Relay-Version: version B 2.10 5/3/83; site utzoo.UUCP Posting-Version: version B 2.10.1 6/24/83; site ut-ngp.UUCP Path: utzoo!watmath!clyde!bonnie!akgua!whuxlm!harpo!decvax!genrad!mit-eddie!godot!harvard!seismo!ut-sally!ut-ngp!kjm From: kjm@ut-ngp.UUCP (Ken Montgomery) Newsgroups: net.religion Subject: Re: RICH ROSEN'S misconceptions Message-ID: <1099@ut-ngp.UUCP> Date: Wed, 28-Nov-84 18:27:25 EST Article-I.D.: ut-ngp.1099 Posted: Wed Nov 28 18:27:25 1984 Date-Received: Sat, 1-Dec-84 20:28:48 EST References: <2200@stolaf.UUCP> Organization: U.Texas Computation Center, Austin, Texas Lines: 76 [] >] = Me (Ken Montgomery) > = Hapless asbestos-lined smurf (William Gulley) >] >]This is also not evidence. We have no way of knowing for sure that >]you do in fact gain peace and security, etc. > >That approach may work in the instance of a proving a mathematical theorem, >but doesn't when it comes to evaluating the evidence presented by a complex >human being. Then how do you evaluate evidence? BTW, wasn't that mathematical theorem presented by a "complex human being"? > I don't think that you are as straight-laced as to say, after >someone has responded to your "How are you?" with an "I'm fine.", something >like, "I don't believe you - prove it." That depends on the person. :-) > You can't really entirely know. >(apart from a little healthy naiivite) And if you can't be conclusively >*proven* as to any person's well-being*, you also have no reason to believe >the opposite - that any person isn't a mass murderer. No, I don't have any reason to believe *anything* about anyone I don't know... BTW, why is well being the opposite of mass murder? > >]. . .I consider science to be reasonable >]because it *works*, not because of what any person says about it. > >Has the development of nuclear weapons in the last 20 years or so done >anything for your peace of mind, Why is science required to work for my peace of mind? > or made your life worth any more? It >sure works, but for whose benefit, yours or the Nobel Prize winner's career/ >reputation? Why do you ask? Do you think I could sell myself for more? :-) Seriously, why is science required to work for my (or anyone else's) benefit? >]Nothing can convince *me* except hard evidence. Do you have any way to >]*show me beyond a shadow of a doubt* that the "Spirit of God" even exists? > >*I* couldn't, because, as was stated before by K. Nichols, what conclusions >you would get out of any evidence that Christianity could come up with would >completely depend on the mentality that you take into interpreting it. In other words, you wish to hedge around not having a shred of evidence. > For that >matter, do you have any way to show me (a non-Physics major) beyond a shadow >of a doubt that atoms exist? The atomic theory of matter is a \model/, an explanation which is considered correct if and only if it fits the *observed* facts. Whether or not atoms actually exist is irrelevant; the model does not have to be literally true, it only has to explain the observed facts. But you could be shown either that the model works or that it needs to be changed. Religion, on the other hand, appears to have no *observed* facts. Instead, it has wishful *beliefs*, which are made up out of whole cloth to suit whomever happens to have theological control of the particular religion at the time. >William Gulley -- "Shredder-of-hapless-smurfs" Ken Montgomery ...!{ihnp4,seismo,ctvax}!ut-sally!ut-ngp!kjm [Usenet, when working] kjm@ut-ngp.ARPA [for Arpanauts only]