Below is the web address of the Carol Cleland article:
Cleland, Carol E. (2002). "Methodological and Epistemic Differences Between Historical Science and Experimental Science," Philosophy of Science 69, pp. 474-496.
Ann O. - Which "science" and which "experimentation" is best -- Bob's or Mary's? I'd say each has its merits. Bob's is controlled, but Mary's is confirmed by much, much more data than his fruit flies provide.
This is exactly what the article I sent you is about. There is a temporal asymmetry between the two types of data, and as such, they result in very different, though equally strong, types of data.
Thanks for the very interesting discussion. I also posted something on Thistlethwaite's thread about using the scientific method to prove the scientific method. If you get a chance, let me know what you think.
“The rich are getting richer at the expense of the poor.” No not so the rich are getting richer because they do what needs to be done to get rich. This word POOR is a code word to keep some people standing on the sideline instead of having them use their God given talents and take care of their own well-being aka getting a hand-out or bail out from the government. Any one who claims to be speaking on behalf of the poor is a fraud in my book because there is no such thing as a poor man.....poverty is a state of mind and with enough propaganda you can convince some people that there is nothing they can do to change their situation and that is one thing that is totally screwed up in America.
You said it…..everybody is busy with themselves and that is the result of bloodless science and rationality run amok. Mental illness like many other diseases are a direct result of a society that only deals with symptoms instead of taking on the problems head on. Regulation on top of regulation, law on top of law contradicting each other while they don’t solve problems instead they create more problems. For the past 20 year the United States has been following the heartless trends of some Europeans countries and advocated by people who sit on the highest court in the nation.
This backward trend which some call progressive is causing the United States to lose its ground and it is debauching the character of its people one step at the time. Read Judge Janice Rogers Brown’s “A whiter shade of pale” on this issue, a woman and mother who the tolerant do-good liberals and so-called saviors of humanity label an out of the mainstream dangerous right-wing extremist.
Human nature is the biggest danger facing humanity…because everybody seems to be right in their own eyes and want to be the king. Today it can be said that people still have not learned much about the past despite their gained knowledge. Oh well that is history, so they say and move on to repeat the same thing over again expecting to get a different result which is total insanity. Their science however flawed needs to be accepted at all cost and that is ridiculous.
I don’t know where your quote comes from but I have this one. “The brave man is not he who feels fear, for that were stupid and irrational; but he whose noble soul subdues its fear, and bravely dares the danger nature shrinks from.” Joanna Baillie
JACOB tells us: On The Powers and gifts of PATTERN--RECOGNITION:
. . . IT or ITSELF (g-d thing) can only be percieved by the RELATEDNESS of EVENTS, whether in conjunction with "Freudian Slips Of genuine Prophecys", or with out them, so that your impressions of the TRANSFINITY (reality as eternity avoiding Lonliness
ANN O. replies: Jake, you are a poet :-)
I apologize to you and the rest of the blog for the repetition of my last long post. I don't know how I managed to do that. Sorry.
as an ECLATi-On, of which you are my dear HUMATE et al, That IT or ITSELF (g-d thing) can only be percieved by the RELATEDNESS of EVENTS, whether in conjunction with "Freudian Slips Of genuine Prophecys", or with out them, so that your impressions of the TRANSFINITY (reality as eternity avoiding Lonliness
via us and all) constituting the UNIVERSE and yourself, become More & more useful to YOUR FUNCTION of SUVIVAL and Enjoyment of the LIFE & LOVE that You et al are able to experience in the RELATIVITY of OUR EVENTS in TIME )temperature not clock time).
Mr. Phillips: Your book American Theocracy noted the GOP business-religious axis being formed around organizations such as the Mountain States Legal Foundation and the Council for National Policy. One area that I think needs to be investigated is the Christian-AstroTurf advocacy on behalf of Motorsports related industries in stifling noise ordinances in American Communities. Americans have been suffering violent noise assaults from biker, hot rod, boom car (loud car stereos), Firearms Enthusiasts who have been politically active behind the scenes and supported by these industries.
The number of biker-motorsport enthusiast related ministries are too many to count.
Just google “Christian motorsports”; “Motorcycle Ministry”; “biker’s rights”; God’s Rods”; “fair exhaust noise laws” and UNITED CHRISTIAN OFF-ROAD ALLIANCE and you will see what I mean.
These organizations and enthusiasts clubs need critical exposure in the mainline press.
Please consider this excerpt from the American Motorcyclists Associations web site:
‘It wasn't until a rash of legislation in the 1960s, though, that motorcycling organizations began to realize how important legislative activity would become to the future of the sport. At that time, the MS&ATA (Motor Scooter & Allied Trades Association) began to concentrate on government relations efforts on behalf of the motorcycle industry, while the AMA saw the need to focus on laws and regulations threatening to riders. This led to the formation of the AMA's Legislative Department (since renamed the Government Relations Department), with a mission “to coordinate national legal activity against unconstitutional and discriminatory laws against motorcyclists, to serve as a sentinel on federal and state legislation affecting motorcyclists, and to be instrumental as a lobbying force for motorcyclists and motorcycling interests.”’
“For the road rider, the AMA Government Relations Department has spent the decades since wrestling with national, state and local legislation...On the off-road side, the AMA has consistently fought to protect reasonable access to public land for trail riders. This issue has taken on greater importance with the introduction of wilderness legislation in many states over the past decade.”
I agree that the current meaning of "science" which includes the non-experimenntal ones (geology, etc.) are not "science" in the classic senses of Mill et al who included method in their defintion of "science" and included experimentation in their method.
However, I think that "non-experimental science" does deserve the name "science" even though its definition is a revised one.
It seems to me that except for the important fact that there are no *controlled* experiments in the historical "sciences", there are *equivalents* of experiments -- there are at least sometimes some very, very strong confirmations of somem of the historical hypotheses (e.g., geological and evolutionary ones).
Consider this scenario. One scientist, call him "Bob", begins with the notion that there are certain relatively simply organisms and that in the a predictably patterned way they will produce generation after generation of organisms which will become more complex and varied. He would have the organisms mate and then check out the results generation after generation to discover whether the predicted variations occur. He uses fruit flies.
Bob's friend Mary is less patient than he. She wants results quickly. So instead of proceeding forward into the future to discover evidence of th same hypothesis, she uses a "reverse experimentation" to establish the hypothesis. (I'm giving the word "experimentation" here an analogous sense as you will see.) Instead of looking for sequences of cause-effect in an enfolding future, she begins at a far distant point in the past and uses that as here beginning point. Then she looks for data that would be produced by organisms which were her original data if her hypothesis is true. She finds it. Then she looks for more historical data that would be the result of the original data, and so on and on through history. Each generation is, then the equvalent of one of Bob's, but unlike Bob, she has many, many, many more "experiments" (generations) which confirming her original hypothesis that the simple kind of data she began with resulted in ordered ways in more complex and varied species. I say it is confirmation because there is evidence that the early, simple kinds resulted in later more complex and varied kinds.
Yes, this is history, but history of apparent cause-effect relationships which are confirmed most simply by her hypothesis. And anyone who grants the legitimacy of other sorts of historical relationships (as do literalist readers of Scripture) will, if consistent, admit that there is a history of biological organisms. In other words, either we trust historical data, or we don't. If you reject the historical sciences, then you must also reject history in the ordinary sense.
Bob and Mary both have *confirmation* of their predictions, but Bob find it in the future, Mary finds it in the past.
Which "science" and which "experimentation" is best -- Bob's or Mary's? I'd say each has its merits. Bob's is controlled, but Mary's is confirmed by much, much more data than his fruit flies provide.
Thanks for the article. I'll have to print it out for my old eyes. This whole question of historical patterns raise some interesting philosophical issues, I think -- largely epistemological ones, but aesthetic and metaphysical ones as well. Why, for instance, are there any patterns (scientific or aesthetic) at all? How can we know one when we find one? I'm not a scientist but have always found philosophy of science extremely fascinating :-)
Ann O.Hi, Maurice Beck,
I agree that the current meaning of "science" which includes the non-experimenntal ones (geology, etc.) are not "science" in the classic senses of Mill et al who included method in their defintion of "science" and included experimentation in their method.
However, I think that "non-experimental science" does deserve the name "science" even though its definition is a revised one.
It seems to me that except for the important fact that there are no *controlled* experiments in the historical "sciences", there are *equivalents* of experiments -- there are at least sometimes some very, very strong confirmations of somem of the historical hypotheses (e.g., geological and evolutionary ones).
Consider this scenario. One scientist, call him "Bob", begins with the notion that there are certain relatively simply organisms and that in the a predictably patterned way they will produce generation after generation of organisms which will become more complex and varied. He would have the organisms mate and then check out the results generation after generation to discover whether the predicted variations occur. He uses fruit flies.
Bob's friend Mary is less patient than he. She wants results quickly. So instead of proceeding forward into the future to discover evidence of th same hypothesis, she uses a "reverse experimentation" to establish the hypothesis. (I'm giving the word "experimentation" here an analogous sense as you will see.) Instead of looking for sequences of cause-effect in an enfolding future, she begins at a far distant point in the past and uses that as here beginning point. Then she looks for data that would be produced by organisms which were her original data if her hypothesis is true. She finds it. Then she looks for more historical data that would be the result of the original data, and so on and on through history. Each generation is, then the equvalent of one of Bob's, but unlike Bob, she has many, many, many more "experiments" (generations) which confirming her original hypothesis that the simple kind of data she began with resulted in ordered ways in more complex and varied species. I say it is confirmation because there is evidence that the early, simple kinds resulted in later more complex and varied kinds.
Yes, this is history, but history of apparent cause-effect relationships which are confirmed most simply by her hypothesis. And anyone who grants the legitimacy of other sorts of historical relationships (as do literalist readers of Scripture) will, if consistent, admit that there is a history of biological organisms. In other words, either we trust historical data, or we don't. If you reject the historical sciences, then you must also reject history in the ordinary sense.
Bob and Mary both have *confirmation* of their predictions, but Bob find it in the future, Mary finds it in the past.
Which "science" and which "experimentation" is best -- Bob's or Mary's? I'd say each has its merits. Bob's is controlled, but Mary's is confirmed by much, much more data than his fruit flies provide.
Thanks for the article. I'll have to print it out for my old eyes. This whole question of historical patterns raise some interesting philosophical issues, I think -- largely epistemological ones, but aesthetic and metaphysical ones as well. Why, for instance, are there any patterns (scientific or aesthetic) at all? How can we know one when we find one? I'm not a scientist but have always found philosophy of science extremely fascinating :-)
Ann O. - And there are questions which cannot be answered by experimentation. For instance, some events, e.g., the big bang, are non-repeatable (at least at this time).
Ann O. - The theories of evolution and bag bang are both just theories as science will never likely be able to prove them in the traditional sense of a scientific proof.
You bring up the assertion that historical sciences (cosmology, evolution, geology, archeology, anthropology, linguistics, etc.) can never be considered true science because they are not subject to experimentation. I think Popper might have first leveled this accusation, though he and many other "hard" scientists later rejected it. Regardless, some philosophers of science have
more formally addressed the issue, specifically Carol Cleland (2002). She asserted that "scientists engage in two very different patterns of evidential reasoning and, although there is overlap, one pattern predominates in historical
research and the other pattern predominates in classical experimental research."
I will not go into her argument here regarding differences between experimental and historical sciences, but if you are interested, you can download a copy of the article at the web address below. From my perspective, both types are valid sciences in that they can propose hypotheses that are falsifiable. Both types also have strengths and weaknesses that are idiosyncratic to each type.
I did not accuse Bill Clinton of being a liar , my issue with Clinton is that he had outsiders (other member states & the United Nations) influence US foreign policy….and selling the country down the river on a guilt trip, and that was not such a smart thing to do. Under Clinton gender feminist because of their obsession with female genitalia got to re-write immigration law to give special treatment to certain groups of women to further their political agenda which advocated that women became slaves of the state.
I have enough insight into international politics and avoid blaming Bush for the chaos in Irak. If you do research you will find out for yourself how it came about. There are a lot of other players that the general public doesn’t know much about…..check out Francis Fukiyama and others of the neo-con elite and the international community some of them who claim to be US allies but do everything to sabotage the United States, a matter a fact they are hell bend to take this economy down because it is the only economy in the West still supporting free enterprise instead of going all out Marxist on people. There is much more to the story than meets the eye.
“All politicians lie much of the time”…..that is a fact and I am not disputing that what I am saying is that it is not so black and white as you think it is to just blame Bush and claim that Clinton was/is pious.
Bush took action based on the information received and if you know how government really functions you should know that he just trusted his advisers as the President of the United States. So if you really want to point the finger you should also look at the other players involved. I stand by my position that he is not the only one to blame for the chaos.
How many millions of people did Communism & Marxism killed and still have under their bootstraps and how many American soldiers paid the prize with their lives to save Europe from Hitler? Or are you making a distinction which lives are worth the cost of US intervention and which ones are not like most people who think they are so human and care for other people do?
“He violated the tenet of the Powell Doctrine”….I don’t know much of that doctrine but I can tell you that Bush had every right to violate them in the best interest of the United States as a sovereign nation. Some European countries preferred Colin Powell because he was not intimidating to them. I am a European transplant and I know why but that’s not for this discussion.
Crippling world stability is not Bush his doing….I said it before his election only thwarted the work in progress……the world was well on its way to all-out totalitarianism disguised as liberty under the umbrella of the United Nations one world government.
The moral leadership of the US was already in the gutter and way, way before Dubya took office and the result of that can be seen in all the major cities across the nation. I don’t think you want to know what the European elite and others are thinking of America and that my friend has nothing to do with Bush.
I am sticking to my gun…..Bush is a man of character you may not like him but its good to know that somebody would have your back when the going gets really tough instead of standing by doing nothing while your being trampled on. When you value life you can give credit when credit is due.
All of the posters here make credible arguments both for and against Phillips' premise.
FreeVoice, as you so bravely pointed out, fear of losing what they have causes people to become bystanders and this is how despots come into power---they rule by fear and your quote from Robert F. Kennedy (member of a close knit, Catholic family) is most appropriate here.
The last few months of employment news can easily inspire this kind of behavior--Citibank laying off 15,000 (or was that 25,000), the upside down mortgage debacle, earnings losses by the Big Three automakers. The list could go on endlessly. Yet Wall Street is booming. Does this make sense? Of course not.
The rich are getting richer at the expense of the poor. No doubt about it.
As far as the Virginia Tech massacre goes, it is a direct outgrowth of our society which has become so enamored of text messaging, email and instant communication that we hardly face each other at all. Cho's parents, the university officials at Virginia Tech, society as a whole chose to bury their heads in the sand rather than get this young man the help he needed. They were all scared of losing something---fear of losing face in the community, fear of a lawsuit, fear of reprisal.
Mental illness is not evil. It's a disease just like diabetes, coronary artery disease or even alcoholism, yet we don't call people with these illnesses evil. And there are treatments for it and I'm not just talking medication here.
You cannot take human nature out of the equation, much as people would like to try. To paraphrase a popular quote, unless we learn from past mistakes we are destined to repeat them.
"Courage is not the absence of fear but the knowledge that something else is more important than fear."
Glad to see you were able to overcome the tradition. :)Unfortunately for Catholics that discrimination is still very present in much of the world. Too often people are not like you they only look at the issues they disagree with or a few cases of bad individuals and right the whole faith off because of it.
There is nothing wrong with disagreeing with the Church on her teachings since you are not Catholic - (of course that would be a whole seperate set of issues if you were). I personally wouldn't expect you to believe them unless you were Catholic.
What is important is that we can realize that we can disagree on issues and still move the conversation forward and at least try to understand the other point of view - even when we don't agree with it.
Clearly, Clinton and Bush claim to believe in the same God, the southern evangelical God.
i, myself, believe in no god.
So I am not saying one god is better than another. I don't think there is ANY god. Zeus, maybe.
We clearly have different political views and different ways of judging character.
You don't believe anything Clinton says. I don't believe anything Bush ever said.
We know Clinton lied about Oral Sex.
We know that Bush lied about the reasons he took our country to war and killed 400,000 people, while crippling 50,000 American soldiers.
All politicians lie much of the time, so we are not dealing with Mother Theresas here.
Bush is a man who takes action like going to war based on false premises, without understanding the country he is invading (first rule of War: know your enemy), stubbornly takes pride in his vast ignorance (he didn't know the difference between a Sunni and a Shiite before the War), and with no plan to secure the country after toppling the regime. He violated every tenet of the Powell Doctrine, and all these failings resulted in hundreds of thousands of deaths and greatly increased world instability, while having catastrophic effects on the US standing for moral leadership throughout the world.
But he is a man of Character. If that is the kind of Character you admire.
I am more convinced that Clinton believes in God than I am that Bush does. At least I like the kind of God Clinton believes in much more, and Clinton's God seems more like the "Good Christian God."
Are you serious? What is the difference between the God of Clinton and the God of Bush?
Is it because Clinton talks about feeling your pain and keeping you in the victicrat mindset and Bush does not?
This, my God is better than your God is all about power and it is the same thing that those Islamofacist claim. You got to be kiddin' me. If that is not Theocracy I don't know what is. But we blame everything on Bush. Actions speak louder than words...I value a man based on his actions and integrity not based on his lip service and what he promises to do for me...... I also go for substance over symbolism. Bush is a man of character and I can tell one when I see one. In that regard Clinton failed my standards as a woman and mother.
Dubya does not pretend that he believes, he believes period (his freedom of thought should not be abridged).....we all know that your environment can influence your judgment and I am sure that he was too in the corridors of power where people only care about their own position and less about the bigger picture. He slipped because he was talked into slipping by a bunch of defeatist cowards and those who had their own personal agenda to protect. I bet you my bottom dollar me and him will discuss the issue when he leaves office. I followed the whole anti-Bush saga for the past seven years and the venomous hatred towards him told me more about the haters than it told me about the wrong doings of Bush.
Bush is a man of action and not a handwringer...but a great many people helped to put him on ice because they fear real man who have the courage to protect what they value.
George W. Bush is not Clinton….Bush picked up where Clinton left off he didn’t invent the wheel over again. Casting the blame on one person, for a mess that was shoved in front of him because nobody else had the courage to deal with it is at best closed minded. I know that there are two sides to a story and I take a look at both.
I only blame Bush for becoming mister nice-guy after his re-election.
You realize that as a New England Wasp, i come from a terrible tradition of discrimination against Catholics, which I think was a shameful tradition.
Illustrative of how native populations demonize immigrant populations, and shameful. Wonder if it has any lessons for today's Immigration issues.
And
though I vehemently disagree with the Catholic Church today on birth control, condoms and AIDS, and Gay issues, and condemn their pathetic response to the abuse scandals,
I have always highly praised the Catholic Church and the Catholic Worker for its many and persistant efforts for social equality and to eliminate poverty and help the poor. I can't think of a better example of a Church that has dealt with this problem.
And I also have applauded here many contributions the Church has made to intellectual and cultural development, notwithstanding what it did to Galileo.
And, to parody myself with a true statement, some of my best friends are Catholics, with whom I love to discuss religion and theology.
On the question - I think Phillips concept that America is on a downward trend is a good thesis. I think his 5 points are at best probably half accurate in what causes such situations in history. Maybe accurate is not exactly the right word but I think there are probably other more important or better indicators. I think there is a lot of the story missing in these 5 points and I don't believe Bush is solely to blame.
You are correct the Gap is important – if I made light of it that was not my intention. Helping the poor should always be a major aim of anyone claiming to be Christian. That is why I was so happy this year when Catholic Charities USA started the Campaign to Reduce Poverty in the USA. Arguably you can make the case we should help a lot of different groups but this is the first time in a while I have seen a large charitable organization make a big push to try and address the increasing problems of the poor in America: http://www.catholiccharitiesusa.org/poverty/
I also don’t disagree that the US reputation has been greatly lowered. All you have to do is travel to Europe and you can see it first hand where you never did before. Again I blame this on the combination of pathetic PR and on poor execution on the Iraq War. As I have stated before I don’t think the war was the problem it’s the way we went about it, the main reasons Bush cited and the lack of effectively building an international coalition.
BETTY JAMES –
Of course my silo is bigger :)
I do agree, as I stated above, the issue of international standing is a problem. Of course I don’t think we should always dictate our actions based on the feelings of other countries. But I do think we could have done a better job in preventing the current situation.
"If every person in America who claims to have spiritual beliefs and Christian values practiced them faithfully in their everyday dealings with others we would not have had the Enron and Jack Abramoff scandals, Watergate or IranContra and most recently, the Virginia Tech massacre."
This is what needs to happen....if everybody takes their responsibility we would be alright...but as you know the mainstream culture is perpetuating a mentality that goes against those beliefs and since we are all human beings it is easy to compromise principles for quick gain and follow the path that makes things look easy.
"Stand with anybody that stands right. Stand with him while he is right and part with him when he goes wrong." Abraham Lincoln.
But too often people look the other way because they are afraid to lose what they have…and that is because of the anything and everything goes culture of low expectations. This culture has created a bunch of selfish heartless cowards (wolves in sheep’s clothing) who take down everybody else with them.
“Every time we turn our heads the other way when we see the law flouted-when we tolerate what we know to be wrong-when we close our eyes and ears to the corrupt because we are too busy, or too frightened-when we fail to speak up and speak out-we strike a blow against freedom and decency and justice.” Robert F. Kennedy
At this time Christians (evangelicals) who not only talk the talk but also walk the walk take the lead in every area to restore the spirit that got lost in the shuffle for power and control...and we need to give them credit. One bad apple doesn't make the whole bunch rotten.
If we go back to JFK and put in motion the mentality of...... “Ask not what your country can do for but what you can do for your country.”.....we will be on our way to make a change.
Anna K: "If every person in America who claims to have spiritual beliefs and Christian values practiced them faithfully in their everyday dealings with others we would not have had the Enron and Jack Abramoff scandals, Watergate or IranContra and most recently, the Virginia Tech massacre.
Virginia Tech had nothing to do with values, Christian or otherwise. it was about mental illness.
Besides, what you say is too, too simple. Whenever anyone does something bad, you can just say - "well, that person wasn't Christian, or a good enough Christian, or a real christian. It's just blaming and not solving any problems.
Freevoice: I am more convinced that Clinton believes in God than I am that Bush does. At least I like the kind of God Clinton believes in much more, and Clinton's God seems more like the "Good Christian God."
It is Theocracy that is at issue, not belief. Every president pretends that they believe in God.
BigD
Thanks for going through the exercise. Fun eh?
Of course we disagree on some of the ratins but I understand "where you are coming from."
A couple of comments:
1. The Gap between Rich and Poor seems like a VERY important problem from a CHRISTIAN perspective.
Jesus talked a lot about helping the poor, and whomever you blame, our country has sure helped the Rich in the last 20 years. It's actually the Middle Class that has had the worst 20 years.
On Number 4: there is clear numberical poll data that shows how Bush has ruined the US reputationfor leadership, honesty, and competence compared to Clinton.
The whole world may be wrong, but...
even a majority of Americans, not just democrats but independents too and many republicans, would acknowledge this.
Mostly as a result of the Iraq War, about which he consulted his "Higher Father.", to bring us back to the Religion topic of this web site.
If you think George W. Bush is destroying America because he believes in God you go read for yourself and see who is influencing the government and pushing the real agenda of destruction.
Scorecard huh? I am not sure how objective we are but its interesting anyway.
My scores with areas of critieria:
1 (Based on polls) C: 60 B: -50 (I don't thin Clinton's PR machine could have done much better or that Bush's PR team could do much worse). While I strongly disagreed with a lot of what Clinton did - he did a great job of keeping the PR on his side.
2 (Based on the Rise of State Religion) C: 0 B: 0. I don't think either of them pushed us towards a state sponsored religion. You can make the case that Bush is much more supportive of religous activities the way Phillips states his point 2 I don't think there is anything close to a State allied religion. We have far too many checks and balances for that.
3 (a - Move away from old economies, b - Gap between Rich and Poor) a: C: 30 B: 40 We are moving away from old economies - nature of development. B: C: -20 B: 20 Now here is where we can really argue. While the gap continues to grow (netither president having much effect on it) the economy is doing better under Bush currently with the lowest levels of unemployment in a long time--thus an improvement. i am sure you will agree :)
4 C: -25 B: -25 Clinton because of his lack of standing up to certain issues. Bush because of not doing a better job getting international support.
5 C: 50 B: -25 Clinton did move us to more fiscal responsibility though spending was still too high. Bush definately has not been as fiscally conservative as I would like but by the same token I don't want to defund the war to achieve greater fiscal responsibility.
You can add them up? I don't think either President was stellar - though I would still take Bush over the other choices we had.
Just to show that I don't hate all Bushes,
here are the grades for Bush 41, father of our leader.
1. 20
2. 50
3. -10
4. 20
5. 60
total, 140, vs Clinton's 140, and his son's Negative 180
I agree that hypocrits are in good supply in the American landscape. We have all been guilty of it at one time or another.
Christ said "Render to Caesar what is Caesar's. Render to God what is God's."
Unfortunately, we've muddied the waters on this important Bible verse. Perhaps this is what the Founding Fathers meant when they insisted on separation of church and state.
Wouldn't we all like to live in a society where you could trust people at their word and not have to pass laws to force people to do the right thing.
If every person in America who claims to have spiritual beliefs and Christian values practiced them faithfully in their everyday dealings with others we would not have had the Enron and Jack Abramoff scandals, Watergate or IranContra and most recently, the Virginia Tech massacre.
Unfortunately we are human and prone to all the bad habits that entails including lying, gluttony, greed and avarice.
The best thing any parent, teacher or person of influence can do for their fellow men is to practice the long lost arts of self-control and personal responsibility and teach them to the younger generations.
Good points. In America we shouldn't push just one side. I also agree that unfortunately I don't know if any American politician will ever have the strength and conviction to fully practice what they believe. You are to often right that it is just about getting votes.
My characterization of one sided just is the intro that seems to point the finger only at Bush.
"The religious right are a bunch of righteous hypocrits. They only pull out the religion card when it suits their purposes."
Are they the only bunch of hypocrites walking the face of the earth?
In my estimation hypocrites come a dime a dozen and from both sides Left, right and center but people only seem to attack the hypocrisy of the right and ignore the rest pretending that they are holier than thou. That is hypocrisy at its best don't you think?
Bobster, while Bush's personal religious beliefs are none of my business, it becomes my business when I see his Administration attempting to use the government to push certain religious beliefs. I'm thinking primarily of the Office of Faith-Based Initiatives, which favored fundamentalist Christian groups at the expense of all others. I'm thinking of Dr. Reginald Finger, who opposed even the availability of the HPV vaccine and a hypothetical HIV vaccine because he claimed that the vaccines would discourage abstinence.
While I disagree with Phillips regarding his war-for-oil claims about Iraq, I believe we shouldn't dismiss his warnings about government being used as an evangelical tool. For me, it's not the beliefs held by the Air Force Academy faculty and the Kansas school board members, it's that they wanted to force those beliefs on students.
When people ask me about my Christian beliefs (and I do believe in God) I give them this simple response:
God is not going to remember you were in the front pew of the church every Sunday. He's going to remember what you did after you walked out the front door.
I've been chastized, lied to, cheated and fired for standing up for my professional and personal ethics. I am a medical professional. Some of it was due to immaturity and naivete. The great majority of it was management's need to hold to the bottom line rather than do what was in the best interest of the patient.
I am a small, isolated crusader for healthcare reform.
Mr. Phillips is exactly right in his assessment of the situation. We are headed down the wrong path and have been for the last 40 years. Whether we can go back to the fork in the road is the $64,000 question.
Power corrupts. Absolute power corrupts absolutely.
The most amazing aspect about this whole debacle is that the great majority of Americans take the attitude that if it doesn't affect them directly, they don't have to worry about it. This is a well-known and well documented phenomenon called "the bystander effect."
To stand up for honesty and truth is to invite a lawsuit or worse. Our litigious society is also to blame for the current course of events. The overriding attitude is "If things don't turn out the way I want them to, I'll sue." This is especially evident in our educational system where parents (and students) have learned to play the system to get what they want, knowing that if they threaten to sue, the school district administration will cave in. And they do. Regularly. I've seen this phenomenon first hand across the country as a substitute teacher.
The religious right are a bunch of righteous hypocrits. They only pull out the religion card when it suits their purposes.
"The only way evil can triumph is for good men to do nothing."
I agree that Bush has been Upfront about his Religious Agenda. So does Phillips. Phillips and I still think it is dangerous to have such an explicit political alliance with one religious faction.
BTW, the fellow named Kao who was head of the White House's Faith Based initiatives office for 5 years has just written a book showing that Bush's commitment to religious values was largely a PR scam rather than substantive. As with most Politicians, we should be VERY SKEPTICAL that the "really believe" in anything besides getting votes.
Phillips has been a Republican, a famous one. I am not sure "one-sided" is an accurate label. He clearly thinks Theocracies are dangerous, but so do many people.
Thanks for the reply. I think we will continue to disagree on the minute aspects of these points but I think both claims are at least reasonable.
I would say that while you see Bush as aligning his agenda with religious I would say that he is just upfront about it. He never made any claims to not be religious or to be anything other than he is. He was always willing to say that his faith was important to him. I prefer this over someone who says one thing and does another and you can never be quite sure where they are coming from. The nation elected him knowing full well of his religious position and that his faith was important to him – therefore it can’t lame him for some how becoming religious.
I will grant that Mr Phillips has done more research and it might be interesting. I am always just leery of research that is presented in an intro so one sided – of course that sells a lot more books I am sure.
MAURIE BECK
Which posters are you saying doubt science? Which said most American’s are Christian? I said most American’s believe in God if that is what you are referring to – big difference.
ANN O
I wasn’t speaking to the validity of teaching other theories in the science classroom. The point was asserted that Bush was against teaching evolution. I pointed out that from what I had seen he wasn’t against its teaching but wanted to include other possibilities.
The objection to certain theories though that you point out is a little mis stated in my opinion. The theories of evolution and bag bang are both just theories as science will never likely be able to prove them in the traditional sense of a scientific proof. You are correct though that it has to be good science to be taught. Even the Pope stated that intelligent design should not be taught in the science room.
In any regard if the question is how did we get here then the three disciplines you mention may all lend information but in the end there is only one total truth. My argument would be often science doesn’t want to acknowledge the possibility of anything other than the current theories even when there are still big gaps. I know personally I had a couple classes where these theories were purported as fact and the teacher would basically make things up to fill in the holes. That is not good for anyone. The teachers who admit yes we don’t know are teaching much better science in my opinion.
But your points and information are very good and better stated than I made it. My main argument on these posts is that science and religion are not mutually exclusive and that True Science explains and leads to understanding more about True Religion.
I think it is just dandy for religious people to bring their religious views in to their stated opinions on political issues.
If you think abortion should be outlawed because it is forbidden by God or the Pope, say so.
The problem Phillips warns of is when
There is an Official Alliance
(or what we have now, a tacitly understood alliance)
between the Government and one particular religion or religious movment (for instance Born Again Christians).
It is what people worried about with John Kennedy ' that he would "take orders from the vatican."
Throughout history, the relationship between religion and politics has been a mutually exploitative one that has generally been very bad for the societies involved.
ANN O. said: And while theology and philosophy and science are *different* disciplines they are necessarily opposed.
ANN O. corrects herself: that should have said:
"And while theology and philosophy and science are "dirrent" disciplines they are NOT necessarily opposed".
BIGD tells us: I don't see how adding other possible theories could hurt anything. We should explore all possibilities and make decisions as we learn more.
ANN O. replies: ISTM that it is essential that we distinguish 1) scientific knowledge, 2) philosophical knowledge and 3)beliefs grounded in scriptures (theology). There can be scientific, philosophical and scriptural theories to account for the world and our place in it, and they are quite different different from scientific accounts, though they can all be related in forming our worldviews if we so choose.
Scientists object so strongly to teaching certain theories of evolution or accounts of the order in the world in science courses because those theories are *not* science -- they are philosophical or theological accounts. They are not arrived at by scientific method (as is scientif knowledge) and so they don't belong in a science class. They belong in philosophy and theology classes.
The questions of the three disciplines differ, though sometimes the answers lead to the same topics.
Science asks such questions as what can account for the apparent regularity of certain phenomena in nature? and, what is the immediate cause of X and how does it work? It then builds up (or attempts to build up) a sequence of causal explanations of these apparently regular phenomena we find in the physical universe. It's method is experimentation, and this includes the repeatability of experiments.
But the realm of science is quite limited. Science relies on some presupositions, some of which cannot be established by science itself. For instance, it assumes that logic works and that scientific method is valuable in trying to discover physical causes. And there are questions which cannot be answered by experimentation. For instance, some events, e.g., the big bang, are non-repeatable (at least at this time).
Philosophers ask the more fundamental questions, like, why does logic work? how is any knowledge possible? what are the basic kinds of knowledge? and why is there anything at all? However, philosophers are notorious for giving conflicting answers to those questions, and this no doubt is why scientists are often dismissive of them and treat their questions and answers as at best irrelevant to the pursuit of truth.
But the fact remains, there are philosophical questions that scientists cannot answer, and whether scientists like it or not, the philosophical questions *are* meaningful and even possibly answerable. These are beyond science -- they are meta=scientific ones, or, to use the classic terminology, they are meta-physical and meta-logical ones.
These purely philosophical questions are *neither* scientific ones *nor* about the claims of revealed religions, the claims made in scripture. Answers to them are not justified by appeals to scripture. But do they have *anything* to do with God or gods? Well, many philosophers think that they do -- that the existence of a Creator or Orderer can be established by ordinary, non-scientific and non-theological knowledge of the world. These include philsophers like Aristotle and Spinoza. Neither of them appeals to any sort of scripture for their views. The people who appeal to scripture are the theologians.
Yes, indeed there is an overlap of these three disciplines -- but it is an overlap of *topics* but there is no overlap in how they come to their opinions (except that many use logic to reach the opinions).
Here comes my main point (finally): "religion" can refer to *either* philosophical or theological positions. Aristotle and Spinoza were "religous" men -- based on philosophical evidence only. Luther and Oliver Cromwell were religious men -- based on scriptural evidence only. And Augustine and Aquinas were religious men --- based on *both* philosophical and scriptural evidence.
My appeal is to be very careful when using the term "religion" -- do not use it as something opposed to science. It is much better to make the distinction between scripture and science, rather than religion and science. And while theology and philosophy and science are *different* disciplines they are necessarily opposed. Many theologians, such as Aquinas, think that all three complement each other in forming a worldview, that they are not natural enemies.
One can blame George W. Bush for dropping the ball on some critical issues but he can not be blamed for destroying America. That revolution was put in motion in the 60’s after John F. Kennedy was assassinated and it happened without a bang. The election of George W. Bush simply thwarted the total collapse of a once great nation. The mindset that created the problems is incapable of solving the problems. Christians (people of faith) who face those undeniable truths only lead the charge to win some victory for humanity that’s all.
Every other interest group in America strives to implement its beliefs into public policy. What in the world is the fear that Christians are finally doing the same?
You know why?....because faith works and moves people to take action on their own behalf instead of waiting for somebody to do it for them, it also counters the bloodless science and rationality that has a crippling stronghold on society and wrecking havoc on the lives of the innocent and defenseless among us.
"The errors of faith are better then the best thoughts of unbelief" Thomas Russell
Belief is what made America the greatest nation on the face of the earth.....the shining city on the hill as last best hope for man. Christians know that and are ready, willing and able to defend it and keep it that way, while others take it for granted and bash and trash it at whim.
Mr. Phillips is a long-time Republican who is in the John Danforth wing of the Republican Party that is concerned with the hijacking of the party by the Christian Right. Some people have begun to refer to the Republicans as the Party of God, and for good reason.
I know there are a lot of posters on this thread who probably take umbrage with that claim, though most of those also appear to doubt science, instead suggesting scripture is all that is needed. However, I think Mr. Phillips is correct in his assessment. What scares me about Christian Nationalism is the certainty that is expressed by its adherents in their just cause. This is the same sort of rhetoric that Islamic groups have used in other parts of the world. Of course, Christian Nationalists would retort that none of their members have flown planes into the World Trade Center. This is true, but only because Christianity was tempered by the Enlightenment and people in Western Civilization got tired of religious excess, subsequently constraining what was considered morally acceptable behavior (e.g. burning people at the stake, locking up or stoning to death fornicators, etc.).
Some of the Christian posters I mentioned previously have suggested that the Republican Party has been mischaracterized and that most Americans are Christian, including most Democrats as well. However, I believe most Democrats are less overtly religious and more tolerant than Republicans. Nonetheless, I’ve also seen some of the same religious extremism tolerated in the Democratic Party. Most of it appears to be due to pandering by politicians seeking more votes. Regardless, it is worrisome. It is also worrisome for the country as a whole. I think less religious interference in public policy and less government intrusion into peoples’ personal lives is more conducive to our Open Society.
All Comments (83)
amfhi bcunm axmrs ulzargw pjdr gvpomnt yvsm
July 29, 2007 7:10 PM | Report Offensive Comments
Posted on July 29, 2007 19:10
m782k
June 27, 2007 10:54 AM | Report Offensive Comments
Posted on June 27, 2007 10:54
zfimedo albksmzf woym dcjfbauwk ybhm rcnfxo zgfinql
June 4, 2007 5:31 PM | Report Offensive Comments
Posted on June 4, 2007 17:31
zfimedo albksmzf woym dcjfbauwk ybhm rcnfxo zgfinql
June 4, 2007 5:31 PM | Report Offensive Comments
Posted on June 4, 2007 17:31
zfimedo albksmzf woym dcjfbauwk ybhm rcnfxo zgfinql
June 4, 2007 5:30 PM | Report Offensive Comments
Posted on June 4, 2007 17:30
Hi, Maurie,
Thanks for the reference. My old eyes have trouble with the PDF format, but I got through the abstract. Looks interesting.
(I wrote to thank you several days ago, but it didn't come through. Sorry.)
April 30, 2007 6:53 PM | Report Offensive Comments
Posted on April 30, 2007 18:53
Below is the web address of the Carol Cleland article:
Cleland, Carol E. (2002). "Methodological and Epistemic Differences Between Historical Science and Experimental Science," Philosophy of Science 69, pp. 474-496.
http://spot.colorado.edu/~cleland/articles/Cleland.PS.Pdf
Enjoy.
April 27, 2007 8:57 PM | Report Offensive Comments
Posted on April 27, 2007 20:57
Hi, Maurie,
My computer's been on the blink so I'm just getting back here.
I can't find the recebt Thistlewaite thread. Do you have an address for it? I'd like to see your argument.
Ann O.
April 26, 2007 10:46 PM | Report Offensive Comments
Posted on April 26, 2007 22:46
Ann O. - Which "science" and which "experimentation" is best -- Bob's or Mary's? I'd say each has its merits. Bob's is controlled, but Mary's is confirmed by much, much more data than his fruit flies provide.
This is exactly what the article I sent you is about. There is a temporal asymmetry between the two types of data, and as such, they result in very different, though equally strong, types of data.
Thanks for the very interesting discussion. I also posted something on Thistlethwaite's thread about using the scientific method to prove the scientific method. If you get a chance, let me know what you think.
Maurie
April 24, 2007 3:28 PM | Report Offensive Comments
Posted on April 24, 2007 15:28
Anna Karenina:
“The rich are getting richer at the expense of the poor.” No not so the rich are getting richer because they do what needs to be done to get rich. This word POOR is a code word to keep some people standing on the sideline instead of having them use their God given talents and take care of their own well-being aka getting a hand-out or bail out from the government. Any one who claims to be speaking on behalf of the poor is a fraud in my book because there is no such thing as a poor man.....poverty is a state of mind and with enough propaganda you can convince some people that there is nothing they can do to change their situation and that is one thing that is totally screwed up in America.
You said it…..everybody is busy with themselves and that is the result of bloodless science and rationality run amok. Mental illness like many other diseases are a direct result of a society that only deals with symptoms instead of taking on the problems head on. Regulation on top of regulation, law on top of law contradicting each other while they don’t solve problems instead they create more problems. For the past 20 year the United States has been following the heartless trends of some Europeans countries and advocated by people who sit on the highest court in the nation.
This backward trend which some call progressive is causing the United States to lose its ground and it is debauching the character of its people one step at the time. Read Judge Janice Rogers Brown’s “A whiter shade of pale” on this issue, a woman and mother who the tolerant do-good liberals and so-called saviors of humanity label an out of the mainstream dangerous right-wing extremist.
Human nature is the biggest danger facing humanity…because everybody seems to be right in their own eyes and want to be the king. Today it can be said that people still have not learned much about the past despite their gained knowledge. Oh well that is history, so they say and move on to repeat the same thing over again expecting to get a different result which is total insanity. Their science however flawed needs to be accepted at all cost and that is ridiculous.
I don’t know where your quote comes from but I have this one. “The brave man is not he who feels fear, for that were stupid and irrational; but he whose noble soul subdues its fear, and bravely dares the danger nature shrinks from.” Joanna Baillie
April 24, 2007 3:22 AM | Report Offensive Comments
Posted on April 24, 2007 03:22
JACOB tells us: On The Powers and gifts of PATTERN--RECOGNITION:
. . . IT or ITSELF (g-d thing) can only be percieved by the RELATEDNESS of EVENTS, whether in conjunction with "Freudian Slips Of genuine Prophecys", or with out them, so that your impressions of the TRANSFINITY (reality as eternity avoiding Lonliness
ANN O. replies: Jake, you are a poet :-)
I apologize to you and the rest of the blog for the repetition of my last long post. I don't know how I managed to do that. Sorry.
April 23, 2007 2:10 AM | Report Offensive Comments
Posted on April 23, 2007 02:10
Hello A.n.n. O. Howdy Doody!
On The Powers and gifts of PATTERN--RECOGNITION:
as an ECLATi-On, of which you are my dear HUMATE et al, That IT or ITSELF (g-d thing) can only be percieved by the RELATEDNESS of EVENTS, whether in conjunction with "Freudian Slips Of genuine Prophecys", or with out them, so that your impressions of the TRANSFINITY (reality as eternity avoiding Lonliness
via us and all) constituting the UNIVERSE and yourself, become More & more useful to YOUR FUNCTION of SUVIVAL and Enjoyment of the LIFE & LOVE that You et al are able to experience in the RELATIVITY of OUR EVENTS in TIME )temperature not clock time).
SHOLOM!
April 22, 2007 11:47 PM | Report Offensive Comments
Posted on April 22, 2007 23:47
Mr. Phillips: Your book American Theocracy noted the GOP business-religious axis being formed around organizations such as the Mountain States Legal Foundation and the Council for National Policy. One area that I think needs to be investigated is the Christian-AstroTurf advocacy on behalf of Motorsports related industries in stifling noise ordinances in American Communities. Americans have been suffering violent noise assaults from biker, hot rod, boom car (loud car stereos), Firearms Enthusiasts who have been politically active behind the scenes and supported by these industries.
The number of biker-motorsport enthusiast related ministries are too many to count.
Just google “Christian motorsports”; “Motorcycle Ministry”; “biker’s rights”; God’s Rods”; “fair exhaust noise laws” and UNITED CHRISTIAN OFF-ROAD ALLIANCE and you will see what I mean.
These organizations and enthusiasts clubs need critical exposure in the mainline press.
Please consider this excerpt from the American Motorcyclists Associations web site:
‘It wasn't until a rash of legislation in the 1960s, though, that motorcycling organizations began to realize how important legislative activity would become to the future of the sport. At that time, the MS&ATA (Motor Scooter & Allied Trades Association) began to concentrate on government relations efforts on behalf of the motorcycle industry, while the AMA saw the need to focus on laws and regulations threatening to riders. This led to the formation of the AMA's Legislative Department (since renamed the Government Relations Department), with a mission “to coordinate national legal activity against unconstitutional and discriminatory laws against motorcyclists, to serve as a sentinel on federal and state legislation affecting motorcyclists, and to be instrumental as a lobbying force for motorcyclists and motorcycling interests.”’
“For the road rider, the AMA Government Relations Department has spent the decades since wrestling with national, state and local legislation...On the off-road side, the AMA has consistently fought to protect reasonable access to public land for trail riders. This issue has taken on greater importance with the introduction of wilderness legislation in many states over the past decade.”
April 22, 2007 11:29 PM | Report Offensive Comments
Posted on April 22, 2007 23:29
Hi, Maurice Beck,
I agree that the current meaning of "science" which includes the non-experimenntal ones (geology, etc.) are not "science" in the classic senses of Mill et al who included method in their defintion of "science" and included experimentation in their method.
However, I think that "non-experimental science" does deserve the name "science" even though its definition is a revised one.
It seems to me that except for the important fact that there are no *controlled* experiments in the historical "sciences", there are *equivalents* of experiments -- there are at least sometimes some very, very strong confirmations of somem of the historical hypotheses (e.g., geological and evolutionary ones).
Consider this scenario. One scientist, call him "Bob", begins with the notion that there are certain relatively simply organisms and that in the a predictably patterned way they will produce generation after generation of organisms which will become more complex and varied. He would have the organisms mate and then check out the results generation after generation to discover whether the predicted variations occur. He uses fruit flies.
Bob's friend Mary is less patient than he. She wants results quickly. So instead of proceeding forward into the future to discover evidence of th same hypothesis, she uses a "reverse experimentation" to establish the hypothesis. (I'm giving the word "experimentation" here an analogous sense as you will see.) Instead of looking for sequences of cause-effect in an enfolding future, she begins at a far distant point in the past and uses that as here beginning point. Then she looks for data that would be produced by organisms which were her original data if her hypothesis is true. She finds it. Then she looks for more historical data that would be the result of the original data, and so on and on through history. Each generation is, then the equvalent of one of Bob's, but unlike Bob, she has many, many, many more "experiments" (generations) which confirming her original hypothesis that the simple kind of data she began with resulted in ordered ways in more complex and varied species. I say it is confirmation because there is evidence that the early, simple kinds resulted in later more complex and varied kinds.
Yes, this is history, but history of apparent cause-effect relationships which are confirmed most simply by her hypothesis. And anyone who grants the legitimacy of other sorts of historical relationships (as do literalist readers of Scripture) will, if consistent, admit that there is a history of biological organisms. In other words, either we trust historical data, or we don't. If you reject the historical sciences, then you must also reject history in the ordinary sense.
Bob and Mary both have *confirmation* of their predictions, but Bob find it in the future, Mary finds it in the past.
Which "science" and which "experimentation" is best -- Bob's or Mary's? I'd say each has its merits. Bob's is controlled, but Mary's is confirmed by much, much more data than his fruit flies provide.
Thanks for the article. I'll have to print it out for my old eyes. This whole question of historical patterns raise some interesting philosophical issues, I think -- largely epistemological ones, but aesthetic and metaphysical ones as well. Why, for instance, are there any patterns (scientific or aesthetic) at all? How can we know one when we find one? I'm not a scientist but have always found philosophy of science extremely fascinating :-)
Ann O.Hi, Maurice Beck,
I agree that the current meaning of "science" which includes the non-experimenntal ones (geology, etc.) are not "science" in the classic senses of Mill et al who included method in their defintion of "science" and included experimentation in their method.
However, I think that "non-experimental science" does deserve the name "science" even though its definition is a revised one.
It seems to me that except for the important fact that there are no *controlled* experiments in the historical "sciences", there are *equivalents* of experiments -- there are at least sometimes some very, very strong confirmations of somem of the historical hypotheses (e.g., geological and evolutionary ones).
Consider this scenario. One scientist, call him "Bob", begins with the notion that there are certain relatively simply organisms and that in the a predictably patterned way they will produce generation after generation of organisms which will become more complex and varied. He would have the organisms mate and then check out the results generation after generation to discover whether the predicted variations occur. He uses fruit flies.
Bob's friend Mary is less patient than he. She wants results quickly. So instead of proceeding forward into the future to discover evidence of th same hypothesis, she uses a "reverse experimentation" to establish the hypothesis. (I'm giving the word "experimentation" here an analogous sense as you will see.) Instead of looking for sequences of cause-effect in an enfolding future, she begins at a far distant point in the past and uses that as here beginning point. Then she looks for data that would be produced by organisms which were her original data if her hypothesis is true. She finds it. Then she looks for more historical data that would be the result of the original data, and so on and on through history. Each generation is, then the equvalent of one of Bob's, but unlike Bob, she has many, many, many more "experiments" (generations) which confirming her original hypothesis that the simple kind of data she began with resulted in ordered ways in more complex and varied species. I say it is confirmation because there is evidence that the early, simple kinds resulted in later more complex and varied kinds.
Yes, this is history, but history of apparent cause-effect relationships which are confirmed most simply by her hypothesis. And anyone who grants the legitimacy of other sorts of historical relationships (as do literalist readers of Scripture) will, if consistent, admit that there is a history of biological organisms. In other words, either we trust historical data, or we don't. If you reject the historical sciences, then you must also reject history in the ordinary sense.
Bob and Mary both have *confirmation* of their predictions, but Bob find it in the future, Mary finds it in the past.
Which "science" and which "experimentation" is best -- Bob's or Mary's? I'd say each has its merits. Bob's is controlled, but Mary's is confirmed by much, much more data than his fruit flies provide.
Thanks for the article. I'll have to print it out for my old eyes. This whole question of historical patterns raise some interesting philosophical issues, I think -- largely epistemological ones, but aesthetic and metaphysical ones as well. Why, for instance, are there any patterns (scientific or aesthetic) at all? How can we know one when we find one? I'm not a scientist but have always found philosophy of science extremely fascinating :-)
Ann O.
April 22, 2007 11:10 PM | Report Offensive Comments
Posted on April 22, 2007 23:10
Ann O. - And there are questions which cannot be answered by experimentation. For instance, some events, e.g., the big bang, are non-repeatable (at least at this time).
Ann O. - The theories of evolution and bag bang are both just theories as science will never likely be able to prove them in the traditional sense of a scientific proof.
You bring up the assertion that historical sciences (cosmology, evolution, geology, archeology, anthropology, linguistics, etc.) can never be considered true science because they are not subject to experimentation. I think Popper might have first leveled this accusation, though he and many other "hard" scientists later rejected it. Regardless, some philosophers of science have
more formally addressed the issue, specifically Carol Cleland (2002). She asserted that "scientists engage in two very different patterns of evidential reasoning and, although there is overlap, one pattern predominates in historical
research and the other pattern predominates in classical experimental research."
I will not go into her argument here regarding differences between experimental and historical sciences, but if you are interested, you can download a copy of the article at the web address below. From my perspective, both types are valid sciences in that they can propose hypotheses that are falsifiable. Both types also have strengths and weaknesses that are idiosyncratic to each type.
http://spot.colorado.edu/~cleland/articles/Cleland.PS.Pdf
April 22, 2007 8:22 PM | Report Offensive Comments
Posted on April 22, 2007 20:22
Henry J
I did not accuse Bill Clinton of being a liar , my issue with Clinton is that he had outsiders (other member states & the United Nations) influence US foreign policy….and selling the country down the river on a guilt trip, and that was not such a smart thing to do. Under Clinton gender feminist because of their obsession with female genitalia got to re-write immigration law to give special treatment to certain groups of women to further their political agenda which advocated that women became slaves of the state.
I have enough insight into international politics and avoid blaming Bush for the chaos in Irak. If you do research you will find out for yourself how it came about. There are a lot of other players that the general public doesn’t know much about…..check out Francis Fukiyama and others of the neo-con elite and the international community some of them who claim to be US allies but do everything to sabotage the United States, a matter a fact they are hell bend to take this economy down because it is the only economy in the West still supporting free enterprise instead of going all out Marxist on people. There is much more to the story than meets the eye.
“All politicians lie much of the time”…..that is a fact and I am not disputing that what I am saying is that it is not so black and white as you think it is to just blame Bush and claim that Clinton was/is pious.
Bush took action based on the information received and if you know how government really functions you should know that he just trusted his advisers as the President of the United States. So if you really want to point the finger you should also look at the other players involved. I stand by my position that he is not the only one to blame for the chaos.
How many millions of people did Communism & Marxism killed and still have under their bootstraps and how many American soldiers paid the prize with their lives to save Europe from Hitler? Or are you making a distinction which lives are worth the cost of US intervention and which ones are not like most people who think they are so human and care for other people do?
“He violated the tenet of the Powell Doctrine”….I don’t know much of that doctrine but I can tell you that Bush had every right to violate them in the best interest of the United States as a sovereign nation. Some European countries preferred Colin Powell because he was not intimidating to them. I am a European transplant and I know why but that’s not for this discussion.
Crippling world stability is not Bush his doing….I said it before his election only thwarted the work in progress……the world was well on its way to all-out totalitarianism disguised as liberty under the umbrella of the United Nations one world government.
The moral leadership of the US was already in the gutter and way, way before Dubya took office and the result of that can be seen in all the major cities across the nation. I don’t think you want to know what the European elite and others are thinking of America and that my friend has nothing to do with Bush.
I am sticking to my gun…..Bush is a man of character you may not like him but its good to know that somebody would have your back when the going gets really tough instead of standing by doing nothing while your being trampled on. When you value life you can give credit when credit is due.
April 22, 2007 8:10 PM | Report Offensive Comments
Posted on April 22, 2007 20:10
All of the posters here make credible arguments both for and against Phillips' premise.
FreeVoice, as you so bravely pointed out, fear of losing what they have causes people to become bystanders and this is how despots come into power---they rule by fear and your quote from Robert F. Kennedy (member of a close knit, Catholic family) is most appropriate here.
The last few months of employment news can easily inspire this kind of behavior--Citibank laying off 15,000 (or was that 25,000), the upside down mortgage debacle, earnings losses by the Big Three automakers. The list could go on endlessly. Yet Wall Street is booming. Does this make sense? Of course not.
The rich are getting richer at the expense of the poor. No doubt about it.
As far as the Virginia Tech massacre goes, it is a direct outgrowth of our society which has become so enamored of text messaging, email and instant communication that we hardly face each other at all. Cho's parents, the university officials at Virginia Tech, society as a whole chose to bury their heads in the sand rather than get this young man the help he needed. They were all scared of losing something---fear of losing face in the community, fear of a lawsuit, fear of reprisal.
Mental illness is not evil. It's a disease just like diabetes, coronary artery disease or even alcoholism, yet we don't call people with these illnesses evil. And there are treatments for it and I'm not just talking medication here.
You cannot take human nature out of the equation, much as people would like to try. To paraphrase a popular quote, unless we learn from past mistakes we are destined to repeat them.
"Courage is not the absence of fear but the knowledge that something else is more important than fear."
Anybody know where that quote comes from?
April 22, 2007 8:04 PM | Report Offensive Comments
Posted on April 22, 2007 20:04
Henry-
Glad to see you were able to overcome the tradition. :)Unfortunately for Catholics that discrimination is still very present in much of the world. Too often people are not like you they only look at the issues they disagree with or a few cases of bad individuals and right the whole faith off because of it.
There is nothing wrong with disagreeing with the Church on her teachings since you are not Catholic - (of course that would be a whole seperate set of issues if you were). I personally wouldn't expect you to believe them unless you were Catholic.
What is important is that we can realize that we can disagree on issues and still move the conversation forward and at least try to understand the other point of view - even when we don't agree with it.
As always thanks for the great discussion.
April 22, 2007 5:45 PM | Report Offensive Comments
Posted on April 22, 2007 17:45
Freevoice
Clearly, Clinton and Bush claim to believe in the same God, the southern evangelical God.
i, myself, believe in no god.
So I am not saying one god is better than another. I don't think there is ANY god. Zeus, maybe.
We clearly have different political views and different ways of judging character.
You don't believe anything Clinton says. I don't believe anything Bush ever said.
We know Clinton lied about Oral Sex.
We know that Bush lied about the reasons he took our country to war and killed 400,000 people, while crippling 50,000 American soldiers.
All politicians lie much of the time, so we are not dealing with Mother Theresas here.
Bush is a man who takes action like going to war based on false premises, without understanding the country he is invading (first rule of War: know your enemy), stubbornly takes pride in his vast ignorance (he didn't know the difference between a Sunni and a Shiite before the War), and with no plan to secure the country after toppling the regime. He violated every tenet of the Powell Doctrine, and all these failings resulted in hundreds of thousands of deaths and greatly increased world instability, while having catastrophic effects on the US standing for moral leadership throughout the world.
But he is a man of Character. If that is the kind of Character you admire.
April 22, 2007 5:44 PM | Report Offensive Comments
Posted on April 22, 2007 17:44
Henry James
I am more convinced that Clinton believes in God than I am that Bush does. At least I like the kind of God Clinton believes in much more, and Clinton's God seems more like the "Good Christian God."
Are you serious? What is the difference between the God of Clinton and the God of Bush?
Is it because Clinton talks about feeling your pain and keeping you in the victicrat mindset and Bush does not?
This, my God is better than your God is all about power and it is the same thing that those Islamofacist claim. You got to be kiddin' me. If that is not Theocracy I don't know what is. But we blame everything on Bush. Actions speak louder than words...I value a man based on his actions and integrity not based on his lip service and what he promises to do for me...... I also go for substance over symbolism. Bush is a man of character and I can tell one when I see one. In that regard Clinton failed my standards as a woman and mother.
Dubya does not pretend that he believes, he believes period (his freedom of thought should not be abridged).....we all know that your environment can influence your judgment and I am sure that he was too in the corridors of power where people only care about their own position and less about the bigger picture. He slipped because he was talked into slipping by a bunch of defeatist cowards and those who had their own personal agenda to protect. I bet you my bottom dollar me and him will discuss the issue when he leaves office. I followed the whole anti-Bush saga for the past seven years and the venomous hatred towards him told me more about the haters than it told me about the wrong doings of Bush.
Bush is a man of action and not a handwringer...but a great many people helped to put him on ice because they fear real man who have the courage to protect what they value.
George W. Bush is not Clinton….Bush picked up where Clinton left off he didn’t invent the wheel over again. Casting the blame on one person, for a mess that was shoved in front of him because nobody else had the courage to deal with it is at best closed minded. I know that there are two sides to a story and I take a look at both.
I only blame Bush for becoming mister nice-guy after his re-election.
April 22, 2007 5:27 PM | Report Offensive Comments
Posted on April 22, 2007 17:27
BigD
You realize that as a New England Wasp, i come from a terrible tradition of discrimination against Catholics, which I think was a shameful tradition.
Illustrative of how native populations demonize immigrant populations, and shameful. Wonder if it has any lessons for today's Immigration issues.
And
though I vehemently disagree with the Catholic Church today on birth control, condoms and AIDS, and Gay issues, and condemn their pathetic response to the abuse scandals,
I have always highly praised the Catholic Church and the Catholic Worker for its many and persistant efforts for social equality and to eliminate poverty and help the poor. I can't think of a better example of a Church that has dealt with this problem.
And I also have applauded here many contributions the Church has made to intellectual and cultural development, notwithstanding what it did to Galileo.
And, to parody myself with a true statement, some of my best friends are Catholics, with whom I love to discuss religion and theology.
April 22, 2007 5:24 PM | Report Offensive Comments
Posted on April 22, 2007 17:24
On the question - I think Phillips concept that America is on a downward trend is a good thesis. I think his 5 points are at best probably half accurate in what causes such situations in history. Maybe accurate is not exactly the right word but I think there are probably other more important or better indicators. I think there is a lot of the story missing in these 5 points and I don't believe Bush is solely to blame.
April 22, 2007 4:56 PM | Report Offensive Comments
Posted on April 22, 2007 16:56
Henry –
You are correct the Gap is important – if I made light of it that was not my intention. Helping the poor should always be a major aim of anyone claiming to be Christian. That is why I was so happy this year when Catholic Charities USA started the Campaign to Reduce Poverty in the USA. Arguably you can make the case we should help a lot of different groups but this is the first time in a while I have seen a large charitable organization make a big push to try and address the increasing problems of the poor in America: http://www.catholiccharitiesusa.org/poverty/
I also don’t disagree that the US reputation has been greatly lowered. All you have to do is travel to Europe and you can see it first hand where you never did before. Again I blame this on the combination of pathetic PR and on poor execution on the Iraq War. As I have stated before I don’t think the war was the problem it’s the way we went about it, the main reasons Bush cited and the lack of effectively building an international coalition.
BETTY JAMES –
Of course my silo is bigger :)
I do agree, as I stated above, the issue of international standing is a problem. Of course I don’t think we should always dictate our actions based on the feelings of other countries. But I do think we could have done a better job in preventing the current situation.
April 22, 2007 4:52 PM | Report Offensive Comments
Posted on April 22, 2007 16:52
BigD
I went back and added up your scores:
You gave
Clinton 95
Bush Negative 20
again, the question is whether you think Phillips' criteria are a bunch of hogwash or if they make sense,
or if other things are much more important.
April 22, 2007 4:44 PM | Report Offensive Comments
Posted on April 22, 2007 16:44
Anna Karenina
"If every person in America who claims to have spiritual beliefs and Christian values practiced them faithfully in their everyday dealings with others we would not have had the Enron and Jack Abramoff scandals, Watergate or IranContra and most recently, the Virginia Tech massacre."
This is what needs to happen....if everybody takes their responsibility we would be alright...but as you know the mainstream culture is perpetuating a mentality that goes against those beliefs and since we are all human beings it is easy to compromise principles for quick gain and follow the path that makes things look easy.
"Stand with anybody that stands right. Stand with him while he is right and part with him when he goes wrong." Abraham Lincoln.
But too often people look the other way because they are afraid to lose what they have…and that is because of the anything and everything goes culture of low expectations. This culture has created a bunch of selfish heartless cowards (wolves in sheep’s clothing) who take down everybody else with them.
“Every time we turn our heads the other way when we see the law flouted-when we tolerate what we know to be wrong-when we close our eyes and ears to the corrupt because we are too busy, or too frightened-when we fail to speak up and speak out-we strike a blow against freedom and decency and justice.” Robert F. Kennedy
At this time Christians (evangelicals) who not only talk the talk but also walk the walk take the lead in every area to restore the spirit that got lost in the shuffle for power and control...and we need to give them credit. One bad apple doesn't make the whole bunch rotten.
If we go back to JFK and put in motion the mentality of...... “Ask not what your country can do for but what you can do for your country.”.....we will be on our way to make a change.
E Pluribus Unum
April 22, 2007 4:27 PM | Report Offensive Comments
Posted on April 22, 2007 16:27
Oh Henry!
April 22, 2007 4:25 PM | Report Offensive Comments
Posted on April 22, 2007 16:25
Gingrich repeated the
"Virginia Tech shows the Evil in the World"
Mantra today on This Week.
I hope we all have realized that Mental Illness is not more evil than the common cold.
just as I hope
we no longer burn witches at the stake, as we did in my time.
It was fun though. All those sparks.
April 22, 2007 4:24 PM | Report Offensive Comments
Posted on April 22, 2007 16:24
Henry and BigD
While you boys argue about who has the bigger Missle Silo,
one other data point on International Standing.
The British People think that
George Bush is a Greater threat to World Peace
Than
Kim Jong Il.
75 to 69%.
The "good news" is that As least they think Osama is *somehat* more of a threat.
April 22, 2007 4:20 PM | Report Offensive Comments
Posted on April 22, 2007 16:20
Anna K: "If every person in America who claims to have spiritual beliefs and Christian values practiced them faithfully in their everyday dealings with others we would not have had the Enron and Jack Abramoff scandals, Watergate or IranContra and most recently, the Virginia Tech massacre.
Virginia Tech had nothing to do with values, Christian or otherwise. it was about mental illness.
Besides, what you say is too, too simple. Whenever anyone does something bad, you can just say - "well, that person wasn't Christian, or a good enough Christian, or a real christian. It's just blaming and not solving any problems.
April 22, 2007 4:14 PM | Report Offensive Comments
Posted on April 22, 2007 16:14
Freevoice: I am more convinced that Clinton believes in God than I am that Bush does. At least I like the kind of God Clinton believes in much more, and Clinton's God seems more like the "Good Christian God."
It is Theocracy that is at issue, not belief. Every president pretends that they believe in God.
BigD
Thanks for going through the exercise. Fun eh?
Of course we disagree on some of the ratins but I understand "where you are coming from."
A couple of comments:
1. The Gap between Rich and Poor seems like a VERY important problem from a CHRISTIAN perspective.
Jesus talked a lot about helping the poor, and whomever you blame, our country has sure helped the Rich in the last 20 years. It's actually the Middle Class that has had the worst 20 years.
On Number 4: there is clear numberical poll data that shows how Bush has ruined the US reputationfor leadership, honesty, and competence compared to Clinton.
The whole world may be wrong, but...
even a majority of Americans, not just democrats but independents too and many republicans, would acknowledge this.
Mostly as a result of the Iraq War, about which he consulted his "Higher Father.", to bring us back to the Religion topic of this web site.
April 22, 2007 4:13 PM | Report Offensive Comments
Posted on April 22, 2007 16:13
If you think George W. Bush is destroying America because he believes in God you go read for yourself and see who is influencing the government and pushing the real agenda of destruction.
http://www.catholic.org/national/national_story.php?id=23841
http://www.timesleader.com/news/20070419_19marry_tmb_ART.html
April 22, 2007 4:00 PM | Report Offensive Comments
Posted on April 22, 2007 16:00
I didn't mean the ? mark after the you can add them up as a question of your math skills - I was just running out of battery power and hit a typo.
April 22, 2007 3:31 PM | Report Offensive Comments
Posted on April 22, 2007 15:31
Henry -
Scorecard huh? I am not sure how objective we are but its interesting anyway.
My scores with areas of critieria:
1 (Based on polls) C: 60 B: -50 (I don't thin Clinton's PR machine could have done much better or that Bush's PR team could do much worse). While I strongly disagreed with a lot of what Clinton did - he did a great job of keeping the PR on his side.
2 (Based on the Rise of State Religion) C: 0 B: 0. I don't think either of them pushed us towards a state sponsored religion. You can make the case that Bush is much more supportive of religous activities the way Phillips states his point 2 I don't think there is anything close to a State allied religion. We have far too many checks and balances for that.
3 (a - Move away from old economies, b - Gap between Rich and Poor) a: C: 30 B: 40 We are moving away from old economies - nature of development. B: C: -20 B: 20 Now here is where we can really argue. While the gap continues to grow (netither president having much effect on it) the economy is doing better under Bush currently with the lowest levels of unemployment in a long time--thus an improvement. i am sure you will agree :)
4 C: -25 B: -25 Clinton because of his lack of standing up to certain issues. Bush because of not doing a better job getting international support.
5 C: 50 B: -25 Clinton did move us to more fiscal responsibility though spending was still too high. Bush definately has not been as fiscally conservative as I would like but by the same token I don't want to defund the war to achieve greater fiscal responsibility.
You can add them up? I don't think either President was stellar - though I would still take Bush over the other choices we had.
April 22, 2007 3:30 PM | Report Offensive Comments
Posted on April 22, 2007 15:30
Just to show that I don't hate all Bushes,
here are the grades for Bush 41, father of our leader.
1. 20
2. 50
3. -10
4. 20
5. 60
total, 140, vs Clinton's 140, and his son's Negative 180
April 22, 2007 3:07 PM | Report Offensive Comments
Posted on April 22, 2007 15:07
BigD
my typo should have read
Clinton: Positive 140
in the Totals section
April 22, 2007 2:37 PM | Report Offensive Comments
Posted on April 22, 2007 14:37
BigD
I think we have demonstrated that the Bush Administration does much worse on the 5 criteria than either Clinton or Bush's father.
If Phillips set up his criteria IN ORDER to make Bush 43 Look bad, he was one sided.
If his criteria TRULY are indicative of crumbling empires, he is NOT one sided, he is a reporter.
I report, you decide.
Scorecard for Clinton and Bush 43 on 1-5
-100 = complete disaster. +100 = perfect
Criterion 1: Cl: 40 Bush : -40
crit 2: Cl: 60 Bush: -50
Crit 3: Cl: -10 Bush: -60 (tax policy)
Crit 4: Cl: 0 Bush: -70
Crit 5: Cl 50 Bush: -60
Totals: Clinton: Poairice 140
Bush: Negative 180
What are your scores?
April 22, 2007 2:35 PM | Report Offensive Comments
Posted on April 22, 2007 14:35
FreeVoice:
I agree that hypocrits are in good supply in the American landscape. We have all been guilty of it at one time or another.
Christ said "Render to Caesar what is Caesar's. Render to God what is God's."
Unfortunately, we've muddied the waters on this important Bible verse. Perhaps this is what the Founding Fathers meant when they insisted on separation of church and state.
Wouldn't we all like to live in a society where you could trust people at their word and not have to pass laws to force people to do the right thing.
If every person in America who claims to have spiritual beliefs and Christian values practiced them faithfully in their everyday dealings with others we would not have had the Enron and Jack Abramoff scandals, Watergate or IranContra and most recently, the Virginia Tech massacre.
Unfortunately we are human and prone to all the bad habits that entails including lying, gluttony, greed and avarice.
The best thing any parent, teacher or person of influence can do for their fellow men is to practice the long lost arts of self-control and personal responsibility and teach them to the younger generations.
April 22, 2007 1:49 PM | Report Offensive Comments
Posted on April 22, 2007 13:49
Henry -
Good points. In America we shouldn't push just one side. I also agree that unfortunately I don't know if any American politician will ever have the strength and conviction to fully practice what they believe. You are to often right that it is just about getting votes.
My characterization of one sided just is the intro that seems to point the finger only at Bush.
April 22, 2007 1:45 PM | Report Offensive Comments
Posted on April 22, 2007 13:45
Anna Karenina
"The religious right are a bunch of righteous hypocrits. They only pull out the religion card when it suits their purposes."
Are they the only bunch of hypocrites walking the face of the earth?
In my estimation hypocrites come a dime a dozen and from both sides Left, right and center but people only seem to attack the hypocrisy of the right and ignore the rest pretending that they are holier than thou. That is hypocrisy at its best don't you think?
April 22, 2007 1:26 PM | Report Offensive Comments
Posted on April 22, 2007 13:26
Bobster, while Bush's personal religious beliefs are none of my business, it becomes my business when I see his Administration attempting to use the government to push certain religious beliefs. I'm thinking primarily of the Office of Faith-Based Initiatives, which favored fundamentalist Christian groups at the expense of all others. I'm thinking of Dr. Reginald Finger, who opposed even the availability of the HPV vaccine and a hypothetical HIV vaccine because he claimed that the vaccines would discourage abstinence.
While I disagree with Phillips regarding his war-for-oil claims about Iraq, I believe we shouldn't dismiss his warnings about government being used as an evangelical tool. For me, it's not the beliefs held by the Air Force Academy faculty and the Kansas school board members, it's that they wanted to force those beliefs on students.
April 22, 2007 1:09 PM | Report Offensive Comments
Posted on April 22, 2007 13:09
When people ask me about my Christian beliefs (and I do believe in God) I give them this simple response:
God is not going to remember you were in the front pew of the church every Sunday. He's going to remember what you did after you walked out the front door.
I've been chastized, lied to, cheated and fired for standing up for my professional and personal ethics. I am a medical professional. Some of it was due to immaturity and naivete. The great majority of it was management's need to hold to the bottom line rather than do what was in the best interest of the patient.
I am a small, isolated crusader for healthcare reform.
Mr. Phillips is exactly right in his assessment of the situation. We are headed down the wrong path and have been for the last 40 years. Whether we can go back to the fork in the road is the $64,000 question.
Power corrupts. Absolute power corrupts absolutely.
The most amazing aspect about this whole debacle is that the great majority of Americans take the attitude that if it doesn't affect them directly, they don't have to worry about it. This is a well-known and well documented phenomenon called "the bystander effect."
To stand up for honesty and truth is to invite a lawsuit or worse. Our litigious society is also to blame for the current course of events. The overriding attitude is "If things don't turn out the way I want them to, I'll sue." This is especially evident in our educational system where parents (and students) have learned to play the system to get what they want, knowing that if they threaten to sue, the school district administration will cave in. And they do. Regularly. I've seen this phenomenon first hand across the country as a substitute teacher.
The religious right are a bunch of righteous hypocrits. They only pull out the religion card when it suits their purposes.
"The only way evil can triumph is for good men to do nothing."
April 22, 2007 11:31 AM | Report Offensive Comments
Posted on April 22, 2007 11:31
Bobster:
So what you are saying is:
Opposing Theocracy Equals Not liking Religion?
Good thinking, Bobster.
April 22, 2007 11:25 AM | Report Offensive Comments
Posted on April 22, 2007 11:25
Mr. Phillips,
And in summary of your article. "You don't like Bush because he is religious." keep it simple.
April 22, 2007 10:34 AM | Report Offensive Comments
Posted on April 22, 2007 10:34
Hello BigD
I agree that Bush has been Upfront about his Religious Agenda. So does Phillips. Phillips and I still think it is dangerous to have such an explicit political alliance with one religious faction.
BTW, the fellow named Kao who was head of the White House's Faith Based initiatives office for 5 years has just written a book showing that Bush's commitment to religious values was largely a PR scam rather than substantive. As with most Politicians, we should be VERY SKEPTICAL that the "really believe" in anything besides getting votes.
Phillips has been a Republican, a famous one. I am not sure "one-sided" is an accurate label. He clearly thinks Theocracies are dangerous, but so do many people.
April 22, 2007 10:13 AM | Report Offensive Comments
Posted on April 22, 2007 10:13
Republicans are AMERICAN TALIBAN thanks to their base of EVANGELICAL NUTS
April 22, 2007 10:01 AM | Report Offensive Comments
Posted on April 22, 2007 10:01
Henry James
Thanks for the reply. I think we will continue to disagree on the minute aspects of these points but I think both claims are at least reasonable.
I would say that while you see Bush as aligning his agenda with religious I would say that he is just upfront about it. He never made any claims to not be religious or to be anything other than he is. He was always willing to say that his faith was important to him. I prefer this over someone who says one thing and does another and you can never be quite sure where they are coming from. The nation elected him knowing full well of his religious position and that his faith was important to him – therefore it can’t lame him for some how becoming religious.
I will grant that Mr Phillips has done more research and it might be interesting. I am always just leery of research that is presented in an intro so one sided – of course that sells a lot more books I am sure.
MAURIE BECK
Which posters are you saying doubt science? Which said most American’s are Christian? I said most American’s believe in God if that is what you are referring to – big difference.
ANN O
I wasn’t speaking to the validity of teaching other theories in the science classroom. The point was asserted that Bush was against teaching evolution. I pointed out that from what I had seen he wasn’t against its teaching but wanted to include other possibilities.
The objection to certain theories though that you point out is a little mis stated in my opinion. The theories of evolution and bag bang are both just theories as science will never likely be able to prove them in the traditional sense of a scientific proof. You are correct though that it has to be good science to be taught. Even the Pope stated that intelligent design should not be taught in the science room.
In any regard if the question is how did we get here then the three disciplines you mention may all lend information but in the end there is only one total truth. My argument would be often science doesn’t want to acknowledge the possibility of anything other than the current theories even when there are still big gaps. I know personally I had a couple classes where these theories were purported as fact and the teacher would basically make things up to fill in the holes. That is not good for anyone. The teachers who admit yes we don’t know are teaching much better science in my opinion.
But your points and information are very good and better stated than I made it. My main argument on these posts is that science and religion are not mutually exclusive and that True Science explains and leads to understanding more about True Religion.
April 22, 2007 9:44 AM | Report Offensive Comments
Posted on April 22, 2007 09:44
Andrew
I think it is just dandy for religious people to bring their religious views in to their stated opinions on political issues.
If you think abortion should be outlawed because it is forbidden by God or the Pope, say so.
The problem Phillips warns of is when
There is an Official Alliance
(or what we have now, a tacitly understood alliance)
between the Government and one particular religion or religious movment (for instance Born Again Christians).
It is what people worried about with John Kennedy ' that he would "take orders from the vatican."
Throughout history, the relationship between religion and politics has been a mutually exploitative one that has generally been very bad for the societies involved.
April 22, 2007 9:29 AM | Report Offensive Comments
Posted on April 22, 2007 09:29
ANN O. said: And while theology and philosophy and science are *different* disciplines they are necessarily opposed.
ANN O. corrects herself: that should have said:
"And while theology and philosophy and science are "dirrent" disciplines they are NOT necessarily opposed".
Sorry.
April 22, 2007 8:45 AM | Report Offensive Comments
Posted on April 22, 2007 08:45
BIGD tells us: I don't see how adding other possible theories could hurt anything. We should explore all possibilities and make decisions as we learn more.
ANN O. replies: ISTM that it is essential that we distinguish 1) scientific knowledge, 2) philosophical knowledge and 3)beliefs grounded in scriptures (theology). There can be scientific, philosophical and scriptural theories to account for the world and our place in it, and they are quite different different from scientific accounts, though they can all be related in forming our worldviews if we so choose.
Scientists object so strongly to teaching certain theories of evolution or accounts of the order in the world in science courses because those theories are *not* science -- they are philosophical or theological accounts. They are not arrived at by scientific method (as is scientif knowledge) and so they don't belong in a science class. They belong in philosophy and theology classes.
The questions of the three disciplines differ, though sometimes the answers lead to the same topics.
Science asks such questions as what can account for the apparent regularity of certain phenomena in nature? and, what is the immediate cause of X and how does it work? It then builds up (or attempts to build up) a sequence of causal explanations of these apparently regular phenomena we find in the physical universe. It's method is experimentation, and this includes the repeatability of experiments.
But the realm of science is quite limited. Science relies on some presupositions, some of which cannot be established by science itself. For instance, it assumes that logic works and that scientific method is valuable in trying to discover physical causes. And there are questions which cannot be answered by experimentation. For instance, some events, e.g., the big bang, are non-repeatable (at least at this time).
Philosophers ask the more fundamental questions, like, why does logic work? how is any knowledge possible? what are the basic kinds of knowledge? and why is there anything at all? However, philosophers are notorious for giving conflicting answers to those questions, and this no doubt is why scientists are often dismissive of them and treat their questions and answers as at best irrelevant to the pursuit of truth.
But the fact remains, there are philosophical questions that scientists cannot answer, and whether scientists like it or not, the philosophical questions *are* meaningful and even possibly answerable. These are beyond science -- they are meta=scientific ones, or, to use the classic terminology, they are meta-physical and meta-logical ones.
These purely philosophical questions are *neither* scientific ones *nor* about the claims of revealed religions, the claims made in scripture. Answers to them are not justified by appeals to scripture. But do they have *anything* to do with God or gods? Well, many philosophers think that they do -- that the existence of a Creator or Orderer can be established by ordinary, non-scientific and non-theological knowledge of the world. These include philsophers like Aristotle and Spinoza. Neither of them appeals to any sort of scripture for their views. The people who appeal to scripture are the theologians.
Yes, indeed there is an overlap of these three disciplines -- but it is an overlap of *topics* but there is no overlap in how they come to their opinions (except that many use logic to reach the opinions).
Here comes my main point (finally): "religion" can refer to *either* philosophical or theological positions. Aristotle and Spinoza were "religous" men -- based on philosophical evidence only. Luther and Oliver Cromwell were religious men -- based on scriptural evidence only. And Augustine and Aquinas were religious men --- based on *both* philosophical and scriptural evidence.
My appeal is to be very careful when using the term "religion" -- do not use it as something opposed to science. It is much better to make the distinction between scripture and science, rather than religion and science. And while theology and philosophy and science are *different* disciplines they are necessarily opposed. Many theologians, such as Aquinas, think that all three complement each other in forming a worldview, that they are not natural enemies.
Ann O.
April 22, 2007 8:39 AM | Report Offensive Comments
Posted on April 22, 2007 08:39
In defense of President George W. Bush
One can blame George W. Bush for dropping the ball on some critical issues but he can not be blamed for destroying America. That revolution was put in motion in the 60’s after John F. Kennedy was assassinated and it happened without a bang. The election of George W. Bush simply thwarted the total collapse of a once great nation. The mindset that created the problems is incapable of solving the problems. Christians (people of faith) who face those undeniable truths only lead the charge to win some victory for humanity that’s all.
April 22, 2007 6:04 AM | Report Offensive Comments
Posted on April 22, 2007 06:04
Andrew
Every other interest group in America strives to implement its beliefs into public policy. What in the world is the fear that Christians are finally doing the same?
You know why?....because faith works and moves people to take action on their own behalf instead of waiting for somebody to do it for them, it also counters the bloodless science and rationality that has a crippling stronghold on society and wrecking havoc on the lives of the innocent and defenseless among us.
"The errors of faith are better then the best thoughts of unbelief" Thomas Russell
Belief is what made America the greatest nation on the face of the earth.....the shining city on the hill as last best hope for man. Christians know that and are ready, willing and able to defend it and keep it that way, while others take it for granted and bash and trash it at whim.
April 22, 2007 5:47 AM | Report Offensive Comments
Posted on April 22, 2007 05:47
Mr. Phillips is a long-time Republican who is in the John Danforth wing of the Republican Party that is concerned with the hijacking of the party by the Christian Right. Some people have begun to refer to the Republicans as the Party of God, and for good reason.
I know there are a lot of posters on this thread who probably take umbrage with that claim, though most of those also appear to doubt science, instead suggesting scripture is all that is needed. However, I think Mr. Phillips is correct in his assessment. What scares me about Christian Nationalism is the certainty that is expressed by its adherents in their just cause. This is the same sort of rhetoric that Islamic groups have used in other parts of the world. Of course, Christian Nationalists would retort that none of their members have flown planes into the World Trade Center. This is true, but only because Christianity was tempered by the Enlightenment and people in Western Civilization got tired of religious excess, subsequently constraining what was considered morally acceptable behavior (e.g. burning people at the stake, locking up or stoning to death fornicators, etc.).
Some of the Christian posters I mentioned previously have suggested that the Republican Party has been mischaracterized and that most Americans are Christian, including most Democrats as well. However, I believe most Democrats are less overtly religious and more tolerant than Republicans. Nonetheless, I’ve also seen some of the same religious extremism tolerated in the Democratic Party. Most of it appears to be due to pandering by politicians seeking more votes. Regardless, it is worrisome. It is also worrisome for the country as a whole. I think less religious interference in public policy and less government intrusion into peoples’ personal lives is more conducive to our Open Society.
April 22, 2007 12:33 AM | Report Offensive Comments
Posted on April 22, 2007 00:33