Comment Re:The Perceived Threat of Science (Score 1) 2155
Alex, why such vitriolic responses? I don't suppose you see that you proving my point, as my first post mentions, that when a person bases their logic on a certain belief system they are set in stone that way and any dissention causes an emotional response. You seem to base yours in the physical, touchable world. Fair enough - you are entitled and should stand for what you believe, as you are doing. A religious person, whether a follower of Buddha, Shiva, or Jesus Christ, has their logic also deeply entrenched in their faith (and is equally entitled).
My contention is that there will be no "conversions" on either side but it is enjoyable - and educational - to read both sides of the argument. Religious people are often stereotyped as being close-minded and elitist. I would ask you to step back and think objectively about how you treat their ideas - would you fit into that same description? How would your description be different?
I ask for this introspection for one reason - not to insult, but to assert (as I did in my first post) that this is an emotional argument and will not be decided on by one's "logic". You mention that you are glad that opinions have no effect on facts - perhaps. I would contend that there are very few true facts - we find new "truths" all the time that change long held beliefs in the world around us. Today's truth may well be thought of as a quaint, simplistic idea in the not too distant future. And let's not even get started on historical facts - we both know how warped those are!
And the fallacy of Pascal's Gambit? From your point of view I understand your stance - but a person of faith would not see it as a fallacy as it works quite neatly into their version of logic. I really don't see how that was stupid to bring up - unless you feel that understanding other people's motivations is not worth your time. If so, from your perspective, it would not make sense. To me however it is always interesting to see/understand what makes people think the way they do.
And just for the sake of argument (I don't want you to think I'm glossing over anything):
How negation works with the cholesterol in eggs - enlighten me. Unless you are saying that the bad cholesterol cancels out whatever the good can do (not the current stand of the medical profession, by the way) I'm not sure how you are applying this. (go ahead with the "you're stupid" comments but please add an explanation - not too complicated, I am simple after all)
The wine comment - I disagree. (Note: I understand the comment about how wine is beneficial when there is no potable water - beer in the past was used in the same way - but I was referring to actual health benefits, especially for the heart, derived over time) They have not found ways to gain the same benefits that red wine provides (again I mention "in moderation"). It is not even understood completely - they have broken down what they consider to be the main benefactors, but are still lacking in find a way to deliver all that a simple glass does. And if they do, it will more than likely be presented as a supplement of some type. Although I'm sure there are a few, you would be hard-pressed to find a supplement that provides everything that is offered in nature. ( I know wine is not nature - just using that as an example. But red wine from grapes is made without additives such as sugar - some argue that this is one of the reasons if is different from other alcoholic beverages) Not to mention there is no standardization in supplements for quality/purity. If there was another form of delivery - would it be as easy, cost-effective and enjoyable as a glass of wine? I doubt it, but hey, you never know.
My contention is that there will be no "conversions" on either side but it is enjoyable - and educational - to read both sides of the argument. Religious people are often stereotyped as being close-minded and elitist. I would ask you to step back and think objectively about how you treat their ideas - would you fit into that same description? How would your description be different?
I ask for this introspection for one reason - not to insult, but to assert (as I did in my first post) that this is an emotional argument and will not be decided on by one's "logic". You mention that you are glad that opinions have no effect on facts - perhaps. I would contend that there are very few true facts - we find new "truths" all the time that change long held beliefs in the world around us. Today's truth may well be thought of as a quaint, simplistic idea in the not too distant future. And let's not even get started on historical facts - we both know how warped those are!
And the fallacy of Pascal's Gambit? From your point of view I understand your stance - but a person of faith would not see it as a fallacy as it works quite neatly into their version of logic. I really don't see how that was stupid to bring up - unless you feel that understanding other people's motivations is not worth your time. If so, from your perspective, it would not make sense. To me however it is always interesting to see/understand what makes people think the way they do.
And just for the sake of argument (I don't want you to think I'm glossing over anything):
How negation works with the cholesterol in eggs - enlighten me. Unless you are saying that the bad cholesterol cancels out whatever the good can do (not the current stand of the medical profession, by the way) I'm not sure how you are applying this. (go ahead with the "you're stupid" comments but please add an explanation - not too complicated, I am simple after all)
The wine comment - I disagree. (Note: I understand the comment about how wine is beneficial when there is no potable water - beer in the past was used in the same way - but I was referring to actual health benefits, especially for the heart, derived over time) They have not found ways to gain the same benefits that red wine provides (again I mention "in moderation"). It is not even understood completely - they have broken down what they consider to be the main benefactors, but are still lacking in find a way to deliver all that a simple glass does. And if they do, it will more than likely be presented as a supplement of some type. Although I'm sure there are a few, you would be hard-pressed to find a supplement that provides everything that is offered in nature. ( I know wine is not nature - just using that as an example. But red wine from grapes is made without additives such as sugar - some argue that this is one of the reasons if is different from other alcoholic beverages) Not to mention there is no standardization in supplements for quality/purity. If there was another form of delivery - would it be as easy, cost-effective and enjoyable as a glass of wine? I doubt it, but hey, you never know.
