Expression of Faith in Public Service

[Yawn]

Religious bigotry? Nope, I don't mind the religious as long as they keep religion to themselves, their homes, and their churches/temples/mosques/etc. (where it belongs) and away from public education, politics, and the law (where it doesn't belong).

We have been assured, Sir, in the Sacred Writings that except the Lord build the house, they labor in vain that build it. I firmly believe this; and I also believe that without His concurring aid, we shall succeed in this political building no better than the builders of Babel. . . . I therefore beg leave to move that henceforth, prayers imploring the assistance of Heaven and its blessings on our deliberations be held in this assembly every morning before we proceed to business, and that one or more clergy of the city be requested to officiate in that service. -- Ben Franklin

Sensible of the importance of Christian piety and virtue to the order and happiness of a state, I cannot but earnestly commend to you every measure for their support and encouragement. . . . [T]he very existence of the republics . . . depend much upon the public institutions of religion. -- John Hancock

[t is the duty of all wise, free, and virtuous governments to countenance and encourage virtue and religion.  I therefore recommend a general and public return of praise and thanksgiving to Him from whose goodness these blessings descend. The most effectual means of securing the continuance of our civil and religious liberties is always to remember with reverence and gratitude the source from which they flow.  --  John Jay

A free government. . . . can only be happy when the public principle and opinions are properly directed. . . . by religion and education. It should therefore be among the first objects of those who wish well to the national prosperity to encourage and support the principles of religion and morality. -- Abraham Baldwin

Of all the dispositions and habits which lead to political prosperity, religion and morality are indispensable supports. In vain would that man claim the tribute of patriotism who should labor to subvert these great pillars of human happiness. -- George Washington

Whatsoever State among us shall continue to make piety [respect for God] and virtue the standard of public honor will enjoy the greatest inward peace, the greatest national happiness, and in every outward conflict will discover the greatest constitutional strength. -- John Witherspoon

[Darth Fife]

I don't oppose expressions of faith in so-called public service. I just think it is silly.

Take the following as a example:

Of all the dispositions and habits which lead to political prosperity, Santa Clause and The Easter Bunny are indispensable supports. In vain would that man claim the tribute of patriotism who should labor to subvert these great pillars of human happiness.

-- George Washington

That's what it sounds like to us non-Christians.

-Darth

[MFA]

I don't oppose expressions of faith in so-called public service. I just think it is silly.

Take the following as a example:

Of all the dispositions and habits which lead to political prosperity, Santa Clause and The Easter Bunny are indispensable supports. In vain would that man claim the tribute of patriotism who should labor to subvert these great pillars of human happiness.

-- George Washington

That's what it sounds like to us non-Christians.

-Darth

It may sound like that to you but to equate God to Santa Claus and the Easter Bunny is so simplistic it's highly ignorant.  Consider the first message telegraphed:  "What hath Santa Claus wrought?"  Would anybody say that?  Of course not!  God is hardly on the same level conceptually as the Easter Bunny and Santa Claus.

[Darth Fife]

It may sound like that to you but to equate God to Santa Claus and the Easter Bunny is so simplistic it's highly ignorant.  Consider the first message telegraphed:  "What hath Santa Claus wrought?"  Would anybody say that?  Of course not!  God is hardly on the same level conceptually as the Easter Bunny and Santa Claus.

But all three have an equivalent amount of scientific evidence to support their existence. 

As for your quote, "God" wrought nothing. The first telegraph was the result of hard work, imagination, and dedication of mortal men. Or are you trying to say that if Morse was an atheist (or even an agnostic) that the laws of electricity would have failed to work for him?

-Darth

[MFA]

But all three have an equivalent amount of scientific evidence to support their existence.

Which presumes a lot when it comes to "how do you know what is true."  The scientific method is very limited in evaluating whether something is true.  In fact, if you hold to the scientific method to ascertain truth, you have to make a leap of faith to even determine that it is a reasonable method for determining what is true.

As for your quote, "God" wrought nothing. The first telegraph was the result of hard work, imagination, and dedication of mortal men. Or are you trying to say that if Morse was an atheist (or even an agnostic) that the laws of electricity would have failed to work for him?

-Darth

Yeah, see, but the telegrapher was not referring to the telegraph as "what God wrought," but rather that the electromagnetic principles on which they operated were "wrought by God."  Surely this is pretty obvious...?

[TboneAgain]

But all three have an equivalent amount of scientific evidence to support their existence. 

As for your quote, "God" wrought nothing. The first telegraph was the result of hard work, imagination, and dedication of mortal men. Or are you trying to say that if Morse was an atheist (or even an agnostic) that the laws of electricity would have failed to work for him?

-Darth

You're wrong.

We can argue until the cows come home about the name of the One, be it God or Santa Claus or Bunny, Easter. But whether Morse was an atheist or not, he did not make electricity. He did not create the fact that electrons can be forced to travel along conductors at light speed.

Morse's telegraph was indeed a landmark invention, a marvel of innovation, a miracle in its time. But it was an innovative use of something NO man invented -- electricity.

[Darth Fife]

Which presumes a lot when it comes to "how do you know what is true."  The scientific method is very limited in evaluating whether something is true.  In fact, if you hold to the scientific method to ascertain truth, you have to make a leap of faith to even determine that it is a reasonable method for determining what is true.

Not true.

According to the Dictionary the Scientific Method...  is a method or procedure that has characterized natural science since the 17th century, consisting in systematic observation, measurement, and experiment, and the formulation, testing, and modification of hypotheses

There is no "leap of faith" required to observe a given subject, measure it, experiment, formulate hypotheses and then test those hypotheses in a scientific and repeatable manor to come up with valid scientific theories.

Yeah, see, but the telegrapher was not referring to the telegraph as "what God wrought," but rather that the electromagnetic principles on which they operated were "wrought by God."  Surely this is pretty obvious...?

Since this wasn't the "first" message sent of that line (a message announcing the nomination of Henry Clay as the Whig party candidate for President 23 days earlier) I'm pretty sure that Mr Morse already had the "What hath God Wrought" message in mind as something... memorable and historic for the occasion.

What is obvious to me is that Samuel Morse was interested in sending a message that would sound good in the history books.

-Darth

[MFA]

Not true.

According to the Dictionary the Scientific Method...  is a method or procedure that has characterized natural science since the 17th century, consisting in systematic observation, measurement, and experiment, and the formulation, testing, and modification of hypotheses

There is no "leap of faith" required to observe a given subject, measure it, experiment, formulate hypotheses and then test those hypotheses in a scientific and repeatable manor to come up with valid scientific theories.

There are a whole lot of "leaps of faith."

Okay, here goes:

1.  That the Dictionary of Scientific Method accurately represents the scientific method in its definition.
2.  That the scientific method "works" as an appropriate and accurate means to ascertain truth.
3.  That our universe follows patterns of behavior and can be understood rationally.
4.  That my own rational thought is trustworthy in evaluating things like evidence.
5.  That the scientific work that has gone before is trustworthy (specifically, for example, in terms of experiments that I have not done; e.g., I have no LHC--I have to accept the word of those in scientific authority).

I'm sure there are more.

All these things are taken as a "leap of faith"--and it is appropriate to do so.

What is erroneous is to say that "there is no leap of faith."

It's also not scientific to say that "the scientific method is the only legitimate means of ascertaining truth."  That's not a scientific statement.  It cannot be proven scientifically.  It is a metaphysical statement.

Since this wasn't the "first" message sent of that line (a message announcing the nomination of Henry Clay as the Whig party candidate for President 23 days earlier) I'm pretty sure that Mr Morse already had the "What hath God Wrought" message in mind as something... memorable and historic for the occasion.

What is obvious to me is that Samuel Morse was interested in sending a message that would sound good in the history books.

-Darth

Of course he was!  That's not really the point.  But nobody would consider "what hath Santa Claus wrought" because that would be ludicrous in that context.

Again, you act as if Santa Claus, the Easter Bunny, and God are somehow philosophically equivalent.  They are obviously not.

[Darth Fife]

There are a whole lot of "leaps of faith."

Okay, here goes:

1.  That the Dictionary of Scientific Method accurately represents the scientific method in its definition.
2.  That the scientific method "works" as an appropriate and accurate means to ascertain truth.
3.  That our universe follows patterns of behavior and can be understood rationally.
4.  That my own rational thought is trustworthy in evaluating things like evidence.
5.  That the scientific work that has gone before is trustworthy (specifically, for example, in terms of experiments that I have not done; e.g., I have no LHC--I have to accept the word of those in scientific authority).

I'm sure there are more.

All these things are taken as a "leap of faith"--and it is appropriate to do so.

What is erroneous is to say that "there is no leap of faith."

It's also not scientific to say that "the scientific method is the only legitimate means of ascertaining truth."  That's not a scientific statement.  It cannot be proven scientifically.  It is a metaphysical statement.

It cannot be proven that it isn't either...

Of course he was!  That's not really the point.  But nobody would consider "what hath Santa Claus wrought" because that would be ludicrous in that context.

Again, you act as if Santa Claus, the Easter Bunny, and God are somehow philosophically equivalent.  They are obviously not.

They are to me.

Which is the point I was trying to make. You see, I understand, and respect your point of view when it comes to the existence of God as I have been there myself.

As the saying goes I have walked a mile in your shoes. I was just trying to give you the chance to walk a few yards in mine.

-Darth

[MFA]

It cannot be proven that it isn't either...

That's right.  It's kind of...a leap of faith. 

They are to me.

By that, you mean you reject them all as unreal or fantasy?

Which is the point I was trying to make. You see, I understand, and respect your point of view when it comes to the existence of God as I have been there myself.

As the saying goes I have walked a mile in your shoes. I was just trying to give you the chance to walk a few yards in mine.

-Darth

Okay...I have processed the implications of atheism as well as whether or not the existence of God could be justified.