Posted by Al; [Aldurant] on April 09, 1999 at 08:47:30 {qzNMJDwJ.2bNVk78PDhst74NX2uzuA}:
Note-This is to WW, but anyone's replies are welcome.
WW- You keep posting in an attempt to debunk science, even though it is clearly unecessary forbelief in God and other aspects of faith. At the same time you perhaps not intending to, promote a complete lack of standards of rational judgement, religious or otherwise. If this were the case anyone making any assertion would have an equal claim to probability of truth. This will not do for any form of Christanity in view of the many other religions in the world. All the while you ignore much of what has been said while asserting that others have ignore your points. I have answer every post you have put to me except the one where you agree, or I thought you did. I have even read a book you recommended. You seem to ignore many of my posts in answer to you, my points, and my questions. I have an answer to these questions which is consistent with science. You have provided no answer. My point is that you must concede the validity of science.
There is no other answer and neither you, nor anyone else can provide it. You are not the type that is so dishonest that you substitute threats in the alledged name of God or insult for arguments or rational statements. But you do seem to exhibit what to me is a lack of trust in the real God such that you feel you need to irrationally promote certain human traditions about God in spite of their conflict with facts. I have saved this data which you have not responded to, so that it may be reposted easily. It is in my �WW�file. Answer these points, I have answered yours. Or just realize that believe in God does not require debunking science.
WW- You haven't answered any of my questions, ever. I think you just avoided some of my archaeology posts. And what do you think about the fact that these people said that no one could live at that altitude, and a mediocre little encyclopedia refutes them? ??????
It's a big world, and there are a lot of scientists. If there are 1000000 various facts, the systemization of knowledge, science, will try to organize it into categories. We are relatively happy with the system because it is
the most effective survival tool we have.
There are always facts that don't fit into categories. That is why science doesn't just stagnate. Those trained in the disciplines of science follow careful procedure and don't go off
half-cocked and jump at every mystic tale they can find. These folks are probably over 95% of the scientists. There are a few who for various reasons, try to form entire theories around a single anomaly. Or they collect anomalies and weave
them into some basically meaningless legend. I say meaningless because there is nothing anyone can do
about it. No one ever built a machine or invented anything over a crackpot theory. There's a Lochness monster. There are thousands of
UFO�s but we can't prove it because they are tricky. God did it. God is going to do it. Who knows what to do about these things? Some organizations would like all arguments for "God did it" to mean that we give them our
allegiance, labor,
and money. suspiciously convenient.
WW- if you find yourself calling people things like "pseudo-intellectual or something, it may be a clue that you don't know what to say to them. I don't have a degree. Yet. I am about 30 hours away
from one. I
have taught Physics as an undergraduate to the freshman class. None of us on this board are professional research scientists. We do have some M.I.T. graduates or near graduates. But none of them use this or make reference to
it as if this were an argument. An interesting research project for us would be to see how many idiots even were accepted to M.I.T., much less graduated. But their emphasis is on common sense, what 95% of competent scientists have come to
believe, so far, after checking each others work.
There are other people here who believe in various aspects of what seems to be your faith. They do not seem to need to debunk mainstream science to have their faith. You really don't
need to either, and that's really convenient since you can�t, and of course, neither can we.
Al
WW- They are not "alleged" experts. They can find oil, they can predict simple things reliably, showing that they are in harmony with
nature. Entire businesses, even industries run successfully on the views of these "alleged" experts. Because there are thousands of
them you can always pick those who err, who are fraudulent, etc.
The reason other things must confirm
The Bible and not the other way around is the fact that there are those who claim that The Bible is inspired relatively precisely by the Creator of the Universe to the point where we should regard it as understandable
communication from
God. No other source of knowledge makes this claim or needs to make it to be useful to us. So naturally when it seems that The Bible is at odds with our other sources of knowledge and it's proponents resort to unwarranted generalities and
even try to make us guilty or fearful for not conceding their extraordinary claims, we are even more suspicious.
Al
The main blindness with scientists is "double-blind tests"- testers who do not know what results they are expected
to get as they are testing the evidence. You seem to need to "blindly" discredit science and scientists without essentially seeing for yourself by
learning some serious science. You make up your mind, not only what you want to believe,
but in very narrow interpretative conditions for that belief. Jesus presumably told many symbolic stories also.
Organized religion over the centuries has for some reason insisted on interpreting certain things in The Bible to restrict
physical facts about the earth. But The Bible is supposed to be a "book" on spirituality, not on science, or even history. Why must we tell these
disciplines what to conclude in advance of evidence, when it was God who gave us our logic
and our minds?????? It is only narrow and unnecessarily fearful men who tell us we must deny evidence, and view the scientific community as a consistently deluded
conspiracy. Yet we still use them when we need them. You keep trying to
equate scientific credibility with any other, yet you would not even select which medicine to take without scientific tests. You would hardly pray to determine your choice on this issue. What you continue to do, without any real necessity
in my opinion, is to "muddy the waters", to make yourself feel that "you never can tell" about science, and that all data that contradicts current interpretations of what The Bible says and what Jesus allegedly taught according to these
2000 year old writings is in "doubt" and is only accepted on "faith", which I understand to include evidence, actually, also.
If we know our names, if we know enough to not steer into the next telephone pole we pass on the highway,
there are things that we know from science that contradict some people's interpretation of ancient religious books. Otherwise we don't even know that we
are on the Internet.
Al
You said you liked this, but your subsequent posts belie this.
I think that "God" simply needs redefining, and it amounts to an observation of principle. The properties of the universe include matter, energy, space, time, life, and mind. These properties are at least statistically harmonious, essentially integrated. They pre-exist their manifestation, at least in principle, though conventional ideas of time are not real constraints. Without elaborating further, all of our values contained in the idea of God are best pursued with our whole mind. It is a form of humility to accept the universe as we find it.
-Theology has been called the study of human opinions and of human fancies concerning God. It is not the study of God himself in the works
that he has made; but in the works of writings that man has made. We cannot serve God in the manner we serve those who
cannot do without such service; the only idea we can have of serving God is that of contributing to the happiness of
the creation that God has made. As for hope: The power that gave us existence is able to continue it, in any form and manner it pleases; and it
appears more probable to me that I shall continue to exist hereafter, than that I shouldhave
had existence, as I now have, before that existence began.- This is from Thomas Paine's "The Age of Reason".
Developing some highly structured and controlled form of the idea of God is not in harmony with creation, something we know is
from God, whatever he may be, without interference from man. We may err in perceiving it, but we have the gift of reason, and
the sciences, which are also God's gift, not man's invention, and statistical check and balance which averages
out to improvements, and the means to help our fellow man. It takes humility to simply take what we know and leave it at that until we can learn more.
We have no grounds for confronting those who do not perceive the principles of the
universe as a unified entity. Perhaps their idea of "God" is the quiet reliability of the principles in our Universe. As time passes we find this includes ethics with our fellow
man also. We do not presume that what we may think of as
"consciousness" in that entity is like ours. The effects of consciousness are largely a matter of timing in our neurons and language. What is the timing of the principles of the universe? We only know a little.
Do we have the humility
and the faith to trust how things are? Our goals are the same. The promotion of ethics and hope. God should not be conceived in such a way as to oppress and control mankind, individually or in groups. It puts man, and God, under the
control of a few religious experts, with untestable assertions about God. We do not perceive ourselves to be intrinsically worthless as the character Satan proposed in the book of Job. Let God's creation speak for him, and do not allow
what are really traditions
of man to destroy our view of his true nature.
Remember, it is not who they are, but whether or not what they say is testable. You've got to break out of this mold of thinking that it's only one "authority"
against another. What Sagan and Alan have is an enjoyable teaching style, but we don't depend on their
naked testimony with no way to check it.
Whatever is behind the myths, especially the Sumerian ones to which you refer, we can hardly base precise moral decisions and other major life policies on such rumored approximations. Aren�t you even slightly suspicious of people who push inerrancy and "setting things straight" with a reference with such a background?????
Look at the organizations they have produced. Are you going to wait another 20 years until you run head-on into their craziness yourself? ????? And on Radiocarbon dating. Read some recent elaborations by people who perform the tests. Look it up for yourself. Look at the tables, the graphs, the calibration methods, the tests of the method for yourself. Their are many other methods also. Look them up, it's easy. How can we come at science, looking for every chink in the armor, then blow off the absolutely ridiculous and astronomical controversies, contradictions, and conflicts that are associate with religion and The Bible?????? It's crazy. If The Bible doesn't get literally every last thing wrong we say it is inspired by God. If science makes errors, then we ignore everything we continue to rely on about it and opt for some controversial ancient manuscripts. We ignore religion�s almost unbroken history of lying their brains out, in the most sophisticated manner "for a good cause."
:I suppose David Fasold, William Ryan (ark of Noah), Bellamy, Posnansky and Velikovsky are all just pseudo-scientists and fundies who lie and exaggerate?
Well if we consider the altitude
issue a sample of their work I suppose so. "The highest altitude where people permanently reside is about 20,000 feet. A few people live at that elevation in the Andes Mountains in South America and in the Himilaya in Asia."
Also,
"Acclimatization can take two weeks or longer at 15,000 feet. At altitudes above fifteen thousand feet, acclimatization can fail to occur in some people."
This is from my kids 1990 World Book Encyclopedia that I pulled off the
shelf when I saw your post. Look under "altitude". I've spent a little time at 14,000 feet, fairly active, not a big deal.
As for the other business we need the reference, the original report from those who were there, the scientific
journals, not some book they can slide past their knowledgeable peers straight to their fundamentalist public. Then we need to figure all the areas that have never had a flood. Isn't it amazing how we explain away these and all the things
that
should have been destroyed by such a flood and were not????? You really need "Why People Believe Weird Things" by Michael Shermer. It is easy reading and you would have a much better understanding of actual science and
pseudo-science and simple superstition.
WW- You have both judged and called names in your post. Is that supposed to be an argument? And your degree is in -----? ?????I think you may have developed some ethical problems.
Al