From: kellmeye@ux1.cso.uiuc.edu (kellmeyer steven l)
Subject: Re: Lifestyle Choices and Secular Reasoning
Organization: University of Illinois at Urbana
Distribution: usa
Date: Tue, 5 Jan 1993 14:35:28 GMT

harp@netcom.com (Gregory O. Harp) writes:

>kellmeye@ux1.cso.uiuc.edu (kellmeyer steven l) writes:

>>Try reading the Declaration of Independence sometime.  Note
>>the reference to "nature and Nature's God" paragraph one, 
>>that men "are endowed by their Creator with certain inalienable rights"
>>paragraph 2, and that "with a firm reliance on the protection of Divine
>>Providence" last paragraph.  

>I am perfectly aware of the references to the Christan God in the D.
>of I.  Jefferson was a Deist, but by no stretch of the word was he a
>Christian.  The references to "God" were common in the literature of
>the day, and were politically correct.  They served the needs of the
>American colonies, especially when King George III supposedly had
>"divine providence".  Call it undermining the king's authority.

>Proof that this country was founded on a belief in God?  Nope.

That alone is not, of course.  But if you'd done any study of the 
tenor of the times, you would necessarily reach a different conclusion.
I have neither the time nor the bandwidth to conduct an Intro to 
American history course, but the 18th century was not yet the time
of atheists - it was simply culturally impossible to conceive of a
universe in which no God existed.  They hadn't developed enough of the
necessary concepts.  They certainly had conceived of a God that was
many times more remote than any God since Allah, but they had not yet
succeeded in abolishing Him from Creation.  That took the 19th 
century, Darwin, Marx, and Nietszche to accomplish.

>>I never said they were Christian - you just saw the words "God" and 
>>"religion" and assumed that I had.  You, on the other hand, took 
>>their remarks about Christianity and _assumed_ that they were atheists,
>>which they were most assuredly not.

>It's "pick your argument time" again, eh?  You are maintaining in
>another thread that the Christian, and in some cases, the Catholic
>church is responsible for the development of science and Western
>civilization.  Here you choose the wording "belief in God" to make it
>convenient for yourself.  

Greg, it is possible for people to hold two thoughts in their head at 
once.  In one thread, I am discussing the effect of Christianity on 
science, in another, I am discussing whether or not the founding
fathers believed in God.  These arguments do not cross each other
anywhere, and I have not crossed them anywhere.  Why do you insist one
has something to do with the other?

>In order to support your original statement that this country was
>founded upon a "belief in God", you have to have some criteria of what
>believing in "God" means, and how it would affect the development of
>the country.  Deists have very little in common with Christians, and
>the Jews and Muslims differ with them quite a bit.

>This just makes it all the more obvious that you can't prove your
>original statement.  You offer no criteria, no evidence, and when
>pressed you simply argue technicalities.  Oh, and of course you resort
>to personal attacks when you can't think of anything else to write.

>>All individuals must prove competency.

>Untrue.  In the U.S. legal system individuals 18 and over are assumed
>competent.  A third party may question their competence, and only
>_then_ must they attempt to prove it.  Individuals under 18 are
>assumed incomptetent.

They prove competency by their age.

>>>I disagree with that statement.  Science is the only "faith" (using
>>>your term here for the sake of argument) which offers _any_ proof with
>>>which to back it.  Most of the physical phenomena we "believe in" may
>>>be demonstrated.  We can view the physical results, even if you refuse
>>>to accept the basis.  Religion relys on absolute faith.

>>The proof is based on faith.  

>Certainly if you want to get into the philisophical nonsense-arguments
>such as whether your eyes are truly reporting the results of a
>demonstration of a physical phenomenon then it's based upon faith.
>That's stretching it quite a bit, though.

>However, like I said, science at least offers proof of some of its
>basic phenomena.  Religion offers none.

And you can't prove the existence of color to a blind man.  The proof
of science, like that of religion, is only useful to those who have
eyes to see.

>>You have faith that the world is millions
>>of years old based on radio-isotope dating, yet we have only been studying
>>elemental decay rates for less than a century out of all of those 
>>putative millions of years, and our testing is all performed in the 
>>same century block out of a several million year sample.  Hardly random.
>>How do we know our conclusions are worth crap?  We don't.  We take it on
>>faith.  Ditto nearly any field of endeavor.  We assume the universe has
>>always been the way it is right now.  Absolutely no reason to think that
>>assumption is correct other than faith.  Your "proof" is as thin as
>>any religion's.  Scientists just happen to be better con men than some.

>There are certainly several scientific theories that can only be
>accepted in faith.  However, this differs quite a bit from religion in
>which _all_ of the theories are accepted in faith.

Read Thomas Kuhn "Structure of Scientific Revolutions"  Your ideas are
20 years out of date.

>>Greg, I am very sorry that your life is rotten, but please try to control
>>yourself.  I deny that you have any concept of what religion is about.
>>That's all I can safely say right now.  I don't want you to do yourself
>>an injury.

>It really does credit to you and your school (that's sarcasm, son)
>that you must constantly personally attack anyone who argues with you.
>Sorry to inform you, but I'm not so thin-skinned as to be hurt by such
>things.  I take anything posted from a .edu site with a grain of salt,
>since of those posters still have some maturing to do.  Perhaps when
>you have been on the net longer you'll learn some netiquette,
>including how moronic it is to make false allegations of things like
>child abuse in front of thousands of witnesses.

>I find it amazing, though characteristic of many Christians, that you
>see your narrow views as "what religion is about".  This goes to show
>how little you know about it.  Several billion people would disagree
>with you.

I wasn't aware that truth was subject to majority rule.


>-- 
>-----------------Greg-Harp----------------harp@netcom.com------------------
>  "I think I've reached that point / Where every word that you write /
>  Of every blood dark sea / And every soul black night / And every dream
>  you dream me in / And every perfect free from sin / And burning eyes /
>  And hearts on fire / Are just the same old song" -- The Cure

Steve Kellmeyer
-- 

Steve Kellmeyer 
kellmeye@ux1.cso.uiuc.edu
Newsgroups: alt.rush-limbaugh