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 17:35:44 GMT
|
Viewed:
|
3961 times
|
| |
|
|
In lugnet.off-topic.debate, Christopher L. Weeks writes:
<snip>
> This was kind of a sub-point that you took the wrong way. Instead of
> discussing the stuff that stems from that, I'd like to restate slightly.
>
> It seems when you claim that to some that science is a god _because_ those
> people assert that science will tell us everything, that you are suggesting
> that the nature of "a god" is to "tell...*everything*?" Or at least that this
> is one facet of godhood. Yet, since I happen to know at least a little about
> your religious thoughts and I know that the god you choose to follow does not,
> in fact, "tell...*everything*, I am left not clearly understanding the
> reasoning behind your assertion about the future explanatory power of science.
>
> I hope that you see what I mean this time.
<snip>
People 'make gods' to explain things. I think that's a pretty much
historically accurate statement. Not *all* people 'make up' gods--some
folks don't have any gods, and some folks have many gods.
Those who do have 'em, often say, 'Well, that lightning hit our house 'cause
that's what god does, for whatever reason.' It's much like another
quotation from HHGTTG, where, on a planet with two warring factions, "A
shooting star was considered a sign to go to war, a double headed sheep born
at midnight during an eclipse of the moon was a sign to go to war, a
perfectly normal sheep born at 5:12 a.m. was a sign to go to war..."
Zealots.
Does *my* God know all? Well, if I believe that he's infinite (and I do)
then yes, I believe He is all knowing. But that a) is my faith, and b) has
nothing to do with the discussion.
I have no problem understanding basic scientific concepts, for they have
been shown to me and they work--the scientific theories, do, in fact, work
in our world. Nuclear fission works, whether I beleive it or not--the
hammer *will* fall, whether I believe it or not.
And my God exists, whether you believe it or not.
> > Is my *faith* a phenomena?
>
> Faith in general and your in specific, are certainly phenomena that one could
> explore scientifically.
Absolutely. Like burning candles bringing comfort, like music that evokes
emotion, like the 'sense of self', many aspects of these things fall
completely within scientific study--respiration, chemical reactions,
whatever... To 'reduce' these things to the component scientific parts,
though, and say it equals the whole, is reductionistic. To reduce my faith
to observable data (any physiological and psychological changes, and other
scientific studies) and say 'that's all faith is, there is *no* more',
removes God from me.
So I reiterate, please explore the scientificably attainable. Make
hypothesii and write papers. I'll help where I can. I can't wait to see
whats coming around the 'bend of scientific exploration'
> > I *can* say that my faith exists, therefore *something* is *outside*
> > the purview of science.
>
> Hunh? Try this completely equivalent (logically) statement:
>
> I *can* say that gravity exists, therefore *something* is *outside*
> the purview of science.
I can say gravity exists, and scientific principles bear this out, therefore
science has validated the theory of gravity.
I can say that my faith exists, and scientific principles cannot bear this
out *in its entirety*, therefore science cannot completely validate my faith.
That said, science cannot invalidate my faith, either.
> Do you see that this doesn't make any sense? I agree that your faith exists.
> But where do you get the notion that is not something that we can explore
> scientifically?
Scientifically explore what can be explored with 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.
>
> It sounds like you're saying science can't disprove it or disprove it..? The
> reason that science can't disprove your faith is that your faith exists. What
> I'd be interested in having people do through science is to explore the types
> and origins of faith.
As would I. I'm sure there's many such studies about what people believe.
A co-worker just finished a course on 'World Religions' and said that it was
quite informative.
Statistically analyzing what people believe, how and where they demonstrate
that belief, and even to a point why they believe are all perfect constructs
in the scientific realm. But will those constructs answer *all* aspects of
even just *one* person's beliefs? If we stick to the scope of the physical
univers, maybe. I can't say, rationally and logically, that having all
those scientific answers equals the entirety of that one persons beliefs.
> > I say the assertion that 'science can explore *any* phenomena' does
> > not ring true.
>
> I respect that. It happens to me too. And I trust my intuition to a fair
> extent. But we're not always right in our intuition.
>
> Chris
Very true! Intuition is not the best yardstick sometimes, but if in a
particular situation, if it's all we have, try it and work out the
ramifications later :)
Dave K.
|
|
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
|
|
|
|
