Changes

Whew!  I hope I have expressed myself adequately, and apologize for any verbosity.  I find exactness a trying standard sometimes, I must admit.--[[User:TomMoore|TomMoore]] 00:01, 10 March 2008 (EDT)

Whew!  I hope I have expressed myself adequately, and apologize for any verbosity.  I find exactness a trying standard sometimes, I must admit.--[[User:TomMoore|TomMoore]] 00:01, 10 March 2008 (EDT)

:1. What exactly does "rule by religion" mean?  [http://www.merriam-webster.com/cgi-bin/dictionary?book=Dictionary&va=theocracy Merriam-Webster] lists "theocracy" as "government of a state by immediate divine guidance or by officials who are regarded as divinely guided".  An example of a theocracy was Israel prior to the time of King Saul.  There was no civil government, and God was considered the "ruler", albeit speaking through prophets.  "Deocracy" was not found by [http://www.onelook.com/?w=deocracy&loc=scworef&scwo=1&ls=a OneLook].

'':1. What exactly does "rule by religion" mean?  [http://www.merriam-webster.com/cgi-bin/dictionary?book=Dictionary&va=theocracy Merriam-Webster] lists "theocracy" as "government of a state by immediate divine guidance or by officials who are regarded as divinely guided".  An example of a theocracy was Israel prior to the time of King Saul.  There was no civil government, and God was considered the "ruler", albeit speaking through prophets.  "Deocracy" was not found by [http://www.onelook.com/?w=deocracy&loc=scworef&scwo=1&ls=a OneLook].''

: "make no law respecting an establishment of religion" refers to the ''establishment'', that is, that the government can't establish a "state religion", which is a religious ''organisation'' run by the state.  This was the issue in Britain, where the head of the Church of England was (and still is, technically), the monarch, so the ''civil government'' ran the church.  So it meant that the government could not run the church; it didn't mean that the government couldn't recognise ''Christianity'' (a set of beliefs, not an organisation) as correct.

 

: 2. Lot's of things are not ''empirically'' provable, as you later acknowledge.  How do you ''empirically'' prove when you were born? Or that World War I happened?  Or that the water in my kettle boiled at 100 degrees Celsius last Thursday?  The first two are "proven" by ''historical'' evidence (e.g. eyewitness accounts recorded in documents).  The last is "proven" by inference from what we ''do'' know, that water normally does boil at 100 degrees Celsius.  Similarly, God can be "proved" by (a) historical documents (e.g. the Bible) and (b) inference (everything that begins has a cause; the universe had a beginning; therefore the universe had a cause. For a number of reasons including that the cause had to be outside of the space-time continuum, the cause must be something that we would label "God").  Did we ''empirically'' prove God?  No.  Did we "prove" God by other means that we accept as being sufficient in other cases?  Yes.

You really want to argue this?  It doesn't matter... sure, theocracy is rule by God if you want to define it that way.

: "Faith" is trust ''based on evidence''.  Christianity has ''evidence'' in support of it.  Perhaps your beliefs are purely based on faith without evidence, but mine are not.

 

: "''"The truth," as you put it, is not a certainty for everyone.''": Truth is truth regardless of what a person believes.

'': "make no law respecting an establishment of religion" refers to the ''establishment'', that is, that the government can't establish a "state religion", which is a religious ''organisation'' run by the state.  This was the issue in Britain, where the head of the Church of England was (and still is, technically), the monarch, so the ''civil government'' ran the church.  So it meant that the government could not run the church; it didn't mean that the government couldn't recognise ''Christianity'' (a set of beliefs, not an organisation) as correct.''

:4. "''Obviously the teacher cannot "force anyone to believe." But that's an illogical way of looking at the matter.''":  Try telling that to all the bibliosceptics who have accused me of "forcing my beliefs" onto them simply because I argued my case on an Internet forum like this!

 

: "''the only way freedom of religion would be violated would be the teacher "forcing [someone] to believe," ... would [be] ... a teacher who was also a priest leading the class in Mass, administering communion, and reading the Annals of the Jesuit Register.''": No, that's not the only way at all.  Forcing someone to believe would be punishing them for not believing, as happens in some cultures when people convert to Christianity.

"make no law respecting an establishment of religion" does indeed mean that the government cannot establish a state religion, yes.  In fact, it means precisely that Congress is not allowed to make any laws which establish a religion. But what is the difference between "recogniz[ing] Christianity as correct" and endorsing a state religion?  Your interpretation would lead me to believe that you think that the only provision here is to stop the government from creating a religious organization, but it seems to me that the government's teachers endorsing Christianity as "correct" would tend to impinge upon the free exercise of religion of the citizens.

:5. "''..."truth" was a word seldom used.''": Okay, substitute "fact" if you prefer.  And think about ''how'' it is taught, not what words were used to explain it.

 

: "...''your "truth" is likely not the truth of even a simple majority of Americans. Unless, of course, you speak very vaguely.''":  I think you overstate how "vague" it has to be.  Agreed that the more detail you get into, the more points over which there will be disagreement, but I would say that there is more ''agreement'' than you are indicating.

'': 2. Lot's of things are not ''empirically'' provable, as you later acknowledge.  How do you ''empirically'' prove when you were born?  Or that World War I happened?  Or that the water in my kettle boiled at 100 degrees Celsius last Thursday? The first two are "proven" by ''historical'' evidence (e.g. eyewitness accounts recorded in documents).  The last is "proven" by inference from what we ''do'' know, that water normally does boil at 100 degrees Celsius.  Similarly, God can be "proved" by (a) historical documents (e.g. the Bible) and (b) inference (everything that begins has a cause; the universe had a beginning; therefore the universe had a cause.  For a number of reasons including that the cause had to be outside of the space-time continuum, the cause must be something that we would label "God"). Did we ''empirically'' prove God?  No. Did we "prove" God by other means that we accept as being sufficient in other cases?  Yes.''

:6. "''If it is religion, then objective "truth" cannot be achieved.''": Why not?  More specifically, why can't we be ''at least'' as certain of God's existence as we are about the bit of information about Augustus that you mention?

 

: "''Indeed, I would be insulted if someone claimed to find God under a microscope.''": I'm not sure that I'd be "insulted", but I certainly wouldn't accept it, because God is not material.  But I would ''expect'' that someone could find evidence for God under a microscope.  Or telescope. Indeed, the Bible tells us that "The heavens declare the glory of God; the skies proclaim the work of his hands."

Well, my time of birth is testified to by documentation such as my birth certificate, and the word of people who were there.  This is empirically known because doubt could be cast... should my mother recant and say I was actually born a day earlier for some reason, the matter would not be quite so clear and judgment as to support of evidence on either side would need to be applied.

:7. "''I really think I know what sense I meant it in a little better than you do... ''": I can, of course, only go on what you said, rather than what you were thinking.  And it is clear from what you ''said'' that you were talking about ''scientific'' evidence.

World War I is empirically "provable" by the historical records of contemporaries, which are very ample.

: "''When the term is used colloquially, it is generally understood (at least by most people) to mean "established by reasonable evidence to a degree consistent with the unusualness of the claim," or something similar.''": Saying that you were using the term colloquially is inconsistent with the claim that you were making and which I was replying to: "''And if there was some sort of empirical study that found God, that would be one thing. But I know of nothing that has scientifically proven that Catholicism is correct and Protestantism is wrong.''".  If you mean "proven" in the sense that you now describe, then I've described such proof above. The fact that you didn't know of it is neither here nor there.

I have no notion whether or not the water in your kettle boiled at 100 degrees then, but because that is such a minor claim it is very reasonable to simply take your word on it.

: The bulk of paragraph 7 is explaining that there are other "proofs" than empirical or scientific proof, a claim that I totally agree with. So I'll skip all that.

The Bible does provide some evidence support for God, certainly.  But that evidence is entirely counterbalanced by the wide variety of other documents which claim equal support for very different Gods, on just as much authority.

: "''But this rational process does not work for God, because the best "evidence" for God is individual faith.''":  On the contrary, as I have pointed out above, there is good ''actual'' evidence for God, and plenty of it.

Further, your logical chain of progression in (b) is very well known, as is the counterpoint: if everything had to have a cause, then so must God. Additional weak points are that the birth of the universe is categorically different than everything else, so it is not a reasonable inference to use such a rule.

: "''God does not bow to dance before our rationality...''": ''Our'' rationality?  Where do you think we got rationality from?  From the ''rational'' God! God has provided us with evidence for His existence, and we would do well to recognise that.

I should point out that by trying to use evidence and logic to demonstrate his existence, you DID attempt to empirically "prove" God exists to the best of your ability. But the empirical evidence is simply very very slim, mostly a "god of the gaps" thing.  Faith proves God, nothing else, and faith is private.

: [[User:Philip J. Rayment|Philip J. Rayment]] 09:19, 10 March 2008 (EDT)

 

'': "Faith" is trust ''based on evidence''.  Christianity has ''evidence'' in support of it.  Perhaps your beliefs are purely based on faith without evidence, but mine are not.''

 

You are unusual in that regard.  I have no evidence of an afterlife, but I have faith in everlasting life as testified to by the lord, despite the lack of empirical proof.  I believe most people would agree.

 

'': "''"The truth," as you put it, is not a certainty for everyone.''": Truth is truth regardless of what a person believes.''

 

Except your use of the word "truth" in such an instance is almost deliberately obfuscatory.  While what you are saying is accurate - that objective truth is not dependent on belief to be true - you are making an implicit and unwarranted leap to assume that your personal belief system have been objectively and empirically examined as the "truth." I could just as easily impose my own beliefs on you, and reply with your latter statement.

 

'':4. "''Obviously the teacher cannot "force anyone to believe." But that's an illogical way of looking at the matter.''": Try telling that to all the bibliosceptics who have accused me of "forcing my beliefs" onto them simply because I argued my case on an Internet forum like this!''

 

I can't control what some people you met on the Internet said to you.  But clearly you were not forcing your beliefs on them.  You clearly seem to think so, which goes to support my case as to what constitutes forcing: most certainly not neutral discussion in a public forum between individuals.

 

'': "''the only way freedom of religion would be violated would be the teacher "forcing [someone] to believe," ... would [be] ... a teacher who was also a priest leading the class in Mass, administering communion, and reading the Annals of the Jesuit Register.''": No, that's not the only way at all.  Forcing someone to believe would be punishing them for not believing, as happens in some cultures when people convert to Christianity.''

 

Then it would seem you would have no problem with my absurd example, since the teacher is not punishing anyone for not believing?

It would seem that an enormous amount of unacceptable behavior would be justified, then, by your rule... a mullah who was an American teacher would be justified in teaching children that their parents were heretics who should be killed, to choose an inflammatory example. If the only requirement of your rule is that the teacher not "punish them for not believing," that would make perfect sense.

 

'':5. "''..."truth" was a word seldom used.''":  Okay, substitute "fact" if you prefer.  And think about ''how'' it is taught, not what words were used to explain it.''

 

Facts are significantly more malleable than truth, as I was taught in science class.  If I take the temperature and it is 83, but then a more accurate instrument determines it to be 82.45, a "fact" has been overturned.  The theory is the more enduring: Boyle's "law."

And as I have explained exhaustively, it was taught empirically and exactly according to reasonable interpretations of the evidence, except for minor discrepancies and errors (every teacher is human, after all, and some are dogmatic).

 

'': "...''your "truth" is likely not the truth of even a simple majority of Americans. Unless, of course, you speak very vaguely.''": I think you overstate how "vague" it has to be.  Agreed that the more detail you get into, the more points over which there will be disagreement, but I would say that there is more ''agreement'' than you are indicating.''

 

 

'':6. "''If it is religion, then objective "truth" cannot be achieved.''":  Why not?  More specifically, why can't we be ''at least'' as certain of God's existence as we are about the bit of information about Augustus that you mention?''

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

It would seem our truths are very different on the matter.  Since I am a teacher, I will teach the nation's children that mine are correct.  I know you won't mind, since I won't be forcing them to believe.--[[User:TomMoore|TomMoore]] 13:17, 10 March 2008 (EDT)

== Quote Mined ==

== Quote Mined ==