Register | Sign In


Understanding through Discussion


EvC Forum active members: 65 (9162 total)
5 online now:
Newest Member: popoi
Post Volume: Total: 915,817 Year: 3,074/9,624 Month: 919/1,588 Week: 102/223 Day: 13/17 Hour: 0/1


Thread  Details

Email This Thread
Newer Topic | Older Topic
  
Author Topic:   NOMA - Is this the answer?
acmhttu001_2006
Inactive Member


Message 16 of 81 (17730)
09-18-2002 5:04 PM
Reply to: Message 10 by nos482
09-18-2002 12:30 PM


Wow,
"Irrelevant. Since atheism and agnosticism are not cohesive belief systems with any common rites, rituals, or doctrine what one atheist or agnostic may do or believe is totally unrelated to others may do. This is not the same with theists, though, since they do have common beliefs in this regard."
Have you known atheism or agnosticism personally? I am an ATHEIST, and yet I have common beliefs with other ahteists. We do have a doctrine which is simply put - We do not Believe that God exists. Sounds like a doctrine to me. Not all religions have rituals to my knowledge, but I would have to do some reaserach.
Anyways, see you later
------------------
Anne C. McGuire
Cell and Molecular, Mathematics, Piano and Vocal Performance Majors
Chemistry and Physics minors
Thanks and have a nice day

This message is a reply to:
 Message 10 by nos482, posted 09-18-2002 12:30 PM nos482 has replied

Replies to this message:
 Message 17 by nos482, posted 09-18-2002 6:01 PM acmhttu001_2006 has replied

nos482
Inactive Member


Message 17 of 81 (17732)
09-18-2002 6:01 PM
Reply to: Message 16 by acmhttu001_2006
09-18-2002 5:04 PM


Originally posted by acmhttu001_2006:
Have you known atheism or agnosticism personally? I am an ATHEIST, and yet I have common beliefs with other ahteists. We do have a doctrine which is simply put - We do not Believe that God exists. Sounds like a doctrine to me. Not all religions have rituals to my knowledge, but I would have to do some reaserach.
Anyways, see you later
[/QUOTE]
I'm a Secular Humanist Agnostic.
Still irrelevant. It is not an official system of beliefs. Do you have a "non"holy book where the doctrine is written down on how not to believe? Do you take an oath or pledge to not believe? Do you meet on your "non"holy day and praise Darwin?
Yes, all religions have rituals. It is what the religious ceremonies are.
[This message has been edited by nos482, 09-18-2002]

This message is a reply to:
 Message 16 by acmhttu001_2006, posted 09-18-2002 5:04 PM acmhttu001_2006 has replied

Replies to this message:
 Message 22 by acmhttu001_2006, posted 09-19-2002 3:42 PM nos482 has replied

Brad McFall
Member (Idle past 5032 days)
Posts: 3428
From: Ithaca,NY, USA
Joined: 12-20-2001


Message 18 of 81 (17734)
09-18-2002 6:26 PM
Reply to: Message 10 by nos482
09-18-2002 12:30 PM


[QUOTE]Originally posted by nos482:
[B]Originally posted by Brad McFall:
My grandfather was agnostic to atheisitic so are you saying that a generation does not exist??
Irrelevant.[/QUOTE]
[/B]
to start- i willedit back no all time now. NOT-- The Trend to species selection can have an adaptation which croizat was saying was what law of growth was being taken in advantage of and is in Maxwell stat etc that he said was ok to have two ways of seeing the results etc etc that my granddad said there were two spectra of larger which is passed on by people not objects for which the non-overlapping phil nature of GOuld would be in this instance the "independent systems" of Gibbs WIHOUT the narrowed start of the science which even the Pope may not object to. I didnt find the Vatican document in the first pass pass my mess of papers but more later on to how to get out of Russel's geodesic andnot ball and chained top Whiteheads generation (boyds ) of philosophy. That is not even evoution writ differntly.
Since atheism and agnosticism are not cohesive belief systems with any common rites, rituals, or doctrine what one atheist or agnostic may do or believe is totally unrelated to others may do.
it was not unrelated to me doing herpetology. I think he as agnoistic may have seen a "baramin" unawares " etc [QUOTE][B]
This is not the same with theists, though, since they do have common beliefs in this regard.[/QUOTE]
[/B]
BUT my mother for instance being one in this category assuming you had maintained a dichotmy would have said evolution and personal god are compatible but this belief failed me when the serious ness of my generations case reached actual legal status and began to be played out in the courts in the wrong theories evolving judgement for the punishement of not cleaning up room etc.
[B][QUOTE] Religion:
1. A strong belief in a supernatural power or powers that control human destiny
There is nothing supernatural, or divine, about evolution.[/B][/QUOTE]
Ok you are taking mom's disagreement with grand ma.
quote:

GOuld was correct to criticize the cone of diversity in science and my grandfather while not this religious as far as I know kept his teaching of "evolution" well within the clearly communicated and understood version of either side.
Knowing creationists this is either a misquote or quoting out of context.
[This message has been edited by nos482, 09-18-2002]

[/B][/QUOTE]
it is not out of context and if you want more of my grandfathers writing typed in let me know under the other post in this thread. You have to find biology in the middle of two spectrums that go from servant to master etc and what I, BSM, rather than any other familty member meant to summarize and conclude the PREmiss was what I actually got discussed with EVOLUTIONISTS on Taxacom before I was kicked off there as well as out cornell. I am sorry if the epistemology of c/e is such a maze so rest assured you and I can sare a very confident ontology no matter the talkinpast that occurs. I will try if you stay cool.
[This message has been edited by Brad McFall, 09-18-2002]

This message is a reply to:
 Message 10 by nos482, posted 09-18-2002 12:30 PM nos482 has not replied

Brad McFall
Member (Idle past 5032 days)
Posts: 3428
From: Ithaca,NY, USA
Joined: 12-20-2001


Message 19 of 81 (17737)
09-18-2002 7:21 PM
Reply to: Message 12 by acmhttu001_2006
09-18-2002 4:53 PM


You could understand that choice of the generation to discuss evolution really isnt an option. The points were spoken by my Grandfather, Willard F . Stanely when I was 1 here is a bit of the larger context. we could argue "time" as I am with q interalia but I hope you choose to see to words in BOLD I have spaced out rather as my dad of grand did embolden.
"I do not have the necessary time at my disposal to try to develop the thesis that s c i e n c e i s m e r e l y a s e r v a n t o f m a n; that it has no moral or immoral significance; that it was the inevitable evolution of human intelligence - a more efficient way of applying the human mind to certain kinds of problems. However, the application of its thinking, its skills and its products is a matter for a l l m a n k i n d - probably through their practicing political scientists. As an example - let us take what most people consider the most terrifying product of science the atomic bomb...Who supplied the astronomical finances that threw the normal progress of physics research completely off its natural time table? Society, through its practicing political scientists, wanted a job done. They turned to the only facet o fthe population which could do the job. Once again science, became the servant of man.
Now, to return to our former question -"What happened to this promised Utopia?"
It is usually conceded that the three important ingredients developed by 18th century science were:
1)statement of fact shcould be based on observation and experimentation, no upon unsupported authroity
2)the inanimate world is a self-acting, self-perpetuating system, in which all changes conform to natural laws; and
3)the earth is not the center of the universe, and man is not its purpose. Furthermore, p u r p o s e itselrfr is a scientfically useless concept.
As a result of this philosophy, man's concept of the universe underwent...{words I already quoted in the meathead of a family...The scientific creed is that man must make himself a disembodied eye before the universe. Only in this way can objectivity be obtained: by recognizing the natural phenomena are without purpose. Truths are to be known only by their complete divorce from man-like characteristics. In this way they become postitive truths. One of the chief inventions of the scientific point of view is the denial of man of his own consciousness and his rejection of any purpose for himself in the universe. This may all be very well for certain scientific workers...The biological science necessarily occupy a middle position between these two extremes..
If you want more of this text let me know.

This message is a reply to:
 Message 12 by acmhttu001_2006, posted 09-18-2002 4:53 PM acmhttu001_2006 has replied

Replies to this message:
 Message 21 by acmhttu001_2006, posted 09-19-2002 3:37 PM Brad McFall has replied

Quetzal
Member (Idle past 5872 days)
Posts: 3228
Joined: 01-09-2002


Message 20 of 81 (17783)
09-19-2002 2:52 PM
Reply to: Message 11 by acmhttu001_2006
09-18-2002 4:31 PM


quote:
I have not heard of socibiology. The hard sciences do not as of yet accept religion yet.
True, although I would argue that sociobiology IS a hard science — it combines elements of biology, genetics, population biology, evolutionary biology, ecology, and animal behavior etc with some aspects of sociology, cultural anthropology and other disciplines in an effort to explore the underpinnings of sociality and culture. If you get a chance, I suggest reading E.O. Wilson’s seminal Sociobiology. It’s a bit dated (first published in 1975, IIRC), and can get opaque at times, especially when he deals with the equations for population genetics, etc, (and some of Wilson’s ideas are not strongly supported — eg group selection) , but is an outstanding primer on this exciting field. Be careful: there is significant controversy over some of the more out there claims of evolutionary psychology (which a lot of people lump in with sociobiology — including some sociobiologists!). They aren’t the same. Sociobiology seeks to understand the basis of behavior — including human. Sociobiology does research to answer specific questions: How does behavior develop or change over time? What are the environmental determinants of behavior and how does the environment test behavior (think of a particular behavior pattern as analogous to a phenotypical trait — how does that specific trait/suite effect an organism’s or population’s survival?)? How is a particular behavior transmitted (inherited or passed laterally) through time — and how do environmental factors change the behavior over time? What are the physiological bases for a given behavior (i.e., what combination of internal and external stimuli cause a particular behavior? What elements within an organism or its environment elicit a particular behavioral pattern?)?
The evo-psych folks drag in another bit — What are the mental processes that lead to specific behaviors? This is the bit I think is out there, since it may not be amenable to scientific analysis since they are looking at purely subjective behaviors. This is also the area that garners, obviously enough, the most criticism.
Sorry about the digression — I find sociobiology a fascinating subject.
quote:
When you say two sects do not agree with each other in a religious setting. I agree. But I believe that all relgions - any belief system that deals with the supernatural or why we are here, should be put in the Magesterium of Religion. Science cannot and will no even have the "Deity" in mind while it is pursuing truth. That is just not the way that science is set up.
And therein lies the rub, as it were. This highlights the key element of my disagreement with NOMA. IMO, there IS no distinct magisterium. Allow me to explain
Religions have, throughout history, abrogated unto themselves the power to define what constitutes ethics, morality, progress, purpose, etc. They have traditionally dictated the moral laws and established the social constraints necessary for complex societies, although primarily with the goal of insuring their own survival and propagation. Don’t get me wrong: religions and their symbols have played a powerful role in cultural evolution, providing cohesiveness, group identity, and a comforting wall against the impersonality of nature. In addition, religions have in the past provided a fairly solid foundation upon which to base the socio-cultural interactions needed in any society that grows beyond the family/group level. As such, the advent of religion was a highly successful adaptive response to increasing social complexity in pre-scientific societies.
However, religions and their adherents rather quickly seized upon the idea that they — and they alone — possessed Truth , whether about morality or the nature of the universe. Anyone who was not an adherent could not, by definition — including competing religions. While this may have been an acceptable and even necessary postulate to a pre-scientific society, especially to foster group identity, a religious meme based on a rigidly enforced dogma and reward-punishment is only effective in the absence of alternatives.
With the rise of a rationalist or naturalist epistemology, especially since the Enlightenment (although the Greeks, and even theologians like Aquinas saw the utility of rationalism within their own context), the religious meme complex or worldview has faced it’s greatest survival challenge. Forced to retreat from its claim to being able to answer all of the questions of the universe, religion is now in a position of being forced to justify its own existence for the first time in human history.
This is where NOMA and similar arguments come in. I often hear claims that there are things that science simply can’t address. Not very long ago, it was claimed that astronomy couldn’t explain the universe. Along come the Hubble telescope and the modern cosmologists and astrophysicists who have extended human knowledge of the universe beyond even the conception of early astronomers like Galileo. Religion, in spite of some early successes at suppression, has been forced to abandon their claim to primacy. Today, there are those that claim science is forever unable to address other aspects of human behavior or experience — including religion, ethics and morality.
This is obviously false. Religion or religious belief, being a behavior, is amenable to analysis. Comparative religion studies have been conducted (anthropology). The roles of religion in society have been analyzed (sociology). Religious experiences (such as talking in tongues, etc) have been analyzed in the context of mental affect (psychology) and physiology (neuro-psychology). The genetic and evolutionary basis of capacity to believe itself has been analyzed (sociobiology/behavior, evolutionary biology). The founding documents and key historical context of many religions have been scrutinized (archeology, linguistics). Religion is no longer an untouchable, unassailable magisterium. It is investigatable like everything else in human experience.
The obvious counterargument I hear from theists is: but what about faith? What about the transcendent, non-behavioral aspects of the religious experience? What about the warm, fuzzy feeling it provides? The sense of purpose it grants? On what basis can one judge right and wrong without religion? How can you have morality without God?
There are several issues here. The first is how religion and religious experience makes one feel. As I noted above, entirely subjective, individual feelings — or the connotations one places on one’s internal state — are probably NOT really amenable to scientific investigation beyond the gross physical effects. Heck, my youngest daughter claims she can’t fall asleep without at least five fuzzy stuffed animals in bed with her — they make her feel secure. Can we analyze her behavior? Unequivocally yes. However, we will probably never be able to determine how she arrived at the correlation five fuzzy animals = security = sleep. Even if we could, somehow, the information would be fairly useless because she represents a sample population of n=1 out of a species population n=6*10^9. In other words, the individual datum is meaningless with no predictive or retrodictive utility. The same goes for religion: every single item of faith or religious experience is intensely subjective and internalized individually in the same fashion. However, since there is no consistence between individuals, they are truly not addressable by science. Not, I hasten to add, because the experiences have some extrinsic reality, but because they are based on the structure of our individual brains and the way we each individually process input and perception.
The second issue in the counterargument is the issue of morality — which I’ll address below.
quote:
The soft sciences are not considered to be real "science" even though they may take some things from the established science. Would you agree with this? Professor told me this. He considers the hard sciences to be real science and the others cheap imitations of them. I do not know much about the soft sciences, so I defer judgement until I find out more about them.
I’ve heard this before — a lot. Some of the criticism is justified. A lot of sociologists, psychologists (including the evolutionary ones) and anthropologists are often guilty of hopping on the most recent pop bandwagon. However, I submit that so-called soft sciences CAN be as empirically rigorous as any hard science. The practitioners just need to clean up their collective act a bit. Depending on what your relationship is with your professor, you might want to point out that s/he is essentially espousing the exact same dichotomy as NOMA — that there is some non-overlapping magisteria between the different approaches. Interpretation of data is intrinsic to both. Then ask him/her if s/he’s read E. O Wilson’s Consilience, which brings social and biological sciences together in a rather neat synthesis.
quote:
Anne: You said that religioin has no exclusive province. Christains today claim that it is the one true way, based off of Jesus saying "I am the Way.....," This sounds pretty exclusive to me. Either believe or go to hell. Not much of a choice here.
Q: "To assume otherwise allows religion to ascribe to itself powers and abilities it doesn't justifiably have. It allows it to define such things as "morals" and "right and wrong" which are totally subjective cultural values. "
Anne: Do not all religions define morals and values anyway. No matter how conservative or liberal they may be. Even Wicca which is an accept all, has its morals and values. NO religion does not define morals or values. The religions say you have to do something in order to communicate with the supernatural - "Work out your salvation with fear and trembling[not sure of the last part of the quote] - Christainity, Buddhist work for enlightment, Wiccan works to become one with divine. Any religion states how you should act or be in order to reach the "heaven", "enlightment", or "becoming one with the divine."

Precisely my point. The adherents of various religions insist that their way and only their way is correct. That you either accept their moral precepts, dicta, proscriptions, etc, or you will be liable to some form of punishment — whether it’s eternity in a lake of fire or the inability to achieve Nirvana. They have presumed the right to define morality for a very long time. This doesn’t mean that it is necessarily the way things should be. Nor does it necessarily mean they are correct, and should be allowed to continue to do so. The simple fact that no two religions have a single definition or understanding of morality indicates that they are, indeed, dealing with culturally dependent values and affects. It is questionable, to me at least, whether religion should be granted the authority or exclusive mandate to define morality (or purpose, or meaning of life, or ethics) or anything else. NOMA fails because it is ascribing a normative or dominant role to religion which in reality it does not merit in these subject areas.
Here’s an experiment for you. While you read Rock of Ages, see if you can pick up an idea of how Gould defines religion — or at least the kind of religion he proposes should be the ideal or archetype of the religious magisterium. See if you think it corresponds to any extant religion.
quote:
Q: "some moral positions are non-adaptive."
Anne: So can you come up with some examples for me?

Hmm, not as easy as it sounds. My statement was intended to convey that, in the context of a modern secular society (say, US/UK for example), application of many of the religious moral precepts (for instance) are not appropriate — or better said are no longer appropriate — responses to the complexity of interactions in the society. Hence these moral positions are non-adaptive in context. Examples would include the concrete ethical recommendations or proscriptions made by the religion in areas such as sexual morality, roles of women, extra-group marriage (or even friendship), etc, even how the group sees ethical relations with other groups. You should pick a religion with which you are familiar and see how its particular moral and ethical positions fit with the rest of the society and culture of which it is a part. I think you’ll find the exercise interesting.

This message is a reply to:
 Message 11 by acmhttu001_2006, posted 09-18-2002 4:31 PM acmhttu001_2006 has replied

Replies to this message:
 Message 23 by acmhttu001_2006, posted 09-19-2002 3:57 PM Quetzal has not replied
 Message 26 by Brad McFall, posted 09-19-2002 4:29 PM Quetzal has not replied

acmhttu001_2006
Inactive Member


Message 21 of 81 (17785)
09-19-2002 3:37 PM
Reply to: Message 19 by Brad McFall
09-18-2002 7:21 PM


Interesting acticle,
But do you not have any opnions of your own, or do you have to reply solely on your Grandfather's paper[if it someone's elses, let me know]?
I could argue with this paper, becuase there is much circular reasoning in it, but not to waste my time nor yours I will withdraw. As to reading the rest of the paper, very interested in reading the rest of it.
You are more than welcome to post the rest of the paper,
To the rest of the guys what do you think of this paper? Or the extracts of the paper he has posted.?
Thanks for posting.
As to the words in bold, I will get to those later.
------------------
Anne C. McGuire
Cell and Molecular, Mathematics, Piano and Vocal Performance Majors
Chemistry and Physics minors
Thanks and have a nice day

This message is a reply to:
 Message 19 by Brad McFall, posted 09-18-2002 7:21 PM Brad McFall has replied

Replies to this message:
 Message 33 by Brad McFall, posted 09-20-2002 12:37 PM acmhttu001_2006 has not replied

acmhttu001_2006
Inactive Member


Message 22 of 81 (17786)
09-19-2002 3:42 PM
Reply to: Message 17 by nos482
09-18-2002 6:01 PM


RELIGION:
religion, piety, conscientiousness, scrupulousness,
1. belief in a dicing or superhuman power or powers to be obeyed and worshipped as the creator(s) and ruler(s) of the universe
2. expression in this belief in conduct or ritual - DOES NOT SAY BOTH, ATHEIST CAN ACT OUT WHAT THEY BELIEVE
As long as we act out what we believe we are acting out our own religion. We make our own religions. There is no one way. There are many ways. Of course this answer is in the Magesterium of Religion.
Thanks.
Oh by the way the definition was taken out of Webster's unabridged dictionary.
See you later.
------------------
Anne C. McGuire
Cell and Molecular, Mathematics, Piano and Vocal Performance Majors
Chemistry and Physics minors
Thanks and have a nice day

This message is a reply to:
 Message 17 by nos482, posted 09-18-2002 6:01 PM nos482 has replied

Replies to this message:
 Message 27 by nos482, posted 09-19-2002 4:45 PM acmhttu001_2006 has replied

acmhttu001_2006
Inactive Member


Message 23 of 81 (17787)
09-19-2002 3:57 PM
Reply to: Message 20 by Quetzal
09-19-2002 2:52 PM


Hmmmmm,
Will have to read this message another time.
I am sorry I misunderstood your point about religions not being exclusive or whatever [I am tired].
You raised a question [partially], should religion be granted the authority or exclusive mandate to define morality or anything. I would say no in my opinion becuase of the conflicting moral systems, values, and means of enlightenement, salvation, nirvana, ect. If they did, you would conflict so many belief systems just in order to uphold one system. Sounds like a great topic. I am going to start it.
I will try and focus on the definition that Gould defines the Magesterium of Religion. You have been most helpful.
As, to asking this professors, becuase the soft sciences has taken much from the hard sciences, he will not change his mind. He is very stubborn and set in his ways. And woe, is the person who tries to get him to consider other possibilities.
Thanks.
Will reply to the rest of your message later.
------------------
Anne C. McGuire
Cell and Molecular, Mathematics, Piano and Vocal Performance Majors
Chemistry and Physics minors
Thanks and have a nice day

This message is a reply to:
 Message 20 by Quetzal, posted 09-19-2002 2:52 PM Quetzal has not replied

Replies to this message:
 Message 25 by Brad McFall, posted 09-19-2002 4:25 PM acmhttu001_2006 has replied

Brad McFall
Member (Idle past 5032 days)
Posts: 3428
From: Ithaca,NY, USA
Joined: 12-20-2001


Message 24 of 81 (17790)
09-19-2002 4:22 PM
Reply to: Message 14 by acmhttu001_2006
09-18-2002 4:58 PM


I doubt JP has position ON NOMA. I could be wrong. we would all be interested to know that. What I said was that NOMA is part of the parcel etc of GOuld Philosophy which to be true philosophically *should* be true in the emprics as well than any inherent apriori for which I would rather attempt to falsify THE PHILSOPHY if it is not true. That is a larger project than quouting from vatican documents to the tune of *any* philosophy. I only said "the position" of the CHRUCH was in writing. It involved some modern penmanship about the discipline of biology NOT being the phyics and chem and so while there is much (see E. Mayr) work on this as a seperate disipline my grandfather had found this in the middle but then if it was not seperate the extremes from which it would isolate or not would hardly ever be agreed to by any two intellectuals with an interest in the case etc. But that the continuum of space having been "reduced" to atomic science (feynamn's position)IS NOT the independence of systems that Gibbs was willing to generalize for stat mechanics and I am willing to conitnue to discuss evolution under the discipline of so unless a rational mechanics for evolution be forthcoming as ICR requires it cerainly seems potential true that whether learned from an elelctric and elastic spirit or other such as theology rational thermodynamcs and molecular mechanics may &run counter&(Pope's words in report)to the split IN BIOLOGY but not some discontinutiy of space time and form in the physics for some bottling of chems etc. This is a differentiation in my own words of two sentence in the vatican report and may not be true. But it is wrong to say that whether motiviated by creationist induction or not it is not not unscientific. I see you do not need to agree with me. OK. but you are probably interested in molecular mechanics.

This message is a reply to:
 Message 14 by acmhttu001_2006, posted 09-18-2002 4:58 PM acmhttu001_2006 has replied

Replies to this message:
 Message 29 by acmhttu001_2006, posted 09-20-2002 10:49 AM Brad McFall has replied

Brad McFall
Member (Idle past 5032 days)
Posts: 3428
From: Ithaca,NY, USA
Joined: 12-20-2001


Message 25 of 81 (17791)
09-19-2002 4:25 PM
Reply to: Message 23 by acmhttu001_2006
09-19-2002 3:57 PM


Anne,
what would you do in my case where I was tried for hear say about a potential child abuse in a country abroad and found guilty of child neglect when this DID NOT come out of the result but out of the morality for which Family Court, Judge Judy, would never even have jursidication over.
This is no academic issue. There are good muslim science but again it may have been something already turned by the Chiense which we consider in pairs unawares.

This message is a reply to:
 Message 23 by acmhttu001_2006, posted 09-19-2002 3:57 PM acmhttu001_2006 has replied

Replies to this message:
 Message 28 by nos482, posted 09-19-2002 4:50 PM Brad McFall has replied
 Message 30 by acmhttu001_2006, posted 09-20-2002 10:59 AM Brad McFall has not replied

Brad McFall
Member (Idle past 5032 days)
Posts: 3428
From: Ithaca,NY, USA
Joined: 12-20-2001


Message 26 of 81 (17793)
09-19-2002 4:29 PM
Reply to: Message 20 by Quetzal
09-19-2002 2:52 PM


Gould insists THESE to be INDEPENDENT. That doesnt mean that seperation of Church and State means I am schizo double minded carnal man 24-7. The legal restriction of seperation does not mean the mental is physically altered but the sociobiologist say who thinks religion is a manifestation of inclusive fitness MAY (disreading some of my ideas on stat mechanics for instance) conflate these two. ANd the actual situartion of the ACLU IS BY EXPERIENCE against some rights of people that co-exist with them and HAVE BEEN ABSOLUTELY WRONGED IN US COURT ROOMS!!!!!

This message is a reply to:
 Message 20 by Quetzal, posted 09-19-2002 2:52 PM Quetzal has not replied

nos482
Inactive Member


Message 27 of 81 (17796)
09-19-2002 4:45 PM
Reply to: Message 22 by acmhttu001_2006
09-19-2002 3:42 PM


quote:
Originally posted by acmhttu001_2006:
RELIGION:
religion, piety, conscientiousness, scrupulousness,
1. belief in a dicing or superhuman power or powers to be obeyed and worshipped as the creator(s) and ruler(s) of the universe
2. expression in this belief in conduct or ritual - DOES NOT SAY BOTH, ATHEIST CAN ACT OUT WHAT THEY BELIEVE
As long as we act out what we believe we are acting out our own religion. We make our own religions. There is no one way. There are many ways. Of course this answer is in the Magesterium of Religion.
Thanks.
Oh by the way the definition was taken out of Webster's unabridged dictionary.
See you later.

That dictionary also once defined atheists as being evil as well.
BTW, #2 is refering to #1.

This message is a reply to:
 Message 22 by acmhttu001_2006, posted 09-19-2002 3:42 PM acmhttu001_2006 has replied

Replies to this message:
 Message 31 by acmhttu001_2006, posted 09-20-2002 11:10 AM nos482 has replied

nos482
Inactive Member


Message 28 of 81 (17797)
09-19-2002 4:50 PM
Reply to: Message 25 by Brad McFall
09-19-2002 4:25 PM


quote:
Originally posted by Brad McFall:
Anne,
what would you do in my case where I was tried for hear say about a potential child abuse in a country abroad and found guilty of child neglect when this DID NOT come out of the result but out of the morality for which Family Court, Judge Judy, would never even have jursidication over.
This is no academic issue. There are good muslim science but again it may have been something already turned by the Chiense which we consider in pairs unawares.

All morality is subjective. It is dependant on wheither it is that of a society or an individual. Atheists and agnostics are just more honest about where they get their morality from.
BTW, much of what you say comes out as being disjointed and confusing like this;
There are good muslim science but again it may have been something already turned by the Chiense which we consider in pairs unawares.
What does that mean?
[This message has been edited by nos482, 09-20-2002]

This message is a reply to:
 Message 25 by Brad McFall, posted 09-19-2002 4:25 PM Brad McFall has replied

Replies to this message:
 Message 32 by acmhttu001_2006, posted 09-20-2002 11:13 AM nos482 has replied
 Message 34 by Brad McFall, posted 09-20-2002 12:43 PM nos482 has replied

acmhttu001_2006
Inactive Member


Message 29 of 81 (17856)
09-20-2002 10:49 AM
Reply to: Message 24 by Brad McFall
09-19-2002 4:22 PM


Hi,
A few questions.
"It involved some modern penmanship about the discipline of biology NOT being the phyics and chem and so while there is much (see E. Mayr) work on this as a seperate disipline my grandfather had found this in the middle but then if it was not seperate the extremes from which it would isolate or not would hardly ever be agreed to by any two intellectuals with an interest in the case etc."
Am I reading it correctly that some in the church think that the dicipline of biology is NOT a part of chemistry or physics? What was meant by this statement? What do you think? I am sorry, I lost where this is going. But is that not why we have lumped all the "hard" sciences into one magesterium, to avoid biology not being chemistry and physics, or do we do so becuase there are some overalapping there?
"This is a differentiation in my own words of two sentence in the vatican report and may not be true. But it is wrong to say that whether motiviated by creationist induction or not it is not not unscientific. I see you do not need to agree with me. OK. but you are probably interested in molecular mechanics. "
Molecular mechanics is my focus and interest, but one has to look at the large picture. That is why I consider all when I look at evolution of life or of the earth. Yes molecular mechanics is where I want to spend the rest of life in, but it will only give me a limited view. It think, this is what the creationist are hung up on, they do not consider the "big" picture outside their beliefs. I believe that anything may be considered science regardless of where it comes from, if it is accepted by the consensous. I believe that this was made in the Magesterium of Religion, but it does have some impact on the Magesterium of Science.
As I go on, in reading Gould's book, I am wondering how he thought it would have been possible to keep the different Magesterium from affecting eachother.
And no, I am compleltly open to the other side. If most of the other side would have cited their sources and logically stated their views then yes. I am glad you have done both. I will probably be asking a lot more questions of you in the area of "creation science" as time goes by.
Thanks for the post.
Look forward to your reply.
------------------
Anne C. McGuire
Cell and Molecular, Mathematics, Piano and Vocal Performance Majors
Chemistry and Physics minors
Thanks and have a nice day

This message is a reply to:
 Message 24 by Brad McFall, posted 09-19-2002 4:22 PM Brad McFall has replied

Replies to this message:
 Message 35 by Brad McFall, posted 09-20-2002 1:04 PM acmhttu001_2006 has not replied

acmhttu001_2006
Inactive Member


Message 30 of 81 (17857)
09-20-2002 10:59 AM
Reply to: Message 25 by Brad McFall
09-19-2002 4:25 PM


quote:
Originally posted by Brad McFall:
Anne,
what would you do in my case where I was tried for hear say about a potential child abuse in a country abroad and found guilty of child neglect when this DID NOT come out of the result but out of the morality for which Family Court, Judge Judy, would never even have jursidication over.
This is no academic issue. There are good muslim science but again it may have been something already turned by the Chiense which we consider in pairs unawares.

Brad,
I am so sorry it turned out that way. I did not want to bring up the judicial system in America, but that is one area I think that NOMA would be beneficial to. There is so many questionable processes that I see becuase of the lack of ablility to verify them. This would be an instance.
I would agree with the last statement. Is there any examples of this?
It is a shame the rest of the world can not run by academic rigour. It would be a better place, I think. Yet, I think it would be imposible. Religion has been given too prominent of a place in today's society, that is why I am glad to see more and more things happening in the university setting to take some of the ground gained by "religious circles" back to the ground of academics.
------------------
Anne C. McGuire
Cell and Molecular, Mathematics, Piano and Vocal Performance Majors
Chemistry and Physics minors
Thanks and have a nice day
[This message has been edited by acmhttu001_2006, 09-20-2002]

This message is a reply to:
 Message 25 by Brad McFall, posted 09-19-2002 4:25 PM Brad McFall has not replied

Newer Topic | Older Topic
Jump to:


Copyright 2001-2023 by EvC Forum, All Rights Reserved

™ Version 4.2
Innovative software from Qwixotic © 2024