What exactly do you think Satanism is? Why do you unquestioningly swallow the religious dogma you claim to reject? Many Christians might regard you as a Satanist and a secular school as Satanist. I am defending your right to practice your beliefs. You should stop fearing alternative beliefs that make you feel uncomfortable and focus instead on real harm. It's a good thing we have freedom of religion, or your kids might get taken away from you because you indoctrinate them into dangerous beliefs.

Scientific theory: this article in the evolution section should make it clear how I view a scientific theory. It is pretty much the same as what you (or maybe someone else) said earlier. I just don't equate it with fact.

http://www.ozpolitic.com/evolution/science-methodology.html

Secular theory:

I don't attach and special meaning to theory in this context. I would attach a broad definition to both words.

Fact and truth:

I would go with the wikipedia distinction I posted earlier, which explains the meaning of both. I hadn't really though about the difference much. Basically truth is absolute, whereas fact is just what people agree on. In a scientific context, a 'scientific fact' is limited to direct observation, uninfluenced by paradigm or theory. This is because science has other words that convey the degree of agreeance on what are broadly considered theories. Facts don't really enter into the modern scientific method, just as truth doesn't, but scientists usually accept either term for observations, though in practice they would call them observations instead as it is never really possible to completely separate a direct observation from the paradigm through which you interpret it. Other terms would be misleading or academically dishonest, especially to someone who didn't understand the distinction, because it would imply some kind of certainty about theories, when the only certainty is that the theories will one day be shown to be wrong.

wrong

I'm not sure how to define this in a non-trivial manner.

And some more on "Intelligent Design"



Moderator: We're here today to debate the hot new topic, evolution versus Intelligent Des---

(Scientist pulls out baseball baat.)

Moderator: Hey, what are you doing?

(Scientist breaks Intelligent Design advocate's kneecap.)

Intelligent Design advocate: YEAAARRRRGGGHHHH! YOU BROKE MY KNEECAP!

Scientist: Perhaps it only appears that I broke your kneecap. Certainly, all the evidence points to the hypothesis I broke your kneecap. For example, your kneecap is broken; it appears to be a fresh wound; and I am holding a baseball bat, which is spattered with your blood. However, a mere preponderance of evidence doesn't mean anything. Perhaps your kneecap was designed that way. Certainly, there are some features of the current situation that are inexplicable according to the "naturalistic" explanation you have just advanced, such as the exact contours of the excruciating pain that you are experiencing right now.

Intelligent Design advocate: AAAAH! THE PAIN!

Scientist: Frankly, I personally find it completely implausible that the random actions of a scientist such as myself could cause pain of this particular kind. I have no precise explanation for why I find this hypothesis implausible --- it just is. Your knee must have been designed that way!

Intelligent Design advocate: YOU BASTARD! YOU KNOW YOU DID IT!

Scientist: I surely do not. How can we know anything for certain? Frankly, I think we should expose people to all points of view. Furthermore, you should really re-examine whether your hypothesis is scientific at all: the breaking of your kneecap happened in the past, so we can't rewind and run it over again, like a laboratory experiment. Even if we could, it wouldn't prove that I broke your kneecap the previous time. Plus, let's not even get into the fact that the entire universe might have just popped into existence right before I said this sentence, with all the evidence of my alleged kneecap-breaking already pre-formed.

Intelligent Design advocate: That's a load of bullshit sophistry! Get me a doctor and a lawyer, not necessarily in that order, and we'll see how that plays in court!

Scientist (turning to audience): And so we see, ladies and gentlemen, when push comes to shove, advocates of Intelligent Design do not actually believe any of the arguments that they profess to believe. When it comes to matters that hit home, they prefer evidence, the scientific method, testable hypotheses, and naturalistic explanations. In fact, they strongly privilege naturalistic explanations over supernatural hocus-pocus or metaphysical wankery. It is only within the reality-distortion field of their ideological crusade that they give credence to the flimsy, ridiculous arguments which we so commonly see on display. I must confess, it kind of felt good, for once, to be the one spouting free-form bullshit; it's so terribly easy and relaxing, compared to marshaling rigorous arguments backed up by empirical evidence. But I fear that if I were to continue, then it would be habit-forming, and bad for my soul. Therefore, I bid you adieu.

FD, maybe you should consider splitting the evolution/ID parts of the thread, although we've probably done the banning of religious schools to death.

I prefer not to get into the ID/Evolution debate because I have better things to do with my time than argue with the faithful.

Find a single National Academy that supports ID, and you'll be on a winner.

I did not expect a reply FD, I just used it to illustrate how at some point, reality pervades even the most obtuse views.
It is just preferable not to need to use a baseball bat to get there.

I appreciate your theories on individual freedoms, but you apply it far too simplistically, and without concern for the societal implications.
We also have duties, when we have freedoms, and if one freedom when taken to excess, creates issues for all society, it is not unreasonable to demand they reduce their excesses.

freediver wrote on Jun 18^th, 2008 at 8:35am:

Well so have I, but I would object to leaving the head of somebody else's pet goat on a church altar. That's just sick.

Quote:


FD, I've got to hand it to you - You have a real talent of seeing through the eyes of others. (you can take that as a compliment)

I've already said that I'm not anti-Christian. I even see some benefit in the ethical infrastructure that is provided by religions such as Christianity and Islam. I sent my kids to a Catholic School and I've had an audience with the pope (John Paul II). I'm about as mainstream and boring as you can get, and I do believe in traditional values. I'm just an atheist, in that I don't believe in gods.

I have more of a problem with the hypocrisy latent in US society. Despite the fact that so many of them are Christians, their society is about as dysfunctional as it gets. They pay lip service to Christianity, even though they attend church a great deal more than the average Christian in Australia or Europe.  

If they really believed in some of the ideals of humility and material poverty (spiritual richness) that they choose to ignore (some of the good messages of Christianity), things would be much different in the world today.

Well so have I, but I would object to leaving the head of somebody else's pet goat on a church altar. That's just sick.

Were they satanists, or drunken pranksters?

I've already said that I'm not anti-Christian.

Yes, the devil takes pleasing forms, don't you? Satan!

I have more of a problem with the hypocrisy latent in US society. Despite the fact that so many of them are Christians, their society is about as dysfunctional as it gets.

I would put that down to factors other than religion. A more outspoken religion is the inevitable response. I think it may go back to the ancient Greeks and derision of the sophists, but much of our western education indoctrinates people into putting truth above all else. People can say something like 'beauty is truth, and truth beauty' and people don't even realise how absurd it is. They may even consider it profound. I think this may have a lot to do with what is currently called 'affluenza' and is at it's most extreme in American society. This indoctrination is far more insidious because it is not even recognised as indoctrination. It is so ingrained in western culture that we have difficulty even concieving of an alternative.

So according to FD, anyone who claims any belief or behaviour as religiously based has the freedom to exercise any such behaviour at any time or place.

No. Freedom extends only to where it infringes other people's freedom. That being said, you do not have some kind of right to freedom from views that make you feel uncomfortable, so your objection that there are 'societal issues' associated with freedom is vacuous.

Sounds like your freedom of religion is the new "one true" religion.

It is the foundation of modern society. It transcends religion. You would have us taken back to the dark ages. Our soldiers did not fight and die for Christianity, or meat pies, they fought for our freedom. They killed for the rights that you are trying to take away.

Obviously it is far more important than children's rights

No it isn't. It is children's rights. Children have freedom of religion also. You cannot deny them their right to practice their religion and attend a religious school. You cannot say that freedom begins only after a certain age and before that their minds are in the hands of the government to be shaped the same way as everyone else's. Until they choose for themselves, they are in their parent's hands, not the government's. You bring up your own children. You don't get to force your views on child raising on other people and take their children away because you are scared of the ideas they pass on.

or society's rights

A society cannot have rights. That doesn't even make sense. Rights are individual. Any 'societal right' you dream up is going to take the form of the government imposing the will of some people on others, by denying them their rights. It is forced conformity.

so everyone else must grant you respect and leave you to do what you want whenever you want

Now you are starting to get it. Live and let live. Or, mind your own business.

Silly me, I did not at first understand how relinquishing total control over your kids for up to 30 hours a week

You are not relinquishing control. You are choosing to delegate your authority. Just like your idea, except parents choose to do it, rather than having their children taken away from them by a faceless bureaucracy.

freediver wrote on Jun 18^th, 2008 at 11:03am:


I take it that you meant that in jest. (I hope you did)