I'm back and it's like I'm not even here...
I'm back from vacation, tanned, ready and rested, as they used to say about Richard Nixon when he would periodically come back from whatever justified obscurity he'd landed himself in.
And I see that you've carried on in my absence, arguing about the existence of God and the nature of His political opinions.
Let me see if I can make myself clear (although why this time should be any different is beyond me).
Belief in God is a matter of faith, not empirical evidence. It's also not a matter of "believing six impossible things before breakfast'' as they told Alice there in Wonderland. You have to have good reasons for your faith, even if they won't pass muster in a laboratory.
As to the political persuasions of the Diety, you pays your money and you takes your choice.
I don't imagine, can't imagine, Jesus standing next to the switch of Ol' Sparky and telling some convicted murderer, "You gonna ride the lightning, son!''
On the other hand, I'm a capitalist. Yet in the early church, at least according to Acts 4:32-36, believers were a bunch of hippie communists, who claimed no possessions of their own and shared everything, selling land and houses and putting it all in one big pot. And woe betide the couple who tried to keep a little something for themselves, as Ananias and Sapphira found out right before they were struck dead.
So whatever your positions on the various issues of the day, you're gonna have to squint hard and fudge some passage of the Bible somewhere.
But onto other, more mundane matters.
On Saturday, I received in the mail a notice that I had whizzed past a toll both on the Atlantic City Express on June 16, at 9-something in the A.M. and owed somebody 25 cents for the toll and 25 smackers for the offense.
A couple of things here: I wasn't on the Atlantic City Expressway on the day in question and haven't been on the Atlantic City Expressway in more than a year. Strangely enough, I actually know where I was on the morning in question and I have witnesses.
The smoking gun evidence was a photo of my alleged transgression. a photo whose clarity makes convenience store security cams look like Academy Award winning cinematography. But it is clear that the offending vehicle was a pick-up truck and I don't own a pick-up truck.
I called the number on the ticket, expecting to enter a Kafkaesque world wherein my car would be impounded and my liberty denied as I tried to prove in vain my innocence. I saw clearly that this would take years to settle and years off my life.
Well I talked to a woman, explained the deal and was promptly told to disregard the notice.
Just like that. Easy as pie.
Maybe too easy.
Now I'm waiting for the other shoe to drop.
And the question is, should I be worried?
And I see that you've carried on in my absence, arguing about the existence of God and the nature of His political opinions.
Let me see if I can make myself clear (although why this time should be any different is beyond me).
Belief in God is a matter of faith, not empirical evidence. It's also not a matter of "believing six impossible things before breakfast'' as they told Alice there in Wonderland. You have to have good reasons for your faith, even if they won't pass muster in a laboratory.
As to the political persuasions of the Diety, you pays your money and you takes your choice.
I don't imagine, can't imagine, Jesus standing next to the switch of Ol' Sparky and telling some convicted murderer, "You gonna ride the lightning, son!''
On the other hand, I'm a capitalist. Yet in the early church, at least according to Acts 4:32-36, believers were a bunch of hippie communists, who claimed no possessions of their own and shared everything, selling land and houses and putting it all in one big pot. And woe betide the couple who tried to keep a little something for themselves, as Ananias and Sapphira found out right before they were struck dead.
So whatever your positions on the various issues of the day, you're gonna have to squint hard and fudge some passage of the Bible somewhere.
But onto other, more mundane matters.
On Saturday, I received in the mail a notice that I had whizzed past a toll both on the Atlantic City Express on June 16, at 9-something in the A.M. and owed somebody 25 cents for the toll and 25 smackers for the offense.
A couple of things here: I wasn't on the Atlantic City Expressway on the day in question and haven't been on the Atlantic City Expressway in more than a year. Strangely enough, I actually know where I was on the morning in question and I have witnesses.
The smoking gun evidence was a photo of my alleged transgression. a photo whose clarity makes convenience store security cams look like Academy Award winning cinematography. But it is clear that the offending vehicle was a pick-up truck and I don't own a pick-up truck.
I called the number on the ticket, expecting to enter a Kafkaesque world wherein my car would be impounded and my liberty denied as I tried to prove in vain my innocence. I saw clearly that this would take years to settle and years off my life.
Well I talked to a woman, explained the deal and was promptly told to disregard the notice.
Just like that. Easy as pie.
Maybe too easy.
Now I'm waiting for the other shoe to drop.
And the question is, should I be worried?
posted by Michael Riley at 10:07 AM
43 Comments:
Hellllooo, welcome back. I had a similar thing happen, and I don't think you should be worried. I hope the lady you spoke to typed up this info on your file and the fact that you called and that your car is not a pick up. Hope you got her name, just in case. Maybe write down somewhere the date you called, etc.
Hey, plus, now we have the proof of your story here in blogland. So if you get a second notice you can always have them refer to "I'm back and it's like I'm not even here" - July 09 07...
Oh wait, maybe that's not a good idea... :)
Margaret
"I don't imagine, can't imagine, Jesus standing next to the switch of Ol' Sparky and telling some convicted murderer, "You gonna ride the lightning, son!'" -- Reverend Riley
But you can imagine Jesus joining two men in marriage?
"So whatever your positions on the various issues of the day, you're gonna have to squint hard and fudge some passage of the Bible somewhere." -- Reverend Riley
You do more than fudge passages from the Bible, Reverend. You completely blacken out those passages that conflict with your liberal politics.
Here is my column in this week's triCityNews about Michael Riley in case any of you missed it.
Enjoy:
Michael Riley of the Asbury Park Press…Left-wing Media Bias in a Local Flavor
It is better to hide ignorance, but it is hard to do this when we relax over wine. Heraclitus
A few months back I wrote about how various writers and columnists were doing blogs on the Asbury Park Press website, www.app.com. I knew eventually these blogs would reveal what the folks at that paper REALLY think.
I have this theory about journalism – objectivity doesn’t exist. Everyone has opinions, and journalists claiming objectivity are hiding their agendas in their work. I only respect a writer who tells me his leanings up front, so I can then go to a writer who leans the other way, compare the two, and figure things out for myself. Let me read Michelle Malkin (right) and Eleanor Clift (left) and I’ll be better informed than listing to Gibson, Williams and Couric.
Michael Riley is an ordained Baptist Minister, erstwhile church Pastor and now a feature writer/columnist with the Asbury Park Press. A few years back he interviewed me for a column he was writing about the Art of Persuasion. I remember becoming uncomfortable during the interview because, for a Minister, Riley seemed to bring up sex a lot. Not in a weird or perverted way, but I’m just not used to a Church guy bringing up sex out of the blue more than once.
I recently started looking at Riley’s blog. Lo and behold, in the 17 months he’s been writing it, Riley has brought up sex in 15 of those months. Most months he does so several times; in one month it was 25% of his content. Ok, that is a little weird. Honestly though, I really don’t care. To each his own. That doesn’t bother me as much as something else he wrote.
On June 14 Riley wrote on his blog that the reason he is a “social liberal” is because he is a “Christian.” He said, “The bedrock values of the Gospel seem to me to include mercy, forgiveness, tolerance and unconditional love of even the enemy.” According to Riley, he “throws in his lot with liberals” because they are closer to the Gospel than are conservatives.
That is an enormous revelation about Riley. Not only is he revealing his liberal point of view, but you have to conclude that as a Minister, since he bases his liberal belief on the Gospel, he holds this view not casually, but sternly as a Red State, tax hating, gun loving Bible belt Republican. I make sure my column clearly avows right at the top that you are reading the work of a conservative. Everything Riley writes in the future should say “liberal” at the top. I’d trust him more if it did, rather than him feigning bland, unachievable “objectivity.”
MSNBC recently did an investigation of campaign contributions by reporters from 2004 to 2008, and here’s what they found: Reporters gave to Democrats over Republicans by a 9 to 1 ratio. 9 to 1. Left-wing media bias confirmed. Independent voters were shocked, conservatives yawned at what we already knew while liberals and the media nervously instructed, “Move along now, nothing to see here.”
Since it’s old news that the media are left wing stalking horses for the Democrats, I guess it should come as no surprise to me to find that Michael Riley is a liberal too (after all, the odds were 9 to 1 in favor of that).
What stands out about Riley though is the connection between politics and the Gospel in his liberal constitution. For a couple of decades in politics people have been discussing the role of “Christian conservatives.” There is this theory propelled at us by media that GOP backwards is “Party of God.” The media portrays religious conservatives poorly as if there is something to fear from people of faith. Democrats routinely join the media in the negative portrayal of conservative Christians.
The funny thing is though, the Democrats are yearning to have a religious base themselves.
The recent Democrat debate on CNN showed all the Democrat Presidential candidates wearing their religion as conspicuously as the Pope’s hat. Apparently Democrats really don’t have a fear of religion in the Public Square and government. Run for your lives, ACLU. The parallel between religion and politics that Democrats have so condemned the past 20 years turns out to be exactly what they wanted for themselves.
That being the case, Michael Riley is almost a cliché for media left wing elites – hiding both his liberal bias and his understanding that a religious base in politics is a good thing.
No, Mr. Justifiedright, with all due respect, that is NOT what Michael Riley said. He did not say he throws his lot with liberals because they are closer to the Gospel than conservatives. Conservatives he hears on talk radio...that's where his beef was.
And I would have to agree with him in regard to the likes of Anne Coulter and Mr. Limbaugh...they say awful ungodly things at times!
The way you've expressed the June 14th blog, while I am not totally in agreement with Mr. Riley's opinion, is way different than what he actually said, in that particular regard.
Margaret
"I remember becoming uncomfortable during the interview because, for a Minister, Riley seemed to bring up sex a lot." -- JustifiedRight.com (Tommy De Seno)
"By their fruits you will know them. Do you gather grapes from thorns, or figs from thistles?" -- Matthew 7:16
Great article, Tommy. Well done.
"On the other hand, I'm a capitalist." -- Reverend Riley
I assume you are speaking theoretically here? After all, and by definition, one would have to actually own some capital first in order to be a capitalist, right?
How is a blog a journalistic endeavor? Can you find a bias in Mr. Riley's or anyone else's journalistic articles?
How much money do media corporations and their CEO's, publishers, press owners (the people who pay journalists) give to the Republicans. Even if the ratio is smaller, what is the difference in capital.
Obviously I haven't pieced together an argument here, but I feel these are questions that should be answered before I can feel one way or the other on the subject.
Oh, and if your non sequitir about Riley's mention of sex is meant to bolster your argument of his liberalism, are you then saying that liberals are less sexually repressed than conservatives?
Or is it just a nonrelated and weak attempt at disclaiming him before you move into your argument?
JDS
next time your newspaper superiors complain about your blog numbers falling...just go on another vacation...good to have you back, Tricky Dick..(that was for blogger justifiedright's complaint of too many sexual references)..
justifiedright wrote:
"The recent Democrat debate on CNN showed all the Democrat Presidential candidates wearing their religion as conspicuously as the Pope’s hat. Apparently Democrats really don’t have a fear of religion in the Public Square and government."
That's funny because it was Jimmy Carter who was the first modern President to discuss his religion at length. Before that, even the Republicans kept their religion as a private matter - the same way Thomas Jefferson did. Not today, though. Today, there is a de facto religious test - even if no one wants to admit it - that snubs the spirit of the constitution. I like the old way better.
justifiedright wrote:
"I recently started looking at Riley’s blog. Lo and behold, in the 17 months he’s been writing it, Riley has brought up sex in 15 of those months. Most months he does so several times; in one month it was 25% of his content. Ok, that is a little weird. Honestly though, I really don’t care."
Pure baloney. Just who does this guy think he's fooling? He writes a full paragraph about those references to sex but then he tells us it doesn't really matter. When anyone else thinks something doesn't matter, they don't mention it at all. I think ol' justifiedright had one of those "wink, wink, nudge, nudge" moments as he wrote this. His discussion of sex was just one of many intended slurs in the hit piece that he calls "his column".
justifiedright wrote:
"According to Riley, he “throws in his lot with liberals” because they are closer to the Gospel than are conservatives."
Further illustrating that justifiedright's column is a thinly-veiled hit piece, he states the above but never sees fit to attempt to refute it. Clearly he's hoping to win some cheap debate points without having to make the effort of discussing whether or not Michael Riley was right or wrong. If justifiedright were to refute the statement it would give support to his point. But no, justifiedright isn't interested in that at all. His agenda is to shoot down Michael Riley for being a liberal, not argue whether or not being a liberal is being closer to the Gospels.
justifiedright wrote:
"I only respect a writer who tells me his leanings up front, so I can then go to a writer who leans the other way, compare the two, and figure things out for myself."
Why are such labels necessary? Can't you figure this out for yourself? All you have to do is to evaluate what's said on its own merit and decide for yourself whether you agree or not. Labels are mere crutches -- training wheels, if you will. Why would one be afraid of making his own decisions about the content of a column? Might he be afriad of accidentally agreeing with someone who turns out to be a liberal? This is silly.
This is a blog. The writer writes and we put our opinions here. Plain and simple. For me it is an outlet.
To impeach this blog writer is unfathomable to me because he throws out thoughts, ideas, and we either agree or disagree. Isn't that the true nature of what this is supposed to be? To open up a dialogue? We're all so different and to have a means of sharing with such different folks, express views without chairs being thrown...we can step away whenever we've had enough;this is what I thought the blog was about.
You know, just because the views expressed by M. Riley don't jive with your own doesn't mean we have carte blanche to bring the man before as tribunal and tar and feather him.
Mr. Bob Ingle puts it plainly; if you don't like what's being expressed, then leave.
I'm all for defending Christ and expressing my take on things, but taking a person down because he writes something doesn't make us a good liberal or conservative...or anything.
M
And, by the way, I agree with the atheist, our one and only Ray, about these labels...they mean nothing and only cause confusion because people define them (liberal and conservative) in many different ways.
So, liberal is not a bad word, and neither is conservative. Neither should be spat out with derision and condescension.
Margaret
nor should the label "atheist" have negative connotation..
What a difference a month makes:
"Why are such labels necessary? Can't you figure this out for yourself? All you have to do is to evaluate what's said on its own merit and decide for yourself whether you agree or not. Labels are mere crutches -- training wheels, if you will. Why would one be afraid of making his own decisions about the content of a column? Might he be afriad of accidentally agreeing with someone who turns out to be a liberal? This is silly." -- Ray (July 10, 2007)
"Conservative Christians tell us ad nauseum that they are the real Christians so their lying becomes an issue for that reason, right? Even if liberals do lie then noting this is just a smoke and mirrors distraction from the issue at hand." -- Ray (June 16, 2007)
"Further illustrating that justifiedright's column is a thinly-veiled hit piece, he states the above but never sees fit to attempt to refute it. Clearly he's hoping to win some cheap debate points without having to make the effort of discussing whether or not Michael Riley was right or wrong. If justifiedright were to refute the statement it would give support to his point. But no, justifiedright isn't interested in that at all. His agenda is to shoot down Michael Riley for being a liberal, not argue whether or not being a liberal is being closer to the Gospels." -- Ray
But JustifiedRight.com most certainly did "make the effort" to discuss whether Michael Riley was right or wrong. He asked Reverend Riley about his stated position and Reverend Riley, in a truly cowardly fashion, declined to answer the question. Come to think of it, I think Reverend Riley wussed out twice. To wit:
"Mr. Riley, you say:
'I would make the case that it is precisely because I'm a Christian that my politics on social issues tend to skew liberal. The bedrock values of the Gospel seem to me to include mercy, forgiveness, tolerance and unconditional love of even the enemy.'[JustifiedRight.com quoting Michael Riley]
"Please enlighten me as to what principals of American Conservatism you believe are contrary to those bedrock Gospel values you list." -- JustifiedRight.com (June 15, 2007)
"I guess Mr. Riley doesn't wish to back up his assertion." --JustifiedRight.com (June 18, 2007)
dg, unfortunately, "atheist" has always been a negative term for me. I can't comprehend it; I'm being honest.
But that doesn't mean that one who is atheist can't have profound insight.
Certainly in the fray of passionate interchange here, some insights will be missed, as those who wish to prove a singular point bulldoze...
I will not write off anyone here as crazy, as some are wont to do. Maybe we all are to some degree.
But, if we cannot/will not take a step outside of ourselves, for ONE moment to really hear, (or in this case comprehend) what is said by those with different viewpoints, how are we ever going to bridge the gap?
The Tower of Babel exists now, in my humble metaphorical opinion. Egos are overloaded with self righteousness, not humility. And it is tasking its toll on the world, as no one listens or effectively communicates with temperance, or even vision.
Scares me.
M
Hey, Spooky! Stop and take the time to read what I actually wrote, okay? I wasn't complaining about the use of labels. I've already said that I'm a proud liberal and that you're a despicable conservative so I clearly wasn't saying that labels are wrong. I distinctly noted that justifiedright's need for labels pre-attached to a columnist was rather like the need for training wheels. Get it? He wants a label attached so he can know ahead of time whether the columnist is a liberal or a conservative. He wrote, "I only respect a writer who tells me his leanings up front..." Thus, CLEARLY, the issue isn't the use of labels for people. The issue is justifiedright's need for some kind of warning label so he can make up his mind about the content before he reads the column.
What a difference a month makes? Nah. You fail to understand things this month the same way you did last month.
Spooky wrote:
"But JustifiedRight.com most certainly did "make the effort" to discuss whether Michael Riley was right or wrong. He asked Reverend Riley about his stated position and Reverend Riley, in a truly cowardly fashion, declined to answer the question. Come to think of it, I think Reverend Riley wussed out twice. To wit:..."
Justifiedright made absolutely no attempt to refute. Nowhere in justifiedright's column is there an argument showing that MR is wrong. It's bone-headed to refer to a non-response from one party as a refutation by the other party. There was no attempt to refute it at all.
What a strange world you live in.
Margaret wrote:
"dg, unfortunately, "atheist" has always been a negative term for me. I can't comprehend it; I'm being honest."
That's because (and you're not going to like this) you view things through the filters of your own belief system and doing so is a rather stubborn way to consider the views of others. But the views of others are not dependent on the content of your belief system. Rather, they are quite indepedent of it. Thus, there's nothing inherently negative about atheism. The negativity comes from applying your own belief system to it.
Ray, my feelings are not hurt - you are right. I am filtering my own feelings about atheism through my belief system, as you say. My Catholicism is so much a part of me, like a vital organ.
So don't apologize. You need to know that the fact that I do this is not intentional. It is not being stubborn. Because I do try so hard to see things in other ways. In this area I cannot. God is inherent within me, around me, in the things I experience and feel.
Perhaps what you accuse me of is what you also apply to me as you perceive my belief system(??) I do think it goes both ways. Were you born into atheism, or was it something you discerned at a later age? If that's too personal a question, you don't have to answer.
Margaret
BTW Mr. Riley, I kind of like the idea of "believing six impossible things before breakfast"...I'm think I'm going to utilize that with my kids and make into a game. I love it :)
M
MARGARET, MAYBE YOU SHOULD TELL YOUR KIDS THAT ONE OF THE "6 IMPOSSIBLE THINGS" COULD BE THAT EVEN THOUGH THEY ARE BEING RAISED CATHOLIC, TO KEEP AN OPEN MIND ABOUT OTHERS' BELIEFS OR NON-BELIEFS AND THAT THEY MAY ONE DAY NOT CONSIDER AN ATHEIST AS NEGATIVELY AS THEIR MOM HAS TAUGHT THEM THROUGH HER NARROW-MINDEDNESS..BREAK THE CYCLE..TEACH THEM TO LISTEN, BUT NOT NECESSARILY AGREEING IS OK..CONDEMNING IS NOT OK..
Margaret wrote:
"Perhaps what you accuse me of is what you also apply to me as you perceive my belief system(??) I do think it goes both ways. Were you born into atheism, or was it something you discerned at a later age? If that's too personal a question, you don't have to answer."
I was born, baptized and confirmed Episcopalian. I resisted church at an early age because I thought it was silly but I first decided I was an atheist/agnostic when I was in high school. My religious training was light and nothing was done that would stunt my interest in making up my own mind. But I'm more inclined to call myself a freethinker than an atheist as 'freethinker' is a broader category which addresses a wider perspective of ideas than just atheism, yet includes atheism/agnosticism as part of its philosophy.
Thus, as a freethinker I apply the same rational standard to everything that I apply to the question of the existence of God. I believe in the superiority of a scientific approach and have little use for belief systems which I view as resulting from self-deception and personal need rather than from empirical evidence. You've heard me place other beliefs such as Bigfoot and the Loch Ness Monster on the same level as God. They're all mere belief systems to me. In fact, I've mentioned that Communism is just another belief system in response to Spooky's linking of atheism with it. For the record, so is Capitalism, Socialism, much of the environmental movement and radical feminism, as well as a lot (most?) of the ideas most of us live by. I believe this is the most honest and most fair approach to every issue.
Dg, it's too bad that you perceive me here as narrowminded. Your caps make me feel like you're yelling. I must have hit a nerve, with my honesty.
Thank you for being concerned about my children, though it's unnecessary. They are kids whose experiences are far different than my own as a child. They have a great Dad. They are opn-minded, and we encourage it.
Being open minded and Catholic is possible. You have written me off. I'm sorry to read that, but then again, you couldn't possibly know me fully, based on the writings in a blog.
Margaret
Ray, thank you for answering my question. :) Everything can be so two-dimensional here. You are an empirical evidence, scientific person. I understand and appreciate the insight.
M
And BTW, Dg, it's really easy to say "I keep an open mind about everything" in the land of political correctness. Far more difficult to say "I don't".
M
Margaret, I have not written you off and sorry for the caps, I merely had Caps Lock on by accident and noticed after I sent it, so I was not yelling at you (virtually)..sorry if it came off so harsh... my point was that it is narrow-minded to believe that others' beliefs are somehow "negative just because they are not yours...glad to hear you are hopefully giving your kids a well-rounded view and freedom to express their own beliefs when they are old enough (hopefully, you will be as open-minded if one day they come to you and say they are atheist or gay)...HERE's TO A VIRTUAL TRUCE...I purposely used caps there for effect.. :}
Margaret, BTW.. I am not PC..contrary..I just say what I believe in - as you do..I also listen, but disagree with others' religious views (can be any religion really) when they try to shove them down everyone else's throats and bend the Bible passages to fit what they perceive as truth...that's why I like ray (although I am not atheist, I too am Episcopalian-raised)...I am torn between scientific, empirical evidence and one's faith in a "higher being"..I am just not sure what that being is and frankly, don't think it is important as long as it works for me..(or you, or anyone else..even wacky paps/pat)..paps is the one who "jams it down your throat and is extremist..that's what I dislike..that's why I do not allow Mormoms, Jehovahs or other wandering evangelicals or religious zealots corner me in an airport, the boardwalk with their pamphlets or at my home..I tell them politely..before they even start their spiel..thank you, but I am happy with my own beliefs and please take me off your "calling" (to God, Jesus, Christ or whatever they believe in) list...
The zealots you speak of in the airports or knocking on doors are not to my liking either...I had a Baptist come to our door once and when my husband told him politely that we were happy with our faith, he sent us a letter a week later explaining to us where he and we stood on stood in terms of heaven or hell, inferring that we were going to hell...that stuff is for the birds, I agree.
I believe that science and religion can coexist. I think most people believe that they can't.
I don't think being honest about something and being close minded is the same thing. If I were close minded, maybe I would have given up blogging here months ago, due to opinions not like my own. I appreciate others points of view, actually, but that doesn't mean I need to agree.
M
I agree to disagree..
Okay :)
M
Margaret wrote:
"I believe that science and religion can coexist. I think most people believe that they can't."
It depends on what people mean when they say 'religion'. Science is well-defined and well-constrained. Science knows its limits: there are scientific questions and non-scientific questions. But religion doesn't play by the same rules. In fact, it doesn't have any rules to speak of. It has no limits unless they are arbitrarily imposed upon it. For some, religion includes the physical history of the Earth, including all aspects of science. For others it doesn't. See? No rules. The conflict comes when some try to impose upon the territory of science as if it were the territory of religion. For religion and science to coexist it would require that some limits be imposed upon religion. But that ain't gonna happen.
Religion doesn't "play".
And I don't agree that science is well-defined and well constrained. Who does the defining or the constraining? Itself? And who's there to see the defining and constraining? Has it been documented? Where's the empirical evidence?
M
Margaret wrote:
"Religion doesn't "play"."
It does but it plays by its own rules... which, of course, vary according to the whim of the belief system.
"And I don't agree that science is well-defined and well constrained. Who does the defining or the constraining? Itself? And who's there to see the defining and constraining? Has it been documented? Where's the empirical evidence?"
I'm glad you've learned a new phrase here. ;-> The empirical evidence is in the way science conducts its business. As I noted, there are scientific and unscientific questions. That implies limits. For example, science says nothing at all about a soul. And it says nothing about what's right or wrong. Science leaves that up to those who claim that as part of their domain. Science can give us proximal answers as to how a species came into existence but it can't address the ultimate question of why. It can tell us how white light can be broken up into its constituent colors but it can't tell us why. Thus, science has limits and is constrained.
Science is well-defined in its rigor. The strict rules of science won't allow for anything that isn't tested to be presented as true. That science is a well-defined method is illustrated by the fact that anyone, anywhere in the world, can do science regardless of his/her religious beliefs or lack thereof.
Why would you question the nature of science, anyway?
Why question the nature of science? Because...I can. :)
Your prejudices are well-defined here, as you show that you can't see outside of your own scientific belief system to see that one of faith can enjoy science.
And, empirical evidence can be a joke, because it is based on the fact-findings of others, which can be disproved as time passes. At times, empirical evidence sounds like opinion.
Huh,how about that?
M
science is dynamic, changes with new, improved technological advances to prove/disprove previous theories, findings, etc. that's why Pluto is no longer considered a planet, and we know the Earth is round....people thought the earth was flat... new evidence disproved it..unlike science,religion holds steadfast in the beliefs handed down by their forebearers..if shroud of Turin were DNA 100% tested (hypothetically of course because their is no DNA sample Jesus to test against) to disprove its link to Jesus, the religious believers would still not believe those findings...empirical evidence would still not be enough to persuade those brainwashed religious zealots otherwise..that is where scientists differ; they are usually open-minded to new findings and adjust their research findings, writings accordingly..
Margaret wrote:
"Your prejudices are well-defined here, as you show that you can't see outside of your own scientific belief system to see that one of faith can enjoy science."
Actually, I said the exact opposite: "That science is a well-defined method is illustrated by the fact that anyone, anywhere in the world, can do science regardless of his/her religious beliefs or lack thereof."
"And, empirical evidence can be a joke, because it is based on the fact-findings of others, which can be disproved as time passes."
So the willingness to revise when necessary and to be open and undogmatic is a joke?
"Thus, as a freethinker I apply the same rational standard to everything that I apply to the question of the existence of God. I believe in the superiority of a scientific approach and have little use for belief systems which I view as resulting from self-deception and personal need rather than from empirical evidence." -- Ray
So I take it that you are, at the very least, opposed to third trimester abortions?
"Thus, CLEARLY, the issue isn't the use of labels for people. The issue is justifiedright's need for some kind of warning label so he can make up his mind about the content before he reads the column." -- Contrarian simply for the sake of being contrarian Ray
I see. Labeling people conservative or liberal is fine. Labeling the content of an article as such is silly. Thanks for clearing that up for us Ray.
Ray, I said before that I believe religion and science can coexist, though most people probably don't believe that.
You went on to say how wonderful and solid science is as opposed to religion.
I was just expressing that science has foibles, and is fluid, can be changed according to man's interpretation of what he deems as fact in a certain time period. So it's based on truths that are truths until they are proven not to be truths...by man, and as time goes by.
So, faith in something doesn't necessarily relegate itself soley to religion, I guess.
And science is not steadfast and perfect.
That's all I'm saying. The willingness to revise and be undogmatic sounds like something that's not...truth. Well, maybe it's truth for a time.
Margaret
What is truth? There's your truth, my truth and the real truth...
There you go!
M
Post a Comment
<< Home