I am here to testify that many devout Christians think secularism, government neutrality regarding religious matters so far as it is practicable, is a very good thing. It's more common among religious minorities in the USA, who are in a position to see that they would be on the short end of the stick of government partiality towards religion; but I've met many Christians in RL who support separation of state and religion. They've been liberal Catholics and mainstream Protestants; and I've not seen any Christian proponents of church/state separation online; but maybe that's because I hang out on an atheist forum.

(November 13, 2020 at 9:11 am)The Grand Nudger Wrote: He wants to separate the state from something he sees as an existential threat to his religion.

If I viewed it as an existential threat to my religion I would have chosen a different occupation.

There are downsides as well as upsides to government entanglement in science. For any generalization that you are likely to draw, it will be met with a host of exceptions. So it really needs to be determined on a case by case basis, and as Nudger reminds us, government is essentially a reflection of the will of the people. Where that will is corrupt, government influence on science will be corrupt. It's not clear however, whether science operating on its own independent of government is or is likely to be any less corrupt. Again, it has to be taken on a case by case basis. There are horror stories of government supported science, but there are also horror stories of science funded by the private sector as well, though the two may differ in character. I could do without the Tuskegee study, but I can also do without sky-high insulin prices and drug makers leaving the vaccine market due to its lack of profitability.

(November 13, 2020 at 12:01 pm)Mister Agenda Wrote: I am here to testify that many devout Christians think secularism, government neutrality regarding religious matters so far as it is practicable, is a very good thing. It's more common among religious minorities in the USA, who are in a position to see that they would be on the short end of the stick of government partiality towards religion; but I've met many Christians in RL who support separation of state and religion. They've been liberal Catholics and mainstream Protestants; and I've not seen any Christian proponents of church/state separation online; but maybe that's because I hang out on an atheist forum.

Right; given that my denomination believes Saturday is the Sabbath instead of Sunday, my church has fought many legal battles over religious freedom in favor of separation of Church and State. I'm not a historian, but the concept of separation appears to be religious, born out of the Protestant Reformation and many persecutions. Whenever Church and State have married, the religious have paid for it.

There's a culture of conscientious objectors within my church, so there's definitely a history of standing up to government:

“Genuine Christianity manifests itself in good citizenship and loyalty to civil government. The breaking out of war among men in no way alters the Christian’s supreme allegiance and responsibility to God or modifies their obligation to practice their beliefs and put God first. This partnership with God through Jesus Christ who came into this world not to destroy men’s lives but to save them causes Seventh-day Adventists to advocate a noncombatant position, following their divine Master in not taking human life, but rendering all possible service to save it” (SDA General Conference, 1954).

(November 13, 2020 at 6:44 am)Belacqua Wrote:

(November 13, 2020 at 1:18 am)John 6IX Breezy Wrote: The question: Should there be any separation between science and government (synonymous to church and state)? What should the relationship between science and government be? Are there any dangers in that relationship?

People on this forum think of science the same way that evangelicals think of God: when it does a good thing, it gets the credit, but when it does a bad thing, something else must be to blame.

In fact science is a loose set of practices, always enacted by fallible biased human beings. These days it is funded mostly by for-profit companies and the Pentagon. Scientists are very likely to discover the things that their funders want them to find. 

Putting our trust in some abstract noun called "science" is a faith-based abdication of responsibility. People in government should act with scientists as advisors, but make their decisions along ethical lines.

The difference is god is an excuse.  Gravity is not.

(November 13, 2020 at 6:44 am)Belacqua Wrote: People on this forum think of science the same way that evangelicals think of God: when it does a good thing, it gets the credit, but when it does a bad thing, something else must be to blame.

In fact science is a loose set of practices, always enacted by fallible biased human beings. These days it is funded mostly by for-profit companies and the Pentagon. Scientists are very likely to discover the things that their funders want them to find. 

Putting our trust in some abstract noun called "science" is a faith-based abdication of responsibility. People in government should act with scientists as advisors, but make their decisions along ethical lines.

Yes, a corporation or political group can buy some marginal scientist to give any sort of report they want.  Want to say that burning oil helps the environment?  Someone will do that.  Want someone to say that there is no evidence that smoking causes cancer?  You can buy a person for that as well.

But they won't actually be doing science, and their career will last only as long as their funding.  Science is a global endeavor.  Theories and reputations rise or fall on their own merits.  Bad science gets fixed or at least ignored.  Most scientists don't skew their results for political aims, despite what the right-wing would have you believe.

Policies should always have a scientific basis and religion nothing of value in policymaking and should be totally excluded from it. Any abuses of science are not founded in science because science is only a method.

---

Quote:People on this forum think of science the same way that evangelicals think of God:

So mind reading and strawmen now. Usually, you only resort to one.

Quote: when it does a good thing, it gets the credit, but when it does a bad thing, something else must be to blame.

Yup because abuses of science are apart from science 

Quote:In fact science is a loose set of practices, always enacted by fallible biased human beings.

Science is a well-defined set of practices that are humanity's best method of understanding the world and has been it's amost productive endeavor.

Quote: These days it is funded mostly by for-profit companies and the Pentagon.

The United States isn't the only nation that does science 

Quote: Scientists are very likely to discover the things that their funders want them to find. 

And conspiracy theories 

Quote:Putting our trust in some abstract noun called "science" is a faith-based abdication of responsibility.

Nope

Quote: People in government should act with scientists as advisors, but make their decisions along ethical lines.

Ethical lines are informed by science ethics do not exist in a fact-free vacuum

The State will create the vaccines that Science developed. This isn't two separate planets we're living on.

Oh, another one of those "You think x, therefore it's y" bullshit from Bel. Good fun times to be had, all 'round.

(November 13, 2020 at 6:44 am)Belacqua Wrote:

(November 13, 2020 at 1:18 am)John 6IX Breezy Wrote: The question: Should there be any separation between science and government (synonymous to church and state)? What should the relationship between science and government be? Are there any dangers in that relationship?

People on this forum think of science the same way that evangelicals think of God:

(bold mine)

Please tell us more what we think about science, and how you've reached that conclusion on what the fuck is going on in our own heads ...

(November 13, 2020 at 6:44 am)Belacqua Wrote: when it does a good thing, it gets the credit, but when it does a bad thing, something else must be to blame.

Tangentially, I'm sympathetic with OLB, when people use that old canard about the dangers of guns, while simultaneously excluding the guys and gals using the fucking armory. You're such a piece of shit, Bel, and the most pathetic thing is, you actually think you're doing god's work or some shit spreading your bullshit here. Fuck you.

Science is a tool for understanding Nature. And a bunch of dipshit dictators use that tool, e.g. like a fucking jackhammer penetrating skulls, has absofuckinglutely nothing to do with the research behind science, ya piece of catshit.

(November 13, 2020 at 6:44 am)Belacqua Wrote: In fact science is a loose set of practices, always enacted by fallible biased human beings. These days it is funded mostly by for-profit companies and the Pentagon. Scientists are very likely to discover the things that their funders want them to find. 

You hear that folks? The Universe's smallest violin playing for mister catshit here, because he doesn't like how all these "fallible biased human beings" have e.g. put men on the motherfucking Moon, all thanks to the tireless work of ... you guessed it, NASA. That organization with all those "fallible biased human beings" just doing random shit, who would've thunk it?

(November 13, 2020 at 6:44 am)Belacqua Wrote: Putting our trust in some abstract noun called "science" is a faith-based abdication of responsibility. People in government should act with scientists as advisors, but make their decisions along ethical lines.

Gee, think this thought, again, about all the research gone into that microwave you very probably own, when you might want to eat some pop tarts, ya gooddamn simpleton.

---

(November 13, 2020 at 12:16 pm)John 6IX Breezy Wrote:

(November 13, 2020 at 12:01 pm)Mister Agenda Wrote: I am here to testify that many devout Christians think secularism, government neutrality regarding religious matters so far as it is practicable, is a very good thing. It's more common among religious minorities in the USA, who are in a position to see that they would be on the short end of the stick of government partiality towards religion; but I've met many Christians in RL who support separation of state and religion. They've been liberal Catholics and mainstream Protestants; and I've not seen any Christian proponents of church/state separation online; but maybe that's because I hang out on an atheist forum.

Right; given that my denomination believes Saturday is the Sabbath instead of Sunday, my church has fought many legal battles over religious freedom in favor of separation of Church and State. I'm not a historian, but the concept of separation appears to be religious, born out of the Protestant Reformation and many persecutions. Whenever Church and State have married, the religious have paid for it.

There's a culture of conscientious objectors within my church, so there's definitely a history of standing up to government:

“Genuine Christianity manifests itself in good citizenship and loyalty to civil government. The breaking out of war among men in no way alters the Christian’s supreme allegiance and responsibility to God or modifies their obligation to practice their beliefs and put God first. This partnership with God through Jesus Christ who came into this world not to destroy men’s lives but to save them causes Seventh-day Adventists to advocate a noncombatant position, following their divine Master in not taking human life, but rendering all possible service to save it”  (SDA General Conference, 1954).

(bold mine)

Ask a historian what he thinks, rest is bullshit. Try again.

---

(November 13, 2020 at 11:30 am)Ranjr Wrote: Separation of reality and government was narrowly voted down.  Nevertheless, over 72 million voters are fine with government that ignores math, science, and reason because tax cuts fix everything.

I wouldn't trust those 72 million cultists to accurately tell me what the color of the sky is.

(November 13, 2020 at 3:24 pm)HappySkeptic Wrote: But they won't actually be doing science

Yes, thank you; that's what I said.

When "science" reaches bad conclusions, it's not the fault of science. It is the fault of something or someone else. Science itself remains innocent.

Quote:Bad science gets fixed or at least ignored.  

This is a faith-based statement.

In some cases bad science is fixed. In other cases it may remain. 

We know that the conclusions of science change. Whether this is because they move toward some greater truth, or whether they change to keep up with other biases or desired outcomes is an open question, which must be addressed case by case.