Subject:
|
Re: Is lgbt dead in the water? & Is religion dead in the water?
|
Newsgroups:
|
lugnet.off-topic.debate
|
Date:
|
Tue, 19 Oct 2004 17:20:26 GMT
|
Viewed:
|
1313 times
|
| |
|
|
In lugnet.off-topic.debate, Dave Schuler wrote:
> 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.
Evidence is scientific. This is much like talking about colours to a person who
has been blind their entire lives--you can get across the 'concept' of colours
by talking about blue is running water, and red is heat or flame ('cause a blind
person can feel those attributes), but that's just a concept of what colours
are.
Let's take this from a different starting point, since I believe you're defining
the arguement improperly--asking for 'evidence' and 'proofs' which, again I
believe, are inherently tied to the system of science to support something
outside of science.
My stance is that you can't 'prove' that science can encoompass everything. You
can't 'prove' that nothing can exist outside of the scientific realm. The point
at which you state that 'I won't believe in the existance of something until I'm
presented with reasonable evidence supporting its existence' is the point where
you've reduced 'everything' to the realm of science. I've stated before--it's
inherently reductionistic.
Much like the kid who sets up the scene with a home plate, 3 bases, an outfield,
and a pitchers mound--that's the game and there's nothing else, but then someone
else shows up with a football. Due to the reductionistic nature of your belief
in science and the scientific methods (evidence, proofs, et al.), you cannot
understand that there may, and note that I said may, be things outside the scope
of science.
Something that does not require proofs or evidence, because it cannot be proved,
and there's no evidence to support it. It's outside, beyond, call it what you
will. It's outside the ballfield that you've so carefully set up. It doesn't
matte how good you've set up the ballfield, there are other games out there.
> > 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!
I'm not stating that anything that happens today that we don't understand
scietifically won't, at some future time, be understood by science. I'm stating
that there are things that science will never be able to explain, that the whole
is more than the sum of the scientificly explained parts.
> 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.
Again understood, as stated numerous times, but not the issue. See beyond that.
Can you state emphatically right here and now that science will answer
*everything*? Even in an abstract theoretical ideal world--Given infinite time
and resources, will science be able to encompass *all*?
>
> 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.
Agreed--the natural universe is subject to natural laws, which is what the
scientific method is based on. I cannot conceive of a better way to come to a
better understanding of the natural universe than by using the scientific
methods. Never disagreed there, either.
> > 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?
I don't know but I love to have a debate about it :)
> 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.
And I do agree that to some, such as yourself, the idea of believing in a
supernatural entity called 'God' who was reported ot have created the universe,
etc. is absurd, but hey, reducing 'everything' to fit inti science, to me,
seems equally absurd.
But you've also shown in a way why I won't 'rain on anyone elses parade'--if
other faith-based systems are contrary to mine, why shoudl I get my knickers in
a knot? To each his or her own--live and let live. How do I know that my faith
in God is the right one? Well, it's right for me, and as long as I'm not
negatively harming anyone else whilst 'living the life', then where's the harm?
But that's a whole otehr topic also covered quite thoroughly in o.t-d. :)
> Dave!
Dave K
-who missed his o.t-d discussions with guys named Dave, Bruce and Larry.
|
|
Message has 3 Replies:
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
|
|
|
|
