Science Forums 2

[Qfwfq]

Galapagos I read the whole article by Russel and I agree with the brunt and essence of his opinions, but I don't see there currently being a problem of. I did not find support of the attribution to his words regarding burden of proof. He talks about refuting various ontological arguments but says nothing about anti-ontological ones. I quote his general conclusions:

"My conclusion is that there is no reason to believe any of the dogmas of traditional theology and, further, that there is no reason to wish that they were true. Man, in so far as he is not subject to natural forces, is free to work out his own destiny. The responsibility is his, and so is the opportunity."

Originally Posted by Galapagos

Countries like Denmark and Sweden have it right, America is wrong and religionist politicians like G W Bush and S Palin are an embarrassment.

Errr... in medio stat virtus.

Originally Posted by Galapagos

Big can of worms here. I think children have a right to information, including the information we have about world religions. I think educating children on religion objectively about the religious practices of the world is the right thing to do.

I agree with the importance of not denying children a full perspective, I said that it poses an ethical problem for a society because it raises the issue of freedom vs. compulsory education. Your location is Florida, i. e. in the USA, how much do you support the freedom of American parents to choose their children's schooling? Is homeschooling OK? Is it a freedom the parents have the right to? Many American parents harp about their constitution-guaranteed freedom of choice but should the children in the Bible Belt receive compulsory hermeneutics classes?

Originally Posted by Galapagos

But if X happens to be a proposition that entails strong claims about the natural universe, then this is starting to become an issue of science.

Note that my considerations were about metaphysics and I was talking about things which are not falsifiable, even far less than the teapot.

Originally Posted by Galapagos

For example, if someone says "I strongly believe Jesus was born of a virgin" , this is a claim about religion, but it is also a strong claim about biology, and a false one. They are free to believe it, but it isn't just a religious claim.

For some beliefs I can say it's a lack of hermeneutics, but one is also free to believe that divinity is not bound by what we arrogantly call physical "law". It's kinda like Popper's black swan argument. You can say it's just as unplausible as the teapot, but what empirical disproof do you have that the conception occured by means other than meiosis followed by fertilization? Like, the DNA in a cell just re-arranged and the cell just re-differentiated into a zygote. You'll never get it to happen in vitro, no matter how hard you try, but what does that disprove? We can only say it isn't the way the biomolecular process happens, it doesn't occur according to the chemical properties of the molecules involved. If someone wants to believe that God Almighty made it happen in that single case, that's their business.

Originally Posted by Galapagos

Either way, it makes for interesting science.

It made for a lot of great culture. It concurred in shaping a lot of things, from tony's daily life to major historic events, it caused many wars... it's part of our heritage.