See inline. > -----Original Message----- > From: Raymond Camden [mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED]] > Sent: Monday, October 29, 2001 2:49 PM > To: CF-Community > Subject: RE: fallwell is a nutter - happy geo?? > > > > go along. We, as a species, have often taken that route. The > > flock metaphor is more than apt. Using the excuse of "other icky hard to > > define things" is > > How is it a cop out? I didn't say we _shouldn't_ examine things, but at > the same time, we have to accept that some things cannot be measured. > Certainly it's a cop out if you feel that way about everything, but, at > the same token, it's a cop out to have no faith in anything you can't > directly prove.
As I too said, you just sound bited it out. I can prove that flapping my arms in the arm and leaping of a bridge will not make me fly. No amount of faith will change that. Of course, that is a set of experiments I would not like to conduct, but will take volunteers. I have seen to many old films of guys crashing down cliff faces with little wings flapping away. No amount of faith in my wifes fidelity will keep her from having an affair, only her not having one (which, in theory could be measurable) will be the proof. > > > Organized religion has been used over and over to inflict > > horrendous pain on > > the world. How many suffered in the Inquisition? Under > > repressive Islamic > > extremist regimes? Many of these use religion to lend > > authority and validity > > to what they do. > > And how many suffered for whatever other reasons? Man will always find a > reason to screw with others. Shoot, there have been wars for economic > reasons. By that token, capitalism would be evil (although I know some > people here would agree with that ;). "for whatever other reasons" is not the argument here, the argument is how much HAS it caused. Again, that is immeasurable, whether it is tiny or great. Most of the time people are trying to do good (e.g.. humanitarian aid) in places torn by the strife of war, which is often economic in nature but given validity in religion (Taliban or the US, to wit both countries' nationalistic rhetoric). And again, they are almost all economic (e.g.. what is in it for me) and how do I convince the masses to buy into it (e.g.. religious righteousness, the good fight, etc.) If it were all about doing the "right thing" we would be in many, many countries correcting the abuses out there. Nigeria, Congo, Chad, Mauritania, Morocco, Algeria to name a few. > > > > You are right in a sense, it is the interpretation of the > > religion. So, > > would it be better to not have any, so no interpretation > > needed? Would we > > all just be nice to each other? Would that work? > > > > Let me reverse the question - do you think it's possible to create a > society ruled primarily by science? And would that be better? I don't > know if I would want to live in a society where the only important thing > was science. For example, science would say (could say) that the way to > handle overpopulation would be to simply kill enough of the species to > control the population. By that reasoning, we should nuke China and > India to 'help' them control overpopulation. Maybe nuke is too strong a > word - but, you get the idea. Purely scientific reasoning does not leave > any space for human feelings. Such a society could be as twisted, if not > worse, than the one Hitler created. Your make science sound cold and calculating and faith happy and warm. Neither are all or none. Science is full of wonder. I think about the stars and galaxies out there and find it far more exhilarating than thinking about some God that makes all this so conveniently appear around us and puts us in the middle to wonder at His Creation. Your approach is to make it cold and rushed - a quick fix (aka the "bomb"). Too many people - kill zem. Kill zem both, er all. (Indiana Jones). You leave out alternatives. But the way to handle it is much different. You analyze the problem. Let's see, arable land is 6%. People have stripped their once lush habitats of all naturally occurring foods, trees, animals, etc. The soils are poor. Wind storms have destroyed the top soils. Agriculture is prone to frequent failures (can't always count on that rain), to wit the past famines in a world of supposed plenty. (Dust Bowl here, famine in Russia after the war, Korea now, China in the past, Ethiopia, Somalia, or even children in America who are hungry right this minute). Now, one way to stop that is reducing the population. Another is growing more food, but, today at least, that is a finite solution. The population grows to meet the food resources at hand, even if they are literally starving as they do it. We will end up doing it in this country by allowing an endless stream of people in until our system breaks down too. Why does everyone want to come here? Because it is too damn crowded there. To much competition for the same piece of bread or gruel. So, back to solution 1. Reducing the population can be handled in many ways, one is the drastic one you suggest as one alternative, a nuclear bomb here or there. Why only China and India. How about New York (7 million?), London (8 million?), Mexico City (22 million?) (I have lost count of populations, not enough fingers and toes). Another could be education and raising standards of living. What does it take to reach a stable population? Well, in a perfect world, 2 kids per family. 0 population growth. Next how do we reduce it? We know in Western culture that as our standard of living increases we have less children. That is NOT because of religion, to the contrary. If you know someone who is Catholic and the wife is not having a kid every year until she is 45, then a.) they are having sex and NOT practicing what they are told they should do in church or b.) not having any sex. Trust me, I am Scot-Irish, wee bit-o-Catholic (and Baptist) upbringing. Most others are similar in some regard to this. I have not seen any (valid?) religion that says, if you get pregnant and already have 2 kids, or just don't want any more, get an abortion. We now have to have LESS kids in order to decrease the current population. Say, 1 per family for a while. After a few generations we will have a more stable population. The trick is - and no, I have no rose colored glasses - keeping it stable. We are trapped by what we have created in the last 10K years. Whether it is agriculture or our religious beliefs that you should try to procreate. And of coarse, the rights thing comes about. I must admit, I baulk here a bit too. I don't have all the answers and certainly am not paid to have them (I will have to work for hours tonight to make this up and not feel guilty). And this is not the only solution, but certainly seems better than praying to a god that may or may not be there. In any event, something will have to give one day, maybe not in yours or my, or even our children's time, but some day. I think about the world we are leaving to our children and I want it BETTER than the one we have today. Not just them having money, but actually a better world. I think critical thinking, skeptical thought and making hard choices and decisions will get us there, not praying and hoping some god will make them for us. For all I can see, no god has actually ever done anything, ever. (There is no bitterness in my statement, I just have never, in 38 years, seen anything to indicate that there is a benevolent being who is going to make it all okay in the end if you just believe.) -Gary > > -RC > ~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~ Get the mailserver that powers this list at http://www.coolfusion.com Archives: http://www.mail-archive.com/cf-community@houseoffusion.com/ Unsubscribe: http://www.houseoffusion.com/index.cfm?sidebar=lists
