Subject:
|
Re: For some Lego is a religous experience. (Was: Re: Quantifying and Classifying the LEGO Community
|
Newsgroups:
|
lugnet.off-topic.debate
|
Date:
|
Wed, 23 Apr 2003 16:28:12 GMT
|
Viewed:
|
2908 times
|
| |
|
|
In lugnet.off-topic.debate, John Neal writes:
> In lugnet.off-topic.debate, Dave Schuler writes:
>
> > Here's another way of looking at it: how, when faced with an eerie
> > coincidence like the hypthetical bus accident, are we able to know that
> > there *is* a karmic/metaphysical/transcendent reason behind it?
>
> Sorry to be a buttinski here
Hey, all are welcome!
> but I just thought of something. What about the
> odds angle? Sometimes coincidences are too great; that is, that the odds of
> something happening a certain way are way beyond normal expectation. Say, for
> instance, the beginning of life on earth. I'm a little rusty on the numbers,
> but IIRC the odds of the events happening that led up to the creation of life
> are incomprehensible. Would such "coincidences" suggest anything intelligent
> behind them?
Bruce addressed this already, but I thought I'd throw in my view as well.
The first is the problem of precedent: when you estimate the odds of a bus
accident, you can base it on known occurrences under similar circumstances.
If we apply that logic to the origin of life, the origin of intelligence,
the origin of the universe, or the origin of physics (to address Mike's
point, too), then we have to identify a precedent that we can use for
comparison. Simply put, we can't estimate the odds at all, other than to
say that the chances that it *DID* happen are 100%.
Fredrick Hoyle is one of the oft-cited sources for these incalculable
odds, but his methodology is suspect, and the premiss itself is faulty.
> And this is my final issue with the position of those who hold up Science as a
> filter for information about the world-- they *cannot* believe in a God,
> because, as scientists, they need evidence and proof of His existence. That by
> definition will never come, and so the whole conclusion is predetermined to be
> that God doesn't exist.
Close, but I don't think that's quite it. The more precise way to state
it is that, since science cannot prove the existence of God, scientists
cannot conclude scientifically that He exists. That has (or should have)
nothing to do with whether or not they *believe* that he exists, though!
Even if one's position is that "God doesn't exist", one still uses the lack of
> evidence as one's criteria for making such an assertion-- evidence that, once
> again, by definition can never come. It is a rather circular position to take:
>
> Posit: God's existence by definition is unprovable
> Posit: All things knowable come through the process described by the
> scientific method
> Conclusion: God's existence cannot be proved through the scientific method,
> therefore God doesn't exist.
I'm afraid that that's not my position, so I'm not comfortable trying to
defend it.
Also, I'd change the structure of your argument a bit:
Posit: The scientific method is the method by which "science" develops and
accepts its explanations of the natural world
Posit: The scientific method has not yet proven that God exists
Conclusion: Science is not currently able to state that God exists
Recall, of course, that scientific proof is not the same as 100% certain
mathematical proof.
> But I fear I have ploughed plowed ground, but add this, and I think it goes
> back to my earlier question to you, Dave! You take a leap of faith by assuming
> God doesn't exist (lack of evidence that He does doesn't necessary mean He
> doesn't); how is this different than believing He does (lack of evidence that
> He doesn't not necessarily meaning that He does).
Again, though--the absence-of-belief is absolutely not the same as
belief-of-absence. You're asserting the following:
Dave HAS the belief that God does not exist
but the correct formulation is:
Dave DOES NOT HAVE the belief that God exists
It's not that I'm *assuming* that God doesn't exist; instead, I *do not
believe* that God exists. Very different issues.
Further I would say that, in a case of this magnitude, the lack of
evidence of His existence is, if you'll excuse the pun, damning.
> I have a theory that the answer lies in the arrogance of the academic world--
> no self-respecting intellectual would adhere to such a primitive and
> ridiculous notion, and any who do are not taken seriously. Belief in God is
> gauche.
Tricky--"gauche," of course, means "left," so you're blowing the whistle
on Another Liberal Conspiracy! 8^)
There are two main ways to look at your proposition:
1. It's false; plenty of "intellectuals" and plenty of scientists believe
in God
2. What if that view (that God doesn't exist) is correct? Do we villify
"intellectuals" for holding the correct view simply because believers find
that view repellent?
Dave!
|
|
Message is in Reply To:
200 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
|
|
|
|
