Posted by Jason on January 03, 1997 at 04:13:34:
In Reply to: Re: Carl Sagan posted by Amanda on January 02, 1997 at 18:20:26:
: Jason,
: Could you do me a favor and check out the debate below that Lynn and I have been having under the same heading and give me your honest opinion. I'm afraid I'm losing my cool and it would be best for me to shut off my fingers. I'm also looking for an objective, unbias opinion - I claim to be a skeptic on most issues though there are some that I take as fact or truths though I do understand the logic behind both fact and truth and so the best there can be is provisional in both cases. I'm aware I have personal views that usually come out but it's a bit difficult for me to take an honest, outside look at them. If you have a minute, take a look, give me some hard criticism - I'd appreciate it.
I'd be happy to comment on your debate with Lynn. In fact, I'm honoured that you
asked me specifically for my input. Of course, I'm not immune to bias either.
Remember, I'm a godless infidel too! ;) I noticed that your response branched off
into two parts. I'll comment on them separately.
I'll first comment on the branch you began at 03:01:09. For the most part, I agree
with you. Lynn makes some conclusions based on a misunderstanding of your arguments.
I don't have much background knowledge of pagan religion history so I won't comment
on that. In this branch, I don't think you were "nasty or emotional." Although, I'm
curious what you meant when you said, "If you are - I don't know why the hell you're
here?" I'm sure Lynn is here to debate intellectual differences. To me, she comes
across as a pretty conservative Christian, and although I don't find her arguments
convincing, I respect her tenacity to debate in a forum with tough minded skeptics.
Now the branch at 04:30:12. Well.... maybe you were a little harsh on Lynn in your
last reply. Also, keep in mind that in Internet etiquette, USING CAPS IS SHOUTING!
I don't think she was insinuating that you were filled with hatred towards Christians.
I think she was just concerned that a view like "Christianity is harmful to society"
may encourage some people to persecute them.
I agree with you on several points in this branch and again Lynn misinterpreted some
of your arguments. However, I disagree on a few things. First (I know you disagree on
this), but I don't think we should make a blanket condemnation of Christianity as
being harmful to society. Indeed, like I mentioned in my last post, Christianity is
harmful in some ways and is actually beneficial in other ways. There are many bigoted
and credulous Christians out there, but there are many enlightened and tolerant
Christians out there too. For example, during the US Civil War, the Southern Baptists
endorsed slavery while the Quakers were totally opposed to it.
In regards to science, I have a few comments. I'm not sure if most scientists are
nonbelievers or not. This would be difficult to determine. We would have to take a
very large international poll. Even if most scientists were nonbelievers, appealing
to authority isn't a good argument. Also, perhaps it's more accurate to say that
science is nontheistic rather than atheistic. The scientific method can neither
verify or falsify things like a god or spiritual realm. Finally, you said that the
belief that Christianity has all the answers can stagnate scientific progress. Well,
this is true in many respects. But this is not always the case. Indeed, some religious
people are motivated to study science because they see it as a way to understand their
god's creation. Two notable examples are Isaac Newton, and yes, Charles Darwin
(although, Darwin became an agnostic later on in his life). A good scientist who is
religious knows where to draw the line when it comes to their faith and the scientific
method. I believe Newton said something like, "the Bible tells us how to get to
heaven, not how the heavens work."
Well, that's all I can think of for now. Hope this helps!
- Jason