Science and Religion
C. Cagle
Right now, there are quite strong opinions on this subject which serve
only as tender for quite inflammatory remarks between scientists and
those who might be said to be representing religion. Since the history
of science is replete with examples of quite famous men who were very
religious (such as Isaac Newton, or Blaise Pascal) who have contributed
much to our understanding of the universe it is hardly a valid or logic
argument to suggest that religious men can not make significant
contributions to the progress of science.
Definition of Science
What is science anyway but the processes which men use to obtain a
richer understanding or more thorough knowledge of the universe? The
word 'Science' comes from the Latin 'scientia' {to know} and is taken
generally to mean the systematized knowledge of nature and the physical
world which is ostensibly derived from the observation, study, and
experimentation carried on in order to determine the nature or
principles of what is being studied.
How Much of Modern Science is Really Faith?
Frequently, the argument arises that religion is concerned with matters
of faith while science is only concerned with matters of fact. However,
since such a great amount of modern science is based upon opinion and
faith in the interpretation of data within a particular context or with
respect to a particular paradigm or model it is often difficult and
frequently impossible to differentiate so called scientific theory from
things normally thought to be matters of religious belief. Thus, we see
that sometimes those who would present the image of themselves to be
strictly men of reason are often found espousing 'theories' which they
promote as being 'scientific' when, in fact, there is nothing
substantial behind the what they believe in but an unfounded faith in a
popular theory that itself may be beyond any means to confirm either by
experiment or observation.
Who is a Scientist and Who Isn't?
It is often tossed out that Creation Scientists (as if all scientists
who believe in a Creator God could be lumped together) are not real
scientists because they operate from faith rather than 'scientifically'
using data, accepted models, logic and reason. But a trained
professional who follows the scientific method in his or her scientific
work but who also just happens to believe in nonsensical illogical
concepts and attempts to comprehend data (which might actually be
gathered in a reputable repeatable fashion) in the context of an
illogical concept deviates from reasonable standards of scientific
integrity and behavior. Is that person still a scientist? By what or by
whose standards? Academic institutions do not rescind the doctoral or
masters or baccalaureate degrees which they issue simply because a
person that was trained at their school at some point fails to adhere
to reasonable standards of behavior, belief or the reasonable
application of logic in the pursuit of their careers or research goals.
The problem is that there is no reasonable standard that is regularly
used to differentiate between professionals who don't interpret their
data sensibly and those who do. The line is not drawn to be a simple
one where people who believe in a Creator God who founded the heavens
and the Earth are on one side (as pseudo scientists) while those who
rebel at such things as superstitious and illogical are on the other
(as true scientists). By that standard then Blaise Pascal, Isaac
Newton, Leibniz, Coulomb, Faraday, Kepler, Copernicus, Galileo, along
with a host of other notables would be demoted from the ranks of 'true
scientists' perhaps to be replaced by men who claimed atheism as their
religion and reason and logic as their only tools (as if the scientists
of old who believed in God were not men of reason or logic or suffered
from a lack of real concern for the truth). I believe that the facts
are that a large number of modern mainstream scientists are really
pseudo scientists because they eschew the application of reasonably
applied epistemological standards with regard to indexing the knowledge
gained by so-called scientific activities. Whether a researcher
believes in God or not does not define him as being unscientific or
scientific. What defines a person as a scientist is whether or not
they endorse and consistently use reasonable epistemological tests to
qualify the knowledge that they generate in the conduct of their
so-called scientific activities. The scientific method besides being
related to the performance of repeatable experiments also includes the
generation of models or theories as frameworks to evaluate the data
gained by experimentation or other data collection. These models and
theories, as generated knowledge, are the primary product or output of
scientific endeavors. Such knowledge must have a quality index which
is based not merely upon explanatory power (because otherwise one would
not be able to differentiate it from the stock in trade of pathological
liars) but rather upon its ability to predict previously unseen
phenomenon or behavior. When knowledge is of a high quality (based
upon such an ability) then it allows us to create new technology which
could not even be dreamed of by other methods. Unfortunately,
generating knowledge that is never required to be subjected to such a
quality index is a common everyday practice and the weakest link of
modern science. It is also why a great number of intellectually
dishonest people are drawn to science. They think it a place where they
can be free to manufacture intellectual constructs and models which
have components that cannot be made subject to rational inquiry nor
direct and certain scrutiny. And, of course, they are right. Public
opinion and peer opinion (professional consensus) with regard to
'generated knowledge' are the only required standards in this day and
age of rampant pseudo science.
Technology is produced by Tweak and Fiddle
Most new technology is produced by the good old fashion tweak and
fiddle method. The tweak and fiddle method is the experimental
method. Engineers and or scientists (as engineers) experiment and
fabricate and test again and again and again until they can herd
electrons through precise arrays of components and get precisely the
desired functional responses which comprise the operational
characteristics of the technology that they are endeavoring to create,
enhance or otherwise improve. This is the brute force method of
technology generation and such methods have been used for thousands of
years. Is it scientific? Yes, it is scientific inasmuch as
experiments are conducted, hypothesis are generated and tested.
However, even though scientists and engineers have presented us with
all of this wonderful technology it is important that we recognize that
technology may work just fine even if the theory or model which
outlines the details of its operation may be completely wrong. The
Chinese invented gunpowder and had it for a thousand years and brought
its use to a high art in warfare and fireworks. Yet the technical
details of the physics and chemistry behind it all were not known to
the ancient Chinese artisans who compounded their various formulae and
used it in their various technological applications.
Science vs. 'Science'
It is important to differentiate the scientific tweak and fiddle
production of technology from the 'science' which may use technology
but doesn't produce technologically applicable knowledge. In other
words so-called 'science' which purports to authoritatively inform the
population about the origins of the universe is not the same sort of
science which may produce a cellular phone. Things become mixed up
here quite often in the minds of both scientists and the lay public.
Cosmologists, astronomers, astrophysicists, and geologists, for
example, may create and use technological tools to gather and analyze
data and in those functions of technology generation they follow the
tweak and fiddle method but in the intellectual generation of a model
of the origins of the universe they do not. Men are interested in the
stars and planets and galaxies which surround them and in their origins
and are willing to pay good money to people who can properly inform
them. The problem here is that scientists are in the dark about the
fundamental properties, characteristics, and nature of matter itself.
Sure, they have learned to herd the electrons around in precise ways
through various materials so that our world is furnished with airplanes
and cellular phones and televisions and automobiles and computers and
the list goes on and on but they do not really know what an electron
is. They often know how to manipulate electrons and because of that
knowledge which is codified in formulae it is also assumed that they
understand the fundamental features of matter. This assumption could
not be further from the truth. The interactive behavior of charged
particles is thought to be well known by most people but when we get
down to cases we see that top scientists are forced to admit
otherwise. Tim Folger in an article titled 'Call Them Irresistible' in
the September 1995 issue of Discover magazine quotes Robert Dynes who
is an experimentalist at the University of California at San Diego:
"We don't know what's causing superconductivity. At least I don't.
Some of these people think they do. No theory has comfortably described
all these experiments. I'll probably offend a lot of my friends with
that statement. But all the cards haven't fallen into place." Dynes
indicated that more is at stake here than figuring out how
superconductors work. "The thing that theorists like Phil (Anderson)
and David Pines and--the list just goes on as long as your arm--the
thing that's got them excited, and that causes all the strife, is the
underlying belief that we're entering a new era in our understanding of
electrons. It's a much, much broader problem. I think people really
smell a new era. The confusion over superconductivity, betrays a
serious gap in physicists' understanding of the most basic properties
of matter."
A Secret Agenda and unscientific 'science'.
If the most basic properties of matter are not understood by those
who are considered the top researchers in the world then it is more
than just a little presumptuousness to extrapolate from a position of
such ignorance the origins and nature of matter and the universe
itself. Sir John Maddox, former editor of Nature, who was knighted
for his contributions to science remarked in the latest issue of
Scientific American that the two theories which dominate modern
science, General Relativity and Quantum Mechanics are incompatible with
each other. What can this mean but that either one or both of them
are wrong in their fundamental assumptions and conclusions. Yet these
two paradigms of thought dominate modern academia and serve as the
fountain of ideas for those who would use them to impose their beliefs
which have tremendous sociological impact for the lives of billions of
people. These people wish to have nothing to do with God but instead
desire nothing better than to convince the whole world that there is no
God and that man is the measure of all things, including truth. Such
people have supposed that the high ground is theirs for they lay claim
to it by associating all things which are referred to as 'science' with
the technology of our modern world and by the continual attempt to
delegitimize belief and reliance upon a Creator God. They would
suggest that science is the true savior of mankind and that scientists
ought to be the rightful rulers of society. The problem is that their
case is offered not in a court of reason but rather in a court of
ignorance for the public is generally utterly ignorant of what it is
that scientists do not know and thus cannot challenge their self
appointed authority. Give a man a satellite dish and a PBS station to
pump his mind full of unsubstantiable ideas concerning the origins of
the universe in order to wean him from obedience to his Creator. Then
fill his stomach with hybrid wheat and warm him with electricity
generated by solar or nuclear power and transplant into him a dead
man's heart when his own fails. Then claim that all of his comforts
were brought to him by science and tightly associate that 'science'
with the 'science' (which is pseudo science) that says that there is no
Creator and teach him that all of his woes are due to his archaic and
irrational belief in God. Most people won't recognize that the
'science' which brought them their technology is not the same as the
'pseudo science' which seeks to make them bereft of their God. And
the fact is that those who think it their duty and right to replace God
don't want them to know the difference.
Uncle Al
"C. Cagle" wrote:
>
> Are Science and Religion Compatible Concepts?
[snip]
Canada is obsessed with the US, 95% of its population living within
100 miles of the US border. Most US citizens, including Washington,
couldn't find Canada on a map. So it is with Religion and Science.
Science will drive a wooden stake through Religion's heart and not
even notice the blip. There is only one true church, and it isn't the
One True Chruch (pick One, any one).
--
Uncle Al
http://www.mazepath.com/uncleal/
http://www.ultra.net.au/~wisby/uncleal/
http://www.guyy.demon.co.uk/uncleal/
(Toxic URLs! Unsafe for children and most mammals)
"Quis custodiet ipsos custodes?" The Net!
C. Cagle
<Uncl...@hate.spam.net> wrote:
> "C. Cagle" wrote:
> >
> > Are Science and Religion Compatible Concepts?
>
> [snip]
>
> Canada is obsessed with the US, 95% of its population living within
> 100 miles of the US border. Most US citizens, including Washington,
> couldn't find Canada on a map. So it is with Religion and Science.
>
> Science will drive a wooden stake through Religion's heart and not
> even notice the blip. There is only one true church, and it isn't the
> One True Chruch (pick One, any one).
What a dreamer you are. Science can't find its own ass let alone a
wooden stake. And if it did manage to find a stake and sharpen it
without cutting itself and then begin to drive it into the heart of
religion - at the last stroke science would be stone cold dead because
the heart of modern science *is* religion and *religious belief* in
things which are not at all substantiable via experiment.
Benjamin P. Carter
>the heart of modern science *is* religion and *religious belief* in
>things which are not at all substantiable via experiment.
The SSC was to be the greatest cathedral of all. The congregation of
high-energy physicists believe that the construction of these cathedrals
will bring them closer to the God-like final theory. No expense should
have been spared in this holy quest. Alas, the crass politicians and
other worshippers of Mammon pulled the plug on ... oops, I'm mixing my
metaphors again. May the Great Quark and all the little Leptons and their
associated neutrinos forgive me. Amen.
--
Ben Carter
Steven B. Harris
Carter) writes: May the Great Quark and all the little Leptons and
their
>associated neutrinos forgive me. Amen.
>
>--
> Ben Carter
>
The Great Quark is actually a trinity in ordinary everyday matter.
It's three in essence but one in observation. A Mystery.
Steven B. Harris
<sing...@telestream.com> writes:
>
>In article <3870DA84...@hate.spam.net>, Uncle Al
><Uncl...@hate.spam.net> wrote:
>
>> "C. Cagle" wrote:
>> >
>>
>>
>> Canada is obsessed with the US, 95% of its population living within
>> 100 miles of the US border. Most US citizens, including Washington,
>> couldn't find Canada on a map. So it is with Religion and Science.
>>
>> Science will drive a wooden stake through Religion's heart and not
>> even notice the blip. There is only one true church, and it isn't
the
>> One True Chruch (pick One, any one).
>
>What a dreamer you are. Science can't find its own ass let alone a
>wooden stake. And if it did manage to find a stake and sharpen it
>without cutting itself and then begin to drive it into the heart of
>religion - at the last stroke science would be stone cold dead because
>things which are not at all substantiable via experiment.
Any of which will be abandoned post haste, when new experimental
results come it. BY contrast, religious disputes only lead to new
religions.
The core of religion is belief in a personal God(s) who is
omnicient, omnipotent, knows what you personally are up to, and gives a
damn. This kind of things seems apriori unlikely to me. For one
thing, it does not accord with my life experience. I've seen too many
horrible things, and I'm not even a 70 year old Polish Jew.
Second, it's a big universe. If there's a god out there who has an
eternal hell of boiling water prepared for the squids on Aldeberon IV
if they put tenticle X in hole Y instead of Z, or else mate out of
season, or else fail to show the proper chromatophores of respect to
the preistly class before making Crab Louey, well then I'd be amused
and sorry for the poor beasts. But that's what kind of God a lot of
religious people thing we have. A gaseous vertibrate with a long white
beard, human male genetalia, and no navel. Please.
C. Cagle
<sbha...@ix.netcom.com> wrote:
> In <050120002138089614%sing...@telestream.com> "C. Cagle"
> <sing...@telestream.com> writes:
> >
> >In article <3870DA84...@hate.spam.net>, Uncle Al
> ><Uncl...@hate.spam.net> wrote:
> >
> >> "C. Cagle" wrote:
> >> >
> >> > Are Science and Religion Compatible Concepts?
> >>
> >> [snip]
> >>
> >> Canada is obsessed with the US, 95% of its population living within
> >> 100 miles of the US border. Most US citizens, including Washington,
> >> couldn't find Canada on a map. So it is with Religion and Science.
> >>
> >> Science will drive a wooden stake through Religion's heart and not
> >> even notice the blip. There is only one true church, and it isn't
> the
> >> One True Chruch (pick One, any one).
> >
> >What a dreamer you are. Science can't find its own ass let alone a
> >wooden stake. And if it did manage to find a stake and sharpen it
> >without cutting itself and then begin to drive it into the heart of
> >religion - at the last stroke science would be stone cold dead because
> >the heart of modern science *is* religion and *religious belief* in
> >things which are not at all substantiable via experiment.
>
>
> Any of which will be abandoned post haste, when new experimental
> results come it. BY contrast, religious disputes only lead to new
> religions.
Now that is a religious statement of extreme faith that is seldom
backed by the facts. Even in the face of data which says that a
paradigm is wrong the paradigm is not dropped. The perfect case in
point is the BCS theory in superconduction. It is like the Energizer
Bunny which keeps going and going and going. It has been shot dead
between the eyes by the facts but still doesn't fall over. And the
reason? Crowds of sycophants bear the body around in an upright
posture and won't let it fall down to the ground and die a proper
death.
> The core of religion is belief in a personal God(s) who is
> omnicient, omnipotent, knows what you personally are up to, and gives a
> damn. This kind of things seems apriori unlikely to me. For one
> thing, it does not accord with my life experience. I've seen too many
> horrible things, and I'm not even a 70 year old Polish Jew.
How scientific of you. Absence of evidence is equal to evidence of
absence to you.
> Second, it's a big universe. If there's a god out there who has an
> eternal hell of boiling water prepared for the squids on Aldeberon IV
> if they put tenticle X in hole Y instead of Z, or else mate out of
> season, or else fail to show the proper chromatophores of respect to
> the preistly class before making Crab Louey, well then I'd be amused
> and sorry for the poor beasts. But that's what kind of God a lot of
> religious people thing we have. A gaseous vertibrate with a long white
> beard, human male genetalia, and no navel. Please.
You are a class act. You probably believe there are beasties out there
in the cosmos which might approximate the machinations of that which
your fertile imagination has conjured up. It is evident that you are
so much more in love with fantasy than you are with reality that it is
no wonder that you reject God and embrace instead, to be held in thrall
by, the product of your own ego.
Amw
"C. Cagle" wrote:
> What a dreamer you are. Science can't find its own ass let alone a
> wooden stake. And if it did manage to find a stake and sharpen it
> without cutting itself and then begin to drive it into the heart of
> religion - at the last stroke science would be stone cold dead because
> the heart of modern science *is* religion and *religious belief* in
> things which are not at all substantiable via experiment.
This is false. The epistemology of science and religion are as different as
one can possibly imagine. It is based on observation and logic, rather than
divine relavation to a chosen speaker(s). Theories that do not conform to
observation are discarded rather ruthlessly. And one of the quickest ways to
make a "name" for your self in science is to come up with a better theory
that more accurately explains/predicts observations than what is available
at the time. Science is a rough and tumble world, in which new theories are
required to prove themselves before acceptance.
As you are posting this on a computer network, which itself is a product of
science (as is all technology) I find the comment rather odd. It is not a
"belief": in the theories of Maxwell et.al. that made the computer possible.
It is the fact that such theories work, that they agreed with observation,
that made it possible.
Ben
Bruce Bathurst
I wasn't aware there were 'strong opinions' on whether science & religion
are compatible. Science & religion exist, so neither of you need worry. What
I see are possibly strong opinions among two people about what science &
religion are. These questions have no answers. Any disquiet felt in being
able to define these in some unique way may be a consequence of one's
refusal to admit ignorance as fundamental to the mind or accept mystery as
satisfactory to the mind.
One small point I might proffer is that your language differs (although in
some respects it is similar). Though I'm not a scientist, I work regularly
in my spare time on scientific problems. I suspect you may be confused about
the words 'truth'.
Truth in religion is sought differently by individuals, but religion is true
when the individual is comfortable with his or her faith, or is comfortable
with being uncomfortable. The key here is that 'faith' is undefined. It
should
not be used as a synonymn for ignorance, as done in the original
posting. The faith I know is a transcendental concept, unreasonable and
irrational, such as the will to live. It is likely associated with the
deeper
levels of the brain. The wise nurture it, for a strong irrationality is
beneficial or perhaps necessary for good mental health. In the fortunate,
it is experienced.
Truth in science is sought similarly by individuals. It is a social concept,
a goal. Some imagine scientific truth is sought using logic, but it is
usually sought using illogical techniques, such as an appreciation of
beauty. The science I know can be described with language, is reasonable &
rational. It is likely associated with the higher functions of the brain.
Intellectuals nurture it, for a strong rationality is beneficial or perhaps
necessary for good mental health. Truth in science is a social experience.
Science is characterized by what is studied, and how conclusions are
communicated. Conclusions are drawn from a common logic, applied to
objective observations of relations among objects defined operationally.
Individuals may differ on how these should be defined, but scientists as a
group generally agree. (A common misconception, I suspect, is that what is
observed objectively is somehow better or more accurate than what is
observed subjectively. An objective observation is one we can all
experience.)
Any questions about reality that do not fit the above criteria and
cannot be resolved in the the above fashion are not within the domain
of science: they are not scientific questions. Responses to such
questions that wave the banner of science are inappropriate.
Respectfully,
Bruce Bathurst
C. Cagle wrote:
> In article <3870DA84...@hate.spam.net>, Uncle Al
> <Uncl...@hate.spam.net> wrote:
>
> > "C. Cagle" wrote:
> > >
> > > Are Science and Religion Compatible Concepts?
> >
> > [snip]
> >
> > Canada is obsessed with the US, 95% of its population living within
> > 100 miles of the US border. Most US citizens, including Washington,
> > couldn't find Canada on a map. So it is with Religion and Science.
> >
> > Science will drive a wooden stake through Religion's heart and not
> > even notice the blip. There is only one true church, and it isn't the
> > One True Chruch (pick One, any one).
>
Louann Miller
wrote:
>What a dreamer you are. Science can't find its own ass let alone a
>wooden stake. And if it did manage to find a stake and sharpen it
>without cutting itself and then begin to drive it into the heart of
>religion - at the last stroke science would be stone cold dead because
>the heart of modern science *is* religion and *religious belief* in
>things which are not at all substantiable via experiment.
If you say it loudly enough, maybe it will become true. Try more caps
and exclamation points. If you switch to HTML format, then bolding and
italics will also be available.
Fred McGalliard
"C. Cagle" wrote:
...
> What a dreamer you are. Science can't find its own ass let alone a
> wooden stake. And if it did manage to find a stake and sharpen it
> without cutting itself and then begin to drive it into the heart of
> religion - at the last stroke science would be stone cold dead because
> the heart of modern science *is* religion and *religious belief* in
> things which are not at all substantiable via experiment.
I NEVER agree with Cagle, but this is just too good. Just this once,
"Right On" Mr. Cagle!
Fred McGalliard
not prove Cagle's assumption. Making a claim that science (as embodied
in our all too real scientists) lives up to it's touted position of
being able to accept it's own errors and make corrections, somehow more
so than religion, is strongly countervened by a large number of
revolutionary changes in our thinking. Each one has been strongly
resisted by just those who should most strongly embraced the new
theories. The drama of the reformation of the Catholic church is
certainly well modeled by the great battle of relativity, even though
one is religious and the other "only" involves our understanding of all
that is around us, the nature of time and space, and just incidentally
flies in the face of common sense.
If you are interested, I could explain to you separately just why it
seems so unlikely to me that the universe could exist without the God of
the Jew and Christian, but at least one informed scientist finds
contrary to your conclusion, for whatever that is worth.
Lastly, Hell is just what you get when you are allowed to have
everything just the way you think you want it, and God keeps his sticky
hands off. If you think you can do better just look around you. Ordinary
unopposed human nature has lead Africa, half of Europe, Asia, Oceania,
South America, and about half the USA, into a pretty good simulation of
Hell, right here on earth. Good argument for birth control actually.
"Steven B. Harris" wrote:
...
> Any of which will be abandoned post haste, when new experimental
> results come it. BY contrast, religious disputes only lead to new
> religions.
>
> The core of religion is belief in a personal God(s) who is
> omnicient, omnipotent, knows what you personally are up to, and gives a
> damn. This kind of things seems apriori unlikely to me. For one
> thing, it does not accord with my life experience. I've seen too many
> horrible things, and I'm not even a 70 year old Polish Jew.
>
Thomas Clarke
> "C. Cagle" wrote:
> ...
> > the heart of modern science *is* religion and *religious belief* in
> > things which are not at all substantiable via experiment.
>
> I NEVER agree with Cagle, but this is just too good. Just this once,
> "Right On" Mr. Cagle!
Nah. The other Clarke got it right. The heart of modern science is
magic. Magic that works. Highly trained adepts writing arcane
symbols on blackboards then mixing potions and casting spells
using extract of rock and ray of sun.
Tom Clarke
Fred McGalliard
Amw wrote:
...
> This is false. The epistemology of science and religion are as different as
> one can possibly imagine.
It should be obvious that you are in error here. In case it is not, I
suggest a review of the history. Genetic research (much of it done by a
monk), much of the foundation of astronomy, physiology, much of the
foundations of chemistry, and the physics of the lever, wheel, and such,
are all from a period where religion and science were viewed as parts of
a single thread. Logic was not regarded as foreign to God, but was a way
for man to understand. The big sea change came when science reached a
point of being able to address the question of when THE GREAT FLOOD
occurred, and to describe with modest accuracy the changes in the life
on earth, and finally when it addresses the too vast span of time over
which the earth has existed. Other arguments have come up and evaporated
mostly because religion requires a very hard to master logic to
determine just what "facts" are consistent with the religious "truths"
that are accepted. (The Bishop (I think) who thought a woman should have
one more rib than a man (probably just a cute story) would fall into the
class of folk too stupid to claim religion as justification for their
silly beliefs.) So ultimately, you have to be careful to separate the
idea that science and religion do not have common roots, from the fact
that many will cling to one or the other and assume that they cannot
both be true. This is a fallacy that springs from observing that many
common interpretations of religious "facts" are simply wrong, and
science helps the faithful by questioning those errors, and the exactly
similar position for science. As an example consider the religious
position that Homo sapiens does not have a precursor, a religious
position used to question the position of Neanderthal. Regardless of the
other errors this may lead to, in this case their questioning the wisdom
of the scientist was exactly right. And finally, regardless of
epistemology, both science and religion seek truth, and even, finally as
an objective, ultimate truth.
...
> As you are posting this on a computer network, which itself is a product of
> science (as is all technology) I find the comment rather odd. It is not a
> "belief": in the theories of Maxwell et.al. that made the computer possible.
> It is the fact that such theories work, that they agreed with observation,
> that made it possible.
Good point. I agree that Truth is known by its results.
C. Alan Peyton, Jr.
I thought the trinity was onion, celery and green pepper, all chopped.
Fred McGalliard
Bruce Bathurst wrote:
...
> Truth in religion is sought differently by individuals, but religion is true
> when the individual is comfortable with his or her faith, or is comfortable
> with being uncomfortable. The key here is that 'faith' is undefined.
AAAAARRRRRRRRGGGGGG! NO NO NO NO.
Religion is true? Phooey! Religion is just religion. We are doing very
well if some of our religious positions are mostly true. If God is a God
of truth, then your comfort has nothing to do with it. Christ, our
quintessential image of a religious man, was not comfortable with his
faith, he was tortured to death for it. And faith is not undefined. It's
results are testable and observable. You are confusing the actions of
those who have no faith in God, but want to use Him as a lucky charm for
their lives. They claim a faith of suspended disbelief. And their faith
is worth just what they pay for it. NOTHING.
Louann Miller
wrote:
>
>I thought the trinity was onion, celery and green pepper, all chopped.
>
>>
>> The Great Quark is actually a trinity in ordinary everyday matter.
>> It's three in essence but one in observation. A Mystery.
What sage told you that?
Steven B. Harris
<sing...@telestream.com> writes:
>>
>> The core of religion is belief in a personal God(s) who is
>> omnicient, omnipotent, knows what you personally are up to, and
gives a
>> damn. This kind of things seems apriori unlikely to me. For one
>> thing, it does not accord with my life experience. I've seen too
many
>> horrible things, and I'm not even a 70 year old Polish Jew.
>
>absence to you.
There's nothing unscientific about refusing to believe in Santa
Claus, Fairies, or the Easter Bunny. Not to mention Bigfoot and Nessie
and little green space aliens who kidnap people in order to practice
colonoscopy. Do you believe in these things?
It's not going to do you much good to claim that absense of
evidence is not evidence of absense, and then say that science and
religion are the same thing. If you're religious, that leaves you with
a hell of a problem, unless you're B'hai. Do you believe in Moloch,
Baal, Kali? Zeus, Athena, Thor and Wotan? I suspect there are 1000
Gods YOU don't believe in, dispite having little to go on but absense
of evidence. The only difference is, I don't believe in 1001.
However, there's not a whole lot you can say about that without
shooting yourself in the foot. So have a care.
Steven B. Harris
Lies. It's bacon, lettice, and tomato, you heretic.
Josie Caat
Hand tossed, please :)
>I thought the trinity was onion, celery and green pepper, all chopped.
>
>>
Steven B. Harris
One minute the faith of us unbelievers is just as stong as any
religious types, in its own way. The next such faith is worth nothing.
Everybody has a faith of disbelief. Santa, etc. The thousand gods
of Sumeria, which you don't believe in. So be gentle about making fun
of it.
Bruce Bathurst
Church's definition of religious truth, and recognizing 'comfort' as a shared
sensation. Bathurst had meant to distinguish religious truth as it exists today as
a private truth (that of Jim Jones as well as that of the Dalai Lama), comfort in
religion as being a private comfort, not communicated best in speech or in
writing. If it were otherwise, the World might be at peace.
This contrasts sharply with the truth of the scientist, which is a very
impersonal, but very shared truth. Science is best communicated by means of the
written and the spoken word. Rinzai Zen is best communicated in other ways.
My apologies should he take offence, but I should like to analyze some of Mr
McGalliard's remarks, in order to clarify my language.
Fred McGalliard wrote:
> Bruce Bathurst wrote:
> ...
> > Truth in religion is sought differently by individuals, but religion is true
> > when the individual is comfortable with his or her faith,
Ask anyone comforable with his or her faith if their religion is true.
> or is comfortable
> > with being uncomfortable.
Ask any agnostic.
> The key here is that 'faith' is undefined.
>
> AAAAARRRRRRRRGGGGGG! NO NO NO NO.
>
> Religion is true? Phooey! Religion is just religion. We are doing very
> well if some of our religious positions are mostly true.
You're refering to an absolute truth, which religions assure us can be shared. At
the moment it is not shared. Religious truth is, in the World today, private &
personal. This is in contrast with scientific truth.
> If God is a God
> of truth, then your comfort has nothing to do with it.
See remark above.
> Christ, our
> quintessential image of a religious man, was not comfortable with his
> faith, he was tortured to death for it.
Did you think I was referring to physical comfort? He may have been in puzzlement
as well as agony when crucified, but if He ever questioned His faith, have we
evidence that He was uncomfortable in doing this?
> And faith is not undefined. It's
> results are testable and observable.
I'm not certain I understand, but let us recall the Book of Job. Or are you
writing with reference to your personal, religious truth?
> You are confusing the actions of
> those who have no faith in God, but want to use Him as a lucky charm for
> their lives.
I had hoped instead to describe the 'truth' of these people.
> They claim a faith of suspended disbelief. And their faith
> is worth just what they pay for it. NOTHING.
Thank you for contributing this example of private religious truth.
Respectfully,
Bruce Bathurst
Don Quixote
Josie Caat wrote in message
<20000106130350...@ng-fw1.aol.com>...
Tequila, fresh orange juice and ice?!?
DQ
Barbara Hughes
gave us all the tools necessary to work with on this planet/home and if
we don't use them to learn and grow that's our problem. I don't believe
in praying for repair of a torn ligamet or a sunny day for the church
picnic while people are starving and children, animals and the earth
itself is abused.
Barbara Hughes
Steven Harris writes: bacon, lettuce and tomato...
Josiecaat writes: mushrooms, green pepper and black olives, hand
tossed...
Don Quixote writes: Tequila, fresh orange juice and ice...
Children! Children! Children!
you're All right. Now, how about getting all of the above togetherand
having a PARTY?
barbara
Barbara Hughes
barbara
Gerard_Fryer
> Besides, originally the trinity was earth sea and sky, so there!
Hey, this is sci.geo.geology! The trinity is spilite, serpentine, and
chert (and if you don't understand, you just flunked intro geology).
Todd Bishop
Harris) wrote:
>In <pB3d4.164$7L.1...@tw11.nn.bcandid.com> "C. Alan Peyton, Jr."
><ca...@pdq.net> writes:
>>
>>
>>I thought the trinity was onion, celery and green pepper, all chopped.
>
>
>
> Lies. It's bacon, lettice, and tomato, you heretic.
>
No, you're all going to burn. The trinity is marinated beef, some
onion, cilantro, and a steamed corn tortilla. Topped with a green
tomatillo sauce. Some of you pedants may point out that the "trinity"
includes 4 items (5 including the sauce), but God can do whatever He
wants. THAT'S WHY HE'S GOD. I don't want to talk about it!
Todd Bishop
http://www.originarts.com (Flatland)
Don Quixote
Gerard_Fryer wrote in message
<1e3zjag.1yd...@prospero.soest.hawaii.edu>...
<Sigh> Ok...... copper, iron and zinc.
(But I still think tequila, orange juice and ice would do it for most field
geologists; although I'm sure we'll now hear chili, beer and popcorn)
DQ
C. Alan Peyton, Jr.
Garlic rules!
Alan
"Thomas Clarke" <tcl...@ist.ucf.edu> wrote in message
news:3874BE8D...@ist.ucf.edu...
bob ehrlich
pure and applied mathemeticians. In an openeing address he said
(approximately) that there should be no friction between practitioners
of pure and applied math because they have absolutely nothing in common.
so with science and religion
Jo Schaper
bbb...@webtv.net (Barbara Hughes) writes:
Why not? Why not get all the edge you can, even if it is only psychological?
Placebos are powerful things. Wishing won't make it so, but sometimes it only
takes
a little nudge in the right direction to get things moving your way.
Jo
btw, I thought Trinity was an atom bomb test. Or the capital of Trinidad.
Paul gate
Fred McGalliard wrote in message <3874C3BC...@boeing.com>...
>
>
>Amw wrote:
>...
>> This is false. The epistemology of science and religion are as different as
>> one can possibly imagine.
>
>It should be obvious that you are in error here. In case it is not, I
>suggest a review of the history. Genetic research (much of it done by a
>monk), much of the foundation of astronomy, physiology, much of the
>foundations of chemistry, and the physics of the lever, wheel, and such,
>are all from a period where religion and science were viewed as parts of
>a single thread.
So ?
Having some common roots does not make the epistemology of
science and religion similar
Matt Silberstein
<ca...@pdq.net>:
|
|I thought the trinity was onion, celery and green pepper, all chopped.
Butter not say things like that here. You'll fry. They'll gumbo'ver
your house, put their hands around your neck and 'okra.
(The last one is pretty bad, sorry.)
Matt Silberstein
----------------------------------------
You were under the impression
That when you were walking forward
You would end up further onward
But things ain't quite that simple
Pete Townshend - Quadrophenia
C. Cagle
Bruce Bathurst wrote:
> Gentlemen,
>
> I wasn't aware there were 'strong opinions' on whether science & religion
> are compatible.
Just goes to show you something about your state of ignorance.
> Science & religion exist, so neither of you need worry.
What, me worry?
> What
> I see are possibly strong opinions among two people about what science &
> religion are. These questions have no answers.
Nonsense. You suppose you have searched through the root and depth of it all
and perhaps because you have found no answers that the logical conclusion is
that there are no answers? You are in way over your head.
> Any disquiet felt in being
> able to define these in some unique way may be a consequence of one's
> refusal to admit ignorance as fundamental to the mind or accept mystery as
> satisfactory to the mind.
Here a clue for you. You are far more ignorant than you suppose.
> One small point I might proffer is that your language differs (although in
> some respects it is similar). Though I'm not a scientist, I work regularly
> in my spare time on scientific problems. I suspect you may be confused about
> the words 'truth'.
This is a case where if you had kept all this nonsense to yourself the world
might have esteemed you wise. As it is you have removed all doubt but that you
are a fool.
> Truth in religion is sought differently by individuals, but religion is true
> when the individual is comfortable with his or her faith, or is comfortable
> with being uncomfortable.
Your nonsensical definition of truth is applicable only in your own nonsensical
version of the world. However there is an objective reality but whether or not
you have the wit to access it is another question. So far it doesn't look like
it.
> The key here is that 'faith' is undefined.
You are so full of yourself. You suppose that you can furnish the world with
your own definitions (or lack thereof) and thereby solve the problems of
physics by mere prattings from your armchair?
> The faith I know is a transcendental concept, unreasonable and irrational,
> such
> as the will to live.
The faith you know. Ha. Don't project your narrow vision of the universe onto
others. That you are pleased to reside in a cage of your own making is
evident. Don't suppose that any others are in there with you.
> It is likely associated with the deeper levels of the
> brain. The wise nurture it, for a strong irrationality is beneficial or
> perhaps necessary for good mental health. In the fortunate, it is
> experienced.
>
You first say it is transcendental, unreasonable, and irrational then you
witlessly stumble out with your own private contradiction and suggest its
likely associations. Don't you know when you are making a fool of yourself
with such prattings?
> Truth in science is sought similarly by individuals. It is a social concept,
> a goal. Some imagine scientific truth is sought using logic, but it is
> usually sought using illogical techniques, such as an appreciation of
> beauty. The science I know can be described with language, reasonable &
> rational. It is likely associated with the higher functions of the brain.
> Intellectuals nurture it, for a strong rationality is beneficial or perhaps
> necessary for good mental health. Truth in science is a social experience.
Bull. Another way of suggesting that Truth in science is established by
consensus. Your witless rejection of the objective universe keeps you from
gaining access to it.
> Science is characterized by what is studied, and how conclusions are
> communicated. Conclusions are drawn from a common logic, applied to
> objective observations of relations among objects defined operationally.
> Individuals may differ on how these should be defined, but scientists as a
> group generally agree. (A common misconception, I suspect, is that what is
> observed objectively is somehow better or more accurate than what is
> observed subjectively. An objective observation is one we can all
> experience.) Any aspects of reality that cannot be resolved in the above
> fashion are not within the domain of science: they are not scientific
> questions.
>
> Respectfully,
There is nothing respectful in anything that you wrote, Bruce. You are a
condenscending ass of a fellow that must take daily solace in the idea that
since you couldn't find resolution to such important questions that they must
be without resolution. Everything is in the domain of science for the
domain of science, in case you didn't know, is 'knowledge' and there is no part
of the universe which cannot yield to investigation if the seeker cares enough
to do what it takes to become informed.
Charles Cagle
Benjamin P. Carter
>In <pB3d4.164$7L.1...@tw11.nn.bcandid.com> "C. Alan Peyton, Jr."
><ca...@pdq.net> writes:
>>
>>I thought the trinity was onion, celery and green pepper, all chopped.
> Lies. It's bacon, lettice, and tomato, you heretic.
The Great Quark occasionally reveals Itself to creatures mired in the
mundane world of low dimensionality (like us, for example). But before too
much wisdom is imparted, there typically ensues a conflict with the Great
Antiquark, the result of which is total annihilation in a blinding flash
of gamma rays and other particles.
The mysterious nature of the Great Quark, revealed only to a few of Its
most worthy subjects, involves both a colorful trinity and a spicy
multiplicity, which has been the source of some confusion in this
newsgroup. The latter multiplicity includes at least six flavors, the best
known of which are parsley, sage, rosemary and thyme. Combinations of
these and a few other basic flavors produce all of the familiar
foodstuffs (bacon, celery, etc.).
--
Ben Carter
Josie Caat
DQ my fine, brave young man, if you're buying and pouring I'll do the drinkin'
:)
Fred McGalliard
knows there are only three pure mathematicians in the whole world, and
right now they are all three in a locked room, with the lock on the
inside, trying to prove that they can escape without resort to applied
math. The proof remains a good example of bugs theory of absurd results
as applied to map structures in intellectual space.
Fred McGalliard
not have a common foundation". Since they do, at least in this world
(the common roots you spoke of), I was a bit puzzled. Perhaps you meant
that they do not share their major propositions? I always thought they
sort of grew up together like squabbling brothers. They use each others
ideas without even thinking of it, and attribute nothing but the worst
to their brother, even when using his own best work against him.
maff91
<frederick.b...@boeing.com> wrote:
>Re phrasing your statement, I thought it meant "Science and religion do
>not have a common foundation". Since they do, at least in this world
>(the common roots you spoke of), I was a bit puzzled. Perhaps you meant
>that they do not share their major propositions? I always thought they
>sort of grew up together like squabbling brothers. They use each others
>ideas without even thinking of it, and attribute nothing but the worst
>to their brother, even when using his own best work against him.
"He preferred the hard truth to his dearest illusions, and that is the
heart of science." - Carl Sagan on Johannes Kepler in "Cosmos"
"Mankind, with reduced significance, seemed by these new challenges
to be decentered and launched into the unfathomable Copernican void,
causing John Donne's famous outburst of 1611, "Its all in peaces, all
cohaerence gone."
.....
"As Galileo blithely wrote in a letter to the Grand Duchess Christina,
an important person at the court in Florence, "the intention of the
Holy Ghost is to teach us how to go to heaven, not how heaven goes."
- In God's Embrace: The Untold Story of Suor Maria Celeste and Her
Brilliant But Doomed Father By GERALD HOLTON, LA Times, Sunday,
October 17, 1999
[...]
+------------------------------------+-------------------------------------------------------------------------+
| Strawman | Proposers |
+------------------------------------+-------------------------------------------------------------------------+
| Theistic science/ | Al-Ghazali, Paley, Behe, Dembski, et al |
| Atheistic science | |
+-------------------------------------+------------------------------------------------------------------------+-
| Proletarian science/ | Stalin, Lysenko, et al |
| Bourgeois science | |
+-------------------------------------+------------------------------------------------------------------------+
| German science/ | Hitler et al |
| Jewish science | |
+-------------------------------------+------------------------------------------------------------------------+
Hypatia
http://x37.deja.com/getdoc.xp?AN=561430644
Ibn Rochd (Averroes)
http://x24.deja.com/getdoc.xp?AN=561430645
Where Were You in 1002?
http://www.nytimes.com/library/opinion/collins/122499coll.html
Galileo
http://x24.deja.com/getdoc.xp?AN=561430642
Giordarno Bruno
http://x24.deja.com/getdoc.xp?AN=561430640
Lucilio Vanini
http://x24.deja.com/getdoc.xp?AN=561430639
Expulsion of Muslims and Jews from Spain
http://x24.deja.com//getdoc.xp?AN=561423172
Cheng Ho
http://x24.deja.com/getdoc.xp?AN=561423159
Lysenko
http://x24.deja.com/getdoc.xp?AN=561430643
<http://www.deja.com/[ST_rn=ps]/qs.xp?ST=PS&svcclass=dnyr&QRY=Lysenko+AND+%7Ea+%28joe+cummings%29&defaultOp=AND&DBS=1&OP=dnquery.xp&LNG=ALL&subjects=&groups=talk.origins&authors=&fromdate=&todate=&showsort=date&maxhits=25>
Scientists flee from Hitler's Germany
http://x41.deja.com/getdoc.xp?AN=561423171
"There is no such thing as 'Science'. There is only 'German Science',
'Jewish Science' and etc. The implied objective of this line of
thought is a nightmare world in which the Leader, or some ruling
clique, controls not only the future but the past."
-- Orwell, Looking Back on the Spanish War
http://www.georgetown.edu/users/barbera/1984.htm
http://www.seas.upenn.edu/%7Esavitz/galtransform.htm
J. Robert Oppenheimer
http://x24.deja.com/getdoc.xp?AN=561430641
Tsien Hsue-shen (Qian Xuesen)
http://x24.deja.com/getdoc.xp?AN=561423158
--
Design refuted
http://www.world-of-dawkins.com/box/behe.htm
http://www.talkorigins.org/faqs/behe.html
http://x33.deja.com/getdoc.xp?AN=519544184
http://x44.deja.com/getdoc.xp?AN=517183921
http://x26.deja.com/getdoc.xp?AN=241590474
A Designer Universe? by STEVEN WEINBERG
http://www.nybooks.com/nyrev/WWWarchdisplay.cgi?19991021046F
http://www.infidels.org/library/modern/theism/design.html
C. Cagle
<bath...@dcn.davis.ca.us> wrote:
> I agree with Mr McGalliard's criticisms of Bathurst. Mr McGalliard is using
> the
> Church's definition of religious truth, and recognizing 'comfort' as a shared
> sensation. Bathurst had meant to distinguish religious truth as it exists
> today as
> a private truth (that of Jim Jones as well as that of the Dalai Lama),
> comfort in
> religion as being a private comfort, not communicated best in speech or in
> writing. If it were otherwise, the World might be at peace.
>
> This contrasts sharply with the truth of the scientist, which is a very
> impersonal,
That is a myth.
>but very shared truth.
You have confused opinion with truth and have supposed that 'Truth' is
not a universal objective quality.
C. Cagle
<sbha...@ix.netcom.com> wrote:
> In <060120000229220250%sing...@telestream.com> "C. Cagle"
> <sing...@telestream.com> writes:
> >>
> >> The core of religion is belief in a personal God(s) who is
> >> omnicient, omnipotent, knows what you personally are up to, and
> gives a
> >> damn. This kind of things seems apriori unlikely to me. For one
> >> thing, it does not accord with my life experience. I've seen too
> many
> >> horrible things, and I'm not even a 70 year old Polish Jew.
> >
> >How scientific of you. Absence of evidence is equal to evidence of
> >absence to you.
>
>
> There's nothing unscientific about refusing to believe in Santa
> Claus, Fairies, or the Easter Bunny. Not to mention Bigfoot and Nessie
> and little green space aliens who kidnap people in order to practice
> colonoscopy. Do you believe in these things?
Why wouldn't you believe in all those things if you are fool enough to
believe in, say, the Oort Cloud as an explanation for the origin of
comets?
>
> It's not going to do you much good to claim that absense of
> evidence is not evidence of absense, and then say that science and
> religion are the same thing.
Did I actually say that they are the same? If I say most scientists
behave in a religious manner because they believe in things for which
there is no evidence that isn't the same thing as saying science and
religion are the same thing. Get a grip and then find a clue or two.
Charles Cagle
John Baez
C. Cagle <sing...@telestream.com> wrote:
>Give a man a satellite dish and a PBS station to
>pump his mind full of unsubstantiable ideas concerning the origin of
>the universe in order to wean him from obedience to his Creator. Then
>fill his stomach with hybrid wheat and warm him with electricity
>generated by solar or nuclear power and transplant into him a dead
>man's heart when his own fails.
You're starting to sound a bit crazier. Hybrid wheat???
Steven B. Harris
<sing...@telestream.com> writes:
>
>In article <852ki8$sa5$1...@nntp5.atl.mindspring.net>, Steven B. Harris
><sbha...@ix.netcom.com> wrote:
>
>> In <060120000229220250%sing...@telestream.com> "C. Cagle"
>> <sing...@telestream.com> writes:
>> >>
>> >> The core of religion is belief in a personal God(s) who is
>> >> omnicient, omnipotent, knows what you personally are up to, and
>> gives a
>> >> damn. This kind of things seems apriori unlikely to me. For
one
>> >> thing, it does not accord with my life experience. I've seen too
>> many
>> >> horrible things, and I'm not even a 70 year old Polish Jew.
>> >
>> >How scientific of you. Absence of evidence is equal to evidence of
>> >absence to you.
>>
>>
>> There's nothing unscientific about refusing to believe in Santa
>> Claus, Fairies, or the Easter Bunny. Not to mention Bigfoot and
Nessie
>> and little green space aliens who kidnap people in order to practice
>> colonoscopy. Do you believe in these things?
>
>Why wouldn't you believe in all those things if you are fool enough to
>believe in, say, the Oort Cloud as an explanation for the origin of
>comets?
>
Well, if you can't tell the difference in plausability in such
theories, you've got a real problem. Do you want me to start with
reasons why a supernatural being Santa is unlikely, a priori, and you
can give similar reasons for the Oort cloud? I'll begin. Reindeer
aren't aerodynamic and have no mechanism to stay up. Okay, now your
turn.
>>
>> It's not going to do you much good to claim that absense of
>> evidence is not evidence of absense, and then say that science and
>> religion are the same thing.
>
>Did I actually say that they are the same? If I say most scientists
>behave in a religious manner because they believe in things for which
>there is no evidence that isn't the same thing as saying science and
>religion are the same thing. Get a grip and then find a clue or two.
You pointed out the similarilty. And in fact you are wrong. The
reasoning behind religions and scientific beliefs are competely
different. Of course, some people can't reason. Phillip Johnson, a
law professor at Berkeley, doesn't believe in evolution, and doesn't
believe that HIV causes AIDS. All inductive evidence passes him by.
If somebody doesn't want to believe evidence, you can't make them.
Steven B. Harris
Carter) writes:
>
>The mysterious nature of the Great Quark, revealed only to a few of
Its
>most worthy subjects, involves both a colorful trinity and a spicy
>multiplicity, which has been the source of some confusion in this
>newsgroup. The latter multiplicity includes at least six flavors, the
best
>known of which are parsley, sage, rosemary and thyme. Combinations of
>these and a few other basic flavors produce all of the familiar
>foodstuffs (bacon, celery, etc.).
So when are we going to see the MSG particle?
Jackie & Barry
"C. Cagle" wrote:
> Are Science and Religion Compatible Concepts?
Both Science and Religion are, or at least should be, Honourable
Pursuits.
Like the great man once said, "I can't move it, unless I have somewhere
to stand."
This applies equally to mental pursuits.
Before you can do anything, you have to stand somewhere. *Where* someone
chooses to stand is his personal philosophy/prejudice. Some don't like
to acknowledge the existence of this Science/Philosophy relationship.
They don't seem to understand that Faith is necessary before we can hold
any opinion.
Barry
Paul gate
Jackie & Barry wrote in message <38777134...@netcom.ca>...
This is misleading imo
Science has a subset of the axioms that such things as religious thought
rest apon, Science doesn`t have axioms that religion doesn`t also have
It merely found that some of the axioms of religion were not needed
to make progress
Michelle Albert
that religion has a very valid place in society. I believe that certain
people need to believe in religion for structure and self worth. But I
assure you the creation of the Earth, the planets, the entire solar
system, as well as, human kind did not come from an imaginary figure in
the sky. Pick up any elementary geology text book and find out how the
world ws created.
C. Cagle
<sbha...@ix.netcom.com> wrote:
Wrong. I can see that the Oort Cloud Hypothesis as the origin of
comets is not a plausible concept at all so that it falls into the same
category as if you were to conjecture a giant invisible space ogre
billions of miles out that occasionally becomes angry at the Sun and
tosses snowballs at it. A nitwit fabrication whether it be of the
Easter Bunny or Fairies or the Oort Cloud as the origin of comets is
still a nitwit idea. You get no points at all just because you are
fool enough to fall for such witless unscientific conjecture as that -
and you are put into the same class as gullible children who are taken
in by the appearance of authority.
> Do you want me to start with
> reasons why a supernatural being Santa is unlikely, a priori, and you
> can give similar reasons for the Oort cloud? I'll begin. Reindeer
> aren't aerodynamic and have no mechanism to stay up. Okay, now your
> turn.
Maybe you ought to take this straw man of yours and toss him into the
fire and see if it can keep you as warm as your hot air has been doing
to this point. Your argument is puerile but has an analog in history
as 'experts' considered that heavier-than-air craft would be unable to
fly for the same reason. No mechanism. It wasn't the top scientists
in the world who demonstrated powered heavier than air flight but a
couple of bicycle mechanics without degrees who actually believed in
doing science. People have seen whole herds of cattle taken aloft by
the power of tornadoes, and eyewitnesses have reported instances of
floating objects and people which were several blocks from a tornado
and not in its violent wind zone. I won't be found supposing that
reindeer can fly either but I wouldn't suggest there is not a mechanism
that could take them aloft since the farmer who saw his herd and heard
them lowing as they passed overhead would dispute me.
The point here is that you might suppose a theory plausible or
inplausible but someone with a greater insight might actually know the
facts. He sees that you are taken in as a fool and cannot discern what
is plausible from what is not simply because of your profound
ignorance.
>
> >>
> >> It's not going to do you much good to claim that absense of
> >> evidence is not evidence of absense, and then say that science and
> >> religion are the same thing.
> >
> >Did I actually say that they are the same? If I say most scientists
> >behave in a religious manner because they believe in things for which
> >there is no evidence that isn't the same thing as saying science and
> >religion are the same thing. Get a grip and then find a clue or two.
>
>
> You pointed out the similarilty. And in fact you are wrong. The
> reasoning behind religions and scientific beliefs are competely
> different.
Nonsense. Often scientists believe in things for which there is
absolutely no evidence. Carl Sagan believed in extraterrestrial
civilizations and so there wasn't a penny's worth of difference between
him and any UFO enthusiast.
> Of course, some people can't reason.
And you have demonstrated quite nicely that you are among them.
> Phillip Johnson, a
> law professor at Berkeley, doesn't believe in evolution, and doesn't
> believe that HIV causes AIDS. All inductive evidence passes him by.
> If somebody doesn't want to believe evidence, you can't make them.
What constitutes evidence is subjective. Your reference to
'inductive' evidence is quite telling because it means you are caught
in the a posteriori reasoning trap that have snared far greater people
than you. Science either seeks certainties or it does not. If it does
not and has no way of assessing whether or not something is a certainty
then it is pseudoscience. A posteriori argument does not lead to
certainties. My guess is that you don't have a clues as to what does.
Charles Cagle.
Don Quixote
Michelle Albert wrote in message
<22385-38...@storefull-113.iap.bryant.webtv.net>...
Michelle,
If you would quote part of the post you are responding to, along with the
name of that poster, we would be able to tell who you are responding to.....
that is a common UseNet convention, and courtesy, since a lot of our ISPs do
not archive all of the post for very long. I understand that WebTv does not
automatically do that for you with your e-mail software, but there should be
some way to do it. Maybe someone else here can advise you how.
Thank you,
DQ
The Mess
> "Mankind, with reduced significance, seemed by these new challenges
> to be decentered and launched into the unfathomable Copernican void,
> causing John Donne's famous outburst of 1611, "Its all in peaces, all
> cohaerence gone."
Peaces? Was that an oudated spelling or should it be "pieces"?
Not trying to make a grammar flame, but I suspect you might want to correct this if your keeping your quotes in archives, or correct me so I don't look like a fool next time I see it.
Which of Donne's works was that from?
wetboy
: Jackie & Barry wrote in message <38777134...@netcom.ca>...
Please list all of the "axioms of religion".
-- Wetboy
Richard Harter
Axiom 1: I've got you by the balls.
Axiom 2: I'm going to squeeze hard unless you beg for mercy.
Axiom 3: Even if you beg for mercy, I'm going to squeeze hard.
Richard Harter, c...@tiac.net
http://www.tiac.net/users/cri
Tick tock, Tick tock, the hours run on
Like little mice under the feet of elephants.
maff91
<no...@I.Hate.All.Solicitors.com> wrote:
>maff91 wrote:
>
>> "Mankind, with reduced significance, seemed by these new challenges
>> to be decentered and launched into the unfathomable Copernican void,
>> causing John Donne's famous outburst of 1611, "Its all in peaces, all
>> cohaerence gone."
>
>Peaces? Was that an oudated spelling or should it be "pieces"?
Must be an outdated spelling by John Donne. He probably meant
"pieces".
>Not trying to make a grammar flame, but I suspect you might want to correct this if your keeping your quotes in archives, or correct me so I don't look like a fool next time I see it.
>
>Which of Donne's works was that from?
You should ask LA Times or Gerald Holton.
--
Science Makes News (New York Times - November 1, 1999, Monday )
To the Editor: Your Oct. 29 news articles ''Biologists Find
Progenitors of Earth's Flowering Plants'' and ''Earliest Divorce Case:
http://www.nytimes.com/library/national/science/102999sci-flower-evolution.html
X and Y Chromosomes'' show the difference between science and
http://www.nytimes.com/library/national/science/102999sci-sex-chromosome.html
creationism. Evolutionary scientists make news through the
scientific process, while creationists make news through the political
process."
http://www.nytimes.com/99/11/01/letters/l01bio.html
Paul gate
wetboy wrote in message
>In sci.physics Paul gate <ga...@dial.pipex.com> wrote:
>: This is misleading imo
>: Science has a subset of the axioms that such things as religious thought
>: rest apon, Science doesn`t have axioms that religion doesn`t also have
>: It merely found that some of the axioms of religion were not needed
>: to make progress
>
>Please list all of the "axioms of religion".
err at a guess
1 We are in a world, that we all share
2 we can draw correct conclusions about this world from our senses
3 There is this other "thing" that that we can`t see, with our senses
that is very powerfull and is fundamental to us
i`m sure thats not exhaustive though
G Holland
>Nonsense. Often scientists believe in things for which there is
>absolutely no evidence. Carl Sagan believed in extraterrestrial
>civilizations and so there wasn't a penny's worth of difference between
>him and any UFO enthusiast.
>
Actually UFO people say that extraterrestrials are visiting Earth, Sagan
said that they could not visit Earth.
>What constitutes evidence is subjective.
Then you don't believe in _any_ evidence? This would mean that all
"knowledge" is based on faith, and therefore in the realm of religion?
Your reference to
>'inductive' evidence is quite telling because it means you are caught
>in the a posteriori reasoning trap that have snared far greater people
>than you. Science either seeks certainties or it does not. If it does
>not and has no way of assessing whether or not something is a certainty
>then it is pseudoscience. A posteriori argument does not lead to
>certainties. My guess is that you don't have a clues as to what does.
Quantum dynamics is most certainly not pseudoscience. On some matters there
are no certainties to be found, those matters are dealt with by statistical
analysis. There are some things that science cannot predict, it can only
give probabilities (exact probabilities in many cases).
What do you believe leads to certainties in things that can be known?
Guy Holland
Steven B. Harris
In <38777134...@netcom.ca> Jackie & Barry <ja...@netcom.ca>
writes:
>They don't seem to understand that Faith is necessary before we can
hold
>any opinion.
>
"Faith" is a word that should be reserved for beliefs that are held
on the basis of rumor, superstition, cultural mythology, and the like,
and which could just as easily be something else. It's a bad idea to
use the word in connection with unprovable basic axioms of philosophy,
like the idea that reality exists and our senses tell us something
about it, induction is valid, the ordinary rules of deductive logic are
valid, etc. Your belief in Santa Claus is not the same as my belief in
germs, electrons, or quarks.
Lately the social constructionists have been at work on science,
and have tried to make the case that the objects studied by science are
no more real than Santa Claus. But they have this wrong. It's the
mythic objects of religion that are in league with Santa Claus. The
truth of the matter is that the objects studied by science are no more,
and no less, real than the objects you see around you everyday. Is
that table real, or an illusion? Ultimately, that's a philosophical
question. But as Stephen Weinberg points out, there aren't any books
called _Constructing Mt. Everest._
Steven B. Harris
<sing...@telestream.com> writes:
>>
>> Well, if you can't tell the difference in plausability in such
>> theories, you've got a real problem.
>
>Wrong. I can see that the Oort Cloud Hypothesis as the origin of
>comets is not a plausible concept at all so that it falls into the
same
>category as if you were to conjecture a giant invisible space ogre
>billions of miles out that occasionally becomes angry at the Sun and
>tosses snowballs at it.
You keep repeating that it's not plausable, but you don't say why.
Do you think endless repetition will make it so?
> A nitwit fabrication whether it be of the
>Easter Bunny or Fairies or the Oort Cloud as the origin of comets is
>still a nitwit idea. You get no points at all just because you are
>fool enough to fall for such witless unscientific conjecture as that -
>and you are put into the same class as gullible children who are taken
>in by the appearance of authority.
Still hot air.
>> Do you want me to start with
>> reasons why a supernatural being Santa is unlikely, a priori, and
you
>> can give similar reasons for the Oort cloud? I'll begin. Reindeer
>> aren't aerodynamic and have no mechanism to stay up. Okay, now your
>> turn.
>
>Maybe you ought to take this straw man of yours and toss him into the
>fire and see if it can keep you as warm as your hot air has been doing
>to this point. Your argument is puerile but has an analog in history
>as 'experts' considered that heavier-than-air craft would be unable to
>fly for the same reason. No mechanism.
You fall for a myth. No experts ever said a heavier than air craft
would be unable to fly. Birds are heavier than air and they fly, so a
counterexample is obvious. Experts merely noted that heavier than air
craft could not maintain stable flight using internal combustion power
sources of the power/weight ratio then known. In this, they were
completely correct.
> It wasn't the top scientists
>in the world who demonstrated powered heavier than air flight but a
>couple of bicycle mechanics without degrees who actually believed in
>doing science.
And, among other things, built an engine with an aluminum block.
> People have seen whole herds of cattle taken aloft by
>the power of tornadoes, and eyewitnesses have reported instances of
>floating objects and people which were several blocks from a tornado
>and not in its violent wind zone.
I saw that! And there was an entire house go up the funnel. And
Margaret Hamilton on a bicycle (clear allusion to the Wright brothers),
and a little dog, too. A little dawwwggg, toooo.
? I won't be found supposing that
>reindeer can fly either but I wouldn't suggest there is not a
>mechanism
>that could take them aloft since the farmer who saw his herd and heard
>them lowing as they passed overhead would dispute me.
I suppose he wouldn't. I had a farmer tell me once about fog so
thick that when he was shingling his roof he accidently shingled to the
edge and then several feet out onto the fog. How could I not believe?
>The point here is that you might suppose a theory plausible or
>inplausible but someone with a greater insight might actually know the
>facts. He sees that you are taken in as a fool and cannot discern
>what is plausible from what is not simply because of your profound
>ignorance.
More hot air. You have chosen your metaphors well. You can have
the fog one, too. And the bicycle one, if it will help. Margaret
Hamiliton's for your wife. If you have a wife.
>>
>> You pointed out the similarilty. And in fact you are wrong. The
>> reasoning behind religions and scientific beliefs are competely
>> different.
>
>Nonsense. Often scientists believe in things for which there is
>absolutely no evidence. Carl Sagan believed in extraterrestrial
>civilizations and so there wasn't a penny's worth of difference
>between him and any UFO enthusiast.
But there was. We already have an example of an intelligent
civilization arising on a nice planet in this galaxy. So we know
that's possible. We have no existance proofs of the sort when it comes
to star travel. If it's possible, exploration of the galaxy by such a
civilization (ala UFO) must be much more unlikely than the emergence of
intelligent civizations, since the one intelligent civilization we know
of has yet to do it. The two ideas are not equivalent, and have
different probabilities. If Sagan liked one idea better than the
other, he was entirely rational to do so. And no, he didn't entirely
reject the possibility of UFOs-- he just said he wanted some physical
evidence. At least a pencil with erasers at both ends, or something
wierd like that (as I heard him say once). He also wasn't completely
convinced that there was intelligent life out there. He only thought
it likely.
>> Phillip Johnson, a
>> law professor at Berkeley, doesn't believe in evolution, and doesn't
>> believe that HIV causes AIDS. All inductive evidence passes him by.
>> If somebody doesn't want to believe evidence, you can't make them.
>
>What constitutes evidence is subjective. Your reference to
>'inductive' evidence is quite telling because it means you are caught
>in the a posteriori reasoning trap that have snared far greater people
>than you. Science either seeks certainties or it does not.
Whenever I hear somebody talk this way I know I'm in the grip of a
black and white fundamentalist.
> If it does
>not and has no way of assessing whether or not something is a
>certainty then it is pseudoscience.
By your definition. But most scientists don't agree with you. The
only person I know of who would agree with you would be Ayn Rand. But
she wasn't a scientist, and she's also dead. So not much help, there.
Her literal mindedness and Aristotelian fundamentalist attitude well
become you, though.
>A posteriori argument does not lead to
>certainties. My guess is that you don't have a clues as to what does.
>Charles Cagle.
In this, we agree. The difference between us, is that you think you
do. In this life, the only truths we can be certain about are the
truths we require to be true by definition. But they aren't very
interesting. All the rest is inductive. Science is either physics, or
it's stamp collecting, as Rutherford said. The physics part of the
natural sciences is inductive, and vice versa. The rest is stamp
collecting.
Rich...@webtv.net
What's up with this distinction you make with what you refer to as
"real science" and "pseudo-science"? All scientists use the same tool
don't they-- the Scientific Method.
1) Observation
2) Come up with a plausible hypothesis
3) Test it
4) If it passes the tests----THEORY!
5) If the theory is bulletproof--LAW!
How can there be a "real science" and "pseudo-science" if we all stick
within these boundaries? Its all the same science. I think the
problem begins with people thinking that the theories are gospel when
they're not even a law yet! Let alone gospel. The scientific method
works to describe this amazing creation. Just let it work! Which
brings me to another point.
Scientific Laws:
There are very few scient. laws out there and they tend to describe what
is common knowledge in my opinion (gravity, hot things get cold if
they're surrounded by cold, things keep travelling in the same
direction unless they hit something, 1+1=2, and so on). To me thats not
alot of progress in the search for TRUTH. We might want to ask God what
the truth is. Of course we have to have FAITH that He's there before we
ask Him. The gospels say that He IS the TRUTH. And the LIGHT. Bonus!
Not only do we find the truth but peace, love, and joy. IF we have
faith in Him , not faith in OUR science ans OUR religion. Better study
that good book.
Bruce Bathurst
> <SNIP>
> Science has a subset of the axioms that such things as religious thought
> rest apon, Science doesn`t have axioms that religion doesn`t also have
> It merely found that some of the axioms of religion were not needed
> to make progress
As I may have said earlier, I believe neither science nor religion can be
defined. To define something is not to describe it, but to rephrase it in
unambiguous language that can be compared with the object of interest. If the
activity matches it, the activity is science. If the state matches it, that
state is religious. Science & religion have many definitions, too many to
list.
Religious truth
The word 'axiom' is a term used in logic, or deductive theories. Religion in
most of the world is illogical, and 'axiom' gives the erroneous impression
they are instead logical. (Although some religions use a dogma, it usually
was devised for teaching: the Canons of the Roman Catholic Church, the Five
Pillars of Islam, the Four Noble Truth of the Buddha, the 613 Commandments of
Rabbinic Law in Judaism. The nurturing of spirituality - & consequent growth
of happiness - illogical gifts, are usually the reason such laws are
followed.) This is the quest for religious truth: that shared state of
rebirth, enlightenment, bliss, that religions assure lie dormant within us.
Actual religious truths are private states. The purpose of religious training
is to point one's current religious truth in the correct direction.
Deductive theories
An axiom is not a postulate, which is the term I believe you meant. Axioms
are true, postulates need not be. Axioms are objects in deductive
mathematical theories, postulates are objects in deductive scientific
theories. Science need not be presented in the structure of a deductive
theory, but it is useful in carefully analyzing the scientific theory for
flaws, and for distilling the science from the mathematics. Such deductive
theories are not unique, for postulates & primitive definitions can be chosen
in many ways. As long as the set chosen is 'consistent', truth, false, &
existence have meaning.
Is science founded upon 'religious faith' ?
The 'faith' invoked by some to prove that science isn't absolute in its
validity appears to be of two kinds. Inexperienced, uncritical students base
their acceptance of scientific theories on confidence in authority. These
people might consider worshipping Galileo Galilei, who stated (roughly) that
the humble reasoning of a single human being is worth more than the authority
of a thousand. Science does not need to be perverted into a cult. Science is
not superior to religion.
Is scientific truth absolute ?
Of more interest are the postulates and undefined terms of the deductive
scientific theory. Here lies the thin veneer of ignorance that founds
science. Were a postulate provable, it would be a theorem. If an undefined
term could be clearly expressed in other terms, it would be a defined term or
definition. So, primitive objects are combined using a commonly accepted
logic and criterion of proof to create a body of theorems: a theory. Both the
logic used & the criteria of proof are (I believe) still in dispute, and some
mathematicians refuse to accept proofs that use the more questionable of
these tools. _A scientific theorem can only be proven to be as convincing as
the undefined postulates used to derive it._ This veneer of ignorance some
have called 'religious faith' or 'religious belief'. I'm sure it was not
intended, but doing this (I believe) demeans both religions and those who
would mistakenly write such a thing. Good scientists know that science is
built on shifting sand. Only falsehood is absolute, as W. Wheewell (who
coined 'scientist'), Charles Peirce, & Carl Popper have noted.
A scientific theorem can be proven to be as convincing as an undefined
postulate. It is important, then, that undefined postulates be as intuitive
as possible. For this reason, their collapses have marked the greatest
advances in science.
Scientific truth
In science one assumes the postulates are true, hence consequently
consistent. This distinguishes scientific theories from mathematical
theories, in which postulates are merely consistent. More importantly, it
removes the onus of having to prove postulates to be logically consistent, a
most difficult task. Here we shall take a different approach to scientific
theories: we convert them to mathematical theories, thereby allowing truth to
be defined (from consistency).
The consistency of postulates assure us that any sentence phrased using the
vocabulary of the theory can never be proven to be both true and false. A
sentence phrased in the vocabulary of the theory that is a logically
consequence of the primitive assumptions is, by definition, _true_. Sentences
that are true are termed theorems. Consequent to the theory being consistent,
a theorem that is true can never be proven false. Scientific truth is thus a
shared, social concept, because the primitive assumptions were intuitive to a
great majority of people, and the logic used is acceptable by a great
majority of people.
Summary
Scientific theories are seldom cast in deductive forms. Casting them in the
more abstract, mathematical deductive theory allows us to define scientific
truth, and prove that scientific proof is relative: it is only as convincing
as the undefined postulates, which should be as intuitive as possible.
Science progresses greatly (paradigms shift) when one becomes convinced by
the lack of correspondence of a theorem with reality. The logical implication
of this is that our intuition is flawed, and we are forced to re-examine our
primitive assumptions. Science differs from religion. It is neither superior,
inferior, nor related in any obvious way.
Discussions should respect the feelings of participants. Because religious
beliefs are private, sensitive, and unrelated to science, their discussion
should be posted only to the appropriate group.
Respectfully,
Bruce Bathurst
Michael Agney
If I wanted to learn all these particles, I'd have become a botanist.
--
"[Heinlein has] Three characters, to be exact. The old wise rascal, the young
pup who usually underestimates themselves, and, on occasion, the woman who
appears independent and able, but really wants to settle down, stop thinking,
and have babies." -- Matt Silberstein (mat...@ix.netcom.com)
C. Cagle
<tae...@southwind.net> wrote:
> >Nonsense. Often scientists believe in things for which there is
> >absolutely no evidence. Carl Sagan believed in extraterrestrial
> >civilizations and so there wasn't a penny's worth of difference between
> >him and any UFO enthusiast.
> >
>
> Actually UFO people say that extraterrestrials are visiting Earth, Sagan
> said that they could not visit Earth.
As if he knew. That he believed they existed but supposed there was no
way for them to make it from 'there' to here doesn't make much
difference. He still believed in things for which absolutely no
'evidence' exists. That is religious behavior (and pseudoscience)
though all religious behavior isn't necessarily pseudoscience.
> >What constitutes evidence is subjective.
>
> Then you don't believe in _any_ evidence? This would mean that all
> "knowledge" is based on faith, and therefore in the realm of religion?
Read what I said again. I said that evidence is subjective. Evidence
is the interpretation of data, not the data itself. And interpretation
is subjective unless you can suggest a means to obtain an objective
vision of the universe.
And it appears you are also confused as to what constitutes 'knowledge'.
> Your reference to
> >'inductive' evidence is quite telling because it means you are caught
> >in the a posteriori reasoning trap that have snared far greater people
> >than you. Science either seeks certainties or it does not. If it does
> >not and has no way of assessing whether or not something is a certainty
> >then it is pseudoscience. A posteriori argument does not lead to
> >certainties. My guess is that you don't have a clues as to what does.
>
>
> Quantum dynamics is most certainly not pseudoscience.
Sure it is. The nilly willy wholesale amputation of limbs during the
civil war cost some men their lives and saved some lives and needlessly
lost the legs and arms of some men. It was psuedoscience practiced
most often without the benefit of a clean operating theatre or sterile
instruments or even reasonably washed surgeons. For those lives it
saved - wonderful. But it still was pseudoscience because it also cost
a number of lives and needlessly lost a number of limbs. Can
pseudoscience work? Sure sometimes. In the light that many ulcers had
a pathogen that would have responded to antibiotics shows us that
pseudoscience is alive and well even in modern medicine because
alternative treatments had nothing to do with curing the problem. The
fact that it took years for this knowledge to catch on where human
lives are at stake doesn't bode well for sciences which cover areas
where human life is not considered to be at stake.
> On some matters there
> are no certainties to be found,
Mere opinion on your part.
>those matters are dealt with by statistical
> analysis. There are some things that science cannot predict, it can only
> give probabilities (exact probabilities in many cases).
Some things which it has so far been unable to predict.
> What do you believe leads to certainties in things that can be known?
Exact knowledge and deductive logic.
Regards,
Charles Cagle
Steven B. Harris
<sing...@telestream.com> writes:
Can
>pseudoscience work? Sure sometimes. In the light that many ulcers
had
>a pathogen that would have responded to antibiotics shows us that
>pseudoscience is alive and well even in modern medicine because
>alternative treatments had nothing to do with curing the problem.
For one thing, the above statement is factually wrong. Ulcers are
indeed caused by acid in the same sense that tooth decay is. Stopping
the acid did help the problem, and healed ulcers which would not have
otherwise healed (and so it does today). But (as in tooth decay) acid
was the proximate cause, not the ultimate cause. There are no ultimate
causes to a multifactorial problem, and it is as silly to say that
bacteria cause duodenal ulcers as it is to say that bacteria cause
cavities. They are necessary for carries (they make the acid from
sugar), but they are not sufficient (some people never get carries).
Bacteria aren't even *necessary* for ulceration in the stomach or the
duodenum, and they aren't sufficient either (as Barry Marshall proved
by drinking H. pylori in pure culture, and getting nothing but a bad
case of gastritis--- alas, no ulcers. Mythology aside). To this day,
the association between H. pylori and ulcers in humans, though widely
accepted by physicians, is inferential, much like that between smoking
and lung cancer; a fact which seems to have escaped Mr. Cagle.
> The
>fact that it took years for this knowledge to catch on where human
>lives are at stake doesn't bode well for sciences which cover areas
>where human life is not considered to be at stake.
Absolutely poppycock. For one thing, since absolute proof was
lacking (and still is), it took some years for the epidemiology to be
done, and results of intervention studies to be analyzed. For some
time there was argument that antibiotics themselves might be
therapeutic in some little-understood way (and not for the first time--
for example, nobody knows how metronidazole helps Crohn's disease to
this day, but it's probably not an antibacterial effect. It's one of
the things routinely used on H. pylori). Finally, since H. pylori was
a little known bacterium, it took some time to standardize ways of
detecting it.
Secondly, the time interval we are talking about was not that long.
Marshall was not given the Semmelweiss treatment, however much
medicine's detractors would like to think so. He presented his
hypothesis (just that-- he wasn't the first guy to find bacteria in
stomachs) at a meeting in Australia in 1982. Treatment of H. pylori
was widely accepted practice by 1990, and Marshall was on his way to a
prestigious job in the US. So much for the hidebound medical
establishment. Weird unknown claim in Australia, to standard-of-care
in just 8 years? Medicine should be proud. How long should such a
process take, when absolute proof (ie, production of ulcers
deliberately in a human, experimentally) is lacking?
>> On some matters there
>> are no certainties to be found,
>
>Mere opinion on your part.
>
>>those matters are dealt with by statistical
>> analysis. There are some things that science cannot predict, it can
only
>> give probabilities (exact probabilities in many cases).
>
>Some things which it has so far been unable to predict.
>
>> What do you believe leads to certainties in things that can be
known?
>
>Exact knowledge and deductive logic.
Crap. Nonsense. You really are starting to sound like a
Randroidian health quack (God, the worst of two worlds). The very case
we're discussing, in which exact knowledge is lacking, is a case where
the answer was found by INDUCTION. Here you are accepting something as
complete fact, using it as a stick to beat physicians with, and arguing
that those who don't accept it are "pseudoscientists." Yet it is to
this day an inferance. Methinks, Mr. Cagle, that you are a little too
ready to take things at face value, and make black and white
judgements, based on evidence which really is not complete. Lots of
people with ulcers have no H. pylori, yet seem to respond to
antibiotics. Some have no H. pylori and don't respond to antibiotics?
What do doctors do for such people? Block their acid production, coat
the ulcer with a protectant, or increase their mucosa stimulating
prostaglandin by administering it in pill-form. Does it work? Yep.
What if they do have H. pylori? Turns out it's very hard to kill
unless acid production is stopped at the same time. Nature is
complicated. WAYYYY too complicated for black and white minds.
To sum up, Mr. Cagle, until you know your subject, be very careful
about bandying about the label of "pseudoscience." You may find that
you are struggling along under the weight of "pseudoknowledge."
Darrel Lloyd Jarmusch
somebody describing the conventional version of God as "A gaseous vertibrate
with a long white beard, human male genetalia, and no navel."
Even Chuckie is begining to sound sane to me - "Science can't find its own
ass let alone awooden stake. And if it did manage to find a stake and sharpen
it without cutting itself and then begin to drive it into the heart of
religion - at the last stroke science would be stone cold dead because the
heart of modern science *is* religion and *religious belief*" Sounds like QM
to me alright.
So I just had to share this with you all this answer to wetboy's question -
wetboy wrote:
> ....
> Please list all of the "axioms of religion".
The following "Axioms of Religion" I found in the book "Metaphysical
Hitchhiking and the Meaning of Life" by Freedom Lovetruth Lightbeing:
Axiom 1: Consciousness exists.
Axiom 2: Is is. (Being exists.)
Axiom 3: Is not, is not. (That which does not exist does not exist.)
Axiom 4: Truth exists.
Axiom 5: Things which are equal to the same thing are equal to each other.
Axiom 6: If equals are added to equals, the wholes are equal.
Axiom 7: The whole is greater than the part.
Axiom 8: All change requires the interaction of two or more forces.
Axiom 9: Right and wrong exist.
Axiom 10: The difference between right and wrong is discoverable.
Proposition 1: We ought to do what is right (From axioms 9 and 10).
Definition 1: God is the supreme being.
Definition 2: The universe is all that exists.
Axiom 11: All that exists, exists.
Axiom 12: The supreme being is all being.
Axiom 13: All being exists.
Proposition 2: The supreme being exists (by axioms 12 and 13).
Proposition 3: God exists (by proposition 2 and definition 1).
Freedom Lovetruth Lightbeing also wrote:
"God is the supreme being. The supreme being is all being. Since the supreme
being is all being, that is, all that exists, we may call God 'Allbeing'. If
we understand the word 'God' to mean all being, then it would be absurd to
deny the existence of God, because such a denial would be a denial of the
existence of all that exists. The word 'God' often is associated with the
image of a male being, and since the supreme being has no specific gender, and
is in fact all possible genders, therefore the name 'God' seems an
inappropriate appellation for the supreme being. The name 'Goddess' would be
just as appropriate as the word 'God' in this context, thus we should reserve
the words 'God' and 'Goddess' to refer to lesser deities than the one supreme
deity. The one supreme being would be more aptly called 'Allbeing' or 'One' or
'Universe' or 'Supremebeing' or some other such inclusive term.
Our concept of Allbeing or Universe is as limited as is our understanding of
all things and the nature of the entire universe. Since we can conceive of
this infinite unlimited concept only from a finite and limited perspective we
cannot entirely grasp it. Since we can conceive of the concept of Universe
only dimly we would do well to concentrate our efforts on simpler concepts and
lesser gods and goddesses, the Goddess of the Earth and the deities who
manifest themselves as our friends and family for instance.
There was no beginning. There shall be no end. The universe once was, and
shall be again, an infinite and formless void. Infinite brought forth from
nothingness the first being and the beginning of time. Infinite divided being
from being. Eventually the vast emptiness filled of beings beyond name or
number. Beings so powerful came to be that they are called gods or goddesses.
In a far flung corner of the universe there came to be the god we call Ra, and
his body was Sol the sun, and circling around him, the beautiful goddess,
Gaia, whose body is Terra the Earth. She is our mother. Her sacred body
sustains our life, and is our home. When her whirling molten body cooled, and
the radiance of Ra infused her warm waters, earth, air, fire and water mixed
in the warm waters of her womb, and from the primordial mud she brought forth
life. Time passed, and conscious life emerged. Conscious beings evolved that
were powerful enough to fathom the laws of the universe. Thus good and evil
came to be, for only those who can know the law can violate it.
The laws of the Universe are the laws of Gaia. Obey the laws of the Goddess.
Discern right from wrong and do what is right.
Do as you will so long as you do not harm others.
Do unto others as you would have others do unto you.
In your every deliberation consider the effect of your actions on all
generations to come.
The Four Simple Truths
1. Happiness and unhappiness exist.
2. Happiness is preferable to unhappiness.
3. True happiness is to be gained by satisfying appropriate desires.
4. It is good to cultivate appropriate desire.
I believe in these simple truths: Joy exists. Desire can lead to joy. Joy may
be increased by the cultivation of proper desire. To cultivate proper desire
one will do well to follow the n-fold path.
I believe in the n-fold path of right livelyhood, proper diet, ethical
actions, gentle words, voluntary simplicity, moderation, forgiveness,
understanding, good intentions, right belief.
The path: good intention, love of all being, search for truth, honesty,
simplicity, faith in nature, reverence for the generations to come, proper
diet, right livelihood, active body, moderation, morality, fidelity, beauty,
cleanliness, natural hygiene, natural birth...
I believe life's aim is to increase joy through the cultivation of proper
desire, and that individual existence will culminate in absorption into
Nirvana. I believe in living in moderation avoiding extremes of wealth and
poverty. I believe in the greatness of love and compassion toward all beings.
I believe that part of humanities essence is divine and eternal, and only our
individual ego is subject to change and will eventually be absorbed into
Nirvana. I believe in the path, in Karma, in the continuity of life, in the
family of spiritual seekers and that our sojourn on Earth is an opportunity to
participate in the joy of being a living creature.
Awakendism, Recognition Of One's Nature.
The goal of life is bliss, joy and happiness. Life ends in Nirvana. Toward the
goal of bliss the awakened one's essential teachings are contained in the four
simple truths: 1. The simple truth of bliss: Natural life is bliss. Natural
birth is bliss. Natural aging is bliss. The well-lived life is healthy,
blissful and disease free. Death is freedom, release from all negatives and
union with the one. Union with what we like is bliss. Separation from what we
do not like is bliss. Obtaining what we desire is bliss. Bliss is the
essential nature of life. 2. The simple truth of the cause of bliss: it is the
force of desire that leads to action and further to bliss, accompanied by
delight and passion. 3. The simple truth of the continuation of bliss: the
cultivation of proper desire, forsaking harmful short term pleasures,
relinquishing negative emotions and frames of mind, detaching ourselves from
destructive desires and cravings, will lead us to higher levels of bliss. 4.
The simple truth of the path that leads to the highest bliss, namely belief of
the heart, true thought, gentle words, ethical action, right livelihood,
active lifestyle, proper diet, prayerful meditation, voluntary simplicity.
From "The Dancing Buddha" by Emmanual Morningsky
'The primary goal of awakened ones is Nirvana, merging with the eternal and
allpresent One. The highest aspirants may reach Nirvana before the death of
the physical body. Nirvana is an indescribable peace and tranquility, a union
with and an understanding of ultimate reality. Nirvana is a release from the
bonds of improper desire, disease, pain and suffering. It is the freedom of
highest happiness, perfect peace, unconditional love and eternal life.
The path of attainment is in four stages. First is the pupil stage - growing
and strengthening of the mind, character and physical body through mental
exercise such as reading, writing and mathematics, learning moral behavior,
treating others with respect, not stealing, etc., growing and strengthing the
physical body with proper diet, sports and other healthy physical activities
such as walking, hiking and biking. This stage should be accomplished in
childhood. The second stage, the student stage, is understanding the
principles of strong, healthy and good bodies, minds and spirits. Study of the
principles in philosophy, theology, science, and poetics (literature, art,
music and entertainment) which lead to a conscious understanding of the
reasons behind the actions of the first stage. The third stage is the
perfection of the path embarked upon in the first stage leading toward purity
of the conscious being. The fourth stage is when the seeker has perfected
adherence to the path and is embarking on Nirvana. The ultimate goal and
destiny of awakening is eternal divine bliss.
The Four Simple Truths
1. The well-lived life is bliss. A life lived out of balance (or off center)
is full of pain and misery. Bliss exists.
2. Appropriate desire leads to bliss. Inappropriate and shortsighted desire
are the cause of pain and suffering.
3. The highest bliss and a life free from pain, disease and suffering may be
achieved by cultivating appropriate desire.
4. We are free to choose to cultivate appropriate desire and may do so by
following the n-fold path (the Dau or the Dao or the Logos) which leads to the
highest bliss.
The Middle Way
In the middle way one takes only what food and rest one needs, no more and no
less. This is the way to Nirvana. The well-lived life is bliss. A life lived
out of balance is pain and misery.
a. Natural birth is bliss. The mother who lives well and gives birth naturally
need not feel any pain in birthing. Neither does her child suffer pain for the
child is well prepared for life by its mother's path. The child is not drugged
or forced from the womb by unnatural and painful methods. Such a child will
not cry and its first breath shall bear witness for life and joy, not pain and
death.
b. The will lived life is vibrant, healthy and free of disease so pain and
debility cannot enter it through sickness and ill health.
c. The well-lived life is long and the body and mind stay strong well into the
second century of life.
d. The well-lived life has no fear of death for fear is a negative emotion and
as such cannot find grounding in a joyful being, and death is but a
transformation from one kind of joy to another.
e. To love is joy, and to bond with the beloved is to continue in joy.
f. Separation from what we do not like is bliss. One who has lived well has
the power to turn away from the evils of life and to focus energy of the
joyful and all that leads to bliss.
Body is bliss.
Sensation is bliss.
Emotions are bliss.
Consciousness is bliss.
The entirety of a well-lived human life is joy.
Inappropriate desires are those which tend to separate the self from the
universe or to separate the present self from the past and future self. We are
part of the infinite universe but our being merely a part of the entirety does
not mean that we are finite. We have infinite inward dimensions, and an
infinite past and an infinite future. Life sprang forth on this planet
billions of years ago and has continued on in an unbroken chain that
culminates in us. Even the beginning of what we call life was not the
beginning. The elements of the first forms of life were formed in the hearts
of long dead stars which themselves had gone through billions of years of
evolution. The first stars came forth from the energy of Brahma who shattered
to bits and dispersed throughout the universe. From Brahma we came and to
Brahma we shall return. We are patterns of organic energy. We evolved from an
energy that can neither be created nor destroyed. Our life force shall flow on
in one form or another. We shall continue on, it is our choice whether we
shall continue on in pain or in joy. Let us choose joy.
We were one once, we shall be one again. Our separateness is due to our
ignorance. There is but one universe. We are eddies in swirling flow of the
current of life. Let our swirling be a dance of joy.' "
Aloha,
Darrel Jarmusch
Steven B. Harris
<dar...@hawaiian.net> writes:
>>
>So I just had to share this with you all this answer to wetboy's
question -
>
>wetboy wrote:
>
>> ....
>> Please list all of the "axioms of religion".
>
>The following "Axioms of Religion" I found in the book "Metaphysical
>Hitchhiking and the Meaning of Life" by Freedom Lovetruth Lightbeing:
>
>Axiom 1: Consciousness exists.
>Axiom 2: Is is. (Being exists.)
>Axiom 3: Is not, is not. (That which does not exist does not exist.)
>Axiom 4: Truth exists.
>Axiom 5: Things which are equal to the same thing are equal to each
[Blah, long snip of many others]
The axioms of Organized Religion make a lot shorter list:
1) There is a God.
2) We know how one can get into special touch with Him/Her/It.
3) This is going to cost you.
Steven B. Harris
>The entirety of a well-lived human life is joy.
And if the Nazis drag you and family off to a death camp and kill you
all, well, you're not looking at it correctly. Don't worry. Smile, be
happy. Have a nice day.
> From Brahma we came and to
>Brahma we shall return. We are patterns of organic energy. We evolved
>from an energy that can neither be created nor destroyed. Our life
>force shall flow on in one form or another. We shall continue on, it
>is our choice whether we shall continue on in pain or in joy. Let us
>choose joy.
I want to see you demonstate this in front of your temple, with a
gasoline can and match. If you enjoy the whole thing, I'll be
impressed.
Steven B. Harris
>3. The highest bliss and a life free from pain, disease and suffering
>may be achieved by cultivating appropriate desire.
And if you don't make it, well, we can always find some inappropriate
desire to blame. This is the primitive game of "find the witch." One
humans love to play.
>
>a. Natural birth is bliss. The mother who lives well and gives birth
>naturally need not feel any pain in birthing.
And if she does, it's her fault. The connection between Christian
Science and Hari Krishna is all too evident. Also too evident is the
male authorship of this crap <g>.
One wonders why the emphasis on lack of pain. Should one desire a
lack of pain? If not, why mention it?
>Neither does her child suffer pain for the
>child is well prepared for life by its mother's path. The child is not
>drugged or forced from the womb by unnatural and painful methods.
And if the mother's pelvis is too narrow, then a miracle of
telportation occurs. Trust us. All deaths of good Hindus in
childbirth are due to lack of faith or proper practice.
>.
>b. The will lived life is vibrant, healthy and free of disease so pain
and
>debility cannot enter it through sickness and ill health.
And if not, it wasn't well-lived. QED. Same-old, Same-old crap we've
heard from priests and the comforters of Job, for millennia.
>c. The well-lived life is long and the body and mind stay strong well
>into the second century of life.
We lost the birth certificates, but trust us.
>d. The well-lived life has no fear of death for fear is a negative
>emotion and
>as such cannot find grounding in a joyful being, and death is but a
>transformation from one kind of joy to another.
But we're telling you about the long life stuff anyway, just in case
you have some doubts about d.
>Body is bliss.
Unless you have a congenital malformation, or somebody hurts you
permanently.
>Sensation is bliss.
See above
>Emotions are bliss.
>Consciousness is bliss.
>The entirety of a well-lived human life is joy.
See above. And if not, you know who to blame. (Hint, it's not your
genes or the Nazis; it's what you had for breakfast and whether or not
you adjusted your attitude).
>
Steven B. Harris
>Natural aging is bliss.
For animals, no (have you owned pets?). For most humans, no (been to a
nursing home?). So who, then, and where then, are these people over
100 who have no pain and no physical problems? I'm a geriatrician, and
I'd like to meet them. Do they get to the US much, or live in Yogi
caves in India, where they can't been examined?
Jo Schaper
SeanChe...@webtv.net (Michelle Albert) writes:
>
>Your reponse is at the very least amusing. As a scientist, I do believe
>that religion has a very valid place in society. I believe that certain
>people need to believe in religion for structure and self worth. But I
>assure you the creation of the Earth, the planets, the entire solar
>system, as well as, human kind did not come from an imaginary figure in
>the sky. Pick up any elementary geology text book and find out how the
>world ws created.
>
If you think religion is about imaginary figures in the sky, or that geology
has all then answers, I would suggest that you inquire further.
Jo
Mark Isaak
>>
>>The following "Axioms of Religion" I found in the book "Metaphysical
>>Hitchhiking and the Meaning of Life" by Freedom Lovetruth Lightbeing:
>>
>>Axiom 1: Consciousness exists.
>>Axiom 2: Is is. (Being exists.)
>>Axiom 3: Is not, is not. (That which does not exist does not exist.)
>>Axiom 4: Truth exists.
>>Axiom 5: Things which are equal to the same thing are equal to each
>[Blah, long snip of many others]
>
>
>The axioms of Organized Religion make a lot shorter list:
>
>1) There is a God.
>2) We know how one can get into special touch with Him/Her/It.
>3) This is going to cost you.
I disagree. The axioms of Organized Religion are:
1) People want hope.
2) People are gullible.
3) The priests should have the power.
(Agruably, #2 is not an axiom, but a trivial observation.)
--
Mark Isaak atta @ best.com http://www.best.com/~atta
"My determination is not to remain stubbornly with my ideas but
I'll leave them and go over to others as soon as I am shown
plausible reason which I can grasp." - Antony Leeuwenhoek
Paul gate
Bruce Bathurst wrote in message <12DDCBFE...@dcn.davis.ca.us>...
>Paul gate wrote:
>
>> <SNIP>
<snip for brevity>
>Deductive theories
>
>An axiom is not a postulate, which is the term I believe you meant. Axioms
>are true, postulates need not be.
This is not how i understand the word "axiom", at all..
Axioms are assumed to be true, but cannot be shown true or false
"God or whatever, exists" may well be axiomatic, to religion
but i`m no philosopher, i will simply assume i am incorrect
>The consistency of postulates assure us that any sentence phrased using the
>vocabulary of the theory can never be proven to be both true and false. A
>sentence phrased in the vocabulary of the theory that is a logically
>consequence of the primitive assumptions is, by definition, _true_. Sentences
>that are true are termed theorems. Consequent to the theory being consistent,
>a theorem that is true can never be proven false. Scientific truth is thus a
>shared, social concept, because the primitive assumptions were intuitive to a
>great majority of people,
This to my mind is the key paragraph , and the root reason why my
opinion differs from yours
The primitive assumptions of science are shared *all* people, that are
capable of making cohesive sense of the world, this includes people
with religious belief and people who live / have lived, in "non-technical"
cultures.
"the great majority of people" , *hints* that there is an alternative set of
assumptions, known to humans, that excludes the members of the
scientific set , and doesn't lead to complete incapacitation, and
inability to make sense of the world..i don`t think that is the case
I agree that the assumptions of science may well be a shared social
concept, but not that they are restricted to a subset of cultures
This makes their truth non "culturaly relative"
in other words they are to all intents and purposes "true" as far as
humans are concerned
>Summary
>
>Scientific theories are seldom cast in deductive forms. Casting them in the
>more abstract, mathematical deductive theory allows us to define scientific
>truth, and prove that scientific proof is relative: it is only as convincing
>as the undefined postulates, which should be as intuitive as possible.
if all humans find the undefined postulates of science convincing
then sciences reasoning should be convincing to all humans
Can you think of an undefined atomic_type postulate that science uses
that any people (not in the grip of some psychological malfunction),
would not find convincing?
btw sorry about the huge snips.
Regards
Dave Gower
deluded poor Mr. Cagle. However, I have experienced in my own life a little
of what Mr. Jarmush is talking about (although I cringe when I hear people
invoking melodramatic expressions to covey it).
There is in my experience a spiritual reality which transcends the silliness
of ancient religions and can bring a fundamental alteration of attitudes and
feelings. These do not conflict in any way with more "conventional" science.
If you haven't experienced it then I hope you do. It would be unscientific
for me to deny what Mr. Jarmush says, and I hope you don't block off your
possibility of such joy with angry arguments..
I have no quarrel with anything you say about science. I would just like to
add that this experience of which I speak is also as real as an everyday
object. For me, it IS an everyday object.
Cheers
Steven B. Harris <sbha...@ix.netcom.com> wrote in message
news:859cgk$850$1...@nntp4.atl.mindspring.net...
C. Alan Peyton, Jr.
"Darrel Lloyd Jarmusch" <dar...@hawaiian.net> wrote in message
news:38788597...@hawaiian.net...
The Wilkins Family
> In <38788597...@hawaiian.net> Darrel Lloyd Jarmusch
> <dar...@hawaiian.net> writes:
> >>
> >So I just had to share this with you all this answer to wetboy's
> question -
> >
> >wetboy wrote:
> >
> >> ....
> >> Please list all of the "axioms of religion".
> >
> >The following "Axioms of Religion" I found in the book "Metaphysical
> >Hitchhiking and the Meaning of Life" by Freedom Lovetruth Lightbeing:
> >
> >Axiom 1: Consciousness exists.
> >Axiom 2: Is is. (Being exists.)
> >Axiom 3: Is not, is not. (That which does not exist does not exist.)
> >Axiom 4: Truth exists.
> >Axiom 5: Things which are equal to the same thing are equal to each
> other.....
> [Blah, long snip of many others]
>
>
> The axioms of Organized Religion make a lot shorter list:
>
> 1) There is a God.
> 2) We know how one can get into special touch with Him/Her/It.
> 3) This is going to cost you.
>
POTM!
[For non-t.o readers, I just nominated this as post of the month]
--
John Wilkins on his home account
Homo homini aut deus aut lupus - Erasmus of Rotterdam
Jackie & Barry
Paul gate wrote:
> Barry wrote:
> >Both Science and Religion are, or at least should be, Honourable
> >Pursuits.
> >Before you can do anything, you have to stand somewhere. *Where* someone
> >chooses to stand is his personal philosophy/prejudice. Some don't like
> >to acknowledge the existence of this Science/Philosophy relationship.
> This is misleading imo
> Science has a subset of the axioms that such things as religious thought
> rest apon, Science doesn`t have axioms that religion doesn`t also have
> It merely found that some of the axioms of religion were not needed
> to make progress
Science necessarily presupposes a belief (faith) in Reason. That
particular faith is not a requirement in Religion (although it is
sometimes paid lip service).
I'm not sure where that faith comes from.
Even the most "intelligent" people can display remarkably weak reasoning
powers. A brief study of the History of Science shows that the herd
instinct is as strong in Science as it is in Religion. Science, like
Religion, is sometimes *not* an Honourable Pursuit.
Even if the reasoning processes are carried out perfectly, the belief in
that process is a faith. That faith is so strong that if the answer
produced by the process conflicts with observation, we may discard the
observation or cast out one of our assumptions, but we don't doubt our
faith in Reason.
Sometimes we just scratch our heads and look the other way, since we
don't want to discard the assumptions, or the observation. In any case,
the reasoning process is clung to like a life raft.
If we can't have Faith in Reason, what are we left with?
Barry
C. Cagle
<ja...@netcom.ca> wrote:
> "C. Cagle" wrote:
>
> > Are Science and Religion Compatible Concepts?
>
> Both Science and Religion are, or at least should be, Honourable
> Pursuits.
>
> Like the great man once said, "I can't move it, unless I have somewhere
> to stand."
>
> This applies equally to mental pursuits.
>
> Before you can do anything, you have to stand somewhere. *Where* someone
> chooses to stand is his personal philosophy/prejudice. Some don't like
> to acknowledge the existence of this Science/Philosophy relationship.
>
> They don't seem to understand that Faith is necessary before we can hold
> any opinion.
>
> Barry
Well said, Barry.
Regards,
Charles Cagle
C. Cagle
<sbha...@ix.netcom.com> wrote:
> o sum up, Mr. Cagle, until you know your subject, be very careful
> about bandying about the label of "pseudoscience." You may find that
> you are struggling along under the weight of "pseudoknowledge."
Well said. My 'knowledge' in this case was limited to an article or
two I found in the popular press and on the internet. That I got beat
up over using that as an example is appropriate.
But the term 'pseudoknowledge' is an appropriate one that can be
applied to much of the knowledge store of professional physicists,
cosmologists, astrophysicists, and geologists (and various appropriate
deep narrow ditch subdisciplines).
This is why I have been lobbying for a means to qualify the 'knowledge'
which is generated by so-called scientific activities.
Regards,
Charles Cagle
C. Cagle
<ba...@galaxy.ucr.edu> wrote:
> In article <030120000306443916%sing...@telestream.com>,
> C. Cagle <sing...@telestream.com> wrote:
>
> >Give a man a satellite dish and a PBS station to pump his mind full
> >of unsubstantiable ideas concerning the origin of the universe in
> >order to wean him from obedience to his Creator. Then fill his
> >stomach with hybrid wheat and warm him with electricity generated by
> >solar or nuclear power and transplant into him a dead man's heart
> >when his own fails.
>
> You're starting to sound a bit crazier. Hybrid wheat???
I'm flattered if I am sounding crazier as judged by your standards,
John, since the things which you believe in are absolutely insane.
The idea is that science and religion have been companions through
history with men of deep religious convictions being perhaps the most
important contributors to scientific knowledge. Men are always looking
for an excuse to disavow their Creator. Modern science is promoting
that effort and scientists are claiming that they are the true saviors
of mankind. They are full of bull, of course.
Charles Cagle
Louis Hissink
amount of feedback !
One interesting observation that could be made is that the idea of a Big
Bang is essentially a religious item of faith, basically invented by the
Jesuit Physicist Le Maitre to reconcile his religion with his physics. As
Halton Arp and others have demonstrated, there was no Big Bang, or at least
empirically.
If that is so, then what poses as science today could be more accurately
described as technologically sophisticated religion.
If that is a resonable conclusion, then it is little wonder that so much
acrimony occurs between "scientists" and theologically inclined
commentators.
And if the Big Bang did not happen, then maybe the earth did not cool from a
molten start, and maybe the core is not molten, and then we have an
interesting situation.
Louis Hissink
Diamond Geologist
Fred McGalliard
> >Please list all of the "axioms of religion".
How about
1. There really must be some reason for all this incredibly complicated
stuff.
2. Could any of these religion huxsters actually be telling the truth?
3. Cripes, these scientists don't make any more sense than these
religious geeks.
Fred McGalliard
G Holland wrote:
...
> Quantum dynamics is most certainly not pseudoscience. On some matters there
> are no certainties to be found, those matters are dealt with by statistical
> analysis. There are some things that science cannot predict, it can only
> give probabilities (exact probabilities in many cases).
This is a serious error in thought. Predicting a probability accurately
is a certainty. It is just a different kind of certainty.
Fred McGalliard
"Steven B. Harris" wrote:
...
> "Faith" is a word that should be reserved for beliefs that are held
> on the basis of rumor, superstition, cultural mythology, and the like,
> and which could just as easily be something else.
Steven. How about using "Faith" as it has been defined all along and not
invent a new word or meaning for it. I have faith in knowledge that has
been tested. I have faith in witnesses, theories, ideas that have stood
the test of time and question. There is a confusion when one speaks of
the suspension of disbelief as faith, but the clear idea of faith is not
so easily lost.
Mark Isaak
That's not faith. That's confidence. If reason didn't work, science
wouldn't use it.
Mark Isaak
Fred McGalliard <frederick.b...@boeing.com> wrote:
>Steven. How about using "Faith" as it has been defined all along and not
>invent a new word or meaning for it.
Unfortunately, "faith" already has two meanings, one which applies to
religion, and another, COMPLETELY different meaning which applies to
science. People seem to forget that using the same word for two things
does not mean the two things are the same.
Don Quixote
Fred McGalliard wrote in message <387A13AF...@boeing.com>...
Actually, how about:
1) "Don't do as I do, do as I say".
2) "Give me all your money and you will be *saved*". The degree of *being
saved* is in direct proportion to how much you give.
3) If you have anything left, you weren't paying attention; refer back to
#2.
DQ
Rob
Louis Hissink wrote:
>
> And if the Big Bang did not happen, then maybe the earth did not cool from a
> molten start, and maybe the core is not molten, and then we have an
> interesting situation.
>
> Louis Hissink
> Diamond Geologist
S-waves don't propagate through the outer core. So it must be a fluid, because
any solid would support some kind of shear stress. Therefore, it's either
molten or gaseous.
Fred McGalliard
please be specific. I thought it meant that I have become confident in
the things that I do not have direct evidence of because of that which I
have tested. In this sense it is exactly like our faith that an electric
current will produce a magnetic field. Perhaps like our confidence that
krakatoa actually blew up. (Those folk make up some mighty fanciful
tales you know.) We know a lot of things, and believe a lot of things,
based on the evidence of some particular witness (where witness could
here be construed to include the witness of the iridium layer, or the
ripple marks in the Columbia river flood flow path, that sort of thing.)
Steven B. Harris
Here's the deal. Well trade you a zillion mansions after you die,
for a couple of bucks in the collection plate now. What a deal. Think
of it as an investment. The ultimate penny stock....
Peter Nyikos
>In article <387A14EA...@boeing.com>,
>Fred McGalliard <frederick.b...@boeing.com> wrote:
>>Steven. How about using "Faith" as it has been defined all along and not
>>invent a new word or meaning for it.
>Unfortunately, "faith" already has two meanings, one which applies to
>religion, and another, COMPLETELY different meaning which applies to
>science.
...and to religion based on eyewitness accounts. Of course,
the further away we are historically from those accounts,
the more tenuous that faith tends to get when such emotionally
charged issues as the existence of God and of life after death
are concerned.
> People seem to forget that using the same word for two things
>does not mean the two things are the same.
I favor using "blind faith" for the faith YOU tend to apply
to religion. That brings the controversies out into the
open rather than hiding them behind words.
Peter Nyikos -- standard disclaimer --
University of South Carolina
Peter Nyikos
>G Holland wrote:
>...
>> Quantum dynamics is most certainly not pseudoscience. On some matters there
>> are no certainties to be found, those matters are dealt with by statistical
>> analysis.
...assuming statistical analysis leads to predictability
of probabilities. But that's a big if--the idea that nature
is regular enough to subsume all phenomena under either
probability or outright certainty of outcomes.
>> There are some things that science cannot predict, it can only
>> give probabilities (exact probabilities in many cases).
"many"? There is a neat .sig someone here uses about what we know being
like handful of dirt...
>This is a serious error in thought. Predicting a probability accurately
>is a certainty. It is just a different kind of certainty.
...assuming the predictions are correct. I wonder, though,
how many attempts there are to verify the probabilities
predicted by quantum mechanics.
Peter Nyikos -- standard disclaimer --
Professor, Dept. of Mathematics
University of South Carolina
Columbia, SC 29208
Fred McGalliard
the balance for the axioms of science.
1. You should always adhere to the scientific method, but you durned
well better agree with my interpretation of theory.
2. Stop wasting your money on art, religion, and all those other pseudo
sciences. Physics will give you more bang for your buck, and I would
love to have that private office.
3. You owe us for developing the bomb for you. Now just send us a lot
more money and we will try to discover a way to keep it from going off.
Fred McGalliard
Peter Nyikos wrote:
...
> I favor using "blind faith" for the faith YOU tend to apply
> to religion. That brings the controversies out into the
> open rather than hiding them behind words.
Excellent point Peter.
Tom Potter
Steven B. Harris <sbha...@ix.netcom.com> wrote in message
news:85di82$849$1...@nntp4.atl.mindspring.net...
> Here's the deal. Well trade you a zillion mansions after you
die,
> for a couple of bucks in the collection plate now. What a deal.
Think
> of it as an investment. The ultimate penny stock....
It is interesting to see that many people
have a strong negative attitude toward religion,
although I suggest that the facts do not justify this attitude.
As one who is not religious, and has not
been in a church ( Except for funerals and weddings )
for 50 years, it has been my observation that
workers in religious organizations make a small
fraction of what doctors, lawyers, public school teachers,
government employees, industrial union workers, etc.
are paid.
It is also interesting to note,
that religious workers serve mostly
to aid and comfort folks in times of
stress, including sickness and death, and
that churches serve as very important
cultural centers even in good times.
I dare say that few social entities are so
undeserving maligned as the good folks
who operate the religious organizations.
I must point out that is so because of
the competition for the minds of men,
between government, media and religion.
Government employees have always used
some system of mind control in order to
promote their self-serving agenda, of
security, power, prestige, a soft, cushy job,
an early, cushy retirement, and immunity from
their errors, omissions and criminal acts.
Before the American Constitution, the
mind control system of choice for government
employees was religion and censorship,
but now it has become public education.
Government employees use the government's
primary mind control system ( The Public Education Monopoly )
to discredit all other systems of mind control
( Religion, TV, "talk radio", movies, music, the Internet, etc. ).
There should be a free market in mind control
( As the Founding Father's tried to establish in the Bill of
Rights. ).
In the good society, the government would be
prohibited from having a monopoly, or large interest,
in ANY mind control system.
( Education, religion, newspapers, censorship, TV, radio, movies,
music, the Internet, communications, "free" books, libraries, etc. )
It doesn't take a brain surgeon to comprehend
that 200 years ago, government employees used
religion to promote their interests. and today,
they use a Public Education Monopoly.
--
Tom Potter http://jump.to/tp
Fred McGalliard
Peter Nyikos wrote:
...
> ...assuming the predictions are correct. I wonder, though,
> how many attempts there are to verify the probabilities
> predicted by quantum mechanics.
Well, as I recall, Einstein, other than Relativity, made big points with
applying qm statistics to gas laws. Cripes it has been too long. HELP.
But the most persistent is the "statistical" penetration of tunneling
layers, and of course atomic/subatomic diffraction. These depend on the
"probability" of an event, yet when you turn on the source, the result
is very very well determined. This is tested repeatedly and
continuously. Related is the surprising fact that conservation of energy
exactly applies, even though it is a statistical overcoat on the QM.
Jackie & Barry
Peter Nyikos wrote:
> I favor using "blind faith" for the faith YOU tend to apply
> to religion. That brings the controversies out into the
> open rather than hiding them behind words.
"Blind faith" means to disregard evidence.
As an agnostic in both Religion and in Science, I find both forms of
faith to be blind, in practice.
Practitioners of both tend to see what they want to see, disregarding
inconvenient "facts".
It has been my experience that practitioners of Science are the more
guilty of the two.
Remember, Galileo was attacked by the University Establishment more
consistently than by the Church. It was the former who felt their
teachings were the more threatened. It was they had the greater wish to
remain blind.
Barry
RMumaw
Tom Potter wrote:
>
> Steven B. Harris <sbha...@ix.netcom.com> wrote in message
> news:85di82$849$1...@nntp4.atl.mindspring.net...
>
> > Here's the deal. Well trade you a zillion mansions after you
> die,
> > for a couple of bucks in the collection plate now. What a deal.
> Think
> > of it as an investment. The ultimate penny stock....
>
> It is interesting to see that many people
> have a strong negative attitude toward religion,
> although I suggest that the facts do not justify this attitude.
>
> As one who is not religious, and has not
> been in a church ( Except for funerals and weddings )
> for 50 years, it has been my observation that
It's only been 30 yrs for me. I'm an agnostic, tending toward atheist,
but lack proof of the nonexistence of a supreme being.
> workers in religious organizations make a small
> fraction of what doctors, lawyers, public school teachers,
> government employees, industrial union workers, etc.
> are paid.
But workers in religious organizations are generally doing relatively
"unskilled" labor.
>
> It is also interesting to note,
> that religious workers serve mostly
> to aid and comfort folks in times of
> stress, including sickness and death, and
> that churches serve as very important
> cultural centers even in good times.
True to a point. However, religion has also been the basis of some of
the greatest intolerance seen in the world. Plenty of "good people"
have done bad things in the name of their religion (and not just the
monotheists of the Jews, Christians and Moslems).
> I dare say that few social entities are so
> undeserving maligned as the good folks
> who operate the religious organizations.
Much of that comes from folks who were former members and/or attend
_other_ religious organizations.
<Rant against government workers snipped>
Matt Silberstein
<nyi...@math.sc.edu>:
|at...@best.comNOSPAM (Mark Isaak) writes:
|
|>In article <387A14EA...@boeing.com>,
|>Fred McGalliard <frederick.b...@boeing.com> wrote:
|>>Steven. How about using "Faith" as it has been defined all along and not
|>>invent a new word or meaning for it.
|
|>Unfortunately, "faith" already has two meanings, one which applies to
|>religion, and another, COMPLETELY different meaning which applies to
|>science.
|
|...and to religion based on eyewitness accounts.
Which differs from religions based on texts which supposedly to
contain reports from eyewitnesses only they were written after the
fact. The faith lays in accepting the text as though it were, well,
gospel.
| Of course,
|the further away we are historically from those accounts,
|the more tenuous that faith tends to get when such emotionally
|charged issues as the existence of God and of life after death
|are concerned.
And even so, you have to accept on faith that the irreproducible
events discussed in the eyewitness accounts took place. And that all
of the words supposedly spoken are recorded exactly as they were
spoken.
|> People seem to forget that using the same word for two things
|>does not mean the two things are the same.
|
|I favor using "blind faith" for the faith YOU tend to apply
|to religion. That brings the controversies out into the
|open rather than hiding them behind words.
By using "blind" it seems, to me at least, to generate irrelevant
controversy.
Matt Silberstein
----------------------------------------
You were under the impression
That when you were walking forward
You would end up further onward
But things ain't quite that simple
Pete Townshend - Quadrophenia
tdp...@my-deja.com
RMumaw <r_m...@yahoo.com> wrote:
>
>
> Tom Potter wrote:
> >
> > Steven B. Harris <sbha...@ix.netcom.com> wrote in message
> > news:85di82$849$1...@nntp4.atl.mindspring.net...
> >
> > > Here's the deal. Well trade you a zillion mansions after you
> > die,
> > > for a couple of bucks in the collection plate now. What a deal.
> > Think
> > > of it as an investment. The ultimate penny stock....
> >
> > It is interesting to see that many people
> > have a strong negative attitude toward religion,
> > although I suggest that the facts do not justify this attitude.
> >
> > As one who is not religious, and has not
> > been in a church ( Except for funerals and weddings )
> > for 50 years, it has been my observation that
>
> It's only been 30 yrs for me. I'm an agnostic, tending toward atheist,
> but lack proof of the nonexistence of a supreme being.
>
> > workers in religious organizations make a small
> > fraction of what doctors, lawyers, public school teachers,
> > government employees, industrial union workers, etc.
> > are paid.
>
> But workers in religious organizations are generally doing relatively
> "unskilled" labor.
I have met hundred of religious, government
and union workers, and it has been my observation
that the religious workers are generally more
intelligent, work oriented, and productive.
> >
> > It is also interesting to note,
> > that religious workers serve mostly
> > to aid and comfort folks in times of
> > stress, including sickness and death, and
> > that churches serve as very important
> > cultural centers even in good times.
>
> True to a point. However, religion has also been the basis of some of
> the greatest intolerance seen in the world. Plenty of "good people"
> have done bad things in the name of their religion (and not just the
> monotheists of the Jews, Christians and Moslems).
>
> > I dare say that few social entities are so
> > undeserving maligned as the good folks
> > who operate the religious organizations.
>
> Much of that comes from folks who were former members and/or attend
> _other_ religious organizations.
>
> <Rant against government workers snipped>
It is interesting to note
that the poster snipped that part of my
post where I indicated that the abuses
of brainwashing ( And the killing and looting
that goes with success in brainwashing. )
is done when religions have been coopted
by governments.
Religion, and any other mind control system,
such as education, newspapers, TV, radio, etc.
only becomes a serious problem, when the government
coopts them,and uses them to promote the selfish
interests of government employees. Free market
religions are not, nor have ever been a big problem
for societies. They serve a real social need.
Tom Potter
Sent via Deja.com http://www.deja.com/
Before you buy.
WanabBuffy
>chert (and if you don't understand, you just flunked intro geology).
Hey, isn't it Epidote, Zoisite, and Clinozoisite?
Dna
ps I personally believe its the Father, Son and Holy Spirit
maff91
[...]
>It doesn't take a brain surgeon to comprehend
>that 200 years ago, government employees used
>religion to promote their interests. and today,
>they use a Public Education Monopoly.
Have you read what the founding fathers said?
http://www.infidels.org/library/modern/ed_buckner/quotations.html
http://members.tripod.com/~candst/index.html
*****************************************************
Unforgettable Thomas Paine:
"Society in every state is a blessing, but
government, even in its best state, is but a
necessary evil, in its worst state
an intolerable one."
"Of all the tyrannies that affect mankind,
tyranny in religion is the Worst"
"All national institutions of churches, whether
Jewish, Christian or Turkish, appear to me no
other than human inventions, set up to terrify
and enslave mankind, and monopolize power and
profit."
"He that would make his own liberty secure,
must guard even his enemy from oppression;
for if he violates this duty, he establishes
a precedent that will reach to himself"
"A bad cause will ever be supported by
bad means and bad men."
"Moderation in temper is always a virtue;
but moderation in principle is always a
vice."
"War involves in its progress such a train
of unforeseen and unsupposed circumstances
that no human wisdom can calculate its end.
It has but one thing certain and that is to
increase taxes."
"My country is the world"
http://www.infidels.org/library/historical/thomas_paine/age_of_reason/intro.html
http://www.wired.com/wired/archive/3.05/paine.html
*****************************************************