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

Date: Nov 22, 2005

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

Date: Nov 24, 2005

Allow the Bible to tell us 'why' while science tells us 'how'

http://www.clarionledger.com/apps/pbcs.dll/article?AID=/20051124/OPINION/511240325/1009

Date: Nov 25, 2005

Creationists trying to apply pseudoscience to real science

http://www.clarionledger.com/apps/pbcs.dll/article?AID=/20051125/OPINION/511250305/1009

Date: Nov 25, 2005

Scientist wrote:

Creationists trying to apply pseudoscience to real science http://www.clarionledger.com/apps/pbcs.dll/article?AID=/20051125/OPINION/511250305/1009

Remember this, my Scientist friend: Science is only a method and not a religion. Treat it as such.

Date: Nov 25, 2005

The King has no clothes wrote:

Scientist wrote: Creationists trying to apply pseudoscience to real science http://www.clarionledger.com/apps/pbcs.dll/article?AID=/20051125/OPINION/511250305/1009 Remember this, my Scientist friend: Science is only a method and not a religion. Treat it as such.

Why do you say only a method? Do you consider this a weakness or negative in some way? I am very happy science isn't a religion.

But you are correct in that most people believe in science, because they don't have the time or training to do the science themselves. They at least know scientists have logical reason and evidence on their side and are in an endeavor to prove the current theories wrong. Best of all, there is one science worldwide. Disputes are resolved with experiment and logical reason, not bloodshed.

Date: Nov 25, 2005

Scientist wrote:

They at least know scientists have logical reason and evidence on their side

Only scientists can think logically. The rest of us are in a brain warp.

Date: Nov 25, 2005

Spitfire Sally wrote:

Only scientists can think logically. The rest of us are in a brain warp.

Sorry Sally, but I don't agree with this. However, scientists do pratice logical thinking daily and are more aware of the various logical fallacies than the average lay person.

Date: Nov 25, 2005

Scientist wrote:

scientists do pratice logical thinking daily and are more aware of the various logical fallacies than the average lay person.

Scientists are "aware?" How mentalistic. Gotcha!

Date: Nov 25, 2005

Spitfire Sally wrote:

Scientists are "aware?" How mentalistic. Gotcha!

This scientist is old and slow, Sally. Please explain the above if you wish to communicate.

Date: Nov 25, 2005

Scientist wrote:

I don't recall ever saying that religious people could never reconcile how evolution and creation could coexists. I believe the Catholics have done this.
Matters such as this are not resolved by a mortal speaking for an entire body of believers. They are resolved on an individual basis. People of faith are far more independent thinkers that you seem to believe.

Date: Nov 25, 2005

Onlooker wrote:

Scientist wrote: I don't recall ever saying that religious people could never reconcile how evolution and creation could coexists. I believe the Catholics have done this.

Matters such as this are not resolved by a mortal speaking for an entire body of believers. They are resolved on an individual basis. People of faith are far more independent thinkers that you seem to believe.

I was only providing an example, Onlooker. I know people of faith are independent thinkers. Some religions, like the Roman Catholics, tend to let the experts (theologians) determine these issues. Other religions have each individual interpret their own scriptures and come up with their own beliefs. From my perspective that is one weakness of religions determining truth. Each claims to have "absolute truth", but this "absolute truth" is relative to the religion, and there are thousands.

The truth I seek is one, universal and objective. This is what most call truth when they are not discussing religion or politics.

Thanks for responding; I appreciate your comments.

Date: Nov 25, 2005

Scientist wrote:

..... religions have each individual interpret their own scriptures and come up with their own beliefs. From my perspective that is one weakness of religions

If you're not aware that scientists differ in their interpretations of data, you're not familiar with the literature. I know of no legitimate scientist who believes he/she has found the absolute truth. Science is a process of hypothesis testing designed to successively approximates the "truth."

Date: Nov 25, 2005

Spitfire Sally wrote:

Scientist wrote: ..... religions have each individual interpret their own scriptures and come up with their own beliefs. From my perspective that is one weakness of religions

If you're not aware that scientists differ in their interpretations of data, you're not familiar with the literature. I know of no legitimate scientist who believes he/she has found the absolute truth. Science is a process of hypothesis testing designed to successively approximates the "truth."

Well, Sally, we seem to be in agreement, . Religions have different beliefs that they say is absolute truth. Scientists, on the other hand, may have different interpretations of some data, but the theories are universal. (The Theory of Universal Gravitation is the same in China and Africa.) Of course, science says these theories are tentative relative to the current knowledge available. They will change if contrary information is discovered.

Sally, did I misunderstand what you were saying? This is the second time you seemed to misunderstand what I wrote. But hey, no problem.

So which system do you think approaches the goal of "absolute truth". How does your mechanic determine what's wrong with your car?

Date: Nov 25, 2005

Scientist wrote:

How does your mechanic determine what's wrong with your car?

Here at Invictus' Tire & Auto, we generally sacrifice a banty rooster to Sparky the Household God of Electronic Ignitions. We also use Christ-The-King & Jesus Saves Rerefined Motor Oil exclusively in our oil changes & tune-ups.

(Footnote: Those are two actual brands of oil sold years ago in the Montgomery AL area...)

Date: Nov 26, 2005

Why must it be either/or?
http://www.hattiesburgamerican.com/apps/pbcs.dll/article?AID=/20051126/OPINION03/511260326/1014/OPINION

Just how does ID science work?http://www.hattiesburgamerican.com/apps/pbcs.dll/article?AID=/20051126/OPINION03/511260330/1014/OPINION

Date: Nov 26, 2005

Invictus' Faith Automotive Mechanic wrote:

Scientist wrote: How does your mechanic determine what's wrong with your car? Here at Invictus' Tire & Auto, we generally sacrifice a banty rooster to Sparky the Household God of Electronic Ignitions. We also use Christ-The-King & Jesus Saves Rerefined Motor Oil exclusively in our oil changes & tune-ups. (Footnote: Those are two actual brands of oil sold years ago in the Montgomery AL area...)

Invictus, I would love to have you work on my car. It's possessed, and only runs when it wants to. Trips take much longer than necessary because it stops at every bar.

I wish I could get my hands on a few old cans of "Christ-The-King & Jesus Saves Rerefined Motor Oil". They must be valuable collector items.

Date: Nov 26, 2005

2 More wrote:

Why must it be either/or?http://www.hattiesburgamerican.com/apps/pbcs.dll/article?AID=/20051126/OPINION03/511260326/1014/OPINION Just how does ID science work?http://www.hattiesburgamerican.com/apps/pbcs.dll/article?AID=/20051126/OPINION03/511260330/1014/OPINION

From the letter "Why must it be either /or", Asa A. Bryant states, "I see (it) God every day. I feel (it) God every day. Science can't, and never will, verify God's existence. But God has and will continue to verify science's existence."

I would naturally ask if you see it what color is it, what is its shape? Oh, the word "see" doesn't mean see. So what does it mean?

I would naturally ask what does it feel like? Is it smooth or rough, hot or cold? Oh, the word "feel" doesn't mean feel.

How can "God" "verify science's existence”? We can do that by observing science exist. However “God’s” existence is what is in dispute. Even those who do believe disagree as to what it means.

Is this person talking in code? What language is this person using? Who are they trying to fool?

Would a theist please translate for this atheist what this person is saying and explain why they don't use precise language.

Date: Nov 26, 2005

Atheist wrote:

Would a theist please translate for this atheist what this person is saying and explain why they don't use precise language.

You must have had a very difficult time in your literature classes and other non-quantitative courses that depended on use of the English language.

Date: Nov 26, 2005

Speak no Evil wrote:

Atheist wrote: Would a theist please translate for this atheist what this person is saying and explain why they don't use precise language.

You must have had a very difficult time in your literature classes and other non-quantitative courses that depended on use of the English language.

No, I didn't have problems in Lit courses, "Speak no Evil". In those courses we read stories and poetry. No one claimed they were providing "absolute truth" or providing evidence for the existence of fantastic things.

Don't you think that people should be very rigorous when discussing "absolute truth" and existence of fantastic beings? Scientist use precise language when discussing the relatively unimportant things such as electrons and DNA.

But maybe I missed your point. Are you trying to say the theist are just telling us "stories" and not discussing reality? If so, I remove my objection to the letter writer.

Could you please address the other questions I asked?

Date: Nov 26, 2005

Atheist wrote:

Could you please address the other questions I asked?

I think the reason some posters don't respond to your questions or engage you in discussion is because you have a tendency to take one or two of their words and dissect it to pieces. My take is that most posters on this board are accustomed to using plain old normal and proper English like their mama taught them, and they are not particularly interested in rephrasing their every thought in a form suitable for publication in a scientific journal. That's not the way people talk.

Date: Nov 26, 2005

Speak no Evil wrote:

Atheist wrote: Could you please address the other questions I asked?

I think the reason some posters don't respond to your questions or engage you in discussion is because you have a tendency to take one or two of their words and dissect it to pieces. My take is that most posters on this board are accustomed to using plain old normal and proper English like their mama taught them, and they are not particularly interested in rephrasing their every thought in a form suitable for publication in a scientific journal. That's not the way people talk.

Thanks for the pointers. I’m just trying to communicate without the B.S. that confuse the issues.

Just for fun, would you translate what the letter writer was saying? I find it deceitful to claim to "see", "feel" or "hear" something when all you mean is you believe. People use seeing, feeling and hearing as evidence. The writer is using the words to deceive the reader to think they have evidence. Does that not bother you?

Some of these same people claim atheist are not moral people.

Date: Nov 26, 2005

Atheist wrote:

Just for fun, would you translate what the letter writer was saying? I find it deceitful to claim to "see", "feel" or "hear" something when all you mean is you believe.

I have no idea what the writer was saying. Letters to the editor are often unclear. I paid little attention to it because the evolution/ID debate is not an issue with me. I am one of the many who see no conflict between the scientifically based principles of evolution and the Biblical account of creation. That issue was resolved for me at the age of 14. I view the current debate which has surfaced at the national level as more political than religious.

Date: Nov 26, 2005

Speak no Evil wrote:

I have no idea what the writer was saying. Letters to the editor are often unclear. I paid little attention to it because the evolution/ID debate is not an issue with me. I am one of the many who see no conflict between the scientifically based principles of evolution and the Biblical account of creation. That issue was resolved for me at the age of 14. I view the current debate which has surfaced at the national level as more political than religious.

Well, that makes two of us who don't understand the letter writer, Speak no Evil. I assumed (probably incorrectly) that theist understood that kind of language. It was even suggested I had trouble reading English in Lit classes.

From what you say here I assume you are also concerned with the nation wide effort to change science teaching in the high schools to include I.D.

Date: Nov 26, 2005

Atheist wrote:

From what you say here I assume you are also concerned with the nation wide effort to change science teaching in the high schools to include I.D.

As a firm believer in the separation of church and state, I see "I.D." as just a term used by some as a disguise device designed to force the teaching of religion into the public schools. The movement should be resisted. But I am also a firm believer in parents seeing that their children get an early grounding in Sunday School.

Date: Nov 26, 2005

Speak no Evil wrote:

As a firm believer in the separation of church and state, I see "I.D." as just a term used by some as a disguise device designed to force the teaching of religion into the public schools. The movement should be resisted. But I am also a firm believer in parents seeing that their children get an early grounding in Sunday School.

We are in full agreement on this, Speak no Evil. Parents have the right, indeed the duty, to teach their children ethical principles, either in Sunday school, or through a nonreligious basis. I'm one of those who would rather that ethics (morals in general) not be so connected to the supernatural. (Some one in this thread pointed out earlier that this is more a trait in the west.) If, or when, young people begin to question the supernatural that should not be a reason to question ethical behavior.

Date: Nov 26, 2005

Atheist wrote:

Parents have the right, indeed the duty, to teach their children ethical principles, either in Sunday school, or through a nonreligious basis.

I was, of course, referring to a value system far greater than that which is .normally taught in ethics courses in academic philosophy departments or elsewhere on a nonreligious basis.

Date: Nov 26, 2005

Speak no Evil wrote:

Atheist wrote: Parents have the right, indeed the duty, to teach their children ethical principles, either in Sunday school, or through a nonreligious basis.

I was, of course, referring to a value system far greater than that which is .normally taught in ethics courses in academic philosophy departments or elsewhere on a nonreligious basis.

I find it interesting that we agree on so much. My only reservation is whether the value system you refer to requires the supernatural. I say it doesn't, but of course you understand my perspective. It would make for an interesting discussion if you believe there are "values" that you think only can be provided by having a supernatural basis. That is, values that can't be reached by rational thinking involving the relation between the individual and the community.

For the record let me say I have no expertise in this area. I suspect most already knew that.

Date: Nov 26, 2005

Atheist wrote:

I find it interesting that we agree on so much. My only reservation is whether the value system you refer to requires the supernatural.

If your're asking if I believe in a supreme being (God), indeed I do (and there is much more to the story than that.) But I also believe that to deny the scientific principles of evolution is to deny God's power.

Date: Nov 26, 2005

Speak no Evil wrote:

Atheist wrote: I find it interesting that we agree on so much. My only reservation is whether the value system you refer to requires the supernatural.

If your're asking if I believe in a supreme being (God), indeed I do (and there is much more to the story than that.) But I also believe that to deny the scientific principles of evolution is to deny God's power.

No, Speak, that is not what I meant. I knew (assumed?) you believed. The question arose if there may be "values" one couldn't find through ethics. I thought I could have the same values as you without the need for the supernatural. That was the question that I thought would make for an interesting discussion.

I asked because some theists have told me they wouldn't be moral without their belief in God. For them god was like a cop on the highway checking for speeders. Without the presence of the cop they would speed.

Date: Nov 26, 2005

Atheist wrote:

I asked because some theists have told me they wouldn't be moral without their belief in God. For them god was like a cop on the highway checking for speeders. Without the presence of the cop they would speed.

Sure there're lots of "ethical" and "moral" persons who've never darkened the door of a church and who are agnostic or atheistic. But I never viewed God like a cop on the highway checking for speeders. My parents and my elementary school principal maybe, but certainly not God.