If gays marry, churches could suffer

[Beavah]

Beavah, Show me the theology (aside from Unitarian Universalism ) in which the ultimate goal of the believers is to increase knowledge and understanding of their own faith by attempting to disprove the ideas of their own same faith.

 

But that's not the ultimate goal of science either, eh? If all yeh did was disprove theories, you'd be left with nothing. The ultimate goal of science is to develop a greater understanding of the world.

 

Yeh do know that in traditional Judeo-Christian theology, it's never really possible to make a claim about what God really is, foundational statements aside. God is too big for human mind or language. It's only possible to say what he is not. All da documents of the early Church councils spend their time on rooting out error in belief, only establishing that some beliefs are false. Western science got its notion of falsification from Theology..

 

Science agrees on a lot of statements, like the fact that the earth is roughly spherical. Theology can't even agree on how many gods there are.

 

Oh, don't be silly. Make a fair comparison. Western science agrees on a lot of statements. Just as Western religion agrees that there is One God. Once yeh open things up to cultures in da developing world, "science" starts to include things like psychic surgery and chakra channeling, and religion has its equivalents. . That's not to say that there might not be some underlying truths in native medicines or faiths, of course. After all, Christian monasticism shares a lot in common with eastern monastic practice, and some drugs have been developed from efficacious tribal herbology. But it's a bit more muddled than a Western thinker like you or I can accept.

 

No, subatomic particles aren't "myths"

 

Sure they are, by your somewhat broad use of da term. They're invisible entities that in your stories are used to explain behavior of da universe that yeh don't yet fully understand. Yeh make up laws/commandments that yeh believe are set up by these invisible fellows. Dark matter and dark energy are good examples, eh? Develop a whole system around 'em, and even a certain sense of orthodoxy. Science is still polytheistic in its myths, I note, but they keep trying' for Grand Unification. Looking' for that one God thing. .

 

Large scale economic tests are rather difficult to conduct in a "laboratory" setting, so generally the idea is to dream up something that a person would like to test (for instance, is there a correlation between abortion and the crime rate, and what sort of economic impact does prostitution have), figure out how that could be tested, then go look for real life data that can be parsed to suggest that's really happening

 

Yah, BartHumphries, I believe this is called somethin' like "secondary analysis of observational data". It's not the same thing as an experiment, because yeh can't isolate variables. Da best yeh can do is try to account for terms statistically. Much more susceptible to bias in a bunch of ways. That was my point. Yeh can conduct observations, but not experiments in economics, geology, astronomy, astrophysics, ecology, climatology, etc. Religion is da same. Though we do have 2000 years or more of forward-testing.

 

Beavah

 

[moosetracker]

Sorry Beav - While Science is based on Facts, Religion is based on Faith... Faith is defined as believing in what there is no proof of..

 

I agree Twocub.. Obviously this line is easily ignored by us all, and we follow the path of how BSA defines and explain, rather then then the DRP.. But, seriously it should not be in the DRP, if the BSA itself does not choose follow it.. It is probably just there to allow them the right to kick out an atheist, when they should kick out the Buddist or Hinduism or others..

 

grateful acknowledgment of His favors and blessings are necessary Even has a way of putting me off depending on how someone interprets this.. I can be grateful the earth was created in a way that supports life. I don't say anything, but get the willies around people who attribute everything from a new job to a nose bleed to God overseeing every tiny detail in their life.. Personnally I think God has more important matters to attend to.. And since I believe in free will. I would find it troubling to think that he is meddling that much. But my gratitude over the creation of the earth doesn't knock me out of the running...

 

I would not advise a scout that is in search of his belief that this was a condition that he must come to terms with in order to advance in scouts.. And I think that is the approach most scouters take, and thus this line is widely ignored.. I have heard many in the past discuss helping boys figure out what they believe in by having them get in touch with nature. That they can harness the power of the wind, but not control it, nor control other natural forces.

 

(This message has been edited by moosetracker)

[Merlyn_LeRoy]

Beavah writes (quoting me first):

Science agrees on a lot of statements, like the fact that the earth is roughly spherical. Theology can't even agree on how many gods there are.

 

Oh, don't be silly. Make a fair comparison. Western science agrees on a lot of statements.

 

Show me any non-western science (that really IS science) that concludes the earth is a different shape.

 

Just as Western religion agrees that there is One God.

 

Neopaganism is western, and is polytheistic. There's no consensus.

 

Once yeh open things up to cultures in da developing world, "science" starts to include things like psychic surgery and chakra channeling,

 

Nope, those are what are called "frauds" and superstitions. Apply the same scientific reasoning to them and they don't measure up. They are not scientific.

 

and religion has its equivalents.

 

By contrast, religion is almost entirely made up of unverifiable statements, like what kinds of god(s) exist, what those god(s) expect from humans, and what happens after death. NONE of these are testable, scientific statements.

 

That's not to say that there might not be some underlying truths in native medicines or faiths, of course. After all, Christian monasticism shares a lot in common with eastern monastic practice, and some drugs have been developed from efficacious tribal herbology. But it's a bit more muddled than a Western thinker like you or I can accept.

 

No, it's that you are trying to include non-scientific statements and claiming it's "science". Until psychic surgery and chakra channeling appear in peer-reviewed science journals, it ain't science.

 

[quoting me again first]

No, subatomic particles aren't "myths"

 

Sure they are, by your somewhat broad use of da term.

 

No, they aren't, not by MY use of the term. Using your use, I think you'd qualify as a myth, since I've never seen you in real life or anything, I only have indirect evidence of your existence.

 

[Beavah]

Sorry Beav - While Science is based on Facts, Religion is based on Faith...

 

Nonsense, moosetracker. Yeh really should take a class on da History and Philosophy of Science sometime. It's a "fact" (i.e. an observed piece of data) that one large object is attracted to another in a set of circumstances. Callin' that "gravity" and assuming action at a distance as a universal law is a human invention. When yeh apply that to new circumstances, it's an act of faith. A belief that these circumstances are similar enough to those of the original "fact" to be predictable, even though we know that da arrangement of atoms, molecules, and fields is never the same again. A belief that the human-made-up explanation is goin' to still apply in different conditions, locations, and ages of da universe.

 

No different than religion. Observin' that prayer and charity are helpful for individuals or society in a set of circumstances is a "fact", an observed piece of data. Callin' that a universal law is a human invention. Applying the principle of caring for strangers to different circumstances is an act of faith. A belief that there is such a thing as God, or universal law, and it can be applied generally.

 

Of course, just because we humans came up with da notion, doesn't mean we're wrong. It could well be that there is a universal law of gravitation, that we have succeeded in describing a characteristic of the universe. The more evidence we find, da more faith we have. Just like it could well be that there really is a universal law of charity, that we have succeeded in describing a fundamental characteristic of the human experience. Indeed, Western science was founded on Western religion, which is why it believes in universal laws in the first place.

 

Which brings us to...

 

Neopaganism is western, and is polytheistic. There's no consensus.

 

Yah, Merlyn, this is really hysterical, eh?

 

On the one hand, you're only willing to accept Western, canonical science as real science, and dismiss anything else as "fraud". But then yeh want to compare it to da worldwide potpourri of spirituality. Many of those modern neopagans yeh refer to believe in da healing power of crystals or similar nonsense as "science", eh? Da stuff you call "fraud". So if you're goin' to lump 'em in with religion, I only insist that yeh also lump 'em in with science. In which case, there is no consensus on anything.

 

But if yeh compare Western canonical science and da Western canonical religion from which it grew, that's a more fair comparison. Both are willing, as you are, to dismiss some notions as just wrong-headed. In that case, there is consensus on most things, within both science & religion. Includin' many of the things that they consider "frauds", like modern neopaganism.

 

Beavah

(This message has been edited by Beavah)

[Merlyn_LeRoy]

Beavah writes, quoting me first:

Neopaganism is western, and is polytheistic. There's no consensus.

 

Yah, Merlyn, this is really hysterical, eh?

 

Uh, no. Neopaganism started in western europe. It's western.

 

On the one hand, you're only willing to accept Western, canonical science as real science, and dismiss anything else as "fraud".

 

Wrong. There is no such thing as "Western, canonical science", just like there's no "Jewish science" that the third Reich railed against.

 

Science is a methodology, it isn't tied to a culture. It's done all over the world.

 

But then yeh want to compare it to da worldwide potpourri of spirituality. Many of those modern neopagans yeh refer to believe in da healing power of crystals or similar nonsense as "science", eh?

 

Belief doesn't make something "science". However, belief IS sufficient to make something a religion.

 

So if you're goin' to lump 'em in with religion, I only insist that yeh also lump 'em in with science. In which case, there is no consensus on anything.

 

Wrong.

 

There is a scientific consensus on the shape of the earth. You CANNOT find any scientific statement that says the earth is flat. You CAN find ignorant people who fraudulently make claims, but that's "fraud".

 

But if yeh compare Western canonical science and da Western canonical religion from which it grew, that's a more fair comparison. Both are willing, as you are, to dismiss some notions as just wrong-headed. In that case, there is consensus on most things, within both science & religion. Includin' many of the things that they consider "frauds", like modern neopaganism.

 

Wrong again. Science doesn't consider neopaganism a "fraud", it's a religion.

 

You really don't understand what science is.

[moosetracker]

Well you might prove charity helps people, and the church can encourage charity.. But, charity is not all from a church, without feeling it will please God, but because they care for the fellow man or other reason, such as a relative that died from a specific disease, or for a tax exemption, or to erect a large memorial to themselves or a loved one. Same with charity of a church member.. or.. because they have faith.. But contributing to charity because of their own faith does not prove God..

 

Prayer can do some good, I believe, but cannot prove.. If you pray and the situation improves, you say God listened.. If you pray and the situation does not improve or gets worse, well then God has a plan that we should not question. Or, God has decided that we need to help ourselves.. But, for the faithful prayer can help.. It can help them feel more self confident to solve their own problems. It can give a sick person a positive outlook to and a positive outlook with or without the aid of faith in God, can give a person more personal strength to fit the ailment.. It can also help the family to feel that they are not alone, and that people care.. But, I can do the same good by going to an friends house who is an atheist and offering them kind words and sincere well wishes without including God.

 

Proof that people can be caring of others for various reasons, and that the act of people caring for others.. A religious belief can and the urging of a church can help someone choose to act this way.. But, that is proof that their faith and their choice to belong to a group have influenced them. It does not prove God, just that a faith in God can be beneficial.

 

I believe in Ghost too, people try to prove the existence of ghosts.. Even have contraptions to record sound, and images and temperature etc.. Even though they have more sophisticated contraptions to prove ghosts, even though I believe in ghosts, I dont think they have yet to be successful in proving that either. I am satisfied with the fact that my belief in God and my belief in Ghosts have to rely on my faith.

 

Your faith allows you to believe more then I, as you believe that you have facts of the existence of God, when your faith credits God with successful outcomes.. I am happy for you, but, I dont think your findings will be published in the next Scientific Journal.

 

[Beavah]

Ah, Merlyn, sorry if I was movin' too fast for yeh.

 

Science is a form of natural philosophy that grew up out of Western culture. Just because it is currently practiced all over the world doesn't mean it isn't western, any more than the fact that American movies are played all over the world doesn't mean they aren't American.

 

Western culture has some traits which you espouse whole-heartedly, eh? A belief in universal laws for one, which arises out of monotheism. And with a belief in universal laws comes a willingness to say that a belief contrary to those laws is wrong or out of bounds. There is a canon of science in your mind; you dismiss alternate ways of understanding the world as "not science", just as da early church fathers of Christendom dismissed alternate beliefs as "not Christian". Polytheistic groups don't come up with da notion of "universal laws" or "right ways to do science" because that would be silly. If the world you experience depends on which god happens to be in the vicinity at the time, why would such laws ever exist?

 

So if you are going to restrict what you call "science" to such a narrow canon, then the proper comparison is to similarly restrict the meaning of "religion" to a similar canon, like Christianity. If you can exclude someone who believes they're doin' science because it's not "real science" then yeh have to allow others to exclude someone who believes they are religious because it's not "real religion."

 

And presto! When yeh do that, yeh discover suddenly that your statement is wrong. There is consensus that there is only one God (among those who practice western religion), just as there is consensus on the shape of the Earth (among those who practice western science). The "consensus" happens only because you have excommunicated those who believe something else. They are "not science."

 

Beavah

 

[Beavah]

But, charity is not all from a church, ... contributing to charity because of their own faith does not prove God..

 

Never said it was; never said it did.

 

All I suggested was that it wasn't unreasonable to claim that da tenets of at least Western Judeo-Christian faith have been tested over a period of 3000+ years, eh? That contributing alms is a good thing. That it's best when alms are given out of true generosity, without expecting anything in return. It is a notion that has stood the test of time and multiple cultures better than any "scientific" notion from 3000 years ago, and the link I provided offered evidence that it is practiced more fully by those who are religious than those who aren't.

 

There were lots of "theories" of Christianity in the early years especially. Judaism as well. Most were tested and rejected over the centuries. The gnostic gospels, the letters of Barnabas, on and on. Humanity kept what worked, or God helped to guide humanity, whichever yeh prefer.

 

What's fascinatin' is that people believe that "science" with its short history and relatively paltry evidence base should be privileged. Results from one laboratory in Geneva to confirm the Higgs? Yet religious tenets that have been in practice for thousands of years in millions of settings by billions of practitioners don't constitute "evidence"? I reckon if the first can be taken as the Word of the Universe, then it's not a stretch for the second to be taken as the Word of God.

 

Beavah

(This message has been edited by Beavah)

[Scoutfish]

"Science is a form of natural philosophy that grew up out of Western culture. Just because it is currently practiced all over the world doesn't mean it isn't western. "

 

Yeah, but that's like saying the name " car " grew up out of the American horseless carrage, but since we call them cars...all cars all over the world are actually American.

 

Science is just a newer term for the word natural philosopher. But the principals and methoods are still the same.

 

We could also say that all math is American thanks to Texas Instruments simply because they made complex calculations and difficult math easier to solve and more accessable to the average person by way of their calculators.

 

Science was there, it was just called something different.

 

The Chinese invented the decimal system back in the good old days of BC.

 

 

[Beavah]

Wasn't referrin' to the name, Scoutfish. Was referrin' to the practice, the belief structure, da epistemology.

 

And no, the science that Merlyn refers to was not "always there". It is a relative newcomer, post-Enlightenment.

 

B

 

[Merlyn_LeRoy]

Beavah writes:

Ah, Merlyn, sorry if I was movin' too fast for yeh.

 

You aren't moving too fast, you just have a completely wrong concept of what science is.

 

Science is a form of natural philosophy that grew up out of Western culture. Just because it is currently practiced all over the world doesn't mean it isn't western,

 

You've been misusing it as if "western" science differs from some other flavors of science. That's not how science actually works.

 

Western culture has some traits which you espouse whole-heartedly, eh? A belief in universal laws for one, which arises out of monotheism.

 

Monotheism is not the beginning or the end of a belief in universal laws. Like a lot of religious defenders, if some number of your religion espoused X, you're quick to claim that your religion is responsible for X, even if X existed before your religion, if X is espoused by other religions or non-religious philosophies, and even if many members of your religion opposed X.

 

And with a belief in universal laws comes a willingness to say that a belief contrary to those laws is wrong or out of bounds.

 

Not at all. But you don't understand science. All laws of science are subject to review or change, and the universality of laws is explicitly acknowledged as an assumption. Newton's universal laws of motion are wrong, and it was science that questioned them.

 

There is a canon of science in your mind; you dismiss alternate ways of understanding the world as "not science",

 

Sorry, if can't make up crap and claim it's science if it doesn't follow the methodology of science. Of COURSE if someone doesn't follow the methodology of science, what they are doing is "not science."

 

just as da early church fathers of Christendom dismissed alternate beliefs as "not Christian".

 

If someone claimed that Christianity included the gods Zeus, Vishnu, and Quetzalcoatl, it would be quite proper to point out that these are not Christian gods and it's incorrect to ascribe them to Christianity. It would be utterly stupid to accept it as Christianity.

 

So if you are going to restrict what you call "science" to such a narrow canon, then the proper comparison is to similarly restrict the meaning of "religion" to a similar canon, like Christianity.

 

Nope. Science doesn't have a "canon". Religion is not restricted to your personal religion, either. But you don't understand what science is.

 

If you can exclude someone who believes they're doin' science because it's not "real science" then yeh have to allow others to exclude someone who believes they are religious because it's not "real religion."

 

Wrong. Someone else's religion is a "real religion," whether you agree with it or not. Someone can start a new religion tomorrow, and it's an actual religion. There's no peer review to say it isn't a religion, it's just a new religion.

 

But science is a methodology, and if you don't follow it, you aren't doing science. Frauds who try to call non-science "science" are doing it to try to give their pseudoscientific claims the veneer of legitimacy that genuine science gives, because real science has to go through repeated observations, reproducibility, and peer review.

 

There is consensus that there is only one God (among those who practice western religion), just as there is consensus on the shape of the Earth (among those who practice western science).

 

Wrong. Neopagans generally aren't monotheists, and neopaganism originated in the west. And there's no "western" science, just like there's no "Jewish" science. Like I keep saying, you won't find a scientific statement claiming the earth is flat.

 

The "consensus" happens only because you have excommunicated those who believe something else.

 

WRONG. Science converges because they are discovering new facts about the universe. Science says the earth is not flat, because the earth REALLY IS not flat.

 

And you REALLY DO not understand science.

[acco40]

MONKS: Pie Iesu domine, dona eis requiem.

CROWD: A witch! A witch!

MONKS: Pie Iesu domine...

CROWD: A witch! A witch! We've found a witch! A witch! We've got a witch! A witch! A witch! Burn

her! Burn her! Burn her! We've found a witch! We've found a witch! A

witch!

VILLAGER #1: We have found a witch. May we burn her?

CROWD: Burn her! Burn! Burn her! Burn her!

BEDEVERE: How do you know she is a witch?

VILLAGER #2: She looks like one.

CROWD: Right! Yeah! Yeah!

BEDEVERE: Bring her forward.

WITCH: I'm not a witch. I'm not a witch.

BEDEVERE: Uh, but you are dressed as one.

WITCH: They dressed me up like this.

CROWD: Augh, we didn't! We didn't...

WITCH: And this isn't my nose. It's a false one.

BEDEVERE: Well?

VILLAGER #1: Well, we did do the nose.

BEDEVERE: The nose?

VILLAGER #1: And the hat, but she is a witch!

VILLAGER #2: Yeah!

CROWD: We burn her! Right! Yeaaah! Yeaah!

BEDEVERE: Did you dress her up like this?

VILLAGER #1: No!

VILLAGER #2 and 3: No. No.

VILLAGER #2: No.

VILLAGER #1: No.

VILLAGERS #2 and #3: No.

VILLAGER #1: Yes.

VILLAGER #2: Yes.

VILLAGER #1: Yes. Yeah, a bit.

VILLAGER #3: A bit.

VILLAGERS #1 and #2: A bit.

VILLAGER #3: A bit.

VILLAGER #1: She has got a wart.

BEDEVERE: What makes you think she is a witch?

VILLAGER #3: Well, she turned me into a newt.

BEDEVERE: A newt?

VILLAGER #3: I got better.

VILLAGER #2: Burn her anyway!

VILLAGER #1: Burn!

CROWD: Burn her! Burn! Burn her!...

BEDEVERE: Quiet! Quiet! Quiet! Quiet! There are ways of telling whether

she is a witch.

VILLAGER #1: Are there?

VILLAGER #2: Ah?

VILLAGER #1: What are they?

CROWD: Tell us! Tell us!...

BEDEVERE: Tell me, what do you do with witches?

VILLAGER #2: Burn!

VILLAGER #1: Burn!

CROWD: Burn! Burn them up! Burn!...

BEDEVERE: And what do you burn apart from witches?

VILLAGER #1: More witches!

VILLAGER #3: Shh!

VILLAGER #2: Wood!

BEDEVERE: So, why do witches burn? [pause]

VILLAGER #3: B--... 'cause they're made of... wood?

BEDEVERE: Good! Heh heh.

CROWD: Oh yeah. Oh.

BEDEVERE: So, how do we tell whether she is made of wood?

VILLAGER #1: Build a bridge out of her.

BEDEVERE: Ah, but can you not also make bridges out of stone?

VILLAGER #1: Oh, yeah.

RANDOM: Oh, yeah. True. Uhh...

BEDEVERE: Does wood sink in water?

VILLAGER #1: No. No.

VILLAGER #2: No, it floats! It floats!

VILLAGER #1: Throw her into the pond!

CROWD: The pond! Throw her into the pond!

BEDEVERE: What also floats in water?

VILLAGER #1: Bread!

VILLAGER #2: Apples!

VILLAGER #3: Uh, very small rocks!

VILLAGER #1: Cider!

VILLAGER #2: Uh, gra-- gravy!

VILLAGER #1: Cherries!

VILLAGER #2: Mud!

VILLAGER #3: Churches! Churches!

VILLAGER #2: Lead! Lead!

ARTHUR: A duck!

CROWD: Oooh.

BEDEVERE: Exactly. So, logically...

VILLAGER #1: If... she... weighs... the same as a duck,... she's made of wood.

BEDEVERE: And therefore?

VILLAGER #2: A witch!

VILLAGER #1: A witch!

CROWD: A witch! A witch!...

VILLAGER #4: Here is a duck. Use this duck. [quack quack quack]

BEDEVERE: We shall use my largest scales.

CROWD: Ohh! Ohh! Burn the witch! Burn the witch! Burn her! Burn her!

Burn her! Burn her! Burn her! Burn her! Burn her! Ahh! Ahh...

BEDEVERE: Right. Remove the supports! [whop] [clunk] [creak]

CROWD: A witch! A witch! A witch!

WITCH: It's a fair cop.

VILLAGER #3: Burn her!

CROWD: Burn her! Burn her! Burn her! Burn! Burn!...

BEDEVERE: Who are you who are so wise in the ways of science?

[moosetracker]

Beavah writes: What's fascinatin' is that people believe that "science" with its short history and relatively paltry evidence base should be privileged.

 

Beavah Never said the Faith does not have a privilege all it's own.. "Faith can move mountains".. And that might be something you can put to a Scientific test..

 

You trying to tell us God can be proved Scientifically, seem to be pooh-poohing the fascinating and wonderous thing that Faith is all on it's own, as if Faith is not as privileged as Science and Fact.. So you have to move God into the world of Science to acheive that privilege..

 

All I suggested was that it wasn't unreasonable to claim that da tenets of at least Western Judeo-Christian faith have been tested over a period of 3000+ years, eh? That contributing alms is a good thing. That it's best when alms are given out of true generosity, without expecting anything in return. It is a notion that has stood the test of time and multiple cultures better than any "scientific" notion from 3000 years ago, and the link I provided offered evidence that it is practiced more fully by those who are religious than those who aren't.

 

 

I have no problem with that statement either.. I will except that a scientific test can be done to proove that Faith of God, has a very positive influence on humanity. But, I doubt any test on the results of those who have faith in God can be used as Scientific proof of God.. Or whose belief of what God really is the right one, or what this God(s) really want from mankind.

 

In the same light.. No one can scientifically dis-prove God(s)..

 

It is up to individual belief.. It is their personal faith, or lack-of-faith..

[packsaddle]

There is no scientific test that can say ANYTHING about a matter of faith. Period. Matters of faith are simply not accessible to science. Moreover, the concept of 'proof' is mostly the realm of mathematics, not science.

 

As I noted when I restarted this thread, Beavah and I don't agree on science vs theology. Beavah 'gets' science about as well as I 'get' theology.

 

So how about the original topic and how the new interpretation of the 14th Amendment affects things with BSA? That's a topic for which I think Beavah has a better background from which to pontificate.

[BartHumphries]

Well, some people believe that God still responds to prayers. That people who feel "called" to minister/preach/whatever really are called, because the heavens are not closed and God is still an active parent. Bearing that in mind, some people believe that if they pray to God and ask Him if he's really real, He will respond. From this point of view, it can be said that faith is like science. You start with the hypothesis that God is real, you experiment by continually praying, you see whether the hypothesis is validated and God is real or not. There are plenty of people out there who say that this "worked" for them.

 

Then of course there's the possibility that the heavens are closed and that anyone who feels "called" to minister/preach/whatever is just making it all up, but I prefer to believe them because I've prayed a lot over the years and I feel that God has answered some of my prayers, which "proves" to me personally that he does exist or I would never have seen his presence in my life and I have seen that. That's my personal opinion, what I personally believe. This is why I personally don't see that much difference between faith and science. You may believe differently and that's ok.