Catch up on stories from the past week (and beyond) at the Slashdot story archive

 


Forgot your password?
Close
typodupeerror
Slashdot.org

Journal tomhudson's Journal: "faith-based science" 61

Journal by tomhudson

update: pudge lost. Tsk tsk. (is anyone really surprised? Nah ...)

Faith-based "science" is alive and well, unfortunately.

Pudge is one of its proponents, using terms like "metaphysical" in trying to claim that a "soul" is a real thing with a physical existence. Of course, he doesn't like it when I point out that all definitions of the term metaphysical mean the exact opposite of what he claims, and the logical consequence - that nobody can have a soul if it is in fact metaphysical.

Of course, if you look through the thread, the Bible is his final authority, even though we don't have anything except copies of copies of copies - the original texts are long gone (and even if we had them, it would not prove authorship by God).

Thought for the day: If Jesus existed today, we wouldn't be nailing him to a cross - he'd slit his own wrists in shame.

This discussion has been archived. No new comments can be posted.

"faith-based science" More

"faith-based science"

Comments Filter:
  • Wouldn't that be like fact-based religion?

    ....Bethanie....
    • I love you .sig.
    • I am not in favor of faith-based science, except of the kind all scientists are in favor of: you have to take a leap of faith at some point, because pure scientific objectivity is impractical: for example, you cannot know there is anything inside your computer, for certain, unless you open it up and look. And even then, that assumes you can trust your senses, which may be lying to you.

      All science is faith-based. But I have never expressed any favor toward what most people think of as "faith-based science,
  • Comment removed based on user account deletion

    • Maybe he's into one of the "peyote" religions? It would explain a lot ...

      I have no problem with people believing what they want, provided they don't try to force other people to conform to "their" religious beliefs. If those who claim "divine inspiration" or "marching orders from God" would show the same consideration, we wouldn't have a LOT of the problems we have nowadays. That's the problem. Those claiming the higher moral ground seem unable to "live and let live" when it comes to people disagreeing

      • Comment removed based on user account deletion
        • I posted a link to another discussion, where I had argued that both easy access to contraception and sex education should be high on any church priority list if they were serious about preventing abortion ... but that makes too much sense. You don't need "faith" to believe that could work.

          The day a man gets pregnant is the day he'll have some moral standing to talk against abortion on demand. Until then, pudge is just doing the typical dick-swinging macho control-everyone-elses-lives thing. My guess is th

          • Comment removed based on user account deletion
            • As another poster pointed out, if men could get pregnant, abortion would be one of the sacrements.
            • All together now... "One dick, no vote"

              That has two major problems: one philosophical, one practical.

              Practical: more women than men are ardently pro-life.

              Philosphical: it is begging the question (another logical fallacy; you should really read up on those). It assumes that the child in the womb does not have rights, because in a Constitutional republic, you do not vote on rights. They exist and are protected.

              That would be interesting, though, to see how many women would relenquish their own rights to thei
              • Comment removed based on user account deletion
                • Oh, you did, you just chose to bring up the slavery bit again, however immaterial it is to this discussion.

                  It is not at all immaterial. It is precisely the point. Saying it is immaterial is, again, the logical fallacy of begging the question. You really should read up on these things.
                  • Comment removed based on user account deletion
                    • Please don't ever respond to me again.

                      You apparently cannot read.

                      Oh, I read it. I just didn't care that you wrote it. It has no bearing on anything I do. As long as you respond to me, I see no problem with responding to you.

                      Please, let go of your obsession with me.

                      And you yours with me.

                      Please, search yourself

                      Done.

                      and find your anger

                      Got none.

                      Unfortunately, I must reiterate: Please don't ever respond to me again. Leave me alone, please.

                      If you really did not wish me to respond, you would stop responding yo
      • A buddy has a bumper sticker that got it exactly right:

        "Lord, protect me from your followers"

        And that's almost as good as the one another friend came up with a day ago (discussing the recent push for constitutional amendments banning gay marriage being used by the Fundies to trot out the faithful voters):

        "I voted against fags, but all I got was this lousy war."

        Just not sure whose bumper is most deserving of the honor :-) Maybe I'll just post it on the bulletin board of a local church or something.

        • "I voted against fags, abortion, and taxes, and all I got was unemployed and my cousin killed in war". Could fit 45% of the population of Oregon...but it's too big to fit on a bumper sticker. Then again, I notice Bush actually lost in this state....
      • I have no problem with people believing what they want, provided they don't try to force other people to conform to "their" religious beliefs.

        You are, of course, lying, because you have a problem with me, and I am not trying to force my religious beliefs on anyone.

        All my friends are christians, but none of them is anything like the rabid "us vs. them" mentality I see elsewhere

        I have no such mentality. Most of *my* friends are *not* Christians, or even conservatives. And many of those who are, are fairly l
    • Except, of course, that I wasn't wrong. You were the one who was clearly wrong, even by the definitions you linked to. *shrug*

      He says he wasn't arguing a position, fine then.

      Right. So why do you say I was wrong?

      Name calling is okay in his book, though.

      I never said that. I said that name-calling is not the same as argumentum ad hominem. The latter is a logical fallacy, and the former is merely rude.

      • No matter how much you pray under that steeple

        Fertilized eggs just are not people,

        So get over it

        Don't matter a sh*t

        Bossing women around just makes you a creep-o.

        Burma Shave

        • No matter how much you pray under that steeple

          Fertilized eggs just are not people,

          As much as you impugn religion and say science rules all, science does not, and cannot, support this opinion. You cannot prove this belief of yours to be correct, even though you've -- ludicrously -- asserted that you can. *shrug*
          • You're the one asserting that a single cell can be a person. Prove it. You can't -

            all you do is wave your hands in the air

            you sound like a pentacostal in the electric chair

            the day men like YOU are pregnant

            maybe you won't be so indignant

            and you'll stop treating women quite so unfair

            Besides, if a fertilized egg is a person, then you have to accede to God being the #1 abortionist, all arguments of viabiity aside.

            • You're the one asserting that a single cell can be a person.

              Huh. When did I do that? You're making the straw man fallacy.

              Prove it.

              Sorry, I don't feel the need to prove something that I did not assert as a part of my argument.

              You can't

              I wouldn't bother trying, since it's unrelated to my argument. However: you cannot prove it cannot be a person, so by going down this road, you are only drastically undercutting your own argument.

              (Which is very funny.)

              and you'll stop treating women quite so unfair

              Two logical

              • Most Christians, including myself, do not believe God causes fertilized eggs to die.

                So God is not onmipotent, omniscient, or in any way, shape or form prepared or capable of interceding? Or is it that fertilized eggs aren't humans, so God is off the hook?

                Next on Jerry Springer:

                the New Pope: pudge claims to speak for most Christians, which means more than the Pope in Rome. Meet and greet your new leader.

                Reaction from the Vatican - "Nonsense!":

                • May you be well.
                • May you be happy.
                • May you be f
                • So God is not onmipotent, omniscient, or in any way, shape or form prepared or capable of interceding?

                  I never implied any of those things.

                  Come on, this is first year seminary stuff. I thought you said you attended? (Not that I believed you.)

                  Seriously, we're not going to buy the idea that men can tell women what they can and can't do with their bodies or their minds.

                  Right. Just like the South wasn't going to buy into the idea that the North could tell them what they can and can't do with their slaves. So
                  • WHOOSH!!!

                    That was the sound of my point flying completely over your head.

                    Me: And if you look at who has been pushing the argument here, there hasn't exactly been much support for your side from women, and women are the ones you have to convince.

                    You: No, in this country, women do not make the rules: voters and their representatives do. You know very little about either Christianity or U.S. government, and yet you talk so much about both.

                    If you were able to convince women of the validity of your argu

                    • If you were able to convince women of the validity of your arguments, we wouldn't be having this "debate" in the first place.

                      Why single out women, then? If I were able to convince all men of it, we also wouldn't be having this "debate." We already have roughly half the women out there; with all the men, it would be a non-issue.

                    • You have nowhere NEAR half the women out there, and especially among those of child-bearing age, your numbers are way off.

                      I'd ask whose a** did you pull that number out of, but I really don't care any more.

                      Heck, just look here on /. - I don't see much support for your side from women. If you can't convince those who you have some common interest with ...

                      Where ARE all those women slashdotters who support the pudge pledge of allegience to South Dakota? I haven't seen any.

                    • You have nowhere NEAR half the women out there, and especially among those of child-bearing age, your numbers are way off.

                      It does, of course, depend on how you define things. I define them, in this case, as agreeing with me that, generally speaking, abortion is morally wrong and should be heavily restricted, and "abortion on demand" -- having an abortion just because you don't want the baby -- should be illegal. And roughly half the country agrees with me on that.

                      I'd ask whose a** did you pull that number
                    • Do I HAVE to type in "sarcasm" tags to everything?

                      One thing I've noticed with every poll is that the numbers are what polsters call "soft". I've been in one-on-one debates with fundies who are very adamant, but when push comes to shove, they're a lot more "liberal" in private.

                      Besides, as I pointed out, this doesn't mean that those in favour have ANY right to impoee their views on others who disagree.

                      Here's some serious food for thought ... something NOBODY has bothered to bring up, on either side of t

                    • Do I HAVE to type in "sarcasm" tags to everything?

                      So when you said my numbers were wrong, you were being sarcastic? Nothing at all in the context supports that claim.

                      One thing I've noticed with every poll is that the numbers are what polsters call "soft". I've been in one-on-one debates with fundies who are very adamant, but when push comes to shove, they're a lot more "liberal" in private.

                      Ah. So now you are no longer saying the polls don't support me, now you are saying you don't believe the polls. That

                    • It was my very last line that I should have put the tags around, not the whole post. Maybe I should make a javascript bookmarklet for different quickie tags ... but not today :-)

                      The polls don't support you. Look at the way the question is phrased. Ask any poster, and they'll tell you that's a "Mom, Dad and American Pie" question. You'll never get an accurate response. In-depth interviews are the only way.

                      The extra 40 million isn't irrelevent. They would have to be fed, clothed, housed, supported. They

                    • The polls don't support you.

                      Yes, they do. I quoted them to you.

                      Look at the way the question is phrased.

                      Yes, I did. "Do you support making abortion illegal except in the case of rape, incest, or life of the mother?" Pretty straightforward.

                      Ask any poster, and they'll tell you that's a "Mom, Dad and American Pie" question. You'll never get an accurate response.

                      Nope. Quite the contrary, actually. Any social scientist will tell you that asking someone a direct question about what they do and do not support

                    • Over the course of 100 years, 40 million can grow into a LOT of people.

                      And pollsters will be the first to admit that how the question is phrased, and any preliminary questions, has a major impact on poll results.

                      But back to the whole morality of abortion ... if you don't believe that its a person, there is no moral question. And most of those on the pro-abortion side don't believe its a person. It doesn't make us immoral. It just means we have a different set of beliefs. If you want us to act different

                    • Over the course of 100 years, 40 million can grow into a LOT of people.

                      It can, but it won't grow into that many (and besides, you weren't talking about 100 years). We had 200 million people in 1970. Now we are still short of 300 million. It takes awhile in practice.

                      And pollsters will be the first to admit that how the question is phrased, and any preliminary questions, has a major impact on poll results.

                      Of course. I know that quite well. But that's a far cry for YOUR assertion, which is that the way th

                    • Just one quick point, because I really have other stuff to do, but my 100 years time frame goes into the future. That's where I see a real problem, the big crunch.

                      the decisions as to who lives and who dies then will make the whole abortion debate pale into insignificance.

                      Quick point about the "no hard evidence that blacks were ..." we had plenty, first and foremost because we could see that they were persons, with a consciousness, able to think, carry on conversations, self-aware. We don't see that wit

                    • the decisions as to who lives and who dies then will make the whole abortion debate pale into insignificance.

                      Nonsense. We have a long way to go before we have the population problems of China and India, no matter how you look at it.

                      Quick point about the "no hard evidence that blacks were ..." we had plenty

                      No. In fact, you had -- and have -- absolutely none.

                      first and foremost because we could see that they were persons, with a consciousness, able to think, carry on conversations, self-aware.

                      That is "hard e

                    • I think I see now where you're coming from.

                      We're a lot better at understanding what animals actually have a sense of "self" and "other" than we did, say, 100 years ago. That's why I don't see this as just an "exercise in philosophy." The same as, while I don't give dogs full equivalent to being people, I do see that they do have a demonstrable sense of "self" and "other", as do chimpanzees and dolphins, so they do have some rights to ethical treatment as sentient beings with a (in some cases limited) sen

                    • So there's the difference, if I read it correctly. I believe that a sense of "self", or "being", a level of self-awareness, is required

                      Right. You "believe" it. But you cannot prove it. You cannot show any "hard evidence" that these things are required in order to have rights. You can only say that you believe that, and show that others do too. Which makes your position no better than mine.
                    • Well, on what grounds would you ascribe rights to objects that aren't self-aware?

                      (watch as we slowly slide on over into the area of when AIs start asking for rights :-)

                      But to answer your question more directly, if your position is no better than mine, what grounds do you have for forcing your position onto women who are pregnant, if their position is that abortion at "N" months is okay? That's the crux of the matter. If you have no better argument than a "belief", then you don't have any right to impose

                    • Well, on what grounds would you ascribe rights to objects that aren't self-aware?

                      It doesn't matter here. What matters is that you cannot prove they have no rights.

                      But to answer your question more directly, if your position is no better than mine, what grounds do you have for forcing your position onto women who are pregnant

                      As already stated, on the same grounds that we outlawed slavery.

                      If you have no better argument than a "belief", then you don't have any right to impose that belief on others who hold a c

                    • Well, on what grounds would you ascribe rights to objects that aren't self-aware?

                      It doesn't matter here. What matters is that you cannot prove they have no rights.

                      Big mistake.

                      Axioms [unm.edu], concepts that aren't provable but generally accepted, are one of the basic building blocks for any logical argument. Since you reject the axiom that objects don't have rights (a chair has rights?), your "argument" is foolish.

                      Applying the same argumentive device, I am allowed to ask you to prove you have any rights, i

                    • Since you reject the axiom that objects don't have rights (a chair has rights?), your "argument" is foolish.

                      I do not reject that axiom. You are -- once again, as usual -- committing the logical fallacy of begging the question. I do not consider the life in the womb to be equivalent to a chair. And most people don't, either. It is not remotely axiomatic to say that such a life has no rights, and it is extraordinarily dishonest to assert it as a commonly accepted truth.

                      I already showed you the proof: roug
                    • Loser.

                      Actually, let me change that - poseur.

                      You lost, and you can't take it. Such a blow to pudgie-wudgie's ego. Awww.

                      No wonder you have such a hard time relating to people. Sam was wrong - you're more f*cked up than we give you credit for.

                      No wonder you couldn't recognize his attempts to reach out to another human being - poseurs can't afford to let the mask slip. Their ego is just too fragile to "take the chance". It must be hard being that weak and scared all the time.

      • Comment removed based on user account deletion
  • I'm watching a show on stigmata on National Geographic right now, these people are idiots.
  • It's just a fad, it'll pass (I hope).

    Now when I meet people who debate the topic I offer to lend them books on the topic and when they're not interested I end the conversation.

    BoingBoing recently linked to an interesting BBC show written/hosted by Richard Dawkins, absolutely awesome show. It will at least give you a solid idea of the character of those people, or at least the kind of people who lead the movement.

    /moderate

    • We went through this whole thing a couple of decades ago, with the "moral majority", the leaders of which turned out to be neither moral nor the majority. But they were manipulative, and they got a lot of what they wanted. This next iteration has access to a much broader, more sophisticated set of tools to use against the population, and they have no compunction against using all of them.

      I have an idea .. when they start off, I'll ask them what sort of religious belief they have, and whatever they answer

  • I have to point out that, if jesus was alive today, he'd be unable to slit his wrists. He'd be in a psychiatric ward somewhere.
    • You're right, of course. It would probably go something like this ...

      Jesus decides to make a life for himself in the current era. He applies for the job of goaltender (after all, everyone says that "Jesus Saves", so he MUST be a great goalie, right)? Anyway, that doesn't work out - everyone on both teams keeps nailing him to the boards.

      So then he applies for a bank job, and is fired for telling people that they should "invest" 10% of their income in his father's "savings plan", which sounds more like a

      • That bit about Wilson's Nails is the funniest thing I have read in a long damn time. I literally fell out of my chain laughing at that one. Holy hell, I needed that. Been stressed way too much lately with school. Thank you Mr. Hudson!

        • Glad you enjoyed it ...

          Thank you Mr. Hudson!

          ... just one little thing ... I guess you didn't see this [slashdot.org] ... I hope you're not too disappointed - and don't worry, I'm not offended ... :-)

          Now that I've got some sort of "short list" from everyone's suggestions, maybe its time for a new poll in a few weeks ...

  • State ,Science, Education, They sit here.

    This is roughly 2000000000000 KM away , Here is Religion and philosophy .

    This is a good distance to keep the two at ,They have no reason to ever meet, dangerous it is for the two to ever do so .
  • But isn't ALL "science" faith-based? The idea, the absolute arrogance, that we can postulate "If A, then B", run tests with what conditions we're aware of as controlled as we can make them, and then attempt to state authoritatively: "Nope, A has nothing to do with B" because it didn't meet with previously theorized ideas under the afore-mentioned tests?

    What I want to know is where the brave are, those with the wisdom to admit how very little we know, how very little we can sense (directly or indirectly), a
    • The key difference between science and "taking something on faith" is that in science, if there's a disagreement, you're free to design a test to actually prove your point. People who are claiming that a single-celled egg is a person have not presented any proof, just beliefs ... and the beliefs they've presented have gone contrary to all the scientific knowledge we have (for example, that a person requires a functioning brain of a certain complexity, hence when someone is brain-dead, we can say "Elivs HAS
  • ....science-based faith?

    Cheers,

    Ethelred

Slashdot Top Deals

Q: How many IBM CPU's does it take to execute a job? A: Four; three to hold it down, and one to rip its head off.

Close