Posted on 04/05/2002 1:05:07 PM PST by JediGirl
Yes, don't you think so?
For instance, if you assert that gold is radioactive, and I put a geiger counter up to it and detect NO decays -- wouldn't that constitute evidence AGAINST gold's radioactivity?
John C. Polkinghorne is one of the best-known figures in the field of science and religion. After a distinguished career in physics, where he made important contributions to quark theory, he studied for ordination and became an Anglican priest. After a few years as a parish priest, he moved, essentially full-time, into science and religion
In matters philosophical, yes he is. You realize, of course, that many very smart physiscists are atheists too. What do you make of that?
Putting statistical evaluation to altered outcomes is very sensible. What is your objection to same?
I think you're getting tripped up inside your analogy.
We observe the fact of gravity as a self-evident fact. We observe intricate relationships & regularities in a lot of what we see in the universe, as a self-evident fact. In both cases, it's the explanation of those observed facts that requires "belief".
Now, you can come to a belief by way of the scientific method, or by faith unconnected to any real supporting data, or a combination of the two. Most people live their lives with such a combination, perfectly willing to demand relevant evidence & valid logical inferences for their non-religous beliefs. (I'd say "most people have a remarkable ability to compartmentalize their contradictory beliefs".)
As comforting as it is to believe there's an overarching all-powerful father figure in charge of it all, I don't think there's any supporting data for that hypothesis apart from our desire to see things that way.
I'm progressing, lol. Let me take my time, I was a hard-core conservative Christian less than a year ago.
Really, I kid. It is far more gratifying to me that you lean libertarian -- a real live and let live philosophy, than whatever spirituality you ultimately choose (which to me is about as important as the color of foot wear you prefer -- hmm, I suppose that would have more significance to a foot-fetishest -- but anywho ...:-)
Stalin was, of course, an atheist and a mass murderer. You'd never see that from a libertarian though -- regardless of their spiritual leanings. I think the lesson there is pretty obvious. :-)
I am reminded of the Lenny Bruce line that if Jesus had arrived in the 20th century, later generations of Christians would wear little electric chairs.
BWAAHAAHAA!! Yeah, that's why nobody pays any attention to the tiny minority of cranks who assert that the federal government has wide-ranging jurisdiction over most aspects of daily life. After all, anyone can pick up a printed copy of the Constitution and prove otherwise!
Charles Darwin, the "Father of Racism"
I must been out sick the day my history teacher explained that everybody prior to the mid-19th century believed in racial equality.
Did you hear the one about the anarchist convention that revoked somebody's membership for disorderly conduct?
But you made a comparison of faith and the reading of the Constitution. Why does the term "non-sequitur" keep popping up in my mind? Oh, well.
Also, I never made the assertion that racial equality existed before Darwin's time. This is all on you, not me since I didn't say that.
God bless.
Wasn't Ayn Rand an atheist? There is still much that is good in Rand.
Disclaimer: Opinions posted on Free Republic are those of the individual posters and do not necessarily represent the opinion of Free Republic or its management. All materials posted herein are protected by copyright law and the exemption for fair use of copyrighted works.