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 16:40:50 GMT
|
Viewed:
|
7918 times
|
| |
|
|
In lugnet.off-topic.debate, Dave Schuler writes:
> In lugnet.off-topic.debate, David Koudys writes:
>
> > > 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.
>
> > 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.
>
> Since you cast aspersions on Chris' reading comprehension in
> http://news.lugnet.com/off-topic/debate/?n=17304
> it is inexcusable that you should fail to read his subsequent post
> correctly. He is not questioning the "reasons" for your assertion; he's
> questioning the "reasoning" for it. Can you see the difference? If not,
> then I suggest you sign up for the RC101 class you mentioned.
And I mention to you, Dave! right now, that questioning 'the reasoning for
the assertion' instead of the 'reasons' for it, makes my point *even* more
clear--
If I were to ask:
Is black, black?
I have my reasons for saying that this should be answered 'yes' and I could
go into my scientific reasonings for it, but what does it matter? The
question, 'Is black, black?' is the question--the person behind the question
is completely irrelevant, as is his reasoning for thinking this is
true--sure it may lead into other areas and other aspects of a bigger
conversation, but you don't have to know *my* reasoning to answer the
question. I don't need to know *your* reasoning, I just need to know your
answer--the support comes later, where we have to *defend* our answer.
If scientific rationality separates the extraneous, then separate it. If
science makes no value judgements or 'cares' where something, or someone
comes from, what does it matter what *my* reasonings are?
Does science encompass *everything*?
>
> > > 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?
>
> Chris may be the most adamant proponent of his view, but I share it with
> nearly equal verve, and I'll go so far as to state my view thus:
> "If a phenomenon exists in the physical universe that can in principal be
> explained, then it can be in principal be explained by science."
And I would agree totally with that assertion. Yes it does not infer that
there *is* a god. However, it does not infer the opposite, either.
That is the end of this particular debate for me. If you want to discuss
concepts of stuff *outside* science, that's a 'bigger' discussion.
>
> And as Chris correctly observed, you have yet to demonstrate how that might
> be false.
I never said it was false--I have repeatedly agreed that statement to be true.
>
> > 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.
>
> NO NO NO NO NO NO NO! You are YET AGAIN misstating the case! If you can't
> get it together enough to assemble two coherent posts, I don't see how you
> can expect anyone to wish to discuss this with you. Here is what you are
> saying:
>
> P1: My faith exists
> P2: Phenomena can be explained by science
> P3: I don't know if my faith is a phenomena [sic]
> -----------------------------------
> C1: I don't know if my faith can be explained by science
> C2: My faith is *outside* the purview of science
>
> This is CLASSIC argument from ignorance, and is a CLASSIC paraphrase of the
> God-of-the-gaps that you allege to decry. Because you, in your endlessly
> demonstrable misunderstanding of science, cannot figure out or accept how
> something might be explained by science, you are ASSUMING (not concluding,
> since you are not basing it on anything) that science truly can't explain
> it, so therefore it must be outside the purview of science.
No, if it's a classic example of something, it's the ardent belief that
science *should* be able to explain everything. 'because you, in your
endlessly demonstrable misunderstanding of science, cannot figure out or
accept how something might be explained by science'
I have *no* issue with the idea that science can explain stuff. It has the
*potential* to explain the entire physical universe. *I* never said
otherwise. My belief, my faith, call it an assumption if you will, is that
something *could* exist outside the 'entire physical universe', outside the
'potential' of science.
If it is an invalid *assumption*, prove it--prove to me that something that
is outside a domain, can be proved non-existent by the ways and means
*inside* that domain. (and I'll get to what you wrote below in a sec).
>
> Look at it this way:
>
> P1: Perception is a function of the senses
> P2: The senses are a function of the brain
> --------------------------------------
> C1: Perception is a function of the brain
>
> C1: Perception is a function of the brain
> P3: The brain is part of the physical universe
> P4: In the absence of a better descriptor, science
> is the best descriptor of the physical universe
> ----------------------------------------
> C2: In the absence of a better descriptor, science
> is the best descriptor of the brain
And until this point, we have no problem.
except I would have a 0th P:
P0: Something *may* exist outside perception.
> C1: Perception is a function of the brain
> P5: One's awareness of one's faith is a function of perception
With P0, P5 doesn't read right, and, therefore, neither does the rest of the
arguement.
If one's awareness of 'something outside perception' is *solely* determined
by a function of preception, then yes, it makes logical sense that something
outside cannot, therefore exist. However, there's that P0 thing--the fly in
the ointment, the squeak in the wheel (oh no, he lapsed into literary
devices again...). If we use science to try to understand 'non-science'
where will that get us?
(non-science being anything that may exist outside the scientific realm)
Note how P0 has no bearing on P1 thru C2. None whatsoever. The conclusion
C2 is *as* valid with P0 in place, or without P0 in place.
> ---------------------------------------
> C3: One's awareness of one's faith is a function of the brain
>
> C3: One's awareness of one's faith is a function of the brain
> C2: In the absence of a better descriptor, science
> is the best descriptor of the brain
> ---------------------------------------
> C4: In the absence of a better descriptor, science
> is the best descriptor of one's awareness of one's faith
>
> That's the key. You can prattle away about how "your awareness of your
> faith" isn't "your faith," but the distinction is semantic and trivial. If
> there's a real difference between your faith and your perception of it, then
> God is potentially condemning you (or someone else) for something of which
> you have no awareness, and that's a fundamental contradiction that would
> prove the non-existence of an infinitely just God.
>
> > I hope that clears it up.
>
> I'm done beating my head against the impenetrable shell of ignorance in
> which you've encased yourself. You don't comprehend the nature of science,
> and you certainly don't comprehend the methods of debate, yet still you're
> firing randomly into a DEBATE about SCIENCE!
>
> Dave!
Again I remind you, sir, that this is a debate about science encompassing
*all*, and not just about science.
P0: Something may exist outside the physical universe.
P1: Science can explain the physical universe.
--
C1: Science cannot explain anything outside the physical universe.
Dave K.
(and I mentioned before, I'm not the best typist in the world, and sometimes
when I write so fast there will be grammatical gaffs and spelling slips, but
if you want to put the [sic] after them, please go ahead--I'll endeavour to
be more careful in my non-pluralizing the word phenomenon.)
|
|
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
|
|
|
|
