Bill

I think this is something of an overstatement. As I read <a href="http://feynman.princeton.edu/~steinh/dm6.pdf" target="_blank">the layman's version of the paper in question</a>, this new cyclical theory offers a better explanation for the existing empirical evidence than does the accepted theory of a single "Big Bang" with inflation. At least, that is the claim which is made by said layman's version of the paper in question.

I guess we will need to wait for the reacion among cosmological scientists to see if the textbooks get rewritten, once again, as a consequence of this new (old) theory.

And, I guess that we will also need to wait for some bright scientist to be able to devise some empirical way of testing whether this cyclical theory or the original inflation-based theory is the better model of reality.

== Bill

Bill

Sojourner553:

Thanks for the compliment. I'll return the favor and say that I agree with your stance vis-a-vis fundamentalist atheists.

I will also state that a religious humanist is generally easier for me to get along with than even an atheistic humanist. But that is probably because I don't share the atheistic humanist's disdain for anything that in any way "smells" of religion. Rather, I believe that something worthy of the name "religion" is a necessary componant of human civilization (even if it is called "Secular Humanism" by its adherants).

== Bill

Sojourner553

Nice to have atheists not attacking me. The theists have not attacked me, but neither have they jumped to my support (with maybe an early exception by Bede. But that was probably because I was getting him off the hook too. Smile.)

Definitions are important on your last post:
For aren't those atheists that show disdain for anything that "smells" of religion -- in that one variable -- acting "fundamentalist"? As you can appreciate, I have really oversimplified the labels humanist and fundamentalist because these can be combined in one individual depending on the issue.

Sojourner

The Other Michael

Hi Sojourner,

It could be that they are generalizing from specific experiences that have justified that disdain.


cheers,
Michael

Ted Hoffman

Sojourner
I am really offended by the way you keep imposing viewpoints on me.

I have not said anything about who is a better scientist (btwn non-religious and religious scientists), I have not said anything about rationality or Both. I take great exception about your putting words in my mouth and misrepresenting my viewpoint. Why do you find it necessary to be so dishonest?

I was actually beginning to take you seriously.

Sojourner553

Do you have amnesia? Here are some quotes from earlier posts to me:

=================================================

“In any case [Kenny’s] "speech" was designed to pacify college undergrads who might be experiencing cognitive dissonance. It was an attempt to seduce scientifically inclined students into allowing religious concepts to creep into their minds.’

================================================== =======
My response: Don’t you think the odds are greater that the VAST majority of students he is addressing are already religious and he is making it easier for them to reconcile religion with concepts such as evolution?


================================================== =======

Previous quotes from IntenSity on this board:

“Religion is antithetical to science. Because it espouses a non-scientific approach to human knowledge.”

vs:

“I have not said anything about who is a better scientist (btwn non-religious and religious scientists),”


“You reason like a liberal christian. Maybe you are a liberal christian "at heart". Labeling yourself as a non-theist doesnt really make a difference.”

IntenSity’s response
“This reduces the bible stories to Mythology. Is that what you believe they are?
Then you are posing as a christian while you are not!
If you are not a christian, then it is not yours to say that liberal christians view the stories as figurative, moral teachings.
Why do you choose to speak for christians?”

================================================== =======
Do you honestly see no black vs white characterizations in your earlier posts?

Why not address Bill’s comment as well – it was stronger than mine!

Sojourner

Sojourner553

Absolutely! That is why I thought Bill was a bit too strong in this area.

But one also has to keep in proper perspective that it's mainly the fundamentalist Christians that are obnoxious (and in my own personal experience-- even deadly!)

Here is an analogy

I talked to a young boy once who explained that HE wasn't prejudiced (against blacks) but his uncle was. Seems his uncle was high up on a ladder and a black guy purposely tipped him over while claiming it was really an accident.

I asked him, if a white guy had done the same thing should he hate all whites?

I had to repeat this a couple of times before he got it.

There are ugly fundamentalist athiests out there (by the way I definitely do NOT include anyone I have debated on this post in that category)--but you know who I mean. Is it right then for Christians to hate ALL atheists -- ie lump them all in together?

Sojourner

[ April 29, 2002: Message edited by: Sojourner553 ]</p>

Ted Hoffman

Sojourner
Insulting me now?
I have read your posts.
I can summarise what I said:

• Kennys speech had a parochial agenda - which is why it wasnt objective
• Religion is antithetical to science
• you (sojourner) reasons like a liberal christian
  regarding the bible stories as figurative reduces them to the level of myths

Now tell me which part of the above means

• Atheists are more rational
• Christians can't make good scientists (ie because they are all irrational)

Unless there is something you forgot to paste.
What did Bill say that is "stronger" than yours?

Sojourner553

I just reread over your post to look at it with a clear mind.

I think by religion you really mean what I call philosophy -- a moral system that one adheres to. Religion (in my dictionary) is a SUBSET of all possible philosophies that bases its moral system/cause of the universe on the authority of one or more gods.

This reminds me of when Voltaire was asked once if a society of atheists could survive, he answered,

"Yes, if they are also philosophers."

I would also disagree that ALL humanist atheists have a disdain for religion -- just a disdain for the evils done in the "name" of religion.

Sojourner

[ April 29, 2002: Message edited by: Sojourner553 ]</p>

Sojourner553

You can help me out then by explaining how *A2 (Religion is antithetical to science) does not imply B1 and B2 (Atheists are more rational and Christians don't make good scientists.)

I'm making the assumption, of course in going from Point A to Point B, that science is rational and therefore opposition to science is irrational. Is this where I messed up?

*************************************************
Going back to your thesis:
"Religion is antithetical to science", you realize this is not the only interpretation:

Joseph Campbell (a famous humanist atheist, now deceased who looked at the similaries in mythology in all religions) had this opinion on the subject. Per Campbell, religion used the best science available at the time to guess on the nature of the world. The hebrews were not anti-science (ie Old Testament), although the science they used at the time was very primitive by modern standards. The early Catholic Church did exhibit anti-science behavior primarily because they had incorporated Greek Platonic thought into their dogma (through theologians such as St. Augustine.)

After stating he essentially agrees with me re: fundamentalist atheists, he states.

"I will also state that a religious humanist is generally easier for me to get along with than even an atheistic humanist. But that is probably because I don't share the atheistic humanist's disdain for anything that in any way "smells" of religion."

Sojourner

[ April 29, 2002: Message edited by: Sojourner553 ]</p>