Copyright 2004 by M. Uli Kusterer Fri, 29 Nov -1901 11:06:32 GMT Comments on article blog-catholicism-wow-gb at Zathras.de http://www.zathras.de/angelweb/blog-catholicism-wow-gb.htm witness_dot_of_dot_teachtext_at_gmx_dot_net (M. Uli Kusterer) witness_dot_of_dot_teachtext_at_gmx_dot_net (M. Uli Kusterer) en-us http://www.zathras.de/angelweb/blog-catholicism-wow-gb.htm#comment4 http://www.zathras.de/angelweb/blog-catholicism-wow-gb.htm#comment4 Tycho writes:
No, we don't call those things theories, we call them "hypotheses". Scientists reserve the word "theory" for something that is supported by facts. Unfortunately not everyone agrees with this definition, so we get people saying "X is *only* a theory" when a theory is the highest level that a hypothesis can achieve.
http://www.zathras.de/angelweb/blog-catholicism-wow-gb.htm#comment3 http://www.zathras.de/angelweb/blog-catholicism-wow-gb.htm#comment3 Uli Kusterer writes:
Yes, you shouldn't replace them without realising that you merely traded one theory for the other. Too many people just take current scientific theories at face value, thus turning science into yet another religion and becoming religious bigots. There are always some basic assumptions which you can't prove behind any science or religion, simply because there are no absolutes in this world (at least as far as scientists have been able to prove). Many religions choose to believe that there must be something behind all this, and they usually call it a "God" (or pantheon of Gods). In scientific terms, religions just define God as a necessary precondition, while scientists define negative numbers instead. Have you ever actually experienced a negative number in real life?

Once one gets beyond that silly idea of St. Peter guarding a physical heaven's gate and God as a white-clad bearded guy like they're portrayed in the jokes we all enjoy so much, or the silly idea of heaven just being bored do-gooders playing the harp, it's actually a valid theory. Even by scientists' terms. And there are many scientists who, through their understanding of science, came to their own personal conclusion that all of this couldn't have just accidentally grown, that there must be a design behind it all.

I leave it to others which theory (i.e. which science or which God) they want to believe in, but expect them to show the same courtesy to me. And I also expect them not to libel or label me to serve their interests, like the Times, which titled their article "Catholic Church no longer swears by Truth of Bible", which is simply wrong (but sells papers, I admit).

It's like saying "Apple endorses Windows" just because the head of the iPod division mentions Windows in an interview.

http://www.zathras.de/angelweb/blog-catholicism-wow-gb.htm#comment2 http://www.zathras.de/angelweb/blog-catholicism-wow-gb.htm#comment2 Because people were told (often by people out to make money) to believe in unproven scientific theories, we shouldn't replace unproven religious theories with science?
http://www.zathras.de/angelweb/blog-catholicism-wow-gb.htm#comment1 http://www.zathras.de/angelweb/blog-catholicism-wow-gb.htm#comment1 ruthless.zathras.de writes:
"A Christian charity is sending a film about the Christmas story to every primary school in Britain after hearing of a young boy who asked his teacher why Mary and Joseph had named their baby after a swear word." :-o

... And his mother answered "Son, you will be named after a swearword too, soon, and now, eat up your vegetables, Chrissake!" ;-)