So we've cut out politics, but religion is ok? - Josh
On Apr 28, 2017 1:42 PM, <[email protected]> wrote: > This guy wrote an op ed piece in the Salt Lake Tribune today criticizing a > doctor for claiming that divine intervention saved his wife's life, and the > doctor had the temerity to make this announcement on earth day. So Mr. PhD > had to take him to task in the news paper. > > I looked up the guys email address and sent him the note (at the bottom of > the thread). Not sure if I will get any further replies but I did have > some > fun this morning... > > -----Original Message----- From: [email protected] > Sent: Friday, April 28, 2017 12:35 PM > To: Gregory Arthur Clark > Subject: Re: Letter in the tribune > > So odd and unexpected. > > A truth seeker that resorts insulting someone that disagrees and then slams > the door? > Is that part of the scientific method? > > Personally, I prefer my pet theories to be disproved so I can continue the > search. > > (BTW, countless anecdotal beyond the veil stories that reveal previously > unknown information. But it seems your search for truth in that direction > is clearly halted. ) > > See you in 150 years mate! > > -----Original Message----- From: Gregory Arthur Clark > Sent: Friday, April 28, 2017 12:28 PM > To: [email protected] > Subject: RE: Letter in the tribune > > Replies below. > > -----Original Message----- > From: [email protected] [mailto:[email protected]] > Sent: Friday, April 28, 2017 12:04 PM > To: Gregory Arthur Clark <[email protected]> > Subject: Re: Letter in the tribune > > Hmmm, I note some emotion there. > > Odd indeed that you are so worked up when if you parse what I wrote, I was > not conveying any information about my beliefs in anything. Nor was I > defending at all what Daniels said. I don't. > > Odd that you seem to immediately judge me as a dishonest person. > --------------- > GC: Curious that you object to my inferences while making so many of your > own. Your irrelevant ad-homs are telling and typical. > > ======== > > Just simply pointing out that it is difficult to prove that something does > not exist. > You seem to want to debate. I do know stats and null hypothesis analysis, > I > am educated. I am an engineer. > ---- > GC: Some educated people still tout nonsense. Your opening > proving-a-negative trope explicitly wrt religion reflects ignorance, > trolling, or both. Lose-lose-lose. > > ========== > Just teasing a bit. You seem to want to reject even the possibility that > some form of us will exist in 150 years such that we can communicate with > each other. > ---- > GC: As Hitch says, that which can be asserted without evidence can be > dismissed without evidence. But it's worse than that. Psychics are frauds, > as are all who claim to relay or receive messages from beyond the veil. > There is compelling concrete evidence that, when put to the test, > consciousness does not exist without brain function. > > • Clark, G.A. “Science doesn’t support life after death claims.” Guest > commentary. Standard-Examiner, October 22, 2014 (on-line); October 24 > (print). > Those who return from beyond the veil never tell us anything they couldn’t > have said without going anywhere at all. There is no demonstrable awareness > after brain shutdown. That’s what this scientific study actually > shows--despite trumpeted claims otherwise by the popular press. > http://www.standard.net/Guest-Commentary/2014/10/26/Science- > doesn-t-support-life-after-death-claims.html > > ============================= > I don't reject that idea at all, I hope for it. > > GC: Your inabilities are clearly stated and understood. But not respected. > > ============== > If it doesn't happen I will never know. But if it does, expect a visit! > > Cheers, > Chuck > > -----Original Message----- > From: Gregory Arthur Clark > Sent: Friday, April 28, 2017 11:56 AM > To: [email protected] > Subject: RE: Letter in the tribune > > Thanks for your input, Chuck. My replies are interdigitated below. > > -----Original Message----- > From: [email protected] [mailto:[email protected]] > Sent: Friday, April 28, 2017 10:46 AM > To: Gregory Arthur Clark <[email protected]> > Subject: Letter in the tribune > > Dr. Clark, > > “Because when it comes to the real world, science works. Religion doesn’t.” > > You can prove a negative? Just because you have not yet found the knobs > that control how religion works, does not mean they do not exist. > ---- > GC: From a pure epistemological standpoint, science and empirical evidence > and inductive logic can't "prove" anything, positive or negative, with 100% > certainty. So what? Science deals with probabilities. That's why > scientific > journals indicate the probabilities associated with rejecting the null > hypothesis. > > What science can do is to disconfirm hypotheses beyond a reasonable doubt. > Absence of evidence is indeed evidence of absence -- if the evidence should > be there, but repeatedly and reproducibly is not. Science often *does* > reject negatives. So do we as people. We reject the hypothesis that saying > "abracadabra" cures all cancers, immediately. We reject the hypothesis > that > Godzilla just devoured all of Salt Lake City. We can reject the God > hypothesis with much the same certainty as we reject the God hypothesis. > > Stop making dishonest, special-pleading exceptions for God. > > ============= > I think you would agree that the placebo effect is a real thing. So in the > case where religion triggers the placebo effect religion arguably does > work. > --- > GC: Don't move the goal posts. Of course thinking and prayer and all sorts > of mental activities can affect *the person doing them*. But it's > self-evident and explicit that my op-ed refers to intercessory prayer > regarding the *external physical world.* Praying to God has the same > effect > on the external physical world as praying to horse manure: None. > > ========== > Not trying to be a troll, I am serious. I think that there is some chance > that we do live in “the matrix” or perhaps our universe is contained in a > small charm dangling from the collar of a cat. > > Will make you a wager, in 150 years if some of my ideas are correct, I will > look you up and you will owe me the equivalent of a cosmic cup of coffee. > Deal? > --- > GC: I call your bluff. Why wait? > Pray, now, that God will heal all adult human amputees by re-growing their > missing limbs. It's in the power of an omnipotent God to do so. > And yet you know and I know and Professor Daniels knows and essentially > *every* sane adult knows that you will fail. > Stop making excuses for God. God "answers" prayers the same way that > horse > manure "answers" prayers: Not at all. > Religion is ridiculous, repugnant, and deeply dishonest. Stop lying to > yourself. And to others. > > ======== > Over and out, > Greg > ============ > Warm Regards, > Chuck McCown > >
