Subject:
|
Faith and Science (was Re: slight)
|
Newsgroups:
|
lugnet.off-topic.debate
|
Date:
|
Thu, 18 Jul 2002 07:31:57 GMT
|
Viewed:
|
3063 times
|
| |
|
|
Religious persons seem to have a need to create a false opposition between
faith and science where no such opposition exists, at least not from the
science side of it. To explain this problem I note the following definitions:
1) Faith can be defined as a belief that does not rest on logical proof or
material evidence.
[And just so there is no confusion:
Belief can be defined as the mental act, condition, or habit of accepting
the truth, actuality, or validity of something.]
2) Science can be defined as the observation, identification, description,
experimental investigation, and theoretical explanation of phenomena.
[And AGAIN just so there is no confusion:
Phenomena is the plural form of phenomenon. Phenomenon can be defined as an
occurrence, a circumstance, or a fact that is perceptible by the senses.]
Without oversimplifying the matter too much, the above information can be
restated as: Faith does not require material evidence, while science does
require material evidence. Faith can be illogical, while science relies on
logic to formulate theories. Faith asserts the truth value of a thing; while
science continually tests and retests the truth value of a thing.
So while faith may give one pretty ideas and warm feelings; science provides
a useful model of reality.
Which is one most likely to use when one considers issues of public policy:
pretty religious assertions or tested scientific theories? Sure, maybe the
scientific theories are flawed or incomplete -- but it's better than
nothing. Pretty assertions have no value when one considers matters of
public policy -- and this is precisely why the separation of church and
state is considered a good thing.
In the competition for people's attention, I note that faith has the weaker
hand because its assertions may or may not provide useful information about
reality. To gain a better position in the marketplace of ideas, faith has a
vested interest in attempting to reduce the perceived value of science.
Science doesn't care about faith because faith is illogical, full of
assertions, and not based on material evidence.
The absurd question: Do things exist that reveal no material evidence of
their existence?
Frankly, who cares? What is the value of considering such a problem? How
could one go about proving the question true or false?
If it looks like dogpoop, smells like dogpoop, and tastes like dogpoop --
it's probably dogpoop! The absurd question: Could there be dogpoop that we
cannot detect with our senses? Answer: "Sure, Pal -- you go find it, okay?"
-- Hop-Frog
|
|
Message is in Reply To:
 | | Re: slight
|
| In lugnet.off-topic.debate, Dave Schuler writes: <snip> (...) K, lets look at the one quotatoin that this is directly in resonse to, and let me try to show you how I interpreted it without any straw men in sight: Quoteth Richard (I think): (...) "My (...) (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
|
|
|
|
