Welcome to
Science a GoGo's
Discussion Forums
Please keep your postings on-topic or they will be moved to a galaxy far, far away.
Your use of this forum indicates your agreement to our terms of use.
So that we remain spam-free, please note that all posts by new users are moderated.


The Forums
General Science Talk        Not-Quite-Science        Climate Change Discussion        Physics Forum        Science Fiction

Who's Online Now
0 members (), 181 guests, and 2 robots.
Key: Admin, Global Mod, Mod
Latest Posts
Top Posters(30 Days)
Previous Thread
Next Thread
Print Thread
Page 7 of 35 1 2 5 6 7 8 9 34 35
Kate #17805 01/22/07 11:53 AM
Joined: Jan 2007
Posts: 2,311
Megastar
Offline
Megastar
Joined: Jan 2007
Posts: 2,311
Thank you Kate for writing
Originally Posted By: Kate
This thread looks like it's in the right place... Hope that clarifies things for those debating the worthiness of this thread.
Spoken like someone who knows what it means to be a 'moderator'--one who not only chairs, but who mediates. Moderators are not 'censors'.

Interestingly, even in physics there are moderators. For example, graphite can be used in a reactor to slow down nuclear fission.

BTW, the head of of the United Church of Canada--and other democratically-governed churches--is called The Moderator, and can be male or female. Moderators are not the infallible sources of truth.


G~O~D--Now & ForeverIS:Nature, Nurture & PNEUMA-ture, Thanks to Warren Farr&ME AT www.unitheist.org
.
Joined: Jan 2007
Posts: 2,311
Megastar
Offline
Megastar
Joined: Jan 2007
Posts: 2,311
Originally Posted By: TheFallibleFiend
Originally Posted By: Revlgking
If you will accept my right to define GOD as I understand GOD to be, I can prove that GOD is.


"This is the start of a common line of poor reasoning..."

Poor reasoning, is it? Since when is it poor reasoning to try and establish and understand what it is that we are talking about. Have you ever heard the joke about the W.C.--the British short-form for water-closet, or toilette?

There is funny essay in which a writer uses this short-form to describe a public W.C. out in the country. Read this essay in front of Brits and Canadians and every sentence will probably get laughs. The biggest laugh usually comes at the end, when the reader announces that he is talking about a Wayside Chapel.

What scientist worth his test tubes and beakers would waste his time researching something if he had no idea of what it is he is looking for. A good theory, like a rational faith must be based on a concept, or an idea, of what could possibly be true.

By the way, I am not a traditional theist because I cannot accept what many theists presume to be true. For example, I do not believe that there is a God who is an objective and man-like being who exists separate and apart from us in some place called Heaven.

Quote:
The writer then defines God as a thing whose existence could hardly be questioned by anyone, and then goes on to suggest that this object which obviously exists has all of the qualities of a God that is defined in some other way.
Nonsense! I object when this kind of spin is put on my words.

This is not what I have in mind when I write GOD--GOD, for me, is not JUST the sum of all things, unless this includes that metaphysical, spiritual, something which interpenetrates and surrounds all things.

More spin
Quote:
There's another form of poor reasoning that goes: such and such was a famous scientist and he believed in God; therefore, God is a scientific concept.


Quote:
There are many places on the net to promote religion...
I am not interested in promoting any one kind of religion. I am calling for ongoing research as to the nature and function of religions, theologies, etc. If objective research finds that religion is of little or no value--some argue that all religions are evil--I am all in favour of finding out, one way or the other. Let the facts tell us what is socially valuable and useful.



Last edited by Revlgking; 01/22/07 05:24 PM.

G~O~D--Now & ForeverIS:Nature, Nurture & PNEUMA-ture, Thanks to Warren Farr&ME AT www.unitheist.org
Joined: Jun 2005
Posts: 1,940
T
Megastar
Offline
Megastar
T
Joined: Jun 2005
Posts: 1,940

Rev: "What scientist worth his test tubes and beakers would waste his time researching something if he had no idea of what it is he is looking for. A good theory, like a rational faith must be based on a concept, or an idea, of what could possibly be true."

1. God is not a subject that is subject to scientific investigation. Anyone who says otherwise is selling snake oil.

2. More to the point, the logical error is not in the defining - it's in the logically unjustifiable extension of properties that invariably follows.


Rev: "Nonsense! I object when this kind of spin is put on my words. "

If God is just the sum total of all physical laws (or some variant of that), then why use such a laden term like "god" to describe it.

"This is not what I have in mind when I write GOD--GOD, for me, is not JUST the sum of all things, unless this includes that metaphysical, spiritual, something which interpenetrates and surrounds all things."

Science can't do metaphysical or spiritual. Already you're putting more into your concept of God than what is warranted.


"I am not interested in promoting any one kind of religion."
I didn't say you were promoting any one kind of religion. I hinted that you were promoting "religion" and not "science." Full stop.

"I am calling for ongoing research as to the nature and function of religions, theologies, etc."
There is a branch of science that researches beliefs. It's called psychology. It studies, among other things, why people believe irrational things. However, no branch of science can study what is not a part of nature. Science doesn't do the supernatural. If, as you suggest, god is some spiritual thing, then God is beyond what science can handle. That why we have philosophers - for people who are not satisfied with science.

"If objective research finds that religion is of little or no value"
The question of whether religion has value is entirely different from the question of whether it is scientific or whether it is true.

"--some argue that all religions are evil--I am all in favour of finding out, one way or the other. Let the facts tell us what is socially valuable and useful."
Socially valuable is not the same thing as scientific.


Joined: Oct 2004
Posts: 4,136
D
Megastar
Offline
Megastar
D
Joined: Oct 2004
Posts: 4,136
Revlgking you are truly an amazing creature. You attempt to engage in a discussion of a topic upon which you seem totally ignorant of either fact or theory.

You wrote:
"will accept my right to define GOD as I understand GOD to be, I can prove that GOD is."

And if you will accept my right to do so then I can prove that god is an invisible purple rhinoceros. Or that water ice doesn't melt at zero degrees celsius. Or that soccer is the most popular sport in the US. Or anything else I wish.

For you to propose that we use your definition demonstrates either a lack of critical thinking skills or a willful and wanton disregard for intellectual integrity. Which is it?


DA Morgan
Joined: Jan 2007
Posts: 2,311
Megastar
Offline
Megastar
Joined: Jan 2007
Posts: 2,311
Originally Posted By: DA Morgan
Revlgking you are truly an amazing creature.
Thank you! as is each creature of
G?D.

Quote:
You (LGK) attempt to engage in a discussion of a topic upon which you seem totally ignorant of either fact or theory.
I am unaware of ever having met you, or of ever having being your student. What makes you think that you really know well enough to be so...???? smile

Quote:
And if you will accept my (DAM) right to do so then I can prove that god is an invisible purple rhinoceros....
Of course you have the right to define your concept of god. I think you mentioned "His" name, even before I arrived. Now, have PR give me a call. Perhaps we will have a nice chat.

Quote:
For you (LGK) to propose that we use your definition demonstrates either a lack of critical thinking skills or a willful and wanton disregard for intellectual integrity.


I proposed no such nonsense. If you wish to judge my integrity, the choice is your. My definition is my definition. Yours is yours. If you get my drift.

BTW, if you wish to play the my-argument-ad-hominem is better than your AAH--I presume you know the meaning of the term--we are off topic, here.

To conclude this point, if you wish to start an AAH game, I am all in favour of it. We COULD have a little fun. Now open a new thread. But you will have to agree to tell us your life-story and I agree to do the same. I, for one, am very interested, and I have many questions. laugh laugh

Last edited by Revlgking; 01/22/07 10:54 PM.

G~O~D--Now & ForeverIS:Nature, Nurture & PNEUMA-ture, Thanks to Warren Farr&ME AT www.unitheist.org
Joined: Oct 2004
Posts: 4,136
D
Megastar
Offline
Megastar
D
Joined: Oct 2004
Posts: 4,136
Revlgking wrote:
"My definition is my definition"

Wonderful. But my definition is an invisible purple rhinoceros so I am both as correct as you and as incorrect as you and thus nothing of substance is proven.

Now I realize the fact that this is a science forum, where people use critical thinking skills rather than just accepting the gibberish d'jour may be unusual for you, but please try to abide by the scientific method while here instead of pontification.

Here is the scientific method:
http://teacher.pas.rochester.edu/phy_labs/AppendixE/AppendixE.html

Which part of what you just read allows you to have a personal definition?

If you want to discuss religion I'll gladly do so as Kate seems to be willing to tolerate such nonsense. But if you are going to use words like "prove" then I intend to hold you to a standard of integrity that likely is foreign to the pulpit.


DA Morgan
Joined: Jan 2007
Posts: 2,311
Megastar
Offline
Megastar
Joined: Jan 2007
Posts: 2,311
DAM, having made a small revision to my last post, I move on after reading your last post.

BTW, after I was ordained, in 1953, my wife and I (both 23)spent some time in the north, Labrador. Then I got a scholarship to Boston University.

Having spent some time at Boston University, in the mid 1950's, doing some postgraduate studies in epistemology--dealing with the origins, nature and limits of knowledge--right up front I affirm my faith in the value of scientific enquiry: I am 100% in favour of the scientific method, whenever it can be appropriately applied.

Even back then, I came the same conclusion which is made in the Site which you give us--thanks, BTW--:
Quote:
VI. Conclusion

The scientific method is intricately associated with science, the process of human inquiry that pervades the modern era on many levels....


G~O~D--Now & ForeverIS:Nature, Nurture & PNEUMA-ture, Thanks to Warren Farr&ME AT www.unitheist.org
Joined: Jun 2005
Posts: 1,940
T
Megastar
Offline
Megastar
T
Joined: Jun 2005
Posts: 1,940
I find myself continually irritated by the poor excuse for teaching for which my taxes are paying. One area that is particularly weak, IMO, is evolution education. Another is philosophy of science. However, last year during a visit to my (then) 7th grader's life science classroom, I saw printed in big letters a sign that read:

"Science isn't about what you can prove. It's about what you can disprove."

My gosh! A teacher who actually gets it. Furthermore, my eldest (now 17), has said she learnt the same thing in 7th grade. I have several issues with the science program at my kids' school. But generally, I think they're on track - much better than some of the other programs at the school.


Joined: Aug 2006
Posts: 192
T
Tim Offline OP
Senior Member
OP Offline
Senior Member
T
Joined: Aug 2006
Posts: 192
Explain that, FF
i want to know what you mean by that,
because i seem to beleive it, but im not sure
that science is about what you can disprove

Tim #17820 01/23/07 01:34 AM
Joined: Oct 2004
Posts: 4,136
D
Megastar
Offline
Megastar
D
Joined: Oct 2004
Posts: 4,136
I'm not sure I can agree with what IFF wrote but I do understand the point-of-view.

It is impossible to prove that the invisible purple rhinoceros doesn't exist. And I'm not sure I would want to prove that water boils at 100 degrees Celsius by proving that it doesn't boil at any other temperature between absolute zero and infinite.

Science, and proof, are about verifiability. Let me give you an example I've used here before.

Lets put an atheist, an agnostic, an animist, a Shia Moslem, a Sunni Moslem, a Buddhist, a Roman Catholic, a Lutheran, an Orthodox Jew, and a member of Scientology in a room (not to exclude any other theology).

Now can you get them to agree that Jesus Christ is part of a trinity? Not a prayer? How about that the Old Testament story of Noah is true? Not without a loaded firearm. How about that the universe was created in 7 days or that Jesus died on a cross? Zero, nada, zilch, nyet.

Can I get the same group to agree that water boils at 100 degrees Celsius? You betcha. And that is science!

One is objectively verifiable the other is mythology.

Last edited by DA Morgan; 01/23/07 01:35 AM.

DA Morgan
Tim #17821 01/23/07 01:39 AM
Joined: Aug 2006
Posts: 1,031
T
Megastar
Offline
Megastar
T
Joined: Aug 2006
Posts: 1,031
Tim. Science is about what we can't prove because it's nearly impossible to actually prove anything. People argue over whether it's possible to prove you're actually even here. Scientifically, therefore, it is really only possible for us to prove no such thing as a god exists, however we might define that.

Joined: Jun 2005
Posts: 1,940
T
Megastar
Offline
Megastar
T
Joined: Jun 2005
Posts: 1,940
Science is about what you can disprove, not what you can prove.

In order for a general theory to be scientific, it must be amenable to the scientific method. This means that it must generate hypotheses which could hypothetically prove that the theory is false, IF IT TRULY IS FALSE.

Google the term falsificationism and popper and ignore any nonsense you find on a creationism or ID site, because they get it wrong. The evolutionists get it right, but ignore them too. Instead, try to get it from a philosophy of science site.
(And not some religious site masquerading as a science site.)

No amount of evidence can prove that a general theory is true - which is to say that no amount of evidence can prove induction. (Bear in mind that what you might have learned as "method of induction" in algebra really isn't induction - try not to get confused here. I know the terms are a little messed up.)

Example, no matter how many times you see a crow that turns out to be black, that does not disprove the existence of white crows. However, the existence of only black crows is not really a theory with a lot of predictive power. That theory is too specific.

However, there are theories that are pretty general. For example, the theory of gravity (not to be confused with the fact of gravity) is pretty general. We can easily generate hypotheses from this theory that might disprove it, if it weren't true.


Joined: Jan 2007
Posts: 2,311
Megastar
Offline
Megastar
Joined: Jan 2007
Posts: 2,311
G?D=ALL SCIENCE, ALL PHILOSOPHY AND ALL ART
Certain truths are self-evident
=============================================
G?D IN THE SCIENCES
Somatologically, that, is physically speaking, I am getting to know and experience God with every physical sense I possess. As we invent better and better technologies I will get to know God in physical nature, including space, better. I leave this in the hands of the many moral and ethical people of science. This is the physical universe which scientists, bless them all, explore daily. I experience God with every breath I take. No wonder our word 'spirit' in the languages of the Bible is the same as air, wind and breath.

G?D IN PHILOSOPHY
Philosophically and psychologically, that is mentally speaking, I know God with my mind, intellect and every thought I think. The older I grow, the more I learn, and the more I experience of God in this mental sense. I love philosophy and its children, pneumatology and psychology, especially in its humanistic form.

Theologians speak of God in the awe-filled imminent-being sense of the word--as acknowledged by great scientists like Newton, Einstein and Hawking, Tesla, Edison, Suzuki and many others--male and female.

G?D AS TRANSCENDENT BEING
Best of all, IMHO, I know God pneumatologically, spiritually--that is, God beyond measurement or proof. God, in this sense is ineffable.

As finite beings, even our top scientists admit that human beings can't measure the infinity of space, or the eternity of time--the cosmos, omnipotence, omniscience, omnipresence, but we can have a strong feeling that it is there and, at the same time in every atom of our physical being.

Just as the universe is governed, physically, by physical laws, I believe that there are moral and ethical laws which govern us mentally and spiritually. Getting to know these laws and learning how to live by them will make all the difference whether or not the future will be a hell, or a heaven.

And by the way, I happen to believe that death is THE GREAT illusion, which true science will, eventually, help us to overcome. More on my opion of death, later.


G~O~D--Now & ForeverIS:Nature, Nurture & PNEUMA-ture, Thanks to Warren Farr&ME AT www.unitheist.org
Joined: Jan 2007
Posts: 2,311
Megastar
Offline
Megastar
Joined: Jan 2007
Posts: 2,311
Here's a thought: Anything that is self-evident and true can be rejected; but it cannot be denied without consequences.

For example, life itself. Stop breathing and the consequence is physical death; stop thinking and the mind will die; stop having faith and hope, and stop being loving, so will the spirit. The old addage is true: if you stop using it, you will lose it.


G~O~D--Now & ForeverIS:Nature, Nurture & PNEUMA-ture, Thanks to Warren Farr&ME AT www.unitheist.org
Joined: Aug 2006
Posts: 1,031
T
Megastar
Offline
Megastar
T
Joined: Aug 2006
Posts: 1,031
Revlgking wrote:

"Somatologically, that, is physically speaking, I am getting to know and experience God with every physical sense I possess."

Yes. I've smoked stuff that gives me that feeling as well.

Joined: Jan 2007
Posts: 2,311
Megastar
Offline
Megastar
Joined: Jan 2007
Posts: 2,311
Originally Posted By: terrytnewzealand
Revlgking wrote:
...Yes. I've smoked stuff that gives me that feeling as well.
Dare I suggest it: If you're not joking, keep on smoking smile But watch out for the carbon monoxide, etc.

But seriously, some people can get high simply pondering the awesome nature of things.

BTW, this brings up the whole question of religion and addictions. To what extent is smoking, drinking, whatever, sins against God and humanity? Mormons even eschew, avoid, coffee and tea. I certainly agree that, psychologically, religion can be addictive.

Currently, I take a drink or two a day, not to get high, but the opposite: I take a drink--usually a gin, or a wine--to relax, to come down, as it were. If I ever find myself getting addicted to the point of having to have it, constantly, I pray that I will have the moral strength to kick the habit as I did pipe and cigar smoking.

NOW, LET ME TELL YOU ABOUT MY ADDICTION
When I was growing up--in the thirties, and forties--smoking, at it worst, was just considered a dirty habit and manly habit. Non-smokers, mostly women, were rare. My sisters and mother didn't smoke. It was only considered a sin by certain of the smaller religions like the Salvation Army, the Mormons and the Pentecostals.

The mainline religions did not preach about "demon rum" or the sin of smoking, as long as it was done in moderation. Even some clergy in the mainline churches smoked and drank. Later, in life, I worked with a senior colleague who smoked the pipe, and he was raised in the Salvation Army. He told me, half serious: "I left it so I could smoke without sinning".

My father smoked the pipe, and all my older brothers smoked home-mades.

After all, even doctors and nurses smoked, especially in the movies. And the movie stars. Humphrey Bogart, in most of his movies, was never without a cigarette in his hand. The tobacco companies recruited actors, doctors, nurses and other scientifically trained professionals as part of their advertising programs.

Looking back, I am amazed that it wasn't until I was in my thirties that I actually took up the habit. Feeling the need to do something to relax me, I took up smoking the pipe, and cigars. I believed what I saw in the movies; I believed the advertising that smoking was the relaxing and cool thing to do. And, after all, the Bible did not condemn it, so it must be okay with God, right?

At the time, I had the idea that the tobacco industry was just another industry doing honest business. It never occurred to me that the owners of the tobacco industry--they are all probably all very addicted to wealth and power--who, even when they became aware of the dangers of smoking, were willing to sell poison, if necessary, in order to get wealth and power.

Boy! did I ever find out what a pack of lies it was that they told about the "relaxing" habit of smoking. Smoking did not relax me, it addicted me. As time went by I had a feeling that it was actually affecting my health.

It was around that time that certain serious, moral and ethical scientists began to blow the whistle on what tobacco smoke was actually doing to public health; and that it was killing people. They were condemned, at first, as alarmists given to preaching nonsense.

One of the things that really inspired me to look into the science of what inhaling smoke does to the lungs and the body was the way it affected my young daughter's health. Her doptors at Sick Childrens' Hospital daignosed that she was extremely allergic to tobacco smoke, among other things. It, and other things, almost killed her.

Quite a story about how she got well. Because of this, even though it wasn't easy for me, I decided to quit smoking. With the consent of my GP, on myself and my daughter, I used what I call PNEUMATHERAPY--a prayer-like form of self-hypnosis without the hocus pocus associated with the stage brand of hypnosis.

Looking back, I Thank GOD I did not get addicted to cigarettes, which addiction. I understand, is a most difficult addiction to quit.

So here is the point of my sermon: Even when serious scientists demonstrated the deadly effect that tobacco smoke has on all people who inhale it, the wealthy and powerful heads of the tobacco industry campaigned, with the help of their "scientists", against any ban on smoking.

They fervently preached that, in moderation, tobacco does no real harm and only provides many people with much pleasure. And look at the employment it creates, and the money we give to sports and the arts. So "what's the problem?" they pleaded. Let us get on with our honest business.

One final point here: In the light of this, if we have a problem believing in gods we need have no problem believing in devils--people who are willing to make, sell and do anything for personal gain, regardless of who gets hurt, or even killed.

Maybe we should think about this and--using the sciences--take as sharp look at many of the things we do to one another in our search for wealth and power.

For example, How about the looking, scientifically, into our food, energy transportation and WAR industries with the same kind of moral and ethical concern?

How many other human beings are we--the wealthy and powerful few of the world--willing to keep in poverty and bad health, and destroy in war, in order to maintain our wealth and power?

To paraphrase the Christian and Russian writer, Dostoevsky: http://people.brandeis.edu/~teuber/dostoevskybio.html
Food, health and wealth for myself is a physical question; but food, health and wealth for my fellow human beings in all the earth is a spiritual (religious) moral and ethical one.

Think about it.



Last edited by Revlgking; 01/23/07 04:03 PM.

G~O~D--Now & ForeverIS:Nature, Nurture & PNEUMA-ture, Thanks to Warren Farr&ME AT www.unitheist.org
Joined: Jun 2005
Posts: 1,940
T
Megastar
Offline
Megastar
T
Joined: Jun 2005
Posts: 1,940

This post is a personal testimony. It's not evidence of a God. Given that god possesses all of the physical qualities you ascribe to it, there is no reason whatever to believe that it possesses spiritual, or unworldly qualities.

Let me be clear: I acknowledge "spiritual" as an emotional state. That's not the same thing as acknowledging a "spiritual world."
Even though I acknowledge "spiritual" in the aforementioned sense, I do not like the term, because of the baggage that it carries.

'Even when serious scienctists demonstrated the deadly effect tobacco smoke has on all people who inhale it, the wealthy and powerful heads of the tobacco industry campaigned, with the help of their "scientists", against any ban on smoking. '

Yes, there are entities who abuse science. Thankfully, the entities you mention are mere corporations and not religious agencies. Otherwise, it would have taken far longer to extricate ourselves from the quagmire.

Here's the thing with science: it's not necessarily about "The Truth." That's not to say there isn't any truth in science. That is to say that for much of science, our knowledge is approximate. The central purpose of The Method and The Philosophy of Science is error-recovery. Eventually, the real science won out. And you may say, "BUT IT TOOK DECADES!" to which I reply, "Yes. It ONLY took decades!"

Man is essentially a creative animal. We are pattern-matchers and pattern discoverers and pattern creators. Creativity is an essential part of humanity - and an essential part of science. But it's not the ONLY part of science. We generate theories (and hypotheses) - and then we test them.

"Maybe we should think about this and--using the sciences--take as sharp look at many of the things we do to one another in our search for wealth and power."

With preordained conclusions? One of the things that good scientists need to do is not tint their findings by social concerns. By this I mean, they should not state their findings more powerfully than what is warranted by the evidence. That's not to say that science should ignore social concerns - or that there aren't already scientists who are doing a poor job: creating socially relevant, but essentially incorrect science. It just means that it's going to take us a lot longer to sort things out in the long run.

That is not to say, while I am an atheist, that I think an atheist world is a better one. That is not a question about science, though. I promote a non-theistic science, not an atheist world. In fact, non-theistic science is a redundancy.

Joined: Oct 2005
Posts: 901
B
Superstar
Offline
Superstar
B
Joined: Oct 2005
Posts: 901
Originally Posted By: TheFallibleFiend

Yes, there are entities who abuse science. Thankfully, the entities you mention are mere corporations and not religious agencies. Otherwise, it would have taken far longer to extricate ourselves from the quagmire.

With preordained conclusions? One of the things that good scientists need to do is not tint their findings by social concerns..


I used to think that scientists were impartial and would simply go where the evidence leads them. I placed them in direct contrast to politicians who will distort and bend the truth as it suits their needs. The 'scientific discipline', I thought, is a wonderful, logical, unemotional endeavor, and I admired it.

I have to say that the more I now read about science, the less I believe this.

Example:

"And if it is worse? Would junior scientists feel compelled to mute their findings, out of concern for their careers, if the research contradicts the climate change consensus?

"I can understand how a scientist without tenure can feel the community pressures," says environmental scientist Roger Pielke Jr., a colleague of Vranes' at the University of Colorado.

Pielke says he has felt pressure from his peers: A prominent scientist angrily accused him of being a skeptic, and a scientific journal editor asked him to "dampen" the message of a peer-reviewed paper to derail skeptics and business interests.

"The case for action on climate science, both for energy policy and adaptation, is overwhelming," Pielke says. "But if we oversell the science, our credibility is at stake."

Full story:

http://www.chron.com/disp/story.mpl/front/4487421.html

Blacknad.

Last edited by Blacknad; 01/23/07 05:01 PM.
Joined: Jan 2007
Posts: 2,311
Megastar
Offline
Megastar
Joined: Jan 2007
Posts: 2,311
http://www.theglobeandmail.com/

The following from today's THE GLOBE AND MAIL--Canada's national daily sums up the problem we are talking about, above:

"The very powerful and the very stupid have one thing in common. [I LGK presume that we could add: and the very bright.] They don't alter their views to fit the facts. They alter the facts to fit their views, which can be very uncomfortable if you happen to be one of the facts that need altering." -- Doctor Who, suggested by reader Yves Saint-Cyr
http://www.theglobeandmail.com/socialstudies
MKesterton@globeandmail.com

By the way, I happen to believe and am hopeful that moral, ethical, and loving scientists, in cooperation with rational and scientific philosophers and theologians, are capable of creating the kind of world we all need. I also have some suggestions.

Keep in mind that the root meaning of the word 'devil'--from it we get diabolic, diameter, divide--is, literally, that which splits and/or divides us from ourselves and from one another.

BTW 2: In reading all of the above we need to be careful not to over generalize. It tends to split us into opposing camps--we against them.


Last edited by Revlgking; 01/23/07 05:50 PM.

G~O~D--Now & ForeverIS:Nature, Nurture & PNEUMA-ture, Thanks to Warren Farr&ME AT www.unitheist.org
Joined: Jun 2005
Posts: 1,940
T
Megastar
Offline
Megastar
T
Joined: Jun 2005
Posts: 1,940
"I used to think that scientists were impartial "

I've never held that view. However, I've always believed - and still do - that good scientists do try to put their personal feelings on the back burner, but none of us fails to be influenced by the world around us. We do not cease to be human beings when we go about our jobs and daily lives. The fact that we are imperfect is no reason to throw out the attempt at integrity.

To move it to a different realm -
Just because some catholic priests rape children, doesn't mean they all do.

Just because Jimmy Swaggert and Jim Baker had affairs doesn't mean that faithfulness is not a virtue.


Page 7 of 35 1 2 5 6 7 8 9 34 35

Link Copied to Clipboard
Newest Members
debbieevans, bkhj, jackk, Johnmattison, RacerGT
865 Registered Users
Sponsor

Science a GoGo's Home Page | Terms of Use | Privacy Policy | Contact UsokÂþ»­¾W
Features | News | Books | Physics | Space | Climate Change | Health | Technology | Natural World

Copyright © 1998 - 2016 Science a GoGo and its licensors. All rights reserved.

Powered by UBB.threads™ PHP Forum Software 7.7.5