BS: Science under attack.

Subject: RE: BS: Science under attack.
From: Jack the Sailor
Date: 22 Jun 11 - 05:54 PM

Of course one Believes in Science. One believes that the process of science can answer life's mysteries. I may even be bold enough, based upon a preceding post, to wager that soulgoldie harbors such beliefs.

None of us are omniscient. We need beliefs to get by in this world. The difference is what are beliefs are based upon.

Cockroaches have been around for many millions of years more than humanity and several breeds live wild throughout the southern US including outside our house. They don't need us to survive.   Likewise, science requires civilization, at the very least, a lot of free time and recording media. Religion requires only blind faith and oral traditions. If there is a downfall science is a much more likely victim than religion.

Subject: RE: BS: Science under attack.
From: saulgoldie
Date: 22 Jun 11 - 05:37 PM

Science, the scientific method, is a *process* that reveals reproduceable results. One does not *belive in* science. One *accepts* science as a process of investigation that is the underpinning of virtually all we know.

Religion is a *belief* system that does not. Religion was a *creation* of early humans to explain that which could not be explained in terms of the best knowledge of the day. Different societies have *chosen* different religions for this purpose. Science has pushed back the boundaries of what can be explained.

Religion has outgrown its usefullness to humans. But it persists. If we all continue to *believe in* religion, whatever religion, religion will be the downfall of humanity.

Humans, in some form, may survive. Cockroaches depend on humans for their waste to survive. They will only survive as humans do.

I may *believe in* the flying spaghetti monster as the creator. Who can challenge my *belief* anymore than any other *belief* system? There is no tangible proof.

Saul

Subject: RE: BS: Science under attack.
From: Jack the Sailor
Date: 22 Jun 11 - 05:19 PM

Ultimately, the wanton destruction of Nature will lead to the extinction of our own species and hence the Abrahamic religions may actually represent a threat to our survival.

Extinction? I think not. If there is anything left besides cockroaches after the collapse of society, it will be people. We are as adaptable as they are. If such a collapse happens, there will still be people, there will still be religion. I am not so optimistic about science.

Subject: RE: BS: Science under attack.
From: Penny S.
Date: 22 Jun 11 - 05:16 PM

Pete, that's very kind of you, but I am not what I would call learned. I don't think, however, that the creation apologists are looking at the same evidence I have. When I have investigated what they say about things which I have thought evidence of long age, and not of the flood, such as the Chalk, the explanations have ignored important features of the rocks. Some areas they have not looked at all.
One group did go to Siccar Point, an important place in the development of geology, for which I admire them, but they did not find anything to counter the conventional interpretation.

Subject: RE: BS: Science under attack.
From: GUEST,Jon
Date: 22 Jun 11 - 04:45 PM

and that is the fact that these religions assume that 'Man' (i.e. human beings) represents the 'pinnacle' of creation

Angels are considered superior creations to us.

and were put on Earth to have 'Dominion' over everything. It is this assumption which, I believe, has led us to behave like a plague and to devastate all of the other life that we share this planet with.

I think there are enough good old human qualities such as greed, blind faith in our own ingenuity, etc. to consider first.

Ultimately, the wanton destruction of Nature will lead to the extinction of our own species and hence the Abrahamic religions may actually represent a threat to our survival.

Our application of science/technology seems to me to have taken us closer to potential destruction of the planet than anything else I can think of. I'd suggest one of our other great enemies is the great god "Consumerism".

Subject: RE: BS: Science under attack.
From: GUEST,Shimrod
Date: 22 Jun 11 - 04:25 PM

There is one aspect of Abrahamic religions that is rarely discussed in a conversation like this and that is the fact that these religions assume that 'Man' (i.e. human beings) represents the 'pinnacle' of creation and were put on Earth to have 'Dominion' over everything. It is this assumption which, I believe, has led us to behave like a plague and to devastate all of the other life that we share this planet with.

Actually, I suspect that humans having been acting like a plague on the surface of the Earth since they/we left Africa. The Abrahamic religions have merely provided (spurious) legitimacy for, and 'sanctified', such activity. Ultimately, the wanton destruction of Nature will lead to the extinction of our own species and hence the Abrahamic religions may actually represent a threat to our survival.

Subject: RE: BS: Science under attack.
From: Bill D
Date: 22 Jun 11 - 04:22 PM

"In the UK we are rarely concerned with or even aware of the religious beliefs of our politicians..."

I have heard that in several European countries this is the case. Here, it is about the first thing that is ferreted out by opponents.
When Dwight Eisenhower was nominated in 1952, he had to go very quickly and FIND a nice, easy-to-tolerate church to attend, and then to be seen there. As far as I know, that is as close as we ever came to a 'non-religious' president.

.... Bill had set of missionaries going out ...

That was only the most obvious example. In some places in this country, (mostly Southern and MidWestern)(I lived in Wichita, where that abortion doctor was murdered) it is difficult to even live peacefully if you admit or advertise that you do NOT go to church. This is not a joke....and in those areas, do not even consider running for any major office if you are not known to be Christian. You will simply be branded as heathen and 'connected' to every sin known.

Jon... I find it hard to comprehend that there is anyone who has NOT "heard the word". What happens...whether YOU would limit it or not.... is that "hearing" is coupled with peer pressure and fear and distortion of history-- and often supported by illegal, but tolerated, teaching in the schools. When I was in 7th grade, my science teacher organized the Christmas pagent, and my class was TOLD we were to participate and memorize the lines about shepherds and angels and Bethlehem. At that time, I was a good Methodist but, and never even wondered if anyone in my class was uncomfortable with it all. All I know is, it was inserted into our lives as if there were NO doubt. Well, that was 1952, and there are 'some' more rules now....but in many areas, breaking or ignoring those rules is the regular practice, since the majority would make life miserably for those who tried to opt out.
*sigh*...it is sad to remember all this and to have to make these hard points, but it IS the case that "freedom" does mean 'freedom FROM religion' as well as 'freedom TO engage in religion'.

Subject: RE: BS: Science under attack.
From: Jack the Sailor
Date: 22 Jun 11 - 02:28 PM

I think that only a small percentage of nominal Christians really know the text.

The real message, "Love thy neighbor as thyself." In my opinion, needs to be spread.

Subject: RE: BS: Science under attack.
From: GUEST,Jon
Date: 22 Jun 11 - 02:24 PM

You're beginning to sound like the patronising missionaries who come proselytizing door-to-door. For sure I know the text (doesn't everyone?)

In the context Bill had set of missionaries going out into the world, perhaps not.

Subject: RE: BS: Science under attack.
From: Jack the Sailor
Date: 22 Jun 11 - 02:08 PM

Democracy is a messy business.

Subject: RE: BS: Science under attack.
From: DMcG
Date: 22 Jun 11 - 01:57 PM

I suspect I wasn't clear enough - it happens! I agree there's nothing wrong with an individual compaigning for whatever cause they like. I can also agree with a party campaigning to represent a specific religious point of view: if they get elected they reflect the will of the people and all that. The problem is that under the US system and also the UK since we voted to reject Alternative Voting (boo hiss, but that's another story) you only really have a choice of 2 or perhaps 3 parties that are an amalgam of lots of views. And its having a strong religious bias at that level that's the problem for me.

Subject: RE: BS: Science under attack.
From: Jack the Sailor
Date: 22 Jun 11 - 01:51 PM

They are not roaches because they are Christian. Quite the opposite. They are Christian to hide the fact that they are roaches.

Subject: RE: BS: Science under attack.
From: Jack the Sailor
Date: 22 Jun 11 - 01:50 PM

(sic)???

Subject: RE: BS: Science under attack.
From: Greg F.
Date: 22 Jun 11 - 01:39 PM

"The Christian[sic] Roaches".

I like that.

Subject: RE: BS: Science under attack.
From: Jack the Sailor
Date: 22 Jun 11 - 01:38 PM

I don't see anything wrong with someone campaigning on religion or even campaigning to accomplish religious goals. That is a part and parcel of being free to choose. I think that there could be an atheist President. Six years ago on this very liberal leaning forum, progressive voices were doubting there could be a Black President.

Subject: RE: BS: Science under attack.
From: Jack the Sailor
Date: 22 Jun 11 - 01:12 PM

I am amused by people who seem to think their way to freedom is censoring others. I dislike the message of the Jehovah's Witnesses. But if I work to ban them from knocking on our door. Something I like to do will probably be banned next.

English common law (and US tort law) provides all the protection we need from such things while protecting our own freedoms. I urge you not to mess with that. I fear the cure will be much worse than the aliment.

And yes in the US there is an unholy overlapping alliance between certain Christians and greedy interests. The preachers are saying that if we uphold Christian Values (ban gay marriage, stop abortion, limit government, support Israeli colonialism, go to war with Islam) then we will be restored to prosperity. I don't think we can combat this with censorship. Education is the key. Shine a light and the roaches will scatter.

The Christian Values that we are losing are the real Christian Values. We need to do more loving our neighbors as ourselves and less throwing the first stone.

Subject: RE: BS: Science under attack.
From: DMcG
Date: 22 Jun 11 - 01:09 PM

I think I've said about all I need to now, apart from a few points:

First, and perhaps most important: my apologies to Suibhne for the gender error. (Not that I'd want to get into a debate on whether being mistaken for the other gender is a good, bad or neutral thing ...)

Secondly, while I agree with Bill that a short period of meditation before the class would be better than an enforced prayer, I'm more athiest-than-the-athiests here: I'd rather they didn't have that either. To me, it is not the remit of a woodworking class to tend to your emotional or spiritual health and to do so says you 'ought' to be dedicating some of your time to it. That's a personal choice, not a group one.

I also strongly disapprove of religion being involved politics. For an individual politician, he should follow his beliefs insofar as that is compatable with the promises he made to the electors, but it seems wrong in principle and in practise that parties are religiously aligned. In the UK we are rarely concerned with or even aware of the religious beliefs of our politicians and in fact we tend to be suspicious of anyone who is too public with them. I don't know if there has ever been an atheist US President, but if there has, there can't be many. And that to me is A Bad Thing and close to a form of disenfranchisement.

Subject: RE: BS: Science under attack.
From: Jack Blandiver
Date: 22 Jun 11 - 12:57 PM

In your case, you know the text anyway and are perfectly capable of making up your own mind,

You're beginning to sound like the patronising missionaries who come proselytizing door-to-door. For sure I know the text (doesn't everyone?) just as I know it was written by a diversity of idiots in the dark days before secular humanism had pointed the way towards the light. Kindly keep it to yourself, for it is a crime to even think this stuff is in the least bit revelevant to anyone else - let alone dare suggest they need to be lobotomised converted by it.

Subject: RE: BS: Science under attack.
From: GUEST,Jon
Date: 22 Jun 11 - 11:45 AM

Jon...because in the Bible, Jesus is quoted as saying.."Go, and become fishers of men", many believe that they are required to send missionaries and attempt to convert the rest of the world. It is a strange circular reasoning which assures that there will always be the polarization you speak of.

OK, my personal take on this, others may differ.

I do read it that we are supposed to ensure everyone has HEARD the word but I think it stops at that. It is neither my duty nor indeed within my capabilities to say convert.

In your case, you know the text anyway and are perfectly capable of making up your own mind, I could perhaps harden you further against if I tried but I could not convert you.

Subject: RE: BS: Science under attack.
From: Bill D
Date: 22 Jun 11 - 11:39 AM

Yep... it would satisfy me..

Now...the world calls. It is only noon here, and I have much to do.

Subject: RE: BS: Science under attack.
From: GUEST,Jon
Date: 22 Jun 11 - 11:36 AM

WHY can't there simply be a 'quiet moment of personal meditation'?

It sounds to me a much better approach.

Subject: RE: BS: Science under attack.
From: Bill D
Date: 22 Jun 11 - 11:35 AM

Jon...because in the Bible, Jesus is quoted as saying.."Go, and become fishers of men", many believe that they are required to send missionaries and attempt to convert the rest of the world. It is a strange circular reasoning which assures that there will always be the polarization you speak of.

"We don't WANT to be converted!"

"But my religion demands that you MUST be converted!"

In the meantime, many in Islam demand death to anyone who, in their opinion, insult or attack THEIR religion.

Polarized? Indeed....

Subject: RE: BS: Science under attack.
From: Bill D
Date: 22 Jun 11 - 11:29 AM

"...does at least appear to be some strange entanglement between right wing American politics and Christianity."

'appear'?? HA! If I were to find all the videos of right-wing politicians making statements that not only assume Christianity is THE way, but attempting to have it enshrined in law, you'd be amazed.

Sarah Palin & Michelle Bachmann...and many others... start with fundamentalist Christianity and make everything else 'fit' under it.

Subject: RE: BS: Science under attack.
From: GUEST,Jon
Date: 22 Jun 11 - 11:26 AM

That said, American politics puzzle me anyway. I don't know how much is the "Mudcat effect" (which also happens with UK discussions here) but everything seems so polarized.

Subject: RE: BS: Science under attack.
From: Bill D
Date: 22 Jun 11 - 11:23 AM

Jon...NO! Of course not! People may, in my view, say and publish their views and opinions freely. I only wish to restrict their attempts to INFLICT those views on the uninterested & unwilling...such as a woodworking group I am a member of INSISTING on beginning meetings with a spoken prayer to Jesus, ignoring the Jews & atheists and Native Americans and sometimes Hindus in the room!

WHY can't there simply be a 'quiet moment of personal meditation'? Surely 'Jesus' will hear mental prayers as easily as spoken ones.

Subject: RE: BS: Science under attack.
From: GUEST,Jon
Date: 22 Jun 11 - 11:20 AM

Re the American problem Bill, I don't know much about it. It does both puzzle me and trouble me though that there does at least appear to be some strange entanglement between right wing American politics and Christianity.

Subject: RE: BS: Science under attack.
From: GUEST,Jon
Date: 22 Jun 11 - 11:13 AM

If all that religious people did was go to church, pray privately and do good works, there would be little conflict.

I hope I'm missreading you here. Are you suggesting that the only views put forward in public should be atheist ones?

Subject: RE: BS: Science under attack.
From: GUEST,Suibhne Astray
Date: 22 Jun 11 - 11:12 AM

Well - the only thing I'm exteme about is human freedom and the right of each & every one of us to believe what they want providing that belief doesn't infringe on another person's right to believe what they want. The equation is simple - I'm not about to condone the racist or the fascist, any more than I am the religious or the righteous. Thing is, this isn't a matter of faith - it's right there - it's real, and it's wondrous, and we deal with it each and every day.

Subject: RE: BS: Science under attack.
From: Bill D
Date: 22 Jun 11 - 11:11 AM

I regret having to say all that...but too much of the strife in the world -- today and in the past-- was driven by various and sundry interpretations of unprovable religious doctrines.

Subject: RE: BS: Science under attack.
From: Bill D
Date: 22 Jun 11 - 11:06 AM

Your way we'd only have the options you approve of

Jon...Suibhne & I (and at time, various others here)react as we do in large measure because many of the religious try very hard to see to it that the world had only the options that THEY approve of! If all that religious people did was go to church, pray privately and do good works, there would be little conflict.
In the USA right now, right-wing extremists are mounting a multi-faceted attempt to get permanent control of the government, largely driven by greed...but with the underlying theme of Traditional Protestant Christianity to support their efforts! There was a HUGE protest the other day because one TV network, in editing a patriotic intro to a GOLF tournament, they managed to accidently leave out the words 'under God'. People seriously demanded boycotting all the advertisers because of an editing error!
There is a constant effort by sanctimonious groups to change our Constitution to something which defines us as as "Christian Nation" and seeks to control marriage laws, education and school textbooks, 'moral' content of TV shows and our own doctor's medical practices.



   You can barely imagine the efforts BY the religious to see to it that everyone has "only the options THEY approve of"!!

I strive every day to see to it that no one is denied the freedom to worship and attend church...as stated in the US Constitution....but because religion is a matter of **belief**, I ask that I am granted the same freedoms.

To repeat what I have said many times before:

"Freedom OF religion must also include, by definition, freedom FROM religion for those who wish it."

Sadly, too many interpret 'freedom of religion' to mean that the religious have no restraints in the pressures and distortions they may use to convert...or at least, control.... the rest.

Subject: RE: BS: Science under attack.
From: GUEST,Jon
Date: 22 Jun 11 - 10:44 AM

Sorry Suibhne, but I'm unable to see you as being fundamentally different to any other type of extremist.

Subject: RE: BS: Science under attack.
From: GUEST,Suibhne Astray
Date: 22 Jun 11 - 10:40 AM

The ultimate end of Atheism is, like that of altruistic Anarchy, to acknowledge that there are as many Truths as there are human beings, and that we must live to enable that fact. As Bakunin said, we are not truly free unless our freedom guarantees the freedom of others. The idealistic oposition to religious righteousness is to acknowledge that such faiths are incompatible with common freedom - like the idealistic opposition to Fascism, Racism, Homophobia and Sexism.

Subject: RE: BS: Science under attack.
From: GUEST,Jon
Date: 22 Jun 11 - 10:04 AM

We live in a world of a myriad options - let's celebrate that fact, eh?

Your way we'd only have the options you approve of.

Subject: RE: BS: Science under attack.
From: GUEST,Suibhne Astray
Date: 22 Jun 11 - 09:55 AM

Only by way of defence, Jon - religion persecutes by its very existence, much less its utter indifference to the wonders of life in in the here and now. Silence the preachers on the streets of our cities, make it illegal for people to call door to door, and for the sake of sanity stop teaching it in our kids. We live in a world of a myriad options - let's celebrate that fact, eh?

Subject: RE: BS: Science under attack.
From: GUEST,Jon
Date: 22 Jun 11 - 09:18 AM

At least you acknowledge you have a desire to persecute.

Subject: RE: BS: Science under attack.
From: GUEST,Suibhne Astray
Date: 22 Jun 11 - 08:42 AM

These discussions always fall apart when they get personal, because it's not in my nature to deny anything to anyone. Similarly, I react when the religious come knocking on my door, or shushing me in churches for not showing respect; but it's not the religious I wish to persecute, but religion itself, for its history, its dangers, its lies, its propagation of ignorance, and its oppressional and denial of our very humanity and sexuality as being sinful. This we owe only to ourselves and unto each other by accepting that God is only human too, and we can't all be right, but we can all be wrong.

Subject: RE: BS: Science under attack.
From: GUEST,Jon
Date: 22 Jun 11 - 07:50 AM

All I can give there is my own outlook which while I'm sorry does give the hell fear, doesn't really give me the degree of "heaven joy" that most other Christians seem to have. I suppose I would view it as a bonus and I would like to meet my maker but while I can be afraid of the process of dying, the concept of death and then nothing does not frighten me, nor do I feel I need more - escape from this world in itself can at times seem like it would be a relief.

All the same, I suppose I can't deny the occasional comfort. I hope you will forgive me the first verse of a hmymn that (while not expecting it to mean anything to you) means a lot to me:

I heard the voice of Jesus say,
"Come unto me and rest;
lay down, thou weary one, lay down
thy head upon my breast."
I came to Jesus as I was,
so weary, worn, and sad;
I found in him a resting place,
and he has made me glad.

Don't always feel so much of the gladness but the resting place, I like.

Subject: RE: BS: Science under attack.
From: GUEST,Suibhne Astray
Date: 22 Jun 11 - 07:14 AM

Actually - maybe Miles was more of a demon; the Dark Magus indeed...

*

I suppose Kipling summed it up in his glorious Hymn to humanity:

But when I meet with frantic folk who sinfully declare
There is no pardon for their sin, the same I will not spare
Till I have proved that Heaven and Hell which in our hearts we have
Show nothing irredeemable on either side of the grave.
For as we live and as we die - if utter Death there be -
The people, Lord, Thy people, are good enough for me!

Utter death? Well, some believe in Heaven, others in Reincarnation, but the reality of everything we are going back into the universe from which came is just as profound. Likewise Heaven and Hell; to the Gnostic Cathars the material world was Hell, which has echoes with respect of the Nature vs. Nurture debate. Some of the happiest people I've ever known were dying of incurable diseases, like my old mate Steve who died of CS when he was 23. Do we really need God when we've got such people to inspire us?

Subject: RE: BS: Science under attack.
From: GUEST,Jon
Date: 22 Jun 11 - 06:47 AM

No I understand you.

Subject: RE: BS: Science under attack.
From: GUEST,Suibhne Astray
Date: 22 Jun 11 - 06:29 AM

assume that if there is a God He will be a God of one of the major religions

You misunderstand me, Jon - in the real world there is no God and I don't assume otherwise; major, minor, pantheistic, monotheistic, god of the spiders, sun god, insect god, god of the jelly-fish or yet the great gods Pan & Priapus. Otherwise - most of my experience with religion and the religious is Abrahamic and predominently Christian at that. I'm not including the 'new' religions here - such as Paganism - which don't have so much to answer for in terms of historic barbarism, much less do they condemn non-believers to hell or assume that humanity is so flawed it needed the vile pornography of The Passion and Crucifixion to wipe out our sins. I love Myth - I'm married to a Roman Catholic graduate of Theology and spend much of my free time immersed in the art, culture and folklore of Pre-Reformation Christianity.

My personal logic is simple; I am an atheist because I can't conceive of a being more divine than Duke Ellington, John Coltrane or Rahsaan Roland Kirk. There are angels too - Sun Ra was one, Miles Davis was another - and in this life we are blessed by the rare and trascendent genius of truly gifted people like Peter Bellamy and Mike Waterson which to me is spiritual enough in its resolute and entirely falsifiable common humanity.

Subject: RE: BS: Science under attack.
From: GUEST,Jon
Date: 22 Jun 11 - 05:42 AM

missed name above again, sorry.

Subject: RE: BS: Science under attack.
From: GUEST
Date: 22 Jun 11 - 05:42 AM

it takes a measure of self-delusion (i.e. faith) to first believe in it, then have the neck to assume that others must believe in it too, and then to carry around the conceit that hellish damnation awaits those who don't share in your particular brand of bullshit

why is it that your posts seem to assume that if there is a God He will be a God of one of the major religions and the way your bashing seems to go, probably the Christian God?

Subject: RE: BS: Science under attack.
From: GUEST,Jon
Date: 22 Jun 11 - 04:58 AM

I was vaguely pondering the cooling business last night, thinking about the knowing every ones thoughts bit. I sometimes feel on overload with just my own...

Subject: RE: BS: Science under attack.
From: GUEST,Suibhne Astray
Date: 22 Jun 11 - 04:58 AM

Suibne suggested the bedrock should be 'falsifiable concensus' (and indeed said that for her* it is.

God exists to some, and not to others; but to all God is a human concept, if not an actual construct. That much, at least, is the common concensus, even to those for whom God is somehow real, because, here in the material world where there is no objective falsifiable evidence of the supernatural it takes a measure of self-delusion (i.e. faith) to first believe in it, then have the neck to assume that others must believe in it too, and then to carry around the conceit that hellish damnation awaits those who don't share in your particular brand of bullshit. Where the religious might see evidence of God (sunsets, fluffy kittens, footprints, holy water, stigmata, simulacra of the BVM etc.) the non-religious see something else entirely. The common ground is what they're both seeing - the objective falsifiable material concensus which is there for everyone irrespective of subjective spin.

* Her is a He by the way.

Subject: RE: BS: Science under attack.
From: GUEST,Shimrod
Date: 22 Jun 11 - 04:12 AM

"Logically, God has infinite data and processing power to draw upon ..."

It therefore follows, logically, that He must have some pretty massive cooling fans stashed away somewhere! Perhaps it's all the waste heat from all of His computations that is driving the expansion of the Universe?

Oh dear ... perhaps I shouldn't have started this ...?

Subject: RE: BS: Science under attack.
From: DMcG
Date: 22 Jun 11 - 02:26 AM

Suibne suggested the bedrock should be 'falsifiable concensus' (and indeed said that for her it is. So it is worth running Bill D's hypotheses against this.

John and I felt that the statement 'There is a god' is, hypothetically at least, falsifiable. Quite what would required to do that we don't know, but the concept is not inherently absurd. Pete has not said but I would guess he would find it harder to contemplate than Jon or I and I would hazard a guess that for him it is not falsifiable - feel free to correct me, pete

So now we can ask if the statement 'There is no god' is falsifiable, again hypothetically. This is interesting because we have a split Bill D can at least conceive of being faced with a god, so for him the statement seems to be falsifiable. John P, on the other hand, would assume the being simply had more advanced science than us, which at least suggests the question is not falsifiable. I am not criticising John P in any way: that seems a coherent approach (and fits in with Clarke's dictum that any sufficiently advanced technology is indistinguishable from magic, so John is in good company)

All of which suggest to me that for all the merits of falsifiable concensus - and there are many - it can only be part of the bedrock. Rather like Godel's theorem, there are likely to be statements one believes that are not falsifiable.

Subject: RE: BS: Science under attack.
From: GUEST,Jon
Date: 21 Jun 11 - 03:36 PM

Since I have had a concept of both, I have always considered "casting out demons" to mean "curing mental illness." Though I do not understand the scientific principle behind transferring the "demons" to livestock.

Jack, I think it would be called coincidence.

Subject: RE: BS: Science under attack.
From: Jack the Sailor
Date: 21 Jun 11 - 03:15 PM

Certainly Bill,

When I start to draw the graphs from my point of view they extend well off any page I can imagine. Even the geometrical concepts of a line or plane are always limited in my mind as "As far as I can see or otherwise detect." Extending that same theoretical limitlessness to knowledge literally boggles my mind.

Subject: RE: BS: Science under attack.
From: Bill D
Date: 21 Jun 11 - 03:07 PM

>>I can't imagine that an entity of that sort would care about being worshiped! <<

It just seems to me that a large does of anthropomorphism is involved when humans start imagining or predicting or analyzing how a god would think or act.

Subject: RE: BS: Science under attack.
From: Jack the Sailor
Date: 21 Jun 11 - 02:50 PM

Since I have had a concept of both, I have always considered "casting out demons" to mean "curing mental illness." Though I do not understand the scientific principle behind transferring the "demons" to livestock.