Science a GoGo's Home Page Forums General Discussion Not-Quite-Science Forum Religious Evangelism on a Science Forum

Revlgking (Lindsay King) challenged me to prove that his intentions here are purely to evangelize his Christianity.

I will do so because I think that what he is doing is inappropriate and he should respect the terms of this forum.

I also think that others here might be surprised to know that the only reason the Rev engages with them is to try and convert them.

His interactions here have nothing to do with science and I find it strange that someone who is so engaged with ethics and morality thinks it is not morally objectionable to subvert threads here for his own evangelistic purposes.

THE PROOF

On the Pathways Church forum Lindsay makes no secret of the fact that he is about using forums such as this to evangelise.

“BTW, since I went online in 1997, I have been involved in exploring ways of and means of using the net to reach out to people who want to be involved in community building. I have found that, as Jesus said, "The field is ripe unto harvest..." I am involved in four forums. Some are very active.

Just recently I joined one forum about science, philosophy and religion--SCIENCEAGOGO.COM. It is out of Australia, and people from all over the world write to it. I write to four basic threads in this forum.”

And...

“Keep in mind, I take every opportunity I can to tell readers what is happening at PATHWAYSCHURCH.CA”



It is clear what Lindsay is here for and it is nothing to do with the discussion about science. Maybe he will stop being disingenuous and actually admit he is here to preach – that would at least be honest.

Blacknad.

OBVIOUSLY THERE IS A LOT OF INTEREST IN THIS TOPIC AND IN WHAT MOTIVATES ME. AND THIS IS OKAY WITH ME
Science, as I understand it, is a tool, not a god. It is a tool which we can use to search for more and information about anything, including religion. This tool came out of philosophy, which came out of religion.

WHAT MOTIVATES ME
You mention PATHWAYS. It is made up of people who are thinkers, including agnostics and atheists. I joined the group as one of the founding members on condition: No dogma. We are simply interested in people being given the FREEDOM to THINK. The search for truth is a joyful and never ending journey. And what a joy it is!

"Science, as I understand it, is a tool, not a god. It is a tool which we can use to search for more and information about anything, including religion. "
This is not correct unless one uses an out-dated notion of what constitutes science.

"This tool came out of philosophy, which came out of religion."
"Came out of" is ambiguous. It was a divorce. Scientists realized that they could not progress unless they limited their scope and their methods.

Science is a tool - that doesn't mean that it isn't ill-applied by people who have very little understanding of it.

"And what a joy it is!"
There are many activities for which the same thing could be said, any one of which would require fewer tissues.

It is rude to come into a forum and evangelize on things that are not related to the subject. I won't tell you can't come here and post whatever silly stuff you want to say. Maybe you'll pick up something, some morsel about manners or actual science. It's clear you have any interest at all in anything remotely related to actual science. But you might pick up something by accident. We can always hope.

The religious evangelism needs to stop. Too much of this forum is being usurped by individual(s) who are blatantly proselytizing. It is one thing to express one's views, quite another to keep doing it. I try to keep this forum open for Science and scientific discussions. It is not intended as a medium for continued haranguing about faith. I can and will edit comments. Please consider yourself warned.

Amaranth Rose,
Moderator

TFF, what is, "an out-dated notion of what constitutes science"?

Amaranth R, since when does encouraging people to think for themselves constitute "religious evangelism"?

Fear not, my friends, I am a firm believer in rational truth, and democracy. I have no time for superstition, blind faith, ignorance and dictatorship.

BTW, do you want to get rid of me? Easy.

I encourage the moderator to poll posters to this section of the SAGG forum. If a simple majority wants me quit SAGG, I am out of here.

Rev, out-dated notions of science would include anything that puts philosophy, theology, and science into the same pot.

I do not perceive that you are encouraging people to think for themselves.

I don't want you to quit SAGG. I want you to start talking about actual science.

Are we not on earth and in the same space?

You don't? Other that encouraging them to do so, how do you suggest I proceed? I do not want to force people to think. It must come from within themselves. You don't? I do not perceive that you are very welcoming.


If you were me, how do you suggest I go about doing this?

"Are we not on earth and in the same space?"
... as the ancients? Yes...well, almost...see, we've learned a lot since then... the Earth hurtles around the sun, the sun about the galaxy, the galaxy about our supercluster, and all of us are expanding outward ... this is something we know now that they didn't know then. In the beginning things were all lumped together, because we didn't know any better. Now we do - well, those of us who have actually bothered to learn something about science.

"You don't?"
Nope. Other than the fact that proselytizing isn't "encouraging people to think for themselves," it's presumptuous of you to think you're the one to tell any of us "to think for ourselves" or even "to think" - you who to my recollection has not made a single post on the subject of science. You "think for yourself" and the rest of us need to be encouraged by you to "think for ourselves."

" You don't?"
Nope. Not welcoming you as you would like to be welcomed is not the same thing as shooing you away. I've already told you. If you have done half of what you claim, you're a decent person. The purpose of the forum is to talk about science. Have you anything to add about the subject of science?

"If you were me, how do you suggest I go about doing this?"
Assuming that you are serious,
1. read http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Science with particular emphasis on paragraph 2.

2. Take a gander at http://sciam.com/ or http://www.nature.com/index.html or http://www.sciencemag.org/
or any other actual science website and find an article that you find interesting - give us a synopsis and a few of your own thoughts about it. Does it fit in with other things you're aware of? Does it conflict with what you thought you knew?

OR
think of some scientific principle that you would like to explain or about which you have some question or would like to dispute and then write a paragraph or two on it.

Excellent suggestions, TFF. Now let us hope the object of your attention takes the hint.

Amaranth Rose,
Moderator

Does the following, from
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Science --the URL you quoted, qualify?
If so, did I mention that my basic undergraduate work happens to be in psychology and philosophy? I have also done extensive studies in sociology, politics--I even ran for public office--and economics.

Speaking of economics: In 1986, I helped design and impliment the barter system in Toronto. In 1998, with the approval of the Mayor of Toronto, I helped design and get into action http://www.torontodollar.com The current, Mayor David Miller greatly approves of the social work that is being done using the sytem

BTW, based on my interest in psychology I became a licensed hypnotist. In the early 1960's I studied at an Institute in Charleroi, Pa. Later, I actually did seminars and taught there. I brought the director of the institute to Toronto, several times, and assisted him in the seminars. All the Toronto papers did major stories on these events. I have also done seminars in England. Check out:

http://www.google.ca/search?hl=en&q=Canon+Joseph+Wittkofski&btnG=Search&meta=

Interestingly, there you will find some of what I wrote in SAGG
quoted.
And in http://www.brainmeta.com

For decades, using hypnosis, which I call pneumatherapy, I have worked with individuals and groups--over the years numbering in the thousands--helping them deal with their addictions, including addiction to food, and other psychosomatic and pneumasomatic afflictions. Some of the people who took advantage of the programs were medical doctors and nurses, chiropractors, naturopaths, etc.

I don't think anyone was asking you to brag about your accomplishments. They really mean nothing in a forum such as this one, anyway.

OK, you're equipped with a brain and have been around the block. Discuss some science.

Since when is listing ones educational background and interests to illustrate my connection with the social sciences bragging? This is not the kind of comment which encourage anyone to want to dialogue.

If they mean "nothing" to you, then why did you comment?

BTW, the URL's I gave contain reams of information about the history, nature, function and practical value of clinical hypnotherapy--which, without charging a fee, I have used, for years, under the title: Clinical Pneumatherapy--hypnosis without the hocus pocus. Neuro-linguistic programming is similar.
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Neuro-linguistic_programming

MORE ABOUT ECONOMICS
http://www.odemagazine.com/article.php?aID=4147
http://transaction.net
Until we pay attention to what the professor of economics, Bernard Lietaer--A graduate of MIT, taught at the University of Louvain, Belgium and worked with the world banking system, etc--tells us about money and the nature of the world banking systems, we will forever be slaves to poverty-producing and war-producing debt.
Are people paying attention to what is happening in South America? Some leaders are finally waking up to what the IMF (a world bank) and the The World Bank has done to their economies

Let's put it this way -- listing anyone's credentials in a forum like this one is meaningless. The ideas you express and the arguments you pose are the only things that count. Bring up an issue in the social sciences and try to start a discussion.

My two basic ideas are:

1.Pneumatherapy, not drugs, will take care of 50% and more of what is making us sick and killing people before their time. Healthy old age, 100-120, should be the major reason for a healthy death.

2. Complementary Community Currencies (CCC's), added to the national one will release all the knowledge and social capital we need to build a high standard of living. See, the URLs about Professor Lietaer, above.

BTW,

1.ABOUT HEALTH: There are times when drugs and surgery have to be used, but one of the goals of pneumatherapy is to teach people that
healthy nutrition is the best kind of medicine. It can prevent having to resort to dangerous surgery and drugs.

READ ABOUT THE GREAT PSYCHIATRIST, Thomas Szasz:
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Thomas_Szasz

When you start to present evidence for this then it may fall under the heading of science.

But right now you have just written propaganda for a whole industry of dangerous quacks who will fleece people whilst convincing them that they don't need REAL treatment.

Did you notice when you listed the different types of science from the Wiki article that Pneumatology was notably absent?

Blacknad.

Blacknad asks: "Did you (LGK) notice when you listed the different types of science from the Wiki article that Pneumatology was notably absent?"

So, what does this prove? That some people are slow learners? Or does it prove that there will always be those who see the half-empty glass.
If people will take the trouble to look, they will notice that it is not absent from our major dictionaries, nor from Wiki.

Blacknad, you mentioned quacks.

WHERE ARE THE REALLY DANGEROUS QUACKS?
Dr. Szasz's main argument is that they are the ones with the official titles--the so-called qualified therapists.:

Read on. Very interesting.

HEALTH and EC0NOMICS
Recently, The Globe and Mail, Canada's national daily, published this quote from Dr. Szasz: I will add, "meaningful work".

As a pneumatherapist, this is one of the reasons I am interested in getting people to take CCCurrencies seriously. It's usefulness in helping us have meaningful work and good health can be easily demonstrated. I have been using CCC for decades, while the IMF and the WB has been creating poverty for the have-nots, and profits for the few haves at the top. DEMONSTRATE THAT THIS IS PROPAGANDA, IF YOU CAN.

In 1972, my whole family and I used complementary community currency, in cooperation with the regular kind, to help us spend six weeks in England and to tour Europe.

Wow! This is interesting. I am impressed.

All we need to do, now, is this: Treat one another with respect, keep the positive comments and the questions coming, stick to the facts as you know them, and nature will take its course. Perhaps we will learn something from one another.

BTW , Dr.Szasz, psychiatrist, thanks for daring to criticize your own profession. Very enlightening!!!

Keep in mind: If you respond to this, I may be out of town for quite a few days. Also, I always love your positive comments.

"Wow! This is interesting. I am impressed." -Turner

I was pleasantly surprised too, now that I've finally read this thread.

I especially liked the reference to Revl's motive, "to reach out to people who want to be involved in community building."

The advice about science is great too. I would point out that the tagline for this NQ Forum suggests, "Is there a supreme being? Yep, this is the place where too little scientific rigor is more than enough."

Overall, I like the diversity.

...and where does this thread go from our ending of,
"I will add, 'meaningful work'." -Revl.

What makes something meaningful? That's the nexus of these questions about language, religion and science. IMHO

~~SA

p.s. It sure is fun to watch these threads, with all their diverse inputs, evolve.
~S

MEANINGFUL WORK, OR EMPLOYMENT
Samwik, in response to your comment about Dr. Szasz's comment about the value of work as a "panacea", I repeat what he said with words that I would add:

"The greatest analgesic, soporific, stimulant, tranquilizer, narcotic and, to some extent, even antibiotic--in short, the closest thing to a panacea--known to medical science is work" (Szasz)--(Here is what I, LGK, add) that is, work that is not just work, but meaningful employment, work that the workers doing it find personally enjoyable.

At the end of the day, such workers are left with the feeling that, they have earned more than a living; they have contibuted to the social good of the total community.
How many people really love what they do for a living? How many go to work simply to earn enough money to pay their bills? I feel sorry for those of us who are just wage slaves.

Looking back, I spent over 40 years doing work that I enjoyed and found meaningful. My work gave me just enough money to survive, and little or no power. About the nature of meaning, check out:
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Viktor_Frankl
Dr. Frankl, in his book, MAN'S SEARCH FOR MEANING, points out that many people are more driven by the need to find meaning and purpose for their lives than they are in having pleasure, to procreate (as Freud said), or to have money and power (as Adler said).

BTW, years ago I corresponded with Dr. Szasz and told him about what I was doing with pneumatology--spiritually-based psychology--and the goals I had in mind in helping people help themselves enabling all of us to work together in making the world a better place. He responded, expressed great approval and encouraged me to continue.

Hiya Revl.

I wasn't commenting on Dr. Szasz; I was quoting your added emphasis (of 'meaningful'). That is what I thought was important.

I find this real interesting too.
"Dr. Frankl, in his book, MAN'S SEARCH FOR MEANING, points out that many people are more driven by the need to find meaning and purpose for their lives than they are in having pleasure, to procreate (as Freud said), or to have money and power (as Adler said)."

I wonder if there is a genetic trait or tendancy towards these differing "needs."
Also, interesting to think of these needs in terms of the [sacred values] folks in that PNAS reference over on [Is Science the Answer?] (#21476).


...and I still need to check out those economics links you provided above.

Later....
~~samwik

Samwik wonders: "I wonder if there is a genetic trait, or tendancy, towards these differing "needs.""

We can also call them 'drives'. INMO, there are psychological (mental) and pneumatological (spiritual) as well as somatological (physical) genetic traits.

Samwik and Revlgking wonder I wonder if there is a genetic trait or tendancy towards these differing "needs."

I believe genes are responsible for much more of our selves than just our appearance. Certainly instincts must be genetically inherited in some way. One of my brothers is even convinced the preference of an individual dairy cow to come in to the open side of a herring-bone milking sshed is inherited.

terry - Was there not some research that found an area of the brain that appeared to be more active in those people who believed in the supernatural -including God, the divine etc? Maybe it was more a predisposition to believe, a desire for belief? This research was interpreted as the genetic existence of the need to believe in some of us, whilst others just don't get it in any way.

Loved the cow story!! I too believe that we are only now just at the very beginning of finding out how much of our behaviour is genetically predetermined. As a teacher during the 60s and 70s it was heracy to even think, let alone believe that tendencies were inherited. Of course I do think that we then have to make a choice in our behaviour if our genetic traits are wildly anti-social, -but I think many of us have an illogical preference for the 'open side' and do not really know why!

Probably because, as you say, it implies less personal accountability for our behaviour; and the image of a little DNA character sitting inside with some a kind of remote control device infringes upon our sense of liberty.

Ellis wrote:

"Of course I do think that we then have to make a choice in our behaviour if our genetic traits are wildly anti-social".

I'm prepared to accept we are genetically programmed to co-operate, especially with those we know. We're programmed to be part of a tribe. Most antisocial traits are displayed in those who have been inadequately socialised as children, possibly at a specific time in their development.

Maybe there really is a Dog. But I will not be dogmatic about it

http://mail.google.com/mail/?attid=0.1&disp=inline&view=att&th=1126dcacdc223ac1

Terry- that is an excellent point about socialisation, but sometimes individuals have to make a choice. Sometimes this individual choice has to go against the majority, as their actions can be dangerous or just plain wrong. It's a hard thing to do, and most of us go woth the herd, or pack, and follow our leaders.

Terry wrote;
Most antisocial traits are displayed in those who have been inadequately socialised as children, possibly at a specific time in their development.

Whilst this statement is widely believed and social behaviour is usually predicated on this belief I feel that sometimes people can be born without the need for that sort of interaction, and find no difficulty in being anti-social even though the opportunity to act differently is also present, and will not disadvantage them. Even if such people are also highly intelligent and charming they can still be very destructive personally and socially.

Of course the difficulty lies in describing what inadequate socialisation is. We all know of people who seem to have had charmed lives who are greedy despots and people who had to endure childhoods of appalling cruelty and deprivation who achieve amazing personal and social success. That is why I find it hard to ignore a genetic component to behaviour and outcome.

Terry, when you think about it, that makes sense. Imagine how poorly we'd survive (when our social support systems weren't around at those critical times) if our behaviour didn't revert to a more animalistic, selfish, survival mode.

[or words to that effect]
I'm imagining a developing child, orphaned and trying to survive with those "socializing behaviours" as the ONLY option! It's probably a good thing that we have multi-modal developmental pathways for behaviour (overall in evolutionary history -and future), though it's kinda inconvenient these days.

~~SA

I am glad to see how open-minded this dialogue is. We need to keep in mind that words like "evangelism" and "gospel"--literally meaning 'good news'--and they are not dirty words.

Of course there are evangelists and preachers of gospel "truth" who practice bigotry--"My truth is the only truth" they say. But this does not mean that all are bigots.

We need to keep in mind the words of Einstein:"



http://www.einsteinandreligion.com/atheism.html

Sam- I think that usually survival demands conformity. The further down the pecking order a person is the more necessary it is for them to aquire camouflage! The cult of the individual is an indulgence of the privileged. Most human changes (whether good or evil) have been instigated by people who do not live by the rules of their society, and mostly we do not like them at all! We cannot even agree what to call them-- after all, one man's terrorist is another man's freedom fighter.

IMHO, no one who takes away, outside the rule of law, the freedom of another to live is a "freedom" fighter.

Revlgking wrote:

"no one who takes away, outside the rule of law, the freedom of another to live is a "freedom" fighter."

What if the laws have been devised to advantage just a small proportion of the society? No Rev. I agree with Ellis. One man's terrorist is another man's freedom fighter. Sometimes the situation is so bleak that extreme action is called for. There was an article in a recent BBC "History" magazine comparing suffragettes with terrorists. Did you know they used bombs?

I gotta agree. I was suprised to find out that only about a third of the American colonist wanted to break away from England. The 'Founding Fathers' and other revolutionaries would be know as terrorists today if France (and luck) hadn't helped us win.

...stretching to get BOT:
Let's see; is speaking out for a cause (freedom/justice fighter) similar to evangelising?


~SA

What? Did someone mention the Middle East?

There are plenty of examples--- for example the IRA being supported by donations from the US- blowing up the CBD in Manchester, the resistance in France blowing up "The Germans", Nelson Mandela imprisoned as a terrorist, and today--we have to find a new way to describe the people in Iraq throwing bombs at the coalition forces because of the difficult question--Is it possible to be a terrorist in your own country? -so now they are insurgents!

To (mis)quote a cliche--History is written by the victors.

Ah. My relations, the IRA. Seems anything is possible after what's happened there recently.