> Seppo Renfors wrote:
> > PD wrote:
> > >
> > > Seppo Renfors wrote:
> > > > PD wrote:
> > > > Uhu..... and what defines a "scientific bigot" and how does that
> > > > differ from a "religions bigot"? The later can most likely be defines
> > > > as anyone who claims THEIR "God", or at least their VERSION of a god,
> > > > is the only god. In religion faith is all that matters - nothing else
> > > > counts. In science raw faith is a hindrance and burden, it prevents
> > > > thinking - yet the two can live in harmony alongside each other as
> > > > long as the twain shall remain divorced - the exception being ID that
> > > > requires, nay demands it be a "science", thereby is attempting to
> > > > abolish actual science.
> > >
> > > Both these characterizations are off the mark.
> > >
> > > It is a mistake to think that in religion, faith is all that matters
> > > and that nothing else counts. Faith is the belief in something for
> > > which we have no evidence, but it does not *necessarily* deny the
> > > existence of something for which we do have evidence.
> > You misunderstand "faith" belongs to the "believer" to whom "god" is
> > real and needs no proof - all else flows from there. It is NOT limited
> > to that which we have no "evidence" - specially in relation to ID, it
> > overlays and usurps the evidence and replaces itself where science
> > belongs.
> That is a blanket overgeneralization that is completely unwarranted.
I believe I dealt with it already further down.
> You are maintaining that those with faith cannot be scientists because
> their faith would cloud their vision of evidence. In so doing, you are
> dismissing any scientist who is not also an atheist. Is this really
> what you would claim?
I said nothing of the kind. These are my words, "the two can live in
harmony alongside each other" - what makes you think it is not
possible for both concepts to belong to ONE person? I am excluding
that possibility in relation to ID - it has NO intention of living
harmoniously with science BECAUSE it attempts to usurp science.
> > > It is also a mistake to think that faith has no role in science or that
> > > it is a hindrance and a burden.
> > Please note, the wording was "RAW faith" (an unquestioning acceptance
> > of a condition) as in a religious belief.
> There are those who believe in string theory based on a faith of
> mathematical elegance, without a *shred* of evidence for it.
> Moreover, you also mischaracterize the faithful as being unquestioning.
> I think you would find many theologians have written about the
> prominent role of doubt in an active faith!
Oh, there is a lot written about conventional (to us) "faith", this is
true - only one problem, it is circular arguments all of it. The "it
is true because the bible says it is true - only how do I interpret it
today" case. The only thing is at which point in the circle will they
aim the spot light at? Right now the Catholic church is in the process
of changing that "truth" once more for believers to simply "accept" -
as it has done many many times in the past. This time it is about
children who die before they have been baptised - they will no longer
be in "limbo" apparently. Oh yeah, that is a "God" speaking OK.
> > > There is a strong element of faith (as
> > > I defined it above) in the minds of exceptional scientists, and it is
> > > instrumental in the exceptional work they do -- I think you will find
> > > this openly admitted by many of the best scientists known.
> > *IF* the "faith" as in religious belief in something exists for a
> > scientist - then they would never test their hypothesis, they would
> > have no need as mere "faith" is the "truth".
> That's crap.
Not that you have provided any proof of your claim, but Ok, so prove a
God exists, any god will do! There you go!
> You neither understand how science is done nor understand
> true faith. At this point, I'm tempted to ask on what experiential
> basis do you make this flat assertions? What is your science background
> and what is your faith background?
Ahhhh..... the old "Bugger the content, look at the LABEL" - this is
the case where piss in a bottle would taste like champaign, because
the label said so :-)
You are having some trouble coming to grips with what I say so you
need to look elsewhere for a solution to your discomfort. Try to
analyse your own discomfort instead. It would be more rewarding.
> > > It is therefore an egregious mischaracterization to say that the two
> > > are disjoint with no proper overlap.
> > Incorrect as both operate on totally different levels - one is
> > sceptical, questioning, probing and constantly testing the validity of
> > something - the other merely accepts whatever totally unquestioningly
> > as "the truth". The concepts are as compatible as chalk and cheese.
> That again is crap.
....and that is a "scientific" or "religious" statement? I predict it
to be a "religious" statement because you provide no evidence for it,
nor do you prove your evidence (which, of course, you can't do when it
> > > It is also an egregious
> > > mischaracterization to let a few power-hungry voices represent the
> > > motives of what is in fact a spectrum, which is what you're doing when
> > > you state unequivocally that the motive of ID is to foist a particular
> > > religion into schools and deny science. Thiis gross overgeneralization
> > > and stereotyping is the mark of a bigot, and so, yes, I would guess
> > > that makes you a scientific bigot.
> > That "gross overgeneralization" can be describes as a demand one
> > doesn't zoom out from a movie set mock up, exposing it as a mock up
> > rather than the illusion of a real thing! I can understand why
> > believers don't want to see how FAKE it is - but why then claim it to
> > be a "science", when examination of it is VERBOTEN?
> But it isn't, and I have no idea why you think it is.
But it isn't.... what? VERBOTEN? It is because you say as much in a
very thinly veiled manner.
> [rest of this bigoted claptrap snipped]
[restore text again]
Fact is it DOES deny science because it requires people to believe
unquestioningly, as in that raw faith, in a "designer" - ie a God - in
place of science. It involves a further act of raw faith, the belief
in a conscious "design", which overturns century's worth of work and
seeks to replace that with its own ID faith. So *IF* it was science,
then the questions I have posed NEEDS to be answered - else the
default is that it doesn't exist. Simply a raw ASSERTION doesn't even
establish a possibility, let alone anything else. Simply posing the
question I have below, sends the ID dogma crashing down around the
As I said you have declared a closer examination of it as VERBOTEN -
and lets face it, you call such examination "bigoted" because of that
very reason, I did examine it and where it is heading. I note with
interest your NEED to delete it instead of having sound reasoning for
why you believe this to be wrong..... that is *IF* you believe me to
> > Oh and the resorting to raw abuse when you have nothing else is the
> > well know usenet equivalent of the loser capitulating and waving the
> > white flag :-)
> The hell it is.
You are new to usenet, are you :-)
[restore the questions referred to in the earlier restored text]
> > So presumably I'm being a "scientific bigot" when I say that it is
> > indeed an impossibility for ID to fill gaps in knowledge. The reason
> > for this is that it requires an ID to exist prior to anything else, as
> > it denies evolution - "In the beginning there was god...." that is the
> > opening line of the bible and an THAT identifies the so called
> > "Intelligent designer" - so who designed it, and the designer of the
> > designer...?
> > *IF* the ID'ers argument is "it evolved" then they are back in the
> > camp of that which they attempt to deny - a circular argument, but
> > what else do they have :-)
I note that again the above went unanswered.
Again I note the lack of an answer to the question, as well as the
attempt to make it disappear :-)
SIR - Philosopher unauthorised
The one who is educated from the wrong books is not educated, he is