On 11 Jun 2003 at 13:10, Erik Reuter wrote:
> On Wed, Jun 11, 2003 at 10:32:06AM -0400, Jon Gabriel wrote: > > > I think, although I could be wrong, that this is where Erik was > > going with his question. Am I right? > > Pretty much. I've notice religous people like to sidestep these > questions because they don't have a rational answer. > > > > > > >>Can you explain why a survey published in the September 1999 issue > > >>of Scientific American found that 90% of Americans believe in a > > >>personal god and life after death, but only 40% of scientists > > >>(people with at least a B.S. degree in a scientific field) believe > > >>in these phenomena? > > > > > >Nope. Certainly not without the survey in front of me to study its > > > methodology. A lot of the scientists I know personally belong to > > >the 40% group, but of course that could be selection bias. > > > > > > > > > > A while back I remember reading a story about a website where > > scientists who believe in God and spirituality could connect and > > voice their views without fear of being ostracized by the scientific > > community. If it's still around, when I get more time, I'll post it > > to the list. > > Here is my explanation. Science is by far the best tool humans have > developed for testing knowledge. And it is quite necessary since > humans have a great ability to fool themselves when they don't test > their knowledge in a disciplined manner. Naturally, people with > scientific training are better and testing knowledge in a disciplined > manner. Therefore, the dramatic difference is easily explainable by > saying that there is most likely no personal god and no afterlife, > because most scientists see no empirical verification of such > phenomena. In other words, the error rate of accepting erroneous > "knowledge" as correct is much lower in the scientist population than > in the general population.
I'd point out a few things-
I was scientically trained
"Me, too."
and it didn't affect my religious beliefs one bit.
It probably made me more skeptical of accepting just any so-called religious claim on the say-so of someone else without my own personal witness.
This moves into the SECOND point, that Christianity likes to try to stuff the Genie back in the bottle, while Judaism takes a look at the Genie and sees where it fits.
If she looks like a young Barbara Eden, I can fit her in quite well here at my place . . .
Example -
Christian: Cloning is wrong Jewish: A clone would be a Human being like any other (that's the majority view, anyway).
I'm not sure where the idea that the Christian position is that cloning is wrong comes from. I believe in Christ, I'm not Jewish, and IMO a [successful] human clone would be no more or less human than a naturally-occurring identical twin. My biggest concern at present would be over whether humans can be cloned successfully, and perhaps the ethics of the inevitable failed experiments which would be necessary to get to that point. Is that what you mean by it being the Christian position that cloning is wrong: not so much that creating another human being with the DNA of an already-living person would be wrong, but the ethics of human experimentation?
Maybe They Could Clone Barbara Eden Maru
-- Ronn! :)
God bless America, Land that I love! Stand beside her, and guide her Thru the night with a light from above. From the mountains, to the prairies, To the oceans, white with foam… God bless America! My home, sweet home.
-- Irving Berlin (1888-1989)
_______________________________________________ http://www.mccmedia.com/mailman/listinfo/brin-l
