From: b645zaw@utarlg.uta.edu (Stephen Tice)
Subject: Re: A nation chosen by GOD -- New-Israel
News-Software: VAX/VMS VNEWS 1.41    
Organization: The University of Texas at Arlington
Date: Tue, 12 Jan 1993 03:57:00 GMT

In article <j!g=jMC@engin.umich.edu>, 
ingles@engin.umich.edu (Ray Ingles) writes...

>b645zaw@utarlg.uta.edu (Stephen Tice) writes:
>>ingles@engin.umich.edu (Ray Ingles) writes...
>>>b645zaw@utarlg.uta.edu (General Mineral) writes:

> What about people who 'think' that the Earth is flat? Should this be
>taught in public schools as well?

Sure, why not. First, it would introduce the "flat earthers," and
could be used as a counter case in science, sociology, psychology,
or government.

It does make things more interesting to realize that there are still
folks who question things like the moon walk. Given the government
debt figures -- questioning anything presented by the government, or
media (or church) is wise. 

The case of outright lying I'm most familiar with is the Superconduc-
ting Super Collider. The liars are mostly all politicians, but books 
like _Nobel Dreams_ and a little time in the library shows just how 
screwed up big science and scientists are too. Having more than intimate
familiarity with the military and defense, and academia, I'm convinced
that it's mostly all just power games, with precious little that's useful
going on. After a good dose of politics -- it seems the entertainment
media (including especially the press) is just as bogus.

Of course, the bigger the process, the more that can be siphoned off
into little whirlpools of in good-order and wealth. I just saw the top
part of a _TIME_ while ago with the banner "MEGACITIES" (or some such).
I'm sure a *few* people, who know how to take advantage of it, will be 
almost intoxicated by the prospect. 

>>Similarly, education which acknowledges how little we =know= about
>>anything, seems better. Evolution is only a theory, and Creationism
>>only a belief. Both should =not= be offered up as proof of anything.
> 
> There is a Theory of Evolution, and a Theory of Gravitation. Both have
>analogous quantities of evidence in their favor, both make rigorous
>predictions that are borne out by experiment and evidence, and both leave
>similar margins for doubt. 

And both will likely be considered trivial to the theorists a hundred 
years hence.

>If you believe otherwise, you might do well
>to read some books about it. Futuyama's "Evolution" comes highly
>recommended on talk.origins. (You might try lurking there for a while;
>it's much fun to watch.)

I take these theories for granted. Just another tool among so many.
And use when needed.

As to their aesthetics, it's hard for me to ignore how many people are
used up, and discarded to allow a few others the thrill or reward of such 
pursuits. 

As to their intrinsic value, scientific progress suggests that these are
merely models, useful within certain constraints. When more exotic
conditions are encountered, as with all models, they loose utility.
But you have to go with what you got I reckon. Rather than wait for
the grand-ultimate-unified model to suggest a more optimum implementation. 

I'll keep the lurking in mind though, thanks.

>>Who of us "knows" what truth is? Or could begin to relate such truth.
> 
> Not all "truths" are invented equal... some match observations quite
>a bit better than others.

Which is a fact. I asked "who" to introduce the "from and to" of 
objective fact. Quite useless otherwise. 

I'm noticing that you folks (like Perot's you-people) over here seem 
to be stuck in "IT." Perhaps even enamored of "it" -- ie the object. 
Is this part of the character of atheist??

>>Most of Science is based on work from the 1700s, and on logical 
>>extension.
> 
> Could you name some fields of science that have not undergone major
>revisions and reorganizations since the 1700's? I can't. Some branches
>didn't even exist then.

300 years is trivial in even in scientific terms, is my point. 300 years
of science should make what's considered valid today, ho hum. 6000 years
of human history is meaningless (and terribly dry) to me, if divorced from
personal involvement. Science, and especially math, is boring until I 
find out what the ones who participated in any advance were doing at the 
time. An amazing number were proccupied with spiritual concerns, if not 
uncovering some of GOD's handiwork. 

Looking around I think GOD had a thing for fractals. And can't help but
wonder what GOD finds so interesting in fractals to repeat them so much.
Best I can figure, "truth" is also fractal -- no matter how you cut it,
view it, slice, dice or permute, it still comes out "truth." Being a 
critter which is a reflection of GOD (I hope you'll tolerate my expres-
sing my belief), my fractal nature is not lost on me. Compared to 
typically human cartesian geometries, it's interesting. If I wanted to
convey something worthwhile as an artist, or artisan, I'd probably
repeat it. What of GOD is fractal???? Better yet, GOD, why fractals?

>>           Which is all pretty nebulous when you look at the metaphysical 
>>basis. Scientific models work, more or less, and help predict some things, 
>>which is fine -- until they break down under some application, requiring
>>revision or refinement. Hardly much to go on, but useful -- as long
>>as Science isn't mistaken for Truth.
> 
> Much of the general public makes that mistake, but not nearly so many
>scientists do. I happen to trust science to a certain extent; a scientific
>explanation is still around 'cause it's the best explanation to date. It's
>certainly the one to bet on, for now.

I trust scientists. But (sadly) not ones wrapped up in government or 
government funded academics.

Trust and faith. Questions and doubts. Proceed or ponder. I'm reminded
of video games -- especially Tetris -- mind drugs. Drugs are addicting
because some things we do naturally are likewise. Some folks have 
figured out how to use others....

Ray, you seem well able to let it be, and go on. Zazen like. If you 
aren't hung up on it -- what stops you from seeing GOD's character
all around you? Despite the users.

> ... few people have been killed for the creed "there is no god." An
>atheistic religious war is somewhat of an oxymoron.

Is it LIFE, that *you* worship? This is something I've noticed in the
christian fundies and the greens -- they idolize it. Ditto for Star
Trek. Is part of the character of the *atheist* a deep concern for life? 

If so then, I've found, so far that atheist cherish LIFE and TRUTH.... 

>>                                                                 As
>>someone who believes all strictly human effort is likely corruptible,
>>and that human conceptions of the Cosmos are little more than tribal
>>or prehistoric lore -- I reckon there isn't much you can offer up that
>>is much better than fairy tales??
> 
> I think the evidence for the Big Bang is better (though not conclusive)
>than that for the vast majority of other "tribal prehistoric myths."
>I don't think I'd stake my life on it ultimately being the Truth, it's
>the one I'd bet on before all the others I'm acquainted with.

As if it mattered next to the experience of sharing life with another.
The Big Bang is a conception that motivates people -- to me. That it
has any usefulness or beauty beyond that, pales next to spectacle of
one so entranced. No matter what moves another person, it is worthy
of understanding -- because it provides a vehicle, for sharing and a
prompt to go on. Just my opinion. Doesn't even make a good theory.

>>Even erroneous notions, allow people to pursue and examine, areas
>>they would never have thought of stemming from any basis. Alchemy  
>>and astrology considered.
> 
> But alchemy never turned lead to gold, nor astrology made a useful
>prediction. They lead to neat fields of study, but hardly where they
>were originally aimed.

In fact, alchemy nor nuclear chemistry ever did anything. Nor has science. 
Nor has religion.

>>> And some of us just really hate the idea of all that effort going to
>>>support the "least productive industry in history."  Etc.
>>
>>"Hate," I think, comes from being infringed on repeatedly. It's an ego
>>thing I reckon. As to religion(?) being productive... to what end?
> 
> I don't see it having succeded in its putative aim of making more moral
>people, for one. I also see it as having cause irreparable harm in certain
>areas; the burning of the Library at Alexandria was religiously motivated,
>for example.

You've no doubt guessed I'm no defender of religion, church, state, school
(especially academia), ideology, philosophy, or any other human-institutions. 

When I was very young, one of my favorite books was an old thick ancient
history text. I deeply regret that I can't look more fully into the 
minds of the ancients, and beyond, through the texts of the Alexandrian
library, or language of the Mayan and Aztec cultures. The bible is some 
comfort in this regard. Of recent, I've found myself fascinated with the 
Jewish concept of Jubilee. And the notion of cycles of rest and renewal. 
But (not to be preachy)...

Religion, like placing faith in any institution or ideology of mankind,
results in indifference or war. Sadly, it's just as true of science.
All childish attempts at finding out what's going on, without adequate
presence of mind to recognize the ramifications of ones efforts. 
Religion is a tool for manipulating people, and Science is likewise.

Anthropology has tried to tell us how pack-like we are naturally,
and metaphysics has drawn us out of it about as much as human effort
can. On our own. Hasn't made much difference -- people still want
cities rather than gardens. Not so that they can be together --
but to be cocooned.

As if by taking flight, there were really some tomorrow.

There is no tomorrow. There is only now. We forget that sometimes. Past
is memory, and future is hope. Neither Big Bang, nor Big Bust are over. 
In the mean time we're here. And the generation that might go to the
stars -- they'll think we're quaint, if not prehistoric, most likely.

Not in the least -- because we place overmuch faith in ourselves,
and abuse or neglect each other, in an effort to get free of it 
-- being the ominous mass of humanity.

> Ray Ingles
> ingles@engin.umich.edu
> 
> "Is knowledge knowable? If not, how do we know this?" -- Woody Allen


One need not use the same language to express common convictions,
(or send common criminals up the line ;)

   |
-- J --
   |
   |  Stephen