“There are few things in American politics more irrationally ideological, more fanatically faith-based, than the accusation that Republicans are conducting a ‘war on science,’†wrote Michael Gerson of the Council on Foreign Relations. Gerson claims that this accusation is a political ploy aimed at shutting down debate. “Any practical concern about the content of government sex-education curricula is labeled ‘anti-science,’†he wrote. “Any ethical question about the destruction of human embryos to harvest their cells is dismissed as ‘theological’ and thus illegitimate.†No doubt this happens some, and the “war on science†rhetoric can be hyperbolic. On the other hand, there are plenty of scientists at the EPA and elsewhere who have complained about the Bush administration watering down or ignoring science for ideological purposes.
204 Comments
The Epa scientists (term being used loosely} leave much to be desired when it comes to truth.
Please read the attached article.
http://jewishworldreview.com/cols/williams050708.php3
Many of the groups below including the Mexican government advocate for open borders and “social justice.” All are aggressive in their lobbying efforts to provide illegal immigrants a path to citizenship.
They will succeed in their quest unless we actively stand up to them in
Congress, state legislatures and governments at all levels.
The Mexican Government | American Civil Liberties Union | National Council of La Raza
Mexican American Legal Defense and Education Fund | Service Employees International Union (SEUI)
National Alliance for Immigrant Rights | American Immigrant Lawyers Foundation
U.S. Chamber of Commerce | Mexica Movement | El Comite Pro Amnistia
American Friends Service Committee and hundreds of
additional groups working against our nation’s best interests.
This is just one of the many issues associated with uncontrolled immigration that we work on daily. I hope you will help us spread the word.
“Is the war on science phony?” Obviously the guy hasn’t lived through EvoWars I & II here in Kansas. And he hasn’t seen the propaganda piece “Expelled,” more accurately described by its subtitle: “No Intelligence Allowed.”
Gerson goes down the ‘values’ rabbit trail, completely ignoring evolution, climate change and the dozens of cases of science silenced by this administration. Gerson also ignores the hundreds of government scientists who complain of political interference.
It hasn’t just been the EPA scientists who’ve been silenced. NOAA, the CDC, NASA, and the FDA have all been subjected to censorship by this administration when the data yielded results the Bushies didn’t like.
Rather like how Stalin purged Darwin’s ideas in favor of Lysenkoism. Hopefully the Bushies’ policies won’t go that far and let millions die as a result.
Phillip, did you stop reading the blog? I think the war on science is obvious.
Lets call it the war on logic.
The problem now days is not if we are in a phony war on science, rather, can we win the war on phony science.
The left uses science as a political weapon and finances only those projects that are politically correct.
What science causes this?
http://www.savebiogems.org/images/polar/map.gif
Environmentalists Still Can’t Get It Right
By WALTER E. WILLIAMS
Now that another Earth Day has come and gone, let’s look at some environmentalist predictions they would prefer we forget. At the first Earth Day celebration, in 1969, environmentalist Nigel Calder warned, “The threat of a new ice age must now stand alongside nuclear war as a likely source of wholesale death and misery for mankind.” C.C. Wallen of the World Meteorological Organization said, “The cooling since 1940 has been large enough and consistent enough that it will not soon be reversed.”
In 1968, professor Paul Ehrlich, former Vice President Al Gore’s hero and mentor, predicted that there would be a major food shortage in the U.S. and “in the 1970s . . . hundreds of millions of people are going to starve to death.” Ehrlich forecast that 65 million Americans would die of starvation between 1980 and 1989, and that by 1999 the U.S. population would have declined to 22.6 million. Ehrlich’s predictions about England were gloomier: “If I were a gambler, I would take even money that England will not exist in the year 2000.”
In 1972, a report was written for the Club of Rome warning that the world would run out of gold by 1981, mercury and silver by 1985, tin by 1987 and petroleum, copper, lead and natural gas by 1992. Gordon Taylor, in his 1970 book “The Doomsday Book,” said Americans were using 50% of the world’s resources and “by 2000 they (Americans) will, if permitted, be using all of them.”
In 1975, the Environmental Fund took out full-page ads warning, “The World as we know it will likely be ruined by the year 2000.” Harvard biologist George Wald in 1970 warned, “Civilization will end within 15 or 30 years unless immediate action is taken against problems facing mankind.” That was the same year that Sen. Gaylord Nelson warned, in Look magazine, that by 1995 “somewhere between 75% and 85% of all the species of living animals will be extinct.”
It’s not just latter-day doomsayers who have been wrong; doomsayers have always been wrong. In 1885, the U.S. Geological Survey announced that there was “little or no chance” of oil being discovered in California, and a few years later they said the same about Kansas and Texas.
In 1939, the U.S. Department of the Interior said American oil supplies would last only another 13 years. In 1949, the secretary of the interior said the end of U.S. oil supplies was in sight. Having learned nothing from its earlier erroneous claims, in 1974 the U.S. Geological Survey advised us that the U.S. had only a 10-year supply of natural gas. The fact of the matter, according to the American Gas Association: There’s a 1,000- to 2,500- year supply.
Here are my questions:
In 1970, when environmentalists were making predictions of man-made global cooling and the threat of an ice age and millions of Americans starving to death, what kind of government policy should we have undertaken to prevent such a calamity?
When Ehrlich predicted that England would not exist in the year 2000, what steps should the British Parliament have taken in 1970 to prevent such a dire outcome?
In 1939, when the Department of the Interior warned that we only had oil supplies for another 13 years, what actions should President Roosevelt have taken?
Finally, what makes us think that environmental alarmism is any more correct now that they have switched their tune to man-made global warming?
Here are a few facts:
More than 95% of the greenhouse effect is the result of water vapor in Earth’s atmosphere. Without the greenhouse effect, Earth’s average temperature would be zero degrees Fahrenheit.
Most climate change is a result of the orbital eccentricities of Earth and variations in the sun’s output. On top of that, natural wetlands produce more greenhouse-gas contributions annually than all human sources combined.
The war on science is as real as the days is long. We are in the age of Scopes again where the religious nutcases and their nutty leader GW Bush have declared WAR on science. They have fought science on every front including evolution, stem cells, medical research, development of more effective birth control, genetics and on and on. Hopefully President Obama will end the war on science and we can more forward as a nation again!
Same old, same old: Yet another flatulent political flack attacking the processes of science for nakedly political reasons. Is anyone surprised by his credentials?:
Michael John Gerson (born May 15, 1964, New Jersey) is an Evangelical Christian[1] op-ed columnist for The Washington Post and a senior fellow at the Council on Foreign Relations.[2] He served as President George W. Bush’s chief speechwriter from 2001 until June 2006, and as a senior policy advisor from 2000 through June 2006. A member of the White House Iraq Group,[3] Gerson was called “the conscience of the White House” by some admirers.[4]
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Michael_Gerson
What makes this even better is that his own example–stem-cell research–is refuted by the cold reality of what actually was done:
Former Surgeon General Richard Carmona on Tuesday in a hearing with the House Committee on Oversight and Government Reform said the Bush administration routinely blocked him from speaking out or issuing reports on human embryonic stem cell research, abstinence-only sex education, emergency contraception and other sensitive public health issues while he was serving in the position, the Washington Post reports.
. . .more. . .
He said the administration often edited his speeches for politically controversial content and encouraged him to attend internal “political pep rallies,” the Wall Street Journal reports (Meckler, Wall Street Journal, 7/11). In addition, Carmona said he was required to mention Bush three times on every page of his speeches and was asked to make speeches to promote Republican political candidates, the New York Times reports. Carmona did not disclose the names of the administration officials who pressured him to support a political agenda over a scientific one. However, he said the officials included assistant HHS secretaries and top political appointees outside the department (Harris, New York Times, 7/11).
“Anything that doesn’t fit into the political appointees’ ideological, theological or political agenda is often ignored, marginalized or simply buried,” Carmona said. “The problem with this approach is that in public health, as in a democracy, there is nothing worse than ignoring science or marginalizing the voice of science for reasons driven by changing political winds,” he added.
http://www.medicalnewstoday.com/articles/76600.php
“Lets call it the war on logic” — p.m.
Pardon me, but how would you know?
Walter Williams?
Is that the same Walter Williams big house black man who sits in for Neal Boortz and brags on abusing his wife?
Yup it is.
Ewww. I’ve heard him often. What a despicable creep.
This is a guy who brags that he gets his wife things like sewer augers for her birthday.
This must be phony science too. The great war on terror would not be fought with such demonic weapons.
Depleted uranium-catalyzed oxidative DNA damage: absence of significant alpha particle decay.
Miller AC, Stewart M, Brooks K, Shi L, Page N.
Applied Cellular Radiobiology Department, Armed Forces Radiobiology Research Institute, 8901 Wisconsin Ave., Bethesda, MD 20889-5603, USA. millera@mx.afrri.usuhs.mil
Depleted uranium (DU) is a dense heavy metal used primarily in military applications. Published data from our laboratory have demonstrated that DU exposure in vitro to immortalized human osteoblast cells (HOS) is both neoplastically transforming and genotoxic. DU possesses both a radiological (alpha particle) and a chemical (metal) component. Since DU has a low-specific activity in comparison to natural uranium, it is not considered to be a significant radiological hazard. In the current study we demonstrate that DU can generate oxidative DNA damage and can also catalyze reactions that induce hydroxyl radicals in the absence of significant alpha particle decay.
Experiments were conducted under conditions in which chemical generation of hydroxyl radicals was calculated to exceed the radiolytic generation by one million-fold.
The data showed that markers of oxidative DNA base damage, thymine glycol and 8-deoxyguanosine could be induced from DU-catalyzed reactions of hydrogen peroxide and ascorbate similarly to those occurring in the presence of iron catalysts. DU was 6-fold more efficient than iron at catalyzing the oxidation of ascorbate at pH 7. These data not only demonstrate that DU at pH 7 can induced oxidative DNA damage in the absence of significant alpha particle decay, but also suggest that DU can induce carcinogenic lesions, e.g. oxidative DNA lesions, through interaction with a cellular oxygen species.
There is a war on both science and religion going on, and it is going to affect us one way or another. Both sides are so locked into their beliefs, they fail to see there are many points that can be discussed in rational manners; that religious beliefs and science can coexist together without all this bs. But That ain’t going to happen until both sides decide to respect each other.
Mornin’ Hank (Cosmos ‘O da right!):-)
The term “War on Science” is a political term designed to label legitimate critics of some scientific conclusions.
The source of any controversy is not science, which is wonderful and has been responsible for most of humanity’s advances. But rather the interpretation of the evidence and conclusions by scientists in certain areas, some with an agenda unrelated to scientific truth. Their arguably biased interpretation of the evidence makes it more opinion than science.
And I don’t think that it is debatable that some scientists have an agenda.
Good morning JM,
How ya been doin’?
Walker, with all due respect, what is this “war on religion”? Yeah, I’ve heard of Chris Mooney’s other book :), “I Don’t Believe In Atheists“, but it seems to me that he’s making much hay over a handful of cranky atheists shouting in the wilderness. I base that upon an interview wherein he complains at length about Christopher Hitchens (who is an insufferable ass–that’s not new), and a few other people, but doesn’t point to any mass movement, let alone a “war on religion” (and to be fair, I don’t think Mooney was claiming that either).
Please enlighten me.
Everyone complains about GW not following the time line, let’s see how Christians are doing with their predictions.
http://www.religioustolerance.org/end_wrld.htm#past
snip
For many centuries, people have been predicting the year, month and sometimes day when:
bullet A violent and sudden end would terminate all life on earth;
bullet Major social and political upheavals would occur around the world;
bullet The war of Armageddon would take place in the Middle East;
bullet God would pour horrendous wrath on most of humanity; and/or
bullet Christ would return in the second coming.
The prophesiers have almost always predicted that these horrendous events would happen in their own immediate future. All of these predictions share one factor: none have ever came true.
The year 2000 came and passed — a year that some considered very special, simply because it contained three zeros. A lot of people predicted that major events of cosmic proportion would happen. 3 But no massive events actually came to pass. There were the usual number of major earthquakes, civil disturbances, tornados, people of different religions trying to exterminate each other — but nothing of a cosmic or even world-wide nature.
Another element that is included in the alleged “War on Science” are efforts to inject morality into science. The embryonic stem cell and cloning areas are a good example, and an excellent demonstration of why there must be moral discussion and guidance for science outside of science.
“Science without religion is lame, religion without science is blind.” –Albert Einstein
Religion and religious people have no place in science.
Science is the pursuit of knowledge and truth. Religion suspends that and ascribes everything to some ever absent invisible old man in the sky.
The war on science is not phony. The war on science is stupid. Science will take care of itself regardless of anyone’s particular opinion.
#
HLP
Posted May 8, 2008 at 7:51 am | Permalink
Good morning JM,
How ya been doin’?
===============================================
I would like nothing better than to say okay. Be awhile before I either play golf, or pop a cap at some unsuspecting firing range target:-)
Rage, with all due respect, there is a war on religion going on. Just read past threads. If this small group can be as divisive as it is, then I would guess that, exponentially, it amounts to a undeclared war. Rather stupid when one thinks about it.
I think just about any War on anything is a phony.
“Is that the same Walter Williams big house black man…”
BlueJay
Posted May 8, 2008 at 7:23 am
You represent the Libs nicely. We have always known that you people are like this.
“Religion and religious people have no place in science.”
Darwinism is a religion based on faith and should be labeled as such.
Using Darwinisitic naturalism, explain the natural phenomenon for how life arrived on this planet?
There is no explanation. Darwin accepts by faith that because life exists, and natural forces are all we see today, then somehow life had to have been created from non-life by unknown natural forces. However, such “natural forces” would violate the First Law of Thermodynamics that matter is neither created nor destroyed.
Subsequently, Darwinism states that matter continuously organizes itself through random unguided directionless forces. Thereby violating the Second Law of Thermodynamics.
Belief in Darwinism requires that you ignore the first two laws of Thermodynamics and consider them to be violable.
Creation obviously allows for the the first two laws to be violated during the singular event of the creation. After such event, no such violations take place in nature.
Both theories are inherently faith based.
I get Williams confused with ANOTHER big house black man named Herman Cain I think. But I’m pretty sure it is Williams gets his kicks bragging about abusing his wife.
That’s a nice try RFL.
But you stopped a step short.
Where did “God” come from?
“then somehow life had to have been created from non-life by unknown natural forces. ”
Not at all.
Life is chemistry. Chemistry can do a lot in deep time.
“RFL” parrots –
“…“natural forces” would violate the First Law of Thermodynamics that matter is neither created nor destroyed.”
Uhm. Life is not “matter.”
BJ you should realize that radio commentators are entertainers. That is how they make their living - amusing the masses.
Obviously his wife isn’t too upset about the gifts she gets - she is still married to him. You need to find a new song to sing.
Darwinism is as faith based as Christianity. I’ll admit it - how about you?
BlueJay
Posted May 8, 2008 at 8:31 am | Permalink
I get Williams confused with ANOTHER big house black man named Herman Cain I think. But I’m pretty sure it is Williams gets his kicks bragging about abusing his wife.
———————————–
Not rascist much are you JR?
What it all boils down to is funding the state religion……………
http://www.whitehouse.gov/government/fbci/
BlueJay
Posted May 8, 2008 at 8:09 am | Permalink
Religion and religious people have no place in science
Yeah, Jr is so much smarter than Sir Isaac newton
riiiight
I think Dogs created life, look, they rule the world, only something as clever as dogs would manipulate people into taking care of them. Actually I think the cats are in on it to, and what is God spelled backwards, doG.
Well I should qualify my statement.
Religion originally guided science.
The only educated people were people in the church. So in that way, religion helped science.
Except it also tried to control and edit it.
Too, too great a reliance on religious faith can cause even the most careful and diligent scientist to err.
Johannes Kepler was obsessed with sticking the planets to crystal spheres with the Earth at the center. It cause him to miss for years that planetary orbits are actually eliptical.
Junior talking about science - lmao.
This is the guy that calls coal, dinosaur fuel.
What a maroon.
“RFL” parrots –
“…“natural forces” would violate the First Law of Thermodynamics that matter is neither created nor destroyed.”
Uhm. Life is not “matter
==============================================
Non-life matter does not instantaneoulsy become lively matter. Desn’t happen, even if it did, the composition of the matter must change in order to inact the change from the inorganic to the organic. Therefore, a transformation from lifeless matter to lively matter requires matter that is of an organic origin.
Dogs and cats are angels. They keep track of us Barnie and report back to God. Why else do you suppose they are always gazing at us. Don’t EVER be mean to one and don’t have extra-marital sex in front of one. How did you suppose God knows? Watch out for flies, too.
Scientists have been dupliating organic chemistry for more than 40 years.
“religious beliefs and science can coexist together without all this bs. But That ain’t going to happen until both sides decide to respect each other.” –
Nope, science thinks man and the universe is natural; some religions including all the desert goat-herder ones, thinks man and the universe is supernatural. There is no way the two philosphies can coincide.
Heh,
Will Auntie ANTI be coming out later James?
Have a nice day in front of the monitor.
Yeah, Jr is so much smarter than Sir Isaac newton
I see two sides to the issue of faith in science, but let’s get this out of the way first: what a scientist believes or doesn’t believe, so as it doesn’t warp the methodology or empirical validity of their work, is simply not relevant, and of no consequence.
As to Newton, one has to wonder how much further his investigations could have gone if he didn’t stop at some point and give obligatory credit to God. By the same token, had he been an atheist, he might not have been so motivated to understand things in the first place.
But I also have little doubt the Richard Feyman’s skeptical atheism helped motivate his desire to understand the natural world.
The trick, of course, is to judge science as science and religion as religion, as much some religious people object to the concept.
stop the phony science……
http://www.stopabductions.com/
You see Junior the Blue Jay, aka J R, aka JBird, thinks I’m ANTI, MAX and probably any other poster who thinks differently than he does.
Extremists like Junior don’t need no stinkin’ proof to make accusations, they just keep making them.
These accusations, ladies and gentlemen, is the anti-thesis of science. It is even the anti-thesis of logic and common sense.
Duh Libs have already had their chance in a debate on science in Global Warming and provided their best and brightest in a PBS debate.
The GW Alarmists lost the debate in a heads up match with real scientists, not the crystal ball charlatins that the alarmists put forth.
Later on CraponAmerica will be on with one nic or the other posting his Communist propaganda why he hates America.
“littlejohn” snarks –
“…Jr is so much smarter than Sir Isaac newton.”
Interesting that you’d cite Newton, who was denied professorship at Cambridge due to… his religion. He wasn’t a member of the C of E so he didn’t “qualify.”
Yet Newton and Einstein frequently wrote about how their discoveries offered insight into “how God thinks.” How God works.
And that’s the key to the scientific method: Science seeks to find out how, religion — all religions — try to divine the why. Two different objectives, two different disciplines.
Someone can be a great football place-kicker and a great third-baseman. But you’ll never get to kick a three-pointer in a baseball game. Two different objectives, two different disciplines.
“He concluded: “As the depth of our insight into the wonderful works of God increases, the stronger are our feelings of awe and veneration in contemplating them and in endeavoring to approach their Author … So will he [the earnest student] by his studies and successive acquirements be led through nature up to nature’s God.” ”
Lord Kelvin
“Regular” trolls –
“Later on CraponAmerica will be on…”
More name-calling, “Regular?” So early in the morning? With your tired 8th Grade playground wordplay?
It must suck to be as pitiful as you.
“There need be no conflict between science and religion if each appreciates its own boundaries and if each takes seriously the claims of the other. The proven success of science simply cannot be ignored by the church. But neither can the church’s claim to explain the world at the very deepest level be dismissed. If God did not exist, science would have to (and indeed has) invent the concept to explain what it is discovering at its core. Abelard’s 12th century dictum “Truth cannot be contrary to truth. The findings of reason must agree with the truths of scripture, else the God who gave us both has deceived us with one or the other” still rings true.
If there is no God, nothing makes sense. The atheist’s case is based on a deception they wish to play upon themselves that follows already from their initial premise. And if there is a God, he must be true both to science and religion. If it seems not so, then one’s hermeneutics (either the pastor’s or the scientist’s) must wrong.”
Dr. Allan Sandage
Monkeyhawk
Posted May 8, 2008 at 9:24 am | Permalink
“Regular” trolls –
“Later on CraponAmerica will be on…”
More name-calling, “Regular?” So early in the morning? With your tired 8th Grade playground wordplay?
It must suck to be as pitiful as you.
———————————————
=============================================
Yeah MonkeyHock,
When you Leftists start taking your own to task, I’ll back off. J R, CrapnAmerica and WSClark, Chas and others come online when I’m not and make some comment about me.
So I react, I’m no coward. You strike at me, I’ll strike back.
Here’s one from Blue Jay that started things off.
Will you or any of the other Leftists on the blog say anything to him? Nope, never have and never will.
Read it and weep MonkeyHock, you tolerate this from your own kind, expect it to be painted on your barn door.
———————————————–
BlueJay
Posted May 8, 2008 at 9:08 am | Permalink
Heh,
Will Auntie ANTI be coming out later James?
Have a nice day in front of the monitor.
Antiscientific governance ends in
8 months, 14 days, 22 hours, 25 minutes.
Scientists will no longer be ignored, threatened, suppressed, and censored across agencies, across areas of expertise, and across issues.
“And that’s the key to the scientific method: Science seeks to find out how, religion — all religions — try to divine the why. Two different objectives, two different disciplines.”
Wow. something else MH and I agree on.
Do scientists at times have agendas, and let their science be driven by that agenda? Of course. They’re human. Do religious persons also have an agenda, and let that agenda drive their reaction to science? Of course. They’re human too.
But time, and an open marketplace of ideas, will largely sort it out.
I have no doubt that science’s path will eventually end up at….. God. Where else could it lead but to the truth? The problem is that while science plods along on its path, mostly unaware of the destination, scientists stray off the path in arrogance. We observe the wonder of God’s creation but fail to recognize it for what it is.
“GMC70″ responds to my post –
“And that’s the key to the scientific method: Science seeks to find out how, religion — all religions — try to divine the why. Two different objectives, two different disciplines.”
with…
“Wow. something else MH and I agree on.
“Do scientists at times have agendas, and let their science be driven by that agenda? Of course. They’re human. Do religious persons also have an agenda, and let that agenda drive their reaction to science? Of course. They’re human too.
“But time, and an open marketplace of ideas, will largely sort it out.”
Thanks for the endorsement, “GMC70.”
But you see, “an open marketplace of ideas” is, at its core, unscientific.
But your 3rd grader can’t tell the teacher that 2+2=5 because of a “miracle from God,” and even if your kid gets all the other 3rd graders (the “open marketplace”) to agree, the fact is 2+2=4.
No one but Biblical literalists really believe Noah lived 900 years. (Although living 900 months in those days made you a pretty old man.) But the lesson of Noah’s faith was rewarded in oral history with a long life, was passed down for generations before ever reduced to writing, and the poetry of the Genesis story and much of the Old Testament gives us valuable moral lessons. But it ain’t science. It’s metaphor.
There’s a lot of value to the human condition derived from metaphor, myth, fables, fairy tales… and religion.
It just ain’t science.
Hat tip to outlander
“We observe the wonder of God’s creation but fail to recognize it for what it is.”
http://www.peterkreeft.com/topics/desire.htm
The Argument From Desire
1. Ecstasy of St. Teresa by Gianlorenzo Bernini (Permission by Mark Harden; http://www.artchive.com)Every natural, innate desire in us corresponds to some real object that can satisfy that desire.
2. But there exists in us a desire which nothing in time, nothing on earth, no creature can satisfy.
3. Therefore there must exist something more than time, earth and creatures, which can satisfy this desire.
4. This something is what people call “God” and “life with God forever.”
The first premise implies a distinction of desires into two kinds: innate and externally conditioned, or natural and artificial. We naturally desire things like food, drink, sex, sleep, knowledge, friendship and beauty; and we naturally shun things like starvation, loneliness, ignorance and ugliness. We also desire (but not innately or naturally) things like sports cars, political office, flying through the air like Superman, the land of Oz and a Red Sox world championship.
“outlander” answers the altar call with –
“I have no doubt that science’s path will eventually end up at….. God. Where else could it lead but to the truth? The problem is that while science plods along on its path, mostly unaware of the destination, scientists stray off the path in arrogance. We observe the wonder of God’s creation but fail to recognize it for what it is.”
And that’s just fine that your faith leads you to “…have no doubt.” But that’s not how science works. Science is nothing but doubt. And every scientific discovery and advancement is based on doubt.
I’m sure the Pope had “no doubt” that the earth was the center of the universe back when the Inquisition threated Galileo with The Rack. But science proved the Pope wrong.
Michael Gerson, evangelic christian, and speech writer for President Bush. An absolutely, unbiased, reliable, and balanced source. Without question!
http://www.npr.org/templates/story/story.php?storyId=5499701
Where is the Richard Dawkins thread on christianity, Phillip? It might be as useful to read as this loser.
Yes, MH, there is a truth separate and apart from what we believe; i,e, 2+2=4, whether we believe it or not (that’s assuming there is such a thing as “2″, but that’s another story!).
I rely on the marketplace of ideas not to find truth, but to make sure that truth is exposed to the world. Given time, the world (or at least most of us) will understand that 2+2=4, even over the objection of those who protest.
I have more faith in that marketplace of ideas than you do. I think truth will ultimately win, though it may take some time. The suppression of ideas, even those ideas deemed to be wrong, is a greater danger than the wrong ideas themselves. And both sides from time to time attempt to suppress the other, though (and this is my bias, of course), I see that more from the left than the right.
And no, religion isn’t science. Neither is science religion, or replacement for religion, though some seek to make each the other.
I think we largely agree on this one, MH. Scary, isn’t it?
“Science is nothing but doubt. And every scientific discovery and advancement is based on doubt.”
——————
Ah, if only that were true Monkey.
You see the problem we have is that in some cases opinions of someone with a PhD masquerade as “science”. And are treated as such by the ignorant. Thus any questioning of the opinion is “anti-science”. See my earlier post.
lindainks55
Posted May 8, 2008 at 9:33 am | Permalink
Antiscientific governance ends in
8 months, 14 days, 22 hours, 25 minutes.
Scientists will no longer be ignored, threatened, suppressed, and censored across agencies, across areas of expertise, and across issues.
————————————-
Linda I only have one question. When will Christians stop being suppressed, ridiculed and forced to continuely defend their faith?
Science and objectivity
“Rupert Sheldrake summarizes this problem of objectivity brilliantly in his 1994 book “Illusions of Objectivity”:
Scientists generally feel the need to preserve an idealized self-image, not just for personal and professional reasons, hut also because this image is projected on to them by others. There are many people who put their faith in science rather than religion, and need to believe in its superior, objective authority. And to the extent that science replaces religion as the source of truth and values, then scientists become a kind of priesthood. As with priests in general, there is then a public expectation that they will live up to the ideals they preach: in the case of scientists, objectivity, rationality and the quest for truth. Some scientists, in their public appearances, can be noticed playing up to this role, which seems to invest them as cardinals of reason propounding salvation to an irrational public. There is also a strong disincentive for them to admit that there is anything fundamentally wrong with the beliefs and institutions that legitimize their own position. While it is relatively easy to admit that individuals may err, and to purify the community by expelling them, it is much harder to question the beliefs and idealizations on which the whole system depends.”
I must associate with different people than you do because I haven’t seen that.
I’ve seen some who profess loudly questioned, but usually their protestations declare a lot and the questions aren’t necessarily needed.
I’ve also seen many who live their Christianity and are very persuasive in their unspoken witness.
LJ that is a ‘right on’ article. Says what I have tried to say but does it much better than I ever did.
I promise not to ‘attack’ any scientist and will allow him/her their right to believe as they believe. In return I would like to be allowed to believe as I choose without ridicule or put downs or the name calling a thread on this subject always elicits.
It IS true, however, that many would try and discount science, and not just scientific opinion, by a particular reading of a scripture. Sometimes a single verse. We must always be on the lookout to
“We must be on guard against giving interpretations of Scripture that are far-fetched or opposed to science, and so exposing the Word of God to ridicule of unbelievers”
St Thomas
Monkeyhawk
Posted May 8, 2008 at 9:56 am | Permalink
But your 3rd grader can’t tell the teacher that 2+2=5 because of a “miracle from God,” and even if your kid gets all the other 3rd graders (the “open marketplace”) to agree, the fact is 2+2=4.
——————————————-
Depends on which culture you come from and which type of math you wish to use and base number systems.
Sequentially driven math, sometimes referred to as inclusive math will allow 2+2=5 when considering number sets.
For instance:
When items are referred to as units or sets rather than equal parts.
A rope bridge that has four knots in it can be tied together only with another knot in the way of thinking of primitive tribe. That makes five knots where 2+2 = 5 in order to set forth a viable solution to the bridge problem.
It wouldn’t matter if the robe bridge had 40 knots (20 on each side), the knot tieing the two sets of numbers together forms the 41st knot, where 20+20=41. Thusly, the only solution for a bridge with two sets of 20 knots is 41 knots.
Modern mathemeticians will give an different name to the 41st knot, but the end result is the same. Commonly called in boolean operators as the joined operator of two sets.
Ancient tribes will argue that the 41st knot is not different, but simply part of the solution when joining two number sets of 20+20.
As in binary, zero (0) is counted as an integer. It doesn’t appear to have a value that can be useful in most instances, but it nonetheless exists and has practical applications.
So in some societies, it makes perfect sense that 2+2=5, because they count in sets, not individual, sequential digits.
Linda from our posts I am very sure that you and I hang out with different people. I and my friends are secure enough in our faith that we don’t feel the need to downgrade the opposition to make ourselves look better. We don’t run in herds so we can gang up on those who don’t share out opinions and beliefs.
So Regular, Religion is that philosphy in which two plus two equals five? I always thought so.
out=our
” We don’t run in herds” — ks grm.
Exactly what is a congregation if not a herd?
and jimmy mac starts his weekly everyone is picking on me rant —
….. some how I think you enjoy it — it does what you enjoy most — shining the spotlight on yourself…….
Beber, we have math on one hand and somehow that equals religion on the other hand. That is the logic I was talking about.
beber
Posted May 8, 2008 at 10:27 am | Permalink
” We don’t run in herds” — ks grm.
Exactly what is a congregation if not a herd?
Ever tried to supervise a congregation? If so, you would know why it is not a herd
“When will Christians stop being suppressed, ridiculed and forced to continuely defend their faith?”
Grim as I look out on the landscape I see churches, many churches different sizes shape ect. All tax exempt. What I don’t see are concentration camps full of Christians being led to the ovens. What am I missing? If you are offended by liberals, hey were just entertaining ourselves.
“A bit of science distances one from God, but much science nears one to him.”
Pasteur
Beber the herd I am talking about is the one that comes out on this blog at night.
Annie somewhere in there I am sure there was a message. I must have missed it.
On the blog we get a thread on science - lets bash religion. A thread on abortion - lets bash religion. A thread on the homeless - lets bash religion. A thread on taxes - lets bash religion.
Do you get the idea?
grim says,
On the blog we get a thread on science - lets bash religion. A thread on abortion - lets bash religion. A thread on the homeless - lets bash religion. A thread on taxes - lets bash religion.
Do you get the idea?
I listen to rush, micheal and others just to you know get the idea. All they do is bash people like me. Then I come to the blog and hear the same thing. I’m sorry your faith isn’t strong don’t take it out on us.
Steven believes a priori a baseless assertion made by the left that there is a war on the science by the right. Gerson shows that this is not true. Therefore, Steven correctly identifies that Gerson is biased towards the truth.
Nice catch Steven!
It’s worth repeating:
I’ve seen some who profess loudly questioned, but usually their protestations declare a lot and the questions aren’t necessarily needed.
protest too much…
Annie what we are doing here is exchanging opinions. Do you do this with rush, michael and others? Are you so insecure in your disbelief that you feel the need to bash my faith on a daily basis? If it helps you - go for it. I am secure in my faith.
Here’s an old math puzzle that has been around for years and how it perfectly describes our sequential number thinking when it comes to solving math problems.
Three business people eat lunch in a restaurant. They estimate that the bill should come to $30. They split the bill 3 ways and pay 10 dollars each. When the actual bill comes, it is $25. Since this is not divisible by three, they each take a dollar back and leave the extra two dollars tip for the waiter. Since each paid nine dollars and nine times three is 27, plus two for the waiter is 29 Where did the other dollar go?
The problem most people puzzle with is thinking in terms of the old solution, which is 30 dollars.
That is the wrong way to look at it.
The new solution for the problem is now 25 dollars.
Look at this way, there were 30 one dollar bills set out on the table, each business person took one dollar back from the pile. (even steven)
Now, the solution for the bill is paid with each person paying an equal amount of 9 dollars each.
9 multiplied by 3 MINUS 2(tip) equals 25
The problem with thinking sequentially (dealing with the 30 dollars) rather than in number sets (25 dollars) is that we forget to include the solution number (2) as part of the set where the end product is satisfied. Also forgotten is that the returned portion (3 dollars) is no longer part of the solution set and shouldn’t be considered into the problem to figure the solution.
Just as in the rope bridge, where 2+2=5, the solution of (1) is considered part of the set to join the rope bridge together. Without the (1), the two parts could not be joined as a bridge and the solution of 2+2=4 would only satisfy the problem of having two equal parts added together make a sum total of those two equal parts, but do not provide a solution for making a rope bridge.
Quirky, I agree, but it’s an interesting approach to solution, set based mathematics.
My point exactly Linda. Why does every thread result in questions from the left on why the ‘faith’ of the right is holding science back, taking away a womans right to choose, etc…?
If the left were more secure in their faith in whatever - there would be no reason to put down others faith on a regular basis.
beber
Posted May 8, 2008 at 10:26 am | Permalink
So Regular, Religion is that philosphy in which two plus two equals five? I always thought so
————-
Pay attention farm boy, you might learn something.
What I am saying Linda is that we are a group of people with varying opinions. We express those daily. Why do you think the topics are choosen for this blog? They choose those that will stir the most controversy. We react negitively or positively. I don’t know you or for that matter don’t know many on the blog with the exception of Hank and WDog.
I do respect the opinion of several people on here even though I deeply disagree with them. Others because of the way they address other bloggers don’t deserve respect.
We can be different without the name calling on either side.
If the left were more secure in their faith in whatever - there would be no reason to put down others faith on a regular basis.
Back at ya baby,
If the right was more secure in itself It wouldn’t need to put us down. See fox news. clear channel com or any assorted wingnut outlets. Sorry grim not scared of your lunatic fringe.
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=xp9852hq0W0
I guess I shamed “Regular” into refraining from name-calling, but then he comes up with a diatribe of the special conditions in which 2+2=5.
Frankly, the name-calling made more sense.
Faced with the choice of admitting he is wrong, or proving the impossible, “Regular” went to work on the proof.
Pathetic.
Annie where did you did the idea I thought you should fear anything. You seem full of anxiety about something. I can assure you you have nothing to fear from me. And by the way I refer to you by your given name. Why do you feel the need to alter mine?
Monkeyhawk
Posted May 8, 2008 at 11:15 am | Permalink
I guess I shamed “Regular” into refraining from name-calling, but then he comes up with a diatribe of the special conditions in which 2+2=5.
Frankly, the name-calling made more sense.
Faced with the choice of admitting he is wrong, or proving the impossible, “Regular” went to work on the proof.
Pathetic.
=====================
Opps, My bad MonkeyHock.
I didn’t realize you were mathematically challenged. I wouldn’t have put such advanced thinking on the blog if I known it would hurt your brain.
(chortles)
Grim,
I am merely an observer, but since you asked…….
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=bbgs_0XeiMc
Depends on which culture you come from and which type of math you wish to use and base number systems.
I realize the argument Regular is making is patently ridiculous (and he knows it), but what the hell, I’ll play along, just for fun.
In hexadecimal, 7 + 7 = E, not “14″ (though they’re equivalent), but 2+2 still does, and indeed, must equal 4, not 5. In Boolean algebra 2+2=2, as + is simply a stand-in for a logical OR. 2+2=5 is wrong there, too.
You can devise, e.g., any manner of vector spaces, each with their own particular properties, but in the end, consistent with the defined properties, nonsense will still be nonsense. In the context of standard real number addition, 2+2=5 is nonsense. In hexadecimal, 7+7=14 is nonsense. In boolean algebra, 2+2=4 is nonsense.
One might conceive of (or just make up ) a mathematical abstraction wherein 2+2=5, but such a statement then will of necessity mean something profoundly different than such a similar declaration within the real number system (within which it will, still , obviously, be nonsense).
And, at any rate, if you take 2 rocks and add 2 more, then IV (Roman) is still inescapably the sum.
Annie is not scared of the “lunatic fringe” so she is content to blog and argue with them.
What kind of person is so self loathing as spend time discussing ideas with “lunatics”?
“GMC70″ strains credulity with –
“I rely on the marketplace of ideas not to find truth, but to make sure that truth is exposed to the world. Given time, the world (or at least most of us) will understand that 2+2=4, even over the objection of those who protest.”
Yeah, well “Regular” hasn’t advance beyond the 3rd Grade as far as the “2+2=5″ question is concerned.
“I have more faith in that marketplace of ideas than you do.”
So it’s a matter of “faith,” huh?
“The suppression of ideas, even those ideas deemed to be wrong, is a greater danger than the wrong ideas themselves.”
There’s a difference between “suppression” and *refutation.* I don’t care how much “faith” you might have that the world is flat, it’s not “suppression” if you’re deemed unfit to teach geography. You’re wrong.
Unless, through science (not “faith), you can substantiate your Flat Earth theory.
C’mon, “GMC70.” Even you had to cringe when “Regular” started off on the 2+2=5 tangent. You guys apparently share political and cultural beliefs, and it must be awkward to have someone you agree with go off into absurdities.
Last night, on another thread, “Nathaniel” admitted that he approaches the issue of Climate Change politically. Fine.
But it’s not science. And the “marketplace of ideas” will always have superstition and tradition and myth and religion corrupting observation, experimentation, and evidence-based conclusions.
Annie what exactly was the youtube link supposed to mean? I guess I missed the message.
P.S. . . .and to be perfectly anal about it, I should have specified “Base-10″ real number system.
Monkey is someone on here advocating the flat earth theory? Humm??
What I saw Nathan say last night was that much of GW science is a by product of some politicians ambitious aspersions. Surely you can’t deny this is true.
Pure science is still out on the total impact of GW science - like it or not that the the truth.
Politicians are pushing it as a tool to capture voters. That is my OHO.
I don’t base this opinion on my faith. I have read the bible and see no references to GW so I have looked at scientists to see what they have to say about it.
Well Grm my experience has been that the right seems hesitant to put their faith into a reasonable perspective. Let me explain. I believe in Santa Claus (sincerely) because the spirit of St. Nicholas is still alive (the spirit of generocity, giving, compassion etc.) However, I don’t believe that reindeer are capable of unmanned flight. The same distinctions can be drawn with other matters of faith. I believe in dying for a friend. But I am certain that snakes were never capable of speech. The book of Genesis is not a scientific book. It was written in Hebrew, a symbolic language. In my view, the snake was a personification. Just like math and science can be misinterpreted, so can religious texts. If I see that a bridge is out. I will put a sign that says the “bridge is out.” Not one that says “turn back now before it is too late.” Abortion is wrong. Not because of the Bible, because it kills someone. I don’t sleep with other women. Not because of the Bible, because I value my wife too much.
With regard to security in faith, the same challenge can go out to John Hagee types. If God wants a plot of land to go to certain people, why do we need to protect it?
It goes both ways grm
Well Vet I see little in your post I disagree with. I live a good life. I do the things I choose to do. I have faith in Christ as my savior - my personal belief and not open to discussion.
Why do the arguments always start with ‘their faith’ says they believe in ridiculous things like ‘flat earth’ theory. How old is that?
What many on the left refuse to see is that many who don’t believe in evolution, abortion, etc… don’t have these beliefs because of a Christian faith but because they feel they are inherently wrong.
I guess I am tired of the old arguments and want to move beyond that.
Where is God in all of this?
http://www.timesonline.co.uk/tol/comment/columnists/gerard_baker/article3080429.ece
snip
2007, a bad year for God squadders
It was the believers that did most to discredit religion this year, not the atheists
Nothing better measures the retreat of religion in our postmodern society than the diminished intensity of the war over Christmas.
This fight — waged for decades by a dwindling band of religious insurgents against a prevailing secularist consensus — used to be fought with a real passion. People actually once got quite upset about saucy Christmas cards or television schedules that omitted even a hint of religion between the comedy classics and the game shows.
Now it just amounts to a few feeble skirmishes, a couple of barmy Christians railing outside the shopping malls, while everybody else gets on with their daily worship at the shrines of the modern trinity: shopping, eating and drinking.
The Christmas war, in fact, is rapidly acquiring the status of historical curiosity. In a few years’ time, we’ll have to stage re-enactments, like those Civil War buffs who gather in soggy fields:
That’s odd annie moose, I didn’t realize the left was keeping score on science versus religion. What does the scoreboard look like?
And what the heck is wrong with Civil War re-enactments and soggy fields - dat thar is jest plain fun.
The War on Christmas. A silly way to put it; but generally Christmas trees are back to being Christmas trees, instead of Holiday trees. People aren’t as afraid to wish others Merry Christmas instead of Happy Holidays. So definite progress in turning back the secularization of the the holiday and getting Christ back in Christmas.
Ya gotta go to the UK to find an off base evaluation like that link Annie.
I think Ms Moose must have got up on the wrong side of the bed. What an attitude problem. She just doesn’t get it. Christians don’t feel the need to defend their religion everyday. It is part of our life. Just something we are.
Why does the left have this irrational need to bash Christians everyday. Must be some pretty deep seated feeling of inadequacy.
People aren’t as afraid to wish others Merry Christmas instead of Happy Holidays.
When did this ever happen? I must have missed it.
Though “Happy Holidays” is–obviously–more generic and polite (only in the warped mind of Bill O’Reilly and similar types could that innocuous phrase be reinterpreted as an attack on Christmas).
I see your point ksgrm. There are hints within evolution that we exist just by random chance. That is an irresponsible view from science and one that requires a “religious” dogma.
To me the problem comes when values are in conflict. Homosexuality is a great example. I am supremely confident that I will never perform felatio. It just aint gonna happen. However, I feel no injury from two grown men doing so. As I have said so often from the Jeffersonian standpoint. It neither picks my pocket nor breaks my leg.
Abortion, rape, theft,etc. They all have a secular arguement as well as one based on Biblical Cannon.
The basis for Homesexuality is not reasonable because it only has an argument based on Biblical Cannon. These issue are where I see the most conflict.
Just to make sure there is no confusion about strawmen falacies. When I speak of Homosexuals. I see no threat to my marriage when Homosexuals get married.
VET - I have been married for nearly 37 years. Like you, I do not feel threatened if a gay couple wish to get married.
My marriage is not threatened when a man has sex with a dog.
Doesn’t mean I will redefine marriage to include that bestial arrangement or any other possible genital arrangement conceivable by mankind.
MH -
You do indeed argue just for sake of arguing, don’t you? We’re not in disagreement here.
Of course there is a difference between suppression and refutation. That some ideas are wrong doesn’t mean they are, or should be, suppressed. If one wants to come to the “marketplace” with the idea that the world is flat, he is welcome to do so. He will be met with other ideas, backed by evidence, that refutes same, of course. But he’s not barred, nor should be be, from proposing same. And I’d note that in that marketplace of ideas, the idea that the world is flat has been rejected; in other words, the marketplace of ideas works.
I’m not pretending the marketplace of ideas is scientific. It’s not. It’s not intended to be. Does science bring its ideas to that marketplace? Of course; and they stand, or fall, on their merit. Science would do well to remember that it does not have a monopoly on thought, and does not have all the answers; in fact, the most important questions it cannot answer at all.
You hang up on the word faith? All of life is faith, sir. The only difference is what you have faith in.
We’re not in different corners here, MH. Yeesh - a guy can’t even take a compliment when it’s given!! LIghten up, dude.
The first paragraph pretty much sums up regs logic:
The phrase “two plus two makes five” (or “2 + 2 = 5″) is sometimes used as a succinct and vivid representation of an illogical statement, especially one made and maintained to suit an ideological agenda.
Its common usage originates from its inclusion in George Orwell’s Nineteen Eighty-Four (Part One, Chapter Seven), where it is contrasted with the true, mathematical phrase “two plus two makes four.” Orwell’s protagonist, Winston Smith, uses the phrase to wonder if the State might declare “two plus two makes five” as a fact; he ponders that, if everybody believes in it, does that make it true? Smith writes, “Freedom is the freedom to say that two plus two make four. If that is granted, all else follows.” Later in the novel, Smith attempts to use doublethink to teach himself that the statement “2 + 2 = 5″ is true, or at least as true as any other answer one could come up with.
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Two_%2B_two_%3D_five
================================================
RFL, I don’t think that dogs can consent to sex or marriage. Gay men can. Also, to “redefine” presupposes that it is defined in the first place. It is only “defined” a certain way in your mind and within your views. I appreciate your attempt at making Homosexual Marriage a secular issue, but “that dog ain’t gonna hunt.”
VET,
If, in your view, dogs can not consent to marriage, then obviously “marriage” is pre-defined in your own mind as well.
At the present, you have not changed your definition of marriage to include that between men and dogs. Therefore, you are no different then I am in not considering a homosexual relationship as a marriage.
Perhaps with time however, you will be more accepting of those who wish to marry their dog. Don’t want to be a hate mongerer now do you?
However, I will stick to only one definition: Man + Woman = marriage.
“Ever tried to supervise a congregation? If so, you would know why it is not a herd” — littlejohn
A gaggle, then? Point conceded.
Of course Kansas Law may have “defined” it if you must get technical.
JMWalker
Posted May 8, 2008 at 2:38 pm | Permalink
The first paragraph pretty much sums up regs logic:
————————-
So once you completed long division JMWalker, what other math courses have you taken?
(chortles)
ksgrm
Posted May 8, 2008 at 10:15 am | Permalink
Linda I only have one question. When will Christians stop being suppressed, ridiculed and forced to continuely defend their faith?
===========================================
Short answer: NEVER. Nobody ever said such a time would ever come.
In that case RFL, lets just leave those Texas Mormons alone as well? Maybe one day you will come to accept pedophiles. As you say, Don’t want to be a hate monger. Will you spare me the Existential B.S. RFL? The only place that such distinction between man and woman existed was supposedly in your Bible. Of course that same Bible supposedly condemns eating shrimp to, but you must have amended that part of the regulation. Just admit that the only distinction about male/female marriage came from your Bible and that is the only authority you have to go on. Believe what you want, your authorized. Just don’t shit in my yard.
This is the problem, when people borrow authority from the Bible without a reasonable argument.
War is peace. Freedom is Slavery. Ignorance is Bliss. AND, 2 + 2 = 5 — AND - Three grown men cant see the 30th dollar still on the table! LOL
I always knew we would one day see James trying to prove that 2 + 2 = 5. It only figures. He thinks he knows all! ROFL!!
“GMC70″ –
I thanked you for your endorsement. That’s not “argument.”
But your “marketplace of ideas” is a pretty lame defense for ignorance.
And ignorance is a major contributor to conservatism.
Think about the Climate Change arguments in this forum. Every major government, every major corporation, and an overwhelming preponderance of scientists recognize the planet is experiencing climate change.
So people show up on this forum daily to deny it. When faced with overwhelming evidence, they move on to the “man didn’t cause it” argument. When given data that since the Industrial Age began in the late 18th Century, human beings have belched all sorts of carbon into the atmosphere and that’s a primary culprit in greenhouse gasses in the atmosphere, they say, “well, there’s nothing we can do about it; too expensive, too inconvenient, whatever….”
And next comes a “voice from the marketplace place of ideas” claiming there’s no such thing as climate change.
The “marketplace of ideas” has a lot of crazy guys in hair shirts claiming “The End is Near!” Sometimes it’s not enough to just ignore the people (as “Nathaniel” admitted of himself that he approaches the issue of Climate Change politically) who meet Shaw’s definition of a fanatic: “One who won’t change his mind and won’t change the subject.” Sometimes the same old hoary claims that every fertilized egg has the same rights as an adult, that the only-est problem in America is not enough guns, that the less tax you pay results in more government revenue, that teenagers won’t have sex if you don’t tell them about it…
You guys have a strange perspective on reality, “GMC70.”
I don’t argue nearly as much as I’m tempted to.
I mean, why waste time talking substance with people such as “Regular, et al?” He’ll just come up with a junior high school playground taunt…name-calling, for example. And the discourse will descend into typo flames and really, who has the time for it?
You wrote –
“Of course there is a difference between suppression and refutation. That some ideas are wrong doesn’t mean they are, or should be, suppressed. If one wants to come to the “marketplace” with the idea that the world is flat, he is welcome to do so. He will be met with other ideas, backed by evidence, that refutes same, of course. But he’s not barred, nor should be be, from proposing same. And I’d note that in that marketplace of ideas, the idea that the world is flat has been rejected; in other words, the marketplace of ideas works.”
But the “marketplace of ideas” is too-frequently idiotic.
People who knew (scientists) the truth knew the earth is round since Ptolemy. But most people think Columbus “discovered” it. The “marketplace of ideas” makes black cats hard to adopt from pet shelters. There are a significant number of people in hair shirts in the “marketplace of ideas” who absolutely will not vote for a woman or a “halfrican American” simply due to prejudice and ignorance.
I’m not pretending the marketplace of ideas is scientific. It’s not. It’s not intended to be. Does science bring its ideas to that marketplace? Of course; and they stand, or fall, on their merit.
You add –
“Science would do well to remember that it does not have a monopoly on thought…”
No. But scientists do have a monopoly on “science.”
And that’s been my point since the top of the thread. Believe what you want. Worship whatever or whomever you want. But don’t mix it up with science.
Science doesn’t have the tools to fight “God.” Play the God Card and you don’t have to deal with investigation, questioning, testing, observation, and thesis.
Religion has only thesis. That ain’t science.
“…the most important questions it cannot answer at all.”
So far.
But there’s a movement in America these days that shouts objections to the very questions, simply because their belief systems don’t welcom scientific investigation.
Or do you have a scientific experiment, analysis, and determination that proves a snake talked to Eve, that Moses parted the Red Sea, that Jesus rose from the dead, or (as Pat Robertson and Jerry Falwell claimed) that 9/11 was caused by Lesbians?
Or do you have a scientific experiment, analysis, and determination that proves a snake talked to Eve, that Moses parted the Red Sea, that Jesus rose from the dead, or (as Pat Robertson and Jerry Falwell claimed) that 9/11 was caused by Lesbians?
———-
Or MonkeyHawk, how about one that proves we all evolved from a common ancestor?
Chas no intende…
Minkey — great post at 3:42 p.m.!!
MH you posted “Science doesn’t have the tools to fight “God.” Play the God Card and you don’t have to deal with investigation, questioning, testing, observation, and thesis.”
———————————–
I have spent a lifetime investigating, questioning and observatiing the Christian religion. In fact it is still ongoing and I have yet to find anything that can refute what I believe to be true. I have found alternative theories, met people who vehemently disagreed with my supposition, read many books on the subject with opposing views - but still my faith is intact.
I will of course have a lot of questions when I meet my Savior face to face. I will ask about the talking snake for you and where did life begin for me.
Science is real and very valuable to us. Medical science has made it possible for us to live many more years than in the past. Environmental science has allowed us to look at things like climate changes and weather patterns saving many lifes by recognizing natures fury.
We all live in this world together and are all different with different opinions. Sometimes I’m right and sometimes I’m wrong. The important thing is that I don’t have to prove your faith in science baseless to give credence to my religious faith. Live and let live I say.
Chas
Posted May 8, 2008 at 4:02 pm | Permalink
Minkey — great post at 3:42 p.m.!!
————————————–
Predictable Chas
Typical ad hominem from granny!! LOL
“Just admit that the only distinction about male/female marriage came from your Bible and that is the only authority you have to go on.”
I admit it freely Vet and I am sorry If I gave the wrong impression to you. The Biblical definition of marriage is my own and my definition is what it is because it matches the Biblical one.
I am confused why you are so upset that the Bible is the basis for how I define marriage.
So now, what authority do you have for denying the right of a man to marry his dog?
“I have spent a lifetime investigating, questioning and observatiing the Christian religion. In fact it is still ongoing and I have yet to find anything that can refute what I believe to be true. I have found alternative theories, met people who vehemently disagreed with my supposition, read many books on the subject with opposing views - but still my faith is intact.” [ksgrm]
Yes your faith is intact. As it should be. But the kind of investigating, questioning, aand observation that Monkey refers to is SCIENCE. What you have stated, very well, is that you have compared your faith to other faiths — And you have found your faith intact. But it aaint science!
MH -
I think we’re talking past one another. You may well have good arguments for your positions. I may or may not agree with them. What you appear to propose, however, is to suppress points of view that you disagree with.
To take your initial argument: One may propose that the earth is flat. He’s wrong, of course. We can trot out myriad evidence that he’s wrong. However - would you suppress the expression of that idea? Would you bar anyone proclaiming that the world is flat?
It appears you would; if I’m wrong on that, I’ll apologize in advance. If I’m right, that’s where I think you’re wrong, and it reinforces my perception of the left which routinely advocates “free speech for me, but not for thee.” The only thing more dangerous than “wrong” ideas is the suppression of wrong ideas. It matters not how “idiotic” those ideas may be. It is not for you, or I, to dictate what they believe, or contribute to the conversation.
They may believe as a result of science. They may believe as a result of religion. It matters not. ALL those ideas are part of that marketplace of ideas, where ideas are collectively mulled over considered, tested, and either accepted or rejected. Science is part of that marketplace; in our society, a large part. But ideas and are not exempt from critical examination simply because they wear the label “science.”
And BTW - who is “you guys?” You’ve noted a number of “positions” I assume you disagree with, and with you presume I agree:
that every fertilized egg has the same rights as an adult, that the only-est problem in America is not enough guns, that the less tax you pay results in more government revenue, that teenagers won’t have sex if you don’t tell them about it…
You presume a lot. Each of those positions, of course, is a soundbite distortion of a position that reasonable persons may hold, and you know it. But rather than participate in good faith in an exchange of ideas, you instead misconstrue, ridicule, and attempt to marginalize those you disagree with.
Once again: free speech for me, but not for thee. You do exactly what you accuse those you disagree with of doing. To be blunt, MH, those on the right you ridicule often bring more good faith explanation of what they hold true and why than you do. You may disagree, and that’s fine. You, however, typically respond with ridicule, misstatement, strawmen, guilt by associati