View Single Post
Old December 12 2012, 03:26 AM   #204
Darkwing
Commodore
 
Location: This dry land thing is too wierd!
Re: Why Not A Starfleet Ships Chaplain As A Main Character?

Longinus wrote: View Post
Darkwing, you are simply wrong about how scientific world view operates. This is evident from your comments on ID, the climate chance and the scientists 'telling people what to believe.'
There's what is supposed to be, and what is. Too many 'scientists' today do push an agenda, and allow it to color the work they do. Read the news and watch for the slant.

I assume you are an American? I understand that it might be hard to get a good view of the current scientific consensus on matters from US media, so this may colour your position. both ID folks and climate chance deniers are strange fringe groups that are not taken seriously by the scientific community. Both groups are very vocal in the US though.
You haven't understood my position at all. I'm simply willing to admit that ID folks are not all uneducated hillbillies, while you assume only morons can think that way. I don't agree with them, but some really smart, educated people have adopted it - sf author James P. Hogan really surprised me when he went over to it. And is Tom Cruise unintelligent for belonging to scientology? I like his movies, even if his religion does nothing for me.

The other thing is, we have changes happening, and talking heads are aggressively asserting that it's all our fault, that it's gonna be real bad, and that if you don't immediately jump on the bandwagon with their narrative and adopt their solutions, you can't be a skeptic, you can't be unsure, and you can't be a scientist who doesn't see the data supporting the contention. You can only be a "denier", a hick, and a fool. Sorry, but that attitude puts me off and makes me wonder what they're hiding. Further, when a lot of scientists say "I agree about this and this, but not that", and it all adds up to a lot of people supporting different pieces of the whole picture, it's deceptive to claim "all of the scientists support the whole thesis". That's advertising business weaselliness, and makes the package more suspicious. If they can't be honest, then it's not really science, IMO.

Intelligent design is religion using some trappings of science, but it is not science. They have a specific thing they want to be to be the truth, and try their damnest to produce any sort of evidence to support their claims (with little results, obviously.) But that is not how science works. You look at the evidence and then draw conclusions from that. You cannot start with the conclusion.
I never said ID was science, merely that one need not be a blithering idiot to buy it. I do, however, see the catastrophic anthropogenic warming folks acting exactly the same way as the ID folks. Michael Mann, anyone? Those leaked emails?

Scientists can be wrong; they often are. New findings may challenge existing theories. Science is about the search for knowledge; there is no 'scientific agenda' other than finding the truth.
Sorry, but the real world is messier than that. Preaching about pollution did nothing to abate it, so let's pretend the sky is falling, and it's all our fault, and maybe it'll scare folks enough to actually do something. HIV research gets money, other diseases do not. Let's reclassify a whole slew of diseases as signs of HIV in the 3rd world, so Old & New World donors will allow us to help some of those folks who don't really have aids, but need help we otherwise wouldn't be allowed to give. But then we use that to scare folks about how bad aids is in the 3rd world. And sometimes, it's just about getting grants. What do the donors want to hear? It's also sometimes about getting a study to support a viewpoint. For example, many people criticized a British study of the health costs of smoking. They had hoped to show it cost society more to treat smokers, but the data showed that smokers died earlier, and more quickly. Non-smokers lingered with longer, more-expensive illnesses. They published, because it was what the data showed, yet many felt that it should have not been published, because it didn't support the political narrative they wanted.

Xhiandra wrote: View Post
It's really hard not to see fundamentalism when fundie oxymora abound. "Militant atheist", now.
The indoctrination machine sure is working well; you have no place to accuse Longinus of a lack of wisdom, as you clearly display none.
You really think that militant atheist is an oxymoron? I assure you, they exist. I've met them. Same for many other philosophies. When someone has such a narrow world-view, they do lack wisdom. If you share Longinus' strict interpretations, then I hope you too can expand your thinking. The unexamined belief is not worthwhile. A person who inherits a belief in any particular religion, who never questions it and wrestles with their faith to finally decide what they believe simply follows their programming. Someone who rejects that programming and just substitutes the opposite (or some other creed taught them by some leader figure) to shock Mommy and Daddy is no better off. Only someone who critically eyes their faith or philosophy is really thinking for themself.

Look, if you oppose secularism (or bemoan a lack of theocracy), you are a fundamentalist. It's not an insult, it's a descriptive.
It's usually used as a pejorative, and often should be.

I know the US far-right (you guys don't have a left, just a right and a far-right) propaganda tends to equate secularism with an attack on theism, but nothing could be further from the truth.
We're not, despite the agit-prop you see in your country. Fox is slightly left of center, the rest of the media is farther left, and even the republicans have been sliding left for years. Just because you're used to a world-view that is further left, you assume that we are far-right. It's all relative. But you also misunderstand me. I'm agnostic. I gave up on religion probably before you were born. It's not for me. I am, however, more tolerant of other people wanting to believe and express their religion than many others. I feel that the courts should not be permitted to deprive the majority of public expression of their faith.
Instead of banning nativity scenes and 10 commandment displays, or crosses on public land (many having stood there for decades, occasionally centuries) they should, based on the founder's intent, only be able to require equal access for jews, atheists, buddhists, etc. I know, to a militant atheist, that's fundamentalist, but they are not correct to assert that public display of faith is an attack on their freedom not to participate in religion. When activists demand historical symbols of faith be removed, they deny our past, but do not make us more free. Religion in America is not a tyrannical yoke. But judicial activism to eliminate it feeds fear in the hearts of the religious, making them adhere all the more tightly to their faith and to more extreme doctrines. The pushback is potentially frightening.

The truth is, separation of church and state benefits almost everyone:
- Atheists, who don't have to live under the oppression of a religion they do not adhere to.
- Minority religions (e.g. christians in Pakistan would benefit greatly), who do not have to live under the oppression of a religion they do not adhere to.
- Moderates of the majority religion, who do not have to live under a stricter interpretation of their religion and watch their friends be oppressed because they're of the wrong/no religion.
To a point, yes. Our courts are taking a good idea much farther than the founders intended. But nothing is ever 100% good, and the gets better no matter how much further you push it. We're crossing that line more often now. Separation of church and state was supposed to be about preventing any one denomination or faith from running the government. No-one should be able to prevent someone from voting or running for office on the basis of faith or lack thereof, but prohibiting christmas displays and banning mention of god (by whatever name) was never the intent. I prefer that originally intended balance, and oppose attempts at secular or religious overreach. The pendulum swings, and if we allow one side to keep pushing it further to their side, it'll swing that much farther the other way when the tide turns. I like the pendulum to have a very small arc around the middle.

Secularism/separation of church and state is merely the opposition to theocracy; not to religion... and all those examples you mention are examples of theocratic measures.
Lack of experience and knowledge of history, then. 'In God we trust" on our money is mild, compared to a nation where the head of state is the head of the religion, and members of other sects or faiths are not able to hold office. It certainly is not theocratic. If atheists had to use a lesser scrip than true believers, it would be theocratic.

In a secular state (and I am lucky enough to live in an almost-completely secular state), homophobes are free to dislike homosexual practices for religious reasons, even refuse to associate with LBGT people (we wouldn't want to associate with them anyway), but not to discriminate against them.
Which is fine, but a lot of folks are fairly vitriolic on the issue, which precludes understanding and hardens attitudes against them. I see this in your's and Longinus' assumptions that a chaplain is a bad idea.

Any fear that the evil evil secular people will invade your home and prevent you to pray is quite frankly ludicrous.
In a surveillance state like we are becoming, I'm not so sure about that.
__________________
If you donít drink the kool-aid, youíre a baaad person - Rev Jim Jones
Almond kool-aid, anyone? Or do you prefer pudding?- Darkwing
Darkwing is offline   Reply With Quote