From: ingles@engin.umich.edu (Ray Ingles)
Subject: Re: A nation chosen by GOD -- New-Israel
Date: Sun, 10 Jan 93 23:03:14 EST
Organization: University of Michigan Engineering, Ann Arbor

In article <10JAN199316392323@utarlg.uta.edu>
b645zaw@utarlg.uta.edu (Stephen Tice) writes:
>ingles@engin.umich.edu (Ray Ingles) writes...
>>b645zaw@utarlg.uta.edu (General Mineral) writes:
[deletions]
>>>What's interesting is that you, (THOU), chose to respond to the posting
>>>rather than just going about your business. Why would anyone's faith
>>>in GOD matter in a Godless universe? Why do you bother responding?
>> 
>> Well, the problem is, these people keep trying to pass laws to make
>>us conform to their religious ideals whether we believe or not.
>
>As a believer, I agree that religious politics is merely human and
>likewise destructive. As a Christian, I depend on GOD, not human 
>institutions. So yes, politically, believers need no special exceptions
>in politics. Which makes me for all intents an anarchist as well.

 Glad to hear it. Of course, I get the impression that few other thiests
share this refreshing attitude...

>>Some of them even think the Earth was made 6,000 years ago and dinosaur
>>skeletons were put in the ground to fool scientists- and *want* *this*
>>*taught* *in* *public* *schools*!!
>
>The operant word here being "think," rather than "know." Demanding that
>creationism be taught is like demanding that dual or multiple gender
>pronouns be used. "Room for everybody," seems to be the logic. 

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

>I like Martin Buber's I-Thou approach in interpersonal interactions,
>which allow one to forego gender, class, racial, and any other peculiar
>references, except where appropriate to the discussion. 

 Perhaps you could explicate this a bit further on another thread?

>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. 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.)

[deletions]
>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.

>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.

>           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.

>Schooling should include a healthy dose of skepticism of anything
>humanly contrived. Do I sound like a religionist or an atheist?

 Skepticism is a good thing, but it can be taken too far. Or are you
skeptical of claims for a round Earth?

>> The ones who can't agree on the name of this "God" keep shooting each
>>other and sometimes we get hit in the crossfire.
>
>Pride, and "self-worship" make for intolerance and hate. Not a problem
>peculiar to religion, but distincly human though. I'm amazed at how
>anyone who lives in the fragile bodies we have, basically around 30
>cubic feet of meat and water, can have such large egos. 
>
>Add to that partisan political viewpoints, or humanitarian convictions, 
>and people forget what they are physically. Nothing special there
>either -- any kid is well nigh invulnerable.

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

>> If we do admit that we don't accept the fairy tales, we are at best
>>thought of as odd and at worst attacked and discriminated against.
>
>Seems like the typical problem of going against any group to me.

 True, but do you expect us to enjoy it? A certain reaction to that
seems only natural to me...

>                                                                 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.

>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.

[tax churches]
 Glad we agree...

>> 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.

[deletions]
>> "The meek can *have* the Earth. The rest of us are going to the
>>stars!" - Robert A. Heinlein
>
>And will probably find another "earth" like ours. Same problems, 
>same joys. And midway there, others like us headed here. Maybe not.

 I think there will be a bit more variety out there than that... :->

>How much do you think we have in common Ray?

 I think we share some opinions on certain matters, but these are sort of
by coincidence; our frameworks are quite different, but it'd be unlikely
that we'd have *nothing* in common...


 Sincerely,
 
 Ray Ingles
 ingles@engin.umich.edu

 "Is knowledge knowable? If not, how do we know this?" -- Woody Allen