• Please read the Announcement concerning missing posts from 10/8/25-10/15/25.
  • This is a political forum that is non-biased/non-partisan and treats every person's position on topics equally. This debate forum is not aligned to any political party. In today's politics, many ideas are split between and even within all the political parties. Often we find ourselves agreeing on one platform but some topics break our mold. We are here to discuss them in a civil political debate. If this is your first visit to our political forums, be sure to check out the RULES. Registering for debate politics is necessary before posting. Register today to participate - it's free!

March for Science


I see what you are saying. But I would remind you that just about every technological breakthrough that defines the modern world: from airplanes, to satellites, rockets, nuclear power, lasers, solid state physics, computers, the internet, genetics and cancer treatment, etc... started out on "government life support". When these technologies are in their embryonic form, their commercial applications are not clear. Only once the science and technology are worked out to some extent and more mature do the commercial applications become more clear and it can be given over to the free market to work its magic. So I really don't see why alternative energy sources should be any different.

But with that said,
Renewable Energy Industry Creates Jobs 12 Times Faster Than Rest of US | Fortune.com
 
ocean515 said:
You will have to ask the poster I was responding to.
Click to expand...

That would be me, so I'll answer:

No one is saying that a Christian can't be a scientist, or vice versa.

If to be a Christian you must believe in some young Earth creationism nonsense, then you do have a point, but that is not what Christianity says.
 
Business uses science for profit.
Government tries to use science for the betterment of the nation.

Big difference people.
 
ocean515 said:
Thank you for taking the time to post such a long opinion.
Click to expand...

It's not just MY opinion, of course. Here is Richard Feynman, perhaps one of the most prominent scientists of the second half of the 20th century on the incompatibility of the scientific and religious worldviews at the most fundamental level:

 

As I have written before, faith is a fickle thing. Having faith does not preclude someone from believing in science. It may cause someone of faith to be at odds with some scientific theories, but it should have no bearing on the concept of science in general.
 
ataraxia said:
It's not just MY opinion, of course. Here is Richard Feynman, perhaps one of the most prominent scientists of the second half of the 20th century on the incompatibility of the scientific and religious worldviews at the most fundamental level:
Click to expand...

This thread is about a March for Science. It is not about religion, unless that was the purpose of the march. Was the March for Science a protest against religion?
 
ocean515 said:
This thread is about a March for Science. It is not about religion, unless that was the purpose of the march. Was the March for Science a protest against religion?
Click to expand...

Protest against ignorance. So....yeah. You could say that.
 
Mach said:
Business uses science for profit.
Government tries to use science for the betterment of the nation.

Big difference people.
Click to expand...

When business uses science for profit, the nation benefits. Those automated factories build much better cars than the old assembly lines ever could. Another case in point, the microwave oven. Governments used it, but industry saw what it was and decided to mass market it. Now, which of us doesn't have on in the kitchen? Didn't the nation benefit, not only from having one, but from the market created for it?
 

Which is exactly what I said originally: People don't have a problem with science until it contradicts their belief system.
 
calamity said:
Protest against ignorance. So....yeah. You could say that.
Click to expand...

I see. So the promoters lied about the purpose. The March was a protest against freedom of religion. I'm not sure the promoters are going to appreciate you revealing that.
 
ocean515 said:
I see. So the promoters lied about the purpose. The March was a protest against freedom of religion. I'm not sure the promoters are going to appreciate you revealing that.
Click to expand...

If protesting freedom of religion is the same as protesting ignorance, then you're right.

But, if that's so, then one of the cornerstones of this nation, freedom of religion, is based on ignorance. Is that really your position?
 
ocean515 said:
I see. So the promoters lied about the purpose. The March was a protest against freedom of religion. I'm not sure the promoters are going to appreciate you revealing that.
Click to expand...

Please show where I said the protest was against freedom of religion :roll:
 
ocean515 said:
I think that is too broad a statement.
Click to expand...

What's wrong with it?
Do you think people have a problem with science when it doesn't counter their belief system?
Or do they accept science and reject their belief systems?

I think it's spot on.
 


Well, it seems to me that Christians (and religious people in general) have two options:

1) The dogmatic approach- they think their religion gives them some kind of special insight into the nature of the universe (scientific questions) or how we should act (ethics and politics)

OR

2) The mystical approach- they think that their religion is a sort of mystical feeling, about thinking "there is a greater force than us out there", about a sense of awe and mystery about the apparent order of the universe, which may love us or have some particular agenda for us, but they shy away from pushing particular positive statements- either scientifically or ethically/politically.

So the consequences of the first, if taken seriously enough, has shown itself to lead to closed-mindedness, stagnation in society (because, after all, if you already know how God wants us to act, then why be open to new ideas, better ways to do things, new ways to see the world, etc...?), and fanaticism- from ISIS to the Inquisition. The consequences of the second alternative are.... well, nothing. It's abstract enough as to not be able to give us any useful, concrete answers to pressing questions. If your religion isn't giving us any special insight into scientific or ethical questions, then what use is it?

So that leaves us with a third possibility:

3) The flexible, wishy-washy approach- this is where someone may CLAIM that their religion is giving them some special insight into scientific/ethical questions, but when challenged by evidence, they are often open to changing their mind and finding a way to "properly reinterpret" their scripture to have it come out projecting the newer, better ideas.

I suspect that many non-fanatical Christians or religious people in the world fall into this 3rd category. They are always trying to find ways to project the latest scientific understandings and cultural values by endlessly and very clevery interpreting their scripture to say these things. Frankly, I am not sure what purpose this serves, except maybe to help them feel special that they know something and are a part of something special that others are not.

But really, when it comes to questions of science (or even ethics), I don't see that religion serves, or has ever served, any useful purpose, except perhaps as a feel-good measure:

 
Dittohead not! said:
If protesting freedom of religion is the same as protesting ignorance, then you're right.

But, if that's so, then one of the cornerstones of this nation, freedom of religion, is based on ignorance. Is that really your position?
Click to expand...

We've already established that religious people can believe in science, so I'm not sure what you are going on about. We've also established that scientists can be religious. I guess we've assumed scientists aren't ignorant.

The march has been represented as an event to promote science. As far as I know, it wasn't billed as a march to specifically promote climate science, or evolution science.

If the march was promoted to protest against religious beliefs, perhaps they should have made that clear. If so, I can understand why they would try to hide that fact.
 
calamity said:
Please show where I said the protest was against freedom of religion :roll:
Click to expand...

It seems to me you have drawn a line between ignorance and religion. You claimed the protest was against ignorance. With the connection you've made, that means the protest was against people who have religious beliefs.

You may want to consider the arguments you make, because they seem to back you into corners you may not want to occupy.
 
calamity said:
Sounds like Koch Bros funded spin.
Click to expand...

Willard Anthony Watts (Anthony Watts) is a blogger, weathercaster and non-scientist, paid AGW denier who runs the website wattsupwiththat.com. He does not have a university qualification and has no climate credentials other than being a radio weather announcer. His website is parodied and debunked at the website wottsupwiththat.com Watts is on the payroll of the Heartland Institute, which itself is funded by polluting industries.[1]

Anthony Watts - SourceWatch
Watts Up With That? (or WUWT) is a blog[1] promoting climate change denial[2][3][4][5][6] that was created by Anthony Watts in 2006.[2][3]

The blog predominantly discusses climate issues with a focus on anthropogenic climate change, generally accommodating beliefs that are in opposition to the scientific consensus on climate change. Contributors include Christopher Monckton and Fred Singer as guest authors.[7] In November 2009, the blog was one of the first websites to publish emails and documents from the Climatic Research Unit controversy, and a driving force behind its coverage.[7]

In the early months of 2010, it was reported the site might be "the most read climate blog in the world,"[8] and in 2013 Michael E. Mann referred to it as the leading climate change denial blog.[3]

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Watts_Up_With_That?
 
Mach said:
Business uses science for profit.
Government tries to use science for the betterment of the nation.

Big difference people.
Click to expand...

I'd be careful with the assumption that "Government tries to use science for the betterment of the nation". Not so sure that this applies 100% of the time.
Wouldn't you rather go back and eliminate the invention of the atomic bomb if you could?
Wouldn't you rather go back and eliminate chemical WMDs if you could?
Wouldn't you rather go back and eliminate biological WMDs if you could?

I think I would, if I could, yet each of these developments came from government labs with government funding at the command of government.
 

Agreed, and hence a very skeptical view on the actions insisted on by some on AGW. Cui Bono?
 

For how long do these renewable energy jobs last? Until the government life support is withdrawn? We've seen this in a number of Obama's Dept. Energy 'investments' only to see them go belly up after a few years with the company leadership, being owed a political favor, walking off with millions from the taxpayer.

While true, technological breakthrough are government funding, but that's the difference here. With all those over breakthroughs, the government didn't try to distort the market to make them profitable. Private business saw an opportunity, did the additional R&D and development to result in a salable product or service from which they believed they could make some money. In renewables the government life support is to make these technologies viable in the market in the short term, which end up failing in the longer term. I'd rather these renewables be profitable all in their own right. Then they'd be a lasting change.
 

Not really, considering that if the US government had not come up with those technologies, other governments would. And it would not be good for the US. Can you imagine if, during the Manhattan project, we had Tea Partiers who had cut "big government spending" on this, and allowed the Nazis, or later, the Soviets, to come up with the technology first?

And of course, now, Nuclear Power is a big source of electrical power in the US- a huge source of employment and economic output.
 
Last edited:

I am not sure why you think renewable energy is different than all those other technologies in terms of becoming eventually self-sustaining.

Take, for example, the province of Navarre. Navarre is a region in Spain which has been a pioneer in investing heavily in renewable energy since the early 1990s, currently obtaining 65% of its energy from renewable sources including 993 megawatts (MW) of wind and almost 100 MW of solar photovoltaic power.

The Regional Minister of Innovation, Enterprise and Employment for the Government of Navarre, José María Roig Aldasoro, recently said:

"In Navarre, the development of renewable energies, and above all wind energy, has created wealth, employment and technological development, and I can assert that this can be achieved in any other region or country.

Our region’s GDP is among the three highest in Spain, participation by the industrial sector is 12 points higher than the entire country’s, and for many years Navarre has had unemployment rates inferior to Spain’s. Before the beginning of the current world crisis our region enjoyed full employment. Now, after the strong economic and employment crisis that affects Spain in particular, Navarre maintains itself as the Spanish region with the least unemployment."

Aldasoro went on to note that in 1994, when the first wind farm was erected in Navarre, unemployment in the region was at 12.8%. As more and more renewable energy was installed and worker training centers were opened, the unemployment rate consistently dropped, reaching a level of under 5% in 2007.

So I have a tough time explaining this deep suspicion with which renewable energy technology is viewed by many in the US, other than that those who hold such positions are a victim of big oil propaganda and fear mongering.
 

Sounds like a solution looking for a problem
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Menu
Log in
Register
Cookies are required to use this site. You must accept them to continue using the site. Learn more…