Subject:
|
Re: Is lgbt dead in the water? & Is religion dead in the water?
|
Newsgroups:
|
lugnet.off-topic.debate
|
Date:
|
Tue, 19 Oct 2004 16:46:13 GMT
|
Viewed:
|
1283 times
|
| |
|
|
In lugnet.off-topic.debate, David Koudys wrote:
> > > This is where your fallacy lies. Since you 'live the science' you can't
> > > accept that there might be something outside the science, today or even in
> > > the future. You can't accept the 'magic' that may be in the system.
> >
> > Instead, you're asking us to accept on faith the claim that something
> > supernatural might exist. I do not accept that claim on faith; if you have
> > evidence of this "something outside the science," then by all means let's see
> > it!
>
> Evidence and proof are aspects of science. How can one use 'evidence' to show
> 'something outside of science'? How can one use 'proofs', which support
> scientific evidence, to 'prove' something unprovable?
Well, if you can't provide me evidence that some supernatural phenomenon exists,
then I must ask you how you conclude that the phenomenon exists. Some factor or
factors must compel you to reject a natural explanation (or possibility of a
natural explanation) in favor of a supernatural one, and I'm just asking what
that factor is.
If the factor is a gut feeling, or something written on your heart, or divine
revelation, I'm afraid that I find it unconvincing.
> I agree that we must not stop pursuing our scientific endeavours, that there is
> so much to learn by using scientific methodology. That said, I do not believe
> that science can answer *all*. You are 'throwing the baby out with the
> bathwater' when you say that because there's no proof or evidence of something,
> therefore something can't exist.
That's not quite what I'm saying, though. I'm saying that without evidence, I
will not accept on faith the existence of a supernatural phenomenon or entity.
I'm not saying that it *can't* exist; I'm saying that I will not accept its
existence until I am presented with reasonable evidence supporting its
existence.
> We've talked about this before--I'm not a believer in the 'God of the
> Gap'--filling in on things we don't scientifically understand yet. I'm stating
> that science cannot answer *everything*--that, whereas science can explain a
> great many things, that to state emphatically that there's nothing outside of
> science is absurd.
But your argument has sort of been that, because science cannot in principle
explain every supernatural thing we can posit, then supernatural things must
exist "outside of science." That's not God of the Gaps--that's the Ontological
Argument!
Science is an evolving framework of understanding; it seems absurd to me to
claim that because science does not currently explain a thing, it will never be
able to explain that thing.
However, in the meantime, I will express the view that, given my experience and
the apparent experience of countless other people, science provides the most
complete and vital explanatory model of the natural universe. I am always open
to an alternative explanatory model, but it will have to be superior to science
before I can accept it.
> There is such thing as 'faith'. There is such a thing as 'believe'. In the
> past we have used such words to dispense with things we don't scientifically
> understand, but that's as much a misrepresentation as believing that science can
> encompass 'all'.
Science does not encompass metaphysics, if that'll make you feel better. But I
have never seen any evidence to conclude that metaphysical entities or phenomena
exist in the same way that nature and the universe exist.
If one has no verifiable evidence of Supernatural Phenomenon X, then how does
one conclude with any certainty that Supernatural Phenomenon X truly exists?
And how does one determine that Supernatural Phenomenon X does exist but
Supernatural Phenomenon Y does not? Does it depend upon the intensity of
feeling? Or is it a function of the relative aesthetic appeal of each
phenomenon in turn?
If someone says to you "I was adbucted by giant Gummi Bears and subjected to
hideous experiments, but I have no scientific evidence to support my story," how
do you determine whether the person is telling the truth or not? And how do you
assess the relative validity of his story versus your own belief in Supernatural
Phenomenon X, which might seem just as kooky to him as his GB abduction seems to
you.
Dave!
|
|
Message has 1 Reply:
Message is in Reply To:
70 Messages in This Thread:
  
 
- 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
|
|
|
|
