First, let me apologize for my flippant response. I said, 'you obviously don't know what a scientific theory is.' While this was clearly true, why would I expect you to be interested enough to learn about how science works? Other than, of course, offering your opinion in the first place.
Here is what I wish I had said; You are correct. And you are nearly at a very important distinction between science and myth, science doesn't claim or need to be true. Science just has to work.
A central component of your belief system is God is the source of absolute truth. This truth comes to humans through the written word and the voice of His Prophets, like your Dad in his garage church. We struggle with the revealed truth because God's Absolute Truth in beyond human comprehension. Could this be the real reason why fundamentalists have such issues with atheists: we do not accept the authority of the revealed Truth?
Science has no need of absolutes. An answer that works 95% of the time is good enough (p). I imagine this is hard for you to think about, there are no absolutes, everything is relative. I would also like to imagine that you would ask, why? Why give up the comfort and surety of AT for p? In the words of my favorite webcomic author because, "science works bitches." Exploring the world through rational/empirical methods is the only thing that has ever worked to help us learn about the world. Experience and trial and error have lead to techniques that help us to function, but science shows why things work. We don't need an Ultimate knowledge, we just need to be able to predict what will happen next. That's what science does.
Yes evolution is just a theory - so is gravity. You might say 'but I can see gravity working'. No, you see things falling to the ground. Gravity is why that happens. And we know that gravity is wrong, relativity does a more accurate job of describing why stuff falls to the ground. We still use gravity to predict how the planets move because it is simpler and it is good enough for most things.
Thursday, January 27, 2011
Monday, January 24, 2011
to Dana
Last summer I went to Oregon for a funeral and wound up in a conversation with my conservative cousin. We did not have much time and we never got to finish. Here is some stuff I wish I had said.
Thanks for sharing about your lazy friend who collects welfare. I think I see where you were headed interjecting this into our conversation about stimulating the economy. I don't like paying taxes either. But there are a few points to your argument that Glenn Beck may not be encouraging you to examine.
1. specific examples don't prove anything. One underserving person does not invalidate the need for public assistance. Dude, I you forgot I was a Social Worker: there are people who actually need help and cannot do for themselves. Mainly they are women with kids who have left their husbands. Why don't they stay, you ask? Because they were tired of getting beat up or are worried about their kids getting beat up or raped/pimped. I know you don't see that much but I did. Ok, mostly the getting beat up part.
2. you are not the only one with values. You are telling me people should keep what they earn and get what they deserve. I believe people seldom are compensated for what they actually produce. Further, I think we have an obligation to care for the people who need help and as a society we need to plan for the future to help people meet their own needs and be productive. So who's values are better or more important? It doesn't really matter. We can't make policy decisions based on ideology and expect positive results in the real world. We need to look and see what works and use that information to guide policy. Right now there is not enough buying happening. The only way to change that is to give money to people who will spend it. That means taxing the very richest people, who do not produce and who save their income, and subsidise the poorest. Money given to a poor person will get spent.
In the end, if your friend has more cash he will buy more stuff at your convenience store, are you going to refuse his cash if he got it as a handout?
Thanks for sharing about your lazy friend who collects welfare. I think I see where you were headed interjecting this into our conversation about stimulating the economy. I don't like paying taxes either. But there are a few points to your argument that Glenn Beck may not be encouraging you to examine.
1. specific examples don't prove anything. One underserving person does not invalidate the need for public assistance. Dude, I you forgot I was a Social Worker: there are people who actually need help and cannot do for themselves. Mainly they are women with kids who have left their husbands. Why don't they stay, you ask? Because they were tired of getting beat up or are worried about their kids getting beat up or raped/pimped. I know you don't see that much but I did. Ok, mostly the getting beat up part.
2. you are not the only one with values. You are telling me people should keep what they earn and get what they deserve. I believe people seldom are compensated for what they actually produce. Further, I think we have an obligation to care for the people who need help and as a society we need to plan for the future to help people meet their own needs and be productive. So who's values are better or more important? It doesn't really matter. We can't make policy decisions based on ideology and expect positive results in the real world. We need to look and see what works and use that information to guide policy. Right now there is not enough buying happening. The only way to change that is to give money to people who will spend it. That means taxing the very richest people, who do not produce and who save their income, and subsidise the poorest. Money given to a poor person will get spent.
In the end, if your friend has more cash he will buy more stuff at your convenience store, are you going to refuse his cash if he got it as a handout?
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)