| |
In lugnet.off-topic.debate, Dave Schuler writes:
> In lugnet.off-topic.debate, James Brown writes:
>
> > We can certainly concieve of things that are not addressable by science; it
> > is not such a leap of logic to conceed that they may exist. God is one
> > such; another is the hypothetical 'event which cannot be observed by any
> > means'. Dave [K] is railing against the belief: "if science cannot address it,
> > it cannot exist".
>
> Take your calm and polite posting elsewhere, you wet blanket!
Yeah, this is a discussion for hotheads like me!
>
> But your clarification makes sense--if that's what Dave K thinks then I'd
> be gratified to have it confirmed.
>
> Anyway, here's how the assertion might be phrased:
>
> Science is our most complete and accurate descriptor of the physical
> universe, and if a phenomenon is part of the physical universe, then science
> can, in principle at least, be used to describe and/or explore that phenomenon.
Yes, I agree. I think it sums it up good for me.
>
> In several posts Dave K has failed to distinguish between matters that he
> does not think science is able to explore (such as color preference and
> musical "inspiration") and matters that science cannot even in principal
> explore (such as the nature of an infinite God). Obviously the former are
> simply a matter of Dave's perspective, and while he's certainly entitled to
> his perspective, in this case his perspective is inconsistent with reality.
Really? Science can say a bunch of molecules in the brain releasing
pheremones, or 'happy chemicals' is the whole justification why I like
purple? Or is there something more? Maybe there isn't more to it than
which can be explained by science, but do you know that? Do I? I know I
don't. I have this idea though--I cannot with my (limited to be sure)
understanding of science say, without a doubt, that *nothing* can exists
outside what can be studied by science.
> The latter, then, is really the issue that Dave is addressing, but we're
> still waiting for him to provide an example of such a phenomenon whose
> exitence we can verify but which is not part of the physical universe. I
If it can be verified, it falls within the purview of science. That's what
science does--verifies things. It doesn't necessarily have to prove
anything, but it can verify results.
I look at people doing good work to one another and I see 'God's hands'.
Others see people doing good to each other and you see the logical evolution
of society.
I watch Billy Graham from the pulpit and I am inspired. Others looks at him
and say he's a great moralist.
Mother Theresa, World Missions, whatever, I see God's work being done by His
people.
Others see people doing what's right because of an evolutionary society.
So where are we then? To me, 'goodness' in the world stems from somewhere.
Some say it can be explained by the scientific method.
> would also stipulate that the simple assertion of a thing is not sufficient
> to establish the existence of that thing; this is why, parenthetically, the
> ontological proof of God is a falacy.
> When we have such an example, I think we'll all be on the same page.
>
> Dave!
And to even have an example that I can point to that says 'There! See,
there's God' is a) akin to saying 'There's the Loch Ness Monster' and b)
denying faith.
I have *faith* that God exists.
To prove God denies faith, which is circular logic in scientific circles but
that's why He can't be shown, not even as an example, with scientific
principles.
To me, and to, well probalby some believers out there, it makes perfect
'human' sense--that something exists outside our understanding, even today
when we understand so much. Again, if I wanted a God of the Gap for what we
don't know now but have the potential to know in the future, I'd have no
problem with believing in science and nothing else 'cause it's doing a
pretty good job so far in explaining that which can be explained. As it
stands, I appreciate science, as I appreciate philosophy and whatever else
humankind can come up with. But, when all that can be learned via these
human based institutions is learned, I don't *believe* in the idea that that
*might* be it. If it is? Well, who really lost besides the hard drive
space on LUGNET that could have been saved for other posts...
Dave K
|
|
Message is in Reply To:
 | | Re: slight
|
| (...) Take your calm and polite posting elsewhere, you wet blanket! But your clarification makes sense--if that's what Dave K thinks then I'd be gratified to have it confirmed. Anyway, here's how the assertion might be phrased: Science is our most (...) (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
|
|
|
|
