From: livesey@solntze.wpd.sgi.com (Jon Livesey)
Newsgroups: alt.atheism
Subject: Re: A nation chosen by GOD -- New-Israel
Date: 12 Jan 93 07:04:47 GMT
Organization: sgi
NNTP-Posting-Host: solntze.wpd.sgi.com

In article <11JAN199323341109@utarlg.uta.edu>, b645zaw@utarlg.uta.edu (Stephen Tice) writes:
|> In article <1itbtrINN2dg@fido.asd.sgi.com>, 
|> livesey@solntze.wpd.sgi.com (Jon Livesey) writes...
|> > 
|> >Your local school board for one.    Trot down and tell them "We shold
|> >be teaching scepticisim" and I think that the answer will be "We do".
|> 
|> Noted. And I bet they're a bunch of bureacrats. Who sit at desks rather
|> than visit schools.

Fine.   *My* schooling included what you asked for: "a healthy dose of
scepticism".    If you have evidence that your children aren't getting it,
then go to a PAT meeting and make sure they do.

Posting to alt.atheism isn't going to help.

|> >If you think that Science is making no progress, that's your privilege.
|> >Doubtless you can come up with a "christian" definition of progress that
|> >indicates we are going backwards.
|> 
|> I certainly can come up with an anarchist one.

Sure, but you'll probably word it so that it talks about social progress
rather than scientific progress.

|> 
|> >I'm using the notion of progress that I think most ordinary people 
|> >would recognize.   More knowledge, more useful techniques, better
|> >drugs, better surgical techniques, and so on.
|> 
|> At what price Jon? I'll contend that it's mostly been built by 
|> government oppression. And currently has ensnared most people
|> in a high stress, low reward life.

I think this is what I mean.    You don't like the society you live
in, for some reason: that's your privilege.   So you declare that we
are not making "progress".    What you mean is that what is happening 
in society isn't to your liking, I think, not that we are not making 
progress in a scientific sense.   You're just mixing up two different 
concepts.

But of course, there's a good chunk of that in Christianity, isn't
there.    Whatever serves to mould society the way that churches want
it to be is "Truth" and whatever gets in the way of religion is "Un-
Truth", and who cares about factual accuracy.

"Truth is what serves Big Brother".


|> >Your counter-example is unconvincing.   It's not "science" that
|> >produces pollution.   In fact, it's Scientists who are developing
|> >new techniques for dealing with pollution.   
|> 
|> Jon, I thought you were Randian. Your assertion ignores what it
|> takes to produce those developments in the term of how funding is
|> gathered and what must be done by people from who that funding is
|> taken. 

You mean we have to pay for science?    That's very astute.   Now
what does it have to do with making progress in the scientific sense?

|> 
|> >Pollution is produced - broadly speaking - by people who think that 
|> >making a profit, which is quite acceptable in itself, of course, 
|> >entitles them to abuse the environment.
|> 
|> How many industry jobs, and how much commuting does it take to produce
|> the income, from which taxes are taken to fund science and academia?

Who knows, and what does it have to do with making scientific progress?

|> 
|> In the vernacular -- Scientist, by in large prostitute themselves
|> to power brokers. Just like churches do. Just like government does.
|> Just like every other human intitution. It's not that it's neutral,
|> it's that it is used by people intent on sucking off a small piece
|> for themselves at the expense of everyone. The bigger the mess the
|> more they get away with.

That's a rant, so I won't bother with it.

|> 
|> >Similarly, it's not "science" that causes declines in school scores.
|> 
|> No, more likely -- it's television

Ok, so TV is one of your hot buttons.   That's your privilege, too.   I'm
not a big fan of TV myself, but if you are looking for someone to discuss
TV with, try over in soc.parents, or sci.psychology.   It has zip to do 
with alt.atheism.


|> >In European countries, and Japan, where there isn't quite the same
|> >blind obedience to markets and to hell with society, scores are
|> >holding up quite well.    But that's a topic for discussion elsewhere,
|> >if at all.    I certainly won't discuss it here.
|> 
|> Sorry, of course you're not a Radian, or a libertarian -- your a
|> liberal and likely a democrat. From the sounds of it. 

That's frightfully interesting, and I must remember to make a note
of it.    But what does it have to do with anything?   Are Randians
- what the hell is a Randian, anyone know? - any more or less
likely to be atheists?


|> As a person, you're ok jon. Even as an atheist.
|> 
|> As a partisan, forget it. You ain't worth it.
|> 
|> "General Quarters"

Gosh, does this mean you are "re-assuming the mask"?

jon.