Subject:
|
Re: Santorum Fails In His Effort To Pervert The Constitution
|
Newsgroups:
|
lugnet.off-topic.debate
|
Date:
|
Fri, 23 Jul 2004 15:41:21 GMT
|
Viewed:
|
2378 times
|
| |
|
|
In lugnet.off-topic.debate, David Laswell wrote:
| |
In lugnet.off-topic.debate, Dave Schuler wrote:
| |
Before I attempt this documentation, can you give me an idea of what would
qualify as acceptable to you? Honestly, a scientific theory that can be
falsified is, as an explanatory device, superior to non-falsifiable
statements of faith, so I don’t understand why you would reject that kind of
documentation.
|
Truthfully? I’m not sure you can, in much the same way that it’s currently
impossible to disprove the existence of ET life in the universe. I’m just
pointing out the hypocrisy of using unprovable statements to disprove other
unprovable statements.
|
It is necessary to distinguish between “scientific proof” and “literal proof” in
this context. Scientific proof is established when all observable data are
consistent with theory and prediction. Literal proof is established only when
something is documented to be the case beyond any hope of actual refutation (and
which is, consequently, practically unattainable in the physical world). With
this in mind, I reiterate that scientific proof is superior to unachievable
literal proof as an explanatory model.
| |
If you can’t prove the temporal origin of both
Judeism (by some means other than using information found in the Bible), and
the relative precepts of Judeism, you can’t prove that said precepts predate
Judeism.
|
Perhaps, but neither can you claim with authority that Judeism is foundational.
The best you can say is “I think it is the foundation” or “I have chosen to
accept that it is the foundation.”
| |
Therefore, you can’t say that those precepts predate Judeism as a
way of disproving the idea that the US was founded upon a Judeo-Christian
heritage, unless you can prove that they were universal to every and all
historical cultures. Since I’ve already pointed out examples where
protection from murder and theft were not considered to be inalienable human
rights, I can’t see how you could do that either.
|
I think our wires have gotten crossed in this part of the topic. Recently I
have argued that there are no truly inherent rights, and that all rights are
social constructs. Since in this passage we both appear to be arguing toward
that same end, I’m not sure what we’re really arguing about.
ME: “I agree with you.
YOU: “No, I agree with you.
and so on...
| |
| |
Which is why science provides a better explanatory model of the universe
than does religion, as I’ve been saying for years. Man’s understanding has
grown, so the theory is revised.
|
Science can’t disprove religion anymore than religion can disprove science.
|
You’re preaching to the choir, brother. I’ve never asserted science as a means
to disprove religion, though I would suggest that the advancement of science has
relegated the role of a deity to an entirely metaphysical arena. That’s not a
problem for religion, but it’s a useful distinction to keep in mind.
| |
| |
Is there a religious figure (of authority comparable to Hawking) now or in
the recent past who similarly recanted? What was the impact upon religion?
|
Religion is fundamentally philosophical, and the varied nature of the world’s
religions effectively rules out the possibility of a single person holding
the same level of authority in terms of religion as Hawking does in terms of
science.
|
Maybe I misunderstood your point, then. It seemed as if you were suggesting
that science is a flawed tool because one of the heavy-hitters of science has
reformulated his assessment of a particular phenomenon. Conversely, this
ability to adapt is what makes science (and empirical observation in general)
such a strong explanatory method. If you weren’t asserting this adaptability as
a weakness of science, then no problem.
| |
| |
No no no. The state’s fallback stance is that the state has no authority to
endorse any religion or non-religion; the state simply has no business
entering into that debate, except in terms of protecting religious liberty.
|
Newdow managed to get the Pledge of Allegiance outlawed from schools in the
9th District.
|
Because the Pledge, as modified by 1953 Congressional action, endorsed God, whom
we can identify as the Christian God, based on Eisenhower’s writings of the same
period. Newdow’s position, and it’s the correct one IMO, was that this state
endorsement of religion should be removed not because the state must endorse
atheism but because the state is not entitled to make any declarations of
religion one way or the other.
| |
| |
Nitpick. Atheism is not a religion, inasmuch as the lack of a tennis ball
is not a tennis ball.
|
The Romans felt the same way about the number “O” (the lack of a number is
not a number), but modern mathematics has proven that to be untrue.
|
Atheism has several distinct formulations, only one of which is relevant to me
in this discussions, as I’ll show in just a moment.
Zero is part of the set of whole numbers and is therefore a number, rather than
the lack of a number. The formulation of the category of atheism in which I
include myself is the lack of religion (and/or lack of belief in god). Atheism
is therefore not part of the “set” of religions, but is the state of lacking any
member of that set.
| |
Atheism is not an organized religion in the way that Humanism is, but it is a
religion in the sense that you are willfully stating your belief that all
other religions are untrue.
|
I state as fact that I do not believe in God. If it is also a fact that
religions and my non-belief cannot be simultaneously true and correct, then so
be it; my lack of belief is not responsible for the positive or negative
truth-value of beliefs.
Thus far you are attempting to define religion as infinitely inclusive, so that
it is impossible not to qualify as some member of the “set” of religions. I
reject that formulation as invalid and also self-destructive, since this
absolute widening of the definition of religion dilutes the definition to the
point of uselessness.
However, you provide a partial alternative below, upon which I’ll elaborate:
| |
Only if you neither believe in “god” (where “god” is whatever supernatural
power that you may choose, as compared to Yhwh specifically) nor in “not-
god” (the absolute nonexistence of any supernatural entity) can you
legitimately claim true non-religious status.
|
I reject this definition of “non-religious status” because it requires the
simultaneous possession of negative belief in a positive and positive belief in
a negative, when a person may have one independent of the other. You are, in
essence, conflating a “lack of belief in the existence of a thing” with the
“belief in the lack of the existence of a thing.” This is logically incorrect.
Dave K and I had a lengthy discussion on this very subject a little while back,
and if you’d like, I can give a link, because it will help illuminate my view.
In brief, I do not believe in the existence of god. This is not the same as
believing in the non-existence of god.
Dave!
|
|
Message has 1 Reply:
Message is in Reply To:
200 Messages in This Thread:
(Inline display suppressed due to large size. Click Dots below to view.)
- Entire Thread on One Page:
- Nested:
All | Brief | Compact | Dots
Linear:
All | Brief | Compact
This Message and its Replies on One Page:
- Nested:
All | Brief | Compact | Dots
Linear:
All | Brief | Compact
|
|
|
|
