Hate Mail

Michael Miller, Page 13

July 7, 2001:

I don't support racial hierarchies or didn't you read?

Of course I can read, and by your own words shall you be judged. I refer you back to your message of June 7, 2001. You defended Jesus' use of the word "dogs" to describe members of the Canaanite race (even one who were willing to pledge allegiance to him), by saying that he was merely describing their place in the "hierarchy".

Of course I support religious segregation...all religions can't be right, can they?

In my opinion, no religions are right [Editor's note: since I define "right" as conformance to physical reality]. But right or wrong, any differences of opinion are personal and therefore entirely harmless, unless someone chooses to hurt someone else over that belief (as you would do, by attempting to segregate people who don't believe the same things you do).

You decide that other religions are false (without a shred of evidence). You conclude that members of those religions should be quarantined, ie- isolated from the rest of society. Perhaps you would put them in concentration camps, eh?

I mean 2+2 still equals four right? There is only one answer to that, isn't there? Or does it depend on a certain (religious) point of view? Just like you're saying about the view of God and nature.

If my neighbour thought that 2+2=5, I would think he's an idiot but I wouldn't try to quarantine him. Unlike you, I have no intention of hurting anyone simply for the "sin" of not agreeing with me. I will criticize them, and I might even make fun of them [unless it's a small child, of course, in which case ignorance of the laws of addition may be acceptable], but trying to isolate them from society? That would be cruel, and unjust, and bigoted, and evil. Thanks for admitting your evil to me. You are demonstrating repeatedly why it is important for people not to follow the Biblical code.

[Editor's note: this is an interesting admission on his part. He thinks that anyone whose opinion is factually incorrect should be isolated from society! Yes, I would make fun of somebody who says that 2+2=5, but why would anyone want to quarantine such a person? It's not as if his opinions are going to spread; anyone with a rational mind can easily see that he's wrong, and that's the end of it. Christian fundamentalists are paranoid about the survival of their belief system: while scientists and mathematicians know they can use logic and observation to demolish stupid criticisms of their ideas, Christian fundamentalists know that they can't, so they rail against logic and observation, and they try to silence the critics. Or worse yet, they try to shove the critics into what Mr. Miller termed "isolation wards"]

My wife grew up in a very different home then I did. Neither parent was/is a Christian. As a matter of fact I believe her mother's convitions would probably be stronger then yours.

Why should I care whether you think your wife's parents were Christians? After all, you think Hitler wasn't a Christian despite his repeated statements of faith. The real question is: was your wife Christian at the time you married her, and would you have married her if she wasn't Christian?

[Quoted] "It doesn't occur to you that the doctors and nurses were already trained in science and humanism, does it? Whether they are religious does not impact on their medical training, which is entirely the result of science and humanism."

Their religious views do have an impact not only on their training but also on how they interact with patients and their families. I have personally observed this.

You're not getting the point, which is that they would be useless without their training in medical science. If they choose to add religion to their medical practice, that's entirely their business. However, if they were to remove medical science from their practice, they would be useless. The key ingredient in their profession is their science, not their religion.

[Editor's note: he is so casually bigoted that he doesn't even realize it. An openly religious doctor may seem like a good thing to him, but suppose the patient is Hindu? Suppose the patient is atheist, or Buddhist? I would suspect that a doctor's bedside manner would be affected more by the religion of the patient than by his own religion, unless he's a remarkably insensitive doctor, in which case he wouldn't be a very good one]

[Quoted] "Don't you realize what you'll find in such a hospital? Millions of dollars of high-tech equipment which was designed by engineers applying scientific theories for a humanistic purpose (the prevention of human death and suffering, which is a far better use of economic and labour resources than the glorification of God)."

None of which was used on me initially. They were just going let me die.

Give me a break; they made a misdiagnosis, and when they realized their error, they immediately sent you in for "shunt surgery" that saved your life. Without that surgery, you would have died. Your own testimonial indicates that you went into the surgery with a pallid gray skin colour, and you came out "pink". It was the surgery that saved you, and yet you think that science nearly killed you. That's ingratitude on the highest order.

If science is so great then why can't it prevent death?

In your case, it did! You're alive, aren't you? Without that shunt surgery, you would have become a statistic.

I was refering not only to the parents but also the doctors and nurses etc. Even they sometimes can't explain certain recoveries or failures.

They can't always explain everything, therefore it must be God, right? That's the "unsolved mystery" fallacy, in which any unexplained phenomenon is automatically attributed to God. This fallacy assumes that if you don't know why something happened, then it must be a violation of the laws of nature.

It simply doesn't occur to you that diagnostic tools are not omniscient, so medical diagnoses and explanations are not always 100% accurate or comprehensive, does it? Does a failure to produce omniscient diagnostic tools somehow mean that all of science is worthless? You seem to think so, but you would not be alive today if not for science.

But it [science] doesn't always explain my observations. Instead it sometimes goes against what I have observed.

You have failed to provide a single example of an observation which violates the laws of science. Instead, you seem to misinterpret the imprecision of ultrasound imaging to be a miracle.

And your position seems to be based on you emotions and your supposed feelings of racism from Christians.

Provide one example in which I base arguments against Biblical inerrancy and Creationism upon "emotions" or my "supposed feelings of racism from Christians".

I don't place much stock in "human logic."

Indubitably. You have no logic, so you don't think much of it. At least you are willing to admit it.

And instead of addressing some of my points you just jump to name calling and ridicule.

Provide one example of a point you've made which I've failed to address. Would you like me to start listing the points I've made which you've failed to address? I've saved and published our entire E-mail exchange on the Internet, and it would be very easy for me (or anyone, for that matter) to verify that I have addressed every one of your points while you have ignored most of mine.

[Quoted] "I find that when a fundamentalist is on his heels, he will often retreat to the company of fellow fundamentalists ..."

What is wrong with going to the experts? Science does this too you know.

Science does not appeal to the authority of experts. If you think it does, then you quite clearly do not understand the scientific method (a conclusion which I came to a long time ago, but which you are obviously too obtuse to grasp) [or too arrogant to admit]

[Quoted} "In your case, you don't even try to hide it."

If science can do it why can't I?

Once again, science does not appeal to the authority of experts. Appeals to authority assume infallibility on the part of the authority, but no scientist is held to be infallible. That's why repeated, independent verification is required for all scientific theories, and that's why all scientific theories are eternally subject to revision if new evidence arises.

Religious dogma, on the other hand, assumes infallibility of all the numerous authors of the Bible. No independent verification is required or even possible. None of it is subject to revision in light of new evidence. Get it now? Or would you like me to restate the distinction yet again, this time without the multi-syllable words?

Continue to Michael Miller, Page 14

Jump to sub-page:

Jump to: