A trained scientist is a specialist. It is unreasonable to suppose that a layman not having the level of training necessary to be part of the discussion can take part. It is not that such a person is a nut, but rather they have believed someone other than the scientist.
So that means that we should put their belief that the earth is 6,000 years old on a par with what all geological "specialists" know to be true?
Why?
Maybe, large part, because so many of us scientists, instead of merely regulating our comments to our proper domain of expertise, have decided that we should attack an area where we are the laymen and where we don't have the training to be part of the discussion.
First of all ... speak for yourself, not for me and for others. The problem is not with our stepping out into religious debates. The problem is that our data and conclusions have confounded the religionists' mythology and rather than attempting to understand, in even the slightest fashion, they have retreated further and further into rereading bronze age fallacies rather than retraining themselves to deal with the new realities. Scientists did not go out looking for a fight, they rather timidly brought things forward, one small step at at time, showing almost unimaginable sensitivity and care.
Faith is not the opposite of judgement. I'd point you to Lonergan's "Insight" for a very fine discussion as to why that is not the case. Of course, I suspect that few scientists who believe that statement of yours will actually read that text -- which sort of puts them in the same category as the religious people refusing to look at the data and analysis. In your word: nuts.
I did not find it to be a "very fine discussion," I found it to be an incredibly dense, almost obtuse, tome primarily concerned with creating a framework for self-examination. That's all well and good ... there's been a lot written and debated concerning "Insight," and I guess that's a good thing. I just don't (didn't) find it very relevant, to paraphrase "Inherit the Wind," "I'm far more concerned with the age of rocks than with the Rock of Ages." I made my peace with the most of the issues raised in "Insight" many moons ago.
As far as Faith and Judgment are concerned:
Main Entry:1faith
Pronunciation: \ˈfāth\ Function:
noun Inflected Form(s):
plural faiths
\ˈfāths,
sometimes ˈfā
thz\Etymology:Middle English
feith, from Anglo-French
feid, fei, from Latin
fides; akin to Latin
fidere to trust more at
bideDate:13th century 1 a
: allegiance to duty or a person
: loyalty b (1)
: fidelity to one's promises (2)
: sincerity of intentions
2 a (1)
: belief and trust in and loyalty to God (2)
: belief in the traditional doctrines of a religion b (1)
: firm belief in something for which there is no proof (2)
: complete trust
3
: something that is believed especially with strong conviction;
especially : a system of religious beliefs <the Protestant
faith>
Main Entry:judg·ment
Variant(s)
r judge·ment
\ˈjəj-mənt\Function:
noun Date:13th century 1 a
: a formal utterance of an authoritative opinion b
: an opinion so pronounced
2 a
: a formal decision given by a court b (1)
: an obligation (as a debt) created by the decree of a court (2)
: a certificate evidencing such a decree
3 a
capitalized : the final judging of humankind by God b
: a divine sentence or decision;
specifically : a calamity held to be sent by God
4 a
: the process of forming an opinion or evaluation by discerning and comparing b
: an opinion or estimate so formed
5 a
: the capacity for judging
: discernment b
: the exercise of this capacity
6
: a proposition stating something believed or asserted
With a dash of judgment you can make faith and judgment the same (Faith:2b1 and Judgment:6) or opposite (Faith:2b1 and Judgement:4a, 4b).
Most people are neither formally trained scientists nor formally trained theologians. Expecting them to be is rather silly.
Frankly I find the idea of a "formally trained theologian" almost oxymoronic, trailing in foolishness ever so slightly the Ministry of Silly Walks and the Department of Redundancy Department. Theology belongs in the Cultural Anthropology Department, it's prominence in the academy is naught but a holdover from the university's Medieval origins.
And given the number of those who claim to be scientists who claim that there is no God because God can't be demonstrated empirically act as a fairly strong counter argument to your claim that most are "rather well grounded . . . and have no confusion concerning the subset of that which is both true and believed." Indeed, that latter sentence suggests a lack of rigor with regard to epistemology, but I'll assume that is a result of typing on an internet forum. It's not like these posts go through formal review
.
You're blinding yourself, if you need further guidance (and I suggest that you might) you can explore that idea more fully in Plato's "Dialogues", ep. "Gorgias" and "Phaedrus."
If the concern is education, I'll say it again: you don't educate by insult. The first task of the educator is to get the willing engagement of the student. Calling someone a nut is hardly a way to achieve the goal of educating them.[/quote]Teaching requires the creation of, or detection of, a "teachable moment." Ain't 'gonna happen here. There is no teachable moment with these fanatics, all the nicey-nice epistemological arguments and academic tea parties will not save you from the witch-hunters who are, once again, out on the prowl. All that's changed is they wear modern dress, their bloody hands and bloodymindedness have not changed one iota.
