From: Platt Holden (pholden@sc.rr.com)
Date: Sat Apr 09 2005 - 17:37:44 BST
MSH writes:
> > There's a huge difference between pragmatic
> > acceptance
> > of scientific or metaphysical principles, and faith-based,
> > fear-driven acceptance of religious beliefs. To deliberately
> > conflate the two as "faith-based" is simply dishonest and
> > non-productive.
> platt:
> There's nothing dishonest or non-productive about it, especially
> considering the pragmatic results of Pope John II's religious faith,
> not to mention the faith of millions across the globe.
> msh:
> Let's set aside for the moment the fact that not every Catholic, not
> to mention the world's 5.5 billion non-Catholics, is impressed with
> the late Pope's pragmatic results; in fact, his policies were viewed
> by millions of Catholics as extremely repressive,
Tell that to the millions in Poland who suffered under Communism and the
billions in the West who rightfully celebrated the demise of the Soviet
Union.
> Hear's the deal. No one knows if the laws of physics apply in every
> corner of the universe. Scientists assume they do in order to land
> spacecraft on distant moons. The fact they are able to land
> spacecraft on distant moons is, in turn, very strong evidence of the
> validity of their principles. If making these assumptions resulted
> in constant failure, the assumptions would quickly be changed. This
> is what is meant by the pragmatic acceptance of scientific
> principles.
> Is one's belief in God or Heaven arrived at in the same manner? Are
> such beliefs altered, or dropped, in light of contradictory
> evidence?
Your assumption is that the physical world is the entire world and that no
evidence is permitted other than the materially measurable. You are an
acolyte in the faith-based religion called scientism.
> platt:
> If anything, secular demonization of religious belief is fear-based
> and fear-driven by those who desperately wish to claim the moral high
> ground for themselves.
> msh:
> This is pure paranoiac delusion, inspired by a ton of unsupported
> ideas and facts not in evidence.
Speaking of paranoiac unsupported assertions . . . the pot calls the
kettle black.
> My experience has been that people
> who lead secular lives give little or no thought to those who don't,
> much less take the time to "demonize" them. Even a slightly
> objective look at human interactions reveals far less tolerance, far more
> moral self-righteousness, and a much higher tendency to interfere in the
> lives of others, on the religious side of the equation.
Your amnesia regarding the history of anti-religious secular governments
is astounding.
> platt:
> Finally, given science's faith in the principle that the whole
> universe arose from nothing, resurrection seems infinitely
> reasonable.
> msh says:
> Please name a scientist who has expressed his or her faith in this
> principle. A verifiable quote in context would be nice.
"Well, I didn't promise to provide the answers to life, the universe, and
everything, but I have at least given a plausible answer to the question I
started out with: What happened before the big bang? The answer is:
Nothing." - Paul Davies, physicist, "What Happened Before the Big Bang."
Now, suppose you give me a verifiable quote of scientist who claims to
know what happened before the Big Bang. :-)
Platt
MOQ.ORG - http://www.moq.org
Mail Archives:
Aug '98 - Oct '02 - http://alt.venus.co.uk/hypermail/moq_discuss/
Nov '02 Onward - http://www.venus.co.uk/hypermail/moq_discuss/summary.html
MD Queries - horse@darkstar.uk.net
To unsubscribe from moq_discuss follow the instructions at:
http://www.moq.org/md/subscribe.html
This archive was generated by hypermail 2.1.5 : Sat Apr 09 2005 - 17:35:45 BST