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.