sdyer@bbncca.ARPA (Steve Dyer) (01/10/84)
Oh, come off it! The inconsistency in your analogies with the Bohr atom are exposed as soon as you identify it as a "model". A model is by definition not the object itself, but rather a way of formalizing a particular view of reality. A scientist does not "believe" in a model in the same way as people "believe" in God. A scientific model is a useful tool for examining the world, but it is conveniently discarded if further evidence contradicts it, or if another model can explain the same situation more simply. Religious belief simply does NOT depend on physical evidence analogous to scientific inquiry. And if anyone thinks it DOES, they're talking about PHYSICS, not religion. -- /Steve Dyer decvax!bbncca!sdyer sdyer@bbncca
gds@mit-eddie.UUCP (Greg Skinner) (01/10/84)
As I recall, Rich Rosen was arguing on behalf of "what we learn in school is borne out by evidence, and what we learn through faith is not." I was merely countering by stating that "there is no absolute proof for what we learn in school, neither is there for what we believe through faith, so the latter should not be discarded for lack of evidence." If the theory turns out to be incorrect, the evidence must be re-evaluated. Therefore, evidence should not be the sole criterion for forming a belief, and lack of evidence should not be the sole criterion for rejecting one. -- --greg ...decvax!genrad!mit-eddie!gds (uucp) Gds@XX (arpa)
rlr@pyuxn.UUCP (Rich Rosen) (01/11/84)
After making some points (which concurred with) about the evolutionary nature of evidence in evaluating beliefs, Greg concludes: Therefore, evidence should not be the sole criterion for forming a belief, and lack of evidence should not be the sole criterion for rejecting one. I always thought that lack of evidence was a pretty good basis on which to judge the validity of a belief. But now I believe in Ubizmo (oh, no, here he goes again!) and his Word, the Book of Ubizmo, which he passed on to his profit --excuse me, prophet--Malla Temprana Yofi, over 42,000 years ago in a cave outside what is now Pittsburgh. Though the only existing copy of this book says "(c) 1972 by the Left Rev. Willy Edgar Dipnowitz" on the frontispiece, I have faith that Uncle Willy is right despite the lack of evidence pointing to an earlier copy or earlier believers (except in the book itself, which clearly describes George Washington and Benjamin Franklin as practitioners of Ubizmatism). Thanks to Greg for agreeing with me that this lack of evidence is no reason not to believe. (Who says I don't agree with anybody in this newsgroup?) Gravity? Now that's another story. Don't expect me to believe that hogwash just because there's evidence for it! The Book of Ubizmo says... (You get the idea.) "Yes, I wrote all of Shakespeare's plays and my wife wrote all of his sonnets." "I see. How old are you?" "42." "I see. And are you aware that Shakespeare died over 350 years ago?" "Yes, I am." "Then how could you have written things that were known to exist before you were born?" "Ah, well I was hoping you wouldn't ask that question, sir, as it puts a large unfillable hole in my argument." -- Rich Rosen pyuxn!rlr
gds@mit-eddie.UUCP (Greg Skinner) (01/12/84)
Allow me to make myself clear. I don't know if Rich was really agreeing with me or being sarcastic, but for the sake of safety here goes: One should not reject *someone else's* belief just because *they* (the rejector) has no evidence that the belief is true. I personally know a few Moslems and Jews, and have had limited opportunities to discuss their faith and mine with them, and I have never questioned the validity of their beliefs. I think this newsgroup could benefit from such discipline. It's a lot better than shooting each other down. (I know, I've been guilty of a few flames, but I will attempt to restrain myself and only argue for the sake at arriving at truths instead of winning arguments.) sigh ... :-( -- --greg ...decvax!genrad!mit-eddie!gds (uucp) Gds@XX (arpa)