From: lydick@SOL1.GPS.CALTECH.EDU (Speaker-to-Minerals)
Newsgroups: alt.callahans
Subject: Re:  Science and god:  Are they incompatible?  If so, why?
Date: 17 Nov 1992 02:02:36 GMT
Organization: HST Wide Field/Planetary Camera
Distribution: world
Reply-To: lydick@SOL1.GPS.CALTECH.EDU
NNTP-Posting-Host: sol1.gps.caltech.edu

In article <AA05158.199211162157@tuda.ncl.ac.uk>, dph1jg@tuda.ncl.ac.uk (J.P.Gardner) writes:
="Let's see: First of all, it is obvious that STM and Nightstalker just
=plain don't like each other. Next, STM is very rude. When someone
=posted this before he asked for specific examples, so I'll provide
=some. Use of profanity is usually not considered to be good manners,
=and STM called NS's arguments bullshit.

Actually, what I called bullshit was the standard Christian explanation for why
so many bad deeds have been performed by Christians:  "But they weren't REAL
Christians," where the person who uses that excuse either can't or won't
provide an operational definition of "real Christian."  Or it might've been the
stanard practice of calling those parts of the Bible that support your position
literally true and those that would contradict it metaphor, again, without
providing instructions for telling which are which.  Now, Nighstalker has
used this particular excuse before, and, as expected, failed to give the
requested operational definition.

=He also called him a bigot --
=presumeably an anti-scientific bigot.

That's an incorrect presumption.  I called him a bigot based on the ample
evidence he's provided that he believes that being a Christian somehow makes
one better than if one were not a Christian.  Again, I've asked him to provide
evidence to back up his position.  No evidence was forthcoming.  Now, if a
belief, unsupported by evidence, that one's own group (be it ethnic, religious,
or language) is superior to all others isn't bigotry, what is it?


=Now NS is himself a scientist, so
=this is a little hard to believe.  But in any case, this was just
=name-calling, and there was no support for it in what NS wrote.

Given your flawed presumption, this would follow.  Given that your presumption
was false, it doesn't.

=In a broader sense, from STM's many posts, I have never seen him up on a
=soapbox, I have never seen him admit he is, was, or even could possibly
=be wrong.

You must've missed my followup to the post I made during an attack of
hypoglycemia.  I don't usually get up on a soapbox unless I've spent a LOT of
time thinking about the issue I'm talking about, and discussing it with people
with a broad range of viewpoints.

=He rarely uses the initials IMHO, and when he does, it is
=almost always IMNSHO, which really defeats the purpose.

What purpose might that be?  To give myself a way of weaseling out of what I've
said?

=OK -- maybe the
=first time someone did that it was funny. It isn't funny anymore, it is
=just arrogant. STM could greatly benefit from a good healthy dose of
=humility.

In YOUR humble opinion, I presume?

="Let's see... Well, I found most of STM's objections to NS's first post
=to be either nit-picking, or knocking down straw men. (And I do wish he
=would quit that, the straw is playing havoc with my allergies.

'Twould've been unnecessary had NS not added various non sequiturs to his
argument.  The things I objected to had absolutely no bearing on the question
of whether god and science are in conflict.  That's why I described his post as
preaching.

="The bitter dispute about whether NS was talking about Christianity or
=all religions was nit-picking.

Here you demonstrate the point I was trying to make:  Even though you realize
that what NS said was an insult to other religions, you seem to have missed the
fact that it's just a much an insult to agnostics.

=Oh, I agree, if I were an editor of the
=piece, I would probably tell him to change the title (as he said he
=considered doing) and make it clear that he was talking about
=Christianity and not anything else. But come on, people, wasn't this
=obvious? Well it was to me.

He wasn't even talking about "Christianity and not anything else."  He was
talking about his own particular brand of Christianity and not anything else. 
Yet his article showed pretty strong signs that he wasn't even aware (as he was
writing the piece) that there are other branches of Christianity.

="The part in NS's original essay about the woman being raped was overly
=strong imagery for what was otherwise intended as a scholarly toned
=article.

It was also either a non sequitur or a claim that religion somehow did some
good for rape victims, either potential or actual.  As usual, NS offered
absolutely no evidence in support of this rather strong claim.

=Nonetheless, STM does not seem to understand that religion does provide
=comfort to those to whom bad things have happened.

Oh?  How do the religions provide more comfort than simply teaching the person
all her life that unforseeable events are not her fault?

=Different religions
=in different ways, but it is not only in the ways that STM ridiculed.

Could you provide some examples?

=(But even that way -- by believing it is God's will, and part of a
=bigger plan does provide comfort to someone who believes that that
=bigger plan is good.


=Obviously this does not provide comfort to someone
=who doesn't believe in God, such as STM, however.) (And further: a lot
=of rape victims do feel guilt. Telling them it is not their fault is a
=good thing.)

Agreed.  But if you've taught them that unforseeable events are not their
fault, and haven't told them that there's some father figure in the sky who's
judging them, why would you need to tell them that that father figure forgives
them?  What's wrong with just telling them:  It was unforseeable.  It's not
your fault?

="STM seems to have a lot of arguments against the fundamentalists -- or
=literalists as he calls them. But what is surprising is that he extends
=these arguments to all Christians by saying "Well, if you can't
=believe all of the bible, how do you know what parts to believe?" And
=thus dismisses _all_ of the bible, using the exact same argument
=that the literalists use!

So tell me, if some parts of the Bible ARE authoritative and literal and some
aren't, just how DO we tell which are which?  The Bible may make a good
starting point into inquiries, but to pick and choose the parts that are
convenient for your case and dismiss the others as metaphors is the height of
intellectual dishonesty.   Of course, one useful metaphor is that the devil
himself can quote scripture to suit his purpose.  As long as you let him pick
and choose what parts are to be believed literally.  Christians admit this, but
a great many of them don't understand that they're using exactly the same
strategy themselves.

="Another thing STM likes to do is accuse the "Church" of atrocities in
=the past. To extend this to the present organized churches is not
=acceptable to our society's notions of justice, however. The sins of
=the father are not visited upon the sons. Hold people (and
=organizations) responsible for their own actions, but it is not just to
=hold all Christians now responsible for the Inquisition or the
=Crusades. Any more than it is just to hold scientists responsible for
=Dr. Mengele's concentration camp experiments.

Many Christians claim that their religion is the one true religion.  They also
claim that the religion has been passed down from the time of Jesus.  I'm
merely pointing out conclusions that follow from their own claims. 
Interestingly, you're the first person in several years to make this argument. 
The standard response is "Those weren't REAL Christians."


="One place where I would quibble with STM's science-religion essay is
=the idea that God can be active in a non-scientifically provable way.
=That is, by doing things that can be explained by natural processes.
=Like providing personal revelations -- that otherwise could be
=explained as delusion (especially if you are not the one experiencing
=them.) There are people who have proof that God exists. It is just not
=proof that they can use to convince a skeptic, it is personal proof.

It would be easier to convince skeptics were it not for the fact that the more
certain such people are that they have proof, the more their behavior matches
that of schizophrenics.  It would also be easier to convince skeptics were it
not for the fact that the traditional ways of preparing oneself for such a
revelation are today known to cause hallucinations.

Newsgroups: alt.callahans