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 13:56:07 GMT
|
Viewed:
|
3811 times
|
| |
|
|
In lugnet.off-topic.debate, Christopher L. Weeks writes:
> 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.
Forgetting about the nature of my particular chosen religion, and *my* God
therein, the question before us is, 'Can *something* exist outside of science?'
The idea that I have a faith in an infinite God is inconsequential. The
thought that others look for 'proof' that this God reveals Himself to us so
they can believe is irrelevant, and frankly, my (obvious limited)
understanding of a straw man arguement would almost show this is what you
just did--if you want to discuss the nature of God, that's a tangent to this.
What does it matter what reasons are behind the assertion--the assertion is
valid or it isn't, no matter what worldview it comes out of--the theory of
gravity is still the theory of gravity even to those that don't know what a
theory or gravity is.
> 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
Christopher L. Weeks, for one:
> Merely that science is the only rational method of exploration of any
> phenomena.
I would put it to you that the assertion that *any* phenomena logically
encompasses *all* phenomena.
If you were to modify your assertion that science is the only rational
method of exploring rational phenomena, then that's not *everything* then,
is it?
And I would say it's a perfectly true and valid statement.
Is my *faith* a phenomena? I don't know--never thought about it that way.
But I *do* have it. It might not be scientifically rational, but it is
there--it *does* exist--I *can* say that my faith exists, therefore
*something* is *outside* the purview of science. Science cannot, with logic
and rationality, deny it--it's there, and yet science cannot dispense with
it, either, for it's not rational--it does not exist within the domain of
science.
For me, *I* have faith. You, Chris, don't necessarily have to have faith,
it doesn't matter to this debate. Does the assertion hold up? I say the
assertion that 'science can explore *any* phenomena' does not ring true.
And I did address how that may be wrong, many many times, and I just did, again.
I hope that clears it up.
Dave K.
|
|
Message has 3 Replies:
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
|
|
|
|
