Subject:
|
Re: Is lgbt dead in the water? & Is religion dead in the water?
|
Newsgroups:
|
lugnet.off-topic.debate
|
Date:
|
Tue, 19 Oct 2004 18:29:58 GMT
|
Viewed:
|
1423 times
|
| |
|
|
In lugnet.off-topic.debate, David Koudys wrote:
> > 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.
First of all, we Merkans don't take kindly to that Frenchy "u" in color. And we
don't want no horse doovers, neither.
Secondly, I can't see air, but I can discern the effect of air upon objects.
Therefore I am able to draw conclusions about the existence of air despite my
inability to see it.
Can the blind person, hypothetically, set up an apparatus that plays a certain
musical note in response to a certain color? The blind person would thereby be
able to draw conclusions about color despite his inability to see it.
By the way--it's useful to steer clear of "blindness" metaphors while speaking
of matters of faith, because they almost always come across as "you're being
willfully blind to Supernatural Phenomenon X." I know that's not your intent,
but it's good to keep in mind!
> 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.
But this is close to non sequitur. How can you claim any verifiable awareness
of a phenomenon for which you have no evidence? I'm asking in all sincerity,
and I hope you can at least give me an example of some phenomenon in your life
that you identify as inexplicable-in-principle by science. If you provide this
example, I must also ask you on what basis you conclude that your natural senses
and natural brain are able to conclude that the phenomenon is supernatural.
This isn't a demand for evidence or proof; it's a request for a recounting of
how you drew your conclusion in the absence of evidence or proof.
> My stance is that you can't 'prove' that science can encompass 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.
Not everything! Merely everything in the natural universe. You're welcome to
give me examples of things that exist outside of the natural universe, of
course. However, you're setting an impossible task for me. You're asking me to
accept that supernatural phenomena might exist, but you're insisting that I
abandon any hope of evidence for their existence.
Without getting into an insoluble "what is existence" discussion, I would submit
that if something exists, then it can be shown to exist. You, in contrast,
appear to be claiming that if something cannot be shown to exist, then it might
exist anyway. That's a statement of faith that I'm not willing to make.
> 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.
I understand that there *may* be things outside the scope of science, and I have
simply asked for an example of such a thing and some way to verify to myself
that it really exists (as opposed to being an artifact of a believer's mind, for
example). This isn't reductionist; it's a logical extension of the way most
people go through their lives.
> 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.
But this is mere witnessing. How does it differ from my claim that invisible
unicorns dance through the meadow? The best that you can hope to obtain from me
is a statement that I accept your belief in Supernatural Phenomenon X, but you
will not likely obtain my belief in that Phenomenon without evidence above and
beyond your (or anyone's) non-verifiable testimony.
> 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.
This, too, is a statement of faith. On what basis do you draw this conclusion?
> 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*?
Well, let's dispense with the infinities, since they're problematic even in this
context.
To state that science will some day answer everything would be a declaration of
faith, one which I can't give.
Instead, my claim is this: Science is, to date, the best descriptive framework
of the natural universe that we have yet developed. If a thing in nature can in
principle be described at all, then it can in principle be described through
science.
To give you a counter-example to demonstrate that my claim is not a tautology:
It may be the case that we will never be able to describe with precision the
simultaneous position and velocity of a particle. Must I therefore conclude
that some supernatural phenomenon is at work simply because knowledge of the
simultaneous position and velocity of a particle is outside the realm of
science?
> > 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 :)
Well, sure, but that's the problem! The whole notion of non-verifiable
things/entities/phenomena requires an investment of faith that I can find no
compelling reason to make.
> 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 do you see how my position is more empirically consistent with reality? You
could destroy my claim simply by providing an example that falsifies it. Your
claim cannot be falsified even in principle, so it cannot be claimed to have
much in common with the empirically-observed natural universe.
> Dave K
> -who missed his o.t-d discussions with guys named Dave, Bruce and Larry.
Hmm--might you have left a name off that list..?
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
|
|
|
|
