[Sca-cooks] Faith and chellenges

[tom.vincent at yahoo.com]

----- Original Message ----
From: Jeff Gedney <gedney1 at iconn.net>
To: Cooks within the SCA <sca-cooks at lists.ansteorra.org>
Sent: Wednesday, May 31, 2006 10:43:40 AM
Subject: Re: [Sca-cooks] Faith and chellenges


>>> Not really.  Conclusions are *proved* by replicating tests 
with consistant results.  A 'scientist' should know that.  You 
start with a theory and then work to prove the opposite.  You 
explain the results.  You repeat the experiments.  You submit 
it to critical peer review.  You question.  You validate.  You 
verify.  You double-check.  You triple-check.  You do blind 
tests.

And the idea of doing this occurred comparatively late in the 
history of the world.
 
>>> Absolutely.  We live in that period. :)

Our concept of "science" as a separate and distinct set of 
world explanations uninformed by religion and driven by empirical 
observation utilizing the "Scientific Method" is extrememly recent, 
and not fully realized in it's modern form until the 20th century.

It is irresponsible and unnecessary to hold religious authority 
for being unscientific and establishing unscientific dogma when 
the tenets of their faith were laid in an age and culture that 
utterly lacked anything resemling a modern scientific thought.

The world explanations in the Christian Bible are explanations 
that made sense to the people who wrote them. 
 
>>> Yes, but it hasn't been updated to reflect the improved understanding of the world.

I read them and regard them with care, not because I think that 
they are absolute unwavering truth, but because when stripped of 
their anachronsims and analyzed for their structure and 
relationships (betweem people and between pweople and the divine) 
they illustrate, poetically, certain metaphysical concepts I like 
to live by, including do no harm to others, do not be dushonest, 
and honor the world and each other.
 
>>>  So donkeys didn't really talk.

Even the assumption that there is no god is an act of faith.  
 
>>> No.  It is neither an assumption nor an act of faith.  It is simply a conclusion based on analysis of evidence to the contrary or on the rejection of the claim that there is one or more gods.

>we can guess (again, faith) and we can make educated guesses 
(still faith) but we never really know. 
> 
>>> Nonsense.  Of course we can.  If I put a chicken breast in 
a 2,000 degree oven for six weeks, it will not be presentable at 
feast.
>If I pull a raw steak out of a sub-zero freezer that it has been 
in for 2 days and give it directly to a server, it will not be 
well-done by the time it reaches the high table.
>
>Observations are facts. conclusions are explainations taht may or 
may not be right, 
>and that are made based on interpretations of facts.

Arguing that that because you can know what a chicken will do 
in an oven means that faith in a creator God is ludicrous 
is "Apples and Oranges" argumentum. 
They are unrelated. 

>>> The discussion point was that evidence was nothing but guesses and were a matter of faith.  I showed that that idea is full of holes pretty completely.

Religion is generally NOT concerned with the effects of heat on a 
dead chicken 
 
>>> Well, *some* religions are very much concerned with the effects of heat on dead people, so it isn't that much of a stretch.

Lets examine what religion is conecerned with, please. 
Unless you are starting a Church of the Divine Frypan, Religion 
deals with things that science cannot grapple with. 

>>> Now you're trying to define Religion in such a way that there can't be a conflict with science, that they compliment each other.  Nice try, but no.

What is the origin of the observable universe? Science has no 
answer that is not, in itself an assumption underlain by faith.
Even the "Big Bang Theory" is, in effect, a statement of faith.
 
>>> A *wrong* answer isn't the same as a *correct* answer.  Simply saying that the Universe was spat from the mouth pouch of the Cosmic Squirrel does not make it true.

What you can know as fact, to be apprehended by humans, can be 
known. 
What is unknowable as fact, to be apprehended by humans, must be 
assumed by means of faith. 
 
>>> If you're apprehended by humans, you're probably a criminal suspect and they are the police.  If you're apprehended by non-humans, well...you're probably on a different planet.

There are many aspects of "science" are are equally ludicrous on 
the empirical surface, some concepts, such as string theory, exist 
only in the mathematics derived by human minds, and have no 
empirical observation. That is also faith.

>>> Yep.  That's why it's called a 'theory'.  Not all science is based completely on physical evidence, but most is.  Kindly provide examples of religion based on physical evidence...at all.

The very nature of reality, the origin of life, and many other 
aspects of scientific inquiry are also quite naturally elements 
of faith.
 
>>> Maybe, but not necessarily.  One can examine them without fantasies.  One can present ideas without threats...or without threatening others.

Those who claim that Science and religion are antithetical know 
too little of either, and are not cognizant of the history of 
science and scientific thought.
 
>>> Well, you've made several previous errors, so I don't need to spend much time on this error.  Science requires proof and reproducability.  Religion requires blind faith and rejects challenging contrary evidence or viewpoints.

Galileo expressly said that the Bible cannot err, and saw his 
system as an alternate interpretation of the biblical texts. 
 
>>> Galileo was a product of his time and was threatened with excommunication and worse.  Hardly an open academic process going on there.

Max Planck said "the holiness of the unintelligible Godhead is 
conveyed by the holiness of symbols." Atheists, he thought, 
attach too much importance to what are merely symbols. Both 
science and religion wage a "tireless battle against skepticism 
and dogmatism, against unbelief and superstition" with the goal 
"toward God!" 

Here are some intreresting quotations:
"It is true, that a little philosophy inclineth mans mind to 
atheism, but depth in philosophy bringeth men's minds about to 
religion; for while the mind of man looketh upon second causes 
scattered, it may sometimes rest in them, and go no further; but 
when it beholdeth the chain of them confederate, and linked 
together, it must needs fly to Providence and Deity."  
- Sir Fancis Bacon 

"The most beautiful system of the sun, planets, and comets, could 
only proceed from the counsel and dominion on an intelligent and 
powerful Being." 
- Isaac Newton 

"Science without religion is lame, religion without science is blind" 
- Albert Einstein  
 
>>> It's charming that a few significant historical scientists were able to have their science and religion co-exist.  Why didn't you present any examples of scientists who have rejected religion?

Keep your desparaging and insulting comments to yourself from here 
on. 

>>>  I have made none of either.  Shame on you for dishonestly claiming otherwise.

Thank you.
 
>>> No thanks to you.