From: jmv@grip.cis.upenn.edu (Jean-Marc Vezien)
Newsgroups: sci.skeptic
Subject: Re: Totally Unrelated Drivel....
Date: 29 Sep 92 19:52:04 GMT
Organization: GRASP Lab

In article <1992Sep29.161032.15089@nosc.mil>, clarkk@nosc.mil (Kevin D. Clark) writes:
> 
>  Skeptics:
> 
>  I ran into two possibly interesting topics of discussion in the past few days
>  and was curious what type of feedback they might generate on this newsgroup.
>  They are totally unrelated to one another, so maybe this is a breach of net
>  etiquette...I am wearing asbestos briefs if the need to incinerate me arises.
> 

Asbestos briefs are also quite useful to protect yourself against the 
Evil Cosmic Abducting Rays from the Greys (ECARG).
(Note that ECARG spelled backwards gives GRACE, but I digress).

>  1. On a recent weekday afternoon, I was madly channel-hopping, a habit my wife
>     despises vehemently, and happened upon a "talk-show" with a host named
>     Montel Williams. [description of the Show deleted for brevity]

I saw it too. Of course none of the interesting subjects were brought up.

>     My question for those of you more informed than me is (and perhaps I will
>     reveal some ignorance here) is there a general consensus at this point in
>     time whether homosexuality is biological or environmental or a combination
>     of both in origin?  I vaguely recall reading that someone had discovered
>     that one or more brain structures in homosexuals were different than in
>     heterosexuals...

All I read about that was speculation at best. It would be so convenient to
discard all "abnormals" via biochemistry. The case of the Twins one of which
is gay and the other straight makes it clear that it's not as simple as that.
Of course social environnement (Freudian will say early childhood) is crucial
to the individual sexuality development.


> 
>  2. For those of you who may not have seen it yet, Time magazine just sent out
>     a special issue called "Beyond the Year 2000-What to Expect in the New
>     Millenium".  Apparently, various writers were solicited to "predict" what
>     life will be like over the next thousand years.  Each article covers a
>     different aspect of society and culture.  I just received my copy last
>     night and only flipped through it, but one article caught my attention
>     because it hits on a topic that voraciously devours much bandwidth on this
>     newsgroup.  The article is titled "Kingdoms to Come" and discusses briefly
>     what religion and faith might be like in 2092.  The author is Richard N.
>     Ostling and I have no idea who he is and where he came by his "insights".
>     Perhaps someone out there knows of him?  Anyway, the article describes a
>     world where religion is somewhat similar to that of today with the
>     so-called mainstream religions (Catholicism, Protestantism, Buddhism,
>     Hinduism, etc) still strong, but the smaller sects having dwindled to
>     almost nonexistence.  The paragraph that I thought would be most
>     interesting to this group, however, was the final one which includes the
>     statements "The end of atheism and agnosticism became inevitable as soon as
>     computer calculations made improbable the odds that random natural
>     selection could be the sole explanation for the ever increasing intricacies
>     found in biology.  Equally influential was the discovery of multiple
>     universes, which astronomers found at the macrocosmic level and physicists
>     detected in the microcosmic.  Science thus established the current Age of
>     Faith, re-creating the Creator.  Nowadays, only the fool says in his heart,
>     'There is no God.'" (pg 61-any typos mine).  
> 

Humph. Again Time magazine proves itself ignorant, if not plain stupid.
I particularly like the "computer calculations proving the existence of God" thing.

I won't even comment on the "multiple universes" bullshit, it's too easy.

>     Since this quote relates so well to many of the topics which appear on
>     this newsgroup, I felt to compelled to ask: Is this a probable future for
>     us?  Is it likely that science may usher in a new Age of Faith over the
>     next thousand years?  Again curiousity may be my downfall, but I am amply
>     equipped with flame-retardant garments so let me have it....
> 

The "new Age of Faith" is only in the mind of those who see "New ages" at each corner
of history. There's no "Golden Age", history goes on, with its multiplicity of religion,
and (thank god - oups) the development of our understanding thru science.
Try and read the Time issue about aging. Some interesting and REAL stuff for the next century.
(Time magazine is not so bad after all).




> Spooner (I speak only for those foolish enough to pay me to speak for them and
> 	 so far I've had no takers....)

JM.




















Newsgroups: sci.skeptic