Subject:
|
Re: Be careful what you ask for in case you actually get it (was: slight)
|
Newsgroups:
|
lugnet.off-topic.debate
|
Date:
|
Thu, 18 Jul 2002 12:55:14 GMT
|
Viewed:
|
3320 times
|
| |
|
|
In lugnet.off-topic.debate, David Koudys writes:
> In lugnet.off-topic.debate, Christopher L. Weeks writes:
> > 4) Science isn't a god. Nor a religion. The reasons why have been pointed • out
> > repeatedly. It is tiresom and damaging to the conversation at hand to keep
> > having this thrown out.
> "For those that say *nothing* exists *outside* science--that science can
> tell us *everything*--believe science is a god."
Yes, I understand. I suppose I was using a short-hand description. My bad. I
think we all know and understand what you're asserting. And it's still wrong.
It seems that you are suggesting that the nature of "a god" is to
"tell...*everything*?" Or at least that that is one facet of godhood. Yet,
the god you follow doesn't do that. So I'm left not clearly understanding the
reasoning behind your assertion.
Further, I think I'm the most adamant (in this venue) about the powers of
science, and I've never claimed that "science can tell us *everything*."
Merely that science is the only rational method of exploration of any
phenomena.
And you haven't addressed how that might be wrong.
So if I haven't said what you claim _someone_ thinks, then who does? Which
people are you talking about for whom scienc is a god? (Please don't say
"those that say nothing exists outside science" or "that science can
tell us everything" because that would be a circular reference. Name a name.
thanks,
Chris
|
|
Message has 1 Reply:
Message is in Reply To:
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
|
|
|
|
