[Osx-nutters] The separation of church and state.

[Mark Smith]

On 05.12.2007, at 13:13, Chris Gehlker wrote:

>
> On Dec 5, 2007, at 4:09 AM, Mark Smith wrote:
>
>>
>> On 05.12.2007, at 09:24, Chris Gehlker wrote:
>>
>>> Clearly, some people can. They hold incompatible beliefs in  
>>> different
>>> compartments of their lives. This ability is not particularly  
>>> rare. I
>>> suspect we all do it to some extent.
>>
>> See my response to David's post. There's no point writing precisely
>> the same thing twice.
>
> You have "simplified" your response to the point where it is
> ridiculous. One can clearly have faith in their aesthetic judgment or
> their relationship with their spouse and be a scientist.

Poor examples. This is not the same "faith" (if its faith at all) that  
religion demands of its acolytes. I'd call this "confidence" and its  
actually iteratively tested in a loosely science-like manner on a  
regular basis. Your faith in your spouse could be destabilized in a  
flash if anyone of a number of things happened that appear to be  
hugely improbable but are not even close to impossible. This happens  
all the time all over the world. Religious faith is different and you  
know it. It is a deliberate, absolute suspension of rationality and  
openness to doubt.

> One can also be a fanatic Pentecostal and be a competent chemist.

Some of the time. And, arguably, not as competent as someone who does  
not "suffer" from "faith" when he's not being a chemist.

> That Newton was very devout didn't keep him from working out the  
> laws of gravity.

Still clinging to that spin you dug up on that church-sponsored web  
site ?

I stated (and I'll admittedly need to dig back through a lot of books  
to find the material), that there is a documentary record that shows  
that Newton struggled seriously with the science/religion conflict and  
that he had "doubts".

> I've already mentioned the Mormon geologist who slips easily from a  
> faith
> based mode of belief to a rational scientific one. I don't know how he
> does it because what he believes as a Mormon is in direct conflict
> with what he believes as a geologist but he is clearly able to
> function well in both realms.

It was not my contention that everyone who works in science must  
refute religious faith in order to be able to do an acceptable job.  
The question is one of whether one really *is* a genuine scientist if  
one also has blind religious faith (and there is no other kind). I say  
not, but its obvious that this depends on how you define being a  
scientist. Needless to say (or, at least, it normally would be  
needless), you are not obliged to accept my definition.


> It's simply an empirical fact that such people exist.

Not quite - definition again. Irrespective of whether you choose to  
ignore this argument, its one that has been widely discussed and is at  
least as valid as the argument that being a scientist is a job and can  
be compatible with private faith.

> It only requires you to adopt a scientific approach while you are  
> doing science.

See that kind of makes it sound like their heart isn't in it. "Got to  
think that way when I'm on the job, but I can suspend it as soon as I  
leave the lab." This person is not a scientist for me.

Your perspective is lax and politically palatable for many and that's  
only going to change very slowly, if at all (education again and the  
church knows that, given sufficiently open scientific education,  
sufficient time and the absence of some kind of cataclysm that drives  
us all back into the dark ages, religion will eventually die). I  
freely acknowledge that I'm going to make any difference that's  
distinguishable from none at all by ranting on about it in my lifetime.

Sure stirs up a hornets nest though when it gets aired. That's  
interesting of itself.

Mark.