williams@kirk.DEC (John Williams 223-3402) (06/12/85)
> Perhaps various religious groups appear to be wavering all > the time, but the Bible is firm, and has never been disproven > by science. If a particular religion doesn't take a stand on > things, it's the fault of people, not God. You can't use logical proof in a continuous system! These aspects have to be subjected to probability analysis. Such as: If I keep on telling you this enough times, it is probable that eventually you will believe me. The fact that the Bible is firm is it's problem. Science will revise it's theories as contrary evidence is verified though observation. > Again, the fault of people, not God. By the way, the > church was not alone in supporting the "sun around the earth" > theory. That theory had GREAT backing from the scientific > community. > Don't confuse blind following of an organization (church) > with faith in God. One is prone to gross errors, because of > its human makeup - the other isn't. Science was initially founded within the church. Science did not choose to overstep the boundaries the church did. When science was able to demonstrate, as opposed to prove, that their theories were wrong, the church, under the guise of God, excommunicated and persecuted these individuals. > There you go again, Jim! The value, truthfulness, > validity, and strength of an argument is directly proportional > to the amount of effort required to formulate it. Talk about > arrogance!!! This is the whole problem between God and man - > pride. "God" is a "boring" model - too simple, too many > questions answered (some by "We'll never know in this life."). > But the myriads of theories arising from complexity and twisted > logical thought MUST be true - I mean, look at the human effort > needed to arrive at them! You CANNOT look down upon those who > have accepted a "model" by faith, simply because they aren't > putting in the effort you are to understand things (which may > or may not be true). Also, the Bible says that the foolishness > of God is wiser than man's wisdom, and the weakness of God is > stronger than man's strength. Perhaps God doesn't put much > stock into these "deep" and "demanding" theories, either. As I said earlier, complexity is not a requirement. It is a characteristic. It is not the simplification that we are concerned about, it is the oversimplification. You, at least, seem to understand the concept of " Models ", which is necessary for you to understand that religion is only another alternative, something a lot of other people would deny. The next step, however, is to determine which is the more probable, which is something you have yet to do. The purpose of the whole thing is survival, not only individual survival, but survival of the species, which is enforced on individuals by the fact that we depend very heavily on each other on a routine basis. > Tell me, Jim. What makes one "model" better than another? > From what I've read above, complexity and effort do. This is a > faulty set of criteria, to say the least. The key word here is probability, which must often become complex in order to retain accuracy. Complexity is a characteristic, not a requirement. > And yes, I sleep really well - thanks! A couple of nitols will do the same thing. That has little to do with validity. Something will feel right up until the time it feels wrong. > Why? Because the ones who don't believe are so much more > intellectually active? Hogwash. I'm not intellectually > stagnant - I ponder and wonder at lots of things, both within > the Bible and outside the Bible. What makes a Christian so > inferior to those who haven't stooped so low as to accept a > (gag) faith? There has to be a problem defined before any attempt to solve it can be initiated. I believe science to be intellectually superior purely on the basis of it's validity. > By the way, the Bible says that God wants nothing more > than to have each one of us not only believe in Him, but > glorify and praise Him. Perhaps He is intellectually stagnant > too. You think that is accomplished through mere words? There is a lot more thought behind scientific theory than the study of a 2000 year old book. Hypothesizing on God's own personal moods has no relevence here. I could easily hypothesize that he is laughing his ass off at the bimbos who were so easily fooled by a rather loud voice and a rather large book. > OK, for the sake of common terms, it's a hypothesis. Why > is it poor? Because it hasn't been subjected to carbon dating? > Because it hasn't been through the wringer in net.whatever for > approval? Because it hasn't been deemed as one of the "good" > hypotheses we have to choose from? It's not a good one for you > because it occupies the realm of faith, which goes beyond man's > reasoning and logic. Try as you might, with whatever powerful > arguments and points, you cannot disprove it. It *can* be shown to be inconsistent. Examples: 1. Adam's Rib 2. 7 day creation 3. Miracles 4. Almost anything else you can reference Show me one *REAL* example and I'll take it all back. > Yes, I most certainly can make mistakes. But, as you have > pointed out, so can everybody else. If this is a mistake, then > it's perhaps the most consistent mistake around. By faith, I > have accepted that the Bible is the Word of God. Everything I > subsequently have come to believe is based on it. It's no > different from anybody else who takes a stand on something. > Why does it bother you that I have taken my stand? What's the > problem? The problem is that you open your mouth. Your inflexible stand is an act of pure obstinance. I see no reason to cooperate when you have just stated your refusal to cooperate with me. So, let's debate and let time tell which one of us is right. You may even refuse to do this, in which case, I am unable to correct you. This also means that you are free to compound the " problem ". > Arrogant? Hardly. The net (and the rest of the world, > for that matter) is full of folks arguing points. Why do they > argue? Because they think they are right - they have faith in > what they believe. Why don't I have the right to decide what I > believe and not be labeled as "arrogant"? I have NEVER made > the claim that I know it all. There is much in life that I do > not understand, and much that I never will. Arrogance in your previous statement that you have taken an inflexible stand as far as the Bible is concerned. I do not possess a single inflexible stand that can not be demonstrated in a maeningful sense. Words will never provide the kind of demonstration required to actually " Know " something. > Don't give me this stuff about Science and Philosophy > always dwelling in the "I suspect . . . because..." arena - > it just ain't true. Sure, in the research area, the words are > stated in this manner, but textbooks are full of "facts" which, > quite simply, aren't. Natural "laws", philosophical theories, > mathematical equations, etc. are presented as facts when NONE > of them can be proven beyond the shadow of a doubt. They are > simply models or approximations that seem to work for the time > being. We could prefix everything by " I think ", but that is hardly a practical protocol. Speaking of theories, Religious ones tend to cast a rather *LARGE* shadow, don't you think? > Keep in mind that I don't consider Science an "evil". I > look to science to explain some of the many things I find > inexplicable. The only time science and I part company is when > science purports to have "discovered" or "proven" something > that directly contradicts the Bible (my "stand"). And that > doesn't happen very often. What do you mean "often"? Evolution is in direct opposition to the Bible. Physics is in indirect opposition. There is actually very little written in the Bible that can be verified through science. There is, in fact, quite a lot that can be demonstrated to be wrong. > I'm fully prepared to subject anything I say to analysis, > or I wouldn't have said them on the net. I present my beliefs > as perfectly valid alternatives (or perhaps as supporting > viewpoints) to things said on the net, nothing more. Alternatives, yes. Valid, no. You list a possibility without determining a probability. Religion is half baked. > And what is your definition of "analysis"? If you can't > pick it apart to the point where you can fully understand it, > then you cast it off of the net? I suspect so. Religious > thought is thought that needs to be considered, not ignored. No, we pick apart to the point where we *CAN* understand it, *THEN* throw it off the net. > And what makes you the keeper of net.philosophy? Why > should my postings disappear for "the sake of everyone else"? > At the least, what I say should make for amusing reading, if > nothing else. Well, he speaks for me as well, if your " stand " prevents you from listening. If you only complete one half of the requirements for meaningful communication, then we really don't have any interest in you. > Look, philosophy is thought, viewpoint, and reasoning. My > position qualifies. Look, philosophy requires communication. You may be disqualified. Then again, there always *IS* the possibility that you have been able to comprehend this and other articles from an objective perspective, but that states nothing of the probability. You may indeed act differently than the other nuts we've had to deal with, but chances are, we are wasting our words for the (n+1)th time. John Williams < As Usual >