|
|
Tokyodreamer
SFN Regular
USA
1447 Posts |
Posted - 05/02/2002 : 12:14:23 [Permalink]
|
The supernatural is full of countless claims involving phenomena that interact with the physical world. We can see and feel ghosts, predict the future, our souls can float outside our bodies and we can see what is going on, peoples' limbs and foreheads bleed in stygmata, etc. etc. [I guess someone reading this for the first time might think I believe in this nonsense that I just listed. I assure anyone who does that I do not ]
Is it really fair to say that just because one narrow definition of God (i.e. Buddhist and Deist) can be imagined to exist but is untestable, that all supernatural claims are superfluous to science?
I seem to have a habit of getting hung up on definitions. I believe a great deal of what you are saying depends greatly on how words are defined, so I'm not sure I grasp your exact meaning.
(By the way ReasonableDoubt, were you meaning to be ironic when you mentioned "pedantry"? I've never seen so many words I had to look up used by someone in such a short period of time since Tergiversant... )
------------
Truth above pride and ego; truth above all
Edited by - tokyodreamer on 05/02/2002 12:18:58 |
|
|
@tomic
Administrator
USA
4607 Posts |
Posted - 05/02/2002 : 12:23:46 [Permalink]
|
quote: (By the way ReasonableDoubt, were you meaning to be ironic when you mentioned "pedantry"? I've never seen so many words I had to look up used by someone in such a short period of time since Tergiversant...
LOL, I wish I had the tool some sites have that, when you highlight a word, the definition pops up. Sadly, that is beyond our capabilities for the present.
@tomic
Gravity, not just a good idea...it's the law! |
|
|
ConsequentAtheist
SFN Regular
641 Posts |
Posted - 05/02/2002 : 13:13:30 [Permalink]
|
quote: I seem to have a habit of getting hung up on definitions. I believe a great deal of what you are saying depends greatly on how words are defined, so I'm not sure I grasp your exact meaning.
I doubt seriously that I've insinuated some unique meaning into the words quoted, the quote in question being: quote: Thus, naturalism neither denies nor affirms the existence of God, either as transcendent or immanent. However, naturalism makes God an unnecessary hypothesis and essentially superfluous to scientific investigation. Reference to moral or divine purposes has no place in scientific explanations. On the other hand, the scope of science is limited to explanation of empirical phenomena without reference to forces, powers, influences, etc., which are supernatural.
What is being said, I believe, is not that "all supernatural claims are superfluous to science" but, rather, that all reference to the supernatural is superfluous to scientific investigation, i.e., all phenomena is natural and susceptible to those methods employed to investigate the natural world -- don't tell me "God did it.".
quote: (By the way ReasonableDoubt, were you meaning to be ironic when you mentioned "pedantry"? I've never seen so many words I had to look up used by someone in such a short period of time since Tergiversant ... )
Who's Tergiversant?
|
|
|
Trish
SFN Addict
USA
2102 Posts |
Posted - 05/02/2002 : 14:17:38 [Permalink]
|
Slater had said something about being unable to find a preist who'd molested a girl. Well, here's one.
quote: In 1993, Glynn testified in a lawsuit against one priest that he knew of seven accusations of sexual misconduct against military priests. He identified only one: Owen J. Melody, who pleaded guilty in 1987 to molesting a 13-year-old girl.
Question here. If 'all reference to the supernatural is superfluous to scientific investigation' why is the idea of a god even then a consideration? If by definition god is 'supernatural' then god should not exist in a natural explanation. If the supernatural is not required to explain things, why, then is it considered 'honest' to perpetuate the myth of the existence of the supernatural?
--- ...no one has ever found a 4.5 billion year old stone artifact (at the right geological stratum) with the words "Made by God." No Sense of Obligation by Matt Young
Edited by - Trish on 05/02/2002 14:31:59 |
|
|
Slater
SFN Regular
USA
1668 Posts |
Posted - 05/02/2002 : 14:51:00 [Permalink]
|
Trish is this the right link? There are no girls mentioned as being victims of these bastards in this article, just boy after boy, after boy. The females spoken of are the lawyers representing the victims. I'm so glad that Catholics have finally drawn the line and are demanding that something be done and are no longer just closing their eyes to this horror.
------- My business is to teach my aspirations to conform themselves to fact, not to try and make facts harmonize with my aspirations. ---Thomas Henry Huxley, 1860
Edited by - slater on 05/02/2002 14:52:03 |
|
|
Trish
SFN Addict
USA
2102 Posts |
Posted - 05/02/2002 : 14:54:05 [Permalink]
|
There's just the one 13 yo girl mentioned in the article (see quote). I had to remove the link because of a problem in the way I linked.
--- ...no one has ever found a 4.5 billion year old stone artifact (at the right geological stratum) with the words "Made by God." No Sense of Obligation by Matt Young |
|
|
ConsequentAtheist
SFN Regular
641 Posts |
Posted - 05/02/2002 : 15:05:26 [Permalink]
|
quote: Slater had said something about being unable to find a preist who'd molested a girl. Well, here's one.
quote: In 1993, Glynn testified in a lawsuit against one priest that he knew of seven accusations of sexual misconduct against military priests. He identified only one: Owen J. Melody, who pleaded guilty in 1987 to molesting a 13-year-old girl.
quote: Church suspended Kimball 3 Years After Molesting Admitted By CLARK MASON, THE PRESS DEMOCRAT, March 21, 2002
Steinbock said that in November 1987, shortly after he was installed as bishop, a parishioner called to say he knew a priest who had fondled two girls about five years before. < ... > Steinbock said he offered the woman a counselor, which she turned down. He began meeting with Kimball, who eventually admitted involvement with six young girls, three in Santa Rosa and three in Eureka.
But it wasn't until June 1990 that Kimball admitted all six were under 18, Steinbock said. [see http://www.pressdemocrat.com/evergreen/diocese/032102kimball2.html -- RD]
quote: FULLERTON A priest posing as a police chaplain who pleaded guilty in Jan. to molesting two young girls has been sentenced to 5 years in state prison. Fr. Fernando Deliz, 67, agreed to a last-minute plea-bargain with prosecutors. He admitted that he molested two girls, ages 8 and 11, between Aug. 1996 and June 1999.
Police Sgt. Joe Klein said Deliz preyed on his victims by falsely impersonating a Fullerton Police Department chaplain. Deliz volunteered at the Brookhurst First Baptist Church in Fullerton and was a member of the Florida-based National Chaplains Assn. He was arrested in Aug.1999 and has been in county jail since then. LA Times, 3/8/00
TAMPA A former minister faces up to 15 years in prison after pleading guilty in federal court to receiving child pornography on his computer.
Lawrence Kilbourne, 43, wept at the hearing, but later spoke calmly when a magistrate asked if he understood the consequences of pleading guilty. Kilbourne resigned as pastor of Forest Hills United Methodist Church in Oct. shortly after his arrest. He told the 500 parishioners in the church he founded that he had a sexual addiction.
FBI agents found thousands of images of child pornography on his computer that his daughter discovered after becoming suspicious of her father because he flirted with young girls at restaurants. She notified authorities after finding in his church-owned home a videotape of a man fondling a young child,which she feared was him.
He faces life in prison if convicted of capital sexual battery for allegedly molesting his daughter's friend during a sleepover in 1994. He admitted that he fondled the girl while she slept after prosecutors confronted him with the videotape he made of the incident. Kilbourne wept in court before pleading guilty to the pornography charges.
Authorities seized more than 200 videotapes and 15,000 computer files from Kilbourne's home. Some of the items depicted toddler and preadolescent children posed or engaged in sexual conduct.
Kilbourne pleaded guilty to federal charges of receiving the explicit computer files. He also faces state charges of sexual battery on a child under age 16 for the alleged videotaped molestation. A trial on that charge was set to begin in April. Investigators also were checking allegations that Kilbourne had improper contact with members of his church youth group, as well as children from the church day care center. Sarasota Herald-Tribune, 2/4/00; AP, 2/3 [see http://www.thelinkup.com/crimes00a.html -- RD]
I found these with very little effort.
quote: Question here. If 'all reference to the supernatural is superfluous to scientific investigation' why is the idea of a god even then a consideration?
It's not. To the best of my knowledge, that's what 'superfluous' means.
quote: If by definition god is 'supernatural' then god should not exist in a natural explanation.
Correct. Again, to the best of my knowledge, that's what 'superfluous' means.
quote: If the supernatural is not required to explain things, why, then is it considered 'honest' to perpetuate the myth of the existence of the supernatural?
"Why is it 'honest' to perpetuate a myth?" is rught up there with "when did you stop beating your wife?". There's a difference between being honest and being correct. I disagree with Martin Gardner's religious views. I don't believe he is dishonest.
|
|
|
Slater
SFN Regular
USA
1668 Posts |
Posted - 05/02/2002 : 16:02:46 [Permalink]
|
I found these with very little effort. Does it make you feel better that they are equal opportunity child molesters? The point of my observation with Dr Shari was that, when no one had said a word about homosexuality she started defending them (again). Her premise was that even though it was same gender sex it wasn't homosexual because it was pederasty. Some how, in her view, sodomizing an alter boy is heterosexuality. This seems (as I'm saying for the third time now) to be nothing but political correctness.
"Why is it 'honest' to perpetuate a myth?" is rught up there with "when did you stop beating your wife?". Actually it's up there with "Thou shalt not bear false witness." To clam that you believe something is fine it is a statement of your own opinion. To say "I believe in god," would be perfectly honest. However to actually claim that god exists, when you have no proof that he does, is lying.
There's a difference between being honest and being correct. I disagree with Martin Gardner's religious views. I don't believe he is dishonest. Which is why I put the word "scrupulously" in front of honest. To be scrupulously honest you have to back up every claim you make. That's one of the things that makes science such a pain in the arse, and so expensive, to do. Gardner is a pretty scrupulous fellow. If you were to pull the old poker move on him and demand that he "put up or shut up" about his religious views he could readily supply you with supporting evidence for his claims. He's made a good living out of doing just that. Ask Cardinal Law to prove that there is a god as he claims and you will get a song and dance that would put Astaire and Rodgers to shame. But you wouldn't get any proof. He's made a better living out of doing that than Gardner. I agree that there is a difference between being honest and being correct. Without proof there is no way to really know if something is a fact. If you don't really know something to claim that you do is dishonest. It wouldn't even matter if in reality you actually were correct, because you don't know if you are and you are claiming that you do. To say that there is a god, or just the supernatural in general, when you have no way of knowing, is to lie, even if you are correct.
------- My business is to teach my aspirations to conform themselves to fact, not to try and make facts harmonize with my aspirations. ---Thomas Henry Huxley, 1860
Edited by - slater on 05/02/2002 16:06:06 |
|
|
Slater
SFN Regular
USA
1668 Posts |
Posted - 05/02/2002 : 17:53:43 [Permalink]
|
quote:
Question here. If 'all reference to the supernatural is superfluous to scientific investigation' why is the idea of a god even then a consideration?
There is an assumption being made by using the word "superfluous". The word means something more than what is needed or useful; surplus; excessive. To be any of these you have to actually exist, you must be a 'something'. Since we have not established that the supernatural even exists we can't say that it is more than is needed because it really isn't anything as far as we can tell let alone too much of something.
Science isn't ignoring it because it already has everything it needs to explain the world and something more would just be too much-thanks but we're full. Science isn't ignoring it because some philosophical view point closes science's mind to the greater truth. Science isn't ignoring it at all. It never found it to begin with. You can't actually ignore something that isn't there.
------- My business is to teach my aspirations to conform themselves to fact, not to try and make facts harmonize with my aspirations. ---Thomas Henry Huxley, 1860 |
|
|
Omega
Skeptic Friend
Denmark
164 Posts |
Posted - 05/02/2002 : 18:10:13 [Permalink]
|
Kil> If you can still be agnostic? Hmmm, can I get back to you on that one? :)
Slater> It has been said by a Jesuit friend of mine who teaches physics at Santa Clara U (I don't know if he is gay or not) that when he is doing science he must put away his beliefs and think like an Atheist. He can find no way around it.
There! Excellent. (In both ways :)). A religious person admitting he must think as an atheist to teach science? I think that says quite a lot.
Paedophilia and homosexuality: I think the question one has to ask here is, if the priest would've molested an equal number of girls, if there were alter-girls? Or decided, in their sick minds, that there would be no real sin, if it were the same gender under-aged? I don't even like to use the word sexuality in connection with child-molesters, whether they're molesting children of the same or opposite sex. Sexuality is something healthy, something very human. When it becomes perverted and twisted like that, it's another ball-game. It has nothing to do with political correctness. What two consenting adults do together is absolutely none of my business. Be they of the same or opposite sex. Saying heterosexual or homosexual paedophile is abusing the h-sexual words.
"All it takes to fly is to fling yourself at the ground... and miss." - Douglas Adams |
|
|
ConsequentAtheist
SFN Regular
641 Posts |
Posted - 05/02/2002 : 19:18:33 [Permalink]
|
quote: ... why are you trying to distance homosexuals from this scandal when the only pedophiles involved are homosexuals comitting homosexual child molestation? [emphasis added - RD]
quote: I found these with very little effort.
Does it make you feel better that they are equal opportunity child molesters?
No form of child molestation makes me feel better. Neither do manifestations of homophobic bigotry.
quote: There's a difference between being honest and being correct. I disagree with Martin Gardner's religious views. I don't believe he is dishonest.
Which is why I put the word "scrupulously" in front of honest. To be scrupulously honest you have to back up every claim you make.
As in: "the only pedophiles involved are homosexuals comitting homosexual child molestation"? For what it's worth, I continue to have no reason to presume Gardner to be anything other than scrupulously honest.
For those interested, I also found the following with little effort ...
quote: Perpetrators with an exclusive interest in children are labeled fixated by some researchers. Fixation means "a temporary or permanent arrestment of psychological maturation resulting from unresolved formative issues which persist and underlie the organization of subsequent phases of development" (Groth & Birnbaum, 1978, p. 176). Put in simple terms, fixated offenders are "stuck" at an early stage of psychological development.
By contrast, other molesters are described as regressed. Regression is "a temporary or permanent appearance of primitive behavior after more mature forms of expression had been attained, regardless of whether the immature behavior was actually manifested earlier in the individual's development" (Groth & Birnbaum, 1978, p. 177). Regressed offenders have developed an adult sexual orientation but under certain conditions (such as extreme stress) they return to an earlier, less mature psychological state and engage in sexual contact with children.
Fixated offenders never developed an adult sexual orientation of any sort, whereas regressed molesters have done so. Thus, regressed molesters can be adult homosexuals, heterosexuals, or bisexuals. But it is meaningless to speak of fixated molesters in these terms they are attracted to children, not to men or women.
Using this distinction, Groth and Birnbaum (1978) found that none of the 175 adult males in their sample all of whom were convicted in Massachusetts of sexual assault against a child had an exclusively homosexual adult sexual orientation. 83 of the men (47%) were classified as "fixated;" 70 others (40%) were classified as regressed adult heterosexuals; the remaining 22 (13%) were classified as regressed adult bisexuals. Of the last group, Groth and Birnbaum observed that "in their adult relationships they engaged in sex on occasion with men as well as with women. However, in no case did this attraction to men exceed their preference for women....There were no men who were primarily sexually attracted to other adult males..." (p.180).
Another researcher took a different perspective. Dr. Carole Jenny reviewed 352 medical charts, representing all of the sexually abused children seen in the emergency room or child abuse clinic of a Denver children's hospital during a one-year period (from July 1, 1991 to June 30, 1992). The molester was a gay or lesbian adult in only 2 of the 269 cases in which an adult molester could be identified, less than 1% of the cases (Jenny et al., 1994).
In yet another approach to studying adult sexual attraction to children, some Canadian researchers observed how homosexual and heterosexual adult men responded to slides of males and females of various ages (child, pubescent, and mature adult). All of the research subjects were first screened to ensure that they preferred physically mature sexual partners. In some of the slides shown to subjects, the model was clothed; in others, he or she was nude. The slides were accompanied by audiotaped recordings. The recordings paired with the nude models described an imaginary sexual interaction between the model and the subject. The recordings paired with the pictures of clothed models described the model engaging in neutral activities (e.g., swimming). To measure sexual arousal, changes in the subjects' penis volume were monitored while they watched the slides and listened to the audiotapes. The researchers found that homosexual males responded no more to male children than heterosexual males responded to female children (Freund et al., 1989).
[see http://psychology.ucdavis.edu/rainbow/html/facts_molestation.html - RD]
Edited by - ReasonableDoubt on 05/02/2002 19:30:53 |
|
|
Slater
SFN Regular
USA
1668 Posts |
Posted - 05/02/2002 : 19:50:48 [Permalink]
|
I see, since logic has completely failed you maybe name calling will help. I say that homosexuals are the same as everyone else and you declare that I am homophobic and a bigot. Kind of a cheap shot when you don't quote entire sentences let alone entire thoughts, don't you think?
------- My business is to teach my aspirations to conform themselves to fact, not to try and make facts harmonize with my aspirations. ---Thomas Henry Huxley, 1860 |
|
|
ConsequentAtheist
SFN Regular
641 Posts |
Posted - 05/04/2002 : 09:39:10 [Permalink]
|
quote: I see, since logic has completely failed you ...
A complete logic failure, no less! That's simply laughable. Needless to say, I do not concur.
quote: I say that homosexuals are the same as everyone else and you declare that I am homophobic and a bigot. Kind of a cheap shot when you don't quote entire sentences let alone entire thoughts, don't you think?
First, let's review what was said ...
Dr Shari wrote, in part: quote: I am a true skeptic but Priests as the Brides of Jesus is a low stone to throw. Besides Pedophiles are not homosexuals even if it boys they molest. It is the child not the sex of the child that make the victims the target of these sick people.
[emphasis added - RD]
Quoting Dr Shari, you responded: quote: As an ex Catholic meself I would believe just about any story I heard about that sick lot. Back home in Ireland we had a scandal with the Sisters of Mercy that makes this look like a walk in the park. The good sisters had a number of children's corpses on their hands.
But I was wondering Dr Shari why are you trying to distance homosexuals from this scandal when the only pedophiles involved are homosexuals comitting homosexual child molestation? No one brought up that aspect of these crimes except you. "Brides of Christ" is a title left over from the middle ages when it had a different connotation not somebody calling them sissy boys.
[emphasis added - RD]
I missed the part where you "say that homosexuals are the same as everyone else" -- whether or not I "quote entire sentences". Furthermore, "quoting entire sentences" in no way changes the meaning of the assertion "the only pedophiles involved are homosexuals comitting homosexual child molestation".
Given that your generalization was not necessarily motivated by a fear of homosexuals or homosexualism, calling your position 'homophobic' was unwarranted. For this I apologize.
Edited by - ReasonableDoubt on 05/04/2002 09:49:37 |
|
|
ljbrs
SFN Regular
USA
842 Posts |
Posted - 05/09/2002 : 18:41:50 [Permalink]
|
I think that many religious people are inherently dangerous because they often fear that their basic sense of reality is under constant attack, not only by non-believers, but particularly by the holders of other competing religious beliefs. If religious beliefs are strong enough in certain people, I try to give those individuals a wide berth. Ultimately, they might attempt to act on their beliefs and to become vicious against non-believing individuals.
I find that if I say that I believe that whatever exists exists and leave it at that without further explanation, I can get along with other people including religious ones. However, closeness is completely out. Having never been religious at any time during my life in any way, I can have no close friends who are religious. Such an attitude limits my friendships, but simplifies everything else tremendously in the long run.
ljbrs
"Nothing is more damaging to a new truth than an old error." Goethe |
|
|
Kil
Evil Skeptic
USA
13477 Posts |
Posted - 05/09/2002 : 20:47:04 [Permalink]
|
quote:
I find that if I say that I believe that whatever exists exists and leave it at that without further explanation, I can get along with other people including religious ones. However, closeness is completely out.
Well, I have close friends who are religious. One, in particular, is a very good skeptic. I do think he has a blind spot. On the other hand, since I have known him, he has gone from fully believing creationist comic books to excepting that evolution happens. That turn around took about fifteen years. He has shifted his beliefs slightly, I suppose, to accommodate the obvious. But if this had not happened I would still value his friendship.
I don't make religious beliefs, or beliefs in the supernatural a litmus test for choosing friends. It's not that I'm extraordinarily tolerant. Silly beliefs not withstanding, I have a lot in common with my friend. We have much more in common than what we don't have in common. Plus we both like to debate...
Every year I enter a chili cookoff that his church holds. I have told him that my goal is to win, not so much for the ribbon, but because the church paper will have to report that a pagan has won. Headline: "Where Was God!"
The Evil Skeptic
Uncertainty may make you uncomfortable. Certainty makes you ridiculous. |
|
|
|
|
|
|