On Mon, 25 Apr 2011 13:03:11 +0200, andrel wrote:

>> Rational - as in scientifically backed evidence, you'd reject?
> 
> yes
> 
>> I still find that quite unusual.
> 
> Why? I am 99% sure you would do the same.

Why do you say that?

>> I can see that, but for my view, I see 'religious atheism' as being
>> self- contradictory, because for me atheism has to do with rationality,
>> and rationality is more or less the opposite of religion.
>>
>> So I find your position quite interesting, and am interested in hearing
>> more. :)
> 
> Nothing new that I have not said in the past. - I don't see how I can
> base any ethics/morality on the existence of a God. 

OK, I agree with that - because when it comes to morality or ethics, the 
religions I've read about are pretty thin on both.

> Admitting to the
> existence of one or more of these things would result in a few months of
> work in rewiring my brain to undo all traces of 4 decades of thinking.
> That is too much to ask. - Almost everything in my working live as a
> scientist has been implicitly based on the notion that all life has a
> common origin. (I wonder if most creationist realise that when they
> visit a hospital they enter into a world that was impossible without
> Darwin). Again I will resist any concept that invalidates everything I
> have done. - when I look at a tree I can see how it is related to me.
> (And also of course the obvious things that don't look like me). I don't
> want to give up that feeling for the idea that it is just an object that
> I can treat any way I like.
> 
> I think that many atheists have similar reasons for not believing in
> some God even presented with 'convincing' evidence. Luckily we don't
> have to fear that that moment will ever come. This in contrast to
> creationists that are confronted with being wrong everyday. (and again
> they will think something similar).

So it has to do more with ethics and morality, then?

>> Well, I wouldn't believe it either, there have been plenty of crackpots
>> who have claimed to be the 'second coming' (for example).  That doesn't
>> constitute proof of any kind.
> 
> I was more thinking about a non-human being that was able to do things
> that no human can. e.g. generate and direct lightning towards an
> infidel, change a stick into a snake, or pull a live rabbit out of an
> empty hat.

Well, yes - things that could be an illusion or trick are different.  
Such a being would have to show how the trick was done.

> Besides even if such a thing would show to be able to create a universe
> I would probably say: 'well ok, now that you have seen what happened to
> this one, why don't you go back and try again and this time avoid the
> obvious bugs in the design.'

LOL

>>>>>> That undermines not only teaching real science, but the ability for
>>>>>> students to think about problems in a rational way.
>>>>>
>>>>> Are Americans worse programmers than Japanese?
>>>>
>>>> I have no data to support one being better than the other.  Do you?
>>>
>>> When Japan became industrialized a couple of decades ago, they started
>>> with copying things and then imported foreigners that were in thinking
>>> not bound to the traditional ways, i.e. creative and daring. Only then
>>> were they able to design new things. Or at least that was the
>>> chauvinist western view a couple of years ago.
>>>
>>> The thing to test here is if Japanese programmers are improving and
>>> native US ones getting worse. Perhaps comparing them to countries
>>> whose inhabitants do not accept any authority (like the Netherlands ;)
>>> )
>>
>> I'm not seeing how this comes back to my comment above about the
>> ability for students to think about problems in a rational way....
> 
> I had chosen deliberately a country where students for another reason
> were supposedly not trained in critical thinking.

I hadn't heard that about the Japanese before, that's why I'm not getting 
the reference.  Can you cite something that I can read to catch up on 
that idea in Japanese culture?

Jim

Post a reply to this message