Hi Marysonthego, Thank you for your questions. I believe you are over-thinking my position. It is not as complicated as trying to provide an alternative explanation to a well founded scientific theory. It is also not meant to be against science (I am a scientist myself, and make my living at it). It is also not meant to be in favor of religion, as I don't think I have that. I have never been to church as both my parents were atheists, and have not seen a need to since my childhood.
My argument is this: If I read in a book that God exists, I can accept that on faith. If I read in a book that plate tectonics created the continents as they are, I can accept that on faith. I do not need to personally confirm either. However, the great thing about a belief in God is that it can be confirmed since it is a feeling. So much of what we know has to be accepted on faith, from others or from books we read. I cannot personally see the continents move. Both the so-called religious side and the scientific side have their ways of conveying this faith, one is through the side of inner revelation, the other is through the side of intellectual convincing. For the existence of God to be proven, no empirical data is needed. In fact I think that would be impossible as it would raise us above that level. To believe in science no spirituality is needed in fact that would also be impossible since it cannot be measured. My deliberation is: Since both are faith based ways of seeing the world, both have a lot in common. To pit one against the other just doesn't make sense, they walk hand-in-hand. However, for whatever reason, scientists tend to belittle believers much more than the other way around. There is an arrogance here that is probably based more on fear than anything else. For one to state that a metaphysics is anti-theist only shows that that one has an axe to grind. I think that many of the great scientist dead and living do believe in a god of some kind. Oh, I wouldn't call Dawkins a great scientist since he hasn't contributed anything to the field of biology except maybe a meme, which is more of a sociological concept, and has nothing to do with his education as a zoologist. He makes his living writing books with titles that sell. Let me ask you this, if there are two ways of looking at this world, which one is more useful for inner peace and joy? Which one is more useful for survival? Both are necessary and available if one wants to make full use of his/her time here. Having worked in the sciences for many years now, I see many of the flaws and misuse of this profession. I notice that people have such a faith in science that its misuse is easy. Take the global warming stuff for example. (I don't want to start a discussion on this since I do not really care, what I care about is people being mistreated). So if this is an axe to grind with some in my own profession, so be it. I have seen falsification to meet an end many times. It is about money or pride sometimes. Hope this clarifies. Oh, and all that stuff with Arlo, I'm just rattling his cage. Cheers, Mark On Jan 16, 2010, at 8:02:03 PM, Mary <[email protected]> wrote: From: Mary <[email protected]> Subject: Re: [MD] Metaphysics Date: January 16, 2010 8:02:03 PM PST To: [email protected] 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/ 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/
