Subject:
|
Re: Santorum Fails In His Effort To Pervert The Constitution
|
Newsgroups:
|
lugnet.off-topic.debate
|
Date:
|
Fri, 23 Jul 2004 17:22:10 GMT
|
Viewed:
|
2371 times
|
| |
|
|
In lugnet.off-topic.debate, Dave Schuler wrote:
| |
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.
|
That’s scientific theory. Proof requires that you can difinitively show that
the opposite is not true. Science has thusfar failed to do so in regards to the
metaphysical origins of the universe.
| |
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.”
|
I can to the extent that we can trace the religious and moral heritage seen in
the US constitution back to Judeism through Christianity. Besides even if you
could prove the existence of a religious pangaea, it’s pretty pointless to
assign credit to a specific state’s foundation on the basis that it fails to
distinguish it from any other state. It’s like saying the US government was
founded on human ideals. What government wasn’t?
| |
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.
|
As I read it, you were arguing that our “inalienable” rights were universally
held (thereby showing that they couldn’t be credited to a specific religious
heritage), and I was showing that they were not (thereby showing that they
could).
| |
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.
|
I’m suggesting that science is a flawed tool because those who wield it (the
human race) are flawed. If we weren’t, we’d know everything, and it wouldn’t be
science anymore. It’d be “all that is”.
| |
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, I think it’s one of the greatest strengths of science in its true form (i.e.
when it’s not used to explain away religion solely on the basis that it can’t
prove it, even while failing to disprove it). I also think it’s clear proof of
the flawed nature of humanity, because there’s not much point in being able to
adapt to new evidence unless you got it wrong the first time around.
In this specific instance, I was pointing out that there is no religious
equivalent to Hawking (Christians might point to the pope...but Buddhists might
also point to the Dalai Lama)
| |
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.
|
That’s Eisenhower, and by virtue of the fact that he was not a member of
Congress, his involvement is irrelevent to the wording that Congress shall not
endorse a religion by act of law.
| |
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.
|
By doing so he was in effect getting the state to prohibit the free practice of
all other religions.
| |
Atheism has several distinct formulations, only one of which is relevant to
me in this discussions, as I’ll show in just a moment.
|
You see atheism as encompassing the whole, much like using the term American to
describe every resident of North and South America. I see atheism as a specific
subset, much like referring only to residents of the US as Americans.
| |
Zero is part of the set of whole numbers and is therefore a number, rather
than the lack of a number.
|
Mathematics came up with a term specifically to include Zero in the number set.
Before that, it was not considered 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.
|
That’s more accurately described as non-theistic. Atheism is the belief in the
absence of any supernatural force.
| |
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.
|
Organized religions fall into the positive category (you believe something
exists), atheism falls into the negative category (you believe nothing exists),
and true non-religion is limited to 0. You don’t believe “+”, but you don’t
believe “-” either. You just don’t believe.
| |
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.
|
No, I’m just going by the definition that views atheism specifically as holding
to the latter. If you don’t believe in god, and you don’t believe in not-god,
but you admit the possibility that there might be something out there, you’re an
agnostic, not an athist. If you believe in divine creation but not divine
interaction (god created everything, then left), you’re a deist. If you believe
in not-god but also believe that there are fundamental truths regarding
morality, you’re a humanist. If you don’t believe anything regarding
divinity, moral truths, or the lack thereof, only then can you claim
non-religious status (which I think is what the term “non-theist” is in
reference to). The problem is that so very few people fall into that category,
but so many people think they do. I suspect that the vast majority of people
who do are those who have never been introduced to the concept of religion,
becuase most people who have will make decisions regarding their belief for or
against, even if only sub-conciously.
| |
In brief, I do not believe in the existence of god. This is not the same as
believing in the non-existence of god.
|
And thus you are not a true atheist.
|
|
Message has 2 Replies:
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
|
|
|
|
