| |
In lugnet.off-topic.debate, Dave Schuler writes, or quotes:
> "science isn't everything"
I have to admit that this statement must be true. At the same time, and as
someone else has pointed out, science is always refining itself and finding
new frontiers. So not being everything isn't really a meaningful statement
if one allows that a thing might yet grow into it's final position. Of
course, there is always the infinitude of the frontier, as someone else has
pointed out -- between 1 and 2 there is 1.5 etc.
To turn the question around...
If religion had given us all the answers, and also have been practical and
utilitarian, we would not have had to look elsewhere for answers. But we
did have to look elsewhere for many things. Religion isn't everything either.
But the real issue is not a question of what "religion IS" or what "science
IS", but rather one of what they may become.
To my mind this means at some point religions will obviously fail the test
because their truth value is wrapped up in static beliefs and the assertion
of divine authority -- if it is mutable where then has the divine authority
gone? Or put another way, if the religious "word" asserts X from the
beginning, it cannot later assert Y towards the middle or end.
But that is precisely the strength of science -- mutability! To rely on
theory is to assert that the present view may be faulty or incomplete.
While this may at first blush seem like a weakness, it is a strength instead
-- it allows the incorporation of newly discovered data into an existing
model. Sometimes new data will require a significant enough change to a
theory that a counter-theory must be postulated to take its place. So in a
way, noting that "science isn't everything" is the observation of it's
greatest strength -- the ability to adapt to the facts the better we
understand them going forward.
The chief characteristic of religion is the assertion of static authority,
while the chief characteristic of science is adaptability. Place your bets
wisely...
BTW, is there another Richard taking part in this debate? I haven't
questioned David's credentials, only John Neal's. I don't know who may have
made statements about David's education but it wasn't me -- certainly not as
far as I recall, and not unless I mistook David for John Neal.
-- Hop-Frog
|
|
Message has 1 Reply:
Message is in Reply To:
 | | Re: slight
|
| (...) Dave--you do indeed make this point time and time again, but you haven't yet backed it up in any comprehensible fashion. Can you explain something that we can verify as part of the universe that can't in principal be explained by (or as Chris (...) (22 years ago, 16-Jul-02, to lugnet.off-topic.debate)
|
225 Messages in This Thread:
(Inline display suppressed due to large size. Click Dots below to view.)
- Entire Thread on One Page:
- Nested:
All | Brief | Compact | Dots
Linear:
All | Brief | Compact
This Message and its Replies on One Page:
- Nested:
All | Brief | Compact | Dots
Linear:
All | Brief | Compact
|
|
|
|
