Relay-Version: version B 2.10 5/3/83; site utzoo.UUCP
Posting-Version: version B 2.10.2 9/18/84; site rti-sel.UUCP
Path: utzoo!watmath!clyde!bonnie!akgua!mcnc!rti-sel!rcb
From: rcb@rti-sel.UUCP (Randy Buckland)
Newsgroups: net.flame
Subject: Re: Sargent's lack of scientific knowledge
Message-ID: <33@rti-sel.UUCP>
Date: Thu, 6-Dec-84 22:49:28 EST
Article-I.D.: rti-sel.33
Posted: Thu Dec  6 22:49:28 1984
Date-Received: Sun, 9-Dec-84 02:40:42 EST
References: <29@rti-sel.UUCP> <674@amdahl.UUCP>
Distribution: net
Organization: Research Triangle Institute, RTP, NC
Lines: 52


	I can claim that the universe exists and that I exist because
I can perceive them at this moment. I personally do not believe that
the historical events occured without doubt. It is possible that some
bored monk added events to his liking to the histories and I take that
into account when I hear about an historical event. However, when I hear
about an event from many independant sources that were there during the
event and the event does not violate any physical laws and it is 
something that could possibly have happened, then I will accept it as
something like a 99.9% probability that it happened. (or whatever 
probability that seems appropriate from the evidence) That does not prove
the event. It is still in the class of a theory but the theory has such
good evidence that I accept it as true until I get evidence to the contrary.

	As for biblical events and JS's claims, I have only the Bible and
JS's statements respectively for evidence. Since this is not enough 
evidence and the events violate known physical laws, then I do not
accept them as true. However, if you or JS are willing to produce more
evidence, I am willing to listen to it. And if the evidence is sufficient,
then I will increase it's probability of being true and if the probability
gets high enough, then I will accept it as true until further evidence
proves it not to be true.

	Also, the scientific point of view is not a "dogma" in the
sense that the "beliefs" are not held to on faith alone. A good scientist
will keep an open mind about everything that s/he believes to be true and
will readily change his/her mind if evidence is produces that disproves
a particular belief. A religious dogmatist (i.e. JS) will believe what
s/he wants with total faith. If evidence is produces that disproves
one of her/his beliefs, the dogmatist will try to distort the interpretation
of the evidence to fit the current belief or will deny the validity of the
evidence. S/he will never reject the belief in favor of the evidence except
in the most rare cases.

	In conclusion, the difference between a scientist and a religious
fanatic is that the scientist goes through life with his/her eyes wide open
in order to find out how the world works and will readily reject her/his 
current theory of how things work if a better one (more provable) is found.
A religious fanatic thinks s/he already knows how the world works and will
go though life with his/her eyes closed so that that belief will not be
disturbed. I am not actually saying that JS or any religious should change
her/his beliefs if they make him/her happy. I simply do not want them to
be constantly trying to make me or anyone else believe as they do when
they do not have any real evidence for their beliefs. The fanatics can
keep their beliefs. I don't care. Just don't bother me with them until
you have hard evidence to back them up!

					Randy Buckland
					Research Triangle Institute
					...!mcnc!rti-sel!rcb

Life is just a statistical probability.