(Ron) Natural Man [drifting inexorably off topic]
Achilles Sophia achillesz@usa.net
Tue, 22 Sep 1998 00:20:37 -0400 (00906456037, 04203722012995@cfagroup.com)
>---Brian Dean <bridean@worldnet.att.net> wrote:
>RON
>> We now know these scientists, many due to an anti-christian
>> paradigm held on to a pet theory which confirmed their beliefs.
>
>BRYCE
> You get on shaky ground when you try and psychoanalyze dead
>people with whom you aren't familiar. Would you say evolution and the
>four billion year old earth are also accepted only because of
>anti-christian paradigms?
ACHILLES
If he does he will immediately run headfirst into the fact that most of the
pioneering geologists who established the antiquity of the earth were devout
xtians who in many cases tried desperately to avoid the conclusions their
data lead them to.
>RON
>> Scientists are human and ruled by prejudice and emotions just like
>> anyone else.
>
>BRYCE
> On the other hand, many of them have different worldviews and
>different presuppositions. Since many working in science are
>religious, doesn't peer review help balance those who would read their
>own presuppositions into the Universe?
ACHILLES
Actually, the vast majority of working scientists last I checked (like the
population at large) were professing xtians. This would seem to indicate
that science cannot be trusted because it is devoted to proving the bible
correct, not the opposite. On purely demographic grounds we should expect
science to provide *more* support for religion than is warranted, not less.
My own personal story on this may illustrate what I mean, as an
undergraduate I proposed that humans are not just the closest relatives of
apes, but should be classified as apes just as much as the other apes
(Orangutangs gibbons chimpanzees bonobos and gorillas) - none of my
instructors ever offered a valid scientific reason why this was not true,
they only said that their funding was in enough doubt already without
provoking the bibliolaters further...
>RON
>> Yes I am a Catholic, as would be anyone who is really familiar with
>> Church history and Scripture. Others are simply wrong and misguided.
>
>BRYCE
> This is a surprisingly strong statement, coming from someone
>whose experience with Catholic history and scripture are doubtful.
>Are you saying that the Catholic view that the rhythm method is an
>appropriate form of birth control while the condom isn't (even though
>both are designed specifically to reduce the rate of conception) would
>be perfectly sensible to anyone truly familiar with Catholic history
>and scripture?
>
ACHILLES
I would be interested specifically in seeing how a catholic justifies the
Albigensian crusade.
Achilles
"...we are not simply contending in order that my view or that
of yours may prevail, but I presume we ought both of us to be
fighting for the truth..."
from Philebus, the Dialogues of Plato