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

[Chris Gehlker]

On Dec 5, 2007, at 5:54 AM, Mark Smith wrote:
> 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.

I'll concede your distinction between faith and confidence. Although I  
am given to understand that many saints struggled with faith their  
whole lives.
>
>
>> 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.

But arguably just as competent.
>
>
>> 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 didn't notice who sponsored the site. My knowledge of Newton comes  
primarily from an undergraduate course in Enlightenment history. In  
any case, your statement is factually incorrect. There  is plenty  of  
evidence that Newton was a committed Christian. The fact that he had  
serious doubts about some specific doctrines of the Anglican church  
only reinforces this  view since only a committed Christian would care  
about church  doctrine. Try this site:
<http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Isaac_Newton%27s_religious_views>

Some things are true even if religious people say they are true. To  
uncritically reject something just because it is asserted by  someone  
religious is on a par with uncritically accepting it for that reason.
>
>
>> 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.


Again you define 'genuine scientist' in a way that excludes Newton and  
Einstein.
>
>
>
>> 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.

I doubt that it has been widely  discussed by serious people.
>
>
>> 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.

Do go dig out your books and confirm that Newton was profoundly  
religious. Then if you are willing to say 'Newton is not a scientist  
for me' your subsequent statements will be much more comprehensible.
>
>
> 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.

Very true. If you  would  stop ranting, give up the personal attacks  
on your opponents and try to have a little humor, you might   
accomplish a lot.


---
Neither a man nor a crowd nor a nation can be trusted to act humanely  
or to think sanely under the influence of a great fear.

-Bertrand Russell, philosopher, mathematician, author, Nobel laureate  
(1872-1970)