[MD] Metaphysics

[Mary]

Hello Mark,

Yes, I base my comments on your public discussion with Arlo, which is much
more incendiary than the email below, so I really appreciate your comments
to me. 

You say:
My argument is this:  If I read in a book that God exists, I can accept that
on faith.  If I read in a book that plate tectonics created the continents
as
they are, I can accept that on faith.

I reply:
The two kinds of faith required are not equivalent.  Yes, you must accept
religion on faith, but you do not have to accept science on faith.  That is
the beauty of it.  If you doubt the findings you are free to verify them for
yourself.  If someone tells you that the continents are drifting, there is
no faith at all required to prove or disprove this.  You are free to mount
your own expedition and collect your own data.  In fact, science would
encourage you to do so; since, the more independent result sets obtained,
the higher quality the conclusion that can be drawn.  Who knows, you might
even observe something that changes the conclusion entirely, and that would
be good for science, not bad. 

This is the dramatic difference between the faith of science and the faith
of religion.  Now you may choose not to mount your own expedition and
confirm existing results.  Maybe it's too costly or time-consuming, or you
don't have the expertise needed to do a good job of it, but it's still your
choice, and you always have it available to you.  In this case it would be
perfectly alright to have "faith" in the veracity of the people who
conducted the original experiments.  You have better things to do.  But when
you make that choice, you do so knowing that in no way are the two kinds of
faith similar.

Best wishes,
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 10:57 PM
To: moq_discuss at moqtalk.org
Subject: Re: [MD] Metaphysics

Hi Marysonthego,

Thank you for your questions.  I believe you are over-thinking my position.
It is not as complicated as trying to provide an alternative explanation to
a well founded scientific theory.  It is also not meant to be against
science
(I am a scientist myself, and make my living at it).  It is also not meant
to be
in favor of religion, as I don't think I have that.  I have never been to 
church as both my parents were atheists, and have not seen a need to
since my childhood.

My argument is this:  If I read in a book that God exists, I can accept that
on faith.  If I read in a book that plate tectonics created the continents
as
they are, I can accept that on faith.  I do not need to personally confirm
either.  However, the great thing about a belief in God is that it can be
confirmed since it is a feeling.  So much of what we know has to be
accepted 
on faith, from others or from books we read.  I cannot personally see the
continents
move.  Both the so-called religious side and the scientific side have their
ways of
conveying this faith, one is through the side of inner revelation, the other
is through the side of intellectual convincing.  For the existence of God
to be proven, no empirical data is needed.  In fact I think that would be
impossible as it would raise us above that level.  To believe in
science no spirituality is needed in fact that would also be
impossible since it cannot be measured.

My deliberation is: Since both are faith based ways of seeing the world,
both have a lot in common.  To pit one against the other just doesn't make
sense, they walk hand-in-hand.  However, for whatever reason, scientists
tend to belittle believers much more than the other way around.  There is
an arrogance here that is probably based more on fear than anything else.
For one to state that a metaphysics is anti-theist only shows that that one
has an axe to grind.  I think that many of the great scientist dead and
living
do believe in a god of some kind.  Oh, I wouldn't call Dawkins a great
scientist since he hasn't contributed anything to the field of biology
except maybe a meme, which is more of a sociological concept,
and has nothing to do with his education as a zoologist.
He makes his living writing books with titles that sell.

Let me ask you this, if there are two ways of looking at this world, which
one is more useful for inner peace and joy?  Which one is more
useful for survival?  Both are necessary and available if one wants to make
full use
of his/her time here.

Having worked in the sciences for many years now, I see many of the
flaws and misuse of this profession.  I notice that people have such a
faith in science that its misuse is easy.  Take the global warming stuff
for example.  (I don't want to start a discussion on this since I do not
really
care, what I care about is people being mistreated).  So if this is an
axe to grind with some in my own profession, so be it.  I have seen
falsification to meet an end many times.  It is about money or
pride sometimes.

Hope this clarifies.  Oh, and all that stuff with Arlo, I'm just rattling
his cage.

Cheers,
Mark

On Jan 16, 2010, at 8:02:03 PM, Mary <marysonthego at gmail.com> wrote:
From:   Mary <marysonthego at gmail.com>
Subject:    Re: [MD] Metaphysics
Date:   January 16, 2010 8:02:03 PM PST
To: moq_discuss at moqtalk.org
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/

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/