[MD] Metaphysics

[Mary]

Hello Mark, Arlo, Kremel, Bo, Magnus, John, and everyone else following this
thread,

Mark, you can't have it both ways.  If you accept a theism on faith alone,
you cannot then use having faith in a scientific theory as a blunt
instrument against those who disagree with you.  

Plate tectonics, for instance, is a theory which was first promulgated in
the late 1960's.  I clearly remember when my Dad received his copy of
Scientific American that contained the first widely published article
discussing it.  It was on the front cover.  I was a little kid and was
curious.  I tried to read it, but the article contained a lot of charts and
graphs depicting several years worth of data, and I could not understand it
at all.

You seem to disagree with this theory, but I have not heard you put forth an
alternative explanation as yet, so I cannot comment on what that might be.
What I can say to you is that in a sense you are correct.  The results of
scientific observation have led many to "believe" in the veracity of plate
tectonics.  What I can also say to you is that if tomorrow, Scientific
American were to publish a competing theory with equally compelling
evidence, then the scientific community would readily consider that as well.
They would not discount it out of hand simply because the plate tectonics
theory came first.  The test for science is a preponderance of evidence,
logical consistency, and economy of explanation.  Any theory meeting these
tests, by definition, must be treated with respect.

What I find fascinating about your argument is your insistence on visual
verification.  When you ask someone if they have "seen" plate tectonics
personally, your implication seems to be that there is no validity to
anything a person has not witnessed for themselves.  You deride individuals
for accepting theories they have not personally verified.  Why religious
fundamentalists persist in this sort of argument I do not know, because your
own alternate set of beliefs cannot be personally verified by visual
inspection either.  

The argument goes something like this.  I believe in a god I have never seen
or heard, and because I do, I attack you for believing in scientific
theories you have never seen or heard personally because they somehow
threaten my belief.  Upon what basis do you make such attacks?  There is no
empirical data documenting the existence of the god you are defending, yet
plenty of empirical data for the scientific theory you refute.  Seems to me
you are arguing from a position of weakness by choosing this tack.  I am
always astonished by these kinds of attacks on science.  Can you explain
what you hope to accomplish by this?   Would it not be more truthful to just
come out and say, I reject your scientific theory because it invalidates my
religious belief?  No one would fault you for that.  We should all, after
all, make every effort to respect the beliefs of others.  Personally, I
could care less if you and a half-million or so other adherents to your
religion do not "believe" in plate tectonics.  That is not required. 

Thank you,
Mary

-----Original Message-----
From: moq_discuss-bounces at lists.moqtalk.org
[mailto:moq_discuss-bounces at lists.moqtalk.org] On Behalf Of markhsmit
Sent: Saturday, January 16, 2010 12:22 PM
To: moq_discuss at moqtalk.org
Subject: Re: [MD] Metaphysics

Yes!  Krimel, save me from this onslaught of ignorance!
Show me the way!  I am but a poor ignorant servant.
What do I need to know, oh wise one?

Amen.

Mark

On Jan 16, 2010, at 10:10:37 AM, Krimel <Krimel at Krimel.com> wrote:
From:   Krimel <Krimel at Krimel.com>
Subject:    Re: [MD] Metaphysics
Date:   January 16, 2010 10:10:37 AM PST
To: moq_discuss at moqtalk.org
Matt,
You are offering sage advice here. I wish I were up to the task of following
it. I want to acknowledge fully, from the outset, when I am at my most
venomous, it could be the result of some personality disorder. 

I hear what you are saying about addressing the tender minded lurker. But I
think I share Arlo's concern that if Platt, Ham and Bo are allowed to go on
with no challenge at all, then the lurker is left with the impression that
what our dimwitted brethren say is acceptable to the rest of us. Also, it is
not as though I have shied away from giving long, detailed and reasoned
analysis of their flawed logic. I have at various times tried, fable,
poetry, koan, aphorism, autobiography and fantasy as well.

I take your suggestion to be that it might be helpful to all to tone it down
a notch and while I promise to try, I can't guarantee results. But to
present you with just a touch of opposite advice, you say, "If I sound oh-so
too reasonable, you've never seen me handle a bigot."

It is true; I haven't. Which leads me to ask, why you have not reacted to
the bigotry of Platt and Ham's screeds on multiculturalism and Islam; or
Bo's blatantly anti-Semitic accounts of history?

Krimel




Moq_Discuss mailing list
Listinfo, Unsubscribing etc.
http://lists.moqtalk.org/listinfo.cgi/moq_discuss-moqtalk.org
Archives:
http://lists.moqtalk.org/pipermail/moq_discuss-moqtalk.org/
http://moq.org.uk/pipermail/moq_discuss_archive/


Moq_Discuss mailing list
Listinfo, Unsubscribing etc.
http://lists.moqtalk.org/listinfo.cgi/moq_discuss-moqtalk.org
Archives:
http://lists.moqtalk.org/pipermail/moq_discuss-moqtalk.org/
http://moq.org.uk/pipermail/moq_discuss_archive/