Majority Rule and Rights of Minorities (Very Long) - USM Forum -- Message Board

Date: Nov 13, 2005

RE: Majority Rule and Rights of Minorities (Very Long)

Date: Nov 13, 2005

Would these "believers" be the ones who would exclude Roman Catholics from the adoption process because they are "non-christians"? Give me a good non-believer rather than a hypocritical believer any day.

Date: Nov 13, 2005

Issue laid to rest wrote:

Questioner wrote: To be precise people don't have to believe in science because they can test it and thus have evidence that it is correct. The average layperson is not equipped to "test" scientific hypotheses. They "believe" (i.e., have faith) that the scientist has that capability. You're going far beyond what was said which was that those who believe in God also believe in science; some scientists believe in God and others don't. And that's a testable hypothesis. Until somebody tests it with proper matching and controls, just ask them.

I understand what you mean concerning the position of the average layperson. For what it's worth I studies both science and theology. I found that as my science studies progressed I needed less and less "belief" because I understood the evidence and logical reasoning of the scientist. However, I was disappointed to learn that the more I studied theology the more I had to take on faith. Instead of answering questions to remove doubts I found issues were being "supported" by even more beliefs.

So although you are correct that laypeople must believe in science, there is only one science while they are an uncountable number of religious beliefs.

You state, "Until somebody tests it with proper matching and controls, just ask them." Just for kicks I will ask one more question. If a person says they believe in God when asked, is there any way to tell if they really do? Some would say "by their fruits you will know", but I know some very moral atheists whose actions and ethics would put most theist to shame.

Date: Nov 13, 2005

Questioner wrote:

For what it's worth I studies both science and theology.

A course of two in English wouldn't hurt you either

Date: Nov 13, 2005

Questioner wrote:

Just for kicks I will ask one more question. If a person says they believe in God when asked, is there any way to tell if they really do?

No way at all given the current state of scientic knowledge. Even the so called "lie detectors" won't do it. Nonetheless, verbal behavior can be studied just as "scientifically" as molecules.

Date: Nov 13, 2005

The Jester of Nitchampburg wrote:

Questioner wrote: For what it's worth I studies both science and theology. A course of two in English wouldn't hurt you either

I shook hands with Professor Judd this week and my fimgers are still messed up.

I noticed from your "..course of two.." above that you too must know Prof. Judd.

(Just kidding Stephen.)

Date: Nov 13, 2005

Oh God.

In addition to worrying about my own digital infirmity, I now have to worry that it is CONTAGIOUS??!!!

awk

Date: Nov 13, 2005

stephen judd wrote:

Oh God.

In addition to worrying about my own digital infirmity, I now have to worry that it is CONTAGIOUS??!!!

awk

Perhaps you can use this infirmity to get out of teaching your theater courses online!

Date: Nov 13, 2005

The One Man Gang wrote:

stephen judd wrote: Oh God. In addition to worrying about my own digital infirmity, I now have to worry that it is CONTAGIOUS??!!! awk Perhaps you can use this infirmity to get out of teaching your theater courses online!

What an excellent suggestion . . . . although I am completely sold on the idea that we could increase our enrollmment in the theatre program if we just got rid of these silly face to face acting courses and taught acting on line . . .

Imagine . . . the USM Theatre Program could be the Yale School of Drama of online acting training!!!!

Boggles the mind.

Date: Nov 13, 2005

stephen judd wrote:

the USM Theatre Program could be the Yale School of Drama of online acting training!!!!

Calling it the Yale School of Drama is O.K with me. Just don't embarrass us by calling this unique approach to teaching drama the USM School of Drama. Now you guys and gals over in theatre should get that hairbrained notion out of your heads.

Date: Nov 13, 2005

Guilt by Association wrote:

hairbrained

LOL!

Date: Nov 13, 2005

You guys have drifted off topic and are now discussing some of what is on the thread about the "digital MBA program". Besides poor typing they tell me that this mental drifting also occurs with age.

Date: Nov 13, 2005

Questioner wrote:

You guys have drifted off topic and are now discussing some of what is on the thread about the "digital MBA program". Besides poor typing they tell me that this mental drifting also occurs with age.

Drifting from topic to topic within a thread has occurred since the inception of this message board. Drifting within a thread is often appropriate.

Date: Nov 13, 2005

Questioner wrote: The question is like asking do plumbers believe.

All Backed Up wrote: If my plumber doesn't figure out what's wrong with my drainage system soon, we are going to have a serious prayer meeting.

Don't bite your fingernails. Payday is Friday. Sh!t flows downhill.

Date: Nov 14, 2005

Evolution based on faith, not fact

http://www.clarionledger.com/apps/pbcs.dll/article?AID=/20051114/OPINION/511140302/1009

Follow the Bible, not just 'theories'

http://www.clarionledger.com/apps/pbcs.dll/article?AID=/20051114/OPINION/511140306/1009

Date: Nov 14, 2005

Two More wrote:

Evolution based on faith, not fact http://www.clarionledger.com/apps/pbcs.dll/article?AID=/20051114/OPINION/511140302/1009 Follow the Bible, not just 'theories' http://www.clarionledger.com/apps/pbcs.dll/article?AID=/20051114/OPINION/511140306/1009

"Mutation is the result of losing information from the DNA record; not addition or modification of the strain."

"We would be much better off living by the teachings of Robert E. Hays than following theories of our liberal college professors."

Let me go find a wall to bang my head against.

Date: Nov 14, 2005

I can't believe these people really believe the stuff they find on Creation websites. The statement: "Supporters (of evoultion) ignore the fact that the footprints of dinosaurs and humans are found in the same layer of bedrock in places all over the world." has been shown to be wrong a very long time ago.

Date: Nov 14, 2005

Scientist wrote:

I can't believe these people really believe the stuff....

Scientist, I wish you had heard former President Jimmy Carter being interviewed on the Larry King show last night. Carter is a good example of a scientist, in this case a devout Christian, who believes in God and at the same time accepts the documented findings of science including those of evolution. Carter even (correctly) identified himself as a scientist on last night's program. He made it perfectly clear that he does not believe that creationism should be taught as part of the science curriculum. This is simply not an issue for most of us. Although I am tempted to say that we resolved the matter long ago, it is more accurate to say there was really nothing to resolve. The conflict is more imagined than real. His position on matters such as stem cell research would also probably surprise you. I urge that you not take statements made by the loud vocal minority in the current evolution/ID debate and generalize it to the main stream of persons of faith. Most of them are bright people, some exceptionally well educated in science, and not dullards as one might be led to believe from some of your comments.

Date: Nov 14, 2005

Vanilla Wafer wrote:

Scientist wrote: I can't believe these people really believe the stuff.... Scientist, I wish you had heard former President Jimmy Carter being interviewed on the Larry King show last night. Carter is a good example of a scientist, in this case a devout Christian, who believes in God and at the same time accepts the documented findings of science including those of evolution. Carter even (correctly) identified himself as a scientist on last night's program. He made it perfectly clear that he does not believe that creationism should be taught as part of the science curriculum. This is simply not an issue for most of us. Although I am tempted to say that we resolved the matter long ago, it is more accurate to say there was really nothing to resolve. The conflict is more imagined than real. His position on matters such as stem cell research would also probably surprise you. I urge that you not take statements made by the loud vocal minority in the current evolution/ID debate and generalize it to the main stream of persons of faith. Most of them are bright people, some exceptionally well educated in science, and not dullards as one might be led to believe from some of your comments.

Your point was well made and taken. I never implied that all Christians or even mainstream Christians are represented by the fundamentalists who write these letters. I do think that the faculty should be aware of how they may be perceived by the public and the mentality of the people in this area. I also think that this administration would not hesitate to play into the fears of these religious conservatives in order to keep the faulty in check.

Scientists are getting tired of having to correct all the errors in these letters. I wish Christians would do much more of the correcting. However, when you approach it as a religious issue you are faced with “everyone is entitled to their own opinion” and the discussion ends. I saw in yesterday’s paper where the Pope even made a comment about the existence of an “Intelligent Project” concerning these issues. It looks like another religious war is on the horizon.

Date: Nov 14, 2005

My dear Uncle Screwtape,

It is with great pleasure that I report to you on the recent successes in advancing the cause of Intelligent Design. I am certain that the vociferous "Religious Right" will continue to advance our cause by alienating more and more educated people from Christianity.

Please append this to my earlier report. (Just turn the speakers off before you click in, because Blogspot has a godawful -- pun intended -- entry audio.)

Your affectionate nephew,

Wormwood

Date: Nov 15, 2005

'Belief' the basis of naturalism, too

http://www.clarionledger.com/apps/pbcs.dll/article?AID=/20051115/OPINION/511150312/1009

Date: Nov 15, 2005

Amazing Logic wrote:

'Belief' the basis of naturalism, too http://www.clarionledger.com/apps/pbcs.dll/article?AID=/20051115/OPINION/511150312/1009

"There is no need to only do science based on naturalism, however. Creationists do science based on their belief in God, and their work is no less scientific for being based on different assumptions."

Well madam, some would tell you it is gummer up fuel injectors causing the problem, but I think you have demons in your carburetor. I know a priest down the street that can fix you car.

Date: Nov 15, 2005

Mechanic wrote:

Well madam, some would tell you it is gummer up fuel injectors causing the problem, but I think you have demons in your carburetor. I know a priest down the street that can fix you car.

"Foul spirits that have infested this fuel injector, BE GONE!" (Apologies to Gary Larsen...)

I'm also reminded of a National Lampoon many years ago that had a little feature about household gods for the 20th century, including "Sparky, the god of electronic ignitions."

Date: Nov 15, 2005

Scientist wrote:

Scientists are getting tired of having to correct all the errors in these letters.

Ape #1 was sitting in the shade with a copy of Darwin in one hand and a copy of the Bible in the other hand. Ape #2 asked Ape #1, "What are you doing?" Ape #1 replied, "I'm trying to determine if I am my brothers keeper, or if I am my keepers brother

Date: Nov 18, 2005

Finally, an intelligent letter.

Some questions hard to answer

http://www.hattiesburgamerican.com/apps/pbcs.dll/article?AID=/20051118/OPINION03/511180327/1014/OPINION

Date: Nov 18, 2005

I'd say that Mr. Altman scored some pretty devastating rhetorical points, too. That letter isn't just "intelligent," it's understandable to anyone.

Date: Nov 18, 2005

Vatican Official Refutes Intelligent Design

By NICOLE WINFIELD, Associated Press Writer Fri Nov 18,11:55 AM ET

http://news.yahoo.com/s/ap/20051118/ap_on_re_eu/vatican_evolution

Date: Nov 18, 2005

Invictus wrote:

I'd say that Mr. Altman scored some pretty devastating rhetorical points, too. That letter isn't just "intelligent," it's understandable to anyone.

Yes indeed Invictus. It's good to see Christians helping to defeat the barbarians. I said in an earlier post, "Scientists are getting tired of having to correct all the errors in these letters. I wish Christians would do much more of the correcting. ...the Pope even made a comment about the existence of an “Intelligent Project” concerning these issues.".

Today's letter in the American and the article from the Vatican were steps in the right direction.

Date: Nov 18, 2005

Scientist wrote:

Vatican Official Refutes Intelligent Design

Of course, the particular fundamentalist protestant mindset that espouses Intelligent Design frequently classifies "papists" as "idolators."

Date: Nov 19, 2005

Ethnocentricity wrote:

Would these "believers" be the ones who would exclude Roman Catholics from the adoption process because they are "non-christians"? Give me a good non-believer rather than a hypocritical believer any day.

Invictus' last post echoes some of the sentiments of this one, although with more humor and less vitriol.

A Yale-educated Anglican priest friend of mine is wont to say, "the two primary reasons that non-believers do not come to faith is because they have never met a christian and because they have."