This site is not maintained. Click here for the new website of Richard Dawkins.

Comments by achromat666

Go to: Can religion tell us more than science?

achromat666's Avatar Jump to comment 72 by achromat666

Comment 71 by susanlatimer,

I understood. Just wanted to be sure you understood me as well.

Wed, 03 Oct 2012 19:12:20 UTC | #951234

Go to: Can religion tell us more than science?

achromat666's Avatar Jump to comment 70 by achromat666

There's nothing more creative about that twist than any of their other twists... unless you meant it literally. As in, albeit with a "creative" twist.

I did mean it literally, though I was sort of using the figurative against the poster of the idea. More for irony, as there was nothing creative about the argument.

Not necessarily. Beyond our knowledge and assumptions is just the regular, every day, bread and butter method of good science, good ethics and good art. Theists are not really appealing to "beyond". They are suggesting that we've had the answers for thousands of years. Nothing beyond about that.

"Beyond" what we know suggests that we can attain more. By that definition, "beyond" is a healthy word.

They use "beyond" in a magical, ultimate sense. They believe that no matter what humans accomplish, beliefs that date back to thousands of years before those accomplishments are better and magical. Unsurpassable.

The whole thing's a crock.

Obviously the use of the term 'forces from beyond' is used in the sense most religious people will associate with it here.

But worse, it implicates that they themselves are incapable of having any real impact if they are incapable of even approaching achieving anything of significance when measured against the impossible standards of an unreachable and non existent deity. Amazing that when speaking to those that don't think as they that they are suddenly right in line with his thoughts and intentions, but are quick to retreat to the equivalent of the old 'the lord works in mysterious ways' BS line when they reach outside their limited scope.

Such a sad shackle so many simply refuse to let go...

Wed, 03 Oct 2012 03:04:46 UTC | #951232

Go to: Can religion tell us more than science?

achromat666's Avatar Jump to comment 67 by achromat666

Comment 66 by susanlatimer,

For me it's just another attempt at retreating to the god of the gaps, albeit with a creative twist. It always boils down to unexplained = god to posters like Mattyfatsacks. And of course they often don't see if there is in fact an explanation for the 'gap' they bring up.

One can make any number of assumptions about art, but to simply assume it is some contact with forces from beyond is ludicrous. And you're right of course there is the subtle insult to our logical and often literal approach to their way of thinking, it would just have more merit if what they presented was more substantial.

Tue, 02 Oct 2012 02:33:44 UTC | #951228

Go to: Can religion tell us more than science?

achromat666's Avatar Jump to comment 65 by achromat666

Comment 63,

The problem with your assessment of the opposition to the viewpoints expressed in the OP are numerous but all reflect the same idea: that the form of expression through creative or non scientific means lends credibility to your position. Nothing in any concievable way could be farther from the truth.

Creativity comes in many forms and all are reflective of an expressing of ideas we wish to convey. The methods by which we perform those action do in fact have a scientific understanding. One can explain how the process of composing a form of music, a literary masterpiece or a painting or sculpture. Simply because the arts don't have to convey a grounded scientific idea doesn't make the method any more mysterious. As an illustrator and singer I can relay the methods I use to do what I do and give some insight to the things that influence my work. I can even relate which of my parents had the skills that I inherited.

And while all artists don't automatically get such things passed down every part of the physical act of creating can be explained, and the human imagination can be examined from a scientific standpoint. You don't get a pass on the burden of proof by resorting this art as expression of the infinite.

It is an expression of our perceptions and attempts at understanding, and by their nature are not inherently religious. Saying that art proves god is confused, irrational and pedantic at best. Grasping at intangibles is not the same as god.

Sun, 30 Sep 2012 14:50:27 UTC | #951226

Go to: God Sent Christopher Hitchens to Hell Because He Loved Him

achromat666's Avatar Jump to comment 268 by achromat666

Here is what Bryan Fischer is trying to get at. It can make logical sense if you actually think about it. Why would Christopher Hitchens want to be in heaven? It would not make any sense. He does not like God, in fact he probably hates him. So why would God bring him to heaven if Christopher does not even like God in the first place.

  1. You should either spend more time reading about the people you choose to comment about, or at the very least comprehend what it means to present a logical argument before posting at an evidence based site.

  2. Does it actually make sense to hate something you don't accept the existence of? Hitchens has routinely said he is quite glad there is no reason to believe any of the bible is true but has not stated he's hated what he considered to be a fictional character (and like every other deity has no evidence to demonstrate otherwise). I'm certain he has a great deal of disgust for the actions routinely done in his name, which he has spoken about extensively. Not liking the idea of the biblical god does not correlate to hating something you don't acknowledge as being real.

If I said I hated the idea of Zeus being a misogynistic, amoral, incestuous excuse for a deity it would not mean I hated Zeus. Zeus is not real. It means that as he has been written in the Greek myths, he comes off as being a bit of a lustful bastard.

It helps to understand the distinction.

Finally, Since when is wanting to be in a place of eternal reward a prerequisite for entry? If Hitchens were a practicing Christian and for some reason didn't want to go to Heaven but had done nothing but good works all his life, would that mean he doesn't go? How does any of that make any sense? Beyond the fact that Heaven itself makes no sense as an idea.

Heaven has been slightly misconstrued into a place that we modernly think is a place were we will frolic and skip together forever (without God). Heaven is where God is. God encompasses the whole place and for that matter is infinite. We cannot comprehend infinity, therefore we must think it does not exist.

If God encompasses everything, why would you have to wait to die to get to Heaven? Wouldn't that mean you're in Heaven all the time? And comprehending infinity doesn't enter into it. The are bits of description in Revelation describing aspects of heaven (or what he perceives as such) so frolic or not the idea you are describing is conjecture and not an authoritative account on the nature of Heaven. In fact there is no definitive idea of what either Heaven or Hell is like, much of it has been added and embellished over time. So what you're positing is an opinion with no evidence as neither (like any of the bible itself) have any evidence of existence.

That is a different question all together. To get back on the subject, I don't agree with what the guy is saying, but to say that he is illogical is wrong. Although the Doctrine is wrong, he is logically correct in saying that God loves him so he sent him to hell. God loves him, so to put Christopher Hitchens near him would make Christopher Hitchens upset so he leaves him alone. It would be like if you loved somebody who did not like physical touch. You would leave them alone to honor their wishes (unless your a being a jerk).

Once again, you seem to be at odds with what it means to be logical.

My recollection of the purpose of Hell was not the alternate place that people go to because God doesn't think they would like to be in Heaven. You seem to be insinuating, like the idiot in the OP, that because Heaven wasn't what Hitchens wanted he clearly wanted Hell. Does that actually sound logical? Can you demonstrate why precisely your willing to posit this ignorance with any modicum of authority, obviously knowing very little about Hitchens himself, and guessing about virtually everything else?

The very problem with Christianity and any other faith that preaches with certainty an afterlife and how to attain it is NO ONE can say what happens after death. Your whole position is predicated on having access to information that doesn't exists, as well as broad assumptions on people you know little about.

Facts over faith. The fact is people die, and people have to cope with it. Any faith based positions entered into the discussion are in no way logical as they are predicated on a lack of any evidence from which to draw a credible conclusion.

You're guessing, and doing a fairly bad job at it.

Mon, 17 Sep 2012 18:52:08 UTC | #951201

Go to: Classroom Clashes: Teaching evolution

achromat666's Avatar Jump to comment 238 by achromat666

I don't think I said anything about "interacts;" I think that's a word which you put in my mouth. I don't think I've said anything pro or con about "creates," "neccessary," "influencing," or "intervenes." When you said that deity is the starting point of all religions and is in no way a scientific position, that's what I'm saying, too. That's why I might use a word like "G-d" in a philosophical discussion, or even a discussion on the social sciences (psychology, sociology, anthropology), but I would insist on keeping such a word out of any discussion which is to be focused on hard sciences like physics or chemistry. As for what I meant by "G-d," I thought that what I said earlier about "honoring Nature" might be understood. There appears also to be misunderstanding around the word "reconcile." I'll try to clarify any misunderstandings in the discussion called "Does Religion = Superstition? G-d Forbid!" I invite you to look for my comment(s) there.

The highlighted point is what I was interested in. And I never made any attempt to put words in your mouth, you simply never clarified your position enough in my view to have me do anything but further clarify what I thought you were saying. Simple as that.

And Phil's point sort of brings the whole thing home for me:

My general point though was that metaphors brought together with religious faith (believing true without evidence) equals poison.

I may look at the other thread when the opportunity presents.

Tue, 21 Aug 2012 12:57:46 UTC | #951111

Go to: Classroom Clashes: Teaching evolution

achromat666's Avatar Jump to comment 231 by achromat666

Comment 230 by Rob W.

And all of that is why I tried to agree to disagree awhile ago, in addition to trying to stay on the OP.

Fri, 17 Aug 2012 23:58:14 UTC | #950980

Go to: Classroom Clashes: Teaching evolution

achromat666's Avatar Jump to comment 229 by achromat666

Atheist or not, don't you ever express yourself in non-literal, figurative, metaphorical language? I'm just wondering, 'cause I would expect any human being to do a bit of that throughout his / her day or week. I'm thinking that people might do that without even realizing it.

You're mixing a few things up here.

Your contention is not whether or not atheists express themselves non literally as it pertains to your original issue, otherwise you're engaging in exactly the sort on stereotyping you seem to want to lump atheists and fundies in. Your original issue was about science and religion being reconcilable which you still haven't proven.

Right now you're conflating what people do to examine the facts and how they examine the minutiae of their lives. Whether or not I relate to the beauty of a religious painting or a classical sculpture does not affect my ability to see the necessity for pure objectivity in scientific endeavor. They are two different things. How I express myself emotionally or artistically is not a direct reflection of my observations of science. Indeed, why would it be?

All people express themselves in emotional and figurative fashion. Does that make the facts of existence any less true? Gravity doesn't change because I have an emotional episode or I have a neat idea for a story. I can compose a song or paint a picture, and the Laws of thermodynamics are unchanged.

As for the non literal and metaphorical nature of your position they are not objectively provable. I've known for years that Judaism does not take the OT in the same literal sense that Christianity and Islam typically do. But in reconciling with science it does not give it a leg up.

And as an artist let me try this: I can paint a picture that relays a message I want people to see, that represents what I think to be a personal truth (a subjective notion that I feel strongly about which may or may not have a grain of truth to it). Are people going to see that personal 'truth'? Are they going to take away from it what I put into it?

The answer is no for most and the others that have an idea don't see it from my perspective. Even if I share what that might be it doesn't mean they'll completely get it. And in the end, the idea that I have may turn out to be completely misguided, regardless of how strong I felt.

And this is the problem. A strong inclination is no substitute for hard evidence when discerning fact. The passion that went into a book I wrote doesn't make the characters real. The idea of the Heroes Journey is older than Armstrong's work, and is indeed older than the person who made the idea popular (Joseph Campbell). There is a common theme in the heroic narrative, but that doesn't make any of the ideas true. It means we have a common perception about ourselves. The same can be said for any of the fairytales and stories we write. I work in Comics and absolutely love fiction and mythology. But it's not real, and it's not evidence based.

Not reconcilable.

Fri, 17 Aug 2012 23:48:24 UTC | #950976

Go to: Classroom Clashes: Teaching evolution

achromat666's Avatar Jump to comment 225 by achromat666

Phil,

Art never pretends to know but simply evokes telling experiences. Religion, however, insists on a truth in its metaphors (when its not insisting on a truth absolutely).

The most degrading thing to our wonderful cumulative human adventure is people professing a truth without evidence. Art reveals (or not). Religion, though, poisons everything simply by lacking Art's humility.

As an artist, I completely back this way of explaining my issues here. I have my own perspective and ideas, and they translate into my work. They are designed for people to take from it what they think, and even if I explain what I think they will still have their own perspective. It is a very clear demonstration of the sort of subjective reasoning Rob has been using, but trying to insert it into an objective system like science.

Even when my portraits are done to match the image I'm working from it is still my interpretation of the pic rather than the pic itself, it is subjective. The people (and the photo) are objective. Art indeed does not pretend to know. It relays ideas, and insists nothing.

Well said.

Fri, 17 Aug 2012 13:54:10 UTC | #950949

Go to: Classroom Clashes: Teaching evolution

achromat666's Avatar Jump to comment 223 by achromat666

One Christian minister to whom I do enjoy listening is Michael Dowd. His wife is a science writer (and an atheist). Together they go to churches and lecture about reconciling these seemingly contradictory ways of looking at life, the universe, and everything (r.i.p. Douglas Adams). Dowd wrote a book about this called Thank G-D for Evolution. I'll admit that I haven't read the whole book yet, but I've listened to some of Dowd's lectures and discussions about it, and I really appreciate what he says. He talks about "Night Language," which is that subjective, symbolic, mythic, mystical dream stuff which is part of the human mind where religion takes place. There's another kind of thinking which might be called Daytime Language or something like that, and that's the practical, logical, scientific, objective, factual stuff which of course we need as well.

The problem with all of this is that it, like your whole idea is entirely subjective and a matter of opinion. That religion takes place in dreams sounds interesting but but if all dreams were religious how could anyone not be religious? I've said already that subjective does not automatically mean religious. Is there any studies or peer review these ideas actually have or is this just someone's opinion?

Anyone can think up an idea like Night Language and Daytime Language, but that doesn't make it true. The fact that it's in a book and being lectured on doesn't make it true. It makes it a perspective you share.

Evidence?

So do I believe that there's a Big, Bad Boogie-Monster in the Sky (or whatever the hell people think G-d is) who appreciates it when Jews recite Psalms, and who is displeased when Jews order clam chowder and drive on Saturdays? Of course I do. I believe it with all my heart. But literally?! Are you kidding?! Would I ever assert that as if it were some kind of objective fact which ought to be taught in a science class? If I did, I ought to be locked up in a mental hospital with Fred Phelps.

I get high worshiping G-d. Does that mean that G-d exists? Who knows? Who cares? It's got to be safer than using actual opiates. The funny thing that I've noticed is that all this fuss about whether G-d exists or not is far more important to the militant Atheist (and to the Fundamentalist) than it is to me. I discussed this with my friend, Rabbi Yisroel Altein, the Younger.

Please stop this. I've asked you clear direct questions and not once have I received a clear and direct response. Everything gets wrapped in experiences you have with other people which while interesting are also not actually answering me directly.

These for example are some of those questions:

In what fashion do you believe in God, if it is not in the way you've seen me respond to?

What is your definition of subjective god? Is it different from the agnostic and deistic (non intervening) examples I've already mentioned?

I can mention people and cite experiences and still summarize my thoughts in a way that still addresses my point. This is not doing so.

And you're missing my point. I don't care whether the existence of god is important to you, I'm just asking for straight answers. You keep going on about atheists and fundies being in caves and not understanding and rather than making a clear and concise case. Instead you wrap everything you say up in anecdotes and stories.

What is far more important to me that whether or not god exists is making sure people give evidence for their claims regardless of what they are. You haven't offered evidence and you've barely offered a position.

I said, "Rabbi, you exist. I exist. Bacteria exists. The galaxy exists. I'm not saying G-d doesn't exist, but to say that G-d exists per se would be putting G-d in the same category as you and me, as if G-d were just another being subject to space and time, and that doesn't make any sense. Do I sound meshuge to you?"

He said, "No, Rob. Actually, you are absolutely right."

I said, "Really?!"

He said, "Yeah. Because of the limitations of human language, we use these figures of speech so that we can relate to G-d in terms which we can understand. So when we say that G-d exists, we don't mean in the same sense which you and I do."

Religious language is often highly poetic, mythical, and metaphorical. It can include all kinds of riddles, paradoxes, ironies, fables, legends, and parables. It's not always clear what is fact and what is fiction. For years, I neglected Torah in favor of Arthuriana. Though I'm not Catholic, my fascination with Camelot was so intense, one might have thought that it was my religion. History, fiction, and mythology are all jumbled up in the Matter of Britain. Archaeology has been able to shed light on some of the real-life aspect of it, but there will always be some mystery to it -- kind of like the Bible.

How does saying your idea of a deity is he is inherently incomprehensible help elaborate what your thoughts are on the matter?

You can say that religion is poetic and that that there are mysterious aspects to it, but it doesn't demonstrate evidence, and literally anyone who doesn't want to give a straight answer can answer the question the same way.

You know what an Atheist is? An Atheist is someone to whom G-d has revealed His lack of existence. There was a brilliant rabbi -- possibly Mordechai Kaplin, I'm not sure -- who stuck up for Atheists. He said that Atheists aren't rejecting G-d; they're rejecting the anthropomorphic conceptualization of G-d which is actually idolatrous. So if you really think about it, the Rabbi reasoned, Atheists are doing the world a favor, and making the world a holier place by ridding the world of idolatry.

You realize that answering in riddles is only making things more confusing. You keep banging on about science and religion being able to coincide and how everyone has got the ideas wrong. When asked about this you say that there is no observable, knowable deity but are unwilling to dismiss the term god because you have what you feel is a deeper meaning for the idea.

The problem is that none of it is in any way evidential. It is philosophical certainly, but non evidential. And at the heart of the philosophy is a non intervening, incomprehensible idea that you refer to as god. One that in order to deviate from what I've mentioned of the deistic and agnostic stance would have to not only be non creating and non intervening, would not affect the universe in any conceivable way. Which essentially indicates it doesn't exist.

Science examines what reality is and seeks to discover more about it. And a non intervening, non creating, non evidential deity has no reason to be observed except for the belief system of a religion. Such an idea is a scientific antithesis because it for all intents and purposes serves no purpose. It cannot be critically examined or tested because it doesn't exist. So it still is not compatible with science.

As has been said numerous times here, anything that can be said without evidence can be dismissed without evidence.

Fri, 17 Aug 2012 13:13:37 UTC | #950944

Go to: Classroom Clashes: Teaching evolution

achromat666's Avatar Jump to comment 218 by achromat666

To further demonstrate where I have addressed this:

So the idea of not wanting to be pigeonholed is one thing, but do you see how difficult things get when we go right to the heart of the issue? My contention doesn't revolve around your particular faith, or anyone else's. It is everything to do with the one component all of them share: A deity or many deities that create and influence and control some portion of some or all lives. Some force which by its own nature is not rational or scientific in any sense of the word. Ultimately it boils down to that.

What about your idea of a deity doesn't fit the parameters set here? Just saying that it is philosophy and not the Christian god doesn't explain what it is. Philosophy is obviously more than your beliefs, so that in and of itself is not an explanation.

If what you think of as god is not a deity that has any affect or influence on humanity and is more of an idea, then he is not a god in the sense that has been discussed here. Then the term god itself is what is misleading. If he does have an affect on humanity in your view then you have something you cannot demonstrate as existing in any scientific fashion. Which still relates to my point about it not being reconcilable with science.

If this is merely an "I have my own non conventional way of seeing things that I don't think fits your definitions" thing then feel free to have that opinion. But don't accuse me of not understanding what you haven't made clear and haven't demonstrated is compatible with science.

Fri, 17 Aug 2012 01:20:03 UTC | #950914

Go to: Classroom Clashes: Teaching evolution

achromat666's Avatar Jump to comment 217 by achromat666

The reason I think that this pertains to the OP is because I think that if people would just keep in mind what science is and isn't, and what other kinds of conversations (e.g. religion) are and aren't, then we wouldn't have problems like silly girls crying in science classes. (I didn't mean for that to sound as sexist as it did.) I was listening to Karen Armstrong on National Public Radio one day, and she said that when you pit science and religion against each other and misuse each in place of the other, all you end up with is bad science and bad religion. I said, "Amen, Sister!" (She's a recovering nun, you know.)

Clarify what you mean by these conversations, preferably with an explanation for your subjective definition of god.

The reason I think that you are mistakenly trying to turn what ought to be subjective into something objective is that you keep talking about G-d as if G-d is supposed to be some sort of explanation for something, just as the Fundies do. You keep talking about G-d being unneccessary, just as Fundies think that G-d is some sort of neccessary explanation for something. I think that you and the Fundies are on opposite sides of the same misguided paradigm.

And you keep not explaining what your position on this is. You're once again just saying that there is an issue without actually saying what it is, this meandering about what both sides are saying without making clear what your actual position is. Spare me your paradigm and make your actual case.

Please remind me at some point to tell you something funny a rabbi said about G-d as a neccessity. In the meantime, however, you've got me curious. In your usage of these terms, what is the difference between a subjective G-d and an objective one? And why are they equally problematic.

I've answered this question already so I'll post it again:

But in short and in summary: If your position is one that requires a deity of any sort to be responsible for creating or influencing the universe in any way (which both agnosticism and deism do, and your position appears to support) then it has no reconcilable ideas to science as a basic idea as no deity has either been demonstrated or has been proven to be necessary.

To make it even simpler, if you have a position that is neither, stop accusing me of not seeing your point and clarify your definitions. I asked you directly about your belief in God, and you've not yet given me a straight answer.

So rather than putting the onus on me, try answering the following questions:

In what fashion do you believe in God, if it is not in the way you've seen me respond to?

What is your definition of subjective god? Is it different from the agnostic and deistic (non intervening) examples I've already mentioned?

This is just spinning in circles otherwise.

Fri, 17 Aug 2012 00:54:16 UTC | #950913

Go to: Classroom Clashes: Teaching evolution

achromat666's Avatar Jump to comment 215 by achromat666

I did try earlier by stressing the distinction between subjective and objective.

And that in and of itself doesn't make your case or prove anything.

The cave is a place where people are still confusing the two.

An objective or subjective deity is still a deity being observed. It doesn't make the problem go away.

I await your developing case, but bear in mind the OP.

Thu, 16 Aug 2012 15:08:20 UTC | #950888

Go to: Classroom Clashes: Teaching evolution

achromat666's Avatar Jump to comment 213 by achromat666

One summer, several years ago, I dated a lady who taught in a public elementary school. She and I both live in Pittsburgh, Pennsylvania, U.S.A., but the school district which employed her was not Pittsburgh propper; it was suburban. [For British reading this, keep in mind that here in the States, "public" school means government-run, tax-supported, and secular.] I was shocked by the conditions she described set out by her employer. She actually had to sign a contract stipulating that she would not live with a man out of wedlock for the duration of her employment. Can you imagine?! I thought only some private, religious school would ever ask a teacher for such a promise. The other bit which shocked me was that when teaching biology, she had to make a disclaimer when teaching about evolution that not everyone believes in it. My reaction: "Oh, for freak's sake, you've got to be bloody kidding me!" I asked her, "Are you sure you work for a public shcool district?" She said, "Yes." She said that if she didn't make the disclaimer, some parents might complain that the biology class was teaching things contrary to their religion. I just couldn't get over it; still can't.

This is sad, but sadly not entirely unusual, with the religious right wing trying to poke into the very education system here on a routine basis. Add to that the pressures a given school system may suffer to not offend families and you have the sad example you just posted. It sadly doesn't boil down to defending science or even education for a school system much of the time, it's about placating families quite often. Actual education needs to take precedence, but our current system seems more preoccupied with popular opinion rather than facts. You don't go to school to learn opinion, though people will give opinions in due course. Fact over faith in education, otherwise children will only be taught what religion enables and not what is true.

As for your first paragraph, you're not demonstrating your point. You're saying you have one and not giving me reason to accept your position, and we keep going in circles over it. Either you can demonstrate that science can be reconcilable or you can't. Either you can offer a definition of your perception of 'god' as you see it or not.

Until you can there is no cave to come out of. There is just a idea you haven't actually made clear.

Thu, 16 Aug 2012 09:05:39 UTC | #950863

Go to: Classroom Clashes: Teaching evolution

achromat666's Avatar Jump to comment 211 by achromat666

Rob W,

This isn't about throwing in the towel, this is about being respectful of the request by the mods to turn the conversation back to that of the OP.

This is the last I'm going to reply to because of that.

Achromat, if you want to just throw in the towell and agree to disagree with me, that's your choice. However, I don't know if you can really disagree with me if you still haven't got my point in the first place. Please people, don't take the things I'm saying the wrong way. I might be at risk here of coming across like some pretentious prick, but that's not my intention. I am still asking you to try and just think outside the box / paradigm to which you are acustomed.

This isn't about whether or not I comprehend what you're saying, this is about demonstrating that what you're saying doesn't just boil down to the same issues of theistic belief. Amos has brought up some notions on the matter and I've mentioned other schools of thought your take appears to mirror (agnostic, deism, etc) so this isn't me taking the born again approach to your ideas. What I'm saying is the central problem lies at the heart of it.

The paradigm to which I refer is the same one used by born-again fundamentalists and such. It's a box where people keep trying to turn the subjective (back) into the objective, and I see that happening here a lot. As long as one's religious faith is kept in the realm of philosophy, then it need not be superstition or psuedo-science.

See above. The fact that you feel you can examine the sciences objectively without your ideas on theism muddling things is laudable but the central issue of theistic belief (belief or worship in a supreme being or divine force) is still a contradictory notion. That does not change whether it is from a Jewish, born again Christian, Muslim or any other religious variant.

I don't really care if that Jewish physicist really "talked with the Divine Force" on the one hand, or if he was just meditating on important values on the other. It's all the same to me, and it's his subjective experience anyway.

My earlier statement on that was a tad confusing directly responding to yours and I didn't get back to correcting it before the post was unalterable.

What I mean is this:

You're in this case only demonstrating that what someone endures has a strong impact on what one believes. And yes that is quite objective. And can easily go back to the cognitive dissonance I just mentioned.

The statement I made concerning the phenomena was designed to be an objective one, but your supposition that his experience in it is subjective is correct. But whether it's all the same to you or not it doesn't eliminate the issue of the theistic viewpoint I keep posting

I should note here that words like "faith," "G-d," "spiritual," etc. can be really problematic since no one seems to agree on what the heck they mean. The ideal for which I strive and which I champion is the most practical, rational, logical interpretation of religion possible. So if those tricky words evoke nonsense to you, then I probably don't mean them in the sense with which you are familiar. For example, I have no use for blind faith; if I use the word "faith," then I mean something else.

One of my earlier points was that agreeing on what someone means by God in a statement is a source of confusion and lots of people don't make it clear.

But in short and in summary: If your position is one that requires a deity of any sort to be responsible for creating or influencing the universe in any way (which both agnosticism and deism do, and your position appears to support) then it has no reconcilable ideas to science as a basic idea as no deity has either been demonstrated or has been proven to be necessary.

That isn't the starting point for some religions, it is the starting point of all of them, and is in no way a scientific position.

Now, as we need to get back to the OP....

Wed, 15 Aug 2012 11:24:51 UTC | #950814

Go to: Classroom Clashes: Teaching evolution

achromat666's Avatar Jump to comment 208 by achromat666

Sorry Mods, was typing a response to Rob W as this was being posted.

Tue, 14 Aug 2012 13:02:23 UTC | #950785

Go to: Classroom Clashes: Teaching evolution

achromat666's Avatar Jump to comment 207 by achromat666

Rob W,

One of the main points which I've been trying to make regarding this article is that one need not be an Atheist to be a good scientist.

No one has argued that this isn't the case. But you are not referring to the principles of science and religion somehow reconciling and being harmonious in their nature Because people can do this. You are demonstrating that a person can hold a contradictory set of beliefs to science while performing scientific research and perform it properly. This is fairly commonly known.

At their basic core they are still contradictory ideas. People are capable of maintaining contradictory ideas and do it quite often. The term for it is cognitive dissonance.

I saw an interview with a Holocaust survivor whose name escapes me. He escaped or was liberated from a camp. He rebuilt his life somehow, and enrolled in a university where he did his undergraduate work in physics. He then went on to do graduate work in physics. Ultimately he got his PhD. in physics. In the interview, he cried passionately about how his faith kept him going through everything including the process of becoming a physicist. They showed a picture of him wearing his tallith gadol (large, fringed prayer shawl). I guess that talking and walking each day with G-d gave him the psychological wherewithall to keep from falling into dispair about all he had been through so that he could live in the present and create a future. Some people go through adversity, and say, "See, G-d is B.S.!" or "G-d doesn't care." Others go through adversity and say, "G-d's all I've got!" It's all very subjective.

You're in this case only demonstrating that what someone endures has a strong impact on what one believes. And yes that is quite objective. And can easily go back to the cognitive dissonance I just mentioned.

The part I highlighted gets even trickier. Are we actually talking about someone who is connecting to a divine force, or someone who has endured a great deal of hardship and coped through his belief? That is his perspective which means unless he sees it differently he has no reason to see it any other way. It doesn't mean that he 'talked with god', per se. But I'm not likely to change his mind about it. It's less about the circumstance than it is our perspective going into it often. It is quite true that we can both deal with the same hardship and have 2 entirely different experiences based on our ideas and beliefs (or lack of beliefs in this case).

I understand the position you're posing but it clearly does not alter the fact that science and religion do very much contradict each other. People are quite accustomed to living in contradiction quite often.

This I presume will be an agree to disagree scenario.

Tue, 14 Aug 2012 13:01:25 UTC | #950784

Go to: Classroom Clashes: Teaching evolution

achromat666's Avatar Jump to comment 198 by achromat666

Rob W,

Not such a difficult thing to comprehend as you may think, but you're right, the answer is a bit mercurial.

It is actually quite often here in the attempt to reach common ground that we ask that very question: What does one mean by God? When people are making their specific cases for God often they don't well define what they mean if they are trying to avoid the standard pitfalls of evidential burden. Some may have a unique approach and simply never give an adequate response.

There are also the deists that simply accept the idea of a force that creates but does not participate in the design or possess any tangible intent for the universe once it's in motion. Similar in mindset to many agnostics.

So the idea of not wanting to be pigeonholed is one thing, but do you see how difficult things get when we go right to the heart of the issue? My contention doesn't revolve around your particular faith, or anyone else's. It is everything to do with the one component all of them share: A deity or many deities that create and influence and control some portion of some or all lives. Some force which by its own nature is not rational or scientific in any sense of the word. Ultimately it boils down to that.

And I do understand that it is difficult in many ways to separate the social, cultural and spiritual aspects of a given faith. But cultural Jews do exist, as do cultural Christians and the like. And ultimately, the God component is a scientific contradiction. Which is where I started my original point, which was that science and religion are inherently irreconcilable.

You will find we all have differing ways of approaching discussions like this. Irate and Amos are more direct and can be confrontational, but are quite knowledgeable. I prefer to discuss until I see what I think is the heart of a matter and dissect the issue until a resolution is reached (if one can, in fact be reached).

And this is where I am:

A theistic belief has the necessity of a deity (or deities) that cannot be demonstrably proven, and cannot be established as possessing any necessary nature. The method by which one would arrive at such a belief (faith) is inherently contradictory to scientific method and endeavor . They are therefore irreconcilable.

While you may possess a more deistic approach to theistic belief (non intervening), if the belief is there it does not change my preceding statement.

Mon, 13 Aug 2012 05:19:18 UTC | #950730

Go to: Classroom Clashes: Teaching evolution

achromat666's Avatar Jump to comment 194 by achromat666

I'm not sure what you mean by "religion by its own definition," and I'm not sure what you mean by "its methodology," as if there is one. One can use words like "Judeo-Christian" and "Abrahamic" all they want, but at the end of the day, Judaism is not (and has never been) Christianity, and it's not Islam either.

Religion - Religion is a collection of cultural systems, belief systems, and worldviews that relate humanity to spirituality and, sometimes, to moral values.[note 1] Many religions have narratives, symbols, traditions and sacred histories that are intended to give meaning to life or to explain the origin of life or the universe. They tend to derive morality, ethics, religious laws or a preferred lifestyle from their ideas about the cosmos and human nature.

At no point in this discussion have I said Christian or Muslim in regards to your belief. And Abrahamic is appropriate when discussing all of them in general, but I'm referring to religion as a whole. From the definition all of them have a cultural, social and spiritual aspect. I have already said the cultural (and in this case social ) do not contradict science. Most are simply born of traditions passed down from generations before and accepted as the norm. They may or may not have spiritual aspects to them. But the spirituality aspect most definitely contradicts science, especially as it applies to the dogmatic way in which they are uncritically accepted, and how it is often used as a bludgeon to enlist others into its cause for its certainty sans proof.

Judaism may not undergo large scale conversions and preaching to non Jews, but the an unsubstantiated, unproven deity sits in its center. Being a Jew doesn't mean believing it, but the worship of Yahweh is still the root, as well as the root of the other Abrahamic faiths.

Judeo-Christian, Abrahamic or not, a deity is still being worshiped, that opposes what science represents in giving an explanation of how things work.

In my own frame of reference, the word "religious" tends to be used very differently in Judaism than in Christianity. I know that there are something like 2 billion Christians, and I don't want to paint them all with one broad brushstroke, but it seems to me when someone says that a Christian person is "religious" or has a "strong faith," often what is meant is that the person is very dogmatic. When Jews talk about a Jew being "religious," they don't necessarily mean dogmatic at all; they mean observant. So I'm really not the most religious Jew in the whole world because my level of observance is erratic. I'm just not the most educated or disciplined practitioner of my religion. Sometimes I wax, and sometimes I wane.

Once again, I'm not referring to any one faith, and not even in particular yours. What I'm saying is the component of religion that science does not reconcile is deity worship. You may explain away the methods by which they coincide to yourself, but positing a deity before you make an assessment about something is inherently circular in reasoning and a non scientific position.

I've heard people make the distinction which you're making about "religious" versus "cultural" Judaism, and I'm not saying that I don't get what you mean, but I still kind of reject that distinction as a bit silly -- at least as applies to me. It fails to recognize a lot about Judaism and its history. When it's about philosophy, history, psychology, symbolism, and sociology, I'm into it, but the moment it smacks of superstition or psudo-science, then I'm like, "Get it the hell away from me."

So how precisely do you have a problem with the notion of being a cultural Jew? You're essentially saying that you observe tradition, but don't accept the dogma or superstition attached to it. What about the distinction is silly exactly?

Let's start with the basics and work from there. Do you believe in God?

Sun, 12 Aug 2012 22:08:26 UTC | #950724

Go to: Classroom Clashes: Teaching evolution

achromat666's Avatar Jump to comment 191 by achromat666

Yes, I'm being broad. I'm not trying persuade anyone here to be religious if they're not into that sort of thing. One of the things which I'm trying to address is the way prejudices and stereotypes are running in all directions, and people are talking past each other.

That is certainly one school of thought and a healthy one to have. If you see enough theists posting on this site however, you'll find many have little idea what it means to be an atheists and tend to be argumentative from the start. It's usually far easier to discuss and try to understand the other side even if you don't agree with it.

Not saying you don't understand that, just trying to paint the picture of what it's usually like here. The remarks from person that got banned painted a perfect picture. You come in with a grudge, you're going to make it hard to have a discussion and jump right into arguing.

I'm just saying that if you see me wearing a cap and fringes, walking in and out of synagogues, avoiding ham in favor of salmon, and refraining from conducting business on Saturday, it doesn't mean that I'm part of some anti-science movement. It just means that I'm Jewish. As long as scientists do their job correctly, their prayers (or lack thereof) before and / or after work need not be a problem for the advancement of science.

Adhering to a culture is different from to adhering to a faith. I have friends of many different religious backgrounds that don't discredit science outright. I generally disagree with the reasoning but they are still good people and don't make judgments about me one way or the other.

The sort of religion which offends you is the same sort that offends me -- the sort which would try to explain the universe in ways which are contrary to science. There are quotes by Dr. Dawkins which have impressed people, but which didn't impress me much. On the other hand, one of my favorite quotes by Dawkins is so simple, brilliant, and true, that I think everyone would do well to keep it in mind; you just paraphrased it. He said, "When you say that G-D designed it, you have explained nothing."

This confuses me a tad, and I suppose always does when my religious friends bring up points similar. Religion as a whole in its methodology is quite contrary to science as it applies to theistic belief and the nature of faith.

Religion was what we had when science didn't exists and unfortunately boiled down to people from different cultures making up a lot of stuff that people ended up believing with no way to prove it. And obviously it still exists on a cultural level and for many the dictates of said culture are important. But in general I try to make distinctions from religion and the culture of a given people. You seem more of a cultural Jewish person rather than a religious one.

Which once again is fine, but in the end culture and science do not contradict each other. Religion by it's own definition does. I think this may be the issue we're having.

Sun, 12 Aug 2012 18:49:47 UTC | #950721

Go to: Classroom Clashes: Teaching evolution

achromat666's Avatar Jump to comment 189 by achromat666

Comment 188 by Rob W.

You seem to relate the idea of religion in a very broad sense. A philosophy or mantra, as you use in your demonstration is not in and of itself inherently religious. That is, it doesn't require any form of theistic belief intrinsically to have meaning to anyone.

Objective reasoning is crucial in science, yes. Subjective reasoning however is not purely religious.

When religion is commonly used in context to atheism (which is simply a lack of religious belief) It refers to a theistic belief. One that has not in any way been demonstrated as having a grain of truth or demonstrated as being in any way necessary.

That is the heart of the issue, and it is not compatible with science in any conceivable way of explaining how things work, as it doesn't actually explain anything. With religious tradition, you can see the historical significance of a given faith on a people. With the philosophies of any given religion you get their point of view. But nothing in any religious text gives us anything compatible with science in what information it has to offer. Most possess cultural ideas with no evidence to support them that were accepted at that time for lack of any better data.

Unless you have something better than this to illustrate your point, I'm afraid we cannot agree on this issue of compatibility between science and religion. The evidence is simply not there.

Sun, 12 Aug 2012 16:18:38 UTC | #950719

Go to: Classroom Clashes: Teaching evolution

achromat666's Avatar Jump to comment 185 by achromat666

Comment 184 by Ignorant Amos,

Less troll mix next time?

Sun, 12 Aug 2012 00:40:08 UTC | #950706

Go to: ‘How do atheists find meaning in life?’

achromat666's Avatar Jump to comment 197 by achromat666

Comment 196 by dawners,

Where to start...

True self? Hurting God?

Let's start with proving your claim (also known as part of the purpose of this site) and start giving a single reason why any one of your biased theistic opinions have a single bit of weight.

Do the people not born into a given religion have issues with god? Worshipers of other deities, perhaps?

And as for the population of atheists that did leave their particular faith, are you truly so myopic in view that you fail to realize everyone makes such a decision for numerous reasons? Or that perhaps evidence of no deity has simply weighed out the lack of evidence for?

You sound like you've just proclaimed to have discovered the secret why atheist exist. All you've done is project your own ignorance on an atheist website.

Fri, 10 Aug 2012 20:33:21 UTC | #950626

Go to: Classroom Clashes: Teaching evolution

achromat666's Avatar Jump to comment 162 by achromat666

Amos,

Honestly I'm getting lost trying to determine his point. This started as a knock against Dawkins for an earlier post which I addressed but that got glazed over and now we're discussing the what science is.

I don't mind the ebb and flow, but what is the point?

Fri, 10 Aug 2012 20:17:36 UTC | #950624

Go to: Classroom Clashes: Teaching evolution

achromat666's Avatar Jump to comment 157 by achromat666

You're the one ruling out any evidence. That's an absolute statement. I can ask you how much did you study to make a blank statement like that. I do have evidence of religion. Evidence doesn't mean proof but I would say I have proof too in the sense that I think evidence shows it. Further if by evidence you mean physically detecting something, that's not the only way to deduce anything. If the brain is so dumb we can't trust it for anything but brute experiment there is no science because science means coming up with a theory you think is behind the experiment. We don't see curved space. Curved space-time though serves as a theory to predict gravitational phenomena. The latter is the data. The former is the scientific theory, the explanation I believe in.

First, both from Wikipedia, but can easily be found in any dictionary:

Evidence- Evidence in its broadest sense includes everything that is used to determine or demonstrate the truth of an assertion. Giving or procuring evidence is the process of using those things that are either (a) presumed to be true, or (b) were themselves proven via evidence, to demonstrate an assertion's truth. Evidence is the currency by which one fulfills the burden of proof.

Proof- A proof is an argument or sufficient evidence for the truth of a proposition.

What was that bit about proof and evidence?

And you are doing a lot of assuming. I did not say visual observation is the only way to deduce, though it is an important one. And it was how the process got started. Your Curved Space bit only goes to show what i'm actually trying to point out: without data to confirm such a claim, it is just a claim without evidence. Someone did the research, tested the data and drew a conclusion that was verified by others.

Nothing in that statement infers I think it is merely a visual presentation only that produces results. Not sure what your point is.

That's all true but that's what you and I say but another person can say it may about proving but it doesn't have the correct method for proving. Homeopathy is also about proving. I still fail to see how it can work. I can come up with any method of trying to prove something and then say it's about proving and that therefore it's not just a notion when it declares something proven (which in science is never absolutely), but the next person will feel otherwise. What your doing is saying science is about proving, therefore what according to it it proves is proven. That's not a proof. That's saying science has proven X. Why because science says so. Fine but that's begging the question. The true answer is to say, if you accept the scientific method then X is true. However in science we always continue to test and allow contesting. It is us who say one theory in science is true and another may say another theory is. Science itself always retests and doesn't commit. If I science says X, I mean I feel that the scientific evidence points to X being true.

And if someone has an incorrect process for proving their claim they won't come up with a positive result. That is part of the process. I fail to see your point.

And you are not representing what I've said at all. Something is not proven because science says so. It is because of the repeated testing and peer review. A reliable result that can be tested against other work and still stand up. The scientific process is instrumental in determining what is true. Where are you getting the idea of my statement your positing from?

That all being true science needs tolerance as it is an idea.

And no, it doesn't. What is true does not require tolerance to be true. Anyone can have an opinion, but it doesn't change a fact. Science is in the business of discovering what is true of reality. Your toleration doesn't change what is true, just your acceptance of it.

Fri, 10 Aug 2012 20:08:49 UTC | #950619

Go to: Classroom Clashes: Teaching evolution

achromat666's Avatar Jump to comment 147 by achromat666

achromat666 I'll respond fully tomorrow night but I'll just say for now.

Take your time.

You said:"Religion requires tolerance because there is no evidence to support it,"

So you say.

Indeed I did. Do you have evidence to suggest otherwise?

"...but so long as it harms no one else people can believe whatever they wish. Religion requires belief for precisely the same reason. Science requires neither, either something is true or it is not. There is no equivocation."

So you say. Look the point is science is something that can be believed in or not. Any idiot can see an apple fall. A theory of gravity explains it. It's not data. It is a theory used to predict what data we will see. That's science. It requires tolerance. The theory can be believed in or not otherwise what is there argue against people who don't believe in science? They don't deny seeing an apple fall. When someone affirms science that one is not saying nothing. That one is saying something and it needs tolerance. Just ask Galileo. Newton didn't discover gravity. Newton came up with a theory of gravity successful enough that it approximates reality at a low enough velocity relative to that light.

Anything can be believed, but science is about proving not believing. I can say the theory of gravity explains how things stay and fall on the planet, but without the aforementioned data (the process of proving that) it is just a notion. Until it is proven. Whether someone tolerates an idea or not, if it is proven to be true, tolerance is equally irrelevant. Tolerance has no effect on what is proven to be true.

Where are you reading that affirming science is saying nothing? I'm saying that tolerance of science has no effect on whether or not it is true, and therefore has no meaning regarding it. Scientist bicker and quibble and hold their own ideas regarding their theories, but what separates that from religion in general is verifiable proof. Plain and simple. Once something is proven, opinions are not a factor, then you test against the facts to discern further about what has been proven. You build on it, not tolerate it.

If you mean to say that science was developed by people and people are prone to disagreeing and tolerating other viewpoints, you are not making the case that science itself needs to be tolerated. Science has proven to be indispensable as a resource for our understanding of virtually everything around us.

That didn't require belief, and it didn't require tolerance. It required observation and examination of reality. The church for centuries didn't tolerate any opposing view, but it was evidence not tolerance that has brought us to where we are in scientific endeavor.

Fri, 10 Aug 2012 17:28:12 UTC | #950609

Go to: Classroom Clashes: Teaching evolution

achromat666's Avatar Jump to comment 140 by achromat666

How? Scientists don't come up with ideas? They do. If they do they would want tolerance for it. Think before you type. You're no scientist.

Actually equivocation was what I mentioned and you didn't take the whole statement in consideration in you response.

To wit, my full statement:

Once again, no. Ideas in science require evidence to sustain validity. Tolerance is entirely meaningless if the science is there to prove the data. People are responsible for the ideas in question, and are respected for the work they put in. But ultimately the results are not tolerated, and they are not believed: They are demonstrated and they are proven based on repeated testing.

Religion requires tolerance because there is no evidence to support it, but so long as it harms no one else people can believe whatever they wish. Religion requires belief for precisely the same reason. Science requires neither, either something is true or it is not. There is no equivocation.

Your response represents either a gross misunderstanding of what I wrote, or your being entirely too focused on Irate Atheist to form your arguments consistently.

You also haven't responded to the rest of my post, choosing instead to argue rather than discuss.

Fri, 10 Aug 2012 15:43:11 UTC | #950600

Go to: Classroom Clashes: Teaching evolution

achromat666's Avatar Jump to comment 130 by achromat666

YA,

I don't. If you believe in either of those statements then do. It's not a moral question. I'm not obligated to mock people.

Once again you miss the point. This isn't about an obligation to mock, it's about the mindset of a person who would still maintain such a belief. I could draw up the same question regarding someone who cries over it being revealed that the moon is not cheese to further my inquiry. Morality doesn't factor in, but a break from reality or having lead an extraordinarily sheltered life most certainly would.

She may not require counseling. Crying is what she may have needed.

And you completely missed the point on this one as well. In both of these examples you're giving license to responding only from an emotional standpoint regarding issues that such a response is entirely unwarranted for a teenager or an adult. If she's being emotional about something else and just crying is one thing. If the discussion of evolution is bringing her to tears, that represents a problem with both coping and the very emotional blackmail your friend just mentioned.

I also made mention of the mindset that Dawkins infers where a family or culture would propagate the ideas of dogmatic beliefs to such a degree that seeing or hearing a contrary idea would set someone off is indeed a sad and disturbing one. I mentioned I believe very much these are tied together, but you insist on focusing only on the crying.

Once again, an emotional response and not a rational one. Examine it critically and tell me you believe the action under those circumstances is normal.

I said:"Well science does not consider itself knowledge. Science considers itself a collector of data, coming up with theories for the data and always testing. If he wants tolerance for science he can't be intolerant himself and be called consistent."

You responded:"Incorrect. Science is a form of gathered knowledge, and doesn't consider itself anything. It is a system by which we examine the world and through reliable and repeated testing make discoveries about how things work. It doesn't require tolerance."

I know science doesn't consider itself anything. The people behind the modern scientific method defined it. However science is not a type of data collection with no thought and theory involved. Every idea requires tolerance for it. Scientists put work into their ideas. It's not data collecting. It's coming up with theories to explain what is seen in nature. It requires tolerance. Not everyone believes in it. It is a system of thought we all use to an extent but the full blown system is a theory and it is not showing respect for science to make it out to be just data collecting without thought necessary. If science becomes just a dogmatic system where one sees what the majority of scientists supposedly say at least and then discussion is considered to have ended Galileo is in practice the loser.

Once again, no. Ideas in science require evidence to sustain validity. Tolerance is entirely meaningless if the science is there to prove the data. People are responsible for the ideas in question, and are respected for the work they put in. But ultimately the results are not tolerated, and they are not believed: They are demonstrated and they are proven based on repeated testing.

Religion requires tolerance because there is no evidence to support it, but so long as it harms no one else people can believe whatever they wish. Religion requires belief for precisely the same reason. Science requires neither, either something is true or it is not. There is no equivocation.

Fri, 10 Aug 2012 13:35:30 UTC | #950590

Go to: Classroom Clashes: Teaching evolution

achromat666's Avatar Jump to comment 119 by achromat666

I'll do so later. I have a whole world outside. You seem to misunderstand what I said about science unless I am misunderstanding you. But in any event. My comments were not about his telling about Evolution. I was criticizing his insulting words on this site about her and yeah she can cry. It shouldn't be our problem. Thanks for the technical info.

You're welcome.

But evolution was at the heart of the what led to her crying, which I do believe is pertinent to the issue. If the mere mention of something that does not comport to her reality causes to respond in such a way, it strikes me as a big problem with coping skills. And at 15 or so that is significant.

Yes she can cry, no one is arguing with that. But does that mean we tolerate the behavior as normal and not discuss the matter? That is also equally important. Richard's response seem to have more of an issue with the culture that would cause a child to come to tears over this than merely whether or not she did it. Opinion on that obviously varies but ultimately the crying over it is disturbing enough to me to not simply be put aside as something people can do.

Take you time with a responses.

Thu, 09 Aug 2012 21:32:24 UTC | #950576

Go to: Classroom Clashes: Teaching evolution

achromat666's Avatar Jump to comment 117 by achromat666

,Comment 115 by YA

2 things:

The symbols that pop up when you start typing in the upper left are for bold, italicized, hyperlink and quote in that order. As you're spending a bit of time quoting Amos without some differentiation it makes it a bit of a pain to follow. You can use the < symbol to quote someone at the beginning of a paragraph and respond underneath. You can also put ** before and after the quoted parts to separate them.

Additionally you're not really addressing the issue in question, You're still making a lot of accusations. Whether or not you think Dawkins was being offensive doesn't directly address what I asked. I was breaking down the components of your complaint to better understand what your actual issue is. It can't simply be respecting another person's view, you've done very little of that to Amos and have directly addressed few other people (hence the bickering remark). Also are we to respect the viewpoint of a Flat Earther? Someone that believes the moon is made of cheese perhaps?

Your confusing remarks regarding Black Holes, Einstein and the such are only adding further confusion.

Now as to this:

A 15 year old in a science class is not expected to cry or not cry. At least not if they're in a country that doesn't require everyone to have a stiff upper lip. Do you need others permission when to to be allowed to cry?

This has nothing to do with the problem. The problem is that her response was crying because someone had an opposing view to hers. This isn't about a stiff upper lip, if she cries because someone brought up evolution it sounds like an issue that requires counseling to deal with. You're responding emotionally and not rationally.

Well science does not consider itself knowledge. Science considers itself a collector of data, coming up with theories for the data and always testing. If he wants tolerance for science he can't be intolerant himself and be called consistent.

Incorrect. Science is a form of gathered knowledge, and doesn't consider itself anything. It is a system by which we examine the world and through reliable and repeated testing make discoveries about how things work. It doesn't require tolerance.

Why should we tolerate someone crying over the mention of a branch of science?

I'm reading a lot of conjecture in your responses, and little information.

Please directly answer the questions.

Thu, 09 Aug 2012 21:09:32 UTC | #950574