Hello Mark, Arlo, Kremel, Bo, Magnus, John, and everyone else following this thread,
Mark, you can't have it both ways. If you accept a theism on faith alone, you cannot then use having faith in a scientific theory as a blunt instrument against those who disagree with you. Plate tectonics, for instance, is a theory which was first promulgated in the late 1960's. I clearly remember when my Dad received his copy of Scientific American that contained the first widely published article discussing it. It was on the front cover. I was a little kid and was curious. I tried to read it, but the article contained a lot of charts and graphs depicting several years worth of data, and I could not understand it at all. You seem to disagree with this theory, but I have not heard you put forth an alternative explanation as yet, so I cannot comment on what that might be. What I can say to you is that in a sense you are correct. The results of scientific observation have led many to "believe" in the veracity of plate tectonics. What I can also say to you is that if tomorrow, Scientific American were to publish a competing theory with equally compelling evidence, then the scientific community would readily consider that as well. They would not discount it out of hand simply because the plate tectonics theory came first. The test for science is a preponderance of evidence, logical consistency, and economy of explanation. Any theory meeting these tests, by definition, must be treated with respect. What I find fascinating about your argument is your insistence on visual verification. When you ask someone if they have "seen" plate tectonics personally, your implication seems to be that there is no validity to anything a person has not witnessed for themselves. You deride individuals for accepting theories they have not personally verified. Why religious fundamentalists persist in this sort of argument I do not know, because your own alternate set of beliefs cannot be personally verified by visual inspection either. The argument goes something like this. I believe in a god I have never seen or heard, and because I do, I attack you for believing in scientific theories you have never seen or heard personally because they somehow threaten my belief. Upon what basis do you make such attacks? There is no empirical data documenting the existence of the god you are defending, yet plenty of empirical data for the scientific theory you refute. Seems to me you are arguing from a position of weakness by choosing this tack. I am always astonished by these kinds of attacks on science. Can you explain what you hope to accomplish by this? Would it not be more truthful to just come out and say, I reject your scientific theory because it invalidates my religious belief? No one would fault you for that. We should all, after all, make every effort to respect the beliefs of others. Personally, I could care less if you and a half-million or so other adherents to your religion do not "believe" in plate tectonics. That is not required. Thank you, Mary -----Original Message----- From: [email protected] [mailto:[email protected]] On Behalf Of markhsmit Sent: Saturday, January 16, 2010 12:22 PM To: [email protected] Subject: Re: [MD] Metaphysics Yes! Krimel, save me from this onslaught of ignorance! Show me the way! I am but a poor ignorant servant. What do I need to know, oh wise one? Amen. Mark On Jan 16, 2010, at 10:10:37 AM, Krimel <[email protected]> wrote: From: Krimel <[email protected]> Subject: Re: [MD] Metaphysics Date: January 16, 2010 10:10:37 AM PST To: [email protected] Matt, You are offering sage advice here. I wish I were up to the task of following it. I want to acknowledge fully, from the outset, when I am at my most venomous, it could be the result of some personality disorder. I hear what you are saying about addressing the tender minded lurker. But I think I share Arlo's concern that if Platt, Ham and Bo are allowed to go on with no challenge at all, then the lurker is left with the impression that what our dimwitted brethren say is acceptable to the rest of us. Also, it is not as though I have shied away from giving long, detailed and reasoned analysis of their flawed logic. I have at various times tried, fable, poetry, koan, aphorism, autobiography and fantasy as well. I take your suggestion to be that it might be helpful to all to tone it down a notch and while I promise to try, I can't guarantee results. But to present you with just a touch of opposite advice, you say, "If I sound oh-so too reasonable, you've never seen me handle a bigot." It is true; I haven't. Which leads me to ask, why you have not reacted to the bigotry of Platt and Ham's screeds on multiculturalism and Islam; or Bo's blatantly anti-Semitic accounts of history? Krimel Moq_Discuss mailing list Listinfo, Unsubscribing etc. http://lists.moqtalk.org/listinfo.cgi/moq_discuss-moqtalk.org Archives: http://lists.moqtalk.org/pipermail/moq_discuss-moqtalk.org/ http://moq.org.uk/pipermail/moq_discuss_archive/ Moq_Discuss mailing list Listinfo, Unsubscribing etc. http://lists.moqtalk.org/listinfo.cgi/moq_discuss-moqtalk.org Archives: http://lists.moqtalk.org/pipermail/moq_discuss-moqtalk.org/ http://moq.org.uk/pipermail/moq_discuss_archive/ Moq_Discuss mailing list Listinfo, Unsubscribing etc. http://lists.moqtalk.org/listinfo.cgi/moq_discuss-moqtalk.org Archives: http://lists.moqtalk.org/pipermail/moq_discuss-moqtalk.org/ http://moq.org.uk/pipermail/moq_discuss_archive/
