Subject:
|
Re: Is lgbt dead in the water? & Is religion dead in the water?
|
Newsgroups:
|
lugnet.off-topic.debate
|
Date:
|
Wed, 20 Oct 2004 21:01:27 GMT
|
Viewed:
|
1431 times
|
| |
|
|
In lugnet.off-topic.debate, Dave Schuler wrote:
> 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.
Eh, I thought I'd add a particular flavour to my otherwise colourless rant. If
you want me to do you a favour by dropping the u's out of color, I'll do so.
>
> 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.
We can set up scientific experiments, observe, and hypothesize, and come up with
some sort of scientific theories about air. No worries there.
>
> 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!
Already thought about, and as stated, we can get the concept across by using
other avenues besides actually 'seeing' colours, but concept and actuality can
and usually are two completely different things.
>
> > 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.
I'm not claiming a 'verifiable awareness' at all. I'm claiming that words like
evidence, proof and verifiable awareness are subject and are delegated to the
realm of science. Using such concepts that are inherent in these words to
describe something that may be outside of science is much like the previously
stated allusion--the kid who sets up the ball diamond and someone else shows up
with a football.
So again, as you systematically reject anything that defies the rational of
science, I ssytematically reject subjecting 'faith' to the definitions and
procedures of science.
> > 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.
Again, evidence is relegated to science. 'Supernatural' is outside that. The
only 'thing' I can point to at all is my 'faith'. I have it--I 'believe' that
there is a God. Since this belief also entails that this God is not subject to
the 'laws of science' (since, again my belief, God's the one who created
everything in the universe, including the natural laws thereof), then I cannot
use scientific methods to 'prove' God exists.
However, a few 'ancedotal evidences', I believe, support my belief--
1. Many people thru the ages have this faith as well. There are differing
opinions as to the exact specifications of this God (or gods), but that's also
why my faith is shaped the way it is--not hitting someone else over the head
with my belief systems--who knows if I'm right? Always open to the possibility
that I'm not. Many intelligent people are on this list of 'believers'. Of
course, many intelligent non-believers are out there as well. Eh, I tend to
side with the folks who don't limit themselves--those that are open to other
possibilities.
2. Sceince, being an inherently man-made endeavour, is subject to the same
natural laws as man--science must be finite because 'man', time, and the
universe are finite. There may be one day that science has all the answers for
all the questions of the natural universe. However, even at that time will we,
as humnaity, be able to state emphatically, without a doubt, that the whole is
equal to the sum of the natural parts? That there is nothing outside?
I don't know. I doubt that those people in the future would know, either, even
having all the answers of the natural universe at their fingertips.
>
> 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.
But it is one that I am willing to make--like the words that we use--*show* a
blind person the colour yellow. I am claiming that science shouldn't be the
limiting factor of our existence, that existence doesn't have to be relegated to
be defined by science.
> > 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.
I would say not--logic, verifying--basically asking for proof. Prove to me that
there's a difference between blue and purple. I'm colourblind--I have to take
your word, and everyone else who has touched my life who has stated that 'this
is blue' and 'that is purple'. Every text book, everything on the telly, every
book I've read that has mentioned that there's a difference between blue and
purple , which I cannot see and verify--I have to take your word that there's no
vast conspiracy of screwing up Dave with the blue/purple thing.
And people who I've come to trust, admire, and whatnot have let me in on their
belief systems--that there is a God. My 'faith' also reassures me that there is
a God. What would have happened if I was raised in a family that didn't go to
church or beleive in a God? I don't know. I know that my struggle with my
faith started as early as 14 when I left the church.
>
> > 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.
Your witnessing the colour blue to me is the same arguement. How do I know
you're right? I don't need you to believe in 'God', or 'supernatural X'--I'm
not here witnessing. My point, I beleive from the original post (if I can
recall that long ago) was to point out the casual dismissal, the idea that some
people like to think that the whole is exactly equal to the sum of the natural
parts--
"
Systems. You are simply describing some of the basic concepts of systems
behavior. Complex systems behavior arising from simple components. Happens all
the time both in biological and non-living systems. No magic there.
"
And I don't think that's so much the case.
> > 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?
As above--science is limited to the finiteness of time, the universe, and the
guys who created it.
>
> > 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.
Then don't. I would never ask you to. That said, don't think that those who
attend church on Sunday and believe in some 'great maker' are delusional.
>
> > 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.
This is like the conversation in 'The Voyage Home'--'inalienable human
rights'--'inalien--human rights--if you could only hear yourselves...'
Empirical evidence--science. Done.
> > 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!
Probably a few but I missed you guys. I miss Hoppy too, but he burned that
bridge sooooooo badly! It reminds me of a story.... nm ;)
Dave K
|
|
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
|
|
|
|
