From: Mark Steven Heyman (markheyman@infoproconsulting.com)
Date: Sun Apr 10 2005 - 21:28:23 BST
On 10 Apr 2005 at 12:20, Platt Holden wrote:
platt:
Your assumption is that the physical world is the entire world and
that no evidence is permitted other than the materially measurable.
Anyone who reads your first paragraph above about scientists landing
spacecraft on moons giving "very strong evidence for the validity of
their principles" would reasonably conclude that your objection to
principles based on religious faith is precisely their lack of such
physical evidence.
msh says:
The point I was making is that there is evidence in support of their
assumptions and, therefore, their assumptions are not faith-based.
And don't see how anyone can reasonably conclude that I have any
objection to principles based on religious faith. People can and
will believe whatever they like. Who am I to object? I'm arguing
that scientific assumptions and religious assumptions are
fundamentally different kinds of assumptions, made for very different
reasons.
platt:
You are an acolyte in the faith-based religion called scientism.
msh says:
Since our argument involves the question of whether or not science
is faith-based, your comment, as usual, does nothing more than
assume your conclusion.
platt:
Perhaps so. But, I've yet to find convincing "evidence" to conclude
otherwise.
msh says:
So I must bear the brunt of your myopia?
< snip some name calling and off-point distractions re how some
governments, for reasons of power, not religion, brutalize large
portions of their citizenry...>
platt:
Well, you brought up the notion that religious beliefs are fear-based
and fear- driven in response to Ham's question about the belief
systems.
msh:
Yes, I think that's true to some extent.
platt:
So it's not off point at all. It goes to the question of motive. Do
you doubt that dictators brutalize large portions of thier citizenry
in the name of morality?
msh says:
It goes to the question of motive? Do I have to come over there and
hide your TV clicker?
Dictators (as well as plutocrats like Bush and company) often act in
the NAME of morality, but the real reason is fear of losing their
power. But what does the behavior of dictators have to do with the
assumptions made by scientists? This conversation is becoming quite
surreal, not that there's anything wrong with that...
platt now ridicules Paul Davies, who's never said an unkind word
about platt:
If you read the entire article you'll notice the explanation Davies
offers depends on events which are "emergent," "spontaneous,
"uncaused,"and "uncertain" which is tantamount to saying, "We don't
know."
msh says:
Who doesn't know? Maybe you don't know, but Davies quite clearly
DOES understand the nature of such events. And he presents
scientific evidence for his belief, including data and mathematics
that can be evaluated by others. So, whether he's right or wrong,
his belief rests on logical proof and material evidence. Faith-
based beliefs are held without evidence, sometimes in spite of
evidence to the contrary. If you don't agree with this then you
simply do not understand the meaning of the word "faith."
Best,
Mark Steven Heyman (msh)
-- InfoPro Consulting - The Professional Information Processors Custom Software Solutions for Windows, PDAs, and the Web Since 1983 Web Site: http://www.infoproconsulting.com "The shadows that a swinging lamp will throw, We come from nowhere and to nothing go." 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 : Sun Apr 10 2005 - 21:31:01 BST