posted
I am not going to engage the particulars of your obvious competence in cellular biology. My concern is more general. However, it seems that cellular functionality must inform evaluation of 'normal' beyond that which is 'most commonly observed'. Though, presumably, natural selection would ensure that both subsets were largely overlapping (functioning cells and those commonly observed).
And these determinations arise from a broader, theoretical understanding of cell functioning, which necessarily must consider idealized forms. (Or at least not particular to a single iteration.) That is to say, there are commonalities to cell function across all humans, all mammals, all life etc. Theories must deal in these abstractions.
I agree that the normative is established through theory rather than any particular cell count or even an aggregate of cell counts. But for HIV+ or HIV- to be meaningful, we need a theory which distinguishes the normative from the pathological and that theory should be scientific. No?
Posts: 675 | Registered: Aug 2001
| IP: Logged |
posted
We distinguish a certain set of things from another set of things scientifically.
And then for many reasons, starting with our desire to not die in the near future, we determine the first set to be normative and the second to be pathological.
The desire to not die in the near future is not scientific, but it is what we base a significant amount of medical decisions on.
Posts: 15770 | Registered: Dec 2001
| IP: Logged |
quote:I see two realms of belief: Science and Religion.
I disagree. There is only one truth in the world - that which actually is true. Therefore, there should be only one realm of belief. Otherwise we'd run the risk of having two conflicting beliefs at once. For instance, if we had one scientific belief system that told us abortions are okay and had another religious belief system that told us abortions are not okay, we would be stuck if we ever had to make a decision about an abortion. Instead we need one unified belief system that we can use to guide our decision making.
In fact, ultimately science is not very useful without some sort of religion. The two need to be unified in order for science to have value, because science can only give us a set of theories about cause and effect; it cannot tell us anything about what effects are desireable or what causes are ethically acceptable. In order to figure out what we should do we'd need a belief system that integrates both science and religion. That means making a tough choice where the two seem to point to the exact opposite conclusions.
quote:If the science was real, and true, and well researched and criticized, and it still backed up religion, then it should be in science classes, but if it hasn't met the rigorous standards that all science must meet, it has no place there, regardless of anything else.
I disagree. Even if religion is well-supported by scientific evidence, the Constitution still forbids putting it in schools, doesn't it? The Constitution says nothing about allowing the government to establish a state religion provided that it can use science to prove it.
The reason we have freedom of religion is not just because we don't think we can prove our religious beliefs to be true. Many DO think their religion can be proven true. Some even think there is scientific proof for it, as we've seen with this museum.
1. On your first point, I don't really think you disagree with me. You're talking about two different realms as well, one deals with morals and ethics, the other deals with provable fact. Science can tell us that DDT will kill Bald Eagles, but it takes a foundation of morality and a basic respect for life and the beauty of such a bird to force us to change our actions and bring about a restoration of the species. I never said you should believe one without the other, if anything, I think you shouldn't have to sacrifice your belief system to believe in the facts of science, and you shouldn't have to shun science to believe in god.
2. On your second point, no, I don't think that putting religious science in the classroom would really be a problem. If the Catholic church all of a sudden decided that they would take evolution as a tenant of their faith, would we have to remove evolution studies from the classroom? Of course not. If science is real, and has been thoroughly checked and scrutinized, then it doesn't matter who supports it and who doesn't, it's still science, and it belongs in the classroom. And you'd have to check, but I don't think that the Constitution says anything at all about what can and can't be taught in schools. Historicall, the curriculum was set at the local or state level, not the national.
fugu -
I read a paper in my first history class a couple years ago that compared several different flood stories worldwide, from Sumer, to Gaul, to Cathae, to the American Indians, and they differ in their dates of writing by 300-1000 years, but that could either mean that they are localized events happening years apart, or they could be one big event, but being that oral histories were really popular back then, and not everyone had a writing system at the same time, they passed down their histories through oral stories, until a writing system was established, at which point it was recorded. I'd be interesting is reading a paper that detailed the world's flood stories, when they were written, when that society invented writing, and the prevelance of oral histories in their societies.
Still, there's enough uncertainty and possibility for me to entertain the notion as possible.
Posts: 21898 | Registered: Nov 2004
| IP: Logged |
posted
Given how many tsunamis, major earthquakes causing floods, and other storms and floods have no doubt occurred in 1000 year periods, that seems plenty of material for flood stories everywhere. I mean, two decent undersea earthquakes in would create legends in most of asia.
Also, I'm somewhat skeptical of dating that precise. As you note, some of the stories could well have been around for indeterminate periods of time in oral history. Also, as you also note, a more complete cataloguing would be good; I think we have at least a few flood stories written a year, nowadays. The question is more when they say the flood occurred (and I suspect most are quite vague on that).
Posts: 15770 | Registered: Dec 2001
| IP: Logged |
It's likely we'll never know. But, that doesn't rule out the possibility. It also doesn't prove it, leaving it out there in limbo somewhere as both unprovable and not entirely ruled out.
posted
When some of you refer to changes in viruses and the research of pharmaceutical companies related to such changes, is evolution theory really playing a useful, predictive role, or are you just imposing it on the basic facts and claiming that evolution explains it? You see environment causes changes, and call it natural selection, which to you is a loaded term because you arbitrarily assume natural selection is a part of evolution. But what happens in genes and viruses, does not have to be explained that way. Such things tend to demonstrate deterioration, not evolution to something more advanced. That is the whole point of evolution, isn't it? That because HIV mutates, monkeys can turn into people?
Samprimary, et al., you coccoon yourself in swaths of self-affirming terminology which you think amounts to a scientific discipline, when actually it is you who have have no idea what genuine, actual reality is.
Another way to say it is that you have been brainwashed by evolutionists in positions of authority over you "teaching" you their "truth" since childhood on.
And when all other argument and what you think is persuasion fail, you resort to insults and ridicule, because at the heart of it you cannot respect challenges to your world view. You cannot agree to disagree, you cannot admit that your opponents have reasonable positions that are supported by real evidence; you have to despise. I have witnessed this over and over again, so that I can only conclude that this must be an inherent characteristic of all defenders of evolution that eventually turns up sooner or later. It is not just your brainwashed world view that creationists must contend with, they must also endure your hatred. Have you ever asked yourselves who is really pulling your strings, and making you feel the things that you feel?
[ June 13, 2007, 11:49 PM: Message edited by: Ron Lambert ]
Posts: 3742 | Registered: Dec 2001
| IP: Logged |
quote:I can only conclude that this must be an inherent characteristic of all defenders of evolution
While it is true you have been treated extremely poorly by some people here, it is not fair to say that all defenders of evolution have despised, insulted, or ridiculed.
Posts: 16551 | Registered: Feb 2003
| IP: Logged |
posted
quote--"This is an inherent characteristic of all defenders of evolution that eventually turns up sooner or later."
So your argument is "consider the source"? I hate to do this to you, Ron, but I bet a lot of radical Muslims are Young Earth Creationists. Should I try to reverse this on you, and lump you in with them?
I am with you that every single thing in science should be examined, and examined again, if that's your point. I still don't think you've answered my point that the inverse relationship between complexity and genetic diversity within a species heavily implies that evolution is correct.
I just don't buy this young biosphere stuff, Ron. I don't think you've thought it through. It's OK not to think it through, but please don't try to sell it here on Hatrack.
Here's why I don't buy it---the same scientific minds that split the atom, made the periodic table, and did many other great things also took classes in biology at some point. These minds are masters of the scientific method. Their minds penetrate deeply into the nature of reality. If there were huge holes in evolutionary theory, they would calmly have told their biology teachers to frack off. If that didn't work, they'd have published about it after they became famous and well-respected.
Einstein never once attacked evolution, even though he was probably the single most well-respected and listened-to scientist of the 20th century. He took biology in college, I'm guessing. That powerful, penetrating mind would have picked up on any huge flaws, is kind of my theory. Ya got any thoughts as to why Einstein never picked on evolution? How about Niels Bohr, or Steven Hawking, or Richard Feynman, or Robert Oppenheimer? Let's throw Thomas Edison and Nikola Tesla and Dmitri Mendeleev into the mix. These men were/are geniuses. You're trying to tell me that some backwoods preacher who never attended college, or some turban-wearing, tent-dwelling nutcase who's maybe never attended school at all, know more about the nature of the universe than the man who predicted the existence of elements that were as yet undiscovered, or the men who designed the atomic bomb? Ron, c'mon. I don't know who you think you're convincing, but it ain't me.
Posts: 3354 | Registered: May 2005
| IP: Logged |
quote:Originally posted by steven: I just don't buy this young biosphere stuff, Ron. I don't think you've thought it through. It's OK not to think it through, but please don't try to sell it here on Hatrack.
Oh my.
You're about the last person on Hatrack that should be throwing those particular stones, steven.
posted
Porter, honest to Pete, who do you think has studied nutrition more, you or me? I really hope you mean all these little comments in good humor.
Of course, the smart thing for me to do, if I don't like them, is to quit responding to them.
Actually, I figured there was about an 80% chance I'd get a comment on that line.
It's not fair to pick on me because I don't know everything about nutrition. It's foolish and dangerous to trust any one authority on nutrition, including Dr. Price, including me, including your mom, your dad, and most MDs. Nobody knows it all. In 80 years, we might. Until then, good luck.
The same diet that kills one person, saves another.
There are a few common threads between all good diets, including lots of all types of minerals, lots of fat-soluble vitamins of all types and sub-types, and minimally-processed. Beyond that, individual differences start to matter, in some cases, very much.
Posts: 3354 | Registered: May 2005
| IP: Logged |
posted
I wish that you'd hold yourself to the same standard that you want to hold others to.
For example, Ron was asked about his beliefs on this thread, and you're telling him that he should shut up about them. You, on the other hand, insist on pushing your wacky beliefs again and again even though nobody is interested and you have repeatedly promised to never bring them up again.
Posts: 16551 | Registered: Feb 2003
| IP: Logged |
posted
MPR, you know I respect you, and maybe I'm just tired and shouldn't be posting, but can you demonstrate how people have been treating Ron "extremely poorly"? I won't deny that the current discussion has been somewhat heated, and people on both sides have gotten tetchy, but I feel like we, on the pro-evolution side at least, have been quite patient in our responses, dealing with Ron's points one by one and in detail. Do you have anything to offer in this debate other than drive-by passive aggression?
Posts: 1321 | Registered: Sep 1999
| IP: Logged |
posted
Ron: Unfortunately, your last post works equally well as an argument against Creationism or Intelligent design if you simply insert those words in every instance that you used the word "evolution" and put the word "faith" everywhere you use "science" or "technology."
Posts: 3950 | Registered: Mar 2006
| IP: Logged |
posted
Tarrsk: I haven't come close to reading every post in this thread, and it's quite possible that my perception of how he has been treated is incorrect, which is that some people have been dismissive and rude. That said, I did not mean to imply that everybody discussing this with him was acting that way. In fact, the entire point of my post was to say that making that sort of blanket statement is inappropriate and incorrect.
But no, I am not interested in going back and checking everybody's posts to see if my impression is incorrect or not, because frankly, I don't care. I am perfectly happy to let it stand with me thinking that it's quite likely that my impression was faulty. But if you feel like going through the thread and seeing exactly how respectfully and patiently everybody was or was not with Ron, knock yourself out.
It's not as though how Ron was treated is essential to the point of my post. Perhaps I should have said something along the lines of "While you may have been treated poorly...". Although if I had done that, you might actually have had a leg to stand on in calling my post passive aggressive.
Calling what I posted passive aggressive is not fair at all. It's not like I said some backhanded thing implying things. I came out and explicitly said it. Disagree with me if you like, but don't call that passive aggression, because it just ain't.
Posts: 16551 | Registered: Feb 2003
| IP: Logged |
quote:Originally posted by mr_porteiro_head: It's not as though how Ron was treated is essential to the point of my post. Perhaps I should have said something along the lines of "While you may have been treated poorly...". Although if I had done that, you might actually have had a leg to stand on in calling my post passive aggressive.
Calling what I posted passive aggressive is not fair at all. It's not like I said some backhanded thing implying things. I came out and explicitly said it. Disagree with me if you like, but don't call that passive aggression, because it just ain't.
I interpreted part of your statement ("While it is true you have been treated extremely poorly by some people here," bolding mine) as a none-too-subtle poke at some of the folks that have participated in this thread, myself included. If that is not what was meant, I apologize. Like I said, I'm a bit tired, and today was not a happy day at work. I still maintain, though that this discussion has been fairly civil throughout (our little thread derailment aside). You are, of course, free to disagree.
Posts: 1321 | Registered: Sep 1999
| IP: Logged |
" you coccoon yourself in swaths of self-affirming terminology which you think amounts to a scientific discipline, when actually it is you who have have no idea what genuine, actual reality is."
I respond:
you coccoon yourself in swaths of self-affirming dogma which you think amounts to a scientific discipline, when actually it is you who have have no idea what genuine, actual reality is.
Posts: 1577 | Registered: Sep 2005
| IP: Logged |
posted
Can we all agree that we have no idea what genuine, actual reality is, but also that the scientific method is more useful for making predictions about that reality?
Posts: 37449 | Registered: May 1999
| IP: Logged |
quote:And when all other argument and what you think is persuasion fail, you resort to insults and ridicule, because at the heart of it you cannot respect challenges to your world view. You cannot agree to disagree, you cannot admit that your opponents have reasonable positions that are supported by real evidence; you have to despise. I have witnessed this over and over again, so that I can only conclude that this must be an inherent characteristic of all defenders of evolution that eventually turns up sooner or later.
Of course, it's difficult to admit that your opponents have reasonable positions supported by real evidence when they don't. I can't really say I despise you, though. More like pity. Mixed with a little disbelief.
Posts: 5462 | Registered: Apr 2005
| IP: Logged |
quote:Can we all agree that we have no idea what genuine, actual reality is, but also that the scientific method is more useful for making predictions about that reality?
The scientific method is more useful at making certain sorts of predictions, although even that is dependent on a faith that the future will function as the past did. For instance, science is very effective at telling people what effects a certain medicine will have on their body. It is very good at that sort of mechanical prediction. However, it is not so good at predicting things like "Will I be happy if a marry this person?" or "Will I regret having an abortion?" In some cases like these, you would be better off asking a preacher for advice rather than a scientist.
Posts: 2432 | Registered: Feb 2001
| IP: Logged |
posted
However, I think you are right that we CAN agree that we don't really know what genuine, actual reality is.
And I'd hope we can agree that it is neither scientific nor consistent with the tenets of Christianity to despise people for their beliefs on the topic.
Posts: 2432 | Registered: Feb 2001
| IP: Logged |
quote:However, it is not so good at predicting things like "Will I be happy if a marry this person?" or "Will I regret having an abortion?" In some cases like these, you would be better off asking a preacher for advice rather than a scientist.
What makes a preacher an expert on happiness or regret?
Posts: 37449 | Registered: May 1999
| IP: Logged |
quote:Originally posted by Xaposert: ... For instance, science is very effective at telling people what effects a certain medicine will have on their body. It is very good at that sort of mechanical prediction. However, it is not so good at predicting things like "Will I be happy if a marry this person?" or "Will I regret having an abortion?" In some cases like these, you would be better off asking a preacher for advice rather than a scientist.
Except for the glaring difference that science remains effective at predicting the effect of the medicine regardless of whether you believe in the medicine or not (placebo effect notwithstanding). The preacher only gives agreeable advice if you have already joined his faith.
Posts: 7593 | Registered: Sep 2006
| IP: Logged |
posted
You could as easily ask your parents, or your best friend, or a random person on the street. Unless they have the ability to accurately determine the future, the best they can do is make predictions based on how they've seen things work in the past... no better or worse than scientific method.
Posts: 3950 | Registered: Mar 2006
| IP: Logged |
quote:What makes a preacher an expert on happiness or regret?
Study of God's teachings and experience helping people through happiness/regret as a profession.
quote:science remains effective at predicting the effect of the medicine regardless of whether you believe in the medicine or not
This is true for the preacher too. Why would his advice not work for people of a different faith but work for those of his faith?
Posts: 2432 | Registered: Feb 2001
| IP: Logged |
posted
"In some cases like these, you would be better off asking a preacher for advice rather than a scientist."
You're talking about personal emotions here. In cases like these, I would ask for advice from the people who know me best - my friends, my family, perhaps my coworkers. A preacher might fall into this category for some people, and that's fine. Otherwise, see Tom's question above.
Posts: 1945 | Registered: Jul 2005
| IP: Logged |
quote:Originally posted by Xaposert: This is true for the preacher too. Why would his advice not work for people of a different faith but work for those of his faith?
I would disagree. If I am unsure about an important event in my life, and ask a preacher, and his advice is either to pray and ask God, or to read his holy book and look for answers, those only help me if I believe in his religion.
If I ask a doctor what to do about my sinus infection, and she gives me some antibiotics, it kills the bacteria, even if I think scientific method is bunk.
Posts: 3950 | Registered: Mar 2006
| IP: Logged |
quote:Originally posted by Ron Lambert: When some of you refer to changes in viruses and the research of pharmaceutical companies related to such changes, is evolution theory really playing a useful, predictive role, or are you just imposing it on the basic facts and claiming that evolution explains it? You see environment causes changes, and call it natural selection, which to you is a loaded term because you arbitrarily assume natural selection is a part of evolution. But what happens in genes and viruses, does not have to be explained that way. Such things tend to demonstrate deterioration, not evolution to something more advanced. That is the whole point of evolution, isn't it? That because HIV mutates, monkeys can turn into people?
A) Mutation tends to lead to "deterioration" or deleterious effects, simply due to the fact that mutation is random and the odds of producing a beneficial result is much lower than a deleterious result. However, we only have to look to antibiotic resistant bacteria to see a beneficial effect (for the organism evolving, not us) and evolution to "something more advanced." We can (and do, everyday) even replicate this in the lab, not for kicks, but as a fundamental step in genetic engineering bacteria for the production of needed biological products.
B) Aside from the above example, evolution indeed plays a useful predictive role. See algorithms such as in homology modelling (algorithms that predict the 3D structure of proteins based on a homologous template), these algorithms require knowledge of evolution as a basic component of their design. Then, these models are tested every year at CASP by observing the actual protein and comparing it against the prediction. Their growing efficacy (and use by pharmaceutical companies in high-throughput drug screening to eliminate potential drug candidates) demonstrates that evolution indeed plays a useful predictive role.
Posts: 7593 | Registered: Sep 2006
| IP: Logged |
I think Xap's point is that his faith is Truth (and therefore so is a preacher's advice based on that faith) - whether others choose to believe it or not.
Correct me if I'm wrong, of course.
Posts: 1945 | Registered: Jul 2005
| IP: Logged |
quote:I would disagree. If I am unsure about an important event in my life, and ask a preacher, and his advice is either to pray and ask God, or to read his holy book and look for answers, those only help me if I believe in his religion.
No, it only works IF YOU FOLLOW HIS ADVICE. Similarly, if you don't take the doctor's medicine because you don't think it will work, his advice to take the medicine doesn't work.
Posts: 2432 | Registered: Feb 2001
| IP: Logged |
quote:Originally posted by Xaposert: ]This is true for the preacher too. Why would his advice not work for people of a different faith but work for those of his faith?
Take your previous example, whether one would be happy after an abortion.
Person: "Hi, will I be happy after an abortion?" Preacher: "No, my religion deems abortion to be an unholy offence against God." Person: "But I don't believe in God, your advice has no relevance to me." Preacher: ...
Posts: 7593 | Registered: Sep 2006
| IP: Logged |
posted
I guess I better call all the couples I've done marriage counseling for who aren't church goers and tell them to ignore everything I said.
Bummer that I spent so much time and money on counseling trainging and certification, though, since apparently all that I needed to do was tell people to read the Bible. Posts: 9866 | Registered: Apr 2002
| IP: Logged |
quote:Originally posted by Xaposert: This is true for the preacher too. Why would his advice not work for people of a different faith but work for those of his faith?
I would disagree. If I am unsure about an important event in my life, and ask a preacher, and his advice is either to pray and ask God, or to read his holy book and look for answers, those only help me if I believe in his religion.
If I ask a doctor what to do about my sinus infection, and she gives me some antibiotics, it kills the bacteria, even if I think scientific method is bunk.
You seem to be severely limiting the preachers arsenal of options when it comes to helping you while giving the doctor all he/she needs.
Say you are suicidal and come to a minister to convince you not to go through with it.
What if the preacher listens carefully to what you say, feels a stirring of incite that prompts him to suggest that you do X. Almost miraculously his suggestion makes you feel alot better even if it seemed a bit odd.
I've seen at least my spiritual leaders give very specific advise to folks, and seen it yield important results. Even as important as ridding the body of bacteria.
Posts: 14316 | Registered: Jul 2005
| IP: Logged |
quote:I would disagree. If I am unsure about an important event in my life, and ask a preacher, and his advice is either to pray and ask God, or to read his holy book and look for answers, those only help me if I believe in his religion.
No, it only works IF YOU FOLLOW HIS ADVICE. Similarly, if you don't take the doctor's medicine because you don't think it will work, his advice to take the medicine doesn't work.
So the problem must be with the patient and not the medicine?
Posts: 3852 | Registered: Feb 2002
| IP: Logged |
posted
My point Xaposert, is that if I don't believe that the advice given in a particular holy book fits my worldview, even if I follow his advice and read the book for inspiration, it won't help me. If I pray, but I don't believe that I'm praying to anything, it won't do me any good. Following the advice only works if I have faith in the validity of the advice.
If I take medicine, and think it's silly made-up mumbojumbo, the antibiotic still kills the bacteria. I may think science is bunk, but that doesn't change how chemical reactions take place.
Posts: 3950 | Registered: Mar 2006
| IP: Logged |
quote:Originally posted by MightyCow: If I am unsure about an important event in my life, and ask a preacher, and his advice is either to pray and ask God, or to read his holy book and look for answers, those only help me if I believe in his religion.
In my experience, that is not how "preachers" (I tend to call them priests or ministers - preaching is only one part of what they do) usually respond. Quite often, priests have training in how to give more practical advice and help. This is often useful even for non-believers.
Posts: 11187 | Registered: Sep 2005
| IP: Logged |
Person: "Hi, will I be happy after an abortion?" Preacher: "No, my religion deems abortion to be an unholy offence against God." Person: "But I don't believe in God, your advice has no relevance to me." Preacher: ...
Am I the only person who "heard" this in a David Brent voice?
Posts: 16059 | Registered: Aug 2000
| IP: Logged |
quote:Originally posted by kmbboots: In my experience, that is not how "preachers" (I tend to call them priests or ministers - preaching is only one part of what they do) usually respond. Quite often, priests have training in how to give more practical advice and help. This is often useful even for non-believers.
I'm sure this is true, but the minister's advice is no more inherently good because he is a minister. If the advice is non-religious, then it is based on experience, education, and observation of past human interactions: scientific method in practice. Posts: 3950 | Registered: Mar 2006
| IP: Logged |
quote:Originally posted by MightyCow: My point Xaposert, is that if I don't believe that the advice given in a particular holy book fits my worldview, even if I follow his advice and read the book for inspiration, it won't help me. If I pray, but I don't believe that I'm praying to anything, it won't do me any good. Following the advice only works if I have faith in the validity of the advice.
If I take medicine, and think it's silly made-up mumbojumbo, the antibiotic still kills the bacteria. I may think science is bunk, but that doesn't change how chemical reactions take place.
I'm sorry but again even if you think following wise advise is foolish, the wisdom of the advise still becomes apparent after it has been tried.
I've seen plenty of people follow advise they thought was foolish because a religious man they respected suggested it. Results did not change in anyway then if they had believed the advise would work fervently.
Posts: 14316 | Registered: Jul 2005
| IP: Logged |
quote:Originally posted by kmbboots: In my experience, that is not how "preachers" (I tend to call them priests or ministers - preaching is only one part of what they do) usually respond. Quite often, priests have training in how to give more practical advice and help. This is often useful even for non-believers.
I'm sure this is true, but the minister's advice is no more inherently good because he is a minister. If the advice is non-religious, then it is based on experience, education, and observation of past human interactions: scientific method in practice.
By the same token, the doctor's advice isn't inherently good because she is a doctor. It's based on training, experience, and observation. Just like the minister's! Posts: 9866 | Registered: Apr 2002
| IP: Logged |
posted
Would we agree that psychologists and/or psychiatrists are also experts at happiness and regret?
Posts: 37449 | Registered: May 1999
| IP: Logged |
posted
My posts are specifically in response to this post:
quote:Originally posted by Xaposert: The scientific method is more useful at making certain sorts of predictions, although even that is dependent on a faith that the future will function as the past did. For instance, science is very effective at telling people what effects a certain medicine will have on their body. It is very good at that sort of mechanical prediction. However, it is not so good at predicting things like "Will I be happy if a marry this person?" or "Will I regret having an abortion?" In some cases like these, you would be better off asking a preacher for advice rather than a scientist.
And my point is that when a preacher gives advice about happiness in marriage or regret from an abortion, the preacher is acting like a scientist, because any predictions he or she might make about the person's emotional state, or steps that might be taken to their benefit, are based on observations of human behavior and emotions, examining past experiences, and using this knowledge to make predictions about how future events are likely to happen.
It is the non-scientific advice, based on holy texts or faith, which are only applicable to those in the same faith. If a Christian gets advice to pray to Allah for advice, how much is that going to help?
Posts: 3950 | Registered: Mar 2006
| IP: Logged |
posted
Tom, that isn’t the terminology I’d use. (For clergy, either.) I would say that counselors, whether religious or secular, have skills and training to help people sort through their options, look closely at their own beliefs and behavior, and clarify their decision-making.
And given Tres’s original statement, I would agree that someone consulting a clergyperson (at least from a religion that has educational requirements and professional credentialing for their clergy) would have a higher chance of useful help in that type of decision-making than someone going to a “scientist,” assuming that what we mean by scientist is biologist, physicist, chemist, etc. With the caveat, of course, that there are some biologists, physicists, etc with brilliant insight into human behavior, and some clergy who are totally putzes. Just like in any profession.
Mostly I’m annoyed by the caricature of clergy presented earlier in this thread.
MC: you’re the one who’s assumed that a clergyperson would give that type of limited advice. And since, as far as I recall, you aren’t associated with a religion, perhaps you shouldn’t assume that that is what was being suggested?
Posts: 9866 | Registered: Apr 2002
| IP: Logged |
quote:Originally posted by dkw: Tom, that isn’t the terminology I’d use. (For clergy, either.) I would say that counselors, whether religious or secular, have skills and training to help people sort through their options, look closely at their own beliefs and behavior, and clarify their decision-making.
And given Tres’s original statement, I would agree that someone consulting a clergyperson (at least from a religion that has educational requirements and professional credentialing for their clergy) would have a higher chance of useful help in that type of decision-making than someone going to a “scientist,” assuming that what we mean by scientist is biologist, physicist, chemist, etc. With the caveat, of course, that there are some biologists, physicists, etc with brilliant insight into human behavior, and some clergy who are totally putzes. Just like in any profession.
Mostly I’m annoyed by the caricature of clergy presented earlier in this thread.
MC: you’re the one who’s assumed that a clergyperson would give that type of limited advice. And since, as far as I recall, you aren’t associated with a religion, perhaps you shouldn’t assume that that is what was being suggested?
posted
I humbly submit that this is where TomD's rigid skepticism starts to show some wear and tear. I can think of a couple of Young Earth Creationist ministers who give excellent life advice in many areas, like how to deal with your child's misbehavior, how to handle family finances, etc. because they've lived to a ripe old age and lived their lives.
I'm not a Young-Earher, and neither is Tom, but there's no question that these guys would give as good or better advice than either me or Tom in many areas; at least that's my guess.
Posts: 3354 | Registered: May 2005
| IP: Logged |
posted
I think we have a satisfactory answer to Tom's question. To the extent that a minister has good training, instincts, and intent, he or she will give generally good advice.
It doesn't really challenge his point, though, that religion itself doesn't necessarily bring anything to the table.
Posts: 2907 | Registered: Nov 2005
| IP: Logged |
I'm not trying to insult ministers. I know religious teachers can give quality advice, and can give non-religious advice.
My point is that if a person gives advice based on education and experience, that's scientific method!
Xaposert asserted that scientific method is good for making some types of predictions, but that it is not good for making social types of predictions, and suggested that religious teachers would be better at giving advice in those fields.
My point is that they use scientific method as often as not when they give advice in those fields.
Posts: 3950 | Registered: Mar 2006
| IP: Logged |
posted
Why should we presume that any given preacher has the training or experience necessary for handling serious emotional problems?
Yes, a random preacher *might* have EMT training, but if I fall off my roof and break my neck, I hope that the person that finds me doesn't run to to look up "churches" in the phone book.
Similarly, if I am feeling irretrievably depressed, I'm going to look up psychiatry/psychology. If I'm trying to make a decision which I feel will effect me emotionally, I'll talk to friends, family, or a pschologist. That group may include one or more minister, but it's not their title of minister that conveys on them the appropriate relationship to me or expertise.
Posts: 3275 | Registered: May 2007
| IP: Logged |
Printer-friendly view of this topic
![[Smile]](smile.gif)
![[Roll Eyes]](rolleyes.gif)
![[Eek!]](eek.gif)
