Re: [Phys-l] Intelligent designists fight back.

[Brian Whatcott <betwys1@sbcglobal.net>]

bc's response quoted below, supposes that people with
religious convictions(as described) are precluded from
 'intelligent. active, aggressive, effort to ameliorate their
 [the disadvantaged] status'  when the thrust of my note
 was that these efforts are consequential (often enough)
 on the possession of these  very belief systems.
That is to say, it seems to be non-sequitur.

Labeling an effective social/ethical/moral system as placebo-like
is, if I may say, a not unusual US attitude of disrespect to
people of spiritual extension, which is particularly unbecoming
to teachers.

How perverse!

Brian W

At 03:55 PM 1/6/2008, you wrote:
> "... viable [?] belief systems."
>
>
>
> I suggest this "second type of truth -- placebo like"  is a poor second
> to intelligent. active, aggressive, effort to ameliorate their status.
> If a supernatural belief system assists OK, but I fail to see it as
> necessary.
>
> bc
>
>
> Brian Whatcott wrote:
>
> >At 05:48 PM 1/5/2008, John Clements, you wrote:
> >
> >
> >
> >>The ID people have never thought ahead that if the gaps in 
> understanding are
> >>closed, then their primary argument for ID and hence for God is also gone.
> >>So I contend that ID proponents do not know how science works.  It works by
> >>creating models of what we observe.  It can not propose unseen, untestable
> >>agents....
> >>John M. Clement
> >>Houston, TX
> >>
> >>
> >
> >
> >I contend, that in the American context in particular,  there are many
> >  non-religious scientists who think that when the chinks, cracks and gaps
> >  in our scientific understanding are closed, there will be no further point
> >  in religious belief.
> >
> >  I further contend that these scientists in general, do not understand how
> >religion works.   But there again, a good proportion of religious people
> >are in the same mind-set -  though I think I see signs that clerics,
> >priests, pastors, and gurus of other flavors have a better concept:
> >  that there is a more 'divine' effect on peoples' affairs when
> >more of them have viable belief systems.
> >
> >In particular, that the disenfranchised, the poor, the weak,
> >  the fallible, the criminal, the sinful (no matter how defined)
> >  do better in general,   (the incidence of vengeful religious
> >  persecution in some cases notwithstanding) and that even the
> >  beneficent, the forgivers, the helpers, the supporters have
> >their own social or psychic rewards....
> >


Brian Whatcott    Altus OK    Eureka!