Hmmm, virginity is a curable disease. Being religious is just like being a virgin. The dominant feeling on loosing either is one of relief.
As for your proposal, on the one side, there is the scientific method.
Nothing in that says that we cannot "argue from authority" where adequate
authority exists and where we are prepared to provide the source material
and perform the experiments to validate our theories at need. We all stand
on the shoulders of giants. To be science, there needs to be enough evidence
and documentation to permit us to perform the experiments which could
disprove a theory for ourselves. The longer a theory has been around the
more people have tested it and the less likely it is that performing the
experiment will contribute to the strength of the theory. Taking your
example, the theory of evolution has been around more than a little while,
and has yet to be refuted (To be pedantic we should say the "theories of
evolution", as while evolution is a demonstrated fact, there are many
theories to explain how it happens). This makes the "theory of evolution" a
strong theory.
On the other side, there is the badly named "creation science" which is in
fact an oxymoron. There is no evidence for "creationism", no theory behind
it, no experiments to disprove it and in fact, no possible way of disproving
it. So while science is a method. Creation is a myth.
And it is arguments like this one, which you propose, which really rile the
few scientifically literate people who still care enough to respond. Your
argument seems to suggest that we should give equal time or attention to the
hubble-bubble that makes up "creationism" simply because it somebody
postulates it or appends science to the term. So far as I know, nobody has
withdrawn Ockham's razor. Using this argument the religious should have to
defend their gods against the infinitely more rational (and powerfull) IPU.
Which they cannot do as the important issue here is that religion is
irrational and cannot be discussed rationally or logically. When they try
it, the IPU (blessed be her pinkness) will win every time.
As would the tooth fairy. After all, there is far more evidence (anecdotal
mind-you) for the tooth fairy than there ever has been for "creation" or for
any of the gods mankind has saddled himself with in recorded history.
While there are people in the "general public w/interest in science" who
rely overmuch on the works designed to "explain" scientific concepts, I
don't think we should sneer at them, nor compare them to followers of the
purveyors of predigested religious pap. Simply not being qualified in a
field does not prevent somebody from commenting on that field. It just means
that we should seek corraboration for the comments and be more skeptical
over their submissions than we would over a peer acknowledged source. It
generally takes many years of study to become competent in any one
scientific field, and this should not be used to preclude people outside the
field from at least attempting to follow what is happening in the field. At
least they are thinking, are open to and would welcome discovering that
their theories are wrong, and seldom fall back on "because x said so"
apologetics.
TheHermit
-----Original Message-----
From: owner-virus@lucifer.com [mailto:owner-virus@lucifer.com]On Behalf
Of MICHAEL.FULFORD.HD2O@statefarm.com
Sent: Monday, February 08, 1999 10:05 AM
To: virus@lucifer.com
Subject: virus: 'Faith' in science.
Atheism and Theism; two wheels of the same cart.
It seems that a common thread on the CoV mailing list is one of discrediting
the religious for their blind faith and belief in the teachings of the bible
and of their ministers. For example, a previous poster recanted a time when
he
attended a 'debate' on creationism and evolution at a local church. He was
suprised to see the congregation support the minister's defense of
creationism--even after having heard evidence supporting evolution. In
fact,
it seems that religious faith is a popular and easily attacked target for
the
'scientific' community. Geez, I think it's time to remove the 2X4 from our
eyes before criticizing the speck in theirs...
Yesterday, I visited Richard Dawkin's website. I went to the "books" link
and
there was a short listing of his books with description. The webmaster then
gives you a recommended reading order depending on your goals. One of the
goals was "I want to defend evolution against creationist", to which, the
visitor is then directed to buy "The Blind Watchmaker".
Is there any fundamental difference between this example and a religious
person
who reads the bible and accepts it as truth?
How many of us (general public w/interest in science) quickly validate the
theories and claims made in the popular science works of Dawkins, Gould,
Bloom,
etc., without ever doing our own research or otherwise applying our own
scrutiny and skepticism? Aren't we guilty of this phenomenon called faith?
I've heard, "to know without doing is not knowing"; how many
pseuo-intellectual--would be scientists among us does this describe?
I am not defending the concept of faith or the religious mind. I just think
that in many cases atheists are the evolutionary 'pots' calling the
creationist
'kettles' black. We just open a hole in our back large enough for our
chosen
ministers (Darwin, Dawkins... whoever)to put their hand in there and then
use
us as the ventriliquistic mediums of their work. Regardless of whether
these
scientist/authors are right or not, until we ourselves see it, hear it,
touch
it taste it and otherwise live out these theories, we are reduced to nothing
more than Sunday morning yes men.
Okay off my soapbox for now. This is my first time posting something to
this
forum, so be gentle--I'm a virgin! :)
Michael Fulford
Disgruntled Wage Laborer