Simply Amazin'

Evening Uncle Rich,

I can't begin to explain Mr. Donohue's take on early scientists, but I will comment on Bill Maher's movie.  As much as I detest Bill Maher and his sanctimonious attitude, I would like to see the film.  I'll probably wait until it's out on DVD, but I do want to see Bill Maher skewer religious hardliners.  I have religious beliefs, but they are open-minded and make room for other ideas and beliefs - even Islamic ones.  An extremist Christian can be just as dangerous as an Islamic extremist.  I think, or at least I hope, the majority of us are open minded, tolerant and willing to accept other peoples' beliefs.

Another movie I'm looking forward to seeing is "An American Carol" - the spoof on Michael Moore's films and politics.  Finally, a political satire that hits on the liberals.  Do you think you would enjoy watching that one Rich?

Re astronomy - I've always marveled at the Mayan discoveries.  The South & Central American cultures were doing just fine until a bunch of Spainards showed, under the authority of the Catholic Church, and pretty much ruined an entire civilization.

I try not to insert myself into some of the religious undertakings of folks like SV because of his self proclaimed agnosticism, which means he has no belief system, so it is impossible to carry on an intelligent conversation with someone who theologically sits on the fence. You either have a belief system or you dont. You are an atheist or you believe in something.

But my real purpose in responding to this blog is to tell you Baxley, in no unceretain terms that you are wrong, dead wrong, if you think that an extremist Christian can be just as dangerous as an Islamist extremist. The last time I checked. Islamic extremists place no value on life, look forward to dying, and if they can take a few non-believers(I believe we are called infidels) along with them in the process, the better their chances of getting to heaven. I have never seen any Christian extremists screaming death to anyone who doesnt believe in Jesus Christ. There may be a few Christians who have an extreme worldview, but they dont threaten people with death. In this country, if you do that you can be arrested. It is only in countries that support extremist Islamic terrorists that death threats are welcomed.

Kurt Musser

Here's a link referencing the astronomy thing

http://partners.nytimes.com/library/national/science/101999sci-astronomy-cathedrals.html

I don't know if it's historically acurate, I don't know if it isn't.  However, it is fairly obvious that seizing on what is probably an exception does not prove that Catholicism and science and comapatible. 

I would like to point out that Donohue is a advocate; as such it is his mission to speak out against defamation of Catholics.  Like other types of advocates, political types, ideologues, and people in general, it is only by custom that people are expected to make sense and be truthful.  Sometimes truth and logic are not compatible with advocacy.

Aside from this, it is a mistake to think of religion in general and Catholicism in paticular as being anti-thetical to humanity when they are bound so tightly with the development of Western society. 

Whatever, I can think of two ways in which Catholicism may be linked with the development of science.  They are a bit of stretch, but true nonetheless.

1)Education.  For many centuries it was mainly priest who were educated, and this eventually trickled down to the laity.  If I'm not mistaken, there were several languages which were first written by priests tranlating the Bible.  Also, before their were printing presses books were copied by hand, often by monks.  Catholic missionairies caried education all over the world.  Markedly, the French established so many schools in Asia that French became a lingua franca that allowed speakers of different Asian languages to communicate with each other.  Today, Catholic schools are generally consider "better" than public schools.  This might not directly relate to science, but it's hard to be a scientist without a general education.

2)Logic.  Aristolean thought (from the Arabs) came to Europe through the Summa Theologia, by Thomas Aquinas.  Aristotle has received some criticism from adherents of modern logic, but he was probably the best original thinker of all time, and his logical system was the best the World had for about 2000 years.   The "problem" with Aristolean logic as it was used by Aquinas (and Maimonides) is that it took articles of faith as axioms, and therefore was dogmatic in that the logic had to agree with religion.  Despite this, Aristolean logic did trickle down to the more secular learned men, and was the system used until scientific method was developed.

USMA72, I am inclined to agree with you regarding Islamic extremists; however, there are exception to every rule.  "Gods Army" in Ugwanda is the exception.  Extremists are much more likely to come from some backgrounds than from others, but they can come from anywhere. 

Bax,

Hope you're doing fine.  I guess I'm not the only one in the dark @ Donohue's comments.  I went back & re read the newsletter.  I still can't figure out the science reference.  Comments on the moview, yes.  But the science was just so out of place, not to mention inaccurate.  I did hear that Bill Maher will be on NPR at 12 PM on Fresh Air, with Terry Gross.  Should be a fun interview.

I doubt that I'll see Maher's movie for much the same reasons I don't listen to most of the talk shows or participate in any political or religious blogs.  I've yet to see any of Michael Moore's movies which is why I don't comment on them.  If it is a political satire, I might take the time to watch it.  I DO love the field of satire if you haven't noticed.

Yeah, the Mayan's were seemingly ahead of the curve in astronomy.  I hope I'm around when the final, definitive verdict comes in on how they did what they did.  Help from space aliens?  Psychotropic drugs?  Cliff notes?  Kosher hot dogs?  As I said, the jury is still out.

I've started hearing some interviews on what I think will be the next topic-church leaders who openly defied the IRS rulings this past Sunday by endorsing candidates from the pulpit.  I just get the gut feeling that this might get ugly.  Wish I could put my finger on it.  But that's for another blog.  Have a great one & don't forget to cheeer for the CUBS tomorrow evening.  JATFUR.

Rich K

USMA - as I thought about my comment - after I wrote it - I agree, sort of, with what you are saying.  It was Islamic extremists that killed thousands on 9-11, and no comparable act of Christian terrorism comes to mind (in modern times UR).  Let me try again.

My thought re extremism was that people will, and have, killed innocent people in the name of both Christ and Muhammed.  Currently, I agree there are probably more Islamic extremists than Christian ones, but we both know there are whackos all around.  Sadly, people have been killed in the name of Christ.  The bomber Rudolph killed people because of his extreme Christian beliefs.  David Koresh and Jim Jones are two more people who killed in a warped interpretation of Christianity.

I'll close by trying to better state my thought:  being a Muslim does not make a person a terrorist.  My guess is 90%+ of Americans know only what we hear in the press about the Islamic religion, so it is dangerous to assume what the religion teaches.  Many passages of the Bible, taken out of context, preach violence and misogyny too.  I cannot buy into any religion that says it is the "only" way to heaven.  Try to imagine for just a second that you were born and raised as a Muslim.  Would that make Christianity all wrong?  Or Islam all right?  Of course not.

I have just finished reading a novel by Douglas Preston called Blasphemy. Although a work of fiction, I agree with the premise that religion has worn out its welcome. It is no longer necessary and should be replaced with basic truths. Basic truths are found only in science. The theme of the protagonaist was not to pit science against religion but to replace religion with science, therein science would become religion. There would be very little room for misunderstandings following that. Mathematics, physics, chemistry, they all are very easy to grasp. They are absolutes and do not require faith, only an understanding of the obvious. When was the last time anyone was killed in a dispute over a chemical formulation? When has there ever been a drunken brawl over a multiplication table? Can anyone NOT understand physics?

I found the novel thought provoking as well as a darn good thriller.

Lily's Lore "I don't ever want to be rescued And I don't ever want to be saved I got a feelin' that I'm gonna be alive forever Dancin' on the edge of a grave..." Jim Steinman

Bax, Lily,

You two should get the great timing award as your statements tend to compliment each other.

Stating the obvious, extremism in any form, not just religion, is extremely dangerous & usually fatal for those who get in the way.  All it takes is one or two people who realise the power they have over those who are desparate enough to relinquish their thought processes. 

Lily, I have to disagree with a basic premise.  Religion relies upon belief.  Science does not.  Ergo, at least in my opinion, science can't be a religion unless one is willing to stretch reason beyond  the limits of practicality.  But I do agree with the questions you pose.  Chemistry, physics, mathematics.  Pretty tame stuff compared to an alleged supreme diety whether one claims to talk to one or not.

I caught a program on NPR today with Bill Maher & his new movie, "Religulous."  I like his comedy & can relate to his views on religion & belief.  If nothing else, he employs the KISS system of thinking.  Keep It Simple Stupid.

I'm trying to gather some research on the next flavor of the month, pastors breaking the law by endorsing candidates from the pulpit.  But it's late, I'm tired & have a full day tomorrow.  So I'll think about it tomorrow because, after all, tomorrow is another day.  JATFUR.

Rich K 

Solo, I don't think we have a difference of opinion as I surmise, yet again, I have not been as clear as I intended. You are correct, religion requires belief or faith as is the usual term. Science does not as it is based on provable facts. (For the moment, let's put unproved theories out of the picture.) The point was to attempt to wean people from the mystical to the measurable. Hence, Science As Religion. What is religion anyway but a number of people with the same mindset. Wouldn't it be better to have people believing in Absolute Demonstrable Truths rather than an amorphous decription of an undefinable deity? What most religious zealots refuse to recognize is that science began ultimately to find God. Zealots don't want to find Him so long as they are rakiing in wads o' dough each and every week. It's always about the money.

Isn't it disheartening to realize the most common sense today is being mouthed by a cartoon Rat? (See today's Pearls Before Swine.)    :>)

Lily's Lore "I don't ever want to be rescued And I don't ever want to be saved I got a feelin' that I'm gonna be alive forever Dancin' on the edge of a grave..." Jim Steinman

Lily,

Don't sweat the small stuff.  But you do propose interesting ideas. I'm not sure if the original intent of science was to wean people from the mystical to the measureable.  In fact, I sometimes wonder if the scientific process wasn't started quite by accident.  One or two people who got together & basically said, "Hey!  Look what I found out. let's see what else we can find out."  Can't prove it, of course.  Just an idea.  Even to this day, I don't get the impression that science attempts to influence people's attitudes.  It's not their job & they don't have time for it.

I also don't think it would work that well for this reason.  The scientific process has been around for @ 2,000 years or so.  But it didn't have any real problems until the late 1400's early 1500's because of Christianity.  The process was a TOTALLY NEW CONCEPT to the people at the time.  Curously, it seems to have only been a problem in Europe, because of the threat to the reigning authority, the church & its orthodoxy, and everything was done to keep it at bay. 

Far forward 600+ years to the present.  We've had that amount of time, plus the 1400 years prior to see that the scientific process works & works quite well.  Now if all of that still fails to bring people around to rationale thinking processes, I can't think what will.  Perhaps superstition & mysticism is just to ingrained or hardwired into some people.  Your guess is as good as mine or the guess of any one else.

I'll definitely agree about the money part, but I'll disagree with the part where you say that science started as a search for god.  I'd have to get a second or third opinion for that one. 

Speaking of money, I read that a request for an investigation by the IRS on a number of churche endorsing candidates was started yesterday.  Stay tuned for the ensuing fire storm.  OY!  JATFUR.

Rich K

Solo, as it happens, I spent my entire life in science. Primarily research and development, which allows crusty old people like myself (I was a head of my time) to openly question anything to pursue the clearer truth. That I happen to annoy many with my continuing crustiness and distaste for zealotry in any form is a perk. :>)

I believe you will find, should you decide to pursue it, many scientists subscribe to the statement that science was inded a search for God. Many, today, tend to be agnostic as there is no definable proof but they also do not (overall) completely deny the possibility. But as you say, it's the small stuff. Certainly nothing to get excited about. As the eminent Mr. Carlin stated "Don't sweat the petty things and don't pet the sweaty things".

Science started long before 2000 years ago. Take a look at the achievements in China, Greece, Iran and Egypt. Yes, the Catholic Church did attempt to abort science but (better late than never) have finally come to agree that the Earth does in fact revolve about the sun. Who says you can't teach an old god new tricks? ;>)

Perhaps superstition & mysticism is just to ingrained or hardwired into some people.

I would certainly hope this is not the case although I understand how you could consider this. I have always thought it would be a marvelous experiment to raise a group of children (all types of children) in an environment that allowed nothing of the outside world in except science and mathematics. No allusions to religion of any kind. At 21 years of age they would then be presented in depth descriptions, beliefs and tenets of each religion from Christianity, Islam, Buddhism, Hinduism, Greek, latin and Norse mythology and the beliefs of North and South American Indians. It would be interesting to see which of these superstitions they might believe to be true. The reason would be that most people raised in any religious venue would be predisposed to follow what their parents tell them. To date I don't know of any such attempt to do this. Ah well, society, overall does lurch forward despite themselves.

Lily's Lore "I don't ever want to be rescued And I don't ever want to be saved I got a feelin' that I'm gonna be alive forever Dancin' on the edge of a grave..." Jim Steinman

Tonight on the the way home, my 7-year old grandson and I passed a Church with a full parking lot.  I just said casually, look at all the people going to Church to worship God and Jesus.  As we drove on, he asked me, "Who is God’s wife?"   I said, “Well, God doesn’t have a wife.”  He chuckled and said, “Yeah, right.  If God had a son, he had to have a wife.”  Logic I couldn’t really argue with.  I explained, “Actually God isn’t a person.  Nobody can really explain God.”  Trying to think fast and explain religion as best I could I said, “But Jesus was really a person and he had a Mom.  Her name was Mary.”  Whew. 

I was hoping I had handled that as best I could, and I immediately thought of various blog conversations about religion.  It dawned on me that I was interpreting God and Jesus for a questioning mind.  I was explaining religious doctrine to an inquiring child.  If I lived in another country, say Iraq, I’d be explaining it differently.  And somewhere, someone is answering those types of questions with answers that are "extreme".  Afghanistan, Iran, Israel, Palestine, and yes, America.

I like the idea that science resulted from a search for God.  Certainly philosophy tries to answer the question Why?  Science wants to know How?  And of course, Inquiring Minds Want to Know.

Good stuff.  See, I'm not just a one-trick pony (local politics).  I like a good religious discussion as much as the next guy or gal.

For Rich - Go Cubs!!  For us Republicans - Go Sarah!!

Lily, Bax,

As I usually say, "Mo good points, mo bettah."  Being a business major in high school & college, I only had the basic courses in science.  But while taking them, I gained a fine appreciation for the scientific method, pragmatic, orderly, & rationale thinking & combined with other modes of learning, the ability to recognise that other veins of thought are equally valid as mine until one of them was shown to be wrong by some manner of testing.

I'll take your word on the scientists search for God.  As an agnostic, I've always been open to any idea open for discussion & investigation.  Yea verily, I say unto thee, praise to the late, great George Carlin.

Yes, I too have wondered what life would be like if, when we were children, we were told the facts, including the very valid answer, "I don't know."  What's the old saying?  "The truth shall set you free?"

Bax,

Glad you survived the child proof test.  I got dressed down once by a friend because one of her children posed a similar question to me.  I honestly answered that I didn't know & very likely, no one did.  When onr parent found out, you would have thought I took a whiz on the altar of the local church during services.  After much huffing & puffing, gnashing of teeth, I waited till they gained some semblance of normal breathing & told them that I only spoke the facts.  I did not know.  Very likely, no one did but if they had any evidence whatsoever to back up their claim, bring it out & I will gladly apologise to the children to set them straight.  After a bit of  hemming & hawing, all they could offer was that it was, after all, their belief & they had the right to teach it.  I asked, "Who said you couldn't?"  I got a little miffed over the reaction, & told them that if they don't want their children exploring the facts, tell them not to ask questions.  Yeah, that went over well.  I guess logic doesn't work the same with all people.

I see on page 2 of the TU this morning that Bill Maher is getting the usual round of pre opening publicity for his movie, "Religulous."  One thing struck me in the last few sentances.  Talking about non believers, Maher told the Associated Press, "They don't join & all lock arms & say, 'We all believe this & so it must be true because we have the strength in numbers.'"  Now I wonder where I heard that line of thinking before? 

Hope you both have a great day & enjoy the weather.  Me, I'm going to lick my wounds after watching the CUBS display a great non hitting performance last night.  But there's always tonight.  JATFUR.

Rich  K

That was pretty quick dancing, Bax, especially considering you were driving.

I wanted to add a couple of points about your initial comparison of Islamic and Christian terrorists.

First, terrorism is a form of warfare, adopted by both Islamic and Christian extremists.  Any resident over the age of 20 in Belfast can attest to that.  So can folks in Oklahoma City.  Terrorism is used by groups that are undermanned and underarmed.  It may not fit our definition of acceptable forms of warfare, but, to them, it is viable in their cause.

Second, you have to remember history from their perspective.  There are examples of Christian nations waging war on the religion of Islam, including a couple of crusades.  There are examples of land being taken away from practitioners of Islam, like when the nation of Israel was formed only six decades ago.  For more than a century, when not waging war, Christian nations colonized the Middle East, installing puppet governments and raping oil profits while those nations remained pitifully poor.  And now there are military forces from Christian nations sprinkled throughout the area where Islam began, the majority of which are being led by the world's mightiest military nation whose leader is a self-pronounced devout Christian.

That's history.  It's also the Islamic extremists' main recruiting pitch.  Religion has again become the fuel for extremism in pursuit of what are, ultimately, political and economic goals.

Of course, that doesn't excuse acts of barbarism like 9/11.  But is there ever any real excuse why religion doesn't prevent war instead of being used to justify it?

Michael S. Mann

michaelsmann@comcast.net

Mike,

Once again, you hit another nail on the head.  Warfare is warfare whether it is declared or not, the combatants have uniforms or not or whether it is between or among nations or not.  Dead is dead & the same is true for mutilated, tortured bodies & minds.  The technology changes, the reasons & battlefields change but unfortunately, the results do not.

Your last sentance echos the thoughts of many people & organizations.  Too bad more hasn't been tried from that sector.

Rich K