Subject:
|
Re: God and the Devil and forgiveness (was Re: POV-RAY orange color)
|
Newsgroups:
|
lugnet.off-topic.debate
|
Date:
|
Thu, 2 Sep 1999 14:58:35 GMT
|
Reply-To:
|
(lpieniazek@novera.com)NoSpam()
|
Viewed:
|
1476 times
|
| |
|
|
<37CE848C.90906C8C@voyager.net> <FHFsB1.J0L@lugnet.com>
Content-Type: text/plain; charset=us-ascii
Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit
David:
One could say that the essence of a religion is to take something on
faith (else it is a philosophy or moral code... such as Confucianism or
Taoism, IIRC). A supreme being is not required (the Druids didn't have
one), and I am not sure that ANY deity-set (even a set of limited power
but still supernatural ones) is required.
While you could argue that science requires taking things on faith. I
don't feel it is required, and I argue against that.
If we pursue this, we veer into the area of epistemology and the theory
of knowledge, that is, how do we know a thing to be true? Further, we
have to wrestle with whether we should believe the evidence of our
senses. Very deep stuff.
I present without proof what I hold to be true in this area
- our senses generally give us acccurate information about our
environment. Some agent has to actively work to deceive them. For if
they did not give good info, they would be counter survival.
- we, as reasoning beings, can use the evidence of our senses to reason
about cause and effect. Again, we may reason incorrectly, or be
operating on bad evidence, but in the main, that's what makes us
reasoning beings.
- it is possible, starting from observed facts, to build up the entire
set of generally accepted hypotheses about the universe.
- I personally have tested the veracity of some of these theories.
- I have a trust network. Just like exchanging certificates, you have to
start somewhere. I start from what I have verified. I then conclude that
the network of journals, peer review and so forth is effective at
usually weeding out error eventually.
The fact that people *can* secretly drug me and delude me does not mean
that my senses are usually invalid, or even that it should be my default
assumption.
The fact that I sometimes make mistakes (it sure LOOKED like that card
just disappeared in a puff of smoke, but actually the magician palmed
it) about cause and effect does not invalidate the process.
The fact that I personally don't understand all of science does not mean
that I should not accept it. Someone, some human, in fact, some reviewed
group of humans with links outward in the trust web which links back to
me and the experiments I myself performed, does understand each and
every theorem.
The fact that a theorem turns out to be wrong, or not applicable in
certain problem spaces, does not invalidate the process. In many cases,
discredited theories are STILL good predictors in the applicable area
(newtonian mechanics does fine at predicting eclipses even if it can't
tell us much about electron clouds).
The fact that we currently don't know all the answers doesn't mean we
can't learn more. Or that we shouldn't.
Now, what is the difference between science and religion:
- testable theorems
- verifiable observations
- a rigorous peer review process
Religion is circular, you're taking some person's word for it but there
is nothing to test, nothing to observe. It all ends up being a big pile
of circular reasoning, circular testimony, etc.
more importantly, it's possible to construct a religion that is not in
conflict with any of the current theorems and generally accepted laws.
But since the universe is infinite, it will not be possible to construct
a religion for which that will always be true, unless the religion
itself says nothing at all about this plane of existence whatever. And
if it does say nothing, what use is it other than a thought experiment,
something fun to talk about?
Except for the very basic stuff of taking what I presented without proof
as true there's not even a shred of faith present, and as I define
faith, there is none at all even in the basic stuff.
"but still it moves" - Gallileo
--
Larry Pieniazek larryp@novera.com http://my.voyager.net/lar
- - - Web Application Integration! http://www.novera.com
fund Lugnet(tm): http://www.ebates.com/ Member ref: lar, 1/2 $$ to
lugnet.
NOTE: I have left CTP, effective 18 June 99, and my CTP email
will not work after then. Please switch to my Novera ID.
|
|
Message has 1 Reply:
Message is in Reply To:
277 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
|
|
|
|
