From: grante@aquarius.rosemount.com (Grant Edwards)
Subject: Re: Logic and God (was: Young earth creationist logic NOT!)
Reply-To: grante@aquarius.rosemount.com (Grant Edwards)
Organization: Rosemount, Inc.
Date: Fri, 28 Aug 1992 16:30:34 GMT

ata@hfsi.uucp (John Ata FSO) writes:
: grante@aquarius.rosemount.com (Grant Edwards) writes:
: >ata@hfsi.uucp (John Ata FSO) writes:
: >: 
: >: Did you ever really enjoy a book and want to get the most out of
: >: it?  I know in that case I read and reread it, not to memorize it
: >: but to get different meanings and nuances that I missed
: >: originally.  I think Drew really enjoys the Bible.  What's wrong
: >: with that? 
: >: 
: >
: >What's wrong is that creationists want to force the views in that book
: >on others as the literal, revealled truth.  They want their religious
: >views officially sanctioned by the state and taught as science.
: >
: >I don't care what Drew, you, or anybody else reads, but I want science
: >taught in science classes.  If you want to have required comparative
: >religion classes in public schools, I think that would be a great idea
: >-- as long as it's made clear that what is being taught is religion,
: >and as long as ALL religions are presented as equally valid.
:
: I advocated no such thing.  Someone ridiculed Drew for studying
: the Bible i.e. Drew studying the Bible.  I questioned this
: ridicule showing that people (myself as an example) study *any*
: book over and over to learn more about the book.  I asked what is
: wrong with that?  You give me this big philisophical disertation
: on the evils of creationism.  I don't see the relationship between
: what I was talking about and that.
:

I didn't mean to imply that you were in favor of anything other than
the freedom to read whatever one wants.

I also thought we were still discussing creation science.  Like you
(and I) said, anybody can read anything they want as often as they
want.  Drew evidently believes in creation, but not in "creation
science."  I've got no complaints about Drew (or anybody) believing in
whatever they want as long as they don't claim it's science when it's
not.

My apologies to Drew for implying that he believed in creation science
and to John for implying he believed in anything other than freedom of
press/speech.

Unfortunately, in some cases, the next step after devout study of the
Bible is to try to force whatever was gleaned (or fabricated) from the
Bible down other people's throats.  In the case of creation science
they want to use public schools to do that.

:
: Now having said that BTW, yes, science and only science should be
: taught in science classes.  But I would phrase your statement on
: comparative religion classes in public schools a little different.
: I would say that the religions should be approached in a scholarly
: manner while the issue of their validity/non-validity should be
: avoided. 
:

No, I stand by my statement that they should all be presented as
equally valid.  I doubt that many students would realize by themselves
that there is no objective evidence to support the view that their
religion is the "one true faith."  It is important that students
understand that their religion has _exactly_ the same empirical
footings (none) as Hinduism, Buddhism, Islam, Jainism, Wicca, or
whatever.  You've got to get the point accross that people of other
religions believe with equal validity and conviction that their views
are obviously correct and that everybody else is being misled.

:
: >Many people would be fascinated and shocked to learn of the
: >theological and philosophical beliefs espoused by their church.
: >
: >I am amazed at how many catholics don't know what the term "immaculate
: >conception" means -- even people who attend mass at "Our Lady of the
: >Immaculate Conception Church" don't know.
: 
: Did you mean that catholics should be shocked, fascinated or both at
: what the doctrine of the Immaculate Conception means?
: 

No they shouldn't be -- the ones I have explained it to weren't
shocked, but they were surprised and quite interested (perhaps
fascinated is too strong a word).  Limbo, on the other hand, seemed to
shock several people when I explained it to them.  Evidently they
weren't paying attention that week.  BTW, last time I checked, limbo
wasn't an official belief any more.  (This is getting a bit off the
topic, and should probably be moved elsewhere.)

--
Grant Edwards                                 |Yow!  Concentrate on th'cute,
Rosemount Inc.                                |li'l CARTOON GUYS!  Remember
                                              |the SERIAL NUMBERS!!  Follow
grante@aquarius.rosemount.com                 |the WHIPPLE AVE EXIT!!  Have
                                              |a FREE PEPSI!!  Turn LEFT at
                                              |th'HOLIDAY INN!!  JOIN the
                                              |CREDIT WORLD!!  MAKE me an
                                              |OFFER!!!
Newsgroups: sci.skeptic