| |
In lugnet.off-topic.debate, Richard Marchetti writes:
> In lugnet.off-topic.debate, David Koudys writes:
> > Thanks. That's *exactly* my point--they *may* exist is even better for me
> > to accept than they *do* or *do not* exist.
>
> I don't see where James stated anything like the above interpretation of his
> statement.
Quoteth James
"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..."
Things that are not addressable by science--that they may exist?
Did I take that out of context? I even went so far as to say that I
modified my statement inasmuch as I went from a concept that stuff *does*
exist outside science, to stuff *may* exist outside science, for I certainly
don't presume to know that stuff *certainly* exists outside science, or does
not--I am opening up myself, my reasoning, to the idea that there may, or
may not be things addressable by science.
> Yes, you can believe in green fairies. No, science cannot disprove the
> existence of the green fairies (there is a reason for that, BTW).
Note that if you're comparing my belief in an almighty creator God, to the
belief that little green faeries may exist, that's your perogative. I would
much rather prefer to think you're making an allusion, or a point using
little green faeries. I will, however point out that you, as well as lots
of learned collegues, may know a reason that science cannot outright
disprove the existence of little green faeiries but in the scientific domain
it can hypothesize the non-existence of said beasties, and most people would
accept that hypothesis. Try that with God.
> These two
> things do not mean that there are things that exist outside the scope of
> scientific processes to understand them -- even if our methods of analysis
> and understanding the phenomena is limited at this time.
So again, we come back to the idea that 'well, we don't know all of it
today, we don't know enuf yet, but we'll get there--we will eventually know
*everything* due to our scientific pursuits'
Sounds like a faith statement to me--"well, we don't know our god yet, but
he's slowly revealing himself and his creation to us--we just have to work
harder, and have a better understanding, and over the span of time,
eventually we'll know all that there is to know for our god knows all
(eventually)."
If that is not what you meant by 'these do not mean that there are things
outside the scope of scientific process to understand them -- even if our
methods of analysis and understanding the phenoomena is limited at this
time' then please clarify.
>
> If the phenomena is reproducible it can be studied and WILL be studied.
> Theories will then be postulated to explain the phenomena based on the data
> obtained from study. Those theories will then be tested and retested -- and
> even altered and replaced as needed. Eventually we can arrive at something
> like an adequate explanation of the phenomena.
>
> Science is not god. But Scientific processes and methods are FAR better
> than anything that pretends to compete with them.
And I would *never* presume to find something that tries to compete with the
logical, reasonable, and adaptable human endeavour known as the pursuit of
scientific discovery. I say leave the scientifically understandable ideas
to science. I haven't yet, nor do I feel a particular urge to do go 'find
something else'. I think I've mentioned this at least once--I appreciate
science. Are we reading each other clearly here? *My* belief in my God
does not infringe, or take away one logical construct, one postulate, one
experimental study from science. It truly doesn't. Those that elevate
science *above* *my* God, however, by saying that 'nothing *can* exist
outside the domain of science' are basically telling me I'm dellusional in
my belief, that I'm wacko, that, 'hey, there's that crazy guy--y'know, he
believes in some god or other.' It is, bottom line, making me less than
you--and that certainly isn't so. Not just because of my sense of the
divine 'we're, each and every one of us, created in His image', and not just
'cause some piece of paper enshrined in a hall somewhere states that 'all
men are created equal,' but by the logical constructs that postulate (and
the historically accurate idea), the moment you dehumanize *any* member of
your society, you can find a reason to dehumanize *all* members of your
society. You don't want me to belittle your system, so don't belittle mine.
>
> Do you understand this?
Crystal clear.
Do you understand that science *may* not encompass *everything* there is to
the human existence? That it *may* never be able to understand for there
*may* be things outside the domain of scientific endeavour? I'm open to
that possibility.
>
> -- Hop-Frog
I also understand that you have a propensity for bringing up objects that
may have the colour 'green' associated with them--green faeries, frogs
(mostly green)... K, well, 2 then.
Dave K
|
|
Message has 1 Reply:
 | | Re: slight
|
| (...) No, my mistake -- fair enough. James did state something very like your own statement. I read too quickly I guess...sorry. Mea culpa. (...) I suppose it could, but it would not (proving a negative, etc.). That's not the purpose of scientific (...) (22 years ago, 17-Jul-02, to lugnet.off-topic.debate)
|
Message is in Reply To:
| | Re: slight
|
| (...) I don't see where James stated anything like the above interpretation of his statement. Yes, you can believe in green fairies. No, science cannot disprove the existence of the green fairies (there is a reason for that, BTW). These two things (...) (22 years ago, 17-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
|
|
|
|
