Last Thursday Abdel Basset Ali al-Megrahi, aka the Lockerbie Bomber, was released from a Scottish prison allegedly on the grounds of compassion. I say allegedly because there have been accusations that he was released to remove roadblocks hindering Britain’s leading oil companies from seeking multibillion-dollar oil deals with Libya. Since these are currently only allegations let's just focus on the premise that he was let out of prison on compassionate grounds. Scottish justice secretary, Kenny MacAskill, "said that the 'humanity' that prompted his decision was 'a defining characteristic of Scotland and the Scottish people.'”
Comments have been made that the Lockerbie Bomber showed no compassion for the innocents he murdered so why should compassion be extended to him. I commend those who feel that is the wrong yardstick to go by, but instead take the higher ground. But does the higher ground mean that compassion should trump justice?
Mr. Megrahi served only eight years of a life sentence imposed by a specially convened Scottish court in the Netherlands, which declared he serve a minimum of 27 years. If Scotland defines itself as being humane by releasing a convicted mass murderer after serving less than 1/3 of his minimum sentence, shouldn't they release everyone in their prisons who have served only 1/3 of their minimum sentence? Oh, that's right, Mr. Megrahi is supposed to be dying (aren't we all?). Hmm, I thought that's what a life sentence was about: that you die in prison.
Make no mistakes about it, compassion must never overrule the dictates of justice. If justice is met, then let us be as compassionate as we humanly can. If justice has not been met, then let us be compassionate within the bounds of not breaking or bending the rules or slapping justice in the face. Otherwise why don't we just decide to be super compassionate and let everyone out of prison? If terrorists decide to take over our country, let's just be compassionate and not fight them so they can mercilessly carry out genocide? How compassionate would that be to our citizens? It turns out it wouldn't be compassionate at all. You see, showing misguided compassion towards one can turn out to be cruelty to many others.
Abdel Basset Ali al-Megrahi was flown home in a V.I.P. jetliner to scenes of a hero's welcome in Tripoli, Libya. (BTW mainstream media, thanks for eating out of terrorists' hands and prominently displaying such propaganda.) The son of Col. Muammar el-Qaddafi (Libyan leader), Saif al-Islam el-Qaddafi, held up the hand of the Lockerbie Bomber upon his return to Tripoli as if in triumph. Sounds to me like slapping justice in the face.
Which is more compassionate? To "locker" up a convicted mass murderer or to "locker" up Lady Justice? Good thing Lady Justice is blind, otherwise she just might see that slap in the face coming.
Saturday, August 22, 2009
Saturday, August 8, 2009
Science vs. Religion
To listen to the media one might come to the conclusion that science and religion are at odds with each other. Are they? Do they need to be? What is science? What is religion?
One of the most common definitions we're familiar with for science is the third one listed in the Merriam-Webster's Online Dictionary, 11th Edition: knowledge or a system of knowledge covering general truths or the operation of general laws especially as obtained and tested through scientific method. When it comes to religion the same dictionary refers us to the word religious which is defined as: relating to or manifesting faithful devotion to an acknowledged ultimate reality. Hmm, ultimate reality, knowledge, basically the search for truth, doesn't sound like they're all that different.
"But one is based on ignorant blind belief while the other uses hard facts," you may be screaming. Since we're looking for similarities here, let's apply the scientific method to religion and also see if there isn't any need for unsubstantiated belief or faith in science.
Though there are variations on the scientific method we will use the following:
1. Definition - Define what we're trying to find out
2. Observation - Observe and gather information
3. Hypothesis - An effort to use logical reasoning to explain the data
4. Experimentation - Perform experiments and document results
5. Analysis - Analyze the results
6. Conclusion - Decide what the data mean
7. Peer Review - Make sure others can repeat the experiment with the same results
8. Refine - Wash, rinse, repeat as necessary to confirm
The scientific community understands that there's a difference when using this method for social sciences in contrast to the natural sciences, but it's still a good method. My intent here is not to prove or disprove anything, nor to write an exhaustive doctoral thesis on the matter, but simply to demonstrate how the scientific method can be, and has been, applied to religion.
1. Definition: Is there some sort of supreme creator of the universe? 2. Observation: The universe exists. It is complex. 3. Hypothesis: Humans can create things. A being with greater knowledge (i.e., science) could create complex things. The hypothesis is that a supreme creator exists. 4. Experimentation: If a being exists there should be a way to communicate with it. If our minds were created by another being, this other being should be able to read the thoughts from our minds. The experiment is to use our thoughts to try and communicate (i.e., prayer). 5. Analysis: Thoughts were used to communicate. Thoughts (communications) came back to the mind as well as a change in feelings. 6. Conclusion: Communication was achieved with the supreme creator. 7. Peer Review: Millions upon millions--if not billions--of others have tried the experiment with the same results. 8. Refine: The results of the experiment are consistent and communication becomes easier as we learn to refine the experiment.
Remember, just because we can't build a machine to detect or recreate something going on (e.g., prayer), doesn't mean it can't exist. We currently don't have a machine that can recreate gravity; that doesn't mean it doesn't exist.
OK, how about the flip side? Is faith ever required for science? First let's define faith by referring once again to Webster's: firm belief in something for which there is no proof : something that is believed especially with strong conviction. Most Darwinists seem to have a very strong conviction that the missing link exists, yet to date there is no proof; a missing link has never been found. Does science require faith? Check.
Looks like science and religion have a lot in common. Since they are both efforts to discover truth, they should not be at odds with each other. Instead of scientists fighting with religionists and religionists fighting with scientists, how about we work together to come to the knowledge of the truth?
One of the most common definitions we're familiar with for science is the third one listed in the Merriam-Webster's Online Dictionary, 11th Edition: knowledge or a system of knowledge covering general truths or the operation of general laws especially as obtained and tested through scientific method. When it comes to religion the same dictionary refers us to the word religious which is defined as: relating to or manifesting faithful devotion to an acknowledged ultimate reality. Hmm, ultimate reality, knowledge, basically the search for truth, doesn't sound like they're all that different.
"But one is based on ignorant blind belief while the other uses hard facts," you may be screaming. Since we're looking for similarities here, let's apply the scientific method to religion and also see if there isn't any need for unsubstantiated belief or faith in science.
Though there are variations on the scientific method we will use the following:
1. Definition - Define what we're trying to find out
2. Observation - Observe and gather information
3. Hypothesis - An effort to use logical reasoning to explain the data
4. Experimentation - Perform experiments and document results
5. Analysis - Analyze the results
6. Conclusion - Decide what the data mean
7. Peer Review - Make sure others can repeat the experiment with the same results
8. Refine - Wash, rinse, repeat as necessary to confirm
The scientific community understands that there's a difference when using this method for social sciences in contrast to the natural sciences, but it's still a good method. My intent here is not to prove or disprove anything, nor to write an exhaustive doctoral thesis on the matter, but simply to demonstrate how the scientific method can be, and has been, applied to religion.
1. Definition: Is there some sort of supreme creator of the universe? 2. Observation: The universe exists. It is complex. 3. Hypothesis: Humans can create things. A being with greater knowledge (i.e., science) could create complex things. The hypothesis is that a supreme creator exists. 4. Experimentation: If a being exists there should be a way to communicate with it. If our minds were created by another being, this other being should be able to read the thoughts from our minds. The experiment is to use our thoughts to try and communicate (i.e., prayer). 5. Analysis: Thoughts were used to communicate. Thoughts (communications) came back to the mind as well as a change in feelings. 6. Conclusion: Communication was achieved with the supreme creator. 7. Peer Review: Millions upon millions--if not billions--of others have tried the experiment with the same results. 8. Refine: The results of the experiment are consistent and communication becomes easier as we learn to refine the experiment.
Remember, just because we can't build a machine to detect or recreate something going on (e.g., prayer), doesn't mean it can't exist. We currently don't have a machine that can recreate gravity; that doesn't mean it doesn't exist.
OK, how about the flip side? Is faith ever required for science? First let's define faith by referring once again to Webster's: firm belief in something for which there is no proof : something that is believed especially with strong conviction. Most Darwinists seem to have a very strong conviction that the missing link exists, yet to date there is no proof; a missing link has never been found. Does science require faith? Check.
Looks like science and religion have a lot in common. Since they are both efforts to discover truth, they should not be at odds with each other. Instead of scientists fighting with religionists and religionists fighting with scientists, how about we work together to come to the knowledge of the truth?
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)