The meaning and value of Faith

[Bryan]

I guess that's why they threatened him with torture, forced him recant his views, and placed him under house arrest for all those years.

They did that because Galileo pushed his findings beyond what the evidence would support.

It wasn't until later that predictions of the Copernican theory were capable of being tested (and you'd know that if you read the linked material, but instead you presented a parody that continues to make clear that you don't know the history of the matter).

If that's an example of welcoming new information, then I'd hate to see the flipside. I guess that it was lenient compared to what they did to Giordano Bruno just a few years earlier.

Does the notion of an infinite number of earths sound scientific to you? Or were you trying to shift the topic away from the Catholic Church's treatment of science?

You're comparing the con-man and shameless fraudster Benny Hinn, with Konrad Lorenz? Now I've heard just about everything.

Oh, so you know Lorenz personally (or is it you know Benny Hinn personally?).

There's more of a financial incentive to promote pseudoscience and 'woo woo' doctrines such as astrology and theology, to gullible suckers.

Really? Who pays for it?

Let's see a citation.

Benny Hinn didn't become a multi-millionaire by being too sc[r]upulous with the truth did he?

You think he doesn't believe what he preaches? I have no evidence of that. Do you?

I don't think your challenge was sincere, Dingo Dave. I don't think you know of any other examples from science like Lorenz. Lorenz is your example that proves the rule.

Chalk up another stinker of an argument from Dingo Dave. Another clunker from Down Under.

[Bryan]

Has anything regarding religion ever been proven? Anything at all? Just curious.

<{POST_SNAPBACK}>

Has anything at all been proven?

Anything at all?

Just curious.

There is always epistemic uncertainty, Keith. When you say "prove" you could either refer to logical proof based on the acceptance of unproven axioms, or you could refer to probabilistic "proof" which is the same as evidence.

Is there evidence supporting religious claims? Of course there is. Your consciousness is evidence in support of dualism (consciousness unnecessarily complicates a purely material system).

And if you don't like that one, maybe you can admit that there is evidential support for the religious claims of philosophical naturalism.

[Guest Dingo Dave]

Bryan wrote:

They did that because Galileo pushed his findings beyond what the evidence would support.

It wasn't until later that predictions of the Copernican theory were capable of being tested (and you'd know that if you read the linked material, but instead you presented a parody that continues to make clear that you don't know the history of the matter).

Are you suggesting that it's OK to persecute anyone who puts forward a hypothesis which remains open to further verification? Please tell me that you’re not seriously suggesting such a thing. If that policy were implemented against all new scientific hypotheses, then we would still be living in the dark ages.

The Church persecuted Nicholas Copernicus, and Giordano Bruno, and Galileo, not because they offered unsubstantiated hypotheses, but because they effectively demonstrated that Heaven, as the Bible describes it and as the Church understood it, simply does not exist. Between them, Copernicus, Bruno, and Galileo, effectively relegated the Christian Heaven and Hell to the realms of heathen mythology, just the same as Valhalla, Mount Olympus, the Elysian Fields, Nirvana, and the River Styx and Hades had gone before them.

Behold the wisdom of the medieval Church.

"To assert that the earth revolves around the sun is as erroneous as to claim that Jesus was not born of a virgin." - [Cardinal Bellarmine, during the trial of Galileo]

Take a look at what Martin Luther (the founding father of modern Protestantism) had to say about all these ‘new fangled’ ideas.

“This fool (Copernicus) wishes to reverse the entire science of astronomy; but sacred scripture tells us that Joshua commanded the sun to stand still, and not the earth.”

Oh, the sad irony of it all.

Even if your pathetic excuse for Galileo’s persecution did somehow hold water, then why did it take the church over 300 years to apologise for being flat out wrong about their interpretation of Biblical cosmology? I’ll tell you why. It’s because they’re sore losers.

Does the notion of an infinite number of earths sound scientific to you? Or were you trying to shift the topic away from the Catholic Church's treatment of science?

The notion of infinite worlds fits in far better with our modern understanding of cosmology than the Biblical view does.

Are you aware that there are something like 100 billion (that’s 100 000 000000] stars in our galaxy alone, and that there are somewhere in the order of between 100 billion - 200 billion galaxies in our visible universe? Even if only a tiny fraction of these stars have solar systems of their own, then you do the math and work out many 'worlds' there are likely to be in the entire universe. Hell, there are literally dozens of 'worlds' in our solar system alone.

Astronomers have been searching for planets around some of our neighbouring stars, and they have already discovered hundreds of them, even with the small and imperfect instruments which are available to us today. The number of planets we have discovered orbiting nearby stars, now stands at somewhere around 230.

Read this and weep. - http://news.bbc.co.uk/2/hi/science/nature/3856401.stm

Oh, so you know Lorenz personally (or is it you know Benny Hinn personally?).

Konrad Lorenz shared the 1973 ‘Nobel Prize’ in physiology and medicine, for his pioneering research into animal behaviour. Perhaps you should nominate Benny Hinn for the same award and see how far you get. I know who’s results I’d rather trust!

You think he (Benny Hinn) doesn't believe what he preaches? I have no evidence of that. Do you?

If you have any doubts at all that Benny Hinn is a con-man, a Fraudster, and a liar, then take a look at this. ‘Benny Hinn Examined’ - http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=W4t9APdSG30

If after watching this documentary, you still believe that Benny Hinn could possibly be sincere about his claims and beliefs, then you are an even bigger fool than I originally took you for.

Tell me Bryan, do you sincerely believe your own arguments, or are you arguing ‘just for the Hell of it’?

For your sake, I hope it’s the latter.

[Guest Dingo Dave]

Has anything regarding religion ever been proven? Anything at all? Just curious.

<{POST_SNAPBACK}>

Not that I know of.

[Bryan]

Bryan wrote:

I guess that's why they threatened him with torture, forced him recant his views, and placed him under house arrest for all those years. If that's an example of welcoming new information, then I'd hate to see the flipside. I guess that it was lenient compared to what they did to Giordano Bruno just a few years earlier.

<{POST_SNAPBACK}>

A recent BBC special on global warming presents a flip side of the Lorenz example.

http://link.brightcove.com/services/link/b.../bctid626993303

[Bryan]

Bryan wrote:

Are you suggesting that it's OK to persecute anyone who puts forward a hypothesis which remains open to further verification?

No, but that sure is a handy straw man.

Galileo went beyond the evidence. He didn't have proof that his system was correct, but he advocated the hypothesis as if it were rock solid. The observations came later, as I've mentioned (and you ignored).

Please tell me that you’re not seriously suggesting such a thing.

I don't know why you'd need my assurance. It's not like I wrote anything of the kind. I'm simply saying that it wasn't the Church v. science as it is commonly portrayed among those who don't know the history.

Thus, you have to bring up all manner of weird sidetracking issues to keep your original point alive somehow.

If that policy were implemented against all new scientific hypotheses, then we would still be living in the dark ages.

Correct, but entirely irrelevant. As I already pointed out, the Roman church welcomed the new science. They didn't like the strident advocacy (outpacing the evidence that would justify the stridency).

The Church persecuted Nicholas Copernicus, and Giordano Bruno, and Galileo, not because they offered unsubstantiated hypotheses, but because they effectively demonstrated that Heaven, as the Bible describes it and as the Church understood it, simply does not exist.

lol

Very funny. I'll begin answering you again when you return to the topic.

Funny stuff, though. That's one thing I like about Australians. The sense of humor.

[Guest Guest]

The controversy that has dominated this forum need never have been about disagreements over religion. Many Christians have told me they are appalled by what happened in Matthew's class.

However, because religion has entered this discussion, it's important that we understand why many of us are talking past each other.

Right now in at least one of these topics, there is a discussion about Faith. But what is Faith?

As a suggestion, there is a vast difference between Faith as an action and faith as a belief. I've previously reference Paul Tillich's book on the subject.

Let's have a useful discussion this time, without the name-calling and snide remarks. I have Faith that we can, which is why I am posting this.

<{POST_SNAPBACK}>

The point of this discussion seems to have been sidetracked. Is there a difference between faith as an action and faith as a belief? That's a good question with a great many answers, depending on what part of human life we may choose to focus on. The main point, as I see it, is that faith as a belief is mainly just wishful thinking, while faith as an action is how we change, grow, invent and become more than we were yesterday.

The relevance to the broader topic of the preacher-teacher is that many of his supporters seem to see faith mainly as a belief, unattached to anything that is real. That explains why they become so angry when their beliefs are challenged. Deep down they seem to realize that their own beliefs are not based on what is real, so they insist out of their own insecurity that everyone must believe as they do. It isn't just that they want to "save" people; they need the support system to maintain their illogical and unfounded beliefs. Predictably, they make illogical and unsupported connections between the events in their own lives and their belief systems. As one example, they insist that they owe their very existence to Jesus; there is no basis for that statement, and it isn't even part of their theology, but they are so desperate to insist that their faith is everything that they lose all perspective. That is one of the dangers in this kind of faith.

[Stixx3969]

The point of this discussion seems to have been sidetracked. Is there a difference between faith as an action and faith as a belief? That's a good question with a great many answers, depending on what part of human life we may choose to focus on. The main point, as I see it, is that faith as a belief is mainly just wishful thinking, while faith as an action is how we change, grow, invent and become more than we were yesterday.

The relevance to the broader topic of the preacher-teacher is that many of his supporters seem to see faith mainly as a belief, unattached to anything that is real. That explains why they become so angry when their beliefs are challenged. Deep down they seem to realize that their own beliefs are not based on what is real, so they insist out of their own insecurity that everyone must believe as they do. It isn't just that they want to "save" people; they need the support system to maintain their illogical and unfounded beliefs. Predictably, they make illogical and unsupported connections between the events in their own lives and their belief systems. As one example, they insist that they owe their very existence to Jesus; there is no basis for that statement, and it isn't even part of their theology, but they are so desperate to insist that their faith is everything that they lose all perspective. That is one of the dangers in this kind of faith.

<{POST_SNAPBACK}>

Well said.

[Guest Dingo Dave]

A recent BBC special on global warming presents a flip side of the Lorenz example.

http://link.brightcove.com/services/link/b.../bctid626993303

<{POST_SNAPBACK}>

Very interesting program Bryan. Thanks for the link.

The documentary suggests that genuine scientific research into climate patterns is being actively suppressed and misrepresented by certain political organisations and community lobby groups. If this is indeed the case, then it highlights the dangers of political interference in the pursuit of genuine scientific discovery.

Isn’t this much the same as what happened with the discoveries of Copernicus and Galileo? The Church, which was the most powerful political and social institution on the planet during Galileo’s time, actively suppressed his discoveries, and made it difficult for any other scientists to openly support his findings.

If what this documentary says is accurate, then we now have two examples of scientific truth being sacrificed on the alter of dogma and popular political opinion.

[Guest Dingo Dave]

Bryan wrote:

The Catholic Church did not punish Galileo for his theory. Indeed, the Church was instrumental in enabling scientific research in Galileo's day. Indeed, the pope at the time welcomed Galileo's initial findings not unlike the saintly scientist from Dawkin's evangelical tome. - http://www.catholic.net/rcc/Periodicals/Is...ileoAffair.html

And,

Galileo went beyond the evidence. He didn't have proof that his system was correct, but he advocated the hypothesis as if it were rock solid. The observations came later, as I've mentioned (and you ignored).

And,

As I already pointed out, the Roman church welcomed the new science. They didn't like the strident advocacy (outpacing the evidence that would justify the stridency).

Dear Bryan,

Galileo demonstrated that Jupiter had moons which orbited around it. He also demonstrated that Venus showed a complete set of phases just like our moon. This proved beyond a shadow of a doubt that not all heavenly bodies revolved around the Earth, and that Venus revolved around the Sun and not the Earth.

All of the new evidence which Galileo presented, supported the Sun centred hypothesis. None of it supported the Church's Earth centred view.

Why, if the church was so welcoming of new scientific discoveries, did Galileo's book 'Dialogue Concerning the Two Chief World Systems' remain on the Church's ‘Index of Prohibited Books’ until 1835?

To quote Galileo:

"To condemn as erroneous this particular proposition, would (if I am not mistaken) be a still greater detriment to the minds of men, since it would afford them occasion to see a proposition proved that it was heresy to believe."

Galileo knew the Church's interpretation of the Bible had to be altered because science was proving it wrong. At the time the Church felt that only they had supreme authority to interpret the Bible. The Church got pissed off when Galileo started teaching a modified interpretation of the Bible, which wouldn't conflict with what he knew science was proving to be true. The new interpretation of the Bible was contrary to what the Church believed, and the Church had complete governing power to enforce its belief and sentence Galileo for heresy.

Paradoxically, those who today still uphold the Bible as the Literal Inerrant Word of God now claim the Bible all along said the earth moves around the sun. "

- http://home1.gte.net/deleyd/religion/galileo/

Read the Pope’s words to the Tuscan ambassador about the matter. - "Your Galileo has ventured to meddle in things he ought not, and with the most grave and dangerous subject that can be stirred up in these days."

Read for yourself the following statement, which the church forced Galileo to read aloud and sign, and then tell me again how much the church welcomed Galileo’s new scientific discoveries.

If Galileo had refused to either read or sign this declaration, then the church was prepared to have him tortured. I recall reading somewhere that the instruments of torture were displayed in the same room as Galileo when read the following statement before his inquisitors:

"I, Galileo, son of the late Vincenzio Galileo of Florence, aged seventy, arraigned personally before this tribunal and kneeling before you, most Eminent and Reverend Lord Cardinals, general Inquisitors against heretical depravity in the entire Christian dominion ... do swear that I have always believed, and do now believe, and with God's help will in the future believe all that is held and taught by the Holy Catholic and Apostolic Church. But whereas, after an injunction which had been lawfully intimated to me by this Holy Office that I must altogether abandon the false opinion that the Sun is the centre of the world and is immovable, and that the Earth is not the centre of the world and moves, and that I must not hold, defend or teach in any way whatsoever, either verbally or in writing, the said false doctrine, and after it had been notified to me that the said doctrine is contrary to Holy Scripture, I wrote and published a book in which I discussed this doctrine which had already been condemned, and presented arguments in its favour without offering any solution, I have been pronounced by the Holy Office to be vehemently suspected of heresy ... Therefore, wishing to remove from the minds of your Eminences and all faithful Christians this vehement suspicion justly conceived against me, with sincere heart and unfeigned faith I do abjure, curse and detest the said errors and heresies and general each and every other error, heresy and sect which is contrary to the Holy Church; and I swear that in the future I will never again say or assert, verbally or in writing, anything which might again give grounds for suspicion against me. ... I swear and promise also to comply with and observe fully all the penalties that have been or may be imposed upon me by this Holy Office. ... I, the said Galileo Galilei, have abjured, sworn, promised and bound myself as above; and in testimony of the truth I have signed the present document of my abjuration with my own hand and recited it word for word in Rome, in the Convent Sopra Minerva, this 22nd day of June 1633."

By compelling Galileo to do this, the Church was forcing him (under the threat of torture), to read aloud and sign a false declaration. In other words, the church authorities forced Galileo to publicly lie to them, and to his scientific colleagues throughout Europe regarding his beliefs about his new astronomical discoveries. What would we think of any organisation today, which forced people (with threats of violence) to publicly lie on their behalf, in order to help them retain their grip on power?

History has demonstrated that the Medieval church was just about as wrong as it could possibly have been, both in it’s views about the nature of the cosmos, as well as it’s sustained and violent suppression of any competing views.

You wrote; “As I already pointed out, the Roman church welcomed the new science.”

Try pulling my other leg Bryan. It plays Jingle Bells.

[Bryan]

Bryan wrote:

Dear Bryan,

Galileo demonstrated that Jupiter had moons which orbited around it. He also demonstrated that Venus showed a complete set of phases just like our moon. This proved beyond a shadow of a doubt that not all heavenly bodies revolved around the Earth,

Right ...

and that Venus revolved around the Sun and not the Earth.

"Aside: The definitive test of the Earth's motion about the Sun was the observation of stellar parallax. The parallax of the nearby stars was finally observed in 1838."

http://www.astro.virginia.edu/class/skruts...tes/scigal.html

"Galileo observed the Supernova of 1604 and tried unsuccessfully to measure its parallax. According to Copernicus's theory, the Earth 's motion must produce a parallax, but no such parallax was found until Bessel."

http://www.geocities.com/CapeCanaveral/7997/galileo.html

In short, a major prediction of the Copernican system was not confirmed until well after Galileo.

All of the new evidence which Galileo presented, supported the Sun centred hypothesis. None of it supported the Church's Earth centred view.

Galileo's observations included the failure to observe the parallax predictions of Copernican theory.

http://arxiv.org/ftp/physics/papers/0606/0606255.pdf

"According to Leos Ondra's research, which in this regard is mostly a recounting of Fedele's 1949 article, Galileo's interest in the spacing between Mizar A and B (and the possibility that it might change during the year) stems from his wish to prove to his critics the motion of the Earth through space by the well-known effect called parallax -- the apparent change in the position of a nearby object relative to a more distant one when one changes one's point of observation. In his famous Dialog Concerning the Two Chief World Systems (1632) Galileo explains the then already well understood idea that if the stars are at finite distances and if the Earth moves in a huge orbit around the Sun, then the apparent positions of the closer stars should move relative to the more distant ones. Tycho Brahe had searched in vain for examples of stellar parallax that could be detected by the naked eye. Apparently Galileo thought the effect might be within the range of the added twenty to thirty times greater precision provided by his telescope, and perhaps that the fainter stars revealed by the telescope would provide a more distant backdrop against which the motion of the brighter stars could be seen. However, Galileo's note to himself regarding the possible distances to these stars seems strange since Tycho had already concluded the fixed stars must be much further away. If Mizar A were indeed only 300 solar distances away its annual wobble relative to a truly distant star should have been an easily observable ±12 arc-minutes; and Mizar B, at 450 solar distances (3/2 times farther than Mizar , would have been expected to show an annual parallax of ±8 arc-minutes. Their motion relative to one another would be about 4 arc-minutes (Mizar A would appear to move in a yearly circle of this radius with respect to the more distant Mizar . The complete absence of any detectable change at the level of a few arc-seconds must have been very puzzling indeed to Galileo and Castelli. Since they continued to believe the Earth moved, they must have had to discard either the idea that these stars were close to the Earth or the idea that they were at significantly different distances."

http://www.pacifier.com/~tpope/Mizar_Page.htm

(bold emphasis added)

Why, if the church was so welcoming of new scientific discoveries, did Galileo's book 'Dialogue Concerning the Two Chief World Systems' remain on the Church's ‘Index of Prohibited Books’ until 1835?

Beating the confirmation of parallax by about three years, as it happens.

Newton's ideas about gravitation, among other things, would have strengthened the case against geocentric views subsequent to Galileo.

And it's not like other scientists hopped on board the Copernican system without hesitation.

"Astronomers of this time period saw the result of this being unsalvageable for a Ptolemaic cosmology, if the results were accepted as true. As a result, later 17th century competition between astronomical cosmologies focused on variations of Tycho Brahe's Tychonic system (in which the Earth was still at the center of the universe, and around it revolved the Sun, but all other planets revolved around the Sun in one massive set of epicycles), or variations on the Copernican system."

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Ptolemaic_sys...on_and_Einstein

To quote Galileo:

"To condemn as erroneous this particular proposition, would (if I am not mistaken) be a still greater detriment to the minds of men, since it would afford them occasion to see a proposition proved that it was heresy to believe."

Galileo knew the Church's interpretation of the Bible had to be altered because science was proving it wrong.

I don't believe the Church had any formal attachment to geocentrism.

At the time the Church felt that only they had supreme authority to interpret the Bible.

Oh, really? And when did the Catholic Church give up that idea?

The Church got pissed off when Galileo started teaching a modified interpretation of the Bible, which wouldn't conflict with what he knew science was proving to be true.

Kind of.

Galileo was denounced by a priest and he wrote a letter to the priest recommending a figurative interpretation of a certain passage. The priest used the letter as evidence of Galileo's "loose cannon" nature, which helped lead to his eventual punishment (suggesting that Galileo had no business telling a priest how to interpret the Bible).

The church was unavoidably political; Galileo was almost an expert at annoying figures in the church, so much so that his allies in the church could not keep him off the hook.

The new interpretation of the Bible was contrary to what the Church believed, and the Church had complete governing power to enforce its belief and sentence Galileo for heresy.

Paradoxically, those who today still uphold the Bible as the Literal Inerrant Word of God now claim the Bible all along said the earth moves around the sun. "

- http://home1.gte.net/deleyd/religion/galileo/

Read the Pope’s words to the Tuscan ambassador about the matter. - "Your Galileo has ventured to meddle in things he ought not, and with the most grave and dangerous subject that can be stirred up in these days."

Any idea why that quotation only appears in one location on the WWW (with no accompanying context)?

A pity the author you've cited did not footnote his work.

Read for yourself the following statement, which the church forced Galileo to read aloud and sign, and then tell me again how much the church welcomed Galileo’s new scientific discoveries.

The church wasn't monolithic in thought.

The discoveries were welcomed, but Galileo's strident advocacy was not. His methods made him appear to be a troublemaker.

"The Copernican system was condemned as heretical by a decree of the Roman Inquisition in 1633. This decree was effectively, though not officially, withdrawn in 1757, after which date Catholic astronomers felt themselves free to accept and propagate the system without reserve. Between these dates their attitudes varied greatly. In France the decree was never promulgated and was legally unenforceable. Astronomers could be Copernican without any fear of consequences and most of them were, though some, out of respect for the Church, refrained from declaring themselves publicly. In Italy the possible risks were greater, but a few Copernican or near-Copernican works were published without hostile reactions. The ecclesiastical authorities were tolerant and made little positive effort to enforce conformity. By 1744, the system was being freely propagated in Rome itself."

http://taylorandfrancis.metapress.com/cont...3j171u36647v78/

If Galileo had refused to either read or sign this declaration, then the church was prepared to have him tortured. I recall reading somewhere that the instruments of torture were displayed in the same room as Galileo

I remember reading somewhere that the Clintons met with space aliens while Bill was president.

when read the following statement before his inquisitors:

By compelling Galileo to do this, the Church was forcing him (under the threat of torture), to read aloud and sign a false declaration. In other words, the church authorities forced Galileo to publicly lie to them, and to his scientific colleagues throughout Europe regarding his beliefs about his new astronomical discoveries.

People had different ideas about torture in those days than they do now.

Your post gives little indication that you're aware of the differences.

"In the Middle Ages especially and up into the 18th century, torture was considered a legitimate way to obtain testimonies and confessions from suspects for use in judicial inquiries and trials. While, in some instances, the secular courts were known for rather more ferocious treatment than the religious, Will and Ariel Durant argued in The Age of Faith that many of the most vicious procedures were inflicted, not upon stubborn prisoners by governments, but upon pious heretics by even more pious friars. For example, the Dominicans gained a reputation as some of the most fearsomely creative torturers in medieval Spain. Many of the victims of the Spanish Inquisition did not know (and were not informed) that, had they just confessed as required, they might have faced penalties no more severe than mild penance; confiscation of property; even, perhaps, a few strokes of the whip. They thus ended up exposing themselves to torture. Many were perhaps clinging to "the principle of the thing", however noble (or foolhardy) that may be when faced with torture."

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Torture#Torture_in_the_past

What would we think of any organisation today, which forced people (with threats of violence) to publicly lie on their behalf, in order to help them retain their grip on power?

That it was communist or something?

History has demonstrated that the Medieval church was just about as wrong as it could possibly have been, both in it’s views about the nature of the cosmos, as well as it’s sustained and violent suppression of any competing views.

History has demonstrated that science has been wrong countless times.

You're conveniently forgetting that the scientists of the day opposed Copernican theory (because it fits your purpose to mold the history).

You wrote; “As I already pointed out, the Roman church welcomed the new science.”

Try pulling my other leg Bryan. It plays Jingle Bells.

<{POST_SNAPBACK}>

"The same year Maffeo Barberini, Galileo's supporter and friend, was elected Pope Urban VIII. Galileo felt empowered to begin work on his Dialogues concerning the Two Great World Systems."

http://plato.stanford.edu/entries/galileo/

If you want to keep your eyes closed to the truth of history, I guess there's no stopping you.

[an American in Texas]

A recent BBC special on global warming presents a flip side of the Lorenz example.

http://link.brightcove.com/services/link/b.../bctid626993303

<{POST_SNAPBACK}>

Bryan, that link currently points to "Confrontation at Concordia," also a very interesting video, but not on global warming. Apparently Brightcove changes their lineup frequently.

I think you're referring to "The Great Global Warming Swindle." This Youtube link might work: http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=XttV2C6B8pU

It aired on Britain's Channel 4, not on the BBC (they rejected it). It's been extensively debunked already (google it), but here are some links:

http://reasic.wordpress.com/2007/03/10/the...stions-answered

http://fermiparadox.wordpress.com/2007/03/10/swindlers/

http://inthegreen.typepad.com/blog/2007/03...structing_.html

One of the "eminent scientists" quoted in the documentary, in fact the only one whose findings haven't already been disproven, is considering legal action against Martin Durkin, the director.

"Carl Wunsch, professor of physical oceanography at the Massachusetts Institute of Technology, said the film, The Great Global Warming Swindle, was ‘grossly distorted’ and ‘as close to pure propaganda as anything since World War Two’.

He says his comments in the film were taken out of context and that he would not have agreed to take part if he had known it would argue that man-made global warming was not a serious threat. ‘I thought they were trying to educate the public about the complexities of climate change,’ he said. ‘This seems like a deliberate attempt to exploit someone who is on the other side of the issue.’ He is considering a complaint to Ofcom, the broadcast regulator." (quoted in the Guardian )

"Professor Wunsch said: “I am angry because they completely misrepresented me. My views were distorted by the context in which they placed them. I was misled as to what it was going to be about. I was told about six months ago that this was to be a programme about how complicated it is to understand what is going on. If they had told me even the title of the programme, I would have absolutely refused to be on it. I am the one who has been swindled.” (quoted in the Independent )

I've also read that Channel 4 was forced to issue an apology for another, similar series by this director. This article from the Guardian confirms that, and also extensively criticizes the documentary. The tagline on the article is "The science might be bunkum, the research discredited. But all that counts for Channel 4 is generating controversy."

http://www.guardian.co.uk/commentisfree/st...2032575,00.html

Leigh Williams

Austin, Texas

[Bryan]

Bryan, that link currently points to "Confrontation at Concordia," also a very interesting video, but not on global warming.  Apparently Brightcove changes their lineup frequently.

I think you're referring to "The Great Global Warming Swindle."  This Youtube link might work:  http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=XttV2C6B8pU

You're right, it wasn't the BBC that aired it.

On the other hand, you completely ignored the point I made about dissension among scentists.

Fancy that. Another change of topic.

[Guest Dingo Dave]

Thanks for the info Leigh.

I had a suspicion that the producers might have distorted some of the scientist’s opinions through ‘creative editing’, but I had no idea that it was so blatant.

It just goes to show how careful we must be, when assessing information we get from the popular media.

[Guest Supporter]

Looks like a one-man show.  The guy's probably busy.  He's interested in what Paul posts, so Paul gets pretty good service (de facto priority), but the rest of us will end up waiting when the volume overwhelms our host.

Are you saying this on any evidence, or are you just attempting to turn anger against Paul?

Isn't that just a nice way of saying that science is frequently wrong? 

And how would you like me to nicely say that religion is almost always wrong?

Too bad that doesn't stretch to the public schools, where scientific facts that turn out to be false may get taught as if they are perfectly true.

He said that scientists openly admit when they are wrong, not that schools adopt the new knowledge. And why don't religions comply with new factual evidence instead of hiding behind what the bible says? Or are you one of those people who belive that dinosaurs resided two by two on Noah's ark, along with over 10,000 kinds of beetles alone? Talk about a stretch.

Not off the top of my head, but on the other hand I can't recall any scientists, either, other than the one you cited from Dawkins.  Can you?

How about all of the major turn-arounds in scientific history, or even some of the minor ones. Examples; the earth is round, not flat. Algea are not plants. Viruses are not alive. The earth revolves around the sun, not the other way around. Take your pick, the list goes on. Oh, and the last time I checked, I think that these ideas have been adopted by the public schools. Funny, that...

I think this is interesting.

Instead of merely conceding the point, you fashion a comparison between Religion and Science in order to make the latter appear better by comparison.  You cite a single example from science and then proceed to give me the burden of proof for, as it were, restoring the image of religion that you have sought to implicitly attack.

You are so hypocritacal. That is exactly what religion does every day. It presents a bunch of preposterous ideas that are based on absolutely no evidence, and then places the burden of proving them wrong on other people. Normally, you have to prove an idea right before you start to prove it wrong. Strange, but we seem to have skipped this step in relation to religion.

Heh.  And the attack continues.

It looks like there are 50 nobel prize winners just among Jews.

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/List_of_Jewis...l_Prize_winners

Where do I find a similar list of "prominent" "mainstream" Christian leaders?

In fact, most "mainstream" Christian leaders do not even engage in theological theorizing and debate (come to think of it, Benny Hinn supposedly graciously admitting being wrong about Trinitarian dogma, but I can no more vouch for his sincerity than Dingo Dave can vouch for the sincerity of Mr. Lorenz.

Yes, his argument was a little out there. Christian leaders have done a lot of good, but they did not do it simply because they were Christian. Even you have to admit this.

That's a misrepresentation.  The Catholic Church did not punish Galileo for his theory.  Indeed, the Church was instrumental in enabling scientific research in Galileo's day.  Indeed, the pope at the time welcomed Galileo's initial findings not unlike the saintly scientist from Dawkin's evangelical tome.

Except that scientific theories at that time had to be, not in theory but in reality, approved by the church before they were accepted publically.

There's financial incentive for bad science.  Did you look at the article concerning scientific fraud?

There's also incentive for faulty religion (which is all religion). The church doesn't have to pay taxes, does it?

That and revelation. 

Along with a prophecy that Jesus will descend from the heavens in the next 50 years (as most christians believe) on the wings of a fiery angel and banish all non-believers and sinners to the bowels of hell, where they will burn forever....but he's still merciful.

Oh, and this 'attack the church' diversionary tactic? How about the 'we believe anything the bible says without evidence' tactic? I'd say that's a pretty good diversion from rational thinking.

[Bryan]

Are you saying this on any evidence, or are you just attempting to turn anger against Paul?

I'm saying it on evidence, and I don't know why people would be angry with Paul about it. I certainly don't blame Paul for it; I don't even blame KOTW. I'm certain it's not easy doing the pre-pub reviews solo, and I find a predisposition to read some before others completely understandable.

It has frequently happened that posts will be published that were posted after my posts. Sometimes a post will appear in a thread positioned well before the last post in a thread.

What evidence do you want, apart from that?

And how would you like me to nicely say that religion is almost always wrong?

What good would that do after your earlier admission? FWIW, I don't care if you're nice about it or not. Concern yourself over it if you wish.

BTW, how do you know that religion is almost always wrong, since the majority of religious claims are (at least supposedly) untestable?

He said that scientists openly admit when they are wrong, not that schools adopt the new knowledge.

Why wouldn't he admit the truth, IYO? Was Newtonian physics taught as fact until supplanted by relativity?

And why don't religions comply with new factual evidence instead of hiding behind what the bible says?

As already noted, the "factual" evidence frequently turns out to be wrong. But maybe you should give an example or two of what you're talking about.

Or are you one of those people who belive that dinosaurs resided two by two on Noah's ark, along with over 10,000 kinds of beetles alone?

AFAICT, the Bible says nothing about dinosaurs being on the ark, let alone 10,000 kinds of beetles.

Do you wish to change the subject?

Not off the top of my head, but on the other hand I can't recall any scientists, either, other than the one you cited from Dawkins.  Can you?

How about all of the major turn-arounds in scientific history, or even some of the minor ones. Examples; the earth is round, not flat.

There never was any turnaround on that one attributable to modern science. The sphereoid shape of the earth has been common knowledge since before Christ.

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Flat_Earth

(wikipedia's right on this one; I simply reference it for convenience)

Algea are not plants.

Classification is essentially arbitrary. There's not much point in calling artificial classification systems scientific or otherwise.

Viruses are not alive.

Where's the reversal on that one?

Science is still feeling its way to define "life" in any case.

Life is often defined in basic biology textbooks in terms of a list of distinctive properties that distinguish living systems from non-living. Although there is some overlap, these lists are often different, depending upon the interests of the authors. Some biologists and philosophers even reject the whole idea of there being a need for a definition, since life for them is an irreducible fact about the natural world. Others see life simply as that which biologists study.

http://plato.stanford.edu/entries/life/

The earth revolves around the sun, not the other way around. Take your pick, the list goes on.

I suppose it's time I pointed out to you that you've drifted off-topic. The subject was the willingness of individual scientists to cheerfully greet their comeuppance when their ideas are shown wrong.

You haven't given any examples of that. You're just emitting smoke.

You are so hypocritacal.

Am I? In what way?

That is exactly what religion does every day.  It presents a bunch of preposterous ideas that are based on absolutely no evidence, and then places the burden of proving them wrong on other people.

Let's say you're right about that--how does that make me a hypocrite? Or am I supposed to prove that I'm not a hypocrite now that you have claimed that religions frequently shift the burden of proof for their claims?

Normally, you have to prove an idea right before you start to prove it wrong.

Normally where?

Science, for example, doesn't work that way. A hypothesis is proposed, and a hypothesis that resists falsification gains in acceptance.

The hypothesis is taken as true for the sake of experimentation initially, but not otherwise (somebody has to take it seriously or else it doesn't get tested--at least not by design).

Strange, but we seem to have skipped this step in relation to religion.

Yes, his argument was a little out there. Christian leaders have done a lot of good, but they did not do it simply because they were Christian. Even you have to admit this.

I don't see why, when it's hardly on topic.

Except that scientific theories at that time had to be, not in theory but in reality, approved by the church before they were accepted publically.

By the general public, you mean? You've gone a bit vague. There are two relatively recent developments that have much to do with your claim: widespread modern schooling and a comparable infinitude of published sources.

I don't believe that the Church exercised specific control of science.

There's also incentive for faulty religion (which is all religion).  The church doesn't have to pay taxes, does it?

Most major religions predated tax exemption, if I'm not mistaken.

<dude runs off-topic even more after this; snipped accordingly>

[Guest Paul]

Are you saying this on any evidence, or are you just attempting to turn anger against Paul?

And how would you like me to nicely say that religion is almost always wrong?

He said that scientists openly admit when they are wrong, not that schools adopt the new knowledge.  And why don't religions comply with new factual evidence instead of hiding behind what the bible says?  Or are you one of those people who belive that dinosaurs resided two by two on Noah's ark, along with over 10,000 kinds of beetles alone?  Talk about a stretch.

How about all of the major turn-arounds in scientific history, or even some of the minor ones.  Examples; the earth is round, not flat.  Algea are not plants.  Viruses are not alive.  The earth revolves around the sun, not the other way around.  Take your pick, the list goes on.  Oh, and the last time I checked, I think that these ideas have been adopted by the public schools.  Funny, that...

You are so hypocritacal.  That is exactly what religion does every day.  It presents a bunch of preposterous ideas that are based on absolutely no evidence, and then places the burden of proving them wrong on other people.  Normally, you have to prove an idea right before you start to prove it wrong.  Strange, but we seem to have skipped this step in relation to religion. 

Yes, his argument was a little out there.  Christian leaders have done a lot of good, but they did not do it simply because they were Christian.  Even you have to admit this.

Except that scientific theories at that time had to be, not in theory but in reality, approved by the church before they were accepted publically. 

There's also incentive for faulty religion (which is all religion).  The church doesn't have to pay taxes, does it? 

Along with a prophecy that Jesus will descend from the heavens in the next 50 years (as most christians believe) on the wings of a fiery angel and banish all non-believers and sinners to the bowels of hell, where they will burn forever....but he's still merciful.

Oh, and this 'attack the church' diversionary tactic?  How about the 'we believe anything the bible says without evidence' tactic?  I'd say that's a pretty good diversion from rational thinking.

<{POST_SNAPBACK}>

I distinguish between religion and theism. Religion is a human attempt to consider all things (re) and bind them together into a coherent whole (ligare, the derivations are Latin). Theism is belief in a supreme being who created the universe, etc. To the extent that theism helps unify and explain life, it produces good effects. Too often, however, its effects are exactly the opposite, so that the theist is actually anti-religious, even if unintentionally so.

[Guest Dingo Dave]

Bryan wrote:

Heh.  And the attack continues.

It looks like there are 50 nobel prize winners just among Jews...

Where do I find a similar list of "prominent" "mainstream" Christian leaders?

In fact, most "mainstream" Christian leaders do not even engage in theological theorizing and debate (come to think of it, Benny Hinn supposedly graciously admitting being wrong about Trinitarian dogma, but I can no more vouch for his sincerity than Dingo Dave can vouch for the sincerity of Mr. Lorenz.

To which Supporter responded:

Yes, his argument was a little out there. Christian leaders have done a lot of good, but they did not do it simply because they were Christian. Even you have to admit this.

I have been judged in the past as being too hard on the clergy because I condemn their habit of making unsupported claims and extravagant promises in their attempts to coerce people into to joining their particular cults.

The famous song ‘The preacher and the Slave’ pretty well sums up my attitude towards some of the clergy’s more unscrupulous tactics.

In the early years of last century, the IWW (Industrial Workers of the World) concentrated much of their efforts on organizing the migratory and casual labourers of the lumber and construction camps in the U.S.A. In between jobs these migrants would gather in the Skid Rows of Chicago, Portland, Seattle and other cities they used as a "base of operations." There on the street corners was the inevitable Salvation Army band anxious to save lost Wobbly souls. But the Wobblies were more interested in filling their stomachs than in saving their souls, and they ridiculed the Salvation Army hymns with biting parodies aimed at what came to be known as "pie in the sky" preaching....

The most successful of these parodies was Joe Hill's masterpiece, "The Preacher and the Slave," more widely known as "Pie in the Sky" -- a devastating take-off on the hymn "Sweet Bye and Bye." It goes like this:

Long-haired preachers come out every night,

Try to tell you what's wrong and what's right;

But when asked how 'bout something to eat

They will answer with voices so sweet:

CHORUS:

You will eat, bye and bye,

In that glorious land above the sky;

Work and pray, live on hay,

You'll get pie in the sky when you die.

The starvation army they play,

They sing and they clap and they pray

'Till they get all your coin on the drum

Then they'll tell you when you're on the bum:

Holy Rollers and jumpers come out,

They holler, they jump and they shout.

Give your money to Jesus they say,

He will cure all diseases today.

If you fight hard for children and wife --

Try to get something good in this life --

You're a sinner and bad man, they tell,

When you die you will sure go to hell.

Workingmen of all countries, unite,

Side by side we for freedom will fight;

When the world and its wealth we have gained

To the grafters we'll sing this refrain:

FINAL CHORUS:

You will eat, bye and bye,

When you've learned how to cook and to fry.

Chop some wood, 'twill do you good,

And you'll eat in the sweet bye and bye.

http://www.fortunecity.com/tinpan/parton/2/pie.html

Supporter wrote:

Except that scientific theories at that time had to be, not in theory but in reality, approved by the church before they were accepted publicly.

I’d go further than that, and posit that any new scientific theories at the time had to be approved by the church before they could be advocated publicly, as the Galileo saga testifies.

In his last response, Bryan seemed to imply that a ‘little bit’ of torture might be OK if it furthers the interests of the church. What should we make of this? Just how much torture is acceptable when combating heresy? Where do we draw the line in the spectrum of violence from a few lashes of the whip, to life imprisonment, to someone having all their joints dislocated on the rack and then being burned into oblivion? Do the ends truly justify the means?

When Bryan wrote in response to one of my comments, that the communists also viewed threats of torture and persecution to be legitimate methods for furthering their political goals, he was unwittingly helping me to make my point about the dangers of allowing any organisation (such as the medieval church) the power to violently stifle dissent from accepted wisdom and to suppress free inquiry. We need look no further than the ‘Lysenko affair’ in Stalinist Russia for a modern illustration of this principal being put into practice. It has been argued that Russia’s agricultural industry is still recovering from this ‘regrettable error of judgement’ on the part of a brutal dictator, who just like the medieval church was also convinced that he had discovered ‘the truth’.

Bryan’s approach to these issues, reminds me of an old ‘Cheech and Chong’ comedy sketch, which goes something like this:

Chong - Hey Cheech! What’s that?

Cheech - mmm Looks like dog shit.

Cheech - mmm Smells like dog shit.

Chong - mmm Tastes like dog shit.

Cheech - Yeah. Lucky we didn't step in it.

[Guest Dingo Dave]

Bryan wrote:

Heh.  And the attack continues.

It looks like there are 50 nobel prize winners just among Jews...

Where do I find a similar list of "prominent" "mainstream" Christian leaders?

In fact, most "mainstream" Christian leaders do not even engage in theological theorizing and debate (come to think of it, Benny Hinn supposedly graciously admitting being wrong about Trinitarian dogma, but I can no more vouch for his sincerity than Dingo Dave can vouch for the sincerity of Mr. Lorenz.

To which Supporter responded:

Yes, his argument was a little out there. Christian leaders have done a lot of good, but they did not do it simply because they were Christian. Even you have to admit this.

I have been judged in the past as being too hard on the clergy because I condemn their habit of making unsupported claims and extravagant promises in their attempts to coerce people into joining their particular cults.

The famous song ‘The preacher and the Slave’ pretty well sums up my attitude towards some of the clergy’s more unscrupulous tactics.

In the early years of last century, the IWW (Industrial Workers of the World) concentrated much of their efforts on organizing the migratory and casual labourers of the lumber and construction camps in the U.S.A. In between jobs these migrants would gather in the Skid Rows of Chicago, Portland, Seattle and other cities they used as a "base of operations." There on the street corners was the inevitable Salvation Army band anxious to save lost Wobbly souls. But the Wobblies were more interested in filling their stomachs than in saving their souls, and they ridiculed the Salvation Army hymns with biting parodies aimed at what came to be known as "pie in the sky" preaching....

The most successful of these parodies was Joe Hill's masterpiece, "The Preacher and the Slave," more widely known as "Pie in the Sky" -- a devastating take-off on the hymn "Sweet Bye and Bye." It goes like this:

Long-haired preachers come out every night,

Try to tell you what's wrong and what's right;

But when asked how 'bout something to eat

They will answer with voices so sweet:

CHORUS:

You will eat, bye and bye,

In that glorious land above the sky;

Work and pray, live on hay,

You'll get pie in the sky when you die.

The starvation army they play,

They sing and they clap and they pray

'Till they get all your coin on the drum

Then they'll tell you when you're on the bum:

Holy Rollers and jumpers come out,

They holler, they jump and they shout.

Give your money to Jesus they say,

He will cure all diseases today.

If you fight hard for children and wife --

Try to get something good in this life --

You're a sinner and bad man, they tell,

When you die you will sure go to hell.

Workingmen of all countries, unite,

Side by side we for freedom will fight;

When the world and its wealth we have gained

To the grafters we'll sing this refrain:

FINAL CHORUS:

You will eat, bye and bye,

When you've learned how to cook and to fry.

Chop some wood, 'twill do you good,

And you'll eat in the sweet bye and bye.

http://www.fortunecity.com/tinpan/parton/2/pie.html

Supporter wrote:

Except that scientific theories at that time had to be, not in theory but in reality, approved by the church before they were accepted publicly.

I’d go further than that, and posit that any new scientific theories at the time had to be approved by the church before they could be advocated publicly, as the Galileo saga testifies.

In his last response, Bryan seemed to imply that a ‘little bit’ of torture might be OK if it furthers the interests of the church. What should we make of this? Just how much torture is acceptable when combating heresy? Where do we draw the line in the spectrum of violence from a few lashes of the whip, to life imprisonment, to someone having all their joints dislocated on the rack and then being burned into oblivion? Do the ends truly justify the means?

When Bryan wrote in response to one of my comments, that the communists also viewed threats of torture and persecution to be legitimate methods for furthering their political and ideological goals, he was unwittingly helping me to make my point about the dangers of allowing any organisation (such as the medieval church) the power to violently stifle dissent from accepted wisdom and to suppress free inquiry. We need look no further than the ‘Lysenko affair’ in Stalinist Russia for a modern illustration of this principal being put into practice. It has been argued that Russia’s agricultural industry is still recovering from this ‘regrettable error of judgement’ on the part of a brutal dictator, who just like the medieval church was also convinced that he had discovered ‘the truth’.

Bryan’s approach to these issues, reminds me of an old ‘Cheech and Chong’ comedy sketch, which goes something like this:

Chong - Hey Cheech! What’s that?

Cheech - mmm Looks like dog shit.

Cheech - mmm Smells like dog shit.

Chong - mmm Tastes like dog shit.

Cheech - Yeah. Lucky we didn't step in it.

[Bryan]

I’d go further than that, and posit that any new scientific theories at the time had to be approved by the church before they could be advocated publicly, as the Galileo saga testifies.

The Galileo saga proves both positions, since Galileo received permission to publish his theory (not just advocate it) prior to the eruption of the controversy over it. Recall that it was a letter that Galileo wrote where he pontificated on scriptural interpretations that [ignited the controversy within the power structure of the church in the first place.]

In his last response, Bryan seemed to imply that a ‘little bit’ of torture might be OK if it furthers the interests of the church.

It seemed so to whom, and on what basis?

What should we make of this?

That you downed a pint of whiskey just prior to reading what I wrote, thus diminishing your reading comprehension?

Just how much torture is acceptable when combating heresy? Where do we draw the line in the spectrum of violence from a few lashes of the whip, to life imprisonment, to someone having all their joints dislocated on the rack and then being burned into oblivion? Do the ends truly justify the means?

In terms of morality, I subscribe to a system of moral absolutes arranged in hierarchy. In other words, two different actions might always be wrong, but if the choice is one or the other, typically one choice is morally better than the other. It isn't that either choice becomes good on its own.

When Bryan wrote in response to one of my comments, that the communists also viewed threats of torture and persecution to be legitimate methods for furthering their political goals, he was unwittingly helping me to make my point about the dangers of allowing any organisation (such as the medieval church) the power to violently stifle dissent from accepted wisdom and to suppress free inquiry.

I don't recall writing anything about the communists using threats of torture or persecution as legitimate means of furthering their political goals.

Would you care to be specific about what statement of mine supposedly produced that impression?

http://forums.kearnyontheweb.com/index.php...indpost&p=49988

[edit to add]

Plus it didn't look like DD had been making his point about "any organisation." He seemed to have been singling out the Roman church in particular.

He seems to have quietly abandoned his earlier arguments, including an apparent reluctance to address the point I made about science here:

http://forums.kearnyontheweb.com/index.php...indpost&p=49988

and here:

http://forums.kearnyontheweb.com/index.php...indpost&p=50069

Edited April 14, 2007 by Bryan

[Guest 2smart4u]

Bryan wrote:

To which Supporter responded:

I have been judged in the past as being too hard on the clergy because I condemn their habit of making unsupported claims and extravagant promises in their attempts to coerce people into joining their particular cults. 

The famous song ‘The preacher and the Slave’ pretty well sums up my attitude towards some of the clergy’s more unscrupulous tactics.

In the early years of last century, the IWW (Industrial Workers of the World) concentrated much of their efforts on organizing the migratory and casual labourers of the lumber and construction camps in the U.S.A. In between jobs these migrants would gather in the Skid Rows of Chicago, Portland, Seattle and other cities they used as a "base of operations." There on the street corners was the inevitable Salvation Army band anxious to save lost Wobbly souls. But the Wobblies were more interested in filling their stomachs than in saving their souls, and they ridiculed the Salvation Army hymns with biting parodies aimed at what came to be known as "pie in the sky" preaching....

The most successful of these parodies was Joe Hill's masterpiece, "The Preacher and the Slave," more widely known as "Pie in the Sky" -- a devastating take-off on the hymn "Sweet Bye and Bye." It goes like this:

Long-haired preachers come out every night,

Try to tell you what's wrong and what's right;

But when asked how 'bout something to eat

They will answer with voices so sweet:

CHORUS:

You will eat, bye and bye,

In that glorious land above the sky;

Work and pray, live on hay,

You'll get pie in the sky when you die.

The starvation army they play,

They sing and they clap and they pray

'Till they get all your coin on the drum

Then they'll tell you when you're on the bum:

Holy Rollers and jumpers come out,

They holler, they jump and they shout.

Give your money to Jesus they say,

He will cure all diseases today.

If you fight hard for children and wife --

Try to get something good in this life --

You're a sinner and bad man, they tell,

When you die you will sure go to hell.

Workingmen of all countries, unite,

Side by side we for freedom will fight;

When the world and its wealth we have gained

To the grafters we'll sing this refrain:

FINAL CHORUS:

You will eat, bye and bye,

When you've learned how to cook and to fry.

Chop some wood, 'twill do you good,

And you'll eat in the sweet bye and bye.

http://www.fortunecity.com/tinpan/parton/2/pie.html

Supporter wrote:

I’d go further than that, and posit that any new scientific theories at the time had to be approved by the church before they could be advocated publicly, as the Galileo saga testifies.

In his last response, Bryan seemed to imply that a ‘little bit’ of torture might be OK if it furthers the interests of the church. What should we make of this? Just how much torture is acceptable when combating heresy? Where do we draw the line in the spectrum of violence from a few lashes of the whip, to life imprisonment, to someone having all their joints dislocated on the rack and then being burned into oblivion? Do the ends truly justify the means?

When Bryan wrote in response to one of my comments, that the communists also viewed threats of torture and persecution to be legitimate methods for furthering their political and ideological goals, he was unwittingly helping me to make my point about the dangers of allowing any organisation (such as the medieval church) the power to violently stifle dissent from accepted wisdom and to suppress free inquiry. We need look no further than the ‘Lysenko affair’ in Stalinist Russia for a modern illustration of this principal being put into practice. It has been argued that Russia’s agricultural industry is still recovering from this ‘regrettable error of judgement’ on the part of a brutal dictator, who just like the medieval church was also convinced that he had discovered ‘the truth’.

Bryan’s approach to these issues, reminds me of an old ‘Cheech and Chong’ comedy sketch, which goes something like this:

Chong - Hey Cheech! What’s that?

Cheech - mmm Looks like dog shit.

Cheech - mmm Smells like dog shit.

Chong - mmm Tastes like dog shit.

Cheech - Yeah. Lucky we didn't step in it.

<{POST_SNAPBACK}>

You need to get a girlfriend.

[Strife767]

You need to get a girlfriend.

<{POST_SNAPBACK}>

You need an education.