Rick Husband and TAM

UnrepentantSinner · 27th February 2003, 01:05 AM

A short while ago, while composing an e-mail to an old friend of mine from Yahoo Christian vs. Atheist Club days I was telling her about TAM. When I got to the part about Columbia, I mentioned what was said about how they would want us to continue. That was true from a military standpoint (you grieve after the bullets stop flying) and from a scientific/exploratory standpoint (if England has stopped after Roanoke failed, the world would be very different). But what I hadn't considered in that context was Rick Husband's deep Christian faith. Might he have objected to some of the content and presentations of TAM?

In my mail to my friend (a Baptist and my travel agent btw) I told her that I thought he would understand that's all part of the skeptic movement.

Anyone else have any thoughts?

darling · 27th February 2003, 06:20 AM

Irrelevant. Or at least, it should have been.

I know there were people at TAM who hold religious beliefs. I also know those people were uncomfortable at some of the content - but not, as far as I can tell of the, actual presentations in general.

Likewise, I know these people were extremely grateful when Hal stepped up and pointed that not all skeptics are atheists.

If this had been an atheist meeting you'd have an excellent point. TAM wasn't an athiest meeting - although it did slip toward that on a couple of occasions - so in theory it should be a non-issue.

UnrepentantSinner · 27th February 2003, 06:56 AM

Quote:

Originally posted by budddyh
1. Irrelevant. Or at least, it should have been.

2. I know there were people at TAM who hold religious beliefs. I also know those people were uncomfortable at some of the content - but not, as far as I can tell of the, actual presentations in general.

3. Likewise, I know these people were extremely grateful when Hal stepped up and pointed that not all skeptics are atheists.

If this had been an atheist meeting you'd have an excellent point. TAM wasn't an athiest meeting - although it did slip toward that on a couple of occasions - so in theory it should be a non-issue.

I'm gonna number code instead of mutli-quote.

1. Agreed to a point, except that I know several people who are very religious and they might not agree completely with Rick thining we should have continued if there might have been any dispariagement of his Lord. I fear that's getting on a tangent though as you addressed that in your second point.

2. I don't think we actually encountered each other due to my shyness until Sunday night in the bar. If you met me before then did you realize I had a travel companion? If yes and then no, it was because after Friday night she chose to stay in our room rather than listen to dispariagement of religion. IMO, it was an overreaction on her part, but I will always support her decisions (she comes on vacation with me, I have to

) But the only other presentation she wanted to be there for was Hal's Hamilton Lives.

3. I was myself, though I knew that fact from PalTalk. You see, apart from my travel companion (girlfriend would give the wrong context but she's a girl and she's my friend) I have several other close very religious friends who are quite skeptical. Some obviously more so than others, but they know dog poo when they smell it. One buddy of mine is a very devout Eastern Orthodox, the most mystical of Christian denominations, yet he sneers at most paranormal or supernatural claims. I have to, as a man of (nearly) intellectual honesty deny to label skeptic to someone who exhibits the traits of the word.

Despite my lengthy reply, we, in general agree. I was seeking opinions and I think you for sharing yours with me.

darling · 27th February 2003, 07:16 AM

I suppose another question would be would be whether Rick Husband would have agreed with the content of the meeting had he returned safely to Earth.

If he would have objected in any case, then it would have been dishonest to stop the meeting because of his death. Equally so to say that he would have wanted us to continue.

I think that had he been asked in advance he would have been all for the meeting, but had he been there he might have been as uncomfortable as some people were.

Damn good question.

UnrepentantSinner · 27th February 2003, 07:26 AM

Quote:

Originally posted by budddyh
I suppose another question would be would be whether Rick Husband would have agreed with the content of the meeting had he returned safely to Earth.

If he would have objected in any case, then it would have been dishonest to stop the meeting because of his death. Equally so to say that he would have wanted us to continue.

I think that had he been asked in advance he would have been all for the meeting, but had he been there he might have been as uncomfortable as some people were.

Damn good question.

Shoot. Threadkiller summary.

Good questions indeed.

arcticpenguin · 27th February 2003, 07:42 AM

Quote:

Originally posted by budddyh
I suppose another question would be would be whether Rick Husband would have agreed with the content of the meeting had he returned safely to Earth.

Rick Husband may have been the most outgoing about his religion, but he was not the only one killed. Seven astronauts died on Columbia, and while it is certain that not all were Christian, it is not clear how religious each of them were.

I wasn't at TAM, so I don't know the specific context or comments to which you refer. I see no reason why skeptical thinking shouldn't be applied to the area of religion, but that discussion belongs elsewhere.

Marc · 27th February 2003, 08:05 AM

Quote:

Originally posted by UnrepentantSinner
If you met me before then did you realize I had a travel companion? If yes and then no, it was because after Friday night she chose to stay in our room rather than listen to dispariagement of religion. IMO, it was an overreaction on her part, but I will always support her decisions (she comes on vacation with me, I have to) But the only other presentation she wanted to be there for was Hal's Hamilton Lives.

Question, was that you and her on Sunday, where she was surrounded by atheists (and one deist) arguing about religion, till you had to go catch a flight?

The Bad Astronomer · 27th February 2003, 01:31 PM

Interesting. The religious aspect hadn't ocurred to me. When I was thinking about "pressing on" after the loss of Columbia, I was thinking scientifically, about being skeptical of pseudoscience. But then, I am a scientist, and my talk was about that very topic, so it was on my mind.

Perhaps the entire crew of the Shuttle would have objected to any anti-religious views. But the point of exploring space is to further human knowledge and to seek out the truth.

scotth · 27th February 2003, 08:11 PM

Another correlation that should be made:

The very person that was urging us forward with the meeting was the only people during the entire weekend that I heard affirm his faith.

UnrepentantSinner · 27th February 2003, 11:20 PM

Marc

No, apart attending Friday night and taking a shuttle bus to the mall on Saturday she pretty much just hung around in the room. On Sunday, immediately after adjournment we went and saw The Two Towers though. She told me in an e-mail that after she looked over the schedule she didn’t want to be a part of it. She she’s just not as skeptical as I am. Which leads me to…

Scotth

My friend did come down and watch Hamilton Lives, but got up and walked out as soon as Bob Carroll started his speech because she didn’t want to hear any Christian bashing. Not quite a public pronouncement, like Hal’s, but one made to me none the less. In my mind it was a real shame. I think she really would have enjoyed Dan Garvin’s Scientology talk, Hal’s Standards and Terrorism talk, BA’s fabulous Planet (hoa)X talk, and Chip Denmon’s Medicines via fax (as I have come to refer to DigiBio) talk. She would have liked some of the papers presented on Sunday as well.

Of course Sunday evening as I went upstairs to see if she wanted to catch the 5:25 showing of TT, she had just gotten out of the shower and was still in her robe so maybe part of her reticence was that she wanted to sleep in.

Bad Astronomer

I too thought from a scientific, exploratory, rational standpoint that yes, they would have wanted us to continue instead of mope around or morbidly watch footage of debris all day. The thought about Rick Husband didn’t occur to me until last night when I was writing that e-mail. In part, I suppose, because I didn’t watch much coverage over TAM weekend and his faith didn’t really become the defining characteristic of his bio until it was time for the memorials on Monday and Tuesday.

Regarding the tone and tenor of TAM, while I wasn’t offended, I was disappointed in and do not agree with Taner Edis’ conclusion that you can’t be a “complete” skeptic unless you reject religion as well. Which leads me to…

Arctic Penguin

I completely agree that there is room within the overall skeptic movement for the discussion of religion. What really got me motivated as a skeptic was hearing the utrageous claims of End Times conspiracy kooks and Young Earth Creationists. I also agree completely with the notion that can be religious and a skeptic. I think I mentioned my mystical Eastern Orthodox friend, and one of the most powerful allies I ever had in a Creation/Evolution debate was Dr. Douglas Theobald, PhD author of the 29 Evidences for Macroevlution essay you can find on Talk Origins and a Pentecostal.

As I concluded above, I think even the most dedicated adherant to any religion would be willing to fight against Penta water, cold readers and theraputic touch.

- Thank you all for your comments.

The Bad Astronomer · 28th February 2003, 01:31 PM

Quote:

Originally posted by UnrepentantSinner
BA’s fabulous Planet (hoa)X talk [/b]

I'm stealing that. :-)

UnrepentantSinner · 28th February 2003, 11:10 PM

Quote:

Originally posted by The Bad Astronomer

I'm stealing that. :-)

It's all yours. I'd be honored to have any contribution of mine included in the war on pseudoscience.

kittynh · 1st March 2003, 06:54 PM

One thing that I've found with my religious friends is that they are very able to "carry on" after a crisis or disaster. Since they have a belief that death isn't the end, I often find they are sad, yet very comforted and indeed can even soon be happy, thinking that their loved ones aren't "gone", and they will see them again. Several of my Christian friends have wills written saying that their funeral should be "happy" and "uplifting". They aren't fearful of death - infact refer to their dead friends and relatives as being "blessed" and "free of this mortal life". Ever been to a funeral where they start off, "we should be happy for -----, not sad"

I'm open to hearing anyone speak, I don't think that listening to someone speak will do more than annoy me if I don't agree. I often wonder why really "strong" Christians don't want to even listen to anyone who might challenge thier beliefs. I feel like reassuring them that most Christians I meet have very strong beliefs and really listening to a channel other than CBN won't change their belief.

I'm totally cool with all the ultra athiests, since Martin Gardner, a man I totally admire isn't an atheist either! Mind you, we won't be attending any revival meetings anytime soon either.

arcticpenguin · 2nd March 2003, 10:31 AM

Quote:

Originally posted by kittynh

I'm totally cool with all the ultra athiests, since Martin Gardner, a man I totally admire isn't an atheist either! Mind you, we won't be attending any revival meetings anytime soon either.

I've noticed hints of that in his writing. Since he has written before ripping into other people's beliefs, I do wonder about what his own are.

kittynh · 2nd March 2003, 10:58 AM

In his book, "why People Believe Weird Things" Michael Shermer explains Mr.Gardners beliefs quite well.

I can only explain not well, but it has to do with - yeah there is no proof, and I probably shouldn't believe, but I find believing in something comforting and I like it.

I believe because it comforts, is I think how it's put, but in Latin!

sorry, too lazy snowy a day to get up and look it up for you....zzzzzzz
saving up the energy for the massive snow/ice removal and sanding to come....

Finella · 2nd March 2003, 01:20 PM

Rick Husband wasn't the only person of faith on the shuttle:

http://episcopal-life.org/Columbia.html

However, it is clear that these astronauts loved science and, I feel, found a link between science and their Creator. I think TAM was definitely in the spirit of that drive to find truth in all facets of life. I took the decision to continue as a way to honor that which they strived for, both in faith and in science.

---,---'--{@

27th February 2003, 01:05 AM	#1
UnrepentantSinner A post by Alan Smithee Join Date: Aug 2001 Location: USAian is not a word Posts: 26,355	Rick Husband and TAM A short while ago, while composing an e-mail to an old friend of mine from Yahoo Christian vs. Atheist Club days I was telling her about TAM. When I got to the part about Columbia, I mentioned what was said about how they would want us to continue. That was true from a military standpoint (you grieve after the bullets stop flying) and from a scientific/exploratory standpoint (if England has stopped after Roanoke failed, the world would be very different). But what I hadn't considered in that context was Rick Husband's deep Christian faith. Might he have objected to some of the content and presentations of TAM? In my mail to my friend (a Baptist and my travel agent btw) I told her that I thought he would understand that's all part of the skeptic movement. Anyone else have any thoughts?
	__________________ I am an American citizen who is part of American society and briefly served in the American armed forces. I use American dollars and pay taxes that support the American government. And yes, despite the editorial decison to change American politics to the nonsensical "USA politics" subforum, I follow and comment on American politics.

27th February 2003, 06:20 AM	#2
darling JREF Kid Join Date: Aug 2001 Location: Philadelphia Posts: 351	Irrelevant. Or at least, it should have been. I know there were people at TAM who hold religious beliefs. I also know those people were uncomfortable at some of the content - but not, as far as I can tell of the, actual presentations in general. Likewise, I know these people were extremely grateful when Hal stepped up and pointed that not all skeptics are atheists. If this had been an atheist meeting you'd have an excellent point. TAM wasn't an athiest meeting - although it did slip toward that on a couple of occasions - so in theory it should be a non-issue.
	__________________ The poster formerly known as budddyh

27th February 2003, 06:56 AM	#3
UnrepentantSinner A post by Alan Smithee Join Date: Aug 2001 Location: USAian is not a word Posts: 26,355	Quote: Originally posted by budddyh 1. Irrelevant. Or at least, it should have been. 2. I know there were people at TAM who hold religious beliefs. I also know those people were uncomfortable at some of the content - but not, as far as I can tell of the, actual presentations in general. 3. Likewise, I know these people were extremely grateful when Hal stepped up and pointed that not all skeptics are atheists. If this had been an atheist meeting you'd have an excellent point. TAM wasn't an athiest meeting - although it did slip toward that on a couple of occasions - so in theory it should be a non-issue. I'm gonna number code instead of mutli-quote. 1. Agreed to a point, except that I know several people who are very religious and they might not agree completely with Rick thining we should have continued if there might have been any dispariagement of his Lord. I fear that's getting on a tangent though as you addressed that in your second point. 2. I don't think we actually encountered each other due to my shyness until Sunday night in the bar. If you met me before then did you realize I had a travel companion? If yes and then no, it was because after Friday night she chose to stay in our room rather than listen to dispariagement of religion. IMO, it was an overreaction on her part, but I will always support her decisions (she comes on vacation with me, I have to) But the only other presentation she wanted to be there for was Hal's Hamilton Lives. 3. I was myself, though I knew that fact from PalTalk. You see, apart from my travel companion (girlfriend would give the wrong context but she's a girl and she's my friend) I have several other close very religious friends who are quite skeptical. Some obviously more so than others, but they know dog poo when they smell it. One buddy of mine is a very devout Eastern Orthodox, the most mystical of Christian denominations, yet he sneers at most paranormal or supernatural claims. I have to, as a man of (nearly) intellectual honesty deny to label skeptic to someone who exhibits the traits of the word. Despite my lengthy reply, we, in general agree. I was seeking opinions and I think you for sharing yours with me.
	__________________ I am an American citizen who is part of American society and briefly served in the American armed forces. I use American dollars and pay taxes that support the American government. And yes, despite the editorial decison to change American politics to the nonsensical "USA politics" subforum, I follow and comment on American politics.

27th February 2003, 07:16 AM	#4
darling JREF Kid Join Date: Aug 2001 Location: Philadelphia Posts: 351	I suppose another question would be would be whether Rick Husband would have agreed with the content of the meeting had he returned safely to Earth. If he would have objected in any case, then it would have been dishonest to stop the meeting because of his death. Equally so to say that he would have wanted us to continue. I think that had he been asked in advance he would have been all for the meeting, but had he been there he might have been as uncomfortable as some people were. Damn good question.
	__________________ The poster formerly known as budddyh

27th February 2003, 07:26 AM	#5
UnrepentantSinner A post by Alan Smithee Join Date: Aug 2001 Location: USAian is not a word Posts: 26,355	Quote: Originally posted by budddyh I suppose another question would be would be whether Rick Husband would have agreed with the content of the meeting had he returned safely to Earth. If he would have objected in any case, then it would have been dishonest to stop the meeting because of his death. Equally so to say that he would have wanted us to continue. I think that had he been asked in advance he would have been all for the meeting, but had he been there he might have been as uncomfortable as some people were. Damn good question. Shoot. Threadkiller summary. Good questions indeed.
	__________________ I am an American citizen who is part of American society and briefly served in the American armed forces. I use American dollars and pay taxes that support the American government. And yes, despite the editorial decison to change American politics to the nonsensical "USA politics" subforum, I follow and comment on American politics.

27th February 2003, 07:42 AM	#6
arcticpenguin woo ban clan Join Date: Sep 2002 Posts: 5,717	Quote: Originally posted by budddyh I suppose another question would be would be whether Rick Husband would have agreed with the content of the meeting had he returned safely to Earth. Rick Husband may have been the most outgoing about his religion, but he was not the only one killed. Seven astronauts died on Columbia, and while it is certain that not all were Christian, it is not clear how religious each of them were. I wasn't at TAM, so I don't know the specific context or comments to which you refer. I see no reason why skeptical thinking shouldn't be applied to the area of religion, but that discussion belongs elsewhere.
	__________________ The power of accurate observation is frequently called cynicism by those who don't have it. - George Bernard Shaw

27th February 2003, 08:05 AM	#7
Marc Graduate Poster Join Date: Jul 2001 Posts: 1,165	Quote: Originally posted by UnrepentantSinner If you met me before then did you realize I had a travel companion? If yes and then no, it was because after Friday night she chose to stay in our room rather than listen to dispariagement of religion. IMO, it was an overreaction on her part, but I will always support her decisions (she comes on vacation with me, I have to) But the only other presentation she wanted to be there for was Hal's Hamilton Lives. Question, was that you and her on Sunday, where she was surrounded by atheists (and one deist) arguing about religion, till you had to go catch a flight?
Marc Graduate Poster Join Date: Jul 2001 Posts: 1,165	__________________ So many cults, not enough comets. A child of 5 could understand this! Quick, someone fetch a child of 5! "Scientology is evil; its techniques are evil; its practice is a serious threat to the community, medically, morally, and socially; and its adherents are sadly deluded and often mentally ill... (Scientology is) the world's largest organization of unqualified persons engaged in the practice of dangerous techniques which masquerade as mental therapy." Justice Anderson, Supreme Court of Victoria, Australia

27th February 2003, 01:31 PM	#8
The Bad Astronomer Muse Join Date: Feb 2002 Location: Boulder Posts: 835	Interesting. The religious aspect hadn't ocurred to me. When I was thinking about "pressing on" after the loss of Columbia, I was thinking scientifically, about being skeptical of pseudoscience. But then, I am a scientist, and my talk was about that very topic, so it was on my mind. Perhaps the entire crew of the Shuttle would have objected to any anti-religious views. But the point of exploring space is to further human knowledge and to seek out the truth.

27th February 2003, 08:11 PM	#9
scotth Atheist Political Candidate Join Date: Feb 2003 Location: DFW, TX area Posts: 1,801	Another correlation that should be made: The very person that was urging us forward with the meeting was the only people during the entire weekend that I heard affirm his faith.

27th February 2003, 11:20 PM	#10
UnrepentantSinner A post by Alan Smithee Join Date: Aug 2001 Location: USAian is not a word Posts: 26,355	Marc No, apart attending Friday night and taking a shuttle bus to the mall on Saturday she pretty much just hung around in the room. On Sunday, immediately after adjournment we went and saw The Two Towers though. She told me in an e-mail that after she looked over the schedule she didn’t want to be a part of it. She she’s just not as skeptical as I am. Which leads me to… Scotth My friend did come down and watch Hamilton Lives, but got up and walked out as soon as Bob Carroll started his speech because she didn’t want to hear any Christian bashing. Not quite a public pronouncement, like Hal’s, but one made to me none the less. In my mind it was a real shame. I think she really would have enjoyed Dan Garvin’s Scientology talk, Hal’s Standards and Terrorism talk, BA’s fabulous Planet (hoa)X talk, and Chip Denmon’s Medicines via fax (as I have come to refer to DigiBio) talk. She would have liked some of the papers presented on Sunday as well. Of course Sunday evening as I went upstairs to see if she wanted to catch the 5:25 showing of TT, she had just gotten out of the shower and was still in her robe so maybe part of her reticence was that she wanted to sleep in. Bad Astronomer I too thought from a scientific, exploratory, rational standpoint that yes, they would have wanted us to continue instead of mope around or morbidly watch footage of debris all day. The thought about Rick Husband didn’t occur to me until last night when I was writing that e-mail. In part, I suppose, because I didn’t watch much coverage over TAM weekend and his faith didn’t really become the defining characteristic of his bio until it was time for the memorials on Monday and Tuesday. Regarding the tone and tenor of TAM, while I wasn’t offended, I was disappointed in and do not agree with Taner Edis’ conclusion that you can’t be a “complete” skeptic unless you reject religion as well. Which leads me to… Arctic Penguin I completely agree that there is room within the overall skeptic movement for the discussion of religion. What really got me motivated as a skeptic was hearing the utrageous claims of End Times conspiracy kooks and Young Earth Creationists. I also agree completely with the notion that can be religious and a skeptic. I think I mentioned my mystical Eastern Orthodox friend, and one of the most powerful allies I ever had in a Creation/Evolution debate was Dr. Douglas Theobald, PhD author of the 29 Evidences for Macroevlution essay you can find on Talk Origins and a Pentecostal. As I concluded above, I think even the most dedicated adherant to any religion would be willing to fight against Penta water, cold readers and theraputic touch. - Thank you all for your comments.
	__________________ I am an American citizen who is part of American society and briefly served in the American armed forces. I use American dollars and pay taxes that support the American government. And yes, despite the editorial decison to change American politics to the nonsensical "USA politics" subforum, I follow and comment on American politics.

28th February 2003, 01:31 PM	#11
The Bad Astronomer Muse Join Date: Feb 2002 Location: Boulder Posts: 835	Quote: Originally posted by UnrepentantSinner BA’s fabulous Planet (hoa)X talk [/b] I'm stealing that. :-)

28th February 2003, 11:10 PM	#12
UnrepentantSinner A post by Alan Smithee Join Date: Aug 2001 Location: USAian is not a word Posts: 26,355	Quote: Originally posted by The Bad Astronomer I'm stealing that. :-) It's all yours. I'd be honored to have any contribution of mine included in the war on pseudoscience.
	__________________ I am an American citizen who is part of American society and briefly served in the American armed forces. I use American dollars and pay taxes that support the American government. And yes, despite the editorial decison to change American politics to the nonsensical "USA politics" subforum, I follow and comment on American politics.

1st March 2003, 06:54 PM	#13
kittynh The Hupsu Detective auctioneer Join Date: Dec 2002 Location: If I told the aliens could find me, and you know they read this forum Posts: 22,707	religion and all that One thing that I've found with my religious friends is that they are very able to "carry on" after a crisis or disaster. Since they have a belief that death isn't the end, I often find they are sad, yet very comforted and indeed can even soon be happy, thinking that their loved ones aren't "gone", and they will see them again. Several of my Christian friends have wills written saying that their funeral should be "happy" and "uplifting". They aren't fearful of death - infact refer to their dead friends and relatives as being "blessed" and "free of this mortal life". Ever been to a funeral where they start off, "we should be happy for -----, not sad" I'm open to hearing anyone speak, I don't think that listening to someone speak will do more than annoy me if I don't agree. I often wonder why really "strong" Christians don't want to even listen to anyone who might challenge thier beliefs. I feel like reassuring them that most Christians I meet have very strong beliefs and really listening to a channel other than CBN won't change their belief. I'm totally cool with all the ultra athiests, since Martin Gardner, a man I totally admire isn't an atheist either! Mind you, we won't be attending any revival meetings anytime soon either.
	__________________ WWW.BADALIEN.ORG - not all the buttons work yet, and the science content is coming...but it's ALIVE!

2nd March 2003, 10:31 AM	#14
arcticpenguin woo ban clan Join Date: Sep 2002 Posts: 5,717	Re: religion and all that Quote: Originally posted by kittynh I'm totally cool with all the ultra athiests, since Martin Gardner, a man I totally admire isn't an atheist either! Mind you, we won't be attending any revival meetings anytime soon either. I've noticed hints of that in his writing. Since he has written before ripping into other people's beliefs, I do wonder about what his own are.
	__________________ The power of accurate observation is frequently called cynicism by those who don't have it. - George Bernard Shaw

2nd March 2003, 10:58 AM	#15
kittynh The Hupsu Detective auctioneer Join Date: Dec 2002 Location: If I told the aliens could find me, and you know they read this forum Posts: 22,707	Mr.Shermers book In his book, "why People Believe Weird Things" Michael Shermer explains Mr.Gardners beliefs quite well. I can only explain not well, but it has to do with - yeah there is no proof, and I probably shouldn't believe, but I find believing in something comforting and I like it. I believe because it comforts, is I think how it's put, but in Latin! sorry, too lazy snowy a day to get up and look it up for you....zzzzzzz saving up the energy for the massive snow/ice removal and sanding to come....
	__________________ WWW.BADALIEN.ORG - not all the buttons work yet, and the science content is coming...but it's ALIVE!

2nd March 2003, 01:20 PM	#16
Finella Critical Thinker Join Date: Feb 2003 Location: Outside Philly Posts: 265	Rick Husband wasn't the only person of faith on the shuttle: http://episcopal-life.org/Columbia.html However, it is clear that these astronauts loved science and, I feel, found a link between science and their Creator. I think TAM was definitely in the spirit of that drive to find truth in all facets of life. I took the decision to continue as a way to honor that which they strived for, both in faith and in science. ---,---'--{@