"Gail Futoran"
NOSPAMworldnet.att.net> writes:
> "Allan Adler"
nestle.csail.mit.edu> wrote in message
> news:y93y79ya6t9.fsf@nestle.csail.mit.edu...>> These are basically indirect contacts with the faithful via news
>> media?
>
> Huh? We - humans - interact with people at the individual level, at the
> group level, and at the societal level, at a minimum. Some of the
> information we have about other people comes from the news media. For
> example, if my local paper reports that some State senator or
> congressperson is pushing a "required prayer in school" law, I have no
> reason to assume the newspaper is lying about it. There is the idea of
> straight reporting of facts that can be checked. You have to distinguish
> that from opinions expressed in newspapers, and even factual errors.
> If your problem is with my source(s) of information, you need to take up
> your issues with the nearest Martian visitor because, honestly, there is no
> other reasonable way to get information about our very complex world than
> by various news media. Of course we can get some information "directly" -
> face-to-face or by telephone or telegraph or fax or letter or email - but
> most information is not reasonably accessible directly.
I think you are misunderstanding my intentions. I am not casting doubt on
the accuracy of your information, either in its own right or as a consequence
of the source of it. I'm just trying to get a sense of the different ways
that people on this news group actually deal with creationists and the like.
I'm not attaching any judgements to it. More about my intentions below.
In particular, I don't have a problem with anything you've written about
your experiences. I think your comments are good and helpful. If you've
been following this thread from the beginning, you know that I asked at
the outset about venues, so you shouldn't be surprised that I keep asking
about venues.
If I happen to express myself differently from you or if I happen to be
focused on details you don't happen to think are interesting, it doesn't
make me any less human. I would describe your sentence, "We -- humans -- ..."
as gratuitous sniping. If you could manage to just provide information
without at the same time attacking the person who asks for it, it would
do a lot to improve at least one reader's perception of your personality.
>>> I have problems with friends who send me email (quite recently) giving
>>> me links to creationist websites and when I reply with links to science
>>> websites, they go silent (which I suppose is better than trying to
>>> engage them).
>>
>> That sounds like pretty direct contact.
> Yeah.... Most people would think so. But you seem to hesitate to conclude
> that. Why?
You seem to be assuming that when I make a positive statement, such as,
"That sounds like pretty direct contact", I must somehow be saying the
opposite by not sounding positive enough. You are reading nuances into
it that simply aren't there.
It happens that I believe you. But no matter much I believe you, I would
express myself the same way. If someone were to ask me what your contacts
with creationists are, I would preface it with, "According to Gail, her
contacts are ....". That wouldn't mean I don't believe you. It would mean
I was quoting my source, since I don't have first hand knowledge. If I
say that a certain dictionary has a certain definition of a certain word,
it wouldn't mean I didn't believe the dictionary.
Maybe you are being overly sensitive. Let me quote a somewhat relevant passage
from Finnegans Wake, p.189: "Sniffer of carrion, premature gravedigger,
seeker of the nest of evil in the bosom of a good word ...".
>> In what sense are you friends with them? For example, have you known
>> them for years, socialized with them outside the internet, and it came
>> as a complete surprise to you to find out they were creationists?
>
> In excess of 35 years (which predates the Internet, by the way). And no
> real surprise, since the individual is an evangelical Christian, although
> I do recognize that some evangelical Christians are not anti-science.
> I suppose I thought this person was one of those.
OK
>>> I have problems with people who are intelligent, well-educated, who
>>> use all the benefits of science (modern technology, medicine, etc.) but
>>> at the same time want to castrate science. Talk about literally biting
>>> the hand that feeds you.
>>
>> Just to be clear, do you mean with the idea of such people or do you
>> mean that you routinely meet such people?
>
> I live in the real world. I talk with people face-to-face. I talk with
> people on the telephone. I watch television and listen to the radio
> (mostly NPR, admittedly). I read newspapers, I read news and science
> magazines. My sources of information are various. As an atheist in a
> very Christian, very conservative State, I get hit with religious including
> creationist references almost every day from numerous sources, both immediate
> (acquaintances, neighbors, people at stores, etc.) and at a distance (radio,
> newspapers, TV, etc.)
OK
> I see the threats to science almost every day. You want me to catalog each
> and every instance? Please...
I didn't ask for the level of detail that you provided above, although
I'm glad to have it. Your description of it fits well with the categories
I outlined in my original posting and I can't imagine what else you think
I might be asking you to do.
Maybe you should make more of an effort to find out whether someone is
actually causing you a problem before blaming them for doing so, and here
I'm referring to me, not to the creationists. It seems that you are doing
extra work to anticipate questions I might ask and then blaming me for making
you do too much work. In any case, no one is forcing you to do anything.
> The people I consider friends (all but one of whom are religious, and most
> of those are Christian, the rest mostly Jewish) don't make an issue of their
> religion. They don't hide their religious beliefs and religious activities,
> but they're not constantly going on about it. As far as I know, none has a
> problem with science.
Thanks for explaining that.
> But then we haven't actually discussed creationism. Nor have we discussed
> alchemy. Nor have we discussed astrology. Nor have we discussed faith
> healing. Nor have we discussed UFOs. Nor have we discussed the
> possibilities of faeries in the garden or Little Green Men on the moon.
> Do you see where I'm going with this?
I think you're saying that you don't really know whether they have problems
with science, possibly on other than religious grounds. That's fine. I'm
not concerned, in this thread, with facts about religious people, so much
as with the venues in which people interact with them, especially when those
interactions are regarded as problematic.
>> If that is correct, I'm wondering whether the friends who send you links
>> to creationist websites also send the links to your religious friends who
>> don't make an issue of religion [snip]
>
> Different social circles.
OK
> I almost never send links to people about anything. When I do, I carefully
> consider the individual. If the link is to something controversial, I'm
> extremely careful about whom I send it to. Most people I get links from
> take the same approach I do.
I often get email from friends who either sends me links or copies something
they think I and a dozen of their other friends have to see. I strongly
discourage that, but it takes a constant effort to prevent it.
Thanks, Gail, for your contributions to this thread. I don't think I will
read any more of your replies, since I think I now have a pretty good idea
of what kind of person you are, but the genuine information is genuinely
appreciated.
--
Ignorantly,
Allan Adler
zurich.csail.mit.edu>
* Disclaimer: I am a guest and *not* a member of the MIT CSAIL. My actions and
* comments do not reflect in any way on MIT. Also, I am nowhere near Boston.
