If gays marry, churches could suffer

[Merlyn_LeRoy 72]

From this point of view, it can be said that faith is like science. You start with the hypothesis that God is real, you experiment by continually praying, you see whether the hypothesis is validated and God is real or not.

 

It's missing reproducibility and peer review, and results don't converge since different people end up finding different gods, and different numbers of gods. It also looks unfalsifiable.

 

My magic 8-ball gives me answers 100% of the time. This doesn't mean the answers are scientific, because I didn't use scientific methods to get my answer. Same with praying for answers -- you might get an "answer", but you didn't use science to get there, so it isn't a scientific answer.

[packsaddle 753]

Bart, I agree with Merlyn's assessment of your faux-experiment.

But accepting your approach for the sake of argument...for your hypothesis, what results would it take for you to reject God as not real? Keep in mind that others should be able to reproduce the results using the same methodology and arrive at the same conclusion.

 

So...How about that 14th Amendment!?(This message has been edited by packsaddle)

[Beavah 205]

There is no scientific test that can say ANYTHING about a matter of faith. Period.

 

Nonsense. You're startin' from a fundamental assumption that religion and science are mutually distinct, and then claiming that they are mutually distinct because your assumption says so.

 

If yeh could conclusively identify the corpse of Jesus ben Joseph of Nazareth, that would say something very definitive about Christianity, even for us ardent Christians. Now, Bayesian decision-makin' being what it is, it would take a lot of evidence, and paradigms being what they are it would take some generations. But then that's true with deeply-held scientific theories as well.

 

So I reject your foundational assumption that they are distinct. Each is a particular subset or case of rational human intellectual endeavor.

 

It's missing reproducibility and peer review, and results don't converge since different people end up finding different gods, and different numbers of gods. It also looks unfalsifiable.

 

Nonsense. In Christendom, there is all kinds of peer review, eh? Commentaries, analyses. Da Catholics I think still have da formal system of peer review that was the origin of da scientific practice (nihil obstat - reviewer says there is nothing opposed; imprimatur - editor says "let it be printed")

 

Unlike science, most of Christendom from the early days and even now has councils, synods, colloquies and other gatherings that review and pass judgment on ideas. Much more thorough than sending a manuscript to a couple of other random fellows who have their own work to do and then claiming that it is magically endorsed

 

As to reproducibility, that only applies to the very small subset of science which is laboratory-based, and not even then if it is expensive. All those other fields that I mentioned that are observation-based don't have any coherent ability to reproduce conditions and results.

 

Da fundamental flaw in your argument, Merlyn, is that yeh keep excommunicating people you disagree with from "science" - all those folks with "Magic 8-balls". Quite right to exclude them; science would be incoherent if yeh didn't. Problem is yeh then turn around and lump all da folks with "Magic 8-balls" in with religion. It neglects da fact that religious folks also have notions of excommunication, eh? We, too, have a notion of things that are ex- (not) community (part of our community).

 

It's not "science" that makes things coherent, it's the willingness to excommunicate those who don't adhere to community beliefs, norms, and practices. Once yeh allow religionists to define their community in the same way you define yours, then the community is self-consistent and does "converge".

 

B

(This message has been edited by Beavah)

[Merlyn_LeRoy 72]

It's missing reproducibility and peer review, and results don't converge since different people end up finding different gods, and different numbers of gods. It also looks unfalsifiable.

 

Nonsense. In Christendom, there is all kinds of peer review, eh?

 

No. Peer review with a predetermined answer isn't peer review. "In Christendom" implies that the "peers" all agree beforehand what the answer will be.

 

Da fundamental flaw in your argument, Merlyn, is that yeh keep excommunicating people you disagree with from "science"

 

You're an idiot. The earth wasn't deduced to be round by "excommunicating" people who thought it was flat.

[Beavah 205]

No. Peer review with a predetermined answer isn't peer review. "In Christendom" implies that the "peers" all agree beforehand what the answer will be.

 

Nonsense. "In Christendom" no more applies agreement among Christians than "in science" implies agreement among scientists. As I mention above, I believe Catholics still have in place the formal system of peer review that was the origin of da current scientific practice yeh love so dearly. And there are, of course, Journals of Theology.

 

The earth was determined to be round within your community by removing people who disagreed from your community. Or converting them to your way of thinking. There are still people who believe it is flat, or the back of a cosmic turtle or what have you. People who claim their view is "scientific". You, however, excommunicate them. You reject their membership in your community, and deny that they are truly practicing science. Thus, your community remains coherent and unified in its belief. And you try to convert them, for their own good.

 

It is exactly the same with religion or any area of human thought. The practice is by no means unique to science or religion.

[moosetracker 132]

Sorry packsaddle, I meant soft-science as psychology or sociology. Could create various test the effects of the benefits that Religious Faith have on individual or community. Soft-science I know is not quite as respected as hard science in the scientific world.. But, soft-science cannot prove or disprove the content of anyones faith.

 

Now onto the 14th amendment (which packsaddle wants to discuss.. And we have beat to death this religious discussion with no one swaying anyone to their side.. And it isnt a tread on Religion, but on same-sex marriages).. So the 14th amendment may prove interesting in New Hampshire. They have approved marriage of Gays, now they want to repeal it in a vote Jan 2010, the bill states it will preserve the rights of those who have already been married.

http://www.unionleader.com/article/20111026/NEWS06/710269989

Just took a survey on if I think they should or should not repel the decision.. Guess which way I voted .. Then they gave me the results of the poll. 9% think they should (2394), 90% think they should not (23053)..

But I guess the conservatives are now in the majority of those voted in, and are stating that we voted them in for the sole purpose of changing this law.. (Yeah Right.. Try the economic crisis, that has angered everyone and caused whoever the party that was in office to be voted out across the whole country, in a flip-flop election)

So how does that play into the fact that the homosexuals will have a great lawsuit using the 14th amendment should the bill be repealed? Given that some homosexuals will be given the privilege to have their marriages be considered valid by the state, and others will not be..

NH is considered a Conservative State.. But from the poll I took, and the comments on the link to the news article.. The PEOPLE want the bill to stand as it is.. Like in this difficult economic times, NH needs to pay out millions in lawsuits if the bill were to be changed.

 

(This message has been edited by moosetracker)

[Merlyn_LeRoy 72]

Well Beavah, you've convinced me that you're denser than Ed. Go ahead and continue believing that goat entrails are just as valid as the scientific method.

[Beavah 205]

So how does that play into the fact that the homosexuals will have a great lawsuit using the 14th amendment should the bill be repealed?

 

Why?

 

Grandfatherin' in people who would be affected by a new law is a long-established practice, and consistent with American jurisprudence and sensibilities. Yeh can't really make an equal protection case based solely on that.

 

What's goin' on in New Hampshire seems to be a fairly ordinary legislative response to judicial or legislative overreach. It's just not prudent for thin majorities to pass sweeping changes without developin' consensus, whether it's Obamacare or gay marriage, because da voter backlash can repeal them (as we have seen over and over on this issue) and create a lot of polarization and hardship. It's even worse for da judiciary to make the error.

 

Far better to build real consensus first.

 

Beavah

 

[Beavah 205]

Well Beavah, you've convinced me that you're denser than Ed. Go ahead and continue believing that goat entrails are just as valid as the scientific method.

 

Ah, Merlyn. Takes one to know one, eh? I reckon you're so dense yeh have your own event horizon.

 

I don't believe that readin' goat entrails are just as valid as the scientific method. I also don't believe that neopaganism is just as valid as Christianity, and for the same reason.

 

That's the point.

 

B

[Merlyn_LeRoy 72]

You've given no coherent reason why goat entrails aren't as good as science. Using your own bizarre methods, goat entrails are just as good as anything else, since all arguments boil down to 1) include people who agree, 2) exclude everyone else, to reach 3) unanimity. Works for goat entrails.

[packsaddle 753]

Moosetracker, I would argue that 'the people' are expressing a decision which is conservative in the true sense in that it basically tells the government basically to get its nose out of the private lives of the people.

I simply don't understand how the same people who lament 'big government' on one hand can support 'big government' intrusion into individuals' private lives. Seems inconsistent.

[BartHumphries 10]

"It's missing reproducibility..."

Go "experiment" for yourself. Have you?

"... and peer review..."

I'd say there plenty of people who criticize this and who have commented on such things over the past few millenia. You may or may not believe yourself to be my peer.

"...results don't converge since different people end up finding different gods, and different numbers of gods."

I can only report my own experience -- anything else in this regard is hearsay. I guess we can only say that the experiment, performed time and time again for thousands of years by various people, needs more looking into. As an example of something else that needs more looking into, there's that double slit experiment with and without observation. Something that seems to give such different results needs more looking into to figure out just what's happening.

[drmbear 10]

Do you want to know why neither I or anyone else should ever have a problem with Scouting's religious principles and "duty to God"? Because there is no one on the planet that can precisely define exactly what is "God." Any one person may have something THEY think about God - I know I do - but to find a universal definition is impossible. Even athiests need to have their own definition of God in order to say they don't believe in it. At the same time, I could probably come up with a perfectly well accepted definition of God that an athiest could accept with no problem whatsoever. At the least, we've all heard the definition that "God is Love!" Anyone have a problem with duty to Love? Oh yeah, Scouting has a problem with who its members love...

[moosetracker 132]

Very true packsaddle Live & let Live..

 

drmbear - True.. Let's ask the atheist.. So Merlyn.. Can some atheists take the meaning of "Love" and say that it is a ruling and leading power in the universe and are grateful if Love favors and bless them during their life?

 

Beav.. All the polls & comments I have seen to date state the consensus is to let things stand as they are, with same-sex marriage being legal.. Not all were at 90% favor one was on 68% in favor of. Or is consensus to you 100%.. If we needed 100% consensus for every rule or law passed, there would be no rules or laws ever passed. Or, is it that if the ruling is against your religious belief then it must be 100% against your religious belief to be considered a consensus.

 

You might argue with me, but.. Passing the bill was a step in removing church from state law.. To put it back into place because there are religions that are protesting it, while the majority of the people of the State of NH are now in favor of letting it stay in place, would be making a ruling for a religious group against the will of the people, and therefore a reason to protest the the State has failed to remove church from state in it's passing of this bill. Maybe Merlyn can get his atheist pals to come and rally the cause!

[Scoutfish 16]

"Wasn't referrin' to the name, Scoutfish. Was referrin' to the practice, the belief structure, da epistemology."

 

Nah, I wasn't refering to the name either, but just saying that - science by any other name is still science. Maybe it wasn't called science til later on, but the process was the same.

 

When I was little, a garbage truck came by my parents house and the garbagemen would take our garbage away to the dump.

Now days, a waster removal truck comes by may house, and sanitation removal technitions will take my domestic refuse, andf tote it to a waste disposal facility.

 

New name, newer terms that sound nice and fancy...but still thye same process no matter which one you call it.