[net.religion] RICH ROSEN'S misconceptions

gulley@stolaf.UUCP (William T. Gulley) (11/28/84)

[Please chomp here.]

> = Ken Nichols
] = Ken Montgomery
  = Hapless asbestos-lined smurf (i.e., moi)

>  And I have the
>internal (I say from the Holy Spirit, you say from myself) evidences of peace
>and security, etc.
]
]This is also not evidence.  We have no way of knowing for sure that 
]you do in fact gain peace and security, etc.

That approach may work in the instance of a proving a mathematical theorem,
but doesn't when it comes to evaluating the evidence presented by a complex
human being.  I don't think that you are as straight-laced as to say, after
someone has responded to your "How are you?" with an "I'm fine.", something
like, "I don't believe you - prove it."  You can't really entirely know.
(apart from a little healthy naiivite) And if you can't be conclusively *proven*
as to any person's well-being*, you also have no reason to believe the opposite 
- that any person isn't a mass murderer. (Take that "reasonable" mentality to 
it's logical end and see where it's gotten us, as society)    
* by their works.

]. . .I consider science to be reasonable
]because it *works*, not because of what any person says about it.

Has the development of nuclear weapons in the last 20 years or so done
anything for your peace of mind, or made your life worth any more?  It
sure works, but for whose benefit, yours or the Nobel Prize winner's career/
reputation? 

]Nothing can convince *me* except hard evidence.  Do you have any way to
]*show me beyond a shadow of a doubt* that the "Spirit of God" even exists?

*I* couldn't, because, as was stated before by K. Nichols, what conclusions
you would get out of any evidence that Christianity could come up with would
completely depend on the mentality that you take into interpreting it. For that
matter, do you have any way to show me (a non-Physics major) beyond a shadow 
of a doubt that atoms exist?  
____   

William Gulley-  		       {ihnp4 | decvax}!stolaf!gulley
"In this Age of Communication, I'm just not getting through" -Bruford

rlr@pyuxd.UUCP (Rich Rosen) (11/28/84)

Could someone please send me all the articles in the chain leading to
this article.  Apparently the chain starts with an article by Ken
Nichols on what he feels are my misconceptions.  I'd like the opportunity
to answer that, if I might.  In the meantime, let me comment on the
followup followup article anonymously posted (or so he thought) by
William Gulley (either that or something is screwy with posting at stolaf).

]Nothing can convince *me* except hard evidence.  Do you have any way to
]*show me beyond a shadow of a doubt* that the "Spirit of God" even exists?

> *I* couldn't, because, as was stated before by K. Nichols, what conclusions
> you would get out of any evidence that Christianity could come up with would
> completely depend on the mentality that you take into interpreting it. For
> that matter, do you have any way to show me (a non-Physics major) beyond a
> shadow of a doubt that atoms exist?  [GULLEY]

Gulley comments on how normal interaction between people ("How are you?" "I'm
fine."  "Prove it.") doesn't demand the rigors of scientific investigative
processes.  That's simply because that's what human beings want in daily
typical interactions.  If we didn't make assumptions about many things in
daily life, we'd all die of brain overload (as opposed to stagnation from
brain underload that I've seen... oh, never mind!).  But a real examination of
what is really going on in the universe requires more stringent standards.
Telling me your friend is "fine" because he says so is one thing; telling me
that the universe is the way you choose to believe it to be because you
think so or someone told you so is quite another.  People who want to ignore
thorough investigative process because it's too complicated or confusing (like
Nichols does) or because they don't have the required knowledge base ("I'm not
a physics major.") do not change the results of serious inquiry.  They simply
choose to ignore them because they don't fit into their belief structure.
-- 
Occam's Razor:  I liked it so much, I bought the company!
						Rich Rosen    pyuxd!rlr

kjm@ut-ngp.UUCP (Ken Montgomery) (11/29/84)

[]
>] = Me (Ken Montgomery)
>  = Hapless asbestos-lined smurf (William Gulley)

>]
>]This is also not evidence.  We have no way of knowing for sure that 
>]you do in fact gain peace and security, etc.
>
>That approach may work in the instance of a proving a mathematical theorem,
>but doesn't when it comes to evaluating the evidence presented by a complex
>human being.

Then how do you evaluate evidence?  BTW, wasn't that mathematical theorem
presented by a "complex human being"?

> I don't think that you are as straight-laced as to say, after
>someone has responded to your "How are you?" with an "I'm fine.", something
>like, "I don't believe you - prove it."  

That depends on the person.  :-)

> You can't really entirely know.
>(apart from a little healthy naiivite) And if you can't be conclusively 
>*proven* as to any person's well-being*, you also have no reason to believe
>the opposite - that any person isn't a mass murderer. 

No, I don't have any reason to believe *anything* about anyone I
don't know...  BTW, why is well being the opposite of mass murder?

>
>]. . .I consider science to be reasonable
>]because it *works*, not because of what any person says about it.
>
>Has the development of nuclear weapons in the last 20 years or so done
>anything for your peace of mind,

Why is science required to work for my peace of mind?

> or made your life worth any more? It
>sure works, but for whose benefit, yours or the Nobel Prize winner's career/
>reputation? 

Why do you ask?  Do you think I could sell myself for more? :-)
Seriously, why is science required to work for my (or anyone else's)
benefit?

>]Nothing can convince *me* except hard evidence.  Do you have any way to
>]*show me beyond a shadow of a doubt* that the "Spirit of God" even exists?
>
>*I* couldn't, because, as was stated before by K. Nichols, what conclusions
>you would get out of any evidence that Christianity could come up with would
>completely depend on the mentality that you take into interpreting it.

In other words, you wish to hedge around not having a shred of evidence.

> For that
>matter, do you have any way to show me (a non-Physics major) beyond a shadow 
>of a doubt that atoms exist?  

The atomic theory of matter is a \model/, an explanation which is 
considered correct if and only if it fits the *observed* facts.
Whether or not atoms actually exist is irrelevant; the model
does not have to be literally true, it only has to explain the
observed facts.  But you could be shown either that the model
works or that it needs to be changed.  Religion, on the other
hand, appears to have no *observed* facts.  Instead, it has wishful
*beliefs*, which are made up out of whole cloth to suit whomever
happens to have theological control of the particular religion at
the time.

>William Gulley
--
"Shredder-of-hapless-smurfs"
Ken Montgomery
...!{ihnp4,seismo,ctvax}!ut-sally!ut-ngp!kjm  [Usenet, when working]
kjm@ut-ngp.ARPA  [for Arpanauts only]

jnelson@trwrba.UUCP (John T. Nelson) (12/08/84)

		I consider science to be reasonable because it *works*,
		not because of what any person says about it.

	Has the development of nuclear weapons in the last 20 years or
	so done anything for your peace of mind, or made your life
	worth any more?  It sure works, but for whose benefit, yours or
	the Nobel Prize winner's career/reputation?

Yes let's look at the life of Robert Oppenheimer.  My he certainly
benefited nicely from his work didn't he?  And Sakahrov's reputation
in the Soviet Union is well in hand.  This is a moot argument.


					- John