Human inteligence.
David Haas
think. Upon reading a post in which the US Congress and the word
intelligence were used in the same sentence I had a thought. (Remarkable
isn't it)
Are humans as a population that intelligent? Intelligence is defined as
the capacity to reason and to determine what is true and what is not.
Granted, the scientific community appears to have a fairly good handle on
facts. Stuff which has been determined through experiment and tested
through time. Most of the human population, however, seems to accept
manufactured facts and use them to determine other facts without any
confirmation. Take formal religion and product advertising for example.
Millions, perhaps billions, are bombarded with all sorts of false and
misleading information and accept it without reservation. They may actually
convince their friends and loved ones that they know the truth about God
and/or floor cleaner. Could this actually be a form of anti-intelligence.
A situation where the understanding of reality is completely subjective.
Human positive intelligence has enabled us to extend our life span, modify
our environment and change the earth's ecosystems in a few hundred years.
The question is can people, I include the politicians here, see and accept
facts which do not fit into their idea of personal importance and
religious bias.
D. Haas
Tarjei Straume
David Haas wrote:
> This may be a little off topic but I thought I would see what you all
> think. Upon reading a post in which the US Congress and the word
> intelligence were used in the same sentence I had a thought. (Remarkable
> isn't it)
>
> Are humans as a population that intelligent? Intelligence is defined as
> the capacity to reason and to determine what is true and what is not.
My old Webster suggests the following:
1) the ability to learn or understand or to deal with new or trying
situations; reason; the skilled use of reason.
2) the ability to apply knowledge to manipulate one's environment or to think
abstractly as measured by objective criteria (as tests).
> Granted, the scientific community appears to have a fairly good handle on
> facts.
The scientific community has mny academics, i.e individuals with university
degrees and highly developed abstract thinking. But there are other kinds of
intelligence, e.g. the mechanic or the carpenter who is good at practical
work. He may not have college or university, but he has special abilities
within problem solving and innovations related to practical skills.
Because intelligence has so many manifestations, we should be cautious about
calling someone else unintelligent. It's a lot better to say, "Don't insult my
intelligence" or "don't insult your own intelligence."
> Stuff which has been determined through experiment and tested
> through time. Most of the human population, however, seems to accept
> manufactured facts and use them to determine other facts without any
> confirmation. Take formal religion and product advertising for example.
> Millions, perhaps billions, are bombarded with all sorts of false and
> misleading information and accept it without reservation.
Very true. Mass conformity of this kind is a threat to individuality and to
the development of personal character and intelligence. For instance, it's an
insult to the intelligent voters when information about what the candidates
stand for is reduced to slogans and short commercial messages.
> They may actually convince their friends and loved ones that they know the
> truth about God and/or floor cleaner.
That is another irony of this culture - namely that the deepest spiritual
riddles and the most intimate personal issues are pendled along with tootpaste
and the like -as if they were similar "products."
> Could this actually be a form of anti-intelligence.
I think so.
> A situation where the understanding of reality is completely subjective.
.... or based upon whims or fashons or what the Jones'es think and believe and
do and wear and own.
> Human positive intelligence has enabled us to extend our life span, modify
> our environment and change the earth's ecosystems in a few hundred years.
> The question is can people, I include the politicians here, see and accept
> facts which do not fit into their idea of personal importance and
> religious bias.
In the case of politicians and of those who pendle religion as a profession,
the the concern for personal career, public prestige, and personal advantage
appears to outweigh all other considerations.
Tarjei
--
===========================================================================
ANARCHY MAY NOT RULE IN SOCIETY, BUT ANARCHOSOPHY RULES ON THE INTERNET.
Tarjei Straume
Slettelokka 39a
0597 Oslo, Norway
(+47)22-25-37-68, (+47)993-09-685
mailto:tast...@online.no
==========================================================================
Like This Internet Resource? Click to Recommend-It (r)
<http://www.recommend-it.com/l.z.e?s=698958>
Keith Johnson
David Haas wrote:
>
> This may be a little off topic but I thought I would see what you all
> think. Upon reading a post in which the US Congress and the word
> intelligence were used in the same sentence I had a thought. (Remarkable
> isn't it)
>
> Are humans as a population that intelligent? Intelligence is defined as
> the capacity to reason and to determine what is true and what is not.
> Granted, the scientific community appears to have a fairly good handle on
> facts. Stuff which has been determined through experiment and tested
> through time. Most of the human population, however, seems to accept
> manufactured facts and use them to determine other facts without any
> confirmation. Take formal religion and product advertising for example.
> Millions, perhaps billions, are bombarded with all sorts of false and
> misleading information and accept it without reservation. They may actually
> convince their friends and loved ones that they know the truth about God
> and/or floor cleaner. Could this actually be a form of anti-intelligence.
> A situation where the understanding of reality is completely subjective.
Dear Dave
An interesting question you ask; I have a couple of comments below.
1. It is interesting that you are suggesting the possibility that the
majority might be unable to discern the real facts from the manufactured
facts. When we Christians suggest that the non-Christian majority is
failing to see the real truth, some of you call that arrogance and
intolerance. Not that you have said anything like that, but wouldn't it
be hypocritical for a person to accept your proposal about manufactured
facts and at the same time call Christians arrogant for claiming that WE
see the truth?
2. What makes you think that scientists actually do a better job than
most people about determining what's true? An astronomer presumably does
a better job than a non-astronomer in his field of expertise, just like
an auto mechanic is better able to find out the truth about what's wrong
with your car. but why would you think a scientist is more competent in
finding out the truth about religious questions than the average person?
The modern world seems to have elevated scientists to sort of a
priesthood; your comment strikes me as symptomatic of this trend.
>
> Human positive intelligence has enabled us to extend our life span, modify
> our environment and change the earth's ecosystems in a few hundred years.
> The question is can people, I include the politicians here, see and accept
> facts which do not fit into their idea of personal importance and
> religious bias.
Seriously Dave, the 1st sentence doesn't seem to have anything to do
with the 2nd. At least it doesn't seem like it does to me.
your friend
Keith
>
> D. Haas
Mi Ca
<snip>
>Are humans as a population that intelligent? Intelligence is defined as
>the capacity to reason and to determine what is true and what is not.
>Granted, the scientific community appears to have a fairly good handle on
>facts. Stuff which has been determined through experiment and tested
>through time. Most of the human population, however, seems to accept
>manufactured facts and use them to determine other facts without any
>confirmation. Take formal religion and product advertising for example.
>Millions, perhaps billions, are bombarded with all sorts of false and
>misleading information and accept it without reservation. They may actually
>convince their friends and loved ones that they know the truth about God
>and/or floor cleaner. Could this actually be a form of anti-intelligence.
>A situation where the understanding of reality is completely subjective.
>
>Human positive intelligence has enabled us to extend our life span, modify
>our environment and change the earth's ecosystems in a few hundred years.
>The question is can people, I include the politicians here, see and accept
>facts which do not fit into their idea of personal importance and
>religious bias.
>
>D. Haas
(Quoted from above:)
>Most of the human population, however, seems to accept
>manufactured facts and use them to determine other facts without any
>confirmation.
>Could this actually be a form of anti-intelligence[?]
If you tried to confirm everything for yourself, you'd have
to start from scratch, and you wouldn't get very far, or you'd
be wasting a lot of time determining little things like which
paper towel really is the quicker-picker-upper. There's a
saying that goes something like 'by standing on the
shoulders of giants, you can see further than them,' which
is basically how science works. We have to have trust in
people that they are/were telling the truth (or what they
percieve as such) and using good methods to come to that
truth; we can investigate their methods and do the
experiments ourselves, but experimenting isn't always
convenient. I wouldn't call it anti-intelligence, it's just hard to
accomplish much without doing so. We unfortunately can't
all put all our brains together like the individual brain parts
are in our own brains and use all that vast amount of info
that we can quickly sort through to come to our own
informed judgement on just about anything.
( What I like about math is that you actually can confirm it
all on your own : ). From my experience, anyway, just having
finished high school.)
Since this community knowledge involves trusting
people, you're more likely to trust
your parents, people you like, etc, but they aren't
necessarily any more right than anyone else. It's this that
is the problem. People shouldn't let their emotions get so
much in the way of their reasoning abilities.
I had a problem like this a few months ago: a good friend
of mine told me about an event that made him believe (or
perhaps it was closer to 'not disbelieve') in the existance of
ghosts (or ghost-like things). There was nothing wrong with
his story, and there were some things that seemed unlikely
to be merely coincidences when taken as a whole, so I
found it hard to not believe him, him being someone who's
judgement I respect. I wasn't going to just suddenly believe
in ghosts, though, but there are people out there who would,
particularly when it comes to something like your parents
telling you that Bounce truly is the q-p-upper or even that
their god speaks to them. Anyway, he found out some stuff
several weeks ago that wrapped up this ghost 'case,' and it
turned out that it /was/ just a strange bunch of coincidences.
I guess it's sort of like 'two heads are better than one, but
too many cooks spoil the broth' (or whatever.. I have trouble
with sayings : ) ).
(More quoted from above:)
>Are humans as a population that intelligent? Intelligence is defined as
>the capacity to reason and to determine what is true and what is not.
I think that like a newborn child, we have the ability to be
intelligent as a whole, but we haven't got all our faculties
working together. But I don't think we can get them all
working together perfectly, becaues of how we're all
separate beings.
It also depends on what scale of intelligence you use. As
a whole, we're way smarter than an individual. But, we could
to better, but most people don't want to take the time to or
don't know that there's anything more to do. Part of it could
be that we don't all share a goal; if the Earth were going to
blow up in 10 years, I'd bet we'd look a lot smarter as a
whole; we could give up our petty disagreements and work
together.
(more quoted:)
>The question is can people, I include the politicians here, see and accept
>facts which do not fit into their idea of personal importance and
>religious bias.
People tend to believe what they want to believe, or what
they are ready to believe. I can't think of anything to add
here, so I guess I'll end this here : )
Hope I didn't misinterpret anything,
----------
Michael
Tarjei Straume
Keith Johnson wrote:
> David Haas wrote:
> >
> > This may be a little off topic but I thought I would see what you all
> > think. Upon reading a post in which the US Congress and the word
> > intelligence were used in the same sentence I had a thought. (Remarkable
> > isn't it)
> >
> > Are humans as a population that intelligent? Intelligence is defined as
> > the capacity to reason and to determine what is true and what is not.
> > Granted, the scientific community appears to have a fairly good handle on
> > facts. Stuff which has been determined through experiment and tested
> > through time. Most of the human population, however, seems to accept
> > manufactured facts and use them to determine other facts without any
> > confirmation. Take formal religion and product advertising for example.
> > Millions, perhaps billions, are bombarded with all sorts of false and
> > misleading information and accept it without reservation. They may actually
> > convince their friends and loved ones that they know the truth about God
> > and/or floor cleaner. Could this actually be a form of anti-intelligence.
> > A situation where the understanding of reality is completely subjective.
>
> Dear Dave
>
> An interesting question you ask; I have a couple of comments below.
>
> 1. It is interesting that you are suggesting the possibility that the
> majority might be unable to discern the real facts from the manufactured
> facts. When we Christians suggest that the non-Christian majority is
> failing to see the real truth, some of you call that arrogance and
> intolerance. Not that you have said anything like that, but wouldn't it
> be hypocritical for a person to accept your proposal about manufactured
> facts and at the same time call Christians arrogant for claiming that WE
> see the truth?
The problem is not confined to the irritating pushing of Biblical
church-Christianity down people's throats and the condescending
"more-enlighteed-than-thou" attitude towards those who drefuse to swallow it.
The fact still remains that Christians of this ilk operate only with
pre-manufactured ideas of old, and they are so incapable of exercising their
self-dependent thinking that they have to consult the Bible for everything and
quote some old prophet or apostle. If the Christian zealot had thought these
things out for himself and written it himself, it would have been a different
matter. But popular Bible-Christianity is mass suggestion at its worst, and many
of the TV preachers remind me of Hitler and Stalin when they manipulate their
audiences.
> 2. What makes you think that scientists actually do a better job than
> most people about determining what's true? An astronomer presumably does
> a better job than a non-astronomer in his field of expertise, just like
> an auto mechanic is better able to find out the truth about what's wrong
> with your car. but why would you think a scientist is more competent in
> finding out the truth about religious questions than the average person?
I don' t think David Haas meant to imply that scientists were more knowledgeable
about reiligion. My deduction from his post is that scientists have the highest
academic education and are therefore among the people best suited to handle
other challenges to our abstract thinking, including those of theology. I see
nothing wrong with that line of reasoning, but it's not to be acepted at face
value alone.
> The modern world seems to have elevated scientists to sort of a
> priesthood; your comment strikes me as symptomatic of this trend.
If scientists are the priests, the economists are the bishops, cardinals,
soothsayers, and popes. But when it comes to accurate facts, a scientific
researcher is a more dependable source of information than a pastor. So if
anyone is to have a priesthood, I'd rather keep the scientist than return to the
Middle Ages and trust theologians.
> > Human positive intelligence has enabled us to extend our life span, modify
> > our environment and change the earth's ecosystems in a few hundred years.
> > The question is can people, I include the politicians here, see and accept
> > facts which do not fit into their idea of personal importance and
> > religious bias.
>
> Seriously Dave, the 1st sentence doesn't seem to have anything to do
> with the 2nd. At least it doesn't seem like it does to me.
I agree that it's unclear. Ask him to clarify.
rokimo...@my-deja.com
David Haas <dhaa...@yahoo.com> wrote:
> This may be a little off topic but I thought I would see what you all
> think. Upon reading a post in which the US Congress and the word
> intelligence were used in the same sentence I had a thought. (Remarkable
> isn't it)
>
> Are humans as a population that intelligent? Intelligence is defined as
> the capacity to reason and to determine what is true and what is not.
> Granted, the scientific community appears to have a fairly good handle on
> facts. Stuff which has been determined through experiment and tested
> through time. Most of the human population, however, seems to accept
> manufactured facts and use them to determine other facts without any
> confirmation. Take formal religion and product advertising for example.
> Millions, perhaps billions, are bombarded with all sorts of false and
> misleading information and accept it without reservation. They may actually
> convince their friends and loved ones that they know the truth about God
> and/or floor cleaner. Could this actually be a form of anti-intelligence.
> A situation where the understanding of reality is completely subjective.
>
> our environment and change the earth's ecosystems in a few hundred years.
> The question is can people, I include the politicians here, see and accept
> facts which do not fit into their idea of personal importance and
> religious bias.
>
Being gulible is a survival trait. Humans not only have to be able to
learn from others they have to have the ability to trust that "knowledge"
and implement it in order to survive. Even scientists do this. Look at
it this way you don't want to relearn which mushrooms to eat every
generation. You can let your sibs go first, but once you are out of sibs
will you believe your parents or randomly eat mushrooms and suffer the
consequences? The humans that could not take advice to heart soon took
themselves out of the gene pool. Modern ads and scams abuse that inborn
trust. That is probably why we have laws to protect people from
excessive abuse. To get back on topic this is also one of the reasons
why we still have YEC creationism.
If you think that you only use reason and intellect to meander through
life you'd probably have to be a mutant for it to be true, and your brain
is probably working too hard (you have to watch those calories during a
famine). One of the most important things that we have to tell ourselves
as scientists is that we (the inclusive body of science) could be wrong.
How many times have we messed up and forgotten that? It seems to me that
the only reason that we have to be on a constant vigilance is that we
have to counter our hard wiring.
Ron Okimoto
Sent via Deja.com http://www.deja.com/
Before you buy.
Martin Crisp
"Tarjei Straume" <tast...@online.no> wrote in message
news:39860C4A...@online.no...
[snip]
> The problem is not confined to the irritating pushing of Biblical
> church-Christianity down people's throats and the condescending
> "more-enlighteed-than-thou" attitude towards those who drefuse to swallow
it.
Cue: Weird Al Yankovic (sp?): _Living in an Ahmish Paradise_
[...] I'm a million times as humble as thou art
Have Fun
Martin
David Johnston
>
> This may be a little off topic but I thought I would see what you all
> think. Upon reading a post in which the US Congress and the word
> intelligence were used in the same sentence I had a thought. (Remarkable
> isn't it)
>
> Are humans as a population that intelligent?
Compared to flatworms...definitely.
Intelligence is defined as
> the capacity to reason and to determine what is true and what is not.
Not according to my dictionary. Intelligence doesn't guarantee that
you will start with correct premises, and without correct premises you
will not be able to determine what is true and what is not. Further,
intelligence includes the ability to fantasize and to mistake fantasy
for reality. The flatworm can't fantasize. It just isn't smart enough.
> Granted, the scientific community appears to have a fairly good handle on
> facts. Stuff which has been determined through experiment and tested
> through time. Most of the human population, however, seems to accept
> manufactured facts and use them to determine other facts without any
> confirmation. Take formal religion and product advertising for example.
> Millions, perhaps billions, are bombarded with all sorts of false and
> misleading information and accept it without reservation. They may actually
> convince their friends and loved ones that they know the truth about God
> and/or floor cleaner. Could this actually be a form of anti-intelligence.
> A situation where the understanding of reality is completely subjective.
Intelligence is _not_ just the ability to perceive and evaluate
objective reality. In fact one of the things that separates humanity
from less intelligent creatures is our ability to understand things
in subjective terms. Mathematics, for example, is purely subjective,
the product of the arbitrary subjective categorisation that we place
upon the world around us.
Keith Johnson
Tarjei Straume wrote:
>
> Keith Johnson wrote:
>
> > David Haas wrote:
(snip)
> > Dear Dave
> >
> > An interesting question you ask; I have a couple of comments below.
> >
> > 1. It is interesting that you are suggesting the possibility that the
> > majority might be unable to discern the real facts from the manufactured
> > facts. When we Christians suggest that the non-Christian majority is
> > failing to see the real truth, some of you call that arrogance and
> > intolerance. Not that you have said anything like that, but wouldn't it
> > be hypocritical for a person to accept your proposal about manufactured
> > facts and at the same time call Christians arrogant for claiming that WE
> > see the truth?
>
> The problem is not confined to the irritating pushing of Biblical
> church-Christianity down people's throats and the condescending
> "more-enlighteed-than-thou" attitude towards those who drefuse to swallow it.
Condescending attitudes are always irritating, whether they are
displayed by Christians or by atheists who can't understand why the
great majority (who are theists) can't see what they see so clearly.
> The fact still remains that Christians of this ilk operate only with
> pre-manufactured ideas of old, and they are so incapable of exercising their
> self-dependent thinking that they have to consult the Bible for everything and
> quote some old prophet or apostle.
How is that different from a freethinking atheist who has to consult a
periodic table every time he wants to know the atomic weight of an
element. Why doesn't the atheist just use his independent thinking to
discover the atomic weight on his own?
> If the Christian zealot had thought these
> things out for himself and written it himself, it would have been a different
> matter.
Why don't you insist on this "figuring out on one's own" for
astronomers; why don't you insist that they verify for themselves every
scientific fact no matter how well established before they can draw a
single conclusion? Why do you not consider it OK for them to depend on
authority when it is warranted?
> But popular Bible-Christianity is mass suggestion at its worst, and many
> of the TV preachers remind me of Hitler and Stalin when they manipulate their
> audiences.
I will not defend most TV preachers (Billy Graham was a notable
exception).
>
> > 2. What makes you think that scientists actually do a better job than
> > most people about determining what's true? An astronomer presumably does
> > a better job than a non-astronomer in his field of expertise, just like
> > an auto mechanic is better able to find out the truth about what's wrong
> > with your car. but why would you think a scientist is more competent in
> > finding out the truth about religious questions than the average person?
>
> I don' t think David Haas meant to imply that scientists were more knowledgeable
> about reiligion. My deduction from his post is that scientists have the highest
> academic education and are therefore among the people best suited to handle
> other challenges to our abstract thinking, including those of theology. I see
> nothing wrong with that line of reasoning, but it's not to be acepted at face
> value alone.
No doubt scientists are experts in their field, but I see no reason to
imagine that their education and experience or native ability would make
them more competent to evaluate religious issues that any average Joe.
In fact, they might be on average less competent, since there is an
atheistic bias in western academic circles.
>
> > The modern world seems to have elevated scientists to sort of a
> > priesthood; your comment strikes me as symptomatic of this trend.
>
> If scientists are the priests, the economists are the bishops, cardinals,
> soothsayers, and popes. But when it comes to accurate facts, a scientific
> researcher is a more dependable source of information than a pastor.
I would say that entirely depends on which facts you are talking about.
I would sooner trust a paleontologist to know the facts about the fossil
record, but I would trust an intelligent pastor more than a biologist
about matters of Christianity.
> So if
> anyone is to have a priesthood, I'd rather keep the scientist than return to the
> Middle Ages and trust theologians.
I would say that is a false dichotomy. I would rather trust each expert
in their fields of expertise.
>
> > > Human positive intelligence has enabled us to extend our life span, modify
> > > our environment and change the earth's ecosystems in a few hundred years.
> > > The question is can people, I include the politicians here, see and accept
> > > facts which do not fit into their idea of personal importance and
> > > religious bias.
> >
> > Seriously Dave, the 1st sentence doesn't seem to have anything to do
> > with the 2nd. At least it doesn't seem like it does to me.
>
> I agree that it's unclear. Ask him to clarify.
After you, my friend:-)
keith
David M. Cook
>Are humans as a population that intelligent? Intelligence is defined as
>the capacity to reason and to determine what is true and what is not.
>Granted, the scientific community appears to have a fairly good handle on
>facts. Stuff which has been determined through experiment and tested
>through time. Most of the human population, however, seems to accept
>manufactured facts and use them to determine other facts without any
>confirmation.
You're talking about critical thinking abilities, which is something that
can be taught.
Dave Cook
Jon Scott
Sometimes I feel like my town is an Ahmish 'Paradise'...with some sort
of church or temple every two blocks.
--
- Jon Scott (a/k/a Bio Hazard)
http://genesispanthesis.tripod.com
"If God didn't have a sense of humor -- were did the Creationists come
from?"
"Martin Crisp" <Spam....@tesseract.com.au> wrote in message
news:3986...@derwent.nt.tas.gov.au...
>
> "Tarjei Straume" <tast...@online.no> wrote in message
> news:39860C4A...@online.no...
>
> [snip]
>
> > The problem is not confined to the irritating pushing of Biblical
> > church-Christianity down people's throats and the condescending
> > "more-enlighteed-than-thou" attitude towards those who drefuse to
swallow
> it.
>
Jon Scott
>
Compared to crows? Definitely NOT!
(remember, we're talking about populations, not individuals!)
> Not according to my dictionary. Intelligence doesn't guarantee that
> you will start with correct premises, and without correct premises
you
> will not be able to determine what is true and what is not.
Further,
> intelligence includes the ability to fantasize and to mistake
fantasy
> for reality. The flatworm can't fantasize. It just isn't smart
enough.
Does this account for abstract thinking? Imagination? (the way you
start out, "deductive reasoning" seems a better word than fantasize).
> Intelligence is _not_ just the ability to perceive and evaluate
> objective reality. In fact one of the things that separates
humanity
> from less intelligent creatures is our ability to understand things
> in subjective terms. Mathematics, for example, is purely
subjective,
> the product of the arbitrary subjective categorisation that we place
> upon the world around us.
So what is it that separates humanity from more intelligent creatures?
(I realize that humans are considered the most intelligent, but you
can only test individuals. IMHO, many _whole species_ are far more
intelligent than the human _whole species_, that is, they [as groups]
show more evidence of rational thought than humans [as a group])
David Johnston
> > Not according to my dictionary. Intelligence doesn't guarantee that
> > you will start with correct premises, and without correct premises
> you
> > will not be able to determine what is true and what is not.
> Further,
> > intelligence includes the ability to fantasize and to mistake
> fantasy
> > for reality. The flatworm can't fantasize. It just isn't smart
> enough.
>
> Does this account for abstract thinking? Imagination? (the way you
> start out, "deductive reasoning" seems a better word than fantasize).
I said what I meant.
>
> > Intelligence is _not_ just the ability to perceive and evaluate
> > objective reality. In fact one of the things that separates
> humanity
> > from less intelligent creatures is our ability to understand things
> > in subjective terms. Mathematics, for example, is purely
> subjective,
> > the product of the arbitrary subjective categorisation that we place
> > upon the world around us.
>
> So what is it that separates humanity from more intelligent creatures?
> (I realize that humans are considered the most intelligent, but you
> can only test individuals. IMHO, many _whole species_ are far more
> intelligent than the human _whole species_, that is, they [as groups]
Intelligence is individual.
> show more evidence of rational thought than humans [as a group])
That's just because they aren't smart enough to be idiotic. Superficially
cats often look smarter than dogs, just because they aren't smart enough
to behave as stupidly.
Tarjei Straume
Keith Johnson wrote:
> Tarjei Straume wrote:
> >
> > Keith Johnson wrote:
> >
> > > David Haas wrote:
> (snip)
>
> > > Dear Dave
> > >
> > > An interesting question you ask; I have a couple of comments below.
> > >
> > > 1. It is interesting that you are suggesting the possibility that the
> > > majority might be unable to discern the real facts from the manufactured
> > > facts. When we Christians suggest that the non-Christian majority is
> > > failing to see the real truth, some of you call that arrogance and
> > > intolerance. Not that you have said anything like that, but wouldn't it
> > > be hypocritical for a person to accept your proposal about manufactured
> > > facts and at the same time call Christians arrogant for claiming that WE
> > > see the truth?
> >
> > The problem is not confined to the irritating pushing of Biblical
> > church-Christianity down people's throats and the condescending
> > "more-enlighteed-than-thou" attitude towards those who drefuse to swallow it.
>
> Condescending attitudes are always irritating, whether they are
> displayed by Christians or by atheists who can't understand why the
> great majority (who are theists) can't see what they see so clearly.
Oh, as a theist, I've been up against plenty of arrogant atheist science-freaks. They
even use some interesting bullying-tactics like demanding scientific proof even of
casual personal viewpoints that have nothing to do with science or mathematics. The
fundies are more irritating though, because they keep telling you how to feel and
think and breathe, or rather how they insist that the Lord wants you to think and
feel ad breathe. They want to exorcise you, save you, psychoanalyze you and tell you
how you are astray in the claws of Satan because you're not a fundy. It's truly
malodorous.
> > The fact still remains that Christians of this ilk operate only with
> > pre-manufactured ideas of old, and they are so incapable of exercising their
> > self-dependent thinking that they have to consult the Bible for everything and
> > quote some old prophet or apostle.
>
> How is that different from a freethinking atheist who has to consult a
> periodic table every time he wants to know the atomic weight of an
> element. Why doesn't the atheist just use his independent thinking to
> discover the atomic weight on his own?
You just answered your own question by writing "freethinking atheist" instead of just
"atheist." Looking up the atomic weight of something is no different from checking
the spelling of a word in a dictionary. It's different when you have to consult bad
translations of writings from millennia ago to figure out if it's ok to have a drink
and what you should and should not do with your dick, and how to meddle in other
people's lives about the same bullshit.
> > If the Christian zealot had thought these
> > things out for himself and written it himself, it would have been a different
> > matter.
>
> Why don't you insist on this "figuring out on one's own" for
> astronomers; why don't you insist that they verify for themselves every
> scientific fact no matter how well established before they can draw a
> single conclusion? Why do you not consider it OK for them to depend on
> authority when it is warranted?
We are not dealing with a specific field of research here, but with philosophy and
religion. If you ask an astronomer who is not a Bible-crazed fundy why he believes in
gods, he may say something like life probably comes from life and not from dead
matter or something like that - anything of his own choosing, his own reflections.
The fundy just repeats over and over agains some memorized Bible verses until your
ears fall off. That is the difference.
> > But popular Bible-Christianity is mass suggestion at its worst, and many
> > of the TV preachers remind me of Hitler and Stalin when they manipulate their
> > audiences.
>
> I will not defend most TV preachers (Billy Graham was a notable
> exception).
> >
> > > 2. What makes you think that scientists actually do a better job than
> > > most people about determining what's true? An astronomer presumably does
> > > a better job than a non-astronomer in his field of expertise, just like
> > > an auto mechanic is better able to find out the truth about what's wrong
> > > with your car. but why would you think a scientist is more competent in
> > > finding out the truth about religious questions than the average person?
> >
> > I don' t think David Haas meant to imply that scientists were more knowledgeable
> > about reiligion. My deduction from his post is that scientists have the highest
> > academic education and are therefore among the people best suited to handle
> > other challenges to our abstract thinking, including those of theology. I see
> > nothing wrong with that line of reasoning, but it's not to be acepted at face
> > value alone.
>
> No doubt scientists are experts in their field, but I see no reason to
> imagine that their education and experience or native ability would make
> them more competent to evaluate religious issues that any average Joe.
> In fact, they might be on average less competent, since there is an
> atheistic bias in western academic circles.
Academic circles include a very wide range of world views and philosophies. There are
many Buddhists, Muslims, Christians, and believing Jews as well as atheists and
agnostics, theosophists and anthroposophists.
> > > The modern world seems to have elevated scientists to sort of a
> > > priesthood; your comment strikes me as symptomatic of this trend.
> >
> > If scientists are the priests, the economists are the bishops, cardinals,
> > soothsayers, and popes. But when it comes to accurate facts, a scientific
> > researcher is a more dependable source of information than a pastor.
>
> I would say that entirely depends on which facts you are talking about.
> I would sooner trust a paleontologist to know the facts about the fossil
> record, but I would trust an intelligent pastor more than a biologist
> about matters of Christianity.
As an anthroposophist, I also trust a scientist best when it comes to soul-spiritual
and divine-spiritual matters (riddles of existence and Christian mysteries).
>
>
> > So if
> > anyone is to have a priesthood, I'd rather keep the scientist than return to the
> > Middle Ages and trust theologians.
>
> I would say that is a false dichotomy. I would rather trust each expert
> in their fields of expertise.
In my opinion, very few members of the clergy, or theologians, of today have the
required expertise, and the few who do are to be found either in the
(anthroposophically oriented) Christian Community or in the Vatican. But church dogma
always get in the way as a stumbling block - except, of course, in the Christian
Community.
Mark Richardson
<snip original question>
>An interesting question you ask; I have a couple of comments below.
>
>1. It is interesting that you are suggesting the possibility that the
>majority might be unable to discern the real facts from the manufactured
>facts. When we Christians suggest that the non-Christian majority is
>failing to see the real truth, some of you call that arrogance and
>intolerance. Not that you have said anything like that, but wouldn't it
>be hypocritical for a person to accept your proposal about manufactured
>facts and at the same time call Christians arrogant for claiming that WE
>see the truth?
>
I have a proposition for you.
We can actually use our intelligence to spot manufactured truth from
the real thing.
If, for example, you found a "revealed truth" telling a tale of YHWH
sending a great flood blah blah...then found a very similar story
predating that story, but dealing with older gods, you might use your
intelligence to notice that people do borrow and adapt ideas, stories,
agricultural techniques, pottery styles etc from each other.
You could then analyze the "revealed truths" to find such examples of
borrowing and retelling of stories.
You can analyze the content of the Bible or the Koran in much the same
way you analyze an artifact like a piece of pottery or a chariot
wheel.
In this way - without having to worry about the logic or otherwise of
theology - we can understand the process of manufacture of "revealed
religion" - that it is a process - that it occur not in the vacuum of
space but in human society full of humans doing what humans do.
Looked at in this light "revealed truth" suddenly makes sense.
(To me anyway!)
Isn't this a valid application of intelligence?
>2. What makes you think that scientists actually do a better job than
>most people about determining what's true? An astronomer presumably does
>a better job than a non-astronomer in his field of expertise, just like
>an auto mechanic is better able to find out the truth about what's wrong
>with your car. but why would you think a scientist is more competent in
>finding out the truth about religious questions than the average person?
>The modern world seems to have elevated scientists to sort of a
>priesthood; your comment strikes me as symptomatic of this trend.
I think you have a good point here.
In a similar vein...
Why does one man (Keith Johnson for example!) have a more direct and
immediate grasp of (spititual) truth than other seemingly intelligent
and thoughtful person, like say Mark Richardson?
8-)
You make much of intuition - and you make some valid points - but your
intuition tells you God is real, and mine tells me that he is yet
another creation of fallible man.
To me it is quite obvious.
So how do we pick the one with the correct intuition?
Reason doesnt help us directly.
My intuition is telling me that it is me who's intuition is on the
ball and yours that is a bit untrustworthy.
8-)
Mark.
------------------------------------------------------------
Mark Richardson
m.rich...@utas.edu.au
____________________________________________________________
cz...@ecn.ab.ca
: > Are humans as a population that intelligent?
: Compared to flatworms...definitely.
Creationists excepted, of course.
--
*************************************************************
Men think epilepsy divine, merely because they do not
understand it. But if they called everything divine
which they do not understand, why, there would be no
end of divine things.
Hippocrates of Cos
*************************************************************
cz...@ecn.ab.ca
seriously if it's title were spelled correctly.
Keith Johnson
Tarjei Straume wrote:
>
> Keith Johnson wrote:
>
> > Tarjei Straume wrote:
(snip)
> > > The problem is not confined to the irritating pushing of Biblical
> > > church-Christianity down people's throats and the condescending
> > > "more-enlighteed-than-thou" attitude towards those who drefuse to swallow it.
> >
> > Condescending attitudes are always irritating, whether they are
> > displayed by Christians or by atheists who can't understand why the
> > great majority (who are theists) can't see what they see so clearly.
>
> Oh, as a theist, I've been up against plenty of arrogant atheist science-freaks. They
> even use some interesting bullying-tactics like demanding scientific proof even of
> casual personal viewpoints that have nothing to do with science or mathematics. The
> fundies are more irritating though, because they keep telling you how to feel and
> think and breathe, or rather how they insist that the Lord wants you to think and
> feel ad breathe. They want to exorcise you, save you, psychoanalyze you and tell you
> how you are astray in the claws of Satan because you're not a fundy. It's truly
> malodorous.
I have found the fundamentalist atheists to be just as annoying.
>
> > > The fact still remains that Christians of this ilk operate only with
> > > pre-manufactured ideas of old, and they are so incapable of exercising their
> > > self-dependent thinking that they have to consult the Bible for everything and
> > > quote some old prophet or apostle.
> >
> > How is that different from a freethinking atheist who has to consult a
> > periodic table every time he wants to know the atomic weight of an
> > element. Why doesn't the atheist just use his independent thinking to
> > discover the atomic weight on his own?
>
> You just answered your own question by writing "freethinking atheist" instead of just
> "atheist." Looking up the atomic weight of something is no different from checking
> the spelling of a word in a dictionary. It's different when you have to consult bad
> translations of writings from millennia ago to figure out if it's ok to have a drink
> and what you should and should not do with your dick, and how to meddle in other
> people's lives about the same bullshit.
How is it different?
>
> > > If the Christian zealot had thought these
> > > things out for himself and written it himself, it would have been a different
> > > matter.
> >
> > Why don't you insist on this "figuring out on one's own" for
> > astronomers; why don't you insist that they verify for themselves every
> > scientific fact no matter how well established before they can draw a
> > single conclusion? Why do you not consider it OK for them to depend on
> > authority when it is warranted?
>
> We are not dealing with a specific field of research here, but with philosophy and
> religion. If you ask an astronomer who is not a Bible-crazed fundy why he believes in
> gods, he may say something like life probably comes from life and not from dead
> matter or something like that - anything of his own choosing, his own reflections.
> The fundy just repeats over and over agains some memorized Bible verses until your
> ears fall off. That is the difference.
But you didn't address my question. Why is it OK for a scientist to
consult a reference book filled with facts she has not personally
verified, but it is wrong for a fundamentalist to consult the Bible?
(snip)
> > > > 2. What makes you think that scientists actually do a better job than
(snip)
> > > I don' t think David Haas meant to imply that scientists were more knowledgeable
> > > about reiligion. My deduction from his post is that scientists have the highest
> > > academic education and are therefore among the people best suited to handle
> > > other challenges to our abstract thinking, including those of theology. I see
> > > nothing wrong with that line of reasoning, but it's not to be acepted at face
> > > value alone.
> >
> > No doubt scientists are experts in their field, but I see no reason to
> > imagine that their education and experience or native ability would make
> > them more competent to evaluate religious issues that any average Joe.
> > In fact, they might be on average less competent, since there is an
> > atheistic bias in western academic circles.
>
> Academic circles include a very wide range of world views and philosophies. There are
> many Buddhists, Muslims, Christians, and believing Jews as well as atheists and
> agnostics, theosophists and anthroposophists.
Agreed, but in the WESTERN world, I would say that atheists outnumber
theists (although not by s much as people think). BTW: what is an
anthroposophist?
(snip)
> > > If scientists are the priests, the economists are the bishops, cardinals,
> > > soothsayers, and popes. But when it comes to accurate facts, a scientific
> > > researcher is a more dependable source of information than a pastor.
> >
> > I would say that entirely depends on which facts you are talking about.
> > I would sooner trust a paleontologist to know the facts about the fossil
> > record, but I would trust an intelligent pastor more than a biologist
> > about matters of Christianity.
>
> As an anthroposophist, I also trust a scientist best when it comes to soul-spiritual
> and divine-spiritual matters (riddles of existence and Christian mysteries).
I thank you for sharing. :-) Do you have an argument to support this, or
are you relying on "what seems true to you"?
(snip)
> > > So if
> > > anyone is to have a priesthood, I'd rather keep the scientist than return to the
> > > Middle Ages and trust theologians.
> >
> > I would say that is a false dichotomy. I would rather trust each expert
> > in their fields of expertise.
>
> In my opinion, very few members of the clergy, or theologians, of today have the
> required expertise, and the few who do are to be found either in the
> (anthroposophically oriented) Christian Community or in the Vatican. But church dogma
> always get in the way as a stumbling block - except, of course, in the Christian
> Community.
What IS the required expertise, in your opinion?
keith
Keith Johnson
Mark Richardson wrote:
>
> On 31 Jul 2000 18:23:05 -0400, Keith Johnson <co...@pe.net> wrote:
>
> <snip original question>
> >An interesting question you ask; I have a couple of comments below.
> >
> >1. It is interesting that you are suggesting the possibility that the
> >majority might be unable to discern the real facts from the manufactured
> >facts. When we Christians suggest that the non-Christian majority is
> >failing to see the real truth, some of you call that arrogance and
> >intolerance. Not that you have said anything like that, but wouldn't it
> >be hypocritical for a person to accept your proposal about manufactured
> >facts and at the same time call Christians arrogant for claiming that WE
> >see the truth?
> >
> I have a proposition for you.
> We can actually use our intelligence to spot manufactured truth from
> the real thing.
> If, for example, you found a "revealed truth" telling a tale of YHWH
> sending a great flood blah blah...then found a very similar story
> predating that story, but dealing with older gods, you might use your
> intelligence to notice that people do borrow and adapt ideas, stories,
> agricultural techniques, pottery styles etc from each other.
That certainly seems like a possibility. Another possibility is that the
Holy Spirit can guide people to directly see the truth of the Gospel as
opposed to other manufactured truths. That people borrow and adapt ideas
doesn't imply that all of the ideas are manufactured.
> You could then analyze the "revealed truths" to find such examples of
> borrowing and retelling of stories.
> You can analyze the content of the Bible or the Koran in much the same
> way you analyze an artifact like a piece of pottery or a chariot
> wheel.
But your analysis (like all analysis) would depend on presuppositions.
If you assume that Christianity is just another manufactured myth your
conclusions would be quite different than if you thought Christianity
was revealed from God.
>
> In this way - without having to worry about the logic or otherwise of
> theology - we can understand the process of manufacture of "revealed
> religion" - that it is a process - that it occur not in the vacuum of
> space but in human society full of humans doing what humans do.
>
> Looked at in this light "revealed truth" suddenly makes sense.
> (To me anyway!)
>
> Isn't this a valid application of intelligence?
Assuming that Christianity is just another myth, I'd say maybe so.
>
> >2. What makes you think that scientists actually do a better job than
> >most people about determining what's true? An astronomer presumably does
> >a better job than a non-astronomer in his field of expertise, just like
> >an auto mechanic is better able to find out the truth about what's wrong
> >with your car. but why would you think a scientist is more competent in
> >finding out the truth about religious questions than the average person?
> >The modern world seems to have elevated scientists to sort of a
> >priesthood; your comment strikes me as symptomatic of this trend.
>
> I think you have a good point here.
>
> In a similar vein...
> Why does one man (Keith Johnson for example!) have a more direct and
> immediate grasp of (spititual) truth than other seemingly intelligent
> and thoughtful person, like say Mark Richardson?
Just lucky I guess:-). But I actually cannot seriously answer that
question. I believe that the Holy Spirit has led me to believe that the
great truths of the Gospel of Christ are true. I came to faith via
Quakerism. Quakers believe that the Inner Light (which is God's light)
is available to every person who avails themselves of it. When I first
heard this doctrine it seemed obviously true to me; paradoxically this
realization happened even before I believed that God exists. By availing
myself of this light I came to believe in Christ.
You have a different set of beliefs and i expect you think you are right
just like I think I am right. That is sort of the definition of
"belief". Does it bother you that I (who is also a thoughtful and sort
of intelligent person) doesn't agree with you? I am not sure it should.
> You make much of intuition - and you make some valid points - but your
> intuition tells you God is real, and mine tells me that he is yet
> another creation of fallible man.
> To me it is quite obvious.
> So how do we pick the one with the correct intuition?
> Reason doesnt help us directly.
> My intuition is telling me that it is me who's intuition is on the
> ball and yours that is a bit untrustworthy.
Personally, I think of us has to face the question you asked (whose
intuition is right) by ourselves. Humility forces me to ponder the
possibility that your intuition is right and mine is delusion, but I
honestly don't get the feeling that mine is delusion. From my point of
view: if you are open to the truth then God will reveal to you the truth
on his own schedule. Perhaps on your point of view you think if i am
honestly seeking the truth I will eventually re-realize (I was an
atheist for years prior to my commitment to Christ) the folly of theism.
In the mean time, I hope we can enjoy some lively conversations.
your friend
Keith
Tarjei Straume
Keith Johnson wrote:
If a scientist does not find his answer in a specific book, he concludes that the answer
must be sought elsewhere. And if he finds an answer through a different source personal
research or literature from China, for instnce - that cotradicts what he has read in the
first book, he does not dismiss his second finding, but he compares them and makes his own
decision or consults colleagues with first hand experience. The fundy says the Bible is
always right, and if it ain't in the Bible, it ain't true.
>
>
> (snip)
>
> > > > > 2. What makes you think that scientists actually do a better job than
> (snip)
>
> > > > I don' t think David Haas meant to imply that scientists were more knowledgeable
> > > > about reiligion. My deduction from his post is that scientists have the highest
> > > > academic education and are therefore among the people best suited to handle
> > > > other challenges to our abstract thinking, including those of theology. I see
> > > > nothing wrong with that line of reasoning, but it's not to be acepted at face
> > > > value alone.
> > >
> > > No doubt scientists are experts in their field, but I see no reason to
> > > imagine that their education and experience or native ability would make
> > > them more competent to evaluate religious issues that any average Joe.
> > > In fact, they might be on average less competent, since there is an
> > > atheistic bias in western academic circles.
> >
> > Academic circles include a very wide range of world views and philosophies. There are
> > many Buddhists, Muslims, Christians, and believing Jews as well as atheists and
> > agnostics, theosophists and anthroposophists.
>
> Agreed, but in the WESTERN world, I would say that atheists outnumber
> theists (although not by s much as people think). BTW: what is an
> anthroposophist?
This question, as well as the next below, requires an essay for a response. I have a big
linkpage on anthroposophy at
http://uncletaz.com/linksfolder/anthroposlinks.html
(Don't get distracted by my rotating skulls. They represent the Mystery of Golgotha)
>
>
> (snip)
>
> > > > If scientists are the priests, the economists are the bishops, cardinals,
> > > > soothsayers, and popes. But when it comes to accurate facts, a scientific
> > > > researcher is a more dependable source of information than a pastor.
> > >
> > > I would say that entirely depends on which facts you are talking about.
> > > I would sooner trust a paleontologist to know the facts about the fossil
> > > record, but I would trust an intelligent pastor more than a biologist
> > > about matters of Christianity.
> >
> > As an anthroposophist, I also trust a scientist best when it comes to soul-spiritual
> > and divine-spiritual matters (riddles of existence and Christian mysteries).
>
> I thank you for sharing. :-) Do you have an argument to support this, or
> are you relying on "what seems true to you"?
I'll have to refer you to my anthroposophical linkpage again, for the same reason as
above.
>
>
> (snip)
>
> > > > So if
> > > > anyone is to have a priesthood, I'd rather keep the scientist than return to the
> > > > Middle Ages and trust theologians.
> > >
> > > I would say that is a false dichotomy. I would rather trust each expert
> > > in their fields of expertise.
> >
> > In my opinion, very few members of the clergy, or theologians, of today have the
> > required expertise, and the few who do are to be found either in the
> > (anthroposophically oriented) Christian Community or in the Vatican. But church dogma
> > always get in the way as a stumbling block - except, of course, in the Christian
> > Community.
>
> What IS the required expertise, in your opinion?
Total freedom from church dogma and familiarity with the teachings of underground
heretical Christian movements through the centuries, plus many other things, IN ADDITION
TO solid knowledge of orthodox theology and its history. Depper understanding of ancient
history and mythology, knowledge of legends related to, but not included in, the Bible,
plus knowledge of and access to all available apocryphical books and gospels Knowledge of
Latin, Greek, Hebrew, Arameic, and preferably also Egyption hieroglyphs, Nordic runes, and
perhaps most important, a certain knowledge of Sanscrit. A technical rather than a
classical-literary education is to be preferred, and a solid knowledge of the progression
of scientific discoveries, with an ability to make astute critical assessments of new
theories. A very, very good knowledge of history, especially spiritual history ith
attention to details normally overlooked by orthodox historians. Aristotle, Plato, and
Thomas Aquinas are a must, plus Nietzsche, Stirner, Goethe, Shakespeare, Hegel, and Ralph
Waldo Emerson.
Spiiritual knowledge embraces all of existence; I forgot to mention biology and zoology,
geology, astronomy, and also astrology - especially ancient astrology as practiced in
Babylon and elsewhere. And this is only the tip of the iceberg.
David Haas
It's NOT a question of verifying everything you accept as knowledge. It's
understanding how the knowledge was attained. As far as the atomic weights
and numbers of the elements this information was gathered over many years
by many educated scientists experimenting and testing their data. Original
numbers were revised and more accurate numbers attained. How was the bible
information attained? How do we know the information is accurate. Was it
verified and tested to see if what people said happened really happened.
We know today that eyewitness information is not very reliable. Most if
not the entire bible is based on hearsay eyewitness information. It was put
together by a few men living thousands of years ago. Have you ever thought
what life was like in those days? What the people thought about nature and
the supernatural.
D. Haas
> > > > > 2. What makes you think that scientists actually do a better job than
> (snip)
>
> > > > I don' t think David Haas meant to imply that scientists were more knowledgeable
> > > > about reiligion. My deduction from his post is that scientists have the highest
> > > > academic education and are therefore among the people best suited to handle
> > > > other challenges to our abstract thinking, including those of theology. I see
> > > > nothing wrong with that line of reasoning, but it's not to be acepted at face
> > > > value alone.
> > >
> > > No doubt scientists are experts in their field, but I see no reason to
> > > imagine that their education and experience or native ability would make
> > > them more competent to evaluate religious issues that any average Joe.
> > > In fact, they might be on average less competent, since there is an
> > > atheistic bias in western academic circles.
> >
> > Academic circles include a very wide range of world views and philosophies. There are
> > many Buddhists, Muslims, Christians, and believing Jews as well as atheists and
> > agnostics, theosophists and anthroposophists.
>
> Agreed, but in the WESTERN world, I would say that atheists outnumber
> theists (although not by s much as people think). BTW: what is an
> anthroposophist?
>
>
> (snip)
>
> > > > If scientists are the priests, the economists are the bishops, cardinals,
> > > > soothsayers, and popes. But when it comes to accurate facts, a scientific
> > > > researcher is a more dependable source of information than a pastor.
> > >
> > > I would say that entirely depends on which facts you are talking about.
> > > I would sooner trust a paleontologist to know the facts about the fossil
> > > record, but I would trust an intelligent pastor more than a biologist
> > > about matters of Christianity.
> >
> > As an anthroposophist, I also trust a scientist best when it comes to soul-spiritual
> > and divine-spiritual matters (riddles of existence and Christian mysteries).
>
> I thank you for sharing. :-) Do you have an argument to support this, or
> are you relying on "what seems true to you"?
>
> (snip)
>
> > > > So if
> > > > anyone is to have a priesthood, I'd rather keep the scientist than return to the
> > > > Middle Ages and trust theologians.
> > >
> > > I would say that is a false dichotomy. I would rather trust each expert
> > > in their fields of expertise.
> >
> > In my opinion, very few members of the clergy, or theologians, of today have the
> > required expertise, and the few who do are to be found either in the
> > (anthroposophically oriented) Christian Community or in the Vatican. But church dogma
> > always get in the way as a stumbling block - except, of course, in the Christian
> > Community.
>
> What IS the required expertise, in your opinion?
>
> keith
Wayne D. Hoxsie Jr.
There's a pretty much single agreed upon periodic chart that even
theists use. There's so much ambiguity in the bible (or any other
religious text) that there are hundreds of thousands of denominations
all with different dogma. That is the difference.
>>
>> > > If the Christian zealot had thought these
>> > > things out for himself and written it himself, it would have been a different
>> > > matter.
>> >
>> > Why don't you insist on this "figuring out on one's own" for
>> > astronomers; why don't you insist that they verify for themselves every
>> > scientific fact no matter how well established before they can draw a
>> > single conclusion? Why do you not consider it OK for them to depend on
>> > authority when it is warranted?
>>
>> We are not dealing with a specific field of research here, but with philosophy and
>> religion. If you ask an astronomer who is not a Bible-crazed fundy why he believes in
>> gods, he may say something like life probably comes from life and not from dead
>> matter or something like that - anything of his own choosing, his own reflections.
>> The fundy just repeats over and over agains some memorized Bible verses until your
>> ears fall off. That is the difference.
>
>But you didn't address my question. Why is it OK for a scientist to
>consult a reference book filled with facts she has not personally
>verified, but it is wrong for a fundamentalist to consult the Bible?
The bible is demonstrably lacking in facts. Reference books are based
on works that have been subjected to peer review. Whenever that is
tried with the bible, we end up with another denomination when the
peers disagree.
[SNIP]
--
Wayne D. Hoxsie Jr. KG9ME
postm...@hoxnet.com
http://www.hoxnet.com
PGP Key ID 138BCEE1
Keith Johnson
Tarjei Straume wrote:
>
> Keith Johnson wrote:
>(snip)
> > But you didn't address my question. Why is it OK for a scientist to
> > consult a reference book filled with facts she has not personally
> > verified, but it is wrong for a fundamentalist to consult the Bible?
>
> If a scientist does not find his answer in a specific book, he concludes that the answer
> must be sought elsewhere. And if he finds an answer through a different source personal
> research or literature from China, for instnce - that cotradicts what he has read in the
> first book, he does not dismiss his second finding, but he compares them and makes his own
> decision or consults colleagues with first hand experience. The fundy says the Bible is
> always right, and if it ain't in the Bible, it ain't true.
In each of the situations you described above, the scientist accepts the
claim he considers authoritative and rejects the contrary claims.
Obviously it is not inherently irrational to do so. How is that
different from the fundy who accepts the Bible as authoritative?
>
(snip)
> > > Academic circles include a very wide range of world views and philosophies. There are
> > > many Buddhists, Muslims, Christians, and believing Jews as well as atheists and
> > > agnostics, theosophists and anthroposophists.
> >
> > Agreed, but in the WESTERN world, I would say that atheists outnumber
> > theists (although not by s much as people think). BTW: what is an
> > anthroposophist?
>
> This question, as well as the next below, requires an essay for a response. I have a big
> linkpage on anthroposophy at
>
> http://uncletaz.com/linksfolder/anthroposlinks.html
>
> (Don't get distracted by my rotating skulls. They represent the Mystery of Golgotha)
I will try to check it out.
(snip)
> > > As an anthroposophist, I also trust a scientist best when it comes to soul-spiritual
> > > and divine-spiritual matters (riddles of existence and Christian mysteries).
> >
> > I thank you for sharing. :-) Do you have an argument to support this, or
> > are you relying on "what seems true to you"?
>
> I'll have to refer you to my anthroposophical linkpage again, for the same reason as
> above.
I'll check it out.
(snip)
> > > In my opinion, very few members of the clergy, or theologians, of today have the
> > > required expertise, and the few who do are to be found either in the
> > > (anthroposophically oriented) Christian Community or in the Vatican. But church dogma
> > > always get in the way as a stumbling block - except, of course, in the Christian
> > > Community.
> >
> > What IS the required expertise, in your opinion?
>
> Total freedom from church dogma and familiarity with the teachings of underground
> heretical Christian movements through the centuries, plus many other things, IN ADDITION
> TO solid knowledge of orthodox theology and its history.
Why would knowledge of heretical beliefs be required?
>Depper understanding of ancient
> history and mythology, knowledge of legends related to, but not included in, the Bible,
> plus knowledge of and access to all available apocryphical books and gospels Knowledge of
> Latin, Greek, Hebrew, Arameic, and preferably also Egyption hieroglyphs, Nordic runes, and
> perhaps most important, a certain knowledge of Sanscrit.
Why would any of the above be required?
> A technical rather than a
> classical-literary education is to be preferred, and a solid knowledge of the progression
> of scientific discoveries, with an ability to make astute critical assessments of new
> theories. A very, very good knowledge of history, especially spiritual history ith
> attention to details normally overlooked by orthodox historians. Aristotle, Plato, and
> Thomas Aquinas are a must, plus Nietzsche, Stirner, Goethe, Shakespeare, Hegel, and Ralph
> Waldo Emerson.
Again I ask: why would any of the above be required for a pastor to be
an authority on the Gospel?
keith
Keith Johnson
David Haas wrote:
>
> In article <3986EE8E...@pe.net>, co...@pe.net says...
(snip)
> > But you didn't address my question. Why is it OK for a scientist to
> > consult a reference book filled with facts she has not personally
> > verified, but it is wrong for a fundamentalist to consult the Bible?
>
> It's NOT a question of verifying everything you accept as knowledge. It's
> understanding how the knowledge was attained. As far as the atomic weights
> and numbers of the elements this information was gathered over many years
> by many educated scientists experimenting and testing their data. Original
> numbers were revised and more accurate numbers attained. How was the bible
> information attained?
I agree completely; it IS about how the knowledge was attained.
Apparently it isn't necessary that scientists verify for themselves THAT
the periodic table was actually produced by reliable means; apparently
it is rational for them to take that fact for granted. I certainly take
it for granted.
Likewise, if the Bible turns out to have been guided by God to the
truth, then it too is a warranted source of facts.
> How do we know the information is accurate. Was it
> verified and tested to see if what people said happened really happened.
> We know today that eyewitness information is not very reliable.
testing and verification might be one way of giving warrant to certain
claims, but is it the only way? I would say that if God guided the Bible
then that would give the Bible at least as much warrant as the
scientific method could confer.
> Most if
> not the entire bible is based on hearsay eyewitness information. It was put
> together by a few men living thousands of years ago. Have you ever thought
> what life was like in those days? What the people thought about nature and
> the supernatural.
Have I ever thought about what life was like back then? Of course; when
I was an atheist I thought the Bible was as unreliable as you do today.
But I no longer hold that view. Not because I have changed my opinion
about hearsay evidence or anything (although a reasonable argument on
historical grounds can be made that the testimony of the resurrection is
fairly reliable) but because I have come to believe that much of the
Bible was inspired by God. You can claim that my belief is one of those
manufactured beliefs but without the assumption that Christianity is as
much a myth as any other religion I don't see how you could support that
claim.
your friend
Keith
> >
> >
Noelie S. Alito
Keith Johnson <co...@pe.net> wrote in message
news:3986EE8E...@pe.net...
>
>
> Tarjei Straume wrote:
> >
> > Keith Johnson wrote:
> >
> > > Tarjei Straume wrote:
> (snip)
>
> > > > The problem is not confined to the irritating pushing of Biblical
> > > > church-Christianity down people's throats and the condescending
> > > > "more-enlighteed-than-thou" attitude towards those who drefuse to
swallow it.
> > >
> > > Condescending attitudes are always irritating, whether they are
> > > displayed by Christians or by atheists who can't understand why the
> > > great majority (who are theists) can't see what they see so clearly.
> >
> > Oh, as a theist, I've been up against plenty of arrogant atheist
science-freaks. They
> > even use some interesting bullying-tactics like demanding scientific
proof even of
> > casual personal viewpoints that have nothing to do with science or
mathematics.
That is a trait of sophomoric "arrogant science-freaks" in general.
Atheism is not a pre-requisite. (And no, I don't have any cites. ;-)
>> The
> > fundies are more irritating though, because they keep telling you how to
feel and
> > think and breathe, or rather how they insist that the Lord wants you to
think and
> > feel ad breathe. They want to exorcise you, save you, psychoanalyze you
and
> > tell you how you are astray in the claws of Satan because you're not a
fundy.
> > It's truly malodorous.
>
> I have found the fundamentalist atheists to be just as annoying.
I use the term "antitheist" (often with adjectives like "fanatic," "foaming"
or "assholic") for such people. For fundamentalist Christianity, which
encourages proselytizing to save people's souls, people feel a duty to
convert others. There is nothing inherent in atheism that requires that,
only human nature. I suspect a disproportionate amount of foaming
anti-theists are ex-theists themselves, probably even ex-fundamentalists,
who have had bad personal experiences. (More generally, I would
say the same of ex-foos, where "foos" may be smokers, drinkers,
members of a political party or people raised in a specific religion.)
<snip>
Noelie
---
Who are you to tell me to question authority?
Tarjei Straume
Keith Johnson wrote:
> Tarjei Straume wrote:
> >
> > Keith Johnson wrote:
> >(snip)
>
> > > But you didn't address my question. Why is it OK for a scientist to
> > > consult a reference book filled with facts she has not personally
> > > verified, but it is wrong for a fundamentalist to consult the Bible?
> >
> > If a scientist does not find his answer in a specific book, he concludes that the answer
> > must be sought elsewhere. And if he finds an answer through a different source personal
> > research or literature from China, for instnce - that cotradicts what he has read in the
> > first book, he does not dismiss his second finding, but he compares them and makes his own
> > decision or consults colleagues with first hand experience. The fundy says the Bible is
> > always right, and if it ain't in the Bible, it ain't true.
>
> In each of the situations you described above, the scientist accepts the
> claim he considers authoritative and rejects the contrary claims.
> Obviously it is not inherently irrational to do so. How is that
> different from the fundy who accepts the Bible as authoritative?
The skilled scientist does does not accept anything at face value, accepts nothing on
authority. The only "authority" in natural science is objective, physical laws and mathematics.
The validity of a hypothesis or a theory is established not by authority, but by experiment, by
trial and error. The results are frequently tangible when he or she is on the right track, in
terms of new medical drugs and technological innovations and improvements. Theology has nothing
of the sort, the only thing it has is abstract thinking based upon Aristotelian logic. Thomas
Aquinas was perhaps the most brilliant theologian who ever lived. He understood Aristotle, the
Bible, and the church. He lived in the thirteenth century, however - that's eight hundred years
ago, and prior to the dawn of objective scientific thinking which did not really develop until
the fifteenth century. Still, Aquinas had a razor-sharp intellect which he applied to theology.
The Pope recently announced that "Thomism" is representative of offficial church dogma. This
means that the Catholic church has finally arrived at the thirteenth century (though Aquinas
was admittedly ahead of his time intellectually).
>
> >
> (snip)
>
> > > > Academic circles include a very wide range of world views and philosophies. There are
> > > > many Buddhists, Muslims, Christians, and believing Jews as well as atheists and
> > > > agnostics, theosophists and anthroposophists.
> > >
> > > Agreed, but in the WESTERN world, I would say that atheists outnumber
> > > theists (although not by s much as people think). BTW: what is an
> > > anthroposophist?
> >
> > This question, as well as the next below, requires an essay for a response. I have a big
> > linkpage on anthroposophy at
> >
> > http://uncletaz.com/linksfolder/anthroposlinks.html
> >
> > (Don't get distracted by my rotating skulls. They represent the Mystery of Golgotha)
>
> I will try to check it out.
>
> (snip)
>
> > > > As an anthroposophist, I also trust a scientist best when it comes to soul-spiritual
> > > > and divine-spiritual matters (riddles of existence and Christian mysteries).
> > >
> > > I thank you for sharing. :-) Do you have an argument to support this, or
> > > are you relying on "what seems true to you"?
> >
> > I'll have to refer you to my anthroposophical linkpage again, for the same reason as
> > above.
> I'll check it out.
>
> (snip)
>
> > > > In my opinion, very few members of the clergy, or theologians, of today have the
> > > > required expertise, and the few who do are to be found either in the
> > > > (anthroposophically oriented) Christian Community or in the Vatican. But church dogma
> > > > always get in the way as a stumbling block - except, of course, in the Christian
> > > > Community.
> > >
> > > What IS the required expertise, in your opinion?
> >
> > Total freedom from church dogma and familiarity with the teachings of underground
> > heretical Christian movements through the centuries, plus many other things, IN ADDITION
> > TO solid knowledge of orthodox theology and its history.
>
> Why would knowledge of heretical beliefs be required?
There are many reasons for that. In the first place, it must be remembered that when the events
recorded in the New Testament took place, it was against the background of heathen, or pagan,
culture, the culture of the old, old wisdom from the Orient. This pgan feeling was alive in
people at tht time, and thiis is what made it possible for them to comprehend the Gospel of
Christ. Today, we live in an entirely different culture, and we have evolved entirely different
modes of cognition, especially during the last three or four hundred years. But to understand
early Christianity, we need to understand paganism. And Aristotle towers as "The Philosopher"
for the scholastics, and Aristotle was part and parcel of the pagan culture.
There are many more reasons, deeper reasons, for the understanding of paganism and ancient
mythology and religion, but there's a limit to how many essays I care to post here, and their
length.
> >Depper understanding of ancient
> > history and mythology, knowledge of legends related to, but not included in, the Bible,
> > plus knowledge of and access to all available apocryphical books and gospels Knowledge of
> > Latin, Greek, Hebrew, Arameic, and preferably also Egyption hieroglyphs, Nordic runes, and
> > perhaps most important, a certain knowledge of Sanscrit.
>
> Why would any of the above be required?
Because someone claiming to teach divine wisdom and existential riddles must draw on absolutely
all sources available to him and apply all his skills and faculties to acquire such knowledge.
By MY standard, not by yours or anyone else's, but mine. That's what you asked for. I'm
certainly NOT saying that this is required for salvation or for moral character improvement.
Spiritual knowledge includes cosmo-genesis, psychology, relationships between cause and effect,
open as well as hidden, i.e. occult (karma) and the relationship between physical and spiritual
laws and their interactions. And to comprehend human evolution and the advancement of human
ideas and understanding, we need to read the philosophical and literary giants - Darwin, Freud,
Marx, Nietzsche Tolstoi, Gandhi, and scientists like Thomas Edison, Michael Faraday Galileo,
Leonardo la Vinci - to understand how they lived and worked. Theology means study of God,
Theosophy means knowledge of the gods, Anthropology means the study of man, and Anthroposophy
means the knowledge of man. Philosophy, Philo + Sophia, means love of wisdom.
I'm only enlisting my own sources of understanding, though they have been far from properly
explored by me. I'm giving you an ideal, something to be striven for.
>
>
> > A technical rather than a
> > classical-literary education is to be preferred, and a solid knowledge of the progression
> > of scientific discoveries, with an ability to make astute critical assessments of new
> > theories. A very, very good knowledge of history, especially spiritual history ith
> > attention to details normally overlooked by orthodox historians. Aristotle, Plato, and
> > Thomas Aquinas are a must, plus Nietzsche, Stirner, Goethe, Shakespeare, Hegel, and Ralph
> > Waldo Emerson.
>
> Again I ask: why would any of the above be required for a pastor to be
> an authority on the Gospel?
I have not said that this should be required of a pastor. I have nothing to do with pastors,
except being moralized at and preached at on usenets like this one. Any pastor may be all the
authority he wants to be in his church or in his living room. It has nothing to do with me, so
I don't care if he's a complete dummy.
What I meant by "required expertise" mostly lacking in clergy and theologians, was my own
requirement, for me to learn something and trust the information as accurate or true, or at
least honest and close to the truth. Others may be satisfied with far less. But it's an irony
that the fundies don't consider it a sin to apply their intelligence to the production of
weapons and how to slaughter other people, but using that same God-given intelligence to
understand spiritual existence is supposed to be a sin. God is supposed to do all the thinking
for you; if you think, you go to hell
See how technologically advanced we are in this world. Don't we owe it to our creators to apply
at least as much intelligence to spiritual matters - ?
David Haas
>
> > > But you didn't address my question. Why is it OK for a scientist to
> > > consult a reference book filled with facts she has not personally
> > > verified, but it is wrong for a fundamentalist to consult the Bible?
> >
> > understanding how the knowledge was attained. As far as the atomic weights
> > and numbers of the elements this information was gathered over many years
> > by many educated scientists experimenting and testing their data. Original
> > numbers were revised and more accurate numbers attained. How was the bible
> > information attained?
>
> I agree completely; it IS about how the knowledge was attained.
> Apparently it isn't necessary that scientists verify for themselves THAT
> the periodic table was actually produced by reliable means; apparently
> it is rational for them to take that fact for granted. I certainly take
> it for granted.
>
> Likewise, if the Bible turns out to have been guided by God to the
> truth, then it too is a warranted source of facts.
>
> > How do we know the information is accurate. Was it
> > verified and tested to see if what people said happened really happened.
> > We know today that eyewitness information is not very reliable.
>
> testing and verification might be one way of giving warrant to certain
> claims, but is it the only way? I would say that if God guided the Bible
> then that would give the Bible at least as much warrant as the
> scientific method could confer.
You use if - then logic. It's all based on the premise that god guided the
writing of the bible. But what is the evidence that he indeed did?
Because the bible says so?
If you have any evidence except your own "feelings" what is it. If you are
"convinced" there is no way to change your mind. How could anyone change
your subjective thoughts if your mind is closed. So be it. It's your
mind.
I like to think that the human mind is the only thing that we have that is
unique in the animal kingdom. It must be flexible and open to objective
information, subjective information is suspect. I am skeptical of
everything, commercials, used car salesmen, politicians, religions, magic,
ghosts, the bible, miracles, even my own perceptions, That's how I "feel".
D. Haas
Paul Wenthold
>
> > Tarjei Straume wrote:
> > >
> > > Keith Johnson wrote:
> > >(snip)
> >
> > > > But you didn't address my question. Why is it OK for a scientist to
> > > > consult a reference book filled with facts she has not personally
> > > > verified, but it is wrong for a fundamentalist to consult the Bible?
> > >
> > > If a scientist does not find his answer in a specific book, he concludes that the answer
> > > must be sought elsewhere. And if he finds an answer through a different source personal
> > > research or literature from China, for instnce - that cotradicts what he has read in the
> > > first book, he does not dismiss his second finding, but he compares them and makes his own
> > > decision or consults colleagues with first hand experience. The fundy says the Bible is
> > > always right, and if it ain't in the Bible, it ain't true.
> >
> > In each of the situations you described above, the scientist accepts the
> > claim he considers authoritative and rejects the contrary claims.
> > Obviously it is not inherently irrational to do so. How is that
> > different from the fundy who accepts the Bible as authoritative?
>
The scientist does not need to rely on any claims of authority.
If there is any doubt, the scientist can reproduce the experiment
to determine on his own which of the two sources is correct.
And there are many times when previously reported experiments are
repeated and tested to verify that they are correct. Sometimes,
it is found that the original claim was incorrect (I've been there).
Lastly, even if the scientist does accept a claim, it is only
done so provisionally, subject to change with subsequent experiments.
Is the fundy's acceptance of the bible done so in a similar fashion?
No.
paul
Arky
>Humility forces me to ponder the
>possibility that your intuition is right and mine is delusion, but I
>honestly don't get the feeling that mine is delusion.
That's the tricky thing about delusion - it never feels like delusion
at the time. If you have a particular belief and you find that you
cannot justify it logically to others (or even yourself) then yes you
should start to suspect it is a good candidate for a delusion. Think
of a delusion as the physical neural connections in your brain causing
you to believe in something with utter conviction. Over riding this is
a long and difficult process. Atheist ex-fundamentalists often
complain of "floating", a lapse back into their old style magical
thinking. Brainwashing is difficult to overcome.
Please don't take offence at these remarks.
--
Arky
Arky
>Why is it OK for a scientist to
>consult a reference book filled with facts she has not personally
>verified, but it is wrong for a fundamentalist to consult the Bible?
The reference book has been produced by the scientific method. If you
want a decent analysis of the bible go to a non-christian historian
who can examine it like any other old text without bias.
--
Arky
Keith Johnson
Paul Wenthold wrote:
>
> > Keith Johnson wrote:
> >
(snip)
> > > In each of the situations you described above, the scientist accepts the
> > > claim he considers authoritative and rejects the contrary claims.
> > > Obviously it is not inherently irrational to do so. How is that
> > > different from the fundy who accepts the Bible as authoritative?
> >
>
> The scientist does not need to rely on any claims of authority.
> If there is any doubt, the scientist can reproduce the experiment
> to determine on his own which of the two sources is correct.
As a practical matter you are wrong. Our scientific knowledge has taken
hundreds of years to attain; it is practically impossible for any
scientist to start from scratch, using only instruments he made himself,
and verify every scientific claim he takes for granted. You mentioned
the caveat "if there's any doubt" about the veracity of a particular
scientific claim. That's the point; for the part there won't be any
doubt, the scientist will take basic science for granted.
> And there are many times when previously reported experiments are
> repeated and tested to verify that they are correct. Sometimes,
> it is found that the original claim was incorrect (I've been there).
True enough, but scientists do not reinvent the wheel each time; they
take for granted what they believe has been verified in the past.
>
> Lastly, even if the scientist does accept a claim, it is only
> done so provisionally, subject to change with subsequent experiments.
> Is the fundy's acceptance of the bible done so in a similar fashion?
If the fundy came across an authoritative claim that contradicted one of
his previously held beliefs, and that claim seemed more true than his
previous interpretation, he would quite likely change his beliefs. You
seem to think that a reluctance to give up his theistic belief counts
against the fundamentalist's claims that his beliefs are justified; how
easily would you give up your belief that reason is a reliable guide to
truth?
Keith
> No.
>
> paul
Keith Johnson
Tarjei Straume wrote:
>
> Keith Johnson wrote:
>
(snip)
> > In each of the situations you described above, the scientist accepts the
> > claim he considers authoritative and rejects the contrary claims.
> > Obviously it is not inherently irrational to do so. How is that
> > different from the fundy who accepts the Bible as authoritative?
>
> The skilled scientist does does not accept anything at face value, accepts nothing on
> authority. The only "authority" in natural science is objective, physical laws and mathematics.
I think your claim is demonstrably false. Obviously no single scientist
has started from scratch, using instruments he made himself, verified
every scientific fact we know. Every scientist accept almost all of his
background scientific knowledge on warranted authority; no scientist
could work at all in his specialty without taking for granted many
scientific claims.
> The validity of a hypothesis or a theory is established not by authority, but by experiment, by
> trial and error. The results are frequently tangible when he or she is on the right track, in
> terms of new medical drugs and technological innovations and improvements. Theology has nothing
> of the sort, the only thing it has is abstract thinking based upon Aristotelian logic. Thomas
> Aquinas was perhaps the most brilliant theologian who ever lived. He understood Aristotle, the
> Bible, and the church. He lived in the thirteenth century, however - that's eight hundred years
> ago, and prior to the dawn of objective scientific thinking which did not really develop until
> the fifteenth century. Still, Aquinas had a razor-sharp intellect which he applied to theology.
> The Pope recently announced that "Thomism" is representative of offficial church dogma. This
> means that the Catholic church has finally arrived at the thirteenth century (though Aquinas
> was admittedly ahead of his time intellectually).
Your observations about how science works is spot on, but even in the
process you describe those scientists are accepting the scientific
knowledge they bring to their efforts on the rightful authority of those
who came before. They are (as they say) standing in the shoulders of
giants.
Your comment about the catholic church accepting the 13th century ideas
of Thomism seem to reflect a prejudice against old ideas. That prejudice
toward all that is modern is not based on reality. It is a modern dogma,
nothing more.
(snip)
> > > > What IS the required expertise, in your opinion?
> > >
> > > Total freedom from church dogma and familiarity with the teachings of underground
> > > heretical Christian movements through the centuries, plus many other things, IN ADDITION
> > > TO solid knowledge of orthodox theology and its history.
> >
> > Why would knowledge of heretical beliefs be required?
>
> There are many reasons for that. In the first place, it must be remembered that when the events
> recorded in the New Testament took place, it was against the background of heathen, or pagan,
> culture, the culture of the old, old wisdom from the Orient. This pgan feeling was alive in
> people at tht time, and thiis is what made it possible for them to comprehend the Gospel of
> Christ. Today, we live in an entirely different culture, and we have evolved entirely different
> modes of cognition, especially during the last three or four hundred years. But to understand
> early Christianity, we need to understand paganism. And Aristotle towers as "The Philosopher"
> for the scholastics, and Aristotle was part and parcel of the pagan culture.
>
> There are many more reasons, deeper reasons, for the understanding of paganism and ancient
> mythology and religion, but there's a limit to how many essays I care to post here, and their
> length.
But still, why would a knowledge of how the early Christians understood
the Gospel be a requirement for a modern person to speak authoritatively
on the Gospel?
>
> > >Depper understanding of ancient
> > > history and mythology, knowledge of legends related to, but not included in, the Bible,
> > > plus knowledge of and access to all available apocryphical books and gospels Knowledge of
> > > Latin, Greek, Hebrew, Arameic, and preferably also Egyption hieroglyphs, Nordic runes, and
> > > perhaps most important, a certain knowledge of Sanscrit.
> >
> > Why would any of the above be required?
>
> Because someone claiming to teach divine wisdom and existential riddles must draw on absolutely
> all sources available to him and apply all his skills and faculties to acquire such knowledge.
Why wouldn't a single reliable source for spiritual wisdom be sufficient
for a person to be an authority on spiritual wisdom?
> By MY standard, not by yours or anyone else's, but mine. That's what you asked for. I'm
> certainly NOT saying that this is required for salvation or for moral character improvement.
I apologize if my questioning seems to be argumentative. Your answers
have prompted the follow up questions I am asking. I am asking you why
you think what you think. I appreciate you taking the time to answer; if
you get tired of it I will understand.
>
> Spiritual knowledge includes cosmo-genesis, psychology, relationships between cause and effect,
> open as well as hidden, i.e. occult (karma) and the relationship between physical and spiritual
> laws and their interactions. And to comprehend human evolution and the advancement of human
> ideas and understanding, we need to read the philosophical and literary giants - Darwin, Freud,
> Marx, Nietzsche Tolstoi, Gandhi, and scientists like Thomas Edison, Michael Faraday Galileo,
> Leonardo la Vinci - to understand how they lived and worked. Theology means study of God,
> Theosophy means knowledge of the gods, Anthropology means the study of man, and Anthroposophy
> means the knowledge of man. Philosophy, Philo + Sophia, means love of wisdom.
>
> I'm only enlisting my own sources of understanding, though they have been far from properly
> explored by me. I'm giving you an ideal, something to be striven for.
Personally, I believe that the Gospel of Christ is a sufficient guide to
the exploration of human nature; the exploration, however, must be made.
the Gospel doesn't instantly induce in us a full understanding of how
people work. That is of course MY opinion.
>
> >
> >
> > > A technical rather than a
> > > classical-literary education is to be preferred, and a solid knowledge of the progression
> > > of scientific discoveries, with an ability to make astute critical assessments of new
> > > theories. A very, very good knowledge of history, especially spiritual history ith
> > > attention to details normally overlooked by orthodox historians. Aristotle, Plato, and
> > > Thomas Aquinas are a must, plus Nietzsche, Stirner, Goethe, Shakespeare, Hegel, and Ralph
> > > Waldo Emerson.
> >
> > Again I ask: why would any of the above be required for a pastor to be
> > an authority on the Gospel?
>
> I have not said that this should be required of a pastor. I have nothing to do with pastors,
> except being moralized at and preached at on usenets like this one. Any pastor may be all the
> authority he wants to be in his church or in his living room. It has nothing to do with me, so
> I don't care if he's a complete dummy.
I apologize for not being clear enough. I was not speaking of a pastor
as an authorized leader of the church, I was referring him to a person
whose statements about spiritual truths could rationally be accepted on
face value, the way we non-geologists can rationally accept a geologists
explanation for how earthquakes work without having to start from
scratch and invent science from start to plate tectonics. Why do you
think this isn't possible.
>
> What I meant by "required expertise" mostly lacking in clergy and theologians, was my own
> requirement, for me to learn something and trust the information as accurate or true, or at
> least honest and close to the truth. Others may be satisfied with far less.
I would claim the extras you mention do not constitute "far more"; i
would say they are relative trivia. But again, that is my opinion.
> But it's an irony
> that the fundies don't consider it a sin to apply their intelligence to the production of
> weapons and how to slaughter other people, but using that same God-given intelligence to
> understand spiritual existence is supposed to be a sin. God is supposed to do all the thinking
> for you; if you think, you go to hell
I think you paint with an over broad brush about fundies. I don't know
any fundies who think it is a sin to use your intelligence to understand
spiritual existence; they just disagree with you about what are reliable
avenues to that end. I don't know a single fundy (not even the stupidest
fundy I know) who believes that if you think you go to hell. Perhaps
your experience has been different, but the fundies I know say that you
end up in hell because you reject God's free offer of salvation, not
because you dared think.
And I know several fundies who are anti-war Quakers, who would never
even consider working to aid the military machine. In fact, I know more
Christian pacifists than I do non-Christian pacifists.
>
> See how technologically advanced we are in this world. Don't we owe it to our creators to apply
> at least as much intelligence to spiritual matters - ?
I would not oppose being intelligent about all our endeavors, but I
really don't see the connection between our technological advances and
spiritual truth. After all, it was the invention of TV that gave us
televangelists:-)
your friend
keith
Puck Greenman
>> Are humans as a population that intelligent?
>
>Compared to flatworms...definitely.
Then again, show me the flat worm with a coronary,or an over due
Income Tax Bill
--
Puck #162
BAAWA Knight
E'address is forged Call me on :-
ICQ 15096558
The spelling, like any opinion stated here,
Is purely my own
David Haas
>
>
> Paul Wenthold wrote:
> >
> > > Keith Johnson wrote:
> > >
> (snip)
>
> > > > In each of the situations you described above, the scientist accepts the
> > > > claim he considers authoritative and rejects the contrary claims.
> > > > Obviously it is not inherently irrational to do so. How is that
> > > > different from the fundy who accepts the Bible as authoritative?
> > >
> >
> > If there is any doubt, the scientist can reproduce the experiment
> > to determine on his own which of the two sources is correct.
>
> As a practical matter you are wrong. Our scientific knowledge has taken
> hundreds of years to attain; it is practically impossible for any
> scientist to start from scratch, using only instruments he made himself,
> and verify every scientific claim he takes for granted.
If the system works you do NOT have to verify every claim. It has already
been done. Unless there is an obvious flaw scientists use those
discoveries to go on to other discoveries. This is how we have been able
to reach the point we have today. The computer relies on discoveries in
electricity, metallurgy, magnetism and many other fields. The same goes
for medicine. You and I probably wouldn't even be alive is it had not been
for the discovery of the germ theory and immunologic studies.
D. Haas
Paul Wenthold
>
> Paul Wenthold wrote:
> >
> > > Keith Johnson wrote:
> > >
> (snip)
>
> > > > claim he considers authoritative and rejects the contrary claims.
> > > > Obviously it is not inherently irrational to do so. How is that
> > > > different from the fundy who accepts the Bible as authoritative?
> > >
> >
> > If there is any doubt, the scientist can reproduce the experiment
> > to determine on his own which of the two sources is correct.
>
> As a practical matter you are wrong. Our scientific knowledge has taken
> hundreds of years to attain; it is practically impossible for any
> scientist to start from scratch, using only instruments he made himself,
> and verify every scientific claim he takes for granted.
He doesn't have to verify every claim. For example, a modern experiment
that confirms quantum mechanics is also verifying coulomb's law so
you don't need to reproduce any of those experiments directly.
Of course, if you read of a result that contradicted coulomb's
law, you could most certainly do the basic experiments.
You mentioned
> the caveat "if there's any doubt" about the veracity of a particular
> scientific claim. That's the point; for the part there won't be any
> doubt, the scientist will take basic science for granted.
Unless, of course, she observes a contradiction to it.
>
> > And there are many times when previously reported experiments are
> > repeated and tested to verify that they are correct. Sometimes,
> > it is found that the original claim was incorrect (I've been there).
>
> True enough, but scientists do not reinvent the wheel each time; they
> take for granted what they believe has been verified in the past.
Depends. If there is reason to doubt it (as in, there are
contradicting claims) there is nothing taken for granted.
Of course, if there are 150000 reported results consistent
with the previous claim and you find a contradiction, you
better be damn sure your result is not the result of a flawed
experiment. There are paradigm-shaking results, but there are
also a lot more claimed paradigm-shaking results that are wrong.
> >
> > Lastly, even if the scientist does accept a claim, it is only
> > done so provisionally, subject to change with subsequent experiments.
> > Is the fundy's acceptance of the bible done so in a similar fashion?
>
> If the fundy came across an authoritative claim that contradicted one of
> his previously held beliefs, and that claim seemed more true than his
> previous interpretation, he would quite likely change his beliefs.
The fundy doesn't accept authority from anyone except from
the bible. Therefore, there can't be any "authoritative claim"
that seems more true.
>You
> seem to think that a reluctance to give up his theistic belief counts
> against the fundamentalist's claims that his beliefs are justified;
I never said that. You asked what the difference was, and I told
you. Scientific claims are testable by others. Religious claims
are not. Therefore, a scientist who accepts what others claim
is basing his acceptance not on authority but on the testibility
of the claim. There is no testibility of biblical claims.
paul
Keith Johnson
"Wayne D. Hoxsie Jr." wrote:
>
> In article <3986EE8E...@pe.net>, Keith Johnson wrote:
> >
(snip)
> There's a pretty much single agreed upon periodic chart that even
> theists use. There's so much ambiguity in the bible (or any other
> religious text) that there are hundreds of thousands of denominations
> all with different dogma. That is the difference.
You don't imagine that there are no disagreements among chemists do you?
Most Christian denominations agree upon the basic truths of the Gospel;
the differences are over a small percentage of doctrinal matters, for
the most part. But the basic issue still remains: chemists accept things
they have not themselves evaluated on the rightful authority of their
references. Why should Christians not apply that same standard to the
things of the Christian faith?
(snip)
> >> We are not dealing with a specific field of research here, but with philosophy and
> >> religion. If you ask an astronomer who is not a Bible-crazed fundy why he believes in
> >> gods, he may say something like life probably comes from life and not from dead
> >> matter or something like that - anything of his own choosing, his own reflections.
> >> The fundy just repeats over and over agains some memorized Bible verses until your
> >> ears fall off. That is the difference.
> >
> >But you didn't address my question. Why is it OK for a scientist to
> >consult a reference book filled with facts she has not personally
> >verified, but it is wrong for a fundamentalist to consult the Bible?
>
> The bible is demonstrably lacking in facts. Reference books are based
> on works that have been subjected to peer review. Whenever that is
> tried with the bible, we end up with another denomination when the
> peers disagree.
And what demonstration do you have that the Bible is "lacking in facts".
I would claim that statement absurd in the face of it, but I don't want
to take the easy way out. I wonder what demonstration you have that the
statement "Jesus died on the cross, rose on the third day and saved our
souls if we will accept his offer of grace" is not factual.
keith
Tarjei Straume
Keith Johnson wrote:
> Tarjei Straume wrote:
> >
> > Keith Johnson wrote:
> >
> (snip)
>
> > > In each of the situations you described above, the scientist accepts the
> > > claim he considers authoritative and rejects the contrary claims.
> > > Obviously it is not inherently irrational to do so. How is that
> > > different from the fundy who accepts the Bible as authoritative?
> >
> > The skilled scientist does does not accept anything at face value, accepts nothing on
> > authority. The only "authority" in natural science is objective, physical laws and mathematics.
>
> I think your claim is demonstrably false. Obviously no single scientist
> has started from scratch, using instruments he made himself, verified
> every scientific fact we know. Every scientist accept almost all of his
> background scientific knowledge on warranted authority; no scientist
> could work at all in his specialty without taking for granted many
> scientific claims.
Is my claim false? You must have misunderstood it, or construed it to something else. My claim is
that the skilled scientist does not accept anything on authority, and that the demonstrable laws of
physics and mathematics always have the final word, regardless of what any predecessors have said or
written. A skilled, objective scientist is prepared at all times to have absolutely all his notions,
theories, ideas and understanding challenged, and even completely overturned and changed beyond
recognition, in the face of new facts, new evidence. And this is the diametrically opposite of the
Bible-dependent religious world view.
The fact that many scientists hve their individual biases and prejudices is a different matter, and
the same pertains to various bodies, administrations, and faculties. We all have our human faults.
What I am describing is the ideal that every scientist is really striving for, The orthodox
Christian is only striving to be faithful to the Bible, which he swears is inerrant.
> > The validity of a hypothesis or a theory is established not by authority, but by experiment, by
> > trial and error. The results are frequently tangible when he or she is on the right track, in
> > terms of new medical drugs and technological innovations and improvements. Theology has nothing
> > of the sort, the only thing it has is abstract thinking based upon Aristotelian logic. Thomas
> > Aquinas was perhaps the most brilliant theologian who ever lived. He understood Aristotle, the
> > Bible, and the church. He lived in the thirteenth century, however - that's eight hundred years
> > ago, and prior to the dawn of objective scientific thinking which did not really develop until
> > the fifteenth century. Still, Aquinas had a razor-sharp intellect which he applied to theology.
> > The Pope recently announced that "Thomism" is representative of offficial church dogma. This
> > means that the Catholic church has finally arrived at the thirteenth century (though Aquinas
> > was admittedly ahead of his time intellectually).
>
> Your observations about how science works is spot on, but even in the
> process you describe those scientists are accepting the scientific
> knowledge they bring to their efforts on the rightful authority of those
> who came before. They are (as they say) standing in the shoulders of
> giants.
>
> Your comment about the catholic church accepting the 13th century ideas
> of Thomism seem to reflect a prejudice against old ideas.
The problem of the church is, I think, that if it were to move ahead, beyond Thomism, its
hierarchical authority, already scarred, would crumble. Because the inevitable destiny of the
Christ-idea is spiritualized anarchism (anarchosophy).
> That prejudice toward all that is modern is not based on reality. It is a modern dogma,
> nothing more.
>
> (snip)
>
> > > > > What IS the required expertise, in your opinion?
> > > >
> > > > Total freedom from church dogma and familiarity with the teachings of underground
> > > > heretical Christian movements through the centuries, plus many other things, IN ADDITION
> > > > TO solid knowledge of orthodox theology and its history.
> > >
> > > Why would knowledge of heretical beliefs be required?
> >
> > There are many reasons for that. In the first place, it must be remembered that when the events
> > recorded in the New Testament took place, it was against the background of heathen, or pagan,
> > culture, the culture of the old, old wisdom from the Orient. This pgan feeling was alive in
> > people at tht time, and thiis is what made it possible for them to comprehend the Gospel of
> > Christ. Today, we live in an entirely different culture, and we have evolved entirely different
> > modes of cognition, especially during the last three or four hundred years. But to understand
> > early Christianity, we need to understand paganism. And Aristotle towers as "The Philosopher"
> > for the scholastics, and Aristotle was part and parcel of the pagan culture.
> >
> > There are many more reasons, deeper reasons, for the understanding of paganism and ancient
> > mythology and religion, but there's a limit to how many essays I care to post here, and their
> > length.
>
> But still, why would a knowledge of how the early Christians understood
> the Gospel be a requirement for a modern person to speak authoritatively
> on the Gospel?
Otherise, he would not comprehend the cultural, psychological, and soul-spiritual setting in which
the early church got its start.
> > > >Depper understanding of ancient
> > > > history and mythology, knowledge of legends related to, but not included in, the Bible,
> > > > plus knowledge of and access to all available apocryphical books and gospels Knowledge of
> > > > Latin, Greek, Hebrew, Arameic, and preferably also Egyption hieroglyphs, Nordic runes, and
> > > > perhaps most important, a certain knowledge of Sanscrit.
> > >
> > > Why would any of the above be required?
> >
> > Because someone claiming to teach divine wisdom and existential riddles must draw on absolutely
> > all sources available to him and apply all his skills and faculties to acquire such knowledge.
>
> Why wouldn't a single reliable source for spiritual wisdom be sufficient
> for a person to be an authority on spiritual wisdom?
I'm sure it's sufficient for some people, but it's not sufficient for me.
Because the education of a pastor is not sufficiently rooted in science and mathematics. In my
opinion, we must move from faith to knowledge (gnosis) in spiritual matters. As previously
specified, I'm speaking strictly for myself and for those of my persuasion here.
> > What I meant by "required expertise" mostly lacking in clergy and theologians, was my own
> > requirement, for me to learn something and trust the information as accurate or true, or at
> > least honest and close to the truth. Others may be satisfied with far less.
>
> I would claim the extras you mention do not constitute "far more"; i
> would say they are relative trivia. But again, that is my opinion.
>
> > But it's an irony
> > that the fundies don't consider it a sin to apply their intelligence to the production of
> > weapons and how to slaughter other people, but using that same God-given intelligence to
> > understand spiritual existence is supposed to be a sin. God is supposed to do all the thinking
> > for you; if you think, you go to hell
>
> I think you paint with an over broad brush about fundies. I don't know
> any fundies who think it is a sin to use your intelligence to understand
> spiritual existence; they just disagree with you about what are reliable
> avenues to that end. I don't know a single fundy (not even the stupidest
> fundy I know) who believes that if you think you go to hell. Perhaps
> your experience has been different, but the fundies I know say that you
> end up in hell because you reject God's free offer of salvation, not
> because you dared think.
Throughout my life, fundies have kept telling me that intellectualism and too much learning leads
you away from God and straight to Hell. And they keep quoting, "My thoughts are higher than your
thoughts...." an they add, "God doesn't want us to speculate about..." I've heard it over and over.
> And I know several fundies who are anti-war Quakers, who would never
> even consider working to aid the military machine. In fact, I know more
> Christian pacifists than I do non-Christian pacifists.
I have the deepest respect for the Quakers. I think they have represented the noblest in American
Christianity. I haven't thought of them as fundies, but I don't know any.
Keith Johnson
David Haas wrote:
>
> In article <3987248C...@pe.net>, co...@pe.net says...
> >
> >
(snip)
> > testing and verification might be one way of giving warrant to certain
> > claims, but is it the only way? I would say that if God guided the Bible
> > then that would give the Bible at least as much warrant as the
> > scientific method could confer.
>
> You use if - then logic. It's all based on the premise that god guided the
> writing of the bible. But what is the evidence that he indeed did?
> Because the bible says so?
I could ask you the same questions? What evidence is there for the
individual scientist that the periodic table really was verified? Or
that the instruments used by those who created the periodic table really
measured what those scientists claimed they did. And if there is such
evidence, what evidence does the scientist have that THAT evidence is
reliable?
Regarding the Bible as being guided by God: I came to believe it because
it seemed to verify itself. It wasn't that "the Bible claims to be the
inspired word of God, therefore it is", it was more that when I read the
bible it seems to be true (at least most parts do, at least about
spiritual matters).
>
> If you have any evidence except your own "feelings" what is it. If you are
> "convinced" there is no way to change your mind. How could anyone change
> your subjective thoughts if your mind is closed. So be it. It's your
> mind.
the same question could be asked of the scientists. Since no modern
scientist verifies every scientific claim, since every scientist accepts
on authority most of what they know about science, what evidence do they
have that what they know is actually right? Or even more to the point:
what could convince them (per impossible) that reason was not a valid
way to find the truth? Would you call a scientist close minded because
he insists that theistic claims be verified before he accepts them? What
would convince you that your position (of not accepting theism without
evidence) is wrong?
>
> I like to think that the human mind is the only thing that we have that is
> unique in the animal kingdom. It must be flexible and open to objective
> information, subjective information is suspect. I am skeptical of
> everything, commercials, used car salesmen, politicians, religions, magic,
> ghosts, the bible, miracles, even my own perceptions, That's how I "feel".
And it is ultimately that feeling, that "seeming to you to be true" that
is determinative of your beliefs. You admit you could be wrong but you
still go with what seems true to you. You are just like everyone in that
regard. From my Christian perspective, this is good. As long as you are
not sinfully closed to the truth, God will (we claim) show you the
truth. Eventually. On his schedule, not yours or mine.
your friend
keith
Keith Johnson
"Noelie S. Alito" wrote:
>
> Keith Johnson <co...@pe.net> wrote in message
> news:3986EE8E...@pe.net...
> >
(snip)
> > > > Condescending attitudes are always irritating, whether they are
> > > > displayed by Christians or by atheists who can't understand why the
> > > > great majority (who are theists) can't see what they see so clearly.
> > >
> > > Oh, as a theist, I've been up against plenty of arrogant atheist
> science-freaks. They
> > > even use some interesting bullying-tactics like demanding scientific
> proof even of
> > > casual personal viewpoints that have nothing to do with science or
> mathematics.
>
> That is a trait of sophomoric "arrogant science-freaks" in general.
> Atheism is not a pre-requisite. (And no, I don't have any cites. ;-)
I agree. I would hasten to point out: this characteristic is shared by
many Christian theists as well; they don't demand scientific
explanations for everything, but they do demand biblical justifications
for even the most mundane claims.
(snip)
> > I have found the fundamentalist atheists to be just as annoying.
>
> I use the term "antitheist" (often with adjectives like "fanatic," "foaming"
> or "assholic") for such people. For fundamentalist Christianity, which
> encourages proselytizing to save people's souls, people feel a duty to
> convert others. There is nothing inherent in atheism that requires that,
> only human nature. I suspect a disproportionate amount of foaming
> anti-theists are ex-theists themselves, probably even ex-fundamentalists,
> who have had bad personal experiences. (More generally, I would
> say the same of ex-foos, where "foos" may be smokers, drinkers,
> members of a political party or people raised in a specific religion.)
It seems to me that the "holier than thou" attitude inherent in such
fanaticism is a function of a real lack of confidence in one's views (I
know that's a cliché but I think it is true nonetheless). I am a leftist
politically and I have found many on my side of the political spectrum
display many of the same behaviors that fundamentalists of all stripes
display. It's not really a matter of thinking you are right and all
those who disagree with are wrong; everybody does that, it's part of the
definition of believing something that you think you are right. It's
more that fundamentalists feel compelled to convince other people by
brute force. We Christians have a contrary model for persuasion (we
ought to actually practice it sometimes:-). When Jesus sent his Apostles
out to evangelize he told them to offer the Gospel and if it was
rejected to move on. That doesn't quite entail "forcing one's beliefs
down somebody's throat".
keith
Keith Johnson
Arky wrote:
>
> On 1 Aug 2000 11:54:09 -0400, Keith Johnson <co...@pe.net> wrote:
>
> >Humility forces me to ponder the
> >possibility that your intuition is right and mine is delusion, but I
> >honestly don't get the feeling that mine is delusion.
>
> That's the tricky thing about delusion - it never feels like delusion
> at the time. If you have a particular belief and you find that you
> cannot justify it logically to others (or even yourself) then yes you
> should start to suspect it is a good candidate for a delusion. Think
> of a delusion as the physical neural connections in your brain causing
> you to believe in something with utter conviction. Over riding this is
> a long and difficult process. Atheist ex-fundamentalists often
> complain of "floating", a lapse back into their old style magical
> thinking. Brainwashing is difficult to overcome.
>
> Please don't take offence at these remarks.
Arky, How could I take your remarks as offensive? I'll let you ponder
the meaning of that. :-)
I could point out that any logical justification of any belief depends
on premises. The intuitional differences I have with Dave are at
precisely that facet of rationality: premise selection. Dave can't
justify his claim logically to others either, so is Dave deluded also?
Every belief YOU have is either a premise or a conclusion based on
premises; you can't justify those premises logically either; are you
deluded too?
But the point I really want to make is this: you made a claim that if I
"cannot justify it [one of my beliefs] logically to others ... then [I]
should start to suspect it is ... a delusion". But you cannot justify
that belief logically; do you suspect it is a delusion?
your friend
keith
> --
> Arky
Keith Johnson
Arky wrote:
>
> On 1 Aug 2000 11:37:36 -0400, Keith Johnson <co...@pe.net> wrote:
>
> >Why is it OK for a scientist to
> >consult a reference book filled with facts she has not personally
> >verified, but it is wrong for a fundamentalist to consult the Bible?
>
> The reference book has been produced by the scientific method. If you
> want a decent analysis of the bible go to a non-christian historian
> who can examine it like any other old text without bias.
What you are saying is that being produced by the scientific method
confers warrant to the reference book. Why cannot the Christian say that
being produced by God confers warrant to the bible?
keith
> --
> Arky
Keith Johnson
David Haas wrote:
>
> In article <39873EFE...@pe.net>, co...@pe.net says...
(snip)
> > > The scientist does not need to rely on any claims of authority.
> > > If there is any doubt, the scientist can reproduce the experiment
> > > to determine on his own which of the two sources is correct.
> >
> > As a practical matter you are wrong. Our scientific knowledge has taken
> > hundreds of years to attain; it is practically impossible for any
> > scientist to start from scratch, using only instruments he made himself,
> > and verify every scientific claim he takes for granted.
>
> If the system works you do NOT have to verify every claim. It has already
> been done.
I would agree (I would also agree that in fact the system DOES work).
Likewise for the Bible; if the Bible was inspired by God the Christian
needn't authenticate its claims either; God has already done that.
> Unless there is an obvious flaw scientists use those
> discoveries to go on to other discoveries. This is how we have been able
> to reach the point we have today. The computer relies on discoveries in
> electricity, metallurgy, magnetism and many other fields. The same goes
> for medicine. You and I probably wouldn't even be alive is it had not been
> for the discovery of the germ theory and immunologic studies.
I agree. I also agree (but not with you) that we would not be alive if
God had not made us:-)
Keith
>
> D. Haas
>
> > You mentioned
> > the caveat "if there's any doubt" about the veracity of a particular
> > scientific claim. That's the point; for the part there won't be any
> > doubt, the scientist will take basic science for granted.
> >
> > > And there are many times when previously reported experiments are
> > > repeated and tested to verify that they are correct. Sometimes,
> > > it is found that the original claim was incorrect (I've been there).
> >
> > True enough, but scientists do not reinvent the wheel each time; they
> > take for granted what they believe has been verified in the past.
> > >
> > > Lastly, even if the scientist does accept a claim, it is only
> > > done so provisionally, subject to change with subsequent experiments.
> > > Is the fundy's acceptance of the bible done so in a similar fashion?
> >
> > If the fundy came across an authoritative claim that contradicted one of
> > his previously held beliefs, and that claim seemed more true than his
> > previous interpretation, he would quite likely change his beliefs. You
> > seem to think that a reluctance to give up his theistic belief counts
David Haas
>
>
> David Haas wrote:
> >
> > In article <39873EFE...@pe.net>, co...@pe.net says...
> (snip)
>
> > > > The scientist does not need to rely on any claims of authority.
> > > > If there is any doubt, the scientist can reproduce the experiment
> > > > to determine on his own which of the two sources is correct.
> > >
> > > As a practical matter you are wrong. Our scientific knowledge has taken
> > > hundreds of years to attain; it is practically impossible for any
> > > scientist to start from scratch, using only instruments he made himself,
> > > and verify every scientific claim he takes for granted.
> >
> > If the system works you do NOT have to verify every claim. It has already
> > been done.
>
> I would agree (I would also agree that in fact the system DOES work).
> Likewise for the Bible; if the Bible was inspired by God the Christian
> needn't authenticate its claims either; God has already done that.
>
>
> > Unless there is an obvious flaw scientists use those
> > discoveries to go on to other discoveries. This is how we have been able
> > to reach the point we have today. The computer relies on discoveries in
> > electricity, metallurgy, magnetism and many other fields. The same goes
> > for medicine. You and I probably wouldn't even be alive is it had not been
> > for the discovery of the germ theory and immunologic studies.
>
> I agree. I also agree (but not with you) that we would not be alive if
> God had not made us:-)
>
Or God would not exist if we did not exist. ;)
D. Haas
Keith Johnson
Paul Wenthold wrote:
>
> Keith Johnson wrote:
> >
(snip)
> > As a practical matter you are wrong. Our scientific knowledge has taken
> > hundreds of years to attain; it is practically impossible for any
> > scientist to start from scratch, using only instruments he made himself,
> > and verify every scientific claim he takes for granted.
>
> He doesn't have to verify every claim. For example, a modern experiment
> that confirms quantum mechanics is also verifying coulomb's law so
> you don't need to reproduce any of those experiments directly.
> Of course, if you read of a result that contradicted coulomb's
> law, you could most certainly do the basic experiments.
A quantum physicist takes a huge amount of physics for granted when he
does his experiments; he has to in order to even get started. This can't
really be called verifying the previous physics; all modern scientists
accept tons of science on the authority of the people and process that
produced it. Such acceptance is warranted because that authority is
reliable.
Likewise for the Bible (the Christian might say); accepting the Biblical
testimony as authoritative is warranted because the people and process
which produced it is reliable--the process was the inspiration of God,
they'd claim.
>
> You mentioned
> > the caveat "if there's any doubt" about the veracity of a particular
> > scientific claim. That's the point; for the part there won't be any
> > doubt, the scientist will take basic science for granted.
>
> Unless, of course, she observes a contradiction to it.
Most of the time there will be no opportunity to observe a
contradiction; most of the time the assumption is so deeply buried that
it cannot be tested. A biologist, for example will not interpret a
peculiar voltage reading as a challenge to electro dynamics; she would
instead assume that she was observing an interesting biological
phenomenon.
>
> >
> > > And there are many times when previously reported experiments are
> > > repeated and tested to verify that they are correct. Sometimes,
> > > it is found that the original claim was incorrect (I've been there).
> >
> > True enough, but scientists do not reinvent the wheel each time; they
> > take for granted what they believe has been verified in the past.
>
> Depends. If there is reason to doubt it (as in, there are
> contradicting claims) there is nothing taken for granted.
> Of course, if there are 150000 reported results consistent
> with the previous claim and you find a contradiction, you
> better be damn sure your result is not the result of a flawed
> experiment. There are paradigm-shaking results, but there are
> also a lot more claimed paradigm-shaking results that are wrong.
Surely. But all you are really saying is that a scientist is warranted
to take many things on the authority of other experts because the
scientific method is a warranted source of truth. I agree. Many
Christians would claim that Bible is a warranted source of truth because
it was produced by the reliable guidance of God.
>
> > >
> > > Lastly, even if the scientist does accept a claim, it is only
> > > done so provisionally, subject to change with subsequent experiments.
> > > Is the fundy's acceptance of the bible done so in a similar fashion?
> >
> > If the fundy came across an authoritative claim that contradicted one of
> > his previously held beliefs, and that claim seemed more true than his
> > previous interpretation, he would quite likely change his beliefs.
>
> The fundy doesn't accept authority from anyone except from
> the bible. Therefore, there can't be any "authoritative claim"
> that seems more true.
That's not quite true, but even it it were, this would be a possible
scenario: A fundy holds a biblical theory which he finds is incompatible
with a biblical fact he just recognized; he rejects the old theory and
finds a new one. This would be analogous to the scientist who rejects an
old theory because it is inconsistent with the PHYSICAL data he
encounters. he doesn't reject the physical data that forces itself on
him; why should the Christian reject the Biblical data?
>
> >You
> > seem to think that a reluctance to give up his theistic belief counts
> > against the fundamentalist's claims that his beliefs are justified;
>
> I never said that. You asked what the difference was, and I told
> you. Scientific claims are testable by others. Religious claims
> are not.
The scientist would not be willing to reject his belief that reason is a
valid way to find truth; there is no way a scientist could test that
belief. In what way is that different from a Christian's belief that the
Bible is a valid way to find truth?
BTW, religious claims can be tested (even for fundamentalists); the
fundamentalist would only insist that all religious claims be consistent
with the Biblical data, just like a physical scientist would insist
that physical theories be consistent with the physical data.
> Therefore, a scientist who accepts what others claim
> is basing his acceptance not on authority but on the testibility
> of the claim. There is no testibility of biblical claims.
the scientist is basing his belief THAT those claims are testable (and
have been tested) on authority, I would say. No scientist has actually
tested all the claims himself.
your friend
keith
>
> paul
gg...@my-deja.com
co...@pe.net wrote:
>
>
> "Wayne D. Hoxsie Jr." wrote:
> >
> > In article <3986EE8E...@pe.net>, Keith Johnson wrote:
> > >
> >
> > The bible is demonstrably lacking in facts. Reference books are
based
> > on works that have been subjected to peer review. Whenever that is
> > tried with the bible, we end up with another denomination when the
> > peers disagree.
>
> And what demonstration do you have that the Bible is "lacking in
facts".
> I would claim that statement absurd in the face of it, but I don't
want
> to take the easy way out. I wonder what demonstration you have that
the
> statement "Jesus died on the cross, rose on the third day and saved
our
> souls if we will accept his offer of grace" is not factual.
We could examine the only information we have on the subject which is
the Gospels of the New Testament. We find four stories that disagree
upon who went, when they went, and what they saw when they arrived. How
many angels were there? Matthew says there were two and then Jesus
showed up to deliver a redundant message to the angels' message while
contradicting what they said at the same time. Mark says there was just
a boy, but then Matthew is much more incredulous than Mark. In Mark, it
took two tries to heal the blind man but in Matthew, the man reached
out and touched Jesus' sleeve and was healed immediately. (If he was
blind, how did the man find the sleeve?) Compare the stories of Jesus
cursing a date tree for not producing fruit out of season.
If the stories were inspired by a perfect being, they would have to be
true. Inconsistent stories cannot simultaneously be true. Either one or
none is true.
Of course it is possible for various witnesses to see things from a
different perspective thus providing different details. But then how
could a witness miss Jesus rising up into the sky? That's something
that wouldn't be omitted from a credible account if it happened.
This is the most important event in Christianity. If it were true, it
would be the most important event in all history. Yet the only record
is rife with inconsistencies. Doesn't sound like an Intelligently
Designed situation to me.
Yasu!
Greg
There's a seeker reborn every minute.
>
> keith
>
Sent via Deja.com http://www.deja.com/
Before you buy.
Tracy P. Hamilton
>
>
> Paul Wenthold wrote:
> >
> > Keith Johnson wrote:
> > >
> (snip)
>
> > > As a practical matter you are wrong. Our scientific knowledge has
taken
> > > hundreds of years to attain; it is practically impossible for any
> > > scientist to start from scratch, using only instruments he made
himself,
> > > and verify every scientific claim he takes for granted.
> >
> > He doesn't have to verify every claim. For example, a modern experiment
> > that confirms quantum mechanics is also verifying coulomb's law so
> > you don't need to reproduce any of those experiments directly.
> > Of course, if you read of a result that contradicted coulomb's
> > law, you could most certainly do the basic experiments.
>
> A quantum physicist takes a huge amount of physics for granted when he
> does his experiments; he has to in order to even get started.
They take for granted that the basic work, if important, has been done
by many people, not just the one. Many times, these things are done
as part of the lab training.
Take, for example, cold fusion. Were people taking what Pons and
Fleischman said happened for granted? No way!
> This can't
> really be called verifying the previous physics; all modern scientists
> accept tons of science on the authority of the people and process that
> produced it. Such acceptance is warranted because that authority is
> reliable.
It verifies the previous work by building on it, and by the understanding
of how the conclusions followed from the experiments.
> Likewise for the Bible (the Christian might say); accepting the Biblical
> testimony as authoritative is warranted because the people and process
> which produced it is reliable--the process was the inspiration of God,
> they'd claim.
There is no basis for claiming reliability, except faith.
Which is OK, but not the same as science.
> > You mentioned
> > > the caveat "if there's any doubt" about the veracity of a particular
> > > scientific claim. That's the point; for the part there won't be any
> > > doubt, the scientist will take basic science for granted.
> >
> > Unless, of course, she observes a contradiction to it.
>
> Most of the time there will be no opportunity to observe a
> contradiction; most of the time the assumption is so deeply buried that
> it cannot be tested. A biologist, for example will not interpret a
> peculiar voltage reading as a challenge to electro dynamics; she would
> instead assume that she was observing an interesting biological
> phenomenon.
If pigs had wings they could fly.
> > > > And there are many times when previously reported experiments are
> > > > repeated and tested to verify that they are correct. Sometimes,
> > > > it is found that the original claim was incorrect (I've been there).
> > >
> > > True enough, but scientists do not reinvent the wheel each time; they
> > > take for granted what they believe has been verified in the past.
> >
> > Depends. If there is reason to doubt it (as in, there are
> > contradicting claims) there is nothing taken for granted.
> > Of course, if there are 150000 reported results consistent
> > with the previous claim and you find a contradiction, you
> > better be damn sure your result is not the result of a flawed
> > experiment. There are paradigm-shaking results, but there are
> > also a lot more claimed paradigm-shaking results that are wrong.
>
> Surely. But all you are really saying is that a scientist is warranted
> to take many things on the authority of other experts because the
> scientific method is a warranted source of truth. I agree. Many
> Christians would claim that Bible is a warranted source of truth because
> it was produced by the reliable guidance of God.
The method of warranting is completely different.
There is a big difference between the guy who believes his product will
last forever, and those who actually do tests of product reliability.
> > > > Lastly, even if the scientist does accept a claim, it is only
> > > > done so provisionally, subject to change with subsequent
experiments.
> > > > Is the fundy's acceptance of the bible done so in a similar fashion?
> > >
> > > If the fundy came across an authoritative claim that contradicted one
of
> > > his previously held beliefs, and that claim seemed more true than his
> > > previous interpretation, he would quite likely change his beliefs.
> >
> > The fundy doesn't accept authority from anyone except from
> > the bible. Therefore, there can't be any "authoritative claim"
> > that seems more true.
>
> That's not quite true, but even it it were, this would be a possible
> scenario: A fundy holds a biblical theory which he finds is incompatible
> with a biblical fact he just recognized; he rejects the old theory and
> finds a new one.
Why not consider that his biblical fact is wrong?
Is that not the first order of business? That is what a scientist
would do, realizing man's fallibility. How odd that certain religious
folk forget that. You would think that principle would come through
clear, but maybe they get the idea that it does not apply to them.
They are certain, it is the other guy who is wrong.
> This would be analogous to the scientist who rejects an
> old theory because it is inconsistent with the PHYSICAL data he
> encounters. he doesn't reject the physical data that forces itself on
> him; why should the Christian reject the Biblical data?
Because it is not *data*?
They should make up their mind when there is a contradiction in
the two methods for understanding their little world. Making up
lies is not a good option.
> > >You
> > > seem to think that a reluctance to give up his theistic belief counts
> > > against the fundamentalist's claims that his beliefs are justified;
> >
> > I never said that. You asked what the difference was, and I told
> > you. Scientific claims are testable by others. Religious claims
> > are not.
> The scientist would not be willing to reject his belief that reason is a
> valid way to find truth; there is no way a scientist could test that
> belief. In what way is that different from a Christian's belief that the
> Bible is a valid way to find truth?
They are different methods - that is the difference. It is banal to
say that they are each a method to find truth.
> BTW, religious claims can be tested (even for fundamentalists); the
> fundamentalist would only insist that all religious claims be consistent
> with the Biblical data, just like a physical scientist would insist
> that physical theories be consistent with the physical data.
Again, a different procedure for testing. What you say is true,
that it is a "test".
> > Therefore, a scientist who accepts what others claim
> > is basing his acceptance not on authority but on the testibility
> > of the claim. There is no testibility of biblical claims.
>
> the scientist is basing his belief THAT those claims are testable (and
> have been tested) on authority, I would say. No scientist has actually
> tested all the claims himself.
No. They rely on learning. There is a dependence on the system set
up to reward criticism and verification.
Tracy P. Hamilton
seaotter
> I would claim that statement absurd in the face of it, but I don't want
> to take the easy way out. I wonder what demonstration you have that the
> statement "Jesus died on the cross, rose on the third day and saved our
> souls if we will accept his offer of grace" is not factual.
What definition of fact are you using? Fact is anything that can be directly
observed. Well, it doesn't fit that definition. 1-0. A fact is an assertion
that has so much supporting evidence that it's ridiculous to argue the truth
of the statement. I don't see any supporting evidence, much less
overwhelming evidence. 2-0. A fact is a description of reality. You win that
one. It could be a factual statement if we use the last one. 2-1. If we use
the last definition though, how do we tell a fact from a false claim?
Everything could be factual if we go with the last one thus rendering that
definition useless.
seaotter
> confers warrant to the reference book. Why cannot the Christian say that
> being produced by God confers warrant to the bible?
>
> keith
They can if they can demonstrate that it is produced by God. I'd be moved if
they could just demonstrate there was a God.
Keith Johnson
Tarjei Straume wrote:
>
> Keith Johnson wrote:
(snip)
> > I think your claim is demonstrably false. Obviously no single scientist
> > has started from scratch, using instruments he made himself, verified
> > every scientific fact we know. Every scientist accept almost all of his
> > background scientific knowledge on warranted authority; no scientist
> > could work at all in his specialty without taking for granted many
> > scientific claims.
>
> Is my claim false? You must have misunderstood it, or construed it to something else. My claim is
> that the skilled scientist does not accept anything on authority, and that the demonstrable laws of
> physics and mathematics always have the final word, regardless of what any predecessors have said or
> written. A skilled, objective scientist is prepared at all times to have absolutely all his notions,
> theories, ideas and understanding challenged, and even completely overturned and changed beyond
> recognition, in the face of new facts, new evidence.
I don't think I did misunderstand your claim. I claim the opposite. If
we look at the claims a scientist accepts, only a small percentage are
claims he has personally verified; the rest he accepts on the basis of
some authority.
> And this is the diametrically opposite of the
> Bible-dependent religious world view.
Not opposite at all, I would claim. The scientist does not even question
whether or not reason and observation is a valid way to find truth; or
if he does question it he rejects it without any reason or observation
to justify it. The scientist accepts without reservation the ability to
gather empirical data; what he tests are hypotheses about that data.
Bible-dependent Christians are much the same; the difference being that
they accept the biblical data as valid like the scientist accepts
empirical data as valid.
>
> The fact that many scientists hve their individual biases and prejudices is a different matter, and
> the same pertains to various bodies, administrations, and faculties. We all have our human faults.
> What I am describing is the ideal that every scientist is really striving for, The orthodox
> Christian is only striving to be faithful to the Bible, which he swears is inerrant.
The ideal scientist strives to be faithful to the empirical facts; the
Bible believing Christian strives to be faithful to the Biblical facts.
What is the difference?
(snip)
> > Your observations about how science works is spot on, but even in the
> > process you describe those scientists are accepting the scientific
> > knowledge they bring to their efforts on the rightful authority of those
> > who came before. They are (as they say) standing in the shoulders of
> > giants.
> >
> > Your comment about the catholic church accepting the 13th century ideas
> > of Thomism seem to reflect a prejudice against old ideas.
>
> The problem of the church is, I think, that if it were to move ahead, beyond Thomism, its
> hierarchical authority, already scarred, would crumble. Because the inevitable destiny of the
> Christ-idea is spiritualized anarchism (anarchosophy).
I guess my question is this: what justifies your claim that moving away
from Thomas constitutes moving AHEAD; you seem to be presupposing
progress rather than regress.
>(snip)
> > But still, why would a knowledge of how the early Christians understood
> > the Gospel be a requirement for a modern person to speak authoritatively
> > on the Gospel?
>
> Otherise, he would not comprehend the cultural, psychological, and soul-spiritual setting in which
> the early church got its start.
And why would that be a requirement for a modern person to speak
authoritatively on the Gospel?
(snip)
> > Why wouldn't a single reliable source for spiritual wisdom be sufficient
> > for a person to be an authority on spiritual wisdom?
>
> I'm sure it's sufficient for some people, but it's not sufficient for me.
Why not? If it's reliable why would you need other sources?
(snip)
(snip)
> > I apologize for not being clear enough. I was not speaking of a pastor
> > as an authorized leader of the church, I was referring him to a person
> > whose statements about spiritual truths could rationally be accepted on
> > face value, the way we non-geologists can rationally accept a geologists
> > explanation for how earthquakes work without having to start from
> > scratch and invent science from start to plate tectonics. Why do you
> > think this isn't possible.
>
> Because the education of a pastor is not sufficiently rooted in science and mathematics. In my
> opinion, we must move from faith to knowledge (gnosis) in spiritual matters. As previously
> specified, I'm speaking strictly for myself and for those of my persuasion here.
And I appreciate your sharing your opinions on such matters. I would
claim that faith is not the opposite of knowledge, I would claim that we
finite human beings cannot HAVE knowledge without having faith. If the
faith is justified then it leads to knowledge.
(snip)
> > I think you paint with an over broad brush about fundies. I don't know
> > any fundies who think it is a sin to use your intelligence to understand
> > spiritual existence; they just disagree with you about what are reliable
> > avenues to that end. I don't know a single fundy (not even the stupidest
> > fundy I know) who believes that if you think you go to hell. Perhaps
> > your experience has been different, but the fundies I know say that you
> > end up in hell because you reject God's free offer of salvation, not
> > because you dared think.
>
> Throughout my life, fundies have kept telling me that intellectualism and too much learning leads
> you away from God and straight to Hell. And they keep quoting, "My thoughts are higher than your
> thoughts...." an they add, "God doesn't want us to speculate about..." I've heard it over and over.
Well I can't argue with you about your own experience. I would point out
that recognizing the distance between God's thoughts and our own, and
recognizing that speculations are not the same as truth, are not the
same thing as saying that thinking is the road to hell. God gave us
minds and I see no justification for the claim that using them is
hazardous to our salvation.
>
> > And I know several fundies who are anti-war Quakers, who would never
> > even consider working to aid the military machine. In fact, I know more
> > Christian pacifists than I do non-Christian pacifists.
>
> I have the deepest respect for the Quakers. I think they have represented the noblest in American
> Christianity. I haven't thought of them as fundies, but I don't know any.
Some Quakers are not fundies, some are. As Quakers go, I am a moderate
theologically.
your friend
Keith
Paul J Gans
No, that won't do it either. What is in the reference
book can be reproduced by man. That makes those facts
facts of science. The works of the Bible cannot be
reproduced by man. That makes it a work of faith.
Nothing wrong with that at all. Just let us not
conflate the two.
---- Paul J. Gans
Leonard Timmons
Intelligence is a particular type of emotion.
Like science is a particular type of magic.
David Haas wrote:
>
> This may be a little off topic but I thought I would see what you all
> think. Upon reading a post in which the US Congress and the word
> intelligence were used in the same sentence I had a thought. (Remarkable
> isn't it)
The question is how does one know when he has been thinking?
That's the question.
> Are humans as a population that intelligent? Intelligence is defined as
> the capacity to reason and to determine what is true and what is not.
Truth has no meaning, but reliable predictions are frequently useful.
> Granted, the scientific community appears to have a fairly good handle on
> facts. Stuff which has been determined through experiment and tested
> through time. Most of the human population, however, seems to accept
> manufactured facts and use them to determine other facts without any
> confirmation. Take formal religion and product advertising for example.
> Millions, perhaps billions, are bombarded with all sorts of false and
> misleading information and accept it without reservation. They may actually
> convince their friends and loved ones that they know the truth about God
> and/or floor cleaner. Could this actually be a form of anti-intelligence.
> A situation where the understanding of reality is completely subjective.
Anything repeated often enough will eventually be accepted as true.
Anything repeated often enough will eventually be accepted as true.
Anything repeated often enough will eventually be accepted as true.
Anything repeated often enough will eventually be accepted as true.
Anything repeated often enough will eventually be accepted as true.
.
.
.
Anything repeated often enough will eventually be accepted as true.
Anything repeated often enough will eventually be accepted as true.
Anything repeated often enough will eventually be accepted as true.
Anything repeated often enough will eventually be accepted as true.
Anything repeated often enough will eventually be accepted as true.
> Human positive intelligence has enabled us to extend our life span, modify
> our environment and change the earth's ecosystems in a few hundred years.
> The question is can people, I include the politicians here, see and accept
> facts which do not fit into their idea of personal importance and
> religious bias.
Um, no, they can't. Intelligence is an emotion that is rewarded by
accuracy. Unfortunately, the level of accuracy required for a just
reward is totally dependent on each person.
-leonard
--
You learn something new every day.
Sometimes even if you don't want to.
Jim McDonald
: David Haas wrote:
: >
: > In article <3987248C...@pe.net>, co...@pe.net says...
: > >
: > >
: (snip)
: > > testing and verification might be one way of giving warrant to certain
: > > claims, but is it the only way? I would say that if God guided the Bible
: > > then that would give the Bible at least as much warrant as the
: > > scientific method could confer.
: >
: > You use if - then logic. It's all based on the premise that god guided the
: > writing of the bible. But what is the evidence that he indeed did?
: > Because the bible says so?
: I could ask you the same questions? What evidence is there for the
: individual scientist that the periodic table really was verified? Or
: that the instruments used by those who created the periodic table really
: measured what those scientists claimed they did. And if there is such
: evidence, what evidence does the scientist have that THAT evidence is
: reliable?
Ooh! Ooh! I'll play... As part of my inorganic chemistry courses in college
I did gravimetric analyses to find the molecular weights of various elements.
Even earlier in high school, I did many experiments that determined the
ratios of elements in various compounds.
Since in many cases, I got to choose the elements to study, I'd find it
remarkable that the published periodic table just happens to match my
results where I did experiments and is fabricated and/or wrong elsewhere.
Not to mention the (hundreds of?) millions of published papers and millions
of available compounds whose manufacture seems to depend on the periodic
table being correct.
You're welcome to do the same. I'll even pay you $5.00 for each
substantive error (e.g. an error in more than the least significant
digit of some value) that you find in any commonly published periodic
table.
Now it's your turn: Which passages in the Bible have you personally
verified? I'll let you choose the criteria for verification, but then I
get to run the same experiments and report my results, and you'll pay me
$5.00 for each discrepency I produce. Deal?
Note that you don't even have to accept the deal to get me to pay for
errors you find. You have *nothing* to lose, unless of course your
source material is flawed.
James McDonald
Tarjei Straume
Keith Johnson wrote:
> Tarjei Straume wrote:
> >
>
> The ideal scientist strives to be faithful to the empirical facts; the
> Bible believing Christian strives to be faithful to the Biblical facts.
> What is the difference?
There is no such thing as "biblical fact" that can be claimed parallell or equal to scientific fact. If
you don't see the difference, you don't understand science..
> I guess my question is this: what justifies your claim that moving away
> from Thomas constitutes moving AHEAD; you seem to be presupposing
> progress rather than regress.
The objective natural-scientific mode of cognition did not evolve in humanity before the fifteenth
century. The transition is marked by heliocentric astronomy (Galileo and Copernicus) among other things,.
This development progressed even further in the nineteenth century, when public classical education
(latin schools) was superceded or replaced by natural-scientific education during the Enlightenment.
If you call this regress, it implies that you wish for civilization to return to the Middle Ages and stay
there. I'm not saying that our current consciousness is a stge of perfection or better than ever before
in every respect, but we must move ahead, not backwards.
>
> >(snip)
>
> > > But still, why would a knowledge of how the early Christians understood
> > > the Gospel be a requirement for a modern person to speak authoritatively
> > > on the Gospel?
> >
> > Otherise, he would not comprehend the cultural, psychological, and soul-spiritual setting in which
> > the early church got its start.
>
> And why would that be a requirement for a modern person to speak
> authoritatively on the Gospel?
It would be a requirement for someone to teach ME anything about the subject, and people like me. Not
necessarily people like you.
> > > Why wouldn't a single reliable source for spiritual wisdom be sufficient
> > > for a person to be an authority on spiritual wisdom?
> >
> > I'm sure it's sufficient for some people, but it's not sufficient for me.
>
> Why not? If it's reliable why would you need other sources?
It's not reliable - not suffiecient either.Perhaps for you, but not for me.
Martin Crisp
>
>
> Arky wrote:
> >
> > On 1 Aug 2000 11:37:36 -0400, Keith Johnson <co...@pe.net> wrote:
> >
> > >Why is it OK for a scientist to
> > >consult a reference book filled with facts she has not personally
> > >verified, but it is wrong for a fundamentalist to consult the Bible?
> >
> > The reference book has been produced by the scientific method. If you
> > want a decent analysis of the bible go to a non-christian historian
> > who can examine it like any other old text without bias.
>
>
> confers warrant to the reference book. Why cannot the Christian say that
> being produced by God confers warrant to the bible?
Does the bible have a bibliography? [i.e. supporting references for the
subject matter it contains? AFAICT the only supporting evidence available
for the bible from outside the bible is that which is dug up by science (or
not - e.g. captivity in Egypt), and the universe itself. This latter flatly
contradicts the bible.]
Can the Christian show that God _produced_ the bible?
Have Fun
Martin
Martin Crisp
>
>
> David Haas wrote:
> >
> > In article <3987248C...@pe.net>, co...@pe.net says...
> > >
> > >
> (snip)
>
> > > testing and verification might be one way of giving warrant to certain
> > > claims, but is it the only way? I would say that if God guided the
Bible
> > > then that would give the Bible at least as much warrant as the
> > > scientific method could confer.
> >
> > You use if - then logic. It's all based on the premise that god guided
the
> > writing of the bible. But what is the evidence that he indeed did?
> > Because the bible says so?
>
> I could ask you the same questions? What evidence is there for the
> individual scientist that the periodic table really was verified? Or
Atomic masses, partial pressures, emission spectra (and from there quantum
theory), trends in reactiveness between elements, electrical properties....
i.e. shitloads
Now, what was your answer, or is diverting attention away from the fact that
there wasn't one your best tactic?
> that the instruments used by those who created the periodic table really
> measured what those scientists claimed they did. And if there is such
> evidence, what evidence does the scientist have that THAT evidence is
> reliable?
The fact that those observations are backed up when repeated, or when
approached from some other direction.
> Regarding the Bible as being guided by God: I came to believe it because
> it seemed to verify itself. It wasn't that "the Bible claims to be the
> inspired word of God, therefore it is", it was more that when I read the
> bible it seems to be true (at least most parts do, at least about
> spiritual matters).
Odd that a work "produced by God" (I still haven't seen your support for
this claim as I trundle through the thread) can be true 'at least about
spiritual matters', one of the regions science currently has the greatest
trouble addressing with certainty, and yet it gets simple things like hares
& cud-chewing, leg-counts on grasshoppers, the order of appearance of life,
global floods, the sun stopping in the sky, stars that move and then stop
above particular places,... _wrong_.
Some divine inspiration!
i.e. I think you're arguing God of the gaps, making God smaller as time goes
on.
> > If you have any evidence except your own "feelings" what is it. If you
are
> > "convinced" there is no way to change your mind. How could anyone change
> > your subjective thoughts if your mind is closed. So be it. It's your
> > mind.
>
> the same question could be asked of the scientists. Since no modern
> scientist verifies every scientific claim, since every scientist accepts
> on authority most of what they know about science, what evidence do they
> have that what they know is actually right? Or even more to the point:
> what could convince them (per impossible) that reason was not a valid
> way to find the truth? Would you call a scientist close minded because
If the bible were shown to be true would be a start, as it would mean that
nothing we see is reliable, but merely how God wants it to look until it
changes its somewhat erratic mind [making man was a mistake, think I'll
drown them all, bar 8].
> he insists that theistic claims be verified before he accepts them? What
> would convince you that your position (of not accepting theism without
> evidence) is wrong?
Evidence that accepting things without evidence was a valid approach to the
gaining of knowledge.
> > I like to think that the human mind is the only thing that we have that
is
> > unique in the animal kingdom. It must be flexible and open to objective
> > information, subjective information is suspect. I am skeptical of
> > everything, commercials, used car salesmen, politicians, religions,
magic,
> > ghosts, the bible, miracles, even my own perceptions, That's how I
"feel".
>
> And it is ultimately that feeling, that "seeming to you to be true" that
> is determinative of your beliefs. You admit you could be wrong but you
> still go with what seems true to you. You are just like everyone in that
> regard. From my Christian perspective, this is good. As long as you are
> not sinfully closed to the truth, God will (we claim) show you the
> truth. Eventually. On his schedule, not yours or mine.
He must exist then, coz I used to believe, but he showed me he didn't.
Have Fun
Martin
David Johnston
>
> David Haas wrote:
> >
> (snip)
>
> > > > The scientist does not need to rely on any claims of authority.
> > > > If there is any doubt, the scientist can reproduce the experiment
> > > > to determine on his own which of the two sources is correct.
> > >
> > > hundreds of years to attain; it is practically impossible for any
> > > scientist to start from scratch, using only instruments he made himself,
> > > and verify every scientific claim he takes for granted.
> >
> > been done.
>
> I would agree (I would also agree that in fact the system DOES work).
> Likewise for the Bible; if the Bible was inspired by God the Christian
> needn't authenticate its claims either; God has already done that.
But how do you authenticate the fact that God has authenticated the
Bible? With science, you at least can go back and duplicate
observations you feel a bit iffy about.
Brenda G. Tataryn
called human inteligence is spelled incorrectly?
Pastor Brenda
Tarjei Straume
"Brenda G. Tataryn" wrote:
Leave it as it is - it matches the mentality of many arguments in the
thread.
Tarjei
Keith Johnson
Tarjei Straume wrote:
>
> Keith Johnson wrote:
>
> > Tarjei Straume wrote:
> > >
> >
> > The ideal scientist strives to be faithful to the empirical facts; the
> > Bible believing Christian strives to be faithful to the Biblical facts.
> > What is the difference?
>
> There is no such thing as "biblical fact" that can be claimed parallell or equal to scientific fact. If
> you don't see the difference, you don't understand science.
That is purely intellectual imperialism on your part. A fact is any
statement which is true. If a statement in the bible is true it is a
fact. That scientific facts have a different source of warrant than
biblical facts doesn't change things; a fact is a fact, be it biblical
or scientific.
>
> > I guess my question is this: what justifies your claim that moving away
> > from Thomas constitutes moving AHEAD; you seem to be presupposing
> > progress rather than regress.
>
> The objective natural-scientific mode of cognition did not evolve in humanity before the fifteenth
> century. The transition is marked by heliocentric astronomy (Galileo and Copernicus) among other things,.
> This development progressed even further in the nineteenth century, when public classical education
> (latin schools) was superceded or replaced by natural-scientific education during the Enlightenment.
>
> If you call this regress, it implies that you wish for civilization to return to the Middle Ages and stay
> there. I'm not saying that our current consciousness is a stge of perfection or better than ever before
> in every respect, but we must move ahead, not backwards.
What you are describing is the development of one way to search for
truth; the scientific method. Nobody is suggesting that we abandon
science. But that has nothing to do with my question; you just changed
the subject. My question was: what makes you think moving away from St.
Thomas would be progress and not regress. The only reason you gave was
that Thomas wrote prior to science. So what?
(snip)
> > > Otherise, he would not comprehend the cultural, psychological, and soul-spiritual setting in which
> > > the early church got its start.
> >
> > And why would that be a requirement for a modern person to speak
> > authoritatively on the Gospel?
>
> It would be a requirement for someone to teach ME anything about the subject, and people like me. Not
> necessarily people like you.
I know that. My question is still: why? Are you saying you won't listen
to a person otherwise? Why not?
>
> > > > Why wouldn't a single reliable source for spiritual wisdom be sufficient
> > > > for a person to be an authority on spiritual wisdom?
> > >
> > > I'm sure it's sufficient for some people, but it's not sufficient for me.
> >
> > Why not? If it's reliable why would you need other sources?
>
> It's not reliable - not suffiecient either.Perhaps for you, but not for me.
Reliability is not person relative. Why do you say a single source of
spiritual wisdom is not reliable?
keith
Dick C.
>Most of the time there will be no opportunity to observe a
>contradiction; most of the time the assumption is so deeply buried that
>it cannot be tested. A biologist, for example will not interpret a
>peculiar voltage reading as a challenge to electro dynamics; she would
>instead assume that she was observing an interesting biological
>phenomenon.
There is a major point that you are ignoring, perhaps because it
has only been skirted around. You came close to denying it above,
but still managed to skate away from it.
If any of the assumptions are wrong, the experiment will fail,
or at least the out come will be unpredictable. If there is a problem
with the basic understanding of electro magnetism, then the use of
electricity would not be possible. We could not control, we could not
generate it, and we could not transport.
But yet, electricians, electronic technicians, electrical and electronic
engineers all use the same basic laws that they learned, and yes they
even tested extensively in school, and they all work the same.
In short, the basic assumptions are tested by the people working in
the related field constantly. They are tested by the students constantly
as part of learning the field. Electronic techs do not just learn how
to solder a joint and what a voltmeter looks like, they have extensive
schooling in the theory and practical applications of electronics.
The same goes in all other endeavors. A scientist tests the basic
assumptions as he learns his field. Any scientist, even without testing
done in class, will test all he can on his own.
--
Dick #1349
People think that libraries are safe places, but they're not,
they have ideas.
email: dic...@uswest.net
Homepage http://www.users.uswest.net/~dickcr/
Keith Johnson
"Tracy P. Hamilton" wrote:
>
> "Keith Johnson" <co...@pe.net> wrote in message
> news:39877185...@pe.net...
(snip)
> > A quantum physicist takes a huge amount of physics for granted when he
> > does his experiments; he has to in order to even get started.
>
> They take for granted that the basic work, if important, has been done
> by many people, not just the one. Many times, these things are done
> as part of the lab training.
No scientist verifies every fact of science, not even in their lab
training.
>
> Take, for example, cold fusion. Were people taking what Pons and
> Fleischman said happened for granted? No way!
Agreed. they did not consider P and F's report reliable by itself. If a
scientist read many confirmations of cold fusion in the professional
literature, she would then rightfully take it for granted without
feeling compelled to verify it for herself.
>
> > This can't
> > really be called verifying the previous physics; all modern scientists
> > accept tons of science on the authority of the people and process that
> > produced it. Such acceptance is warranted because that authority is
> > reliable.
>
> It verifies the previous work by building on it, and by the understanding
> of how the conclusions followed from the experiments.
Building on it presupposes the previous work, it becomes the
interpretive framework for subsequent work. The point is still;
scientists must accept tons of stuff on the authority of others.
>
> > Likewise for the Bible (the Christian might say); accepting the Biblical
> > testimony as authoritative is warranted because the people and process
> > which produced it is reliable--the process was the inspiration of God,
> > they'd claim.
>
> There is no basis for claiming reliability, except faith.
>
> Which is OK, but not the same as science.
What basis do scientists have for accepting the tons of information they
have not personally verified except their faith in the entire scientific
process? There is nothing wrong with faith, not if faith is WARRANTED
faith. If the bible was guided by God, why would that not be an adequate
basis for the christian claiming the Bible is reliable?
>
> > > You mentioned
> > > > the caveat "if there's any doubt" about the veracity of a particular
> > > > scientific claim. That's the point; for the part there won't be any
> > > > doubt, the scientist will take basic science for granted.
> > >
> > > Unless, of course, she observes a contradiction to it.
> >
> > Most of the time there will be no opportunity to observe a
> > contradiction; most of the time the assumption is so deeply buried that
> > it cannot be tested. A biologist, for example will not interpret a
> > peculiar voltage reading as a challenge to electro dynamics; she would
> > instead assume that she was observing an interesting biological
> > phenomenon.
>
> If pigs had wings they could fly.
Huh? Are you saying that biologists never encounter observations that
were different than what they expected? Then how do they ever learn
anything?
>(snip)
> > > Depends. If there is reason to doubt it (as in, there are
> > > contradicting claims) there is nothing taken for granted.
> > > Of course, if there are 150000 reported results consistent
> > > with the previous claim and you find a contradiction, you
> > > better be damn sure your result is not the result of a flawed
> > > experiment. There are paradigm-shaking results, but there are
> > > also a lot more claimed paradigm-shaking results that are wrong.
> >
> > Surely. But all you are really saying is that a scientist is warranted
> > to take many things on the authority of other experts because the
> > scientific method is a warranted source of truth. I agree. Many
> > Christians would claim that Bible is a warranted source of truth because
> > it was produced by the reliable guidance of God.
>
> The method of warranting is completely different.
>
> There is a big difference between the guy who believes his product will
> last forever, and those who actually do tests of product reliability.
Not if the guy who believes his product will last forever has a
warranted source for that belief which is not based on his performing
product reliability tests.
> (snip)
> > > The fundy doesn't accept authority from anyone except from
> > > the bible. Therefore, there can't be any "authoritative claim"
> > > that seems more true.
> >
> > That's not quite true, but even it it were, this would be a possible
> > scenario: A fundy holds a biblical theory which he finds is incompatible
> > with a biblical fact he just recognized; he rejects the old theory and
> > finds a new one.
>
> Why not consider that his biblical fact is wrong?
When a scientist encounters a fact which is contrary to one of his
theories, he doesn't assume the PHYSICAL fact is wrong; why should the
Christian assume the Biblical fact is wrong?
>
> Is that not the first order of business? That is what a scientist
> would do, realizing man's fallibility. How odd that certain religious
> folk forget that. You would think that principle would come through
> clear, but maybe they get the idea that it does not apply to them.
> They are certain, it is the other guy who is wrong.
But if the bible is guided by God, man's infallibility really isn't the
point.
>
> > This would be analogous to the scientist who rejects an
> > old theory because it is inconsistent with the PHYSICAL data he
> > encounters. he doesn't reject the physical data that forces itself on
> > him; why should the Christian reject the Biblical data?
>
> Because it is not *data*?
Why not?
>
> They should make up their mind when there is a contradiction in
> the two methods for understanding their little world. Making up
> lies is not a good option.
What do you mean by "they should make up their mind."?
(snip)
> > > I never said that. You asked what the difference was, and I told
> > > you. Scientific claims are testable by others. Religious claims
> > > are not.
>
> > The scientist would not be willing to reject his belief that reason is a
> > valid way to find truth; there is no way a scientist could test that
> > belief. In what way is that different from a Christian's belief that the
> > Bible is a valid way to find truth?
>
> They are different methods - that is the difference. It is banal to
> say that they are each a method to find truth.
Obviously they are different methods. How is it "banal" to say they are
each ways to find the truth? How do you justify placing the scientific
method above divine revelation?
>
> > BTW, religious claims can be tested (even for fundamentalists); the
> > fundamentalist would only insist that all religious claims be consistent
> > with the Biblical data, just like a physical scientist would insist
> > that physical theories be consistent with the physical data.
>
> Again, a different procedure for testing. What you say is true,
> that it is a "test".
How is the testing different. In both cases, a theory is being tested
against the facts; the scientific theory is tested against the physical
facts and the biblical theory is tested against the biblical facts.
>
> > > Therefore, a scientist who accepts what others claim
> > > is basing his acceptance not on authority but on the testibility
> > > of the claim. There is no testibility of biblical claims.
> >
> > the scientist is basing his belief THAT those claims are testable (and
> > have been tested) on authority, I would say. No scientist has actually
> > tested all the claims himself.
>
> No. They rely on learning. There is a dependence on the system set
> up to reward criticism and verification.
Learning? If the scientist has not verified for himself EVERY CLAIM IN
SCIENCE, then what he learned is taken on the basis of warranted
authority.
Keith
>
> Tracy P. Hamilton
Keith Johnson
gg...@my-deja.com wrote:
>
> In article <39874DE7...@pe.net>,
> co...@pe.net wrote:
>(snip)
> > And what demonstration do you have that the Bible is "lacking in
> facts".
> > I would claim that statement absurd in the face of it, but I don't
> want
> > to take the easy way out. I wonder what demonstration you have that
> the
> > statement "Jesus died on the cross, rose on the third day and saved
> our
> > souls if we will accept his offer of grace" is not factual.
>
> We could examine the only information we have on the subject which is
> the Gospels of the New Testament. We find four stories that disagree
> upon who went, when they went, and what they saw when they arrived. How
> many angels were there? Matthew says there were two and then Jesus
> showed up to deliver a redundant message to the angels' message while
> contradicting what they said at the same time. Mark says there was just
> a boy, but then Matthew is much more incredulous than Mark. In Mark, it
> took two tries to heal the blind man but in Matthew, the man reached
> out and touched Jesus' sleeve and was healed immediately. (If he was
> blind, how did the man find the sleeve?) Compare the stories of Jesus
> cursing a date tree for not producing fruit out of season.
>
> If the stories were inspired by a perfect being, they would have to be
> true. Inconsistent stories cannot simultaneously be true. Either one or
> none is true.
>
> Of course it is possible for various witnesses to see things from a
> different perspective thus providing different details. But then how
> could a witness miss Jesus rising up into the sky? That's something
> that wouldn't be omitted from a credible account if it happened.
>
> This is the most important event in Christianity. If it were true, it
> would be the most important event in all history. Yet the only record
> is rife with inconsistencies. Doesn't sound like an Intelligently
> Designed situation to me.
1. Not being a biblical inerrantist, I would prefer to leave it to them
to defend what seem to me like inconsistent details in the Biblical
accounts of the resurrection. I accept that the accounts have many
inconsistencies, inconsistencies that in my opinion can't be accounted
for by claiming different witness saw things differently. I think the
Gospels were different versions of events, versions which were handed
down verbally before they were written down. Some parts might have been
fictionalized (a al Joseph Wambaugh's The Onion Field if any of you have
read that book), describing the event but adding in detail to make story
flow. there is no indication that every word was intended to be taken as
historical fact.
2. But the New testament is agreed on this fact: jesus died and rose
from the dead to save us from our sins. How do you demonstrate that this
isn't factual? How do you demonstrate that the authors of the Bible were
not guided by God to this fact?
keith
Keith Johnson
seaotter wrote:
>
> > And what demonstration do you have that the Bible is "lacking in facts".
> > I would claim that statement absurd in the face of it, but I don't want
> > to take the easy way out. I wonder what demonstration you have that the
> > statement "Jesus died on the cross, rose on the third day and saved our
> > souls if we will accept his offer of grace" is not factual.
> >keith
>
> What definition of fact are you using? Fact is anything that can be directly
> observed.
> Well, it doesn't fit that definition. 1-0. A fact is an assertion
> that has so much supporting evidence that it's ridiculous to argue the truth
> of the statement. I don't see any supporting evidence, much less
> overwhelming evidence. 2-0. A fact is a description of reality. You win that
> one. It could be a factual statement if we use the last one. 2-1. If we use
> the last definition though, how do we tell a fact from a false claim?
> Everything could be factual if we go with the last one thus rendering that
> definition useless.
Only the last definition actually DEFINES a fact; the other definitions
give you methods for separating fact from fiction; they presuppose that
the method is reliable. Look at the 2nd definition: "so much supporting
evidence that it's ridiculous to argue [the fact]". This presupposes
that you can tell what is evidence and that you can weigh that evidence.
How do you tell that your weighing is accurate? You have to depend on
your own judgment and that's that. Likewise, the christian depends on
her own judgment that her experience of the inspiration and reliability
of the Bible is valid.
keith
Keith Johnson
seaotter wrote:
>
> > What you are saying is that being produced by the scientific method
> > confers warrant to the reference book. Why cannot the Christian say that
> > being produced by God confers warrant to the bible?
> >
> > keith
>
> They can if they can demonstrate that it is produced by God. I'd be moved if
> they could just demonstrate there was a God.
When you read a science book you do not demand that the authors (a)
prove that its information was actually produced by the scientific
method or (b) that they prove the scientific method is a valid way to
search for the truth do you? Why do you expect that kind of proof from
Christians? That's not a rhetorical question; I think you have a reason
and I am interested in it.
keith
Keith Johnson
Paul J Gans wrote:
>
> In talk.origins seaotter <Seao...@mindspring.com> wrote:
> >> What you are saying is that being produced by the scientific method
> >> confers warrant to the reference book. Why cannot the Christian say that
> >> being produced by God confers warrant to the bible?
> >>
> >> keith
>
> >They can if they can demonstrate that it is produced by God. I'd be moved if
> >they could just demonstrate there was a God.
>
> No, that won't do it either. What is in the reference
> book can be reproduced by man. That makes those facts
> facts of science. The works of the Bible cannot be
> reproduced by man. That makes it a work of faith.
No scientist CAN reproduce every fact in the reference book; they accept
the vast majority of those facts because of their faith in the rightful
authority of those who produced them. What makes those facts scientific
facts is that they were produced by the scientific method.
>
> Nothing wrong with that at all. Just let us not
> conflate the two.
The difference between the biblical facts and the scientific facts are
the methods by which they were discovered. Scientific facts are
discovered through the scientific method, biblical facts were revealed
by God.
Keith
>
> ---- Paul J. Gans
Arky
> If the bible was guided by God, why would that not be an adequate
>basis for the christian claiming the Bible is reliable?
Well it would, but you would first have to show that
a) God exists and
b) the bible was guided by God.
--
Arky
Keith Johnson
Martin Crisp wrote:
>
> "Keith Johnson" <co...@pe.net> wrote in message
> news:39876A10...@pe.net...
(snip)
> > > The reference book has been produced by the scientific method. If you
> > > want a decent analysis of the bible go to a non-christian historian
> > > who can examine it like any other old text without bias.
> >
> >
> > What you are saying is that being produced by the scientific method
> > confers warrant to the reference book. Why cannot the Christian say that
> > being produced by God confers warrant to the bible?
>
> Does the bible have a bibliography? [i.e. supporting references for the
> subject matter it contains? AFAICT the only supporting evidence available
> for the bible from outside the bible is that which is dug up by science (or
> not - e.g. captivity in Egypt), and the universe itself. This latter flatly
> contradicts the bible.]
How does a bibliography help your position? That just adds more written
documents the scientist has to accept by his faith in the authority of
the scientists who came before him. It is still the case that the
scientist cannot verify every fact he takes for granted; there just
isn't anywhere near enough time.
How does "this latter" flatly contradict the Bible?
>
> Can the Christian show that God _produced_ the bible?
Can a scientist prove that each fact in his reference books were
produced by actual valid science? Certainly not, there simply isn't
enough time.
keith
>
> Have Fun
> Martin
Arky
>2. But the New testament is agreed on this fact: jesus died and rose
>from the dead to save us from our sins. How do you demonstrate that this
>isn't factual? How do you demonstrate that the authors of the Bible were
>not guided by God to this fact?
Well first you have to show that God exists. Even if you achieved
that, then you would have to admit that God lies (since the authors
write contradictory accounts).
--
Arky
Rockett Crawford
Keith Johnson wrote:
> 2. But the New testament is agreed on this fact: jesus died and rose
> from the dead to save us from our sins. How do you demonstrate that this
> isn't factual? How do you demonstrate that the authors of the Bible were
> not guided by God to this fact?
The earliest known version of Mark (of which Matthew and Luke seem
to be partially derived from) doesn't contain the resurrection. It only mentions
that the body is "missing."
Capella #5
http://web2.airmail.net/capella/aguide
Wayne D. Hoxsie Jr.
>
>
>"Wayne D. Hoxsie Jr." wrote:
>>
>> In article <3986EE8E...@pe.net>, Keith Johnson wrote:
>> >
>
>> There's a pretty much single agreed upon periodic chart that even
>> theists use. There's so much ambiguity in the bible (or any other
>> religious text) that there are hundreds of thousands of denominations
>> all with different dogma. That is the difference.
>
>You don't imagine that there are no disagreements among chemists do you?
>Most Christian denominations agree upon the basic truths of the Gospel;
>the differences are over a small percentage of doctrinal matters, for
>the most part. But the basic issue still remains: chemists accept things
>they have not themselves evaluated on the rightful authority of their
>references. Why should Christians not apply that same standard to the
>things of the Christian faith?
100% of chemists, for example, agree that Potassium (K) weighs 39.0983
AMU. Is there even a single issue that 100% of theists agree on? Do
you know of any specific area where chemists disagree?
>
>(snip)
>
>> >> We are not dealing with a specific field of research here, but with philosophy and
>> >> religion. If you ask an astronomer who is not a Bible-crazed fundy why he believes in
>> >> gods, he may say something like life probably comes from life and not from dead
>> >> matter or something like that - anything of his own choosing, his own reflections.
>> >> The fundy just repeats over and over agains some memorized Bible verses until your
>> >> ears fall off. That is the difference.
>> >
>> >But you didn't address my question. Why is it OK for a scientist to
>> >consult a reference book filled with facts she has not personally
>> >verified, but it is wrong for a fundamentalist to consult the Bible?
>>
>> The bible is demonstrably lacking in facts. Reference books are based
>> on works that have been subjected to peer review. Whenever that is
>> tried with the bible, we end up with another denomination when the
>> peers disagree.
>
>And what demonstration do you have that the Bible is "lacking in facts".
>I would claim that statement absurd in the face of it, but I don't want
>to take the easy way out. I wonder what demonstration you have that the
>statement "Jesus died on the cross, rose on the third day and saved our
>souls if we will accept his offer of grace" is not factual.
You've answered your own question. How would you test such a "fact?"
If Charles Friedel claims that Benzene will undergo electrophilic
aromatic substitution with a halo-alkane in the presence of a strong
Lewis acid, this is easily testable--and tested regularly by chemists
worldwide. Your so called "fact" above is not even accepted by all
christians, let-alone all theists. It can even be contradicted by other
references in the same book:
3 days and 3 nights or 3 days and 2 nights.
Compare Matt 12:40 with Matt 27:46-28:6 (or so) -- 3 or 4 pm Friday
to 6 or 7 am Sunday.
Saved by works or grace.
Compare Rom. 10:9 with Matt 7:21 and Jas 2:24.
Is there anything within any chemistry book with such glaring
inconsistencies?
--
Wayne D. Hoxsie Jr. KG9ME
postm...@hoxnet.com
http://www.hoxnet.com
PGP Key ID 138BCEE1
Keith Johnson
Jim McDonald wrote:
>
> Keith Johnson (co...@pe.net) wrote:
>
>(snip)
> : >
> : > You use if - then logic. It's all based on the premise that god guided the
> : > writing of the bible. But what is the evidence that he indeed did?
> : > Because the bible says so?
>
> : I could ask you the same questions? What evidence is there for the
> : individual scientist that the periodic table really was verified? Or
> : that the instruments used by those who created the periodic table really
> : measured what those scientists claimed they did. And if there is such
> : evidence, what evidence does the scientist have that THAT evidence is
> : reliable?
>
> Ooh! Ooh! I'll play... As part of my inorganic chemistry courses in college
> I did gravimetric analyses to find the molecular weights of various elements.
> Even earlier in high school, I did many experiments that determined the
> ratios of elements in various compounds.
>
> Since in many cases, I got to choose the elements to study, I'd find it
> remarkable that the published periodic table just happens to match my
> results where I did experiments and is fabricated and/or wrong elsewhere.
In your high school and college chemistry courses, you did the
experiments assigned by the teacher, given a choice between a limited
range of compounds. You did not verify every scientific claim; in fact
you had to presuppose at least some of the science you used to interpret
your experimental results. AND you didn't create your own instruments,
verifying the science that governs their operations. Even in that
setting you rightfully took the vast majority of previously done science
for granted.
>
> Not to mention the (hundreds of?) millions of published papers and millions
> of available compounds whose manufacture seems to depend on the periodic
> table being correct.
You take for granted that those millions of published papers are based
on valid science; actually unless you read them all yourself you
rightfully take it for granted that they consistently support
established science. And also you rightfully assume that they are
warranted in taking for granted the science THEY took for granted to
interpret their results.
>
> You're welcome to do the same. I'll even pay you $5.00 for each
> substantive error (e.g. an error in more than the least significant
> digit of some value) that you find in any commonly published periodic
> table.
I don't think there are many such errors; you'd have to pay me a lot
more than $5 to use my time like that.
>
> Now it's your turn: Which passages in the Bible have you personally
> verified? I'll let you choose the criteria for verification, but then I
> get to run the same experiments and report my results, and you'll pay me
> $5.00 for each discrepency I produce. Deal?
Not being a fundamentalist, I do not think that every statement in the
Bible reports a historical fact. I personally think that much of the Old
Testament is intended to be taken mythologically; for example the story
of Adam and Eve doesn't strike me as a literal report of a historical
event, it strikes me as more fable than fact. So if I were to play this
game I wouldn't put that in play. I also think that the Gospels were
part of an oral tradition before they were written down, and that some
of the details might have been fictionalized (like the details in a
--high quality docudrama) so finding discrepancies in those details
wouldn't count either. So (if I were playing) you'd have to show errors
in the great truths of the Gospel; you'd have to show that jesus was not
crucified, that he did not rise from the dead to save us from our sins.
I do not think you could possible show those claims are in error.
Now a fundamentalist who was playing your game would see things
differently. From my experience, fundamentalists have ways to
"harmonize--I'd say rationalize--"apparent' discrepancies in the bible.
With them you'd have to show that their harmonizations were not possibly
true. I don't think you'd have much luck with them either.
Keith
Keith Johnson
Martin Crisp wrote:
>
> "Keith Johnson" <co...@pe.net> wrote in message
> news:39875639...@pe.net...
(snip)
> > > You use if - then logic. It's all based on the premise that god guided
> the
> > > writing of the bible. But what is the evidence that he indeed did?
> > > Because the bible says so?
> >
> > I could ask you the same questions? What evidence is there for the
> > individual scientist that the periodic table really was verified? Or
>
> Atomic masses, partial pressures, emission spectra (and from there quantum
> theory), trends in reactiveness between elements, electrical properties....
>
> i.e. shitloads
1. Your chanting of scientific buzzwords doesn't constitute evidence
that those things are a valid way to verify the periodic table. What you
allude to are the methods used to verify the PT, but those methods
presuppose the validity of 'shit loads" of science, science that you
yourself have not verified. You accept it on faith.
2. And what evidence od you have that those experiments were actually
done and produced results which were properly interpreted? You
rightfully accept those reported results because of your faith in the
authority of the people who reported them.
(snip)
>
> > that the instruments used by those who created the periodic table really
> > measured what those scientists claimed they did. And if there is such
> > evidence, what evidence does the scientist have that THAT evidence is
> > reliable?
>
> The fact that those observations are backed up when repeated, or when
> approached from some other direction.
No particular scientist have backed up every scientific claim, nor
approached all of them from different directions. She rightfully accepts
the science that came before her because of her justified faith in the
authority which produced those claims.
>
> > Regarding the Bible as being guided by God: I came to believe it because
> > it seemed to verify itself. It wasn't that "the Bible claims to be the
> > inspired word of God, therefore it is", it was more that when I read the
> > bible it seems to be true (at least most parts do, at least about
> > spiritual matters).
>
> Odd that a work "produced by God" (I still haven't seen your support for
> this claim as I trundle through the thread) can be true 'at least about
> spiritual matters', one of the regions science currently has the greatest
> trouble addressing with certainty, and yet it gets simple things like hares
> & cud-chewing, leg-counts on grasshoppers, the order of appearance of life,
> global floods, the sun stopping in the sky, stars that move and then stop
> above particular places,... _wrong_.
> Some divine inspiration!
1. Science will never be able to address spiritual matters, not to any
degree of certainty. Only those who have turned science into sort of a
religion think that science can answer every question.
2. What makes you think God was interested in correcting people's views
about mundane scientific matters. The biology and geology of ancient
people was part of the vocabulary, so to speak, it was part of how they
saw the physical world. For God to have inspired the Biblical authors to
be "scientifically correct" would be like forcing them to write in a
strange language. What would be the point?
3. The fundamentalist would disagree with you and I about the
geological facts. But geology and evolutionary biology are historical
sciences; our ideas about what happened back then are based on certain
presuppositions about science. If we found a fact which contradicted
those presuppositions we would have to alter our theories, not reject
the fact. The fundamentalist would say that the Biblical account of
creation, of the great flood and all ARE facts; if those facts
contradict our geology we need to rethink our geology. This would be
analogous to how Einstein had to rethink newtonian physics when facts
inconsistent with classical mechanics were discovered.
>
> i.e. I think you're arguing God of the gaps, making God smaller as time goes
> on.
I don't see how. Having been an atheist (I thought God was zero before)
I am going the other direction.
>
> > > If you have any evidence except your own "feelings" what is it. If you
> are
> > > "convinced" there is no way to change your mind. How could anyone change
> > > your subjective thoughts if your mind is closed. So be it. It's your
> > > mind.
> >
> > the same question could be asked of the scientists. Since no modern
> > scientist verifies every scientific claim, since every scientist accepts
> > on authority most of what they know about science, what evidence do they
> > have that what they know is actually right? Or even more to the point:
> > what could convince them (per impossible) that reason was not a valid
> > way to find the truth? Would you call a scientist close minded because
>
> If the bible were shown to be true would be a start, as it would mean that
> nothing we see is reliable, but merely how God wants it to look until it
> changes its somewhat erratic mind [making man was a mistake, think I'll
> drown them all, bar 8].
But the individual scientist doesn't show that all of the facts of
science are true; she can't. In fact, in the work she DOES do she uses
science she didn't do to interpret the work she does.
I my opinion, you just don't understand the purpose of the Bible. You
make the same mistake fundamentalist make. You mistake the Bible for a
science book and complain when he work of scientists conflicts with the
bible. But the Bible was not intended to be a science book (in my
opinion), it was intended to help bring us back to God. If you are all
worked up over the order of creation or the sun stopping in the sky then
you miss the point. Incidentally, given Einstein's relativity, how do
you show a difference between the sun stopping in the sky and the
earth's rotation stopping? How do you show that the above didn't happen?
>
> > he insists that theistic claims be verified before he accepts them? What
> > would convince you that your position (of not accepting theism without
> > evidence) is wrong?
>
> Evidence that accepting things without evidence was a valid approach to the
> gaining of knowledge.
I can give you that right now. Unless you have an infinite amount of
evidence, it is impossible that every piece of so-called evidence you
marshal in support of a claim is supported by evidence. there has to be
at least one piece of alleged evidence which you accept without it being
verified. If accepting an unverified fact is not valid, then the
unverified evidence cannot produce knowledge, nor can it verify evidence
which could produce knowledge. Every piece of evidence would then be
unverified, which means it could not verify any claims. Evidence would
be an invalid way to gain knowledge.
>
> > > I like to think that the human mind is the only thing that we have that
> is
> > > unique in the animal kingdom. It must be flexible and open to objective
> > > information, subjective information is suspect. I am skeptical of
> > > everything, commercials, used car salesmen, politicians, religions,
> magic,
> > > ghosts, the bible, miracles, even my own perceptions, That's how I
> "feel".
> >
> > And it is ultimately that feeling, that "seeming to you to be true" that
> > is determinative of your beliefs. You admit you could be wrong but you
> > still go with what seems true to you. You are just like everyone in that
> > regard. From my Christian perspective, this is good. As long as you are
> > not sinfully closed to the truth, God will (we claim) show you the
> > truth. Eventually. On his schedule, not yours or mine.
>
> He must exist then, coz I used to believe, but he showed me he didn't.
he he he. very funny :-)
keith
>
> Have Fun
> Martin
Arky
> I also think that the Gospels were
>part of an oral tradition before they were written down, and that some
>of the details might have been fictionalized (like the details in a
>--high quality docudrama) so finding discrepancies in those details
>wouldn't count either. So (if I were playing) you'd have to show errors
>in the great truths of the Gospel; you'd have to show that jesus was not
>crucified, that he did not rise from the dead to save us from our sins.
>I do not think you could possible show those claims are in error.
Well if the book contains many errors and internal inconsistencies
why would we believe the bits you call "great truths". Calling them
truth does not make them truth.
If you were presented with any other book that contained errors and
internal inconsistencies would you not need to verify a part of it
before accepting that part?
--
Arky
Packman
>
> Paul J Gans wrote:
> >
> > In talk.origins seaotter <Seao...@mindspring.com> wrote:
> > >> confers warrant to the reference book. Why cannot the Christian say that
> > >> being produced by God confers warrant to the bible?
> > >>
> >
> > >They can if they can demonstrate that it is produced by God. I'd be moved if
> > >they could just demonstrate there was a God.
> >
> > No, that won't do it either. What is in the reference
> > book can be reproduced by man. That makes those facts
> > facts of science. The works of the Bible cannot be
> > reproduced by man. That makes it a work of faith.
>
> No scientist CAN reproduce every fact in the reference book; they accept
> the vast majority of those facts because of their faith in the rightful
> authority of those who produced them. What makes those facts scientific
> >
> > Nothing wrong with that at all. Just let us not
> > conflate the two.
>
> The difference between the biblical facts and the scientific facts are
> the methods by which they were discovered. Scientific facts are
> discovered through the scientific method, biblical facts were revealed
> by God.
Sorry, you can't prove that some god had anything to do with the bible.
There's not a single part of the bible that couldn't have just been made
up by men.
Wayne D. Hoxsie Jr.
>
>
>Paul Wenthold wrote:
>>
>> Keith Johnson wrote:
>> >
>(snip)
>
>> > As a practical matter you are wrong. Our scientific knowledge has taken
>> > hundreds of years to attain; it is practically impossible for any
>> > scientist to start from scratch, using only instruments he made himself,
>> > and verify every scientific claim he takes for granted.
>>
>> that confirms quantum mechanics is also verifying coulomb's law so
>> you don't need to reproduce any of those experiments directly.
>> Of course, if you read of a result that contradicted coulomb's
>> law, you could most certainly do the basic experiments.
>
>A quantum physicist takes a huge amount of physics for granted when he
>really be called verifying the previous physics; all modern scientists
>accept tons of science on the authority of the people and process that
>produced it. Such acceptance is warranted because that authority is
>reliable.
This is absurd. Before any person becomes a quantum physicist,
they have to work their ass off in undergrad and postgrad classes;
most of which have associated labs where the physics is demonstrated
and tested. Where do you get your ideas that science is in any way
similar to your theism?
>
>Likewise for the Bible (the Christian might say); accepting the Biblical
>testimony as authoritative is warranted because the people and process
>which produced it is reliable--the process was the inspiration of God,
>they'd claim.
You seem to think that just because a chemist uses a reference book
and a theist uses a reference book that they are somehow related
disciplines. This is not the case.
>>
>> You mentioned
>> > the caveat "if there's any doubt" about the veracity of a particular
>> > scientific claim. That's the point; for the part there won't be any
>> > doubt, the scientist will take basic science for granted.
>>
>> Unless, of course, she observes a contradiction to it.
>
>Most of the time there will be no opportunity to observe a
>contradiction; most of the time the assumption is so deeply buried that
>it cannot be tested. A biologist, for example will not interpret a
>peculiar voltage reading as a challenge to electro dynamics; she would
>instead assume that she was observing an interesting biological
>phenomenon.
More absurdity. If a biologist observed an anomaly and suspected a
new phenomenon, the biologist would test this phenomenon subjecting
it to the rigor of the scientific method with experiments and controls
and peer review to ensure that it is a new phenomenon and not faulty
equipment.
>>
>> >
>> > > And there are many times when previously reported experiments are
>> > > repeated and tested to verify that they are correct. Sometimes,
>> > > it is found that the original claim was incorrect (I've been there).
>> >
>> > True enough, but scientists do not reinvent the wheel each time; they
>> > take for granted what they believe has been verified in the past.
>>
>> Depends. If there is reason to doubt it (as in, there are
>> contradicting claims) there is nothing taken for granted.
>> Of course, if there are 150000 reported results consistent
>> with the previous claim and you find a contradiction, you
>> better be damn sure your result is not the result of a flawed
>> experiment. There are paradigm-shaking results, but there are
>> also a lot more claimed paradigm-shaking results that are wrong.
>
>Surely. But all you are really saying is that a scientist is warranted
>to take many things on the authority of other experts because the
>scientific method is a warranted source of truth. I agree. Many
>Christians would claim that Bible is a warranted source of truth because
>it was produced by the reliable guidance of God.
Except that scientists can show a clear path as to why a reference
is rooted in sound science. Can you show that your book is produced
by the reliable guidance of a god?
>>
>> > >
>> > > Lastly, even if the scientist does accept a claim, it is only
>> > > done so provisionally, subject to change with subsequent experiments.
>> > > Is the fundy's acceptance of the bible done so in a similar fashion?
>> >
>> > If the fundy came across an authoritative claim that contradicted one of
>> > his previously held beliefs, and that claim seemed more true than his
>> > previous interpretation, he would quite likely change his beliefs.
>>
>> The fundy doesn't accept authority from anyone except from
>> the bible. Therefore, there can't be any "authoritative claim"
>> that seems more true.
>
>That's not quite true, but even it it were, this would be a possible
>scenario: A fundy holds a biblical theory which he finds is incompatible
>with a biblical fact he just recognized; he rejects the old theory and
>finds a new one. This would be analogous to the scientist who rejects an
>old theory because it is inconsistent with the PHYSICAL data he
>encounters. he doesn't reject the physical data that forces itself on
>him; why should the Christian reject the Biblical data?
When has this ever happened with a fundy?
>>
>> >You
>> > seem to think that a reluctance to give up his theistic belief counts
>> > against the fundamentalist's claims that his beliefs are justified;
>>
>> I never said that. You asked what the difference was, and I told
>> you. Scientific claims are testable by others. Religious claims
>> are not.
>
>The scientist would not be willing to reject his belief that reason is a
>valid way to find truth; there is no way a scientist could test that
>belief. In what way is that different from a Christian's belief that the
>Bible is a valid way to find truth?
>
>BTW, religious claims can be tested (even for fundamentalists); the
>fundamentalist would only insist that all religious claims be consistent
>with the Biblical data, just like a physical scientist would insist
>that physical theories be consistent with the physical data.
Give a few examples.
>
>> Therefore, a scientist who accepts what others claim
>> is basing his acceptance not on authority but on the testibility
>> of the claim. There is no testibility of biblical claims.
>
>the scientist is basing his belief THAT those claims are testable (and
>have been tested) on authority, I would say. No scientist has actually
>tested all the claims himself.
>
>your friend
>keith
>>
>> paul
Brian F. King
>David Haas wrote:
>>
>> This may be a little off topic but I thought I would see what you all
>> think. Upon reading a post in which the US Congress and the word
>> intelligence were used in the same sentence I had a thought. (Remarkable
>> isn't it)
>>
>> the capacity to reason and to determine what is true and what is not.
>> facts. Stuff which has been determined through experiment and tested
>> through time. Most of the human population, however, seems to accept
>> manufactured facts and use them to determine other facts without any
>> confirmation. Take formal religion and product advertising for example.
>> Millions, perhaps billions, are bombarded with all sorts of false and
>> misleading information and accept it without reservation. They may actually
>> convince their friends and loved ones that they know the truth about God
>> and/or floor cleaner. Could this actually be a form of anti-intelligence.
>> A situation where the understanding of reality is completely subjective.
>
>
>An interesting question you ask; I have a couple of comments below.
>
><snip>
>2. What makes you think that scientists actually do a better job than
>most people about determining what's true? An astronomer presumably does
>a better job than a non-astronomer in his field of expertise, just like
>an auto mechanic is better able to find out the truth about what's wrong
>with your car. but why would you think a scientist is more competent in
>finding out the truth about religious questions than the average person?
>The modern world seems to have elevated scientists to sort of a
>priesthood; your comment strikes me as symptomatic of this trend.
If you'll note, our "faith" is in the method, not the man.
><snip>
Brian F. King: Alt.Atheist #477
Brian F. King
>Tarjei Straume wrote:
>> Keith Johnson wrote:
>> > Tarjei Straume wrote:
>> > > The fact still remains that Christians of this ilk operate only with
>> > > pre-manufactured ideas of old, and they are so incapable of exercising their
>> > > self-dependent thinking that they have to consult the Bible for everything and
>> > > quote some old prophet or apostle.
>> >
>> > How is that different from a freethinking atheist who has to consult a
>> > periodic table every time he wants to know the atomic weight of an
>> > element. Why doesn't the atheist just use his independent thinking to
>> > discover the atomic weight on his own?
>>
>> You just answered your own question by writing "freethinking atheist" instead of just
>> "atheist." Looking up the atomic weight of something is no different from checking
>> the spelling of a word in a dictionary. It's different when you have to consult bad
>> translations of writings from millennia ago to figure out if it's ok to have a drink
>> and what you should and should not do with your dick, and how to meddle in other
>> people's lives about the same bullshit.
>
>How is it different?
Atomic weights can be verified by 'anyone at any time'.
The things of religious importance depicted in the Bible cannot.
><snip>
>> > > I don' t think David Haas meant to imply that scientists were more knowledgeable
>> > > about reiligion. My deduction from his post is that scientists have the highest
>> > > academic education and are therefore among the people best suited to handle
>> > > other challenges to our abstract thinking, including those of theology. I see
>> > > nothing wrong with that line of reasoning, but it's not to be acepted at face
>> > > value alone.
>> >
>> > No doubt scientists are experts in their field, but I see no reason to
>> > imagine that their education and experience or native ability would make
>> > them more competent to evaluate religious issues that any average Joe.
>> > In fact, they might be on average less competent, since there is an
>> > atheistic bias in western academic circles.
Of course that atheistic bias *demonstrates* that they are more
competent than average in evaluating religious issues... =-)
Keith Johnson
The only reason inaccuracies in the Bible would cast doubt on the great
truths of the Gospel is if the warrant for accepting those truths came
from the (alleged) accuracy of the human hands that wrote it. But if the
warrant for the great truths comes from the fact that the statement of
those great truths came from God, then any errors the book contained
would not be relevant.
keith
> --
> Arky
Keith Johnson
You made this same point in two other posts. I am only going to respond
to this one if that meets with your approval.
keith
Arky wrote:
>
> >The difference between the biblical facts and the scientific facts are
> >the methods by which they were discovered. Scientific facts are
> >discovered through the scientific method, biblical facts were revealed
> >by God.
>
> You really think these are equivalent?
>
> First you have to show that god exists then you have to show that
> there is such a thing as "revelation" then that god "revealed" the
> biblical "facts". You couldn't be on shakier ground.
By you standard, why would the scientist not have to verify that every
scientific fact he relied on was (a) actually produced by the scientific
method and (b) that the scientific method is a valid way to find that
particular truth? The scientist can't actually do such verification; he
rightfully takes it for granted the truth of (a) and (b). How is that
any more secure than the Christian who takes the truth of revelation for
granted?
Keith
>
> --
> arky
Keith Johnson
David Johnston wrote:
>
> Keith Johnson wrote:
(snip)
> > > If the system works you do NOT have to verify every claim. It has already
> > > been done.
> >
> > I would agree (I would also agree that in fact the system DOES work).
> > Likewise for the Bible; if the Bible was inspired by God the Christian
> > needn't authenticate its claims either; God has already done that.
>
> But how do you authenticate the fact that God has authenticated the
> Bible? With science, you at least can go back and duplicate
> observations you feel a bit iffy about.
But you cannot actually go back and duplicate EVERY observation, you
cannot go back and recreate all the science that precedes your own work.
You mention checking out the parts you feel iffy about, implying that
anything you don't find questionable you can accept without
verification. Why do you think that the same thing ought not apply to a
Christian's use of the Bible?
keith
Keith Johnson
"Dick C." wrote:
>
> co...@pe.net (Keith Johnson) wrote in <39877185...@pe.net>:
>
> >Most of the time there will be no opportunity to observe a
> >contradiction; most of the time the assumption is so deeply buried that
> >it cannot be tested. A biologist, for example will not interpret a
> >peculiar voltage reading as a challenge to electro dynamics; she would
> >instead assume that she was observing an interesting biological
> >phenomenon.
>
> There is a major point that you are ignoring, perhaps because it
> has only been skirted around. You came close to denying it above,
> but still managed to skate away from it.
> If any of the assumptions are wrong, the experiment will fail,
> or at least the out come will be unpredictable. If there is a problem
> with the basic understanding of electro magnetism, then the use of
> electricity would not be possible. We could not control, we could not
> generate it, and we could not transport.
You are missing the point, I think. Your claim that if our basic
understanding of electrodynamics were wrong we could not create
electronic instruments is debatable (our understanding of
electrodynamics changed drastically when Quantum physics was developed
and yet the devices that were designed on classical physics worked well
enough), but even if you are right that doesn't address the essential
point. I am not saying that no one knows how electronics works, I am
saying that the biologist who uses electronic devices has not verified
that HIS OWN understanding of electrodynamics is correct. He rightfully
takes for granted that what he learned about electrodynamics is actually
applicable to his meter and that it accurately describes the workings of
the meter; he does not worry that his understanding of electrodynamics
is utterly irrelevant to the actual workings of his meter.
> But yet, electricians, electronic technicians, electrical and electronic
> engineers all use the same basic laws that they learned, and yes they
> even tested extensively in school, and they all work the same.
The biologist rightfully takes for granted that all those electricians,
engineers and scientists are using the same basic laws as the ones HE
assumes when he does biology.
> In short, the basic assumptions are tested by the people working in
> the related field constantly. They are tested by the students constantly
> as part of learning the field. Electronic techs do not just learn how
> to solder a joint and what a voltmeter looks like, they have extensive
> schooling in the theory and practical applications of electronics.
> The same goes in all other endeavors. A scientist tests the basic
> assumptions as he learns his field. Any scientist, even without testing
> done in class, will test all he can on his own.
I think your comment proves my point. No one scientist verifies all the
science he depends on to do his work. he takes for granted that the
other scientists before him came to warranted scientific conclusions,
that the scientific method culled out unwarranted conclusions. They are
right to take this for granted. The scientist knows directly that when
he turns on his meter the display lights up, that when he connects it to
whatever the hell he is studying certain results happen. He rightfully
takes for granted that the scientific "story" he learned about WHY it
works this way was produced by a valid method, and he rightfully uses
his story to interpret the results of his own work.
Keith
Packman
Where are all these great truths? Where's heaven? Where's hell? Prove
that such a thing as a soul exists. Prove that you're not just another
delusional god believer afraid to admit that they believe in a myth.
gg...@my-deja.com
co...@pe.net wrote:
>
> 1. Not being a biblical inerrantist, I would prefer to leave it to
them
> to defend what seem to me like inconsistent details in the Biblical
> accounts of the resurrection. I accept that the accounts have many
> inconsistencies, inconsistencies that in my opinion can't be accounted
> for by claiming different witness saw things differently. I think the
> Gospels were different versions of events, versions which were handed
> down verbally before they were written down. Some parts might have
been
> fictionalized (a al Joseph Wambaugh's The Onion Field if any of you
have
> read that book), describing the event but adding in detail to make
story
> flow. there is no indication that every word was intended to be taken
as
> historical fact.
>
> 2. But the New testament is agreed on this fact: jesus died and rose
> from the dead to save us from our sins. How do you demonstrate that
this
> isn't factual? How do you demonstrate that the authors of the Bible
were
> not guided by God to this fact?
You are correct that it cannot be proven that the Jesus' resurrection
did not occur. One cannot prove that Elvis was not resurrected either.
It is possible that the resurrection happened but nothing like the
story in the gospels. The inconsistencies you accept in paragraph 1
demonstrate fallibility in the documents. IIRC, Cicero wrote that over
100 Christian gospels going around Rome at one time. Shouldn't be hard
to find four that agree on one thing, especially if they are derived
from one another, and other discrepancies can be edited. If you could
prove that the writers of the gospels were guided to write the same
thing, can you then prove that the guidance was not another earthbound
human being?
It is not a matter of proving the stories did not happen but in
thinking they are remotely plausible.
For Divine guidance, there must be a god. If He is omnipotent, he is
capable of perfect deception so all guidance and revelation must be
suspect. Saying he is good could be a lie. For an omnipotent being to
allow suffering and blame it on the sufferer is sadistic. So then you
have a sadistic Being who is perfectly capable of lying guiding certain
humans to write about His mercy.
Exodus 21:20-21 not only shows that you can own other people but you
can beat them to death without punishment as long as they suffer for a
day or two. Who would want to get involved with a religion based on
that?
Yasu!
Greg
One man's theology is another man's belly laugh. --Lazarus Long by
Robert A. Heinlein
>
> keith
>
>
Sent via Deja.com http://www.deja.com/
Before you buy.
Keith Johnson
"Wayne D. Hoxsie Jr." wrote:
>
> In article <39874DE7...@pe.net>, Keith Johnson wrote:
> >
> >
> >"Wayne D. Hoxsie Jr." wrote:
> >>
> >> In article <3986EE8E...@pe.net>, Keith Johnson wrote:
> >> >
> >(snip)
> >
> >> There's a pretty much single agreed upon periodic chart that even
> >> theists use. There's so much ambiguity in the bible (or any other
> >> religious text) that there are hundreds of thousands of denominations
> >> all with different dogma. That is the difference.
> >
> >You don't imagine that there are no disagreements among chemists do you?
> >Most Christian denominations agree upon the basic truths of the Gospel;
> >the differences are over a small percentage of doctrinal matters, for
> >the most part. But the basic issue still remains: chemists accept things
> >they have not themselves evaluated on the rightful authority of their
> >references. Why should Christians not apply that same standard to the
> >things of the Christian faith?
>
> 100% of chemists, for example, agree that Potassium (K) weighs 39.0983
> AMU. Is there even a single issue that 100% of theists agree on? Do
> you know of any specific area where chemists disagree?
Not being a chemist, I do not. But being a person of at least some
sense, I know that not every chemist agrees on every issue in chemistry.
Those cold fusion guys believed that they had discovered a new process;
THAT was not universally accepted among chemists.
(snip)
> >> The bible is demonstrably lacking in facts. Reference books are based
> >> on works that have been subjected to peer review. Whenever that is
> >> tried with the bible, we end up with another denomination when the
> >> peers disagree.
> >
> >And what demonstration do you have that the Bible is "lacking in facts".
> >I would claim that statement absurd in the face of it, but I don't want
> >to take the easy way out. I wonder what demonstration you have that the
> >statement "Jesus died on the cross, rose on the third day and saved our
> >souls if we will accept his offer of grace" is not factual.
>
> You've answered your own question. How would you test such a "fact?"
> If Charles Friedel claims that Benzene will undergo electrophilic
> aromatic substitution with a halo-alkane in the presence of a strong
> Lewis acid, this is easily testable--and tested regularly by chemists
> worldwide.
The scientific claim gets its warrant from passing scientific tests. But
what demonstration do you have that the great truths of the gospel do
not get their warrant from God himself?
> Your so called "fact" above is not even accepted by all
> christians, let-alone all theists. It can even be contradicted by other
> references in the same book:
>
> 3 days and 3 nights or 3 days and 2 nights.
> Compare Matt 12:40 with Matt 27:46-28:6 (or so) -- 3 or 4 pm Friday
> to 6 or 7 am Sunday.
I found this on a site devoted to answering alleged Biblical
contradictions. Not knowing much about history, I can't vouch for it,
but it certainly seems plausible.
"This is one of the easier ones...the Jews counted PART of a day or
night as
a WHOLE day or nite, so part of Friday, all of Sat, part of Sun would be
'three days
and three nights'--it was a Hebrew idiom of the day...
We do the same thing of course...if I say I worked at the office all
day, 'all day'
Normally doesn't mean 24 hours...it means most of the daylight hours or
whatever..."
>
> Saved by works or grace.
> Compare Rom. 10:9 with Matt 7:21 and Jas 2:24.
This is no contradiction at all. Romans says you have to accept Jesus as
your Lord to be saved, Matthew says that lip service isn't enough to
count as accepting jesus as Lord, and James makes much the same point.
>
> Is there anything within any chemistry book with such glaring
> inconsistencies?
The above were not inconsistencies, but so what if other inconsistencies
do exist. The claim was made that the Bible is demonstrably lacking in
facts; you have not supported this assertion.
Keith
Don Cates
One doesn't have to verify *every* scientific fact.
The scientific method exists and gives consistent results. This can be
verified by anyone. Having done this, it is reasonable to conclude that
associated results from the same source are also highly likely to be
scientific facts and to use them as such subject to future amendment. To
apply this standard to the bible, show that the source (God) exists and
consistantly provides results and show that at least one fact is indeed
due to this source.
-------------
Don Cates "he's a cunning rascal" (PN)
David Haas
>
>
> Arky wrote:
> >
> > On 2 Aug 2000 11:25:09 -0400, Keith Johnson <co...@pe.net> wrote:
> >
> > > I also think that the Gospels were
> > >part of an oral tradition before they were written down, and that some
> > >of the details might have been fictionalized (like the details in a
> > >--high quality docudrama) so finding discrepancies in those details
> > >wouldn't count either. So (if I were playing) you'd have to show errors
> > >in the great truths of the Gospel; you'd have to show that jesus was not
> > >crucified, that he did not rise from the dead to save us from our sins.
> > >I do not think you could possible show those claims are in error.
> >
> > Well if the book contains many errors and internal inconsistencies
> > why would we believe the bits you call "great truths". Calling them
> > truth does not make them truth.
> > If you were presented with any other book that contained errors and
> > internal inconsistencies would you not need to verify a part of it
> > before accepting that part?
>
> The only reason inaccuracies in the Bible would cast doubt on the great
> truths of the Gospel is if the warrant for accepting those truths came
> from the (alleged) accuracy of the human hands that wrote it. But if the
> warrant for the great truths comes from the fact that the statement of
> those great truths came from God, then any errors the book contained
> would not be relevant.
>
that single premise. The bible is not relevant if there is no god. The
Bible is simply some stories that some men made up. As I I've said before,
it's your farm.
D. Haas
David Haas
> Dear Arky
>
> You made this same point in two other posts. I am only going to respond
> to this one if that meets with your approval.
>
> keith
>
> Arky wrote:
> >
> > >The difference between the biblical facts and the scientific facts are
> > >the methods by which they were discovered. Scientific facts are
> > >discovered through the scientific method, biblical facts were revealed
> > >by God.
> >
> > You really think these are equivalent?
> >
> > First you have to show that god exists then you have to show that
> > there is such a thing as "revelation" then that god "revealed" the
> > biblical "facts". You couldn't be on shakier ground.
>
> By you standard, why would the scientist not have to verify that every
> scientific fact he relied on was (a) actually produced by the scientific
> method and (b) that the scientific method is a valid way to find that
> particular truth? The scientist can't actually do such verification; he
> rightfully takes it for granted the truth of (a) and (b). How is that
> any more secure than the Christian who takes the truth of revelation for
> granted?
>
Seems to me we have gone this route before, but here it goes anyway.
There is no truth. There is no proof. There is only probability. The
scientific method increases the probability that what you see is true.
Information from authority, if it can't be verified by objective methods
or measured in some way, has a low probability of being correct. This is
why information derived from using the scientific method can be used to
invent and create new things that actually work. Knowledge from authority
may help your psyche but it can't be used to figure out how you are put
together or how to make a car or space craft. The two things are
completely different. If you believe in God you are in effect saying that
god can make a space ship and take you to heaven or whatever. Most of us
think this idea has low probability of happening.
D. Haas
Tarjei Straume
Keith Johnson wrote:
> Tarjei Straume wrote:
> >
> > Keith Johnson wrote:
> >
> > > Tarjei Straume wrote:
> > > >
> > >
> > > The ideal scientist strives to be faithful to the empirical facts; the
> > > Bible believing Christian strives to be faithful to the Biblical facts.
> > > What is the difference?
> >
> > There is no such thing as "biblical fact" that can be claimed parallell or equal to scientific fact. If
> > you don't see the difference, you don't understand science.
>
> That is purely intellectual imperialism on your part. A fact is any
> statement which is true. If a statement in the bible is true it is a
> fact. That scientific facts have a different source of warrant than
> biblical facts doesn't change things; a fact is a fact, be it biblical
> or scientific.
The expression "Biblical fact" implies that if something is found in the Bible, it is in itself proof or
evidence of its truth. By "fact" we usually men something established through evidence, and intellectual proof
is valid only in natural science and mathematics, otherwise anything can be proven as easily as the exact
opposite. Call it imperialism if you like.
>
> >
> > > I guess my question is this: what justifies your claim that moving away
> > > from Thomas constitutes moving AHEAD; you seem to be presupposing
> > > progress rather than regress.
> >
> > The objective natural-scientific mode of cognition did not evolve in humanity before the fifteenth
> > century. The transition is marked by heliocentric astronomy (Galileo and Copernicus) among other things,.
> > This development progressed even further in the nineteenth century, when public classical education
> > (latin schools) was superceded or replaced by natural-scientific education during the Enlightenment.
> >
> > If you call this regress, it implies that you wish for civilization to return to the Middle Ages and stay
> > there. I'm not saying that our current consciousness is a stge of perfection or better than ever before
> > in every respect, but we must move ahead, not backwards.
>
> What you are describing is the development of one way to search for
> truth; the scientific method. Nobody is suggesting that we abandon
> science. But that has nothing to do with my question; you just changed
> the subject. My question was: what makes you think moving away from St.
> Thomas would be progress and not regress. The only reason you gave was
> that Thomas wrote prior to science. So what?
Anyone, individual or church or club or whatever, may stop at Aquinas and stay there. But I and many others
prefer to move on.
>
> (snip)
>
> > > > Otherise, he would not comprehend the cultural, psychological, and soul-spiritual setting in which
> > > > the early church got its start.
> > >
> > > And why would that be a requirement for a modern person to speak
> > > authoritatively on the Gospel?
> >
> > It would be a requirement for someone to teach ME anything about the subject, and people like me. Not
> > necessarily people like you.
>
> I know that. My question is still: why? Are you saying you won't listen
> to a person otherwise? Why not?
> >
> > > > > Why wouldn't a single reliable source for spiritual wisdom be sufficient
> > > > > for a person to be an authority on spiritual wisdom?
> > > >
> > > > I'm sure it's sufficient for some people, but it's not sufficient for me.
> > >
> > > Why not? If it's reliable why would you need other sources?
> >
> > It's not reliable - not suffiecient either.Perhaps for you, but not for me.
>
> Reliability is not person relative. Why do you say a single source of
> spiritual wisdom is not reliable?
Ancient languges are in a sense extinct, even if they have survived and even if they may still be deciphered.
Languages and associations with wodrs have gone through so many changes in the course of millennia that all
translations are more or less guesswork, even by experts. They may be used to support credence to other
findings and collaborate other sources, but one old source of this kind by itself is insufficient and
unreliable.
Tarjei
--
===========================================================================
ANARCHY MAY NOT RULE IN SOCIETY, BUT ANARCHOSOPHY RULES ON THE INTERNET.
Tarjei Straume
Slettelokka 39a
0597 Oslo, Norway
(+47)22-25-37-68, (+47)993-09-685
mailto:tast...@online.no
==========================================================================
Like This Internet Resource? Click to Recommend-It (r)
<http://www.recommend-it.com/l.z.e?s=698958>
Arky
>> > I would agree (I would also agree that in fact the system DOES work).
>> > Likewise for the Bible; if the Bible was inspired by God the Christian
>> > needn't authenticate its claims either; God has already done that.
>>
>> But how do you authenticate the fact that God has authenticated the
>> Bible? With science, you at least can go back and duplicate
>> observations you feel a bit iffy about.
>
>But you cannot actually go back and duplicate EVERY observation, you
>cannot go back and recreate all the science that precedes your own work.
>You mention checking out the parts you feel iffy about, implying that
>anything you don't find questionable you can accept without
>verification. Why do you think that the same thing ought not apply to a
>Christian's use of the Bible?
There is no comparison between scientific reference material and
ancient scriptures. The only reason you keep bringing up this argument
is because you already believe god exists and inspired the bible.
Can't you see that if we don't already believe that, your argument
makes no sense?
--
arky
Arky
>You made this same point in two other posts. I am only going to respond
>to this one if that meets with your approval.
>> >The difference between the biblical facts and the scientific facts are
>> >the methods by which they were discovered. Scientific facts are
>> >discovered through the scientific method, biblical facts were revealed
>> >by God.
>>
>> You really think these are equivalent?
>>
>> First you have to show that god exists then you have to show that
>> there is such a thing as "revelation" then that god "revealed" the
>> biblical "facts". You couldn't be on shakier ground.
>
>By you standard, why would the scientist not have to verify that every
>scientific fact he relied on was (a) actually produced by the scientific
>method and (b) that the scientific method is a valid way to find that
>particular truth? The scientist can't actually do such verification; he
>rightfully takes it for granted the truth of (a) and (b). How is that
>any more secure than the Christian who takes the truth of revelation for
>granted?
a) is true because scientific theories are built on previous
scientific theories which have already been verified by the scientific
method. There is no point repeating experiments when the results have
been confirmed many times in the past.
b) the scientific method has repeatedly been shown to work.
There is nothing being taken for granted, no leap of faith required.
--
Arky
David Johnston
>
> Keith Johnson wrote:
>
> > Tarjei Straume wrote:
> > >
> > > Keith Johnson wrote:
> > >
> > > > Tarjei Straume wrote:
> > > > >
> > > >
> > > > The ideal scientist strives to be faithful to the empirical facts; the
> > > > Bible believing Christian strives to be faithful to the Biblical facts.
> > > > What is the difference?
> > >
> > > There is no such thing as "biblical fact" that can be claimed parallell or equal to scientific fact. If
> > > you don't see the difference, you don't understand science.
> >
> > That is purely intellectual imperialism on your part. A fact is any
> > statement which is true. If a statement in the bible is true it is a
> > fact. That scientific facts have a different source of warrant than
> > biblical facts doesn't change things; a fact is a fact, be it biblical
> > or scientific.
>
> The expression "Biblical fact" implies that if something is found in the Bible, it is in itself proof or
> evidence of its truth. By "fact" we usually men something established through evidence, and intellectual proof
> is valid only in natural science and mathematics, otherwise anything can be proven as easily as the exact
> opposite. Call it imperialism if you like.
"empiricism"
David Johnston
>
> "Wayne D. Hoxsie Jr." wrote:
> >
> > In article <39874DE7...@pe.net>, Keith Johnson wrote:
> > >
> > >
> > >"Wayne D. Hoxsie Jr." wrote:
> > >>
> > >> In article <3986EE8E...@pe.net>, Keith Johnson wrote:
> > >> >
> > >(snip)
> > >
> > >> There's a pretty much single agreed upon periodic chart that even
> > >> theists use. There's so much ambiguity in the bible (or any other
> > >> religious text) that there are hundreds of thousands of denominations
> > >> all with different dogma. That is the difference.
> > >
> > >You don't imagine that there are no disagreements among chemists do you?
> > >Most Christian denominations agree upon the basic truths of the Gospel;
> > >the differences are over a small percentage of doctrinal matters, for
> > >the most part. But the basic issue still remains: chemists accept things
> > >they have not themselves evaluated on the rightful authority of their
> > >references. Why should Christians not apply that same standard to the
> > >things of the Christian faith?
> >
> > 100% of chemists, for example, agree that Potassium (K) weighs 39.0983
> > AMU. Is there even a single issue that 100% of theists agree on? Do
> > you know of any specific area where chemists disagree?
>
> Not being a chemist, I do not. But being a person of at least some
> sense, I know that not every chemist agrees on every issue in chemistry.
> Those cold fusion guys believed that they had discovered a new process;
> THAT was not universally accepted among chemists.
And for that reason only a idiot or a charlatan would use cold fusion as
the taken-for-granted basis of their work.
> > You've answered your own question. How would you test such a "fact?"
> > If Charles Friedel claims that Benzene will undergo electrophilic
> > aromatic substitution with a halo-alkane in the presence of a strong
> > Lewis acid, this is easily testable--and tested regularly by chemists
> > worldwide.
>
> The scientific claim gets its warrant from passing scientific tests. But
> what demonstration do you have that the great truths of the gospel do
> not get their warrant from God himself?
Wrong way around. If we are to apply the same standards to the Bible that
we apply to science then we require a checkable demonstration that they
DO get their warrant from God. We have no such demonstration, checkable
or otherwise. Are you sure that you want to apply the same standards?
David Johnston
>
> David Johnston wrote:
> >
> > Keith Johnson wrote:
> (snip)
>
> > > > If the system works you do NOT have to verify every claim. It has already
> > > > been done.
> > >
> > > Likewise for the Bible; if the Bible was inspired by God the Christian
> > > needn't authenticate its claims either; God has already done that.
> >
> > But how do you authenticate the fact that God has authenticated the
> > Bible? With science, you at least can go back and duplicate
> > observations you feel a bit iffy about.
>
> But you cannot actually go back and duplicate EVERY observation, you
> cannot go back and recreate all the science that precedes your own work.
> You mention checking out the parts you feel iffy about, implying that
> anything you don't find questionable you can accept without
> verification. Why do you think that the same thing ought not apply to a
> Christian's use of the Bible?
How does he check the parts of the Bible he feels iffy about?
The fact is, during the course of a scientific education, you do generally
recreate a good deal of the science that will precede your own work.
As for the rest, it must have been duplicated pretty much by everyone who
tried it, or you had better make sure that you check it yourself. If you
don't, you are doing bad science.
Let's apply this same reasoning to the Bible, since you insist.
Does just about everyone who reads the Bible get the same results?
Does just about everyone agree on what it says? Does everyone agree
on what proportion of the Bible is true?
Even if they did, and they don't, what is this consensus based on?
Is it based on thousands of people checking the facts involved?
How did they check them?
And how do you authenticate the fact that God has authenticated the Bible
if you need to?
Do people ever ignore contradictory evidence because of their faith?
In science that is the mark of a profoundly incompetent or unethical
scientist.
Now I am applying the same standards to the Bible that I apply to science.
Happy?
Tarjei Straume
"Brian F. King" wrote:
> Keith Johnson <co...@pe.net> wrote:
> >Tarjei Straume wrote:
> >> Keith Johnson wrote:
> >> > Tarjei Straume wrote:
>
> >> > > I don' t think David Haas meant to imply that scientists were more knowledgeable
> >> > > about reiligion. My deduction from his post is that scientists have the highest
> >> > > academic education and are therefore among the people best suited to handle
> >> > > other challenges to our abstract thinking, including those of theology. I see
> >> > > nothing wrong with that line of reasoning, but it's not to be acepted at face
> >> > > value alone.
> >> >
> >> > No doubt scientists are experts in their field, but I see no reason to
> >> > imagine that their education and experience or native ability would make
> >> > them more competent to evaluate religious issues that any average Joe.
> >> > In fact, they might be on average less competent, since there is an
> >> > atheistic bias in western academic circles.
>
> Of course that atheistic bias *demonstrates* that they are more
> competent than average in evaluating religious issues... =-)
That is not what I had in mind. Religion addresses the spiritual aspects of existence,
which atheists claim is a Fata Morgana, or a great illusion. I think that a person who
wants to contribute to this field has the best possible advantage if he or she is
thoroughly educated in and updated on natural science, but being an atheist automatically
excludes personal interest in the spiritual - except when it comes to spinning out theories
among themselves about how certain braincells produce religious illusions and so on.
Noelie S. Alito
>
>
> Arky wrote:
> >
> > On 2 Aug 2000 11:25:09 -0400, Keith Johnson <co...@pe.net> wrote:
> >
> > > I also think that the Gospels were
> > >part of an oral tradition before they were written down, and that some
> > >of the details might have been fictionalized (like the details in a
> > >--high quality docudrama) so finding discrepancies in those details
> > >wouldn't count either. So (if I were playing) you'd have to show errors
> > >in the great truths of the Gospel; you'd have to show that jesus was
not
> > >crucified, that he did not rise from the dead to save us from our sins.
> > >I do not think you could possible show those claims are in error.
> >
> > Well if the book contains many errors and internal inconsistencies
> > why would we believe the bits you call "great truths". Calling them
> > truth does not make them truth.
> > If you were presented with any other book that contained errors and
> > internal inconsistencies would you not need to verify a part of it
> > before accepting that part?
>
> The only reason inaccuracies in the Bible would cast doubt on the great
> truths of the Gospel is if the warrant for accepting those truths came
> from the (alleged) accuracy of the human hands that wrote it. But if the
> warrant for the great truths comes from the fact that the statement of
> those great truths came from God, then any errors the book contained
> would not be relevant.
I don't think I understand your position comparing Christian faith
with the results of the scientific process. Science deals with
objective criteria, and where there is doubt about any former
research, anyone can follow the same procedure to reproduce
and/or re-evaluate the results (or develop a complementary
procedure to check the conclusions from a different angle).
Say you meet a stranger at a table with 1) a pile of documents,
2) a box labeled "came from God", 3) a box labeled "did not
come from God" and 4) a big budget to obtain resources (to
pay translators, order pizza, etc.). This person speaks fluent
English, but may be from any place on Earth (Nepal, the
Kalahari, Moscow, whatever). How would you explain
to the stranger how to separate the documents into the two
boxes?
Noelie
---
"If the King's English was good enough for Jesus,
it's good enough for me!"
-- "Ma" Ferguson, Governor of Texas (circa 1920)
Keith Johnson
"Wayne D. Hoxsie Jr." wrote:
>
> In article <39877185...@pe.net>, Keith Johnson wrote:
> >
> >
> >Paul Wenthold wrote:
(snip)
> >A quantum physicist takes a huge amount of physics for granted when he
> >does his experiments; he has to in order to even get started. This can't
> >really be called verifying the previous physics; all modern scientists
> >accept tons of science on the authority of the people and process that
> >produced it. Such acceptance is warranted because that authority is
> >reliable.
>
> This is absurd. Before any person becomes a quantum physicist,
> they have to work their ass off in undergrad and postgrad classes;
> most of which have associated labs where the physics is demonstrated
> and tested.
Of course they have to work their asses off in undergraduate and
graduate courses, but they do not re-create physics from scratch,
fabricating their own instrumentation like the Professor on Gilligan's
Island! You are just wrong if you imagine that they do not take for
granted loads of science; you obviously haven't had any of those
undergraduate classes if you think that.
> Where do you get your ideas that science is in any way
> similar to your theism?
It is similar in that both my theism and science depend on rightfully
accepting certain claims on faith.
>
> >
> >Likewise for the Bible (the Christian might say); accepting the Biblical
> >testimony as authoritative is warranted because the people and process
> >which produced it is reliable--the process was the inspiration of God,
> >they'd claim.
>
> You seem to think that just because a chemist uses a reference book
> and a theist uses a reference book that they are somehow related
> disciplines. This is not the case.
Who suggested they were related disciplines? All I am doing is pointing
out A similarity in epistemology between the two distinct disciplines.
>
> >>
> >> You mentioned
> >> > the caveat "if there's any doubt" about the veracity of a particular
> >> > scientific claim. That's the point; for the part there won't be any
> >> > doubt, the scientist will take basic science for granted.
> >>
> >> Unless, of course, she observes a contradiction to it.
> >
> >Most of the time there will be no opportunity to observe a
> >contradiction; most of the time the assumption is so deeply buried that
> >it cannot be tested. A biologist, for example will not interpret a
> >peculiar voltage reading as a challenge to electro dynamics; she would
> >instead assume that she was observing an interesting biological
> >phenomenon.
>
> More absurdity. If a biologist observed an anomaly and suspected a
> new phenomenon, the biologist would test this phenomenon subjecting
> it to the rigor of the scientific method with experiments and controls
> and peer review to ensure that it is a new phenomenon and not faulty
> equipment.
None of the above contradicts my claim in the least. The biologist would
not begin to question electrodynamics if an electrophoresis experiment
showed a peculiar genetic structure; he would assume that the experiment
indicated something new in genetics.
(snip)
> >> Depends. If there is reason to doubt it (as in, there are
> >> contradicting claims) there is nothing taken for granted.
> >> Of course, if there are 150000 reported results consistent
> >> with the previous claim and you find a contradiction, you
> >> better be damn sure your result is not the result of a flawed
> >> experiment. There are paradigm-shaking results, but there are
> >> also a lot more claimed paradigm-shaking results that are wrong.
> >
> >Surely. But all you are really saying is that a scientist is warranted
> >to take many things on the authority of other experts because the
> >scientific method is a warranted source of truth. I agree. Many
> >Christians would claim that Bible is a warranted source of truth because
> >it was produced by the reliable guidance of God.
>
> Except that scientists can show a clear path as to why a reference
> is rooted in sound science. Can you show that your book is produced
> by the reliable guidance of a god?
A particular scientist has to take for granted that (a) the clear path
was actually taken (SHE didn't take the path herself), (b) the
instrumentation used by other scientists actually measured the things
they claimed and (c) that the scientific method is a valid way to find
truth. The particular scientist doesn't verify all of those before
proceeding in her work. So why do you think I should have to verify that
God is actually the guide to producing the bible?
>
(snip)
> >> The fundy doesn't accept authority from anyone except from
> >> the bible. Therefore, there can't be any "authoritative claim"
> >> that seems more true.
> >
> >That's not quite true, but even it it were, this would be a possible
> >scenario: A fundy holds a biblical theory which he finds is incompatible
> >with a biblical fact he just recognized; he rejects the old theory and
> >finds a new one. This would be analogous to the scientist who rejects an
> >old theory because it is inconsistent with the PHYSICAL data he
> >encounters. he doesn't reject the physical data that forces itself on
> >him; why should the Christian reject the Biblical data?
>
> When has this ever happened with a fundy?
In fact I know fundies for whom this has happened, in arcane areas of
eschatology mostly.
>
> >>
> >> >You
> >> > seem to think that a reluctance to give up his theistic belief counts
> >> > against the fundamentalist's claims that his beliefs are justified;
> >>
> >> I never said that. You asked what the difference was, and I told
> >> you. Scientific claims are testable by others. Religious claims
> >> are not.
> >
> >The scientist would not be willing to reject his belief that reason is a
> >valid way to find truth; there is no way a scientist could test that
> >belief. In what way is that different from a Christian's belief that the
> >Bible is a valid way to find truth?
> >
> >BTW, religious claims can be tested (even for fundamentalists); the
> >fundamentalist would only insist that all religious claims be consistent
> >with the Biblical data, just like a physical scientist would insist
> >that physical theories be consistent with the physical data.
>
> Give a few examples.
Here is a hypothetical example. In the book of Romans Paul states that
we are saved by the grace of God, not through our good works. This fact
could give a Christian the idea that he needn't DO good works, since his
salvation is by grace through faith. But when the Christian encounters
the book of James, he discovers that faith without works is dead faith;
it is not authentic. The Christian must then change his previous theory
(the view that he can go along pretty much as during his
pre-Christianity) to a view which accommodates both biblical facts.
There IS such a view BTW. The view is: we are saved by grace through our
faith, but if we don't do any good works we know we don't have faith.
Another hypothetical example: suppose you come up with what seems to be
contradictions in the bible, suppose you can't think of a biblical
theory that can reconcile the contradiction. How is this different from
those times when your present theory cannot reconcile all the physical
data (like before Einstein developed his theory of relativity)?
Keith
seaotter
moved if
> > they could just demonstrate there was a God.
>
> prove that its information was actually produced by the scientific
> method or (b) that they prove the scientific method is a valid way to
> search for the truth do you? Why do you expect that kind of proof from
> Christians? That's not a rhetorical question; I think you have a reason
> and I am interested in it.
>
> keith
I was answering your question as to why they can't claim authority since the
bible was produced by god. The authors can claim authority because they
can(not do; although most science books explain the process that led to
theory) demonstrate the information is produced by the scientific method.
Keith Johnson
Tarjei Straume wrote:
>
> Keith Johnson wrote:
>
> > Tarjei Straume wrote:
(snip)
> > > There is no such thing as "biblical fact" that can be claimed parallell or equal to scientific fact. If
> > > you don't see the difference, you don't understand science.
> >
> > That is purely intellectual imperialism on your part. A fact is any
> > statement which is true. If a statement in the bible is true it is a
> > fact. That scientific facts have a different source of warrant than
> > biblical facts doesn't change things; a fact is a fact, be it biblical
> > or scientific.
>
> The expression "Biblical fact" implies that if something is found in the Bible, it is in itself proof or
> evidence of its truth. By "fact" we usually men something established through evidence, and intellectual proof
> is valid only in natural science and mathematics, otherwise anything can be proven as easily as the exact
> opposite. Call it imperialism if you like.
1. I would disagree with your claim that the word fact implies
"established through evidence". Otherwise the sentence "We do not know
all the facts. " would be meaningless; by your definition anything we
don't know isn't a fact.
2. The reason that scientific reasoning provides us with facts is
because it is a valid way to find the truth. It does not follow that if
we allow some other source of facts we can prove anything we want. For
example, if we allow the Bible as a source of evidence we could not
prove that jesus was a mere prophet, less than the prophet Mohammed. The
only issue is whether or not a given source has warrant; if the Bible is
produced by God it has warrant.
(snip)
> > > If you call this regress, it implies that you wish for civilization to return to the Middle Ages and stay
> > > there. I'm not saying that our current consciousness is a stge of perfection or better than ever before
> > > in every respect, but we must move ahead, not backwards.
> >
> > What you are describing is the development of one way to search for
> > truth; the scientific method. Nobody is suggesting that we abandon
> > science. But that has nothing to do with my question; you just changed
> > the subject. My question was: what makes you think moving away from St.
> > Thomas would be progress and not regress. The only reason you gave was
> > that Thomas wrote prior to science. So what?
>
> Anyone, individual or church or club or whatever, may stop at Aquinas and stay there. But I and many others
> prefer to move on.
Fine, do what you want. But the question still remains: why do you think
moving on from Aquinas represents progress? There is nothing in Aquinas'
thought that precludes science; Aquinas was writing about theology and
philosophy, not science. If you are not interested in answering the
question, that's fine too.
(snip)
> > > It's not reliable - not suffiecient either.Perhaps for you, but not for me.
> >
> > Reliability is not person relative. Why do you say a single source of
> > spiritual wisdom is not reliable?
>
> Ancient languges are in a sense extinct, even if they have survived and even if they may still be deciphered.
> Languages and associations with wodrs have gone through so many changes in the course of millennia that all
> translations are more or less guesswork, even by experts.
So what? Why do you think that our inability to understand an ancient
text the way it was it was understood in the past has anything to do
with whether or not our present understanding represents spiritual
truth?
keith
Keith Johnson
Don Cates wrote:
>
> On 2 Aug 2000 14:24:28 -0400, Keith Johnson <co...@pe.net> wrote:
>
> >Dear Arky
(snip)
> >> First you have to show that god exists then you have to show that
> >> there is such a thing as "revelation" then that god "revealed" the
> >> biblical "facts". You couldn't be on shakier ground.
> >
> >By you standard, why would the scientist not have to verify that every
> >scientific fact he relied on was (a) actually produced by the scientific
> >method and (b) that the scientific method is a valid way to find that
> >particular truth? The scientist can't actually do such verification; he
> >rightfully takes it for granted the truth of (a) and (b). How is that
> >any more secure than the Christian who takes the truth of revelation for
> >granted?
>
> One doesn't have to verify *every* scientific fact.
> The scientific method exists and gives consistent results. This can be
> verified by anyone.
If you haven't verified every scientific fact, you have to take for
granted that the ones you didn't verify were really consistent with the
ones you did. You also need to show that consistent results implies
truthful theories. Scientists RIGHTFULLY take that for granted.
> Having done this, it is reasonable to conclude that
> associated results from the same source are also highly likely to be
> scientific facts and to use them as such subject to future amendment. To
> apply this standard to the bible, show that the source (God) exists and
> consistantly provides results and show that at least one fact is indeed
> due to this source.
Show that the facts in your reference book were actually derived from
the scientific method. You cannot; you rightfully take that for granted.
Keith
Keith Johnson
Arky wrote:
>
> On 2 Aug 2000 14:24:28 -0400, Keith Johnson <co...@pe.net> wrote:
>
> >You made this same point in two other posts. I am only going to respond
> >to this one if that meets with your approval.
>(snip)
> >By you standard, why would the scientist not have to verify that every
> >scientific fact he relied on was (a) actually produced by the scientific
> >method and (b) that the scientific method is a valid way to find that
> >particular truth? The scientist can't actually do such verification; he
> >rightfully takes it for granted the truth of (a) and (b). How is that
> >any more secure than the Christian who takes the truth of revelation for
> >granted?
>
> a) is true because scientific theories are built on previous
> scientific theories which have already been verified by the scientific
> method. There is no point repeating experiments when the results have
> been confirmed many times in the past.
Unless you have repeated every experiment yourself, you have to take for
granted that the claimed previous verification has taken place. Such an
assumption is of course warranted.
> b) the scientific method has repeatedly been shown to work.
Present the evidence then.
Keith