Is there any validity for religious dogma to challenge scientific empiricism, and if so what proper evidence has religion for such an assertion?

First topic message reminder :

I have listened to theists and creationists make what I view as the most absurd claims about the validity of religious doctrine and scripture. So here's a thread designed for anyone who thinks they can to show any evidence for these claims.

Of course everyone will then be entitled to comment on the veracity of what is presented and whether it has at least as much validity as scientific evidence, or indeed if it really is evidence at all.

Perhaps it's worth pointing out that this thread is not just about evolution vs creationism,but seeks to uncover why anyone thinks faith based belief has as much or more validity as scientifically validated evidence.

Dr, Sheldon,
I took it for granted that you would understand that a new life meant a new species with a diffrent DNA etc;

I would not deny any scientific FACT.

Theory is not fact.

There have been numerous claims made by religions, however, there are numerous events in the Bible that have been confirmed by scientists and the fact that some religions use anything to attract members does not in any way invalidate what the Bible says.

polyglide wrote:Dr, Sheldon,
                I took it for granted that you would understand that a new life meant a new species with a diffrent DNA etc;

Why would I take that for granted when evolution doesn't claim this, it's a made up arbitrary, meaningless and rather silly definition, that actually has no relevance to evolution at all? All life has shared ancestry, we know this for a fact, that's why all life shares common DNA as evolution shows and genetic science confirms. We share a small percentage of our DNA with bananas, but we share 96% of our DNA with chimpanzees, since we are one of 5 species of great apes that also includes chimpanzees, with whom we share recent ancestry this is hardly surprising or news.

I would not deny any scientific FACT.

You have repeatedly done so, species evolution for instance, but for some reason you think you can personally reject what science considers a fact based on your own beliefs, that is not what defines a scientific fact.

Polyglide wrote:Theory is not fact.

Species evolution is not "just a theory," as you've been repeatedly shown, so why you repeat this lie is beyond me, it's a scientific theory

If you are denying one scientific fact based on the term scientific theory then out go all the others, here are a few you might want to consider:

>Information theory: Claude Shannon, 1948
>Oxygen theory of combustion: Antoine Lavoisier, 1770s
>Special relativity: Albert Einstein, 1905
>Statistical mechanics: James Clerk Maxwell, Ludwig Boltzmann, J. Willard Gibbs, late 19th century
>General relativity: Einstein, 1915
>Quantum theory: Max Planck, Einstein, Niels Bohr, Werner Heisenberg, Erwin Schrödinger, Max Born, Paul Dirac, 1900–1926
>Evolution by natural selection: Charles Darwin, 1859
>Heliocentrism: Copernicus, 1543 ANOTHER ONE YOUR RELIGION TRIED TO DENY!

The term is applied by science, so please don't waste everyone's time by trying to make an arbitrary claim that some are obvious to you while others are not as my assertion was that you had denied scientific facts, and science determines what those are, not you.

A scientific theory is a well-substantiated explanation of some aspect of the natural world that is acquired through the scientific method and repeatedly tested and confirmed through observation and experimentation.

Polyglide wrote:There have been numerous claims made by religions, however, there are numerous events in the Bible that have been confirmed by scientists

List three examples, offering scientifically validated evidence, and yes, that does include peer reviewed publications or else those scientists are just offering their own opinions, no more valid than any one else's if they can't satisfy the scientific process, as that is precisely what validates scientific facts, like species evolution.

Dr, Sheldon,
Read Mario Seilie's explanation, including scientists investigation into possible fraud etc; that Jesus's life was as stated in the Bible.

There are numerous instances validated in history that confirms numerous events that occured that are in the Bible.

If you know the Bible as you say you do then you will be well aware of them.

polyglide wrote:Dr, Sheldon,
                Read Mario Seilie's explanation, including scientists investigation into possible fraud etc; that Jesus's life was as stated in the Bible.

I think you mean Mario Seiglie, he's a member of the United Church of God, and they deny the fact of Darwinian evolution HERE, hardly an inspiring start for someone you're citing as scientifically credible is it? That link also starts by trying to refute evolution based on a denial of life spontaneously generating, only creationists seem to think evolution requires this, it doesn't and again I tire of repeating myself in pointing out that this is a very clumsy creationist lie.

I believe I have already explained why science dismisses supernatural claims, as they fail to satisfy its most basic requirement of falsifiability. You also seemed to have ingored what I asked for

List three examples, offering scientifically validated evidence, and yes, that does include peer reviewed publications or else those scientists are just offering their own opinions,

Do I even need to ask if that book has been peer reviewed? As I keep telling you, citing scientific opinion when in fact it's just the opinion of someone about their own religious beliefs - who happens to be a scientist - does not represent scientific evidence. It either satisfies the rigorous methods of scrutiny science requires or it does not, there is nothing else beyond personal opinion.

Polyglide wrote: There are numerous instances validated in history that confirms numerous events that occured that are in the Bible.

Such as? You see all you've done here is repeat your claim and pass it off as a piece of evidence, it's not of course. I could easily have invoked Hitchen's razor here again, and simply replied NO THERE AREN'T.

Polyglide wrote: If you know the Bible as you say you do then you will be well aware of them.

YOU made the claim here

by polyglide Yesterday at 5:39 pm  there are numerous events in the Bible that have been confirmed by scientists  

that requires you to evidence it. So far you've offered not one single pice of scientific evidence, just a book title for which you offer no scientific validation, despite me specifically pointing out what is required before your claim is justified.

1. The opinion of a scientist is not scientific opinion.
2. Scientific opinion reflects evidenced that has withstood specific and rigorous scrutiny.
3. It's no good claiming things are scientifically evidenced then refusing to acknowledge what that means.

Any further repetition of bare claims will be met with Hitchen's razor as I don't have the time to keep endlessly repeating myself if I'm going to be ignored on what constitutes scientific facts and evidence.

Dr, Sheldon,
Was Hitchen the fellow who thought a razor was blunt and cut his throat?.

As I have said on numerous occasions, if everything had to be scientifically proven and subject to peer review etc, then 99% of what is taken for granted would be invalid.

All science does and always has done, is explain certain things that were previously not understood when some scientist decides to take an interest, along with creating both good and bad for the human race.

If it was either an obligation or a necessity to have scientific reviews on everything we would all have to be scientists.

I have explained this previously on several occasions please, please digest it.

polyglide wrote:Dr, Sheldon,
                Was Hitchen the fellow who thought a razor was blunt and cut his throat?.

Very childish I must say, why must you resort to this kind of puerile nonsense? I have linked Hicthen's razor multiple times. Though since you claim to be an expert debater it's incomprehensible that you'd be unaware of this.

Hitchens's razor is an epistemological razor which asserts that the burden of proof in a debate (the onus) lies with whoever makes the (greater) claim; if this burden is not then met, the claim is unfounded and its opponents do not need to argue against it.

Polyglide wrote:As I have said on numerous occasions, if everything had to be scientifically proven and subject to peer review etc, then 99% of what is taken for granted would be invalid.

It was your claim here,

by polyglide Yesterday at 5:39 pm  there are numerous events in the Bible that have been confirmed by scientists  .

why make it if it isn't true?

Polyglide wrote:If it was either an obligation or a necessity to have scientific reviews on everything we would all have to be scientists.

Once again then, you claimed there was scientific evidence,

by polyglide Yesterday at 5:39 pm  there are numerous events in the Bible that have been confirmed by scientists  .

and again why make the claim if it isn't true? If it is true why the histrionics at my asking you to show that evidence? Or did you seriously think I'd be mollified by a single book title from a creationist without any scientific validation at all?

Polyglide wrote:All science does and always has done,

You're not qualified to make this claim, and it's an absurd claim anyway.

Polyglide wrote:I have explained this previously on several occasions please, please digest it.

You can't claim to have scientific evidence that validates the bible, and then throw a tantrum when I ask for it, either it exists and you can provide it, or it doesn't and you were simply parroting a creationist lie.  So far you've not cited any, and the histrionics here about my asking you to show it does tend to indicate the latter.

Dr, Sheldon,
I say you make the greatest claims, prove them.

polyglide wrote:Dr, Sheldon,
                I say you make the greatest claims, prove them.

I made no claims in my post, as everyone can see, so that just reads like a rather petulant attempt at obfuscation.

You claimed

by polyglide Yesterday at 5:39 pm there are numerous events in the Bible that have been confirmed by scientists .

That is quite clear, and now that you have been asked to evidence this rather silly claim it appears unsurprisingly you that you can't.

Dr, Sheldon,
Remember the razor, it is you who are making the claims that I am wrong and because you think you have the best argument you are the one to disprove what I claim.

Good luck.

polyglide wrote:Dr, Sheldon,
                Remember the razor, it is you who are making the claims that I am wrong and because you think you have the best argument you are the one to disprove what I claim. Good luck.

I made no claims, you seem to be confusing my rejection of your claim, here:

by polyglide Yesterday at 5:39 pm there are numerous events in the Bible that have been confirmed by scientists

as being a claim in itself, it's not.

Hitchen's razor isn't a claim, nor did I write it.

Hitchens's razor is an epistemological razor which asserts that the burden of proof in a debate (the onus) lies with whoever makes the (greater) claim; if this burden is not then met, the claim is unfounded and its opponents do not need to argue against it.

Now can you provide a single piece of the scientific evidence you claimed exited above? Or can we simply dismiss it? I suspect the latter but am giving you a very fair opportunity to evidence it, even though I don't need to, so please stop using semantics.

Dr, Shelddon,
The ten disasters of Egypt, as told in the Bible and since verified that they occured.

The Decree of Cyrus, City of Tyre and the City of Samalia. etc;

polyglide wrote:Dr, Shelddon,
                  The ten disasters of Egypt, as told in the Bible and since verified that they occured.

                   The Decree of Cyrus, City of Tyre and the City of Samalia. etc;

I didn't ask you to repeat your claims, I asked you to evidence them, you said:

by polyglide Yesterday at 5:39 pm there are numerous events in the Bible that have been confirmed by scientists

So please cite these peer reviewed scientific works, if you can?

It's gone very quiet since you were asked to cite this scientific evidence Polyglide, problem?

Dr, Sheldon,
# The ones I quoted have all been verified by those involved in the work involved and qualified as such.

There are numerous historical accounts in the Bible that have been verified, you do not expect to find the results in Science or any other cheap publication but in the proper place and as you are so clever you should not need telling where to find them.

polyglide wrote:Dr, Sheldon,
#              The ones I quoted have all been verified by those involved in the work involved and qualified as such.

You quoted no one, you offered one book title, and cited no properly validated scientific evidence, what can this mean I wonder?

Polyglide wrote:There are numerous historical accounts in the Bible that have been verified, you do not expect to find the results in Science or any other cheap publication but in the proper place and as you are so clever you should not need telling where to find them.

No good throwing a tantrum now, and trying to run away from your claim:

by polyglide on Fri Jun 26, 2015 5:39 pm there are numerous events in the Bible that have been confirmed by scientists

So you'll have no problem citing the peer reviewed publications that carried these then? Only so far you've offered nary a one, and are now hilariously suggesting that

you do not expect to find the results in Science

, well I'm not sure where you expect to find scientific evidence as you have no idea what constitutes scientific evidence as your posts show, but yes I expect them to satisfy the same process as all other scientific evidence.

Dr, Sheldon,
Please read, www.inpainsite.org/html/scientific-facts-in-the bible.htm^

polyglide wrote:Dr, Sheldon,
                 Please read, www.inpainsite.org/html/scientific-facts-in-the bible.htm^

A broken link to a religious blog, really?

So you claimed that

by polyglide on Fri Jun 26, 2015 5:39 pm there are numerous events in the Bible that have been confirmed by scientists

, but then when asked to provide some you reverse the claim by saying

by polyglide on Mon Jul 06, 2015 4:05 pm you do not expect to find the results in Science

. A truly asinine thing to say given your claim was precisely for scientific evidence, and now you post a broken link to a religious blog, that has no scientific affiliation whatsoever, and cites no scientific evidence at all.

You're priceless.

Why do you lie about scientific evidence all the time when you must know your claims will be exposed?

Thread title:

" Is there any validity for religious dogma to challenge scientific empiricism, and if so what proper evidence has religion for such an assertion?"

Well we haven't really had anything approaching a cogent justification for favouring dogma and doctrine over empirical science, but this struck as me as glimpse of the real problem here:

by polyglide on Wed Jul 08, 2015 11:48 am
No amount of scientific findings will change the facts.

Then what are we basing facts on? The OED defines the word fact as:
noun
A thing that is known or proved to be true:

Now I'd actually have a problem epistemologically speaking with the claim that science proves things to be true, as scientific knowledge is and must be tentative, always. As I have said throughout this discourse this is what makes science such a successful robust process, the ability to correct mistakes, an essential component of any fallible human process. An aspect of course that religion tends to lack, see the Christian church trying Galileo for heresy in order to cling to the erroneous assertion we lived in a geocentric universe, or it's denial of evolution.

Sticking doggedly to such obviously erroneous dogma when there is compelling evidence to falsify them surely shows an inability to objectively determine what is a fact and what is quite palpably not. As of course is the stubborn idiocy of young earth creationism.

Dr, Sheldon,
If you read what I actually say then you will realise that all I have said scientists do, is confirm what God created.

Scientists do not create anything from nothing, all they do is try to explain matters that exist and at times use the information to create such things as chemical weapons and other means of mass destruistion along with of course cures for many ills many of which are self inflicted.

I have no problem accepting clear cut explanations, however, as you say yourself and is self evident in numerous cases,
many findings are not clear cut and subject to regular updating.

polyglide wrote:Dr, Sheldon,
                If you read what I actually say then you will realise that all I have said scientists do, is confirm what God created.

And if you had read what I actually said you'd know by now that this claim is BS, and I am rejecting it as you have offered, and I'd be prepared to bet can't offer, any evidence for this BS whatsoever. Anyone can make unevidenced claims, they're meaningless.

Polyglide wrote:Scientists do not create anything from nothing,

Straw man argument, as no one has ever claimed they do.

Polyglide wrote:all they do is try to explain matters that exist, along with of course cures for many ills many of which are self inflicted.

So a child dying of cancer, or from Malaria, or suffering from cystic fibrosis somehow has brought this on itself? That's a truly asinine and repulsive thing to suggest.

Polyglide wrote: I have no problem accepting clear cut explanations,

So if it's not simple enough for you to grasp, and doesn't mesh with your religious beliefs you reject it, if you think that is an effective way of validating facts then it's clear why you entertain such absurdities as those presented in those religious blogs you linked.

Polyglide wrote:however, as you say yourself and is self evident in numerous cases, many findings are not clear cut and subject to regular updating.

I've not said the that at all, you're lying by paraphrasing what I said. You seem to think that facts have to be absolutes, if you understood the basics of epistemology, let alone science, you'd know that there are and can not be any such thing as absolutes.

Again I'll try an example, your religion insisted we lived in a geocentric universe, and as you suggest here they insisted this was an absolute fact, then when Galileo evidenced the theories of Copernicus that showed this was not the case they, like you, refused to revise their thinking.

Darwinian species evolution is a scientific fact, to deny it is like denying magnetism, gravity, or the rotundity of the earth. The kind of blinkered stupidity required to do this is not a better method than one that can accept new evidence and reject previously held ideas, as religion does.

One last point since you're parroting creationist clichés, you really need to understand how few firmly established scientific theories are ever completely overturned, and how absurdly unlikely it is that species evolution will be reversed or falsified from this position where in over 150 years of scientific scrutiny every single piece of new evidence has validated it, and not once, ever, has a single piece of scientific evidence falsified it. It is also worth bearing in mind how much time and money american creationists waste trying to do this.

by polyglide Yesterday at 5:39 pm there are numerous events in the Bible that have been confirmed by scientists

polyglide wrote: There are numerous historical accounts in the Bible that have been verified, you do not expect to find the results in Science

You seem blissfully unaware that you contradict yourself all the time, why is that?

Dr, Sheldon,
american creationists? I have never heard of any.

So you are now saying science is never updated and is just theories as nothing is ever an absolute, I could not agree more.

polyglide wrote:Dr, Sheldon,
                american creationists? I have never heard of any. 

Odd then that you named some as scientists who denied evolution and championed creationism, remember your hysterical list that had a Design Engineer making claims denying evolution, well he's an American creationist, and since you used him we can assume you know at least one.

Polyglide wrote: So you are now saying science is never updated

I said precisely the exact opposite, can you not read plain English?

by Dr Sheldon Cooper PhD on Fri Jul 10, 2015 2:53 pm  
Now I'd actually have a problem epistemologically speaking with the claim that science proves things to be true, as scientific knowledge is and must be tentative, always.

Polyglide wrote:and is just theories as nothing is ever an absolute, I could not agree more.

Ah this lie again, it's a little sad you don't see how embarrassingly stupid a claim this is, as it marks the user as scientifically illiterate if they don't understand such a basic concept as the different meaning of the word theory when used in a scientific context, or alternatively as a bare faced but equally stupid liar if they are prepared to make such an obviously false claim which is so easily exposed. I mean who doesn't know that words change meaning when another word is placed in front of them? Race, human race, car race, horse race, dear oh dear, do they all have the same meaning?

There are not, and can never be any absolutes in the strictest epistemological sense, I have said this enough times through these discussions for it not to be news. Only religion tries to deal in absolutes as I have explained. Now which is the more likely to expand our store of knowledge do you think,

1) a method that thinks it has all the answers and won't entertain anything that refutes or remotely contradicts it's doctrine no matter how well evidenced. 2) a method where all knowledge gained is tentative and it and all evidence is subjected to rigorous and continuous scrutiny, and those that falsify ideas are rewarded as much as those that validate them?

That's a question by the way as I know you struggle to discern these and often ignore them as a result. I can give you a clue if you need help? You see one method has in a very short space of time advanced our collective knowledge exponentially, whilst the other has rather predictably tried and still tries to retard that progress at every turn.

You also didn't address or even acknowledge contradicting yourself:

by polyglide Yesterday at 5:39 pm there are numerous events in the Bible that have been confirmed by scientists

polyglide wrote:
There are numerous historical accounts in the Bible that have been verified, you do not expect to find the results in Science

You seem determined to use this embarrassing obfuscation rather than admit your first claim was nothing more than hubris on your part, and as yet you've been unable to offer even one single piece of scientific evidence that supports your claim.

Dr, Sheldon,
Get a life and read the Bible history.

polyglide wrote:Dr, Sheldon,
                Get a life and read the Bible history.

You're returning to form I see. First you make up an outrageous lie that many biblical claims are evidenced by scientists. Then when pressed to evidence it offer another tedious religious tome. Then when that's dismissed as it has no scientific basis you sulk and try to claim the  "scientific evidence won't be found in science". Now when it's pointed out that your original claim was precisely that the evidence was scientific you throw another childish tantrum and hurl insults. 

I've read the bible thank you,  and if your posts are any indication you really ought to try it.

Now can you for once show an ounce of integrity and admit you haven't any scientific evidence to support biblical claims? Or paradoxically offer some scientific evidence? Hopefully without sulking or hurling insults and of course that is properly validated, and not some nutjob creationist "wanking off" in print.

Dr, Sheldon,
Now I am realy showing you up for what you are, put the bait there and eventually?????.

There are more historical events that science has never had anything to do with, they are self evident, just as science has nothing to do with the majority of life.

Biblical evidenced events can be found by just putting, Biblical evidenced events into your computer there are numerous different opinions and confimations etc

The details of the sites are too long for me to quote.

You think you've shown me up because you have failed to provide one single piece of scientifically valid evidence to support your made up claim? Well that's a very bizarre grasp of what's happening here, but if it pleases you to think that, then I'm happy for anyone to read this and decide for if themselves if your claim is any more valid the one you made up that science has validated many biblical events.

Since when you were pressed to evidence this claim you merely posted the title of a book of religious apologetics and expected me to wade through it and attempt to evidence your risible claim for you. Now you're claiming "it's on the internet" and again expecting me to find it for you?

You've definitely shown someone up here but I seriously doubt you'll ever understand who,  or why?

Dr, Sheldon,
I have explained that I unable to give the web site details as they are too small for me to see and too long.

Every time I give you an answer the same reply comes out, you only believe in things that have been peer reviewed when in fact the most things available in life are as a result of inventions and inventors.

If you do not want to read what I put forward and call it silly names then how on earth can you know what you are talking about?.

You claimed scientific evidence and are palpably unable to show any. Do you seriously think claiming  AGAIN that it exists "on the internet" can be presented as evidence in itself?  

What am I saying, of course you do,  you've proved again and that you have no grasp or understanding of what properly represents scientific evidence. 

You even made the risible claim that unabashed bombast when your claim was exposed as a lie somehow  "showed me up".

It's difficult to know what to say to someone so deluded.  However you have failed to produce even one single piece of the many examples of scientific evidence you claim existed.  Even if you can't see what this means I'm fairly confident most others can.

If I claimed science had proved Christianity false, then when asked to evidence the claim suggested it was on the internet and you go and find it. Would you really view that as compelling evidence?

It's too absurd for words man.

Polyglide wrote:[size=48]Every time I give you an answer the same reply comes out, you only believe in things that have been peer reviewed when in fact the most things available in life are as a result of inventions and inventors. [/size]

You claimed there was scientific evidence you clown. 


[size=51]IT CAN ONLY BE SCIENTIFIC IF IT'S BEEN PEER REVIEWED. [/size]


[size=51]Christ on a bike, even someone ignorant enough to claim scientific evidence when they had no clue what that meant should be able to read and then grasp this?
[/size]


[size=52]Leaving the rank stupidity of the claim aside, it takes seconds to find these facts for yourself, but you don't even need to as I have repeatedly linked sites explaining the methods required for scientific validation including things like falsification and peer review.  [/size]


[size=52]It's very sad that you can't see how your absurd claims portray you. Seriously go to the librarian and ask her to show you a book covering the basic scientific methods. You're embarrassing yourself repeatedly. [/size]

Dr, Sheldon,
Just which planet do you think you are on?

It certainly is not the one where common sense prevails.

What scientific evidence for a knife and fork, a hammer or the numerous other inventions, science is, as I have said many times, althouhg you obviously feel you are the only one who understands it, a means of attempting to prove a theory etc; it is nothing more.

There are many branches of science each one doing their own thing.

The means are numerous and the results random, when a result is confirmed as proven so far as possible then it is accepted as such, just as when the scientist produce all the means of mass destruction, science is exposed in all it's glory and when people are killed in their thousands they can be very proud of themselves.

More meaningless drivel and obfuscation poly. You claimed many biblical events were evidenced by science. You haven't of course been able to show one single piece of scientific evidence.  

In short, you lied. Now rather than accept your duplicitous bluff was exposed you then tried the laughable claim that science wasn't needed to evidence these things, but YOU were the one who claimed science had done so. 

Yes sir your definitely showing me up here.

Hells bells,  show some dignity even if you can't muster the integrity to admit the truth.

Polyglide wrote: have said many times, althouhg you obviously feel you are the only one who understands it, a means of attempting to prove a theory etc; it is nothing more.

There are many branches of science each one doing their own thing.

The means are numerous and the results random, 

 I feel you must be making an elaborate joke,  as the level ignorance here is ringing alarm bells. The scientific method used to scrutinise evidence is not random AT ALL, nor does it VARY between different scientific fields  




This is breathtaking stupidity and ignorance. As I said it's desperately sad you really appear to be unaware of how embarrassing your claims about science are.  

Dr, Shedlon,
Then all results are the same , are they?

I did not say the method used to evaluate the evidence was random, I said the actual results were, as not all are verified.

So please learn to read what is actually said .

I said methods don't vary, not result. Jesus Christ learn to read man.

I see the benevolence of science is one step closer to saving countless human lives and ending untold suffering with a vaccine against the largest killer, malaria. 

Meanwhile we're supposed to believe that a benevolent omnipotent deity created this disease and sat idly by whilst an innumerable number of humans including children and babies suffered and died. 

It's hard to give such nonsense credence, but if the bible is indeed true then that same deity thought nothing of drowning every living creature and plant in one of its more global tantrums. However I have some as yet unanswered misgivings about that yarn as well. 

Still science marches on, and it's benevolence is both ubiquitous and unequivocal, again. Glaxo have even waived any profit from the vaccine. So scientists mirroring the benevolence of science.

God is not so much dead as entirely superfluous.

No sign of a single piece of scientific evidence for those  "many biblical events" polyglide claimed existed. 

Tempus fugit. Though somehow I can see the second coming occurring before he admits he has none and simply made up another lie.

Dr, Shedldon,
And I said results vary, get a life.

Dr, Shedlon,
When the chemical weapons and other means of mass destruction are used no scientific medicine will be of any use.

So you still can't find a single piece of scientific evidence to support your claim that many biblical events were evidenced by science? 

A lie? Or just a rash piece of hubris made in ignorance of the facts? 

Will you acknowledge this?

Any gratitude for the benevolence of science's vaccine for malaria? Your benevolent deity seems happy enough to leave countless millions suffer and die.