Re: Carl Sagan

Subject:

Comments:
: : : : 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 : Thanks Jason, yes it did help - being able to see it from another person's viewpoint is certainly helpful. : I especially agree with the comments you made on Lynn's point of view - I now can see that. I also agree with the idea that some religious people have been inspired to use science to confirm a creator though I know none who have reached that result. I suppose what I meant by stating most scientists are disbelievers was more that scientists must attempt to keep their religious beliefs out of science when doing their research. I am still very convinced that supernaturalism with theism as its handmaiden is harmful to humanity but I don't take the stand that we should work to destroy it or suppress it - I claim that we should look at the evidence - research both the good and the bad of Christianity in this case - discard the bad and if what is left can constitute the original definition of Christianity then it shll survive naturally but I do claim that what will be left will not adhere to the baseic tenents of this religion (ie God, immortality and Christ) so we should call what is left by a different name. One area that is terrifically misunderstood is morals and ethics and we must accept the evidence that it is natural for humanity to be moral animals - inherited down from our ancestors - without the belief in God to steer us in the direction of morality.

Optional Link URL:
Link Title:
Optional Image URL: