file not found

I have no desire or need to set any limits on it. I celebrate all that science has given us. l applaud the scientists who understand that they do not know everything. In fact what we know about the universe is miniscule. I sharply disagree with those religionists who believe that science and religion must be at odds, and who argue for creationism, oppose evolution and believe global warming is a hoax. In all these matters I trust science. So let's put that issue aside.

The question arises, however, not with science, but with the residue from the Enlightenment that rationality exhausts everything else, and that all of us are no more than the product of our thinking, thus dismissing ethics, purpose, theology, philosophy, questions of value and all things about life that cannot be confined to thought. We are more than the sum of our mental processes.

Science created nuclear fission, but proved incapable of working through how it might be used. That is a question that had to be dealt with otherwise. The philosophic problem arises when any discipline or perspective assumes it has all the answers to all the questions and seeks to eliminate everything else from the conversation. Your belief over inquiry and fiction over fact are false dichotomies. The human conversation must have a depth that goes beyond the physical. And that is the role of several other disciplines.

Rational thinking is a way to help make the right decisions on what science empowers us to do.

Science has informed us of the damage we have done to the stability of the biosphere of Earth, and also provides the solutions to those problems through technology. As a result, our ethics are changing to include things such as living unsustainability being viewed as unethical.

I also do not see why a material view of humans dismisses ethics, purpose, philosophy or questions of value.

For example, leaving a better Earth, a more sustainable Earth, for our children and grandchildren seems like a worthwhile purpose and a rational goal. On a more individual level, this is defined by the individual, whether its to educate others, through activism, etc. These are purposes people make for themselves all the time, what is my purpose on this planet, to be the best human being I can be. Why need more?

Ethics have been secular for centuries, and indeed has improved through rational application in all that time. Its taken forever since the Enlightenment started, but it is better than it was in the past. Indeed, we talk about things now that in the past would have seemed foolhardy under less rational mindsets, animal rights, human rights, equal treatment for women, etc. These were and are ethical questions first, and political questions only in application on society.

vital conversations; among them scientific rationality heads the list--but does not exhaust it.

Solid and Thoughtful Post Award this week!

One question to those shouting about science comes to mind.

What would it take for you to change your mind?

This is a question every scientist has to answer regularly. I can't help thinking of J. B. S. Haldane responding to a question about the validity of evolution: Rabbits in the Precambrian.

Thanks for the post. Looking forward to a lively discussion. But if you wanted real chair throwing you should post a thread on free will.

Logical Empiricism (Logical Positivism), which by its own definition is limited. It is not just a random opinion that a limitation exists.

considering that logical positivism doesn't really have many modern proponents, and science, as I said, broke from philosophy over 100 years ago, I don't see why you keep bringing this up.

They have better things to do, like praying to their sky daddy and balancing their chakras.

Whether the rationalism behind science is the only way to understand reality is another question. I support, applaud and trust science. I really don't know any religious liberals who bash it. If you do, who are they?

And yes, I've read Popper and others in that orbit.

years ago. Out of that came logical positivism, which is scientific philosophy on which the steps of the SM are based. Your knowledge of the history and philosophy of science is severely lacking. Why then does Stephen Hawking claim to be a logical positivist, along with many other scientists?

about the role of epistemology and methodology in the development of the Scientific Method. Science did not abandon philosophy over a century ago as you claim. And its defined limitations have been spelled out.

So again, we have come at an impasse because of your failure to comprehend the most basic of concepts. Science isn't reliant on philosophy any more. For every Daniel Dennet, or Sam Harris out there, there's literally thousands of scientists who frankly don't care what they say. I'm not debasing their thoughts, I'm just illustrating that figuring out how the universe works isn't dependent on their thoughts on science. The fact is, science works, it brings results, and if you have a problem with that, too bad.

Define fantasy as the totality of thoughts about anything that can be thought of.

Science then is that subivision of fantasy that is consistent with the observations that can be made of reality.

Mathematics is a broader sudivision of fantasy, since there is no requirement that mathematics be useful in descibing reality. Mathematics can define Euclidean, Lobachevskian, and Riemannian geometry, only one of which describes reality (excersize left to the reader). Instead, mathematical correctness is related to logic and the procedures of proof.

Biography pretends to represent reality. However, no biographer has access to the whole life of his subject, and often fairly significant liberties are taken with the facts.

Fiction, of course, is not supposed to represent reality, and any resemblence to persons dead or alive is purely coincidental.

People love to make up stories to explain things. This creates a universe of fantasies, strings of symbols, chains of thought that exist outside the matter and energy that we can detect.

As our ability to make observations and to create models and theories consistent with the observations increases, science comes into conflict with older fictions that were created without the benefit of observation.

Because whoever is using the word is usually a religionist or New Ager who i outraged at people criticizing their BS "other ways of knowing".

and there are probably a whole lot more we haven't found yet.
http://www.democraticunderground.com/discuss/duboard.php?az=show_mesg&forum=228&topic_id=67894&mesg_id=67898

I actually looked those up, and frankly, I don't see how they apply in scientific inquiry of the universe we live in. They are interesting as mental exercises and Turing's theories have application in computer science, however, honestly, I don't understand what you are getting at.

For example, take Mandelbrot, his being the most famous of those listed, the sets he came up with are actually elegantly simple in explaining patterns in nature, their practicality is limited, but that limit is self imposed. You could measure a coastline to infinity using his sets, yet its also finite, a seeming contradiction. But in reality it fails if you expect the patterns to repeat to actual infinity while describing a real world object, such as a coastline, or a tree leaf. That's a limitation of the math, not the science, because we can describe it to level far below where his sets would apply. If we are able to observe or experiment on phenomenon that we absolutely cannot describe in any absolute way, then new maths may be necessary, similar to what Newton had to do.

The only one that really applies that scientists do have application with is the Uncertainty Principle, because it has been observed, but this also applies in a limited context. We can't measure both the spin and position of an electron at the same time, but we can still measure one or the other, that's fact.

Besides, that doesn't apply to the things I mentioned in my post anyways, not in a larger context, just because we have the Uncertainty Principle doesn't mean we can't study human behavior or brain, or every other phenomenon in the universe.

Let me try to give an example.

A while back, someone asked in the Science forum: "Computer science: why are computer operating systems built to be so vulnerable"

Several people tried to explain it to him, but he refused to accept the explanations.

So people started making analogies to physics:

Now remember, a computer is both a physical device and a logical device.
It uses electronic circuits to perform logical operations.
Just as a rocket has to follow the laws of physics,
a computer has to follow the laws of logic.
Just as adding engines to a rocket will not enable it reach the speed of light,
adding memory or using a faster CPU will not enable a computer to solve the halting problem.
Some things are physically impossible, some things are logically impossible.
Just as there are limits to how fast rockets can go,
there are limits to what a computer can compute.

But those logical limits apply to anything using logic,
that includes computers, mathematicians, and scientists.

These aren't just "interesting as mental exercises",
these are very real limitations on what can be understood using logic and reason.

Hope this helps!

to show that you really and truly don't grasp what you're grappling with. At all.

Can reading tea leaves or examining goat entrails help locate system vulnerabilities?

Setting aside how apt it is to compare implementation problems in computer science with limitations of the scope of the natural sciences, the most important thing is this:

No one is saying science knows everything, that science can solve all problems. Do you turn that recognition of limitations into disparagement, as if these limitations are a fault, as if they are a reason to distrust or be dissatisfied with science? Do you act as if every limitation of science implies that there must be something else (perhaps "other ways of knowing"?) that overcomes those limitation?

really interesting one!

I'm not familiar enough with apologetics from various religions, but I think your question there points to one of the major logical fallacies, and it probably has a name. I just don't know it.

I think I have hear it generally referred to as the "gap of the gods", but I'm not sure that's a really accurate description. Perhaps you can help me on this.

Basically any place we don't have complete understanding, god dwells in, like abiogenesis, or "before" the Big Bang, etc.

Silly me! I think I forget more than I ever knew.

Of course, if I don't post a link, you won't believe me, so here is proof:

You said "No one is saying science knows everything, that science can solve all problems."
That's what this thread is about, the OP states "What I don't understand is why people assume this reliance on empirical evience is somehow limiting."
He's unaware of the limits of science, since you indicate that you are aware of some limitations to science, perhaps you should explain them to the OP, because he started this thread asking exactly for that.

You asked, "Do you turn that recognition of limitations into disparagement, as if these limitations are a fault, as if they are a reason to distrust or be dissatisfied with science?"
Science is just a tool, you sound like it's something to be worshipped, something we should place our faith and trust in.
When we say a hammer is just a tool, are we disparaging the hammer?
If a hammer doesn't work with a screw or a bolt, do you blame the hammer?
Or do you pretend that there aren't any screws and bolts?

You ask, "Do you act as if every limitation of science implies that there must be something else (perhaps "other ways of knowing"?) that overcomes those limitation?"
These are bizarre questions, it's like asking:
Do you act as if every limitation of hammers implies there must be tools that overcome those limitations?
Do you act as if every limitation of screwdrivers implies there must be tools that overcome those limitations?

When all you have is a hammer, everything looks like a nail.

Intuition and gut feelings are "other ways of knowing", and they are often much more accurate than "science".

Last edited Wed Apr 4, 2012, 09:06 AM - Edit history (2)

...""What I don't understand is why people assume this reliance on empirical evience is somehow limiting.", as meaning, in context, particularly limiting, limiting as compared to some other means of obtaining knowledge.

I rather doubt that the poster of the OP is an absolute scientific optimist who insists that science can and will solve all mysteries. If it became clear that he/she is that extreme, I'd point out that I don't share that unyielding optimism.

If, when doing so, there was often a sneer in the tone, if you'd invented a word "hammerism" to describe people who weren't fond using other vaguely described tools, tools with unproven results... then yes, I'd call that disparaging.


Intuition has been discussed many times before. I do not consider it a "way of knowing". It is a way of guessing. Sometimes a very effective form of guessing, but guessing nevertheless. Those guesses don't become knowledge (in any particularly useful or strong sense of that word) until they've been put to some sort of test.

Intuition certainly enjoys the benefits of the doubt and a PR campaign that any politician would envy. Make a choice that turns out well, and intuition often gets the credit. Make a choice that turns out badly, and you think back to all the conflicted thoughts running through your head when you made that choice, decide that some other option that had been floating through your mind was the one that "felt right", the intuitive choice you shouldn't have ignored, and then maybe even blame "thinking too much" for not having made that other choice.

I certainly don't think it has been proven, or that it's even reasonable to hypothesize, that intuition is anything more than unconscious heuristics -- just in case you classify intuition as some sort of mystical direct insight into Truth Itself.

intuition and gut feeling are "often much more accurate" as overall ways of knowing than science.

These subjects are apparently new to you, Scientific American is written for general audiences so it's probably as good an introduction as any.

You can find an embedded link to the 1979 Scientific American article in here:

I posted some additional information in this thread: http://www.democraticunderground.com/discuss/duboard.php?az=view_all&address=228x50336

much more to the point than all the millions of words and thousands of books that preceded it.

Turns out you can improve your understanding of something when you fix your mistakes. Of course, you can't learn that you're mistaken if you refuse to objectively compare your models with reality.

it's called revisionism, or more aptly - NEW SPEAK. Nonetheless, "nothing" is still nothing and to use it as a something is pure fabrication and a lie. And, that is exactly what we are dealing with here.

"Nothing," as you've previously defined it not only doesn't exist, but it can't physically exist nor can it logically exist.

Maybe if you'd care to try to define your fantasy realm in coherent, non-contradictory terms, we could have a discussion of it beyond me explaining what science figured out decades ago and you sticking your fingers in your ears while chanting dogma.

If you want to call abandoning incorrect models for correct ones "revisionism," go right ahead. It only makes you look bad.

Really, who thinks that admitting fault and fixing the problem is something to be embarrased by?

You are right - "Nothing," as you've previously defined it not only doesn't exist, but it can't physically exist ...."

The "you" in my comment referred to you (humblebum), not me (laconicsax). Since you seem to have trouble following conversations, here's a recap in terms that may make it easier to understand.

In 32, laconicsax said that humblebum's version of "nothing" doesn't exist and can't exist either physically or logically.

Laconicsax first made this claim months ago (if not years) when humblebum first tried to redefine "nothing" to prevent the laws of physics from contradicting his dogma.

Therefore, when humblebum claims that laconicsax's claim in 32 is new and agrees with humblebum's position, humblebum is demonstrably wrong.

claim is being made that something is popping into existence from nothing (as are you), it is a lie.

I also notice that you don't seem to understand that "nothing" and "something" being different things has no bearing on what happens when you don't have anything.

You'll always get something from "nothing" because "nothing" isn't a stable condition. This has been known for decades and repeatedly verified experimentally.

Is this the part where you try to redefine nothing to maintain your dogma?

Newspeak is very much in evidence here. Keep trying to revise the term long enough and soon most will believe it.

That is--unless you consider the laws of physics to be a "something," further illustrating that your 'can't get something from nothing' is meaningless because you define "nothing" as something which doesn't exist.

If you want to argue that something that isn't real can't produce real effects, you'll get no argument from me. I happen to completely agree that things which don't exist (eg unicorns, faeries, your god, etc.) can't produce real effects.

there is something there. Your "nothingness" still does not qualify as "nothing." It is a calculated ruse. Something cannot come from nothing, nor can something create itself. To accomplish such a feat requires that something be qualified as a nothing.

Let's accept your definition of physical laws (ie a consistent description of how something behaves) as a "something" which "nothing" cannot have.

Without physical laws, nothing can prevent the spontaneous production of "something" from "nothing." To assign a single property to "nothing" which prevents "something" from emerging is to start with "something" rather than "nothing."

So you see, you've backed yourself into a corner. You can either admit that without physical laws forbidding it (starting with something), "something" must be able to come from "nothing," or admit that allowing such a physical law is, to use your own words, to "qualify something as nothing."

So which will it be? Admit that your dogma that "something cannot come from nothing" is logically false, or admit that by allowing only physical laws which support your conclusion, your argument requires special pleading and is therefore spurious (false).

changing the meaning to suit your hypothesis.

What you may have missed in my previous response is that I was talking about the implications of your definition of "nothing." I'll recap, since you seem to have completely missed the point:

-You have defined a space that can be described by physical laws as a "something" and have repeatedly held that "something cannot come from nothing." This leads to two possible conclusions:

1. If "nothing" cannot be described by consistent physical laws, then there cannot be any prohibitions on "something" emerging from that "nothing."

2. If "nothing" can never give rise to "something," then it can be described by at least one consistent physical law.

The first conclusion disproves your belief that "something cannot come from nothing." The second demonstrates that you are allowing only the physical laws that support your conclusion, meaning that your entire argument is based on special pleading, rendering it invalid.

You have two options: Either admit that your premises render your conclusion false or admit that your premises invalidate your argument.

Recheck your math.

If you're going to selectively allow exceptions to the "no physical laws" rule you made for "nothing," you're engaging in special pleading, rendering your argument invalid, but since you're bound to try to make this discussion about semantics, I'll rephrase.

It all comes down to this: Does "nothing" operate according to consistent laws?

If it does, then by your own arguments, it's "something," not "nothing."

If it doesn't, there's nothing preventing the spontaneous creation of something.

destroys your argument of something coming from nothing.

You have argued that consistent physical laws that can be used describe what can and can't happen constitute a "something" and "nothing" doesn't have any kind of "something."

So, once again, if "nothing" cannot be described in terms of consistent physical laws, then anything is allowed, including the spontaneous creation of "something."

This means that the only way you can never get "something" from "nothing" is if there are physical laws preventing it, but as you have consistently argued, such physical laws would mean that you are starting with "something" rather than "nothing."

The only consistent, logical conclusion is that "something" will always be able to come from "nothing" because there cannot be anything that prevents it.

...an empty vacuum and nothing aren't the same thing. A universe that has natural laws which cause virtual particles to emerge from a vacuum, a universe that has an uncertainty principle, a situation that can be called unstable, is a thing, it's not a nothing.

You can remove all the actors, get rid of all of the props, turn off all of the lights, and you still have a stage. Where did the stage upon which physical laws play out come from? It's a very interesting (but possibly totally unanswerable) question.

On the other hand, contrary to HB, I don't see how invoking gods answers or illuminates this mystery in the slightest.

Namely, that it's an appeal that "nothing" be declared a fictional space that can be used to make conclusions about reality.

It's the ultimate goal shift--preserving the conclusion by erasing the premises.

If you asked someone 100 years ago if a volume completely devoid of matter and energy would qualify as "nothing," you'd get an affirmative answer and also be told that you can't get something from nothing.

(Similarly, an ordinary vacuum and an empty container would have previously been considered valid definitions.)

The problem is, that each successive acceptable definition of "nothing" has been shown to allow the spontaneous production of something; you can get something from nothing.

What humblebum wants, to preserve the conclusion that you can't get something from nothing, is to remove the premises from the real world, making the argument about the nature of an ad hoc fantasy realm. He's welcome to make all the speculation he wants about all sorts of fictions (that's what this group is for), but if he want's to argue that decades of well-established science (knowledge about the real world) is a lie because it doesn't agree with his preferred fantasies, he's going to have to deal with challenges.

... I think the problem is that strictly speaking the concept of 'nothing', i.e., the empty set, is in the domain of logic and not pertinent to empirical inquiry except in its role (pretty deeply buried) in the maths applied. In particular, when we talk about an empty set in math, we get to assume some stuff (thx set theory!), because we're just talking about counting, really. The most basic mathematical activity imaginable: 1,2,3,4,...., 1.032 x 10^7. So we're dealing with a different concept of nothing in logic than the popular notion of nothingness, which might have different meanings to different POVs. We're talking about no elements. Not even the whiff of an element in our idea of this set of countable things (actually, the empty set is required assumption for counting, since we really just map every countable set to the natural numbers).

I don't think BB Theory says anything of the sort. Physicists don't have the luxury of assuming "there exists" and supposing that "for all" nothing. There's always some jerk in a lab coat with a PhD and a job at CERN putting heat on to keep it real. Thanks experimental physicists, for keeping it real!

You too, i^2... keep it real, baby.

...our known universe, applying to the nothing of a vacuum, and try to apply it to the metaphysical nothing of the absence of our universe. At least I think I'm agreeing with you on this point, that HB's insistence on the idea that "you can't get something from nothing" can't be reasonably applied to the "nothing" he's trying to define. It doesn't even apply very well to the mundane not-quite-nothing of a vacuum.

I'm mainly jumping in here because I thought perhaps you were trying to say that "nothing" can't be defined any way other than a vacuum, as anything other than an empty physical space. For application of known physical laws this might be true (and perhaps that's all you meant), but the question of where the universe came from, why there is a universe at all, is ultimately a metaphysical question, a question that requires thinking outside the limits of the universe the existence of which is being questioned.

admitting that the concept and definition of "nothing" has changed. "Nothing" is still nothing, even after 10,000 years, or a century.

Last edited Thu Apr 5, 2012, 11:16 PM - Edit history (1)

There's never been a consistent definition of "nothing" and by no internally consistent definition of "nothing" is "something cannot come from nothing" a true statement.

It corresponds to "The Absolute" in western philosophy.
It's good that science is finally catching up to what was known through meditation, logic, and reasoning!

I agree with you on that point. There is no empirical proof of any deity. Anything beyond that point is hypothetical. Science is not religion. Religion is not science.

I understand.

when your agenda is undermined with facts and logical arguments.

Now in its 87th printing.

Or is asking such a question an attack as well?

Given your definition of "attack," you must feel like the most victimized person in the universe.

pretty well figured out. Playing the victim appears to come as easily as breathing to him. And now he seems to think this new tactic of counting up "attacks" will distract people from his lack of substance.

He made a statement about how atheists never get attacked on this forum, to which I (and others) told him he was disconnected from reality, to which he then replied he would start "counting attacks."

What's kinda funny (and I've pointed this out to him) is that his counting of what he classifies as "attacks" actually says a lot more about HIM than it does anything else.

I'm quite interested in how you view the nature and methods of theology so please don't interpret this response as anything other than a sincere invitation to discussion.

From my perspective, it can easily be said that theologians "make answers up" because:

Theology, in itself is the study of something that doesn't exist. The continually divergent branches of theology are evidence against the notion that theology is the study of something which is real. When the object of study is real, independent investigations converge on a singular (or similarly small) path of inquiry and complementary conclusions. What is seen in theology is that independent investigations diverge into separate paths of inquiry and contradictory conclusions that, more often than not, tend to reflect the beliefs, ethics, morals, and prejudices of each investigator. (When was the last time you met a liberal theologian whose study of God led them to support a rabidly conservative theology?)

All signs point to theology being a study of each theologian's personal beliefs rather than a study of something external to those theologians. It is exceedingly likely that there will never be a (non-imposed) unified view of God because those who believe in a god create it in their own image and give it their own opinions. It is most likely that your own "careful" study will never reveal anything about your god or the Bible that you don't already believe or are open to believing because it's all rationalization and justification of and for your a priori beliefs.

If you disagree, please state what specifically you disagree with, why, and provide an evidence-based counter argument. I think you'll agree that doing so would be a good example of engaging in thoughtful conversation and if you are sincerely interested in thoughtful conversation, this would be a great opportunity to show that you truly mean it.

What I find interesting is when people object to some scientific explanation for a phenomenon because they feel science shouldn't go there. The most common example is examining human nature, development, and cognition. Others include studying how life arose or how the universe got started(if that's even meaningful).

Science does go there, but doesn't exhibit the hubris of religious certainty when there either there is much more to be learned via our current models, or our current models are insufficient to explain the data. This is where believers try to wedge the god of the gaps into the... er... gap. So these are valid questions for scientific study, but they're also cutting edge, and rely on fields of inquiry that are 'soft science', i.e., psychology, medical science, neuro-science, all these fields are working hard the bar in their respective fields to approach the rigor of physics, but it's a chimera, and just as many scientists in these fields know that, too.

There's a limited window for these opportunists to exploit general confusion and ignorance about subjects scientific, before they become de facto worldviews (like heliocentrism, for instance). That's why we endure all this pseudoscience and quantum consciousness gobbledy-gook. Or the Mayan calendar. Or climate denial. It's all connected to this window of opportunity that believers feel they have before there won't me any more rubes for them to fleece.

Pretty well sums up the situation believers and non-believers can both observe, but from different perspectives. Believers nowadays have no problem with heliocentrism, (most of them anyway), and little problem with why we have thunderstorms or eclipses either. But that's about as far as believers often go, leaving the bigger questions, the ones where more scientific knowledge is in demand, the age of the Universe, age of the Earth, the nature of global climate change, where a considerable number of them are stuck in the confusion and comparative ignorance of the scientific evidence.

There's that one big one where science is only now beginning to postulate and test hypotheses and theories, the beginning of the Universe. And most believers will rush in with a God of the gaps explanation, which also serves in an amazingly circular logical fashion as a justification for the existence of their God.

You draw these sweeping conclusions about believers and non-believers without a shred of evidence to back them up.

Do you think that being a scientist, even a very advanced scientist, precludes someone from being a theist? Because it doesn't.

And FWIW, believers don't necessarily need to justify the existence of their god. That's why they are believers.

-> The Earth is merely 6000 or so years old and God made man/women just as they are today, no non-believers I know have a belief in such, although many believers believe the Universe is 13. something billion years old, and that our planet is 4.54 billion years old, not all believers in Christianity see this the same way.

-> God will take care of the planet and there is no need to face global climate change challenges. Again, no non-believers I know have a belief in such, although many believers believe global climate change is real, not all believers in Christianity see this the same way.

I get my information by looking at the world wide web, by reading, by watching television, by actually talking to believers who think their God created their ancestors in his image 6000 or so years ago, and and is taking care of them if only they pray to him.


Surprising to me is that so many believers think such beliefs are a small minority of fellow believers, who have a problem with the age of the Universe, the planet, evolution, or global climate change. If one looks around at attempts by various state legislatures to pass laws dealing with these issues, together with the issue of freedom of women to control their own health and their own lives, I think it becomes apparent that SOMEONE VOTED for these people and put them in office... those someones, are "a considerable number of" believers.

When I see efforts underway in any state legislature in the US to introduce "creation science" into the public schools, (I think there were more than 10 bills altogether in several states just this year), I know I'm not talking about a small and insignificant minority of believers. In short, THAT's where ANY one can get this information, and that is where I got it.

I do maintain that there are progressive, liberal believers who fully accept science and scientific truths. I object when they are grouped together with the fundamentalists and other RW christian extremists..

It's important to recognize and empower the second group, as they are in the best position to challenge the fundamentalists. They, like you, agree that the political power this group has is dangerous and that their religious beliefs have no place in legislative bodies.

They are on your side.

How is that so? How are people who argue for the continuation of "in God we trust" to appear on our money, or who argue for prayer at public events, or who argue for Christmas decorations on public buildings, or who argue for religious based restrictions upon women's health care options, or who argue for lawfully recognized respect for ALL believers, just how are those people in "the best position" to challenge the fundamentalists?

Seems to me that they (progressive, liberal believers), are more in a position of tacitly endorsing freedom of ANY and ALL beliefs, no matter how unscientific, or how irrational, or how destructive any of those beliefs can be with regard to equal rights of women, LGBT folks, or other minorities.

Those "progressive, liberal believers" seem to have had little influence in American political life since the election of 2008. I have yet to know what those "progressive, liberal believers" have proposed, or how those "progressive, liberal believers" have successfully challenged the fundamentalists, other than from a defensive and frequently a disapointingly losing posture.

If you have examples where "progressive, liberal believers" have succeeded in influencing the political agenda of America, fostering science, increasing equality, I'd like to see them. Most of the movements toward gay rights, toward women's equality, toward the advancement of scientific inquiry and scientific influence upon policy in the last 12 years has come NOT from and religious progressive, liberal believers, but from a clearly secular, (non-religious) impetus. True, some religious congregations, (Unitarians, mostly who do not require a belief in a god, and a few progressive, liberal believers of other faiths), have joined in once the ball got rolling, and I thank my two Unitarian activist relatives who have put themselves into the battle over one thing or another. But I am yet to see where and how major religious factions in the US have done anything of considerable note to advance the causes of science, or the struggle for equality, based upon their faith and beliefs. By contrast, there's dozens and dozens of bills actually reaching committee in state legislatures, and in the US Congress from people who are foisting their anti-science, anti-equality agendas, all based upon their religious beliefs. The evidence is ample, right out there on the public record, and we have a choice to ignore it, or not.

They don't argue for any of the things that you outline in your first paragraph.

They are in the best position because they can see and dispute with authority the fallacies, contradictions and distortions that the christian right have used to push their political agenda.

If you stick around this group, you will have the opportunity to see more of what the progressive, liberal believers and leaders are doing. There are articles and posts here nearly every day.

Again, you make broad assumptions about who has been active and effective in influencing the progressive and liberal agenda. If you google any of the issues that you outline with progressive christians you will find lots of evidence. But you won't see it if you have already made up your mind and don't look. And the media won't cover it because it's just not inflammatory enough.

We could start right here by encouraging those among us who are doing exactly what you ask, instead of finding reasons to dismiss them.

fundamentalists?


I'm just asking for examples. Anything in the last 12 years since Bush was elected?

Any single piece of legislation in a state or in the US Congress where progressives with solid religious convictions introduced a piece of legislation, any legislation, pass or fail or get stuck in legislative committee.

Anything?

And in contrast, how many times did progressive liberal religious folks stand up in support of fundamentalists in their efforts to maintain a religious influence over American politics, and how many time s did such progressive liberal folks actually stand up in defense of the rights of atheists or other non-Christian believers, like, for example, American Muslims?

Can we all spell Peter King's hearings last year on Muslims and terrorism, while he previously openly supported efforts of the IRA a couple decades ago? Is THIS an example of Christians with "progressive liberal" agendas?

http://www.theatlantic.com/national/archive/2011/03/peter-kings-hearing-on-islam-and-terrorism/72332/

Obviously King is NOT a "fundamentalist", he is a hate-monger parading around with religious beliefs as his primary target.

Progressive religious people don't introduce legislation. They don't think that religion has a place in a legislative body. They agree with atheists about separation of church and state.

What they do is work with communities and within movements to promote liberal and progressive causes. They promote and work for candidates that they think will work towards social justice and civil liberties. They are active in OWS and anti-war movements.

That's why they are different.

I'm not sure that standing in front of a tank as it rolls down your religious freedoms, forces women to give up their birth control pill for strictly religious reasons, forces women who were raped to bear that child to birth for strictly religious reasons, forces gay people to give up their human rights to love and marry whoever they wish, for strictly religious reasons, forces a government to observe SOME holidays but not others for strictly religious reasons.

I'm not sure how you view your alliances with your fellow "progressive religious people" as anything "progressive", more like "regressive".

If one does a Google or a dictionary look-up on the word "progressive", I don't think you'll find what you want to find... from your own post: "agree with atheists about separation of church and state"

NOPE

Here's what "progressive" is defined as:

What is ": moving forward or onward : advancing" about meeting and supporting candidates? That's what the fundamentalists do, too!!!!

Another dictionary defines it thusly:



Not one "progressive" increment in the last 12 years came about because of religious beliefs, many changes came about because of religious beliefs to restrict, refine, redefine, limit, or otherwise constrain the rights of some Americans, all because of or for clearly expressed religious purposes.

In essence, I see and respect your deeply-held religious beliefs, I share 99.9% of your values, probably, but I see more activism and "progressive" activity from atheists than I do from "progressive" believers, Christian, Jewish, Muslim, whatever you are.

Here's my definition of mission for a "progressive" believer of any faith in America: they would,

Oppose any legislation based upon religious beliefs
Oppose hearings based upon investigations into religious beliefs
Oppose the posting any ballot item where religious beliefs are involved in the rationale of the question at hand.
Oppose any reference to God, to religion, to lack of religion, to historical influence of religion in public discourse, all religious beliefs are equal, and cannot be part of public political discourse in a rational twenty-first century debate on the merits of any issue.

In essence, all issues of public and political debate must be based upon the logic and the facts, not upon any number of specific religious beliefs, all religious beliefs are to be kept out of public policy deliberations, at any level, in any legislature, in any court, in any government decisions. THAT, my friend would be "progressive" religious thought and strategy. To argue that YOUR "progressive" religious beliefs are superior to any other, and more worthy than any other of my respect, SORRY, I'm not buying that, just because you agree with me upon most issues.

I'm betting you still want "special favors" for your religious beliefs in the halls of Congress. I'm betting you would still want to pay the chaplains and the ministers who give up prayers in each and ever session of Congress. I'm betting you dont' want a government in your state and nation that refuses to allow for prayers at public meetings, at legislative meetings, in Congress.

That's where I'm seeing your false assertion that "progressive liberal" believers are the most capable of "challenging" the fundamentalists. You're willing to give them all such a broad birth in their beliefs intersecting with their work as legislators, give them a sense of official governmental "blessing" ...

NOPE, I'm not seeing any evidence over the last 12 years wherein "progressives" made any difference, while I see hundreds of examples where atheists and non-Christians made a huge difference to the thinking, (negative or positive) to the American electorate, if not by legislation, by affirmative, "progressive" activist words and deeds.

As far as I am concerned, (and knowing three relatives who are religious "progressives&quot , I have seen nothing but progressives sitting down and feeling so self-righteous and letting the fundamentalist tanks roll over them. And now we have restrictions on abortion and birth control and DOMA and so much more affecting so many states. If there are progressive believers out there who have done something that made a difference in policy somewhere, stand up and tell us where that actually happened. As far as I am concerned, the concept of "progressives" being passive, doing their stuff by supporting "progressives" who lost elections, not much to say there, it failed as a strategy.

"They are active in OWS and anti-war movements. " (Even if true, but there is scant evidence of this)... That sure got them far in the last 10 years!!!!

Progressive Religious Groups

The Interfaith Alliance (TIA)
70 faith groups and people of goodwill united to promote democratic values, defend religious liberty, challenge hatred and religious bigotry, and reinvigorate informed civic participation.

Network of Spiritual Progressives
A community of people from many faiths and traditions, called together by TIKKUN magazine, working on both the outer transformation needed to achieve social justice, ecological sanity, and world peace, and the inner healing needed to foster loving relationships and a generous attitude toward the world and toward others unimpeded by the distortions of our egos.

Church Women United (CWU)
Protestant, Roman Catholic, Orthodox, and other Christian women working for peace and justice.

Sojourners: Christians for Justice and Peace
Strives to articulate the biblical call to social justice, inspiring hope and building a movement to transform individuals, communities, the church, and the world.

National Council of Churches USA
The leading force for ecumenical cooperation among Christians in the United States.

Fellowship of Reconciliation (FOR)
A national, interfaith organization committed to active nonviolence as a transforming way of life and as a means of radical change that seeks to replace violence, war, racism, and economic injustice with nonviolence, peace, and justice.

Faith Voices for the Common Good
Seeks to educate the wider public about the values, issues, and ethical concerns of progressive religious people and their organizations.

Catholic Worker Movement
A group of people committed to nonviolence, voluntary poverty, and prayer who provide hospitality for the homeless, exiled, hungry, and forsaken and protest injustice, war, racism, and violence of all forms.

NETWORK
A Catholic leader in the global movement for justice and peace that educates, organizes, and lobbies for economic and social transformation.

The Quixote Center
A faith-based, social justice center (with roots to the Gospel and the Catholic social justice tradition) working with people who have few resources for their struggles, striving to make our world, our nation, and our church more just, peaceful, and equitable in their policies and practices.

National Advocacy Center of the Sisters of the Good Shepherd (NAC)
Advocates for the transformation of society to the benefit of all people.

Leadership Conference of Women Religious (LCWR)
The association of the leaders of congregations of Catholic women religious in the United States.

Conference of Major Superiors of Men (CMSM)
Serves the leadership of the Catholic orders and congregations of the religious priests and brothers of the United States, providing a voice in the U.S. church and society.

Unitarian Universalist Association (UUA)
Represents the interests of more than one thousand Unitarian Universalist congregations, providing spiritual support and speaking out in the name of justice.

United Church of Christ (UCC)
A Protestant Christian church that ties faith to social justice.

American Jewish Committee (AJC)
Works towards a world in which all peoples are accorded respect and dignity.

Religious Action Center of Reform Judaism (RAC)
The Washington office of the Union for Reform Judaism, whose more than 900 congregations across North America encompass 1.5 million Reform Jews, and the Central Conference of American Rabbis whose membership includes more than 1800 Reform rabbis.

Shalom Center
Brings Jewish and other spiritual thought and practice to bear on seeking peace, pursuing justice, healing the earth, and celebrating community.

Methodist Federation for Social Action (MFSA)
Unites activists within the United Methodist Church to take action on issues of justice, peace and liberation in the church, nation, and world.

United Methodist Church — General Board of Church and Society
Works to eradicate poverty, promote global health and provide leadership development.

Religious Peace Groups

Faithful Security
Works toward the permanent elimination of nuclear weapons by empowering religious communities to take action on a local level.

Every Church A Peace Church (ECAPC)
Works for the formation of new peace churches and the transformation of war-justifying churches into peace churches, so that the world will be turned toward peace as churches live and teach as Jesus lived and taught.

Religions for Peace — USA
Gathers representatives of religious communities in the U.S., promotes multi-religious cooperation for peace and justice, builds on the spiritual, human, and institutional resources of its communities, enhances mutual understanding, and acts for the common good.

Pax Christi USA
Strives to create a world that reflects the Peace of Christ by exploring, articulating, and witnessing to the call of Christian nonviolence — rejecting war, preparations for war, and every form of violence and domination and advocating the primacy of conscience, economic and social justice, and respect for creation.

Pace e Bene Nonviolence Service
Works to develop the spirituality and practice of active nonviolence as a way of living and being and as a process for cultural transformation.

OR

continue to base your view on a sample size of three and your totally false assumptions about me and other and what we want.

Let me know when you've looked into these, but I don't think you will.

Nice talking to you.

named link you posted.

I'm looking for results, not simply cut and paste.

I found your source, Google is good at that.

So far, no results, only lots of idealist speeches and writings.

Can you point to one solid "progressive" result in the last 12 years?

I can point the tens of thousands of Texas women who, with the current fundamentalist Governor, and legislators, are NOT able to do what they could do last year, namely get family planning.

Has your impressive "progressive" group of committees and statements and pronouncements and policy papers made a difference to one single woman in Texas, in any other state, to any gay person serving in the military, in any other status, in California where their rights to marry were denied as a result of "activist" religious funding of opposition to rights of gays to be equal?

I have seen results of fundamentalists' muddling into politics for a number of years. In the last 12 years, not one single result from those proud "progressives" show me I am wrong, or is what you said above what you live by...you guys just don't do politics.

Bottom line, I am just disgusted by self-righteous people who claim that they are allied with atheists and activists against religious influence upon American government, who just sit around and self-congratulate and are proud to do absolutely NOTHING that works for people less privileged than they are, while they claim to be with us and feel our pain.

So keep thinking what you think, but I hope to see you on the threads posted here that talk about concrete actions taken by religious organizations to promote and achieve progressive goals.

See ya.

religious believer uses the "I'm better than you are and I'm not going to bother to deal with you anymore" excuse.

So Typical! So arrogant. So insulting!

So predictable!

LET'S PUT THIS VERY SIMPLY: I have no problem with people doing good things while they live on this planet, many people do, most do it with some religious beliefs. But one should do good things on this planet not based upon religious beliefs, but based solely upon their values, their training, their love of their fellow human beings.

So far, I have seen no actions by "progressive liberal" religious people in the last 12 years that brought about results on a major scale. By contrast, I have seen hundreds of thousands of actions which brought about restrictions and actual denial of rights, denial of medical care, denial of human dignity to millions of people in the US and around the world.

Here is just one more example, some one who states

YUP, we all know when we have been denied our dignity based upon religious beliefs... this is just one example.

In this sub thread exactly what evidence was being asked for. And like all of the apologists here, you managed to duck, dodge and avoid with religious devotion. Can you explain why you went to so much trouble to avoid answering a direct request, rather than just admitting openly and honestly that you couldn't? And why such behavior is so much more prevalent among believers here than non-believers?

how many times on this board you've tried to label a refutation of someone's position a "personal attack". It's a lot more than 19, you can be sure.

And lose!

And just go home and forget about it.

And still feel they did the right thing, so who cares if they lost?

Every time you post from now on will be counted as an attack on atheists, based on the criteria you have set.

So based on that, you've attacked us about 1300 times.

We win.

That's fucking laughable if you think stating that some Christians behave that way (when Rep John Shimkus stated position on the issue is just that, for just one example) is somehow an "attack."

You wanted to make a point from a previous discussion we had, and all you are serving to do is make MY POINT. Your disconnection with reality is only more apparent now than it was before when you continue to make statements such as this in response to these so-called "attacks."

but let me quote.."
This, to me, seems to be an attempt at willful ignorance, to prefer belief over inquiry, to prefer fiction over fact. They ignore not just hypothesis and theory, but entire fields of science, simply because it makes them uncomfortable, examples include physics, neuroscience, biochemistry, etc.

"willful ignorance, belief over inquiry, fiction over fact."

"They" is not about belief, but about persons. Should I list this in my attack accusations?


Beyond that we, I guess "they" do not dispute all that science has done. We only ask others to be open to areas science does not encompass, such as meaning, purpose, the good, beauty, compassion, justice, peace etc.. These are not God of the gaps--but serious issues all humans must face, and which religion takes on as vital questions.

if stating plain and simple facts about the flaws in a person's beliefs constitutes a "personal attack" in your world. But the fact is that many religionists DO dispute a lot of what science has done, and you know that perfectly well, so I'm not sure why you would imply otherwise here.

And yes, we've heard you say that religion takes on "meaning, purpose, the good, beauty, compassion, justice, peace" as "vital questions" Over and over. Lots of apologists raise the "Big Question" meme. What we've never heard is what answers religion provides that are any better or more useful than those provided otherwise. What good is simply providing a forum for these things to be discussed, when it comes with all the negative baggage of religion?

Didn't you know?

But I would also love to see such a list.