put all religions in the same basket :

See the Islamic origin of the scientific method itself  in my thread you participated in , ironically enough.

Hence by their very nature, science and religion can only "settle into relationship" if one religion exterminates all others (since the existence of more than one religion necessarily breeds division rather than collaboration) and that religion is indistinguishable from science.

You did misunderstand that above displayed quote of Whitehead :

Some scientific and other advances confirm the fact that the alleged divorce between science and religion will be history , in the long run .

Second : dominant tolerant Islam in the past , and those  basic tolerant Islamic teachings + the fact that the scientific method itself originated from Islam itself , refute these silly simplistic populistic allegations of yours ...

P.S.: Science and religion are 2 different things with different natures, roles, functions ...so,to compare 2 different things to each other is a stupid thing to do,no offense , sorry  .

But since religion is founded on the statement "x is true" and science proceeds by asking "is x false?", they cannot be indistinguishable.

Silly populistic simplism + science and religion are 2 different things ,even though Islam, for example can have some say on science as well or on the realm of science ,but that's another discussion indeed.

Islam , for example , urges  humans to use their God given  reason, logic , experience, observation ,....the seeking of knowledge in the broader sense ,work ....to try to find out about the secrets or signs of God both within and without .

Islam considers all the latter as religious duties even, as forms of worship of God in the sense ,the more knowledge , belief , work, experience , wisdom ....a believer gets ,the closer he / she would get to God  : early muslims interiorized that islamic epistemology so well that they finally came up with the scientific method both at the epistemological philosophical theoretical and at the practical levels on the reality ground , while separating science from islam in the process....

[alancalverd]

So how does a stridently monotheistic religion like Islam judge, e.g., Hinduism? And on what evidence?

[DonQuichotte]

So how does a stridently monotheistic religion like Islam judge, e.g., Hinduism? And on what evidence?

What do you mean ?
Who talked about Hinduism anyway?