[meteorite-list] Mohamed's lunars and meteorites and ******

From: dbeatty <dbeatty_at_meteoritecentral.com>
Date: Thu Apr 22 09:54:00 2004
Message-ID: <3.0.3.32.20020203190529.006c47c4_at_pop3.internetcds.com>

Gregory and all:
 
<<Think today's scientific certainties just might be regarded as quaint and
amusing, a century hence? Think maybe the views you believe to be
unquestionable at this moment, will be proven to be inaccurate, long after
we've shuffled off this mortal coil?>>

Perhaps I am somewhat myopic in my scientific beliefs....but if you re-read
my earlier posting you'll note that I mentioned that Science progresses
through trial and error....theories are proposed and then "put to the
test". They can be accepted, rejected or revised. The religious faithful
continue to rally around a document which is nothing more than a collection
of fables, which is never questioned. It is taken on faith. So much
horror has been committed in the name of religion...the crusades, the
current jihad, etc. While science and technology may have been used used
to further those religious aims, nothing like that has ever been done in
the name of science. The world would be so much better off without all of
these darn do-gooders.

Dennis Beatty

At 09:33 PM 02/03/2002 EST, Sharkkb8_at_aol.com wrote:
>
><< bible-thumping creationists >>
>
><< why are there still so many people who insist on dredging up old myths
>from 2000 years ago and blindly following it calling this ignorance "faith"?
>Don't walk too far guys, you might fall off the edge of the earth!! >>
>
>
>I always find this so amusing. Every society since the Dawn of Time
>considers itself to be "The Enlightened" one, including our own. A few
>generations ago, the then-dominant religious faction heaped scorn and
>derision on scientists, viewing their studies as heresy, and condemning them
>for daring to defy the then-current religious wisdom of the day. We look
>back and wonder how they could have been so myopic.
>
>Of course, a hundred years later, the scientific world now does PRECISELY
the
>same thing in the other direction. They lay pious claim to "The Truth",
and
>haughtily dismiss and insult their now-dominated religious "opponents".
The
>exact mirror-image. The science of the year 2002 makes the science of the
>year 1902 look amateurish. Does anyone here think it will be otherwise a
>hundred years from NOW? Think today's scientific certainties just might be
>regarded as quaint and amusing, a century hence? Think maybe the views you
>believe to be unquestionable at this moment, will be proven to be
inaccurate,
>long after we've shuffled off this mortal coil? Has it ever been otherwise,
>in the history of science? The arrogance today, in the name of transitory
>science, is staggering.
>
>Both positions - the blind faith of the religious and the blind
>secular-faith of the scientific - exhibit the exact same
>self-congratulatory hubris: the assumption that THEIR position is the only
>one worth believing, and thus anyone who has the sheer temerity to consider
>other possibilities must, by definition, be an idiot.
>
>I don't happen to be particulalry religious, but it always astounds me how
>both positions can be so viciously intolerant, while criticizing the other
>for its intolerance, presumably with a straight face. The human capacity
>for hypocrisy is breathtaking. Even a reasonably thoughtful centrist
>position, such as believing that a Supreme Being created evolution, is
>regarded with hostility and suspicion, from both radical flanks.
>
>Science vs. religion. Mortal enemies. So much for today's trendy, pious,
>hypocritical praise of "tolerance" and "diversity".
>
> Gregory
>
>(Go Pats!)
>
>______________________________________________
>Meteorite-list mailing list
>Meteorite-list_at_meteoritecentral.com
>http://www.pairlist.net/mailman/listinfo/meteorite-list
>
Received on Sun 03 Feb 2002 10:05:29 PM PST