A New-fangled Xtian Urban Legend?

[Grandpa Harley]

Carl Sagan said very much the same thing in 'Broca's Brain'

[HadouKen24]

I mean, how many topics would you have to glaze over in your mind to actually try to study science without disproving your religion? How many facts would you have to ignore?

 

Sorry? Having studied both the philosophy of science and the philosophy of religion, I don't really see how one would disprove the other. They come from completely different paradigms. To judge religion on scientific terms, or to judge science on religious terms, is to make an egregious error in judgment--for the most part. It's clearly easy to disprove the rants of fundamentalist creationists, but not more reasonable religionists, such as Buddhists and the more rational within Christianity.

[R. S. Martin]

Wikipedia is an excellent source, and I use it frequently. However, in accordance with the general practice of local school systems and universities, I do not accept it as a source for a research paper.

 

I'm not sure if I have ever tried using wikipedia for research papers. The profs are always saying not to get stuff off the internet and I hear so much online chatter about the unreliability of wikipedia. However, I cannot find the errors that are professedly there.

 

I do understand why it cannot be used as a reliable source for research papers. It's written for the lay-person and not for a specialized audience. In other words, it informs but does not analyze indepth as research papers are supposed to. That is how I wrote my article on fundamentalism for Iron Chariots' version of wiki.

 

I assumed an audience who just wants a general overview of the term. However, I set it up so the serious researcher can find the way to more indepth literature. For example, I linked to websites that explained concepts such as biblical criticism and Enlightenment, and listed a few key books written by scholars. These books and websites lead to others. This allows the general lay person to skim over those topics, but makes it possible for the serious student to do further research.

 

Since I used wikipedia as my model, I assume that is how most of its articles are written.

 

I do find it ironic that the fundies have to make up their own version on the conservative side because it is not religious enough; and that atheists (Iron Chariots) also need a separate version because wikipedia is too religious. My grandfather used to take care of the church where I grew up. He explained how he knows that he has set the temperature right. When one lady takes off her sweater and another lady puts on a sweater, he knows he has it just about right. Likewise, I am thinking if the conservatives find wikipedia too unreligious and Iron Chariots finds it too religious, it must be fairly well-balanced where religious bias is concerned.

 

For what it's worth for your parents, Marty, some time ago I did look up the author of a certain wikipedia article and it turned out to be an evangelical or fundamentalist. However, if your parents are the kind of Chrisians who do not accept Christians of a different bent from themselves (and I don't know if they are), this might not convince them.