If gays marry, churches could suffer

[Beavah 205]

"Not a lick of difference between that and theology." Assuming that "that" is 'science', this is one idea where Beavah and I disagree. I do see a difference between theology and science. The methods of inquiry are very different (here I note the prominence of experimental tests of hypotheses in science, not in theology)

 

Come now. How many "experimental tests" does anyone conduct in economics? In sociology? In psychology at anything beyond da trivial level? In geology? In astrophysics? In complex ecological systems? Had a lot of superstrings in da laboratory lately, have we? A few, simple phenomena are amenable to true experiment, but really precious few. An awful lot comes just from accumulated observation over time, not experiment.

 

Science is just a form of human rational thought, with da same approach and limits but a different object. We learn from what is passed on by others, what we learn is refined or modified over time by additional observation / thought / revelation. Whacky ideas are dreamed up and later discounted; individuals can sometimes spout non-canonical beliefs that are nutty, or that are sometimes inspired. It's a human endeavor, with all da human failings and foibles and arrogance that we humans bring to the table. Not a lick different than theology.

 

Do Higgs bosons exist? Many have faith that they do, enough to spend a life's work, many lives' work, and a fortune that would feed many a starving village in the pursuit of a "God particle", and beyond that in pursuit of an understanding of an underlying Truth of da Universe that the Higgs is just a hoped-for marker toward. There's a whole made-up literature spun out of that hope and faith without yet any observation. And that's different than theology?

 

Well, I reckon, in a way. At least da theologians are relyin' on eyewitness accounts and testimony.

 

If yeh believe bosons act in da world, or a meteor destroyed the dinosaurs, then yeh go out and look for signs. If yeh believe God acts in da world, it's the same. Signs in history, signs in how He has affected the lives of people and the development of peoples. Don't be surprised when some of us trust our data as "the Word of God" if you are willin' to trust your data as the Word of the Universe. That's not to say the data isn't noisy, that its reporting doesn't contain some of da author's cultural language, that it isn't subject to possible misinterpretation.

 

Is religion about "controlling the masses"? No more than science is. When medical research shows higher risk of heart disease from eatin' steak and eggs, or higher risk of cancer from smoking, or risks from belching gigatons of carbon into the air, is that "controlling the masses"? It has that effect. Even that intent often enough. Causes folks to pass laws restricting some activities, or refusing to allow "avowed" peddlers of some products access to advertising or young people. It's put out there at very least to try to inspire people to change their personal behavior, even work together on a common problem. Not because scientists want to control, but because they care about others and want to help.

 

No different than religion.

 

Beavah

 

[packsaddle 753]

"Now packsaddle about this rock I would love to know where you heard this from.. Who argued and won on his theroy of a rock being his God?"

Merlyn beat me to it, heh, heh. Ask and ye shall receive.

 

I'm not sure how BSA extended their idiotic policy to that extreme but I recently attended a Catholic church in New Mexico in which there is a special alcove with a hole in the floor from which pilgrims dig, I kid you not, Holy Dirt. Why not? Everyone already knows about Holy Water, right? I have no idea how it is consecrated or how it's supposed to be used but there are literally hundreds of claims of miraculous effects from this dirt. Unless I've misinterpreted something, the very existence of the dirt itself is somehow supposed to be miraculous, perhaps because the supply never runs out...I'm a little sketchy on this point.

 

Anyway, the persons I observed partaking of this...would this be called a sacrament? Anyway these persons were engaging what I would call worship as they knelt and scooped dirt out of that hole in a very reverent manner and it would be easy for me to believe that they make whatever application they make in a reverent manner as well. I'd say that it would be easy to extend that to rocks...nevermind the 'natural theologies' of numerous indigenous peoples around the earth.

 

Moosetracker, it's not about winning or losing. It's about what's right and this policy isn't. BSA, for whatever reasons, has rejected some people who claim to be atheists while accepting others (Buddhists, for example). At the same time, they claim not to judge what qualifies as a higher power or a god, hence the acceptance of a rock (or by extension, dirt). What I see is that your attempt to examine Merlyn's belief in the higher power or authority (whatever) of humanity could be viewed as judgmental if similar examination is not applied to all other claims of faith.

A simple solution to all of this would be for individuals to mind their own business and, by extension, for business (BSA, for example) not to have idiotic exclusionary policies that no one outside of the individual applicant himself could possibly judge fairly.

 

This exclusionary policy (and the DRP) is a mistake that could be corrected with the stroke of a pen. Why not just do the right thing?

[Merlyn_LeRoy 72]

Beavah writes:

Had a lot of superstrings in da laboratory lately, have we?

 

Missed all the press about the Higgs boson? Spending about $9,000,000,000 to test hypotheses is a big difference between science and theology.

 

There's a whole made-up literature spun out of that hope and faith without yet any observation.

 

Wrong. I guess you DID miss all the press.

 

And that's different than theology?

 

Very. It hasn't been "officially" sighted yet, because the confidence level is only around 99%, and that's not good enough for science.

(This message has been edited by Merlyn_LeRoy)

[packsaddle 753]

Beavah, Show me the theology (aside from Unitarian Universalism ) in which the ultimate goal of the believers is to increase knowledge and understanding of their own faith by attempting to disprove the ideas of their own same faith.

[Beavah 205]

Didn't miss da press reports at all, Merlyn. I was explicitly referring to 'em.

 

I've enjoyed listenin' to their quest. I hope they learn somethin' worthwhile, and I eagerly await the news.

 

But yeh know, while they've been pursuing their quest for just one of their myths, me and my co-religionists have been contributing many, many times more than $9B to da care of the poor and needy, in an ongoing test of our myths that has been running for 2000 years or more. Lots more than you secularists, eh? (http://www.american.com/archive/2008/march-april-magazine-contents/a-nation-of-givers).

 

Two thoousand or more years of data, across many cultures and nations. Da LHC folks are nuthin' but a bunch of pikers.

 

 

[moosetracker 132]

Not judge! That's like saying don't be human.. People hear, People interpret, People act on their interpretation of.. Then people judge if others are right or wrong based on their interpretations of..

 

I know of the DRP.. But from what I remember of it, I saw nothing so restrictive in it, so I had to look it up. Had an adult app. close by so went to check it, I think at one time it was on the app. now it is not. So I had to google it.. Your right in all that verbage there is one sentence that is out of sync with all that BSA verbally states..

 

 

Meryln states - You're actually pulling requirements out of the air; the BSA doesn't use the phrase "greater than self".

 

It might not be in the DRP, but it is widely accepted as the definition of... That can be seen be the fact that my council uses it as stated the person who heads our Eagle Board defines the meaning of reverent using it, skeptic has used it in the thread, so has packsaddle.

 

Oh well, Merlyn you would qualify by 9/10 of what they preach, but don't qualify due to one sentence in the DRP, which you have to search out to find, because if you ask what DRP is, I have never heard anyone quote that line..

 

Your right packsaddle it is not about winning, in fact I was hoping we could find away for Merlyn to be acceptable.. That would have been winning.. Although I really don't think Merlyn wants to win the battle because he would then have nothing to gripe about.

 

But, I can't not interpret what I hear, or I would cease trying to make sense out what people are trying to tell me. Sometimes I may interpret it wrong..

 

And I still see "self" to mean mankind.. not personal self.. Sorry..

 

 

[Merlyn_LeRoy 72]

Beavah writes:

Didn't miss da press reports at all, Merlyn. I was explicitly referring to 'em.

 

Then what did you mean by "without yet any observation"? There have been quite a few.

 

But yeh know, while they've been pursuing their quest for just one of their myths,

 

No, subatomic particles aren't "myths", you are again confused by religion.

 

me and my co-religionists have been contributing many, many times more than $9B to da care of the poor and needy

 

Well, there's a red herring out of left field.

 

Science rigorously tests and re-tests its theories. Theology doesn't.

Science agrees on a lot of statements, like the fact that the earth is roughly spherical. Theology can't even agree on how many gods there are.

 

(By the way moosetracker, I use the word "self" to refer to self, and "mankind" to refer to mankind.)

[moosetracker 132]

Merlyn writes : By the way moosetracker, I use the word "self" to refer to self, and "mankind" to refer to mankind.)

 

That's because you have not ever sat in on any theological study sessions.. Words are interpreted for what is really meant.. That is why everyone can read the Bible and pull out totally different meanings and interpretations. And then discuss, ponder and debate a simple passage for a whole evening.

[Merlyn_LeRoy 72]

Words are interpreted for what is really meant..

 

I find it vastly more understandable to use two different words for two different concepts like "self" and "mankind"

 

That is why everyone can read the Bible and pull out totally different meanings and interpretations. And then discuss, ponder and debate a simple passage for a whole evening.

 

Sounds to me like the author failed to get his or her point across, then. For word games, I prefer cryptic crosswords.

[Twocubdad 665]

Have you noticed how BSA is pretty good at writing very basic policies in a way which communicates a core principle but allows for flexibility? But then some jackass tries to "explain" them or -- God/god/rock/light pole forbid -- create a list of FAQs, the whole thing goes right in the ditch?

 

Examples:

 

"The Boy Scouts of America maintains that no member can grow into the best kind of citizenship without recognizing an obligation to God."

 

or

 

"Be active in your troop and patrol for six months...."

 

 

The vast majority of us are perfectly happy to take those statement at face value. But then someone tries to tell us what it really means.....

 

 

I'm inclined to go along with Pack and Moose's EBOR chairman. I would accept belief in some weird notion of a higher being IF the Scout can articulate a sincere belief and explain how he shows reverence toward his faith. Yeah, Meryln, if a Scout can meet this test for a belief in "humanity" or "The Force" if you will, my reading of the DRP says it's not my position to disagree.

 

I will agree the FAQ Merlyn cited is about as nutty as the old FAQ which defined "active" You can believe in anything you wish, as long as you call it God. But calling yourself an atheist even if you believe in a higher power and you're out. Okay, pick one.

 

And just to be clear, let us note the old, goofy definition of "active" and been overridden by the new advancement policy and also note that Merlyn's FAQ on the DRP was written in 1991.

 

You know, we could all save ourselves a lot of grief and aggravation if we automatically ignore any BSA document titled "Frequently Asked Questions."

 

[BartHumphries 10]

How many "experimental tests" does anyone conduct in economics? Actually, quite a lot. Large scale economic tests are rather difficult to conduct in a "laboratory" setting, so generally the idea is to dream up something that a person would like to test (for instance, is there a correlation between abortion and the crime rate, and what sort of economic impact does prostitution have), figure out how that could be tested, then go look for real life data that can be parsed to suggest that's really happening and whether there's a causal connection or a correlation. In my opinion, Steven D. Levitt and Stephen J. Dubner, the guys behind Freakonomics are really doing this right.

 

As far as religion and science, let me introduce you to http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/List_of_Roman_Catholic_cleric%E2%80%93scientists -- note that Wikipedia ia s tertiary source and while it's a great start for looking into something, it is not the final arbiter of truth. That being said, let me quote from that article. I should probably interject that while I am not Catholic I do have a lot of respect for that religion:

Many Roman Catholic clerics throughout history have made significant contributions to science. These cleric-scientists include such illustrious names as Nicolaus Copernicus, Gregor Mendel, Georges Lematre, Albertus Magnus, Roger Bacon, Pierre Gassendi, Roger Joseph Boscovich, Marin Mersenne, Francesco Maria Grimaldi, Nicole Oresme, Jean Buridan, Robert Grosseteste, Christopher Clavius, Nicolas Steno, Athanasius Kircher, Giovanni Battista Riccioli, William of Ockham, and many others. Hundreds of others have made important contributions to science from the Middle Ages through the present day.

The Church has also produced thousands of lay scientists and mathematicians, many of whom were the intellectual giants of their day. These scientists include Galileo Galilei, Rene Descartes, Louis Pasteur, Blaise Pascal, Andr-Marie Ampre, Charles-Augustin de Coulomb, Pierre de Fermat, Antoine Laurent Lavoisier, Alessandro Volta, Augustin-Louis Cauchy, Pierre Duhem, Jean-Baptiste Dumas, Georgius Agricola and countless others.

While some people may decry science and state that science is antithetical to religion, that the two cannot coexist, a majority of Nobel laureates over the centuries would beg to differ.

 

"But what about Galileo?" Well, without telescopes, people couldn't see a stellar parallax. The main reason that Galileo was arrested was that his Dialogue book sort of castigated the Pope -- at least that's how it was interpreted. Also, the main focus of the book was on trying to use the motion of the tides to prove the motion of the Earth, and that part didn't hold together scientifically. Imagine if Stephen Hawking had mixed in "My boss is stupid for not agreeing with me" statements with a treatise whose main focus turned out to be scientifically inaccurate. It would have put something of a damper on his long-term employment prospects. Anyway, Galileo's Dialogue book was when other religious scientists sort of backed away from him and left him on his own. In modern terms, Galileo got in a flame war on an internet discussion board like this one, insulted everyone else and especially the owners of the discussion board and was asked to leave. I'm not saying that what the Catholic church did was right, but it is understandable to me -- noting that understanding does not imply acceptance.

[moosetracker 132]

Twocub - from my memory of the DRP, I thought so too.. But then this line threw me (and in my opinion trashes everything else they say to confirm being "absolutely nonsectarian", and is not what all the religions they do except will believe in.

 

....The recognition of God as the ruling and leading power in the universe and the grateful acknowledgment of His favors and blessings are necessary......

 

Unless someone can tell me how someone who believes in trees and rocks, or Nature, or anything else earthly, can consider a these objects as the ruling and leading power in the universe?? Maybe they can come up with a reason of how a tree or rock can bless them and give them favor..

 

They would need to believe that the earth rules the universe because of this object, or force of nature that is upon the earth.

 

There are people who have a faith that does not encompass the universe.. Or is itself the universe. Can the universe be its own ruling an leading power of itself?? Can an object from one of the plants within the universe actually rule the universe?

[packsaddle 753]

And if Galileo is a model for the comparison, science continued forward in spite of his conviction as a heretic in 1633. The Church managed to see the error of its ways, what, over 300 years later, in an official apology from the Pope only about 20 years ago.

 

I noticed William of Ockham also in the list. You do know that he was also excommunicated, right? For basically agreeing with Augustine, who understood the difference between theology and science and warned against trying to mimic science with theology. A lesson, sadly, that seems not to have been understood.

[Twocubdad 665]

Moose -- when confronted with internally-conflicting policies, I take it as license to choose that portion of the policy with which I agree. Simplistic? Yes. But it sure saves wear and tear.

[BartHumphries 10]

packsaddle, yeah -- like I said, Wikipedia is a tertiary source and while it's a great start for looking into something, it is not the final arbiter of truth. Ockham/Occam did, though, do some excellent scholastic work while also having a strong personal belief in God, which is sort of the point of that list. (This message has been edited by BartHumphries)