Davidf,

Hi. I think the problem is not reason (a tool), but intent.

A marketer with the intent of "selling product" might apply reason to the problem of selling more (might be a good product, might be dodgy). What intent inspired developing the particular means of the CIA, the soviets, the Nazis. Would they have used lesser means if that was all that was available?

In contrast, as many point out, reason has brought any number of benefits, let us say by intent.

Sadly (or maybe not) reason cannot coerce, merely advise. The advice is better with more facts. We choose projects based on both good and poor reason and good and poor information. And on what we want. And on what we want other people to do, maybe *all* other people....

I believe the question: "where shall we take reason?" is quite valid.

Fortunately, reason *can* be applied to determining what we might choose to do, remembering that our intent determines how we use our reason.

Hmmmm, How best shall we live? That could take a while...

Rusty

Rusty: “If science has established a good first-principle reason for action, or debunked a long-cherished myth, it is hardly the business of science to worry”, and "Hmmmm, How best shall we live? That could take a while...."

As C J Morgan points out above, I’ve conflated “reason” with “rationalism” a few times, though neither term really suits my purposes.
For me the most important question to reason about remains “how should we live”, reason being “interested” in it--implicated in its cogitations, as opposed to disinterested. Reason as pure method, objectifying phenomena, aiming not to “contaminate” its subject, is arguably both delusional and irresponsible. We credulously put so much faith in our reasoning these days--as though ceteris paribus was more than hypothetical--that we forget its “organic” provenance, with all the attendant limitations of perspective: physical, temporal, liminal, cultural, personal etc. Good scientists try to account for these factors (but arguably fail. As Richard Rorty says, “truth is created, not found”), but laypeople (and a lot of scientists) use reason as though it was a sonic screwdriver. If our reasoning was half as incisive as we “superciliously” take it to be, we’d all be in perfect agreement and know the mind of God (a useful trope).
And of course our physical “reality”, the tangible stuff we see and smell and touch, is nothing more than temporary form, composed of atoms and their component parts etc. None of which is to say that we shouldn’t reason, but we should direct it first at the only material reality we have and the problem of how we should live. Rather than reason for its own sake--which I’ve tried to show is non sequitur--or using reason irresponsibly to create technologies, with little consideration of their effects, we should reason an ethical foundation for life, upon which we might build sustainably.
Neither rationalism nor religion offers a viable alternative as neither has its feet on the ground

Graham thank-you for your assurance you do not condone extremists like Monckton, I appreciate your clarification. Given your stance on the climate debate, I believe I should be forgiven for thinking that you do not keep an open mind. In fact I wonder where you do your research into understanding the impact of a small percentage increase in CO2 on the equilibrium of our planet's atmosphere.

Again I would ask you to consider reliable sources such as at Nasa's website:

http://earthobservatory.nasa.gov/Newsroom/view.php?id=41637

<<< A team of scientists, led by the University of Bristol and including the U.S. Geological Survey, studied global temperatures 3.3 to 3 million years ago, finding that the averages were significantly higher than expected from the atmospheric carbon dioxide levels at the time.

These underestimates occurred because the long-term sensitivity of the Earth system was not accurately taken into account. In these earlier periods, Earth had more time to adjust to some of the slower impacts of climate change. For example, as the climate warms and ice sheets melt, Earth will absorb more sunlight and continue to warm in the future since less ice is present to reflect the sun...

...“Earth is a dynamic system and climate models need to incorporate its multiple feedbacks as well as changes on both fast and long timescales,” said Dr. Dan Lunt, who is with the University of Bristol and was the lead author of this article. “This comprehensive outlook allows us to see how sensitive the climate really is to atmospheric carbon dioxide, resulting in more accurate long-term projections.” >>>

That you use your religion for "guidance on ethics, morality and spirituality, but not science" is a claim made by many Christians such as the aforementioned Abbott, Fielding and Joyce, as well as G W Bush, Howard and our own current PM. None of whom demonstrate a good understanding of the impact of humans on our ecosystem, Earth, nor any indication of understanding even basic science.

By all means keep an open mind, but that includes research from bona-fide scientific organisations such as provided by many better informed than I.

There’s much confusion surrounding this discussion, and much misunderstanding about why this debate really exists.

Firstly, it has little to do with global warming (or Mary Mackillop).

Secondly, contrary to what Graham Young believes, the debate has little to do with ecclesiastical or Prime Ministerial pronouncements.

Graham, it is erroneous to say that evolution is a core belief of the Catholic Church or any other church. In the last few hundred years, no church that I know of, Catholic or Protestant, has made any significant pronouncements about evolution. At most, they’ve made some comments on the periphery, which have sometimes been taken up by the media in the whirlwind of the debate. And the views among members of Catholic, Anglican, Presbyterian, etc. churches worldwide, from the pew sitter up to scientists within the Vatican, vary widely within the gamut of views.

Lastly, this debate is not a battle between religion and science. This is perhaps the view of some, such as Dawkins. But that is largely a throwaway line, a sound bite, offered by people like Michael Zimmerman and others from his side of the debate to cloud the issue.

In reality, and in short, the debate concerns the true nature of the origins of life on this planet.

The most prominent views are these:

The Neo-Darwinian view, defined roughly as the common descent of all life on earth from a single ancestor via undirected mutation and natural selection.

Opposing views include: creationists, who argue that the data of science more accurately represents the depiction of an historical record laid out in the book of Genesis.

And more recently, intelligent design proponents, who also argue that the Darwinian view is inadequate and has failed, and postulate a designer according to various lines of argument within design theory.

No doubt other positions are available but, in my opinion, they appear as watered down, mix-and-matches of the three above.

Whether by history or necessity, these approaches to life’s origins align with views of religion or atheism, and therefore none can claim impunity from religious implications.

Davidf,
I asked you this question on the other thread discussing creation and you’ve responded on this one. The error is understandable, as creation/evolution has been a well trodden road on a few threads lately.

You claimed that we have to accept evolutionary theory or dispense with ‘most of modern life science’. I asked could you give one example.

Yet all of the examples you’ve given above have little to do with ‘evolution’. That is, they do not concern the Neo-Darwinian process that moved the protozoa up the tree of life and changed it into a pine cone, pelican, or person. What we are left with is equivocation on the meaning of the word evolution.

Of these biological processes: descent with modification, bacterial resistance, selective breeding, or genetically modifying crops, while being useful or measureable in their own regard, they are useless in explaining how the bacteria became the bank manager.

We do not have to accept neo-Darwinism or otherwise dispense with these biological processes. By contrast, much in modern biology was and is being discovered and applied by creationists.

I have been discussing Creationism on another forum with six day fundamentalist Creationists and find their ideas have little credibility when it comes to Biblical truths. They have the idea organic death did not happen prior to Adam, and falsely charge him with bringing organic death to the Planet.

However I could say much on this subject but here is one post.
It is not natural organic death that separates us from God, it is a willful act of sin that puts death to the spirit, by violation of the image of God in us; this death is immediately and our spirit is removed from the presence of God, Genesis 2: 16 – 17. David identifies this in Psalm 51: 10 – 12, “Do not cast me from your presence or take your Holy Spirit from me”. Colossians 2: 13 – 14 and Romans 6: 23 identify us as already dead in sins even though organically alive in the body. The life we receive from Christ is not natural organic but the rebirth of our spirit toward God John 1: 12 13; 3: 6 - 7. The death of our spirit we inherited from Adam is a result of sin, and the life we receive from Christ is a quickening of our spirit toward God, and a life reckoned pure in Christ. Jesus gives us the warning that we are not to fear him that merely destroys the body, but the one who may cast the soul into hell.