Subject:
|
Re: We're being attacked by the intelligent, educated segment of culture!
|
Newsgroups:
|
lugnet.off-topic.debate
|
Date:
|
Thu, 31 Mar 2005 14:41:14 GMT
|
Viewed:
|
1114 times
|
| |
|
|
In lugnet.off-topic.debate, John Neal wrote:
| |
In lugnet.off-topic.debate, Dave Schuler wrote:
| |
The culture war, in this context, is a tiny and radical fringe that wishes
to impose a primitive, pre-Enlightenment doctrine versus those who wish to
embrace scientific progress and increased understanding.
|
Or, framed another way, an overwhelming minority who wish to impose their
elitist, secular beliefs on the unwashed masses.
|
But let’s be clear--that so-called elitist minority is arguing in favor of that
which can be confirmed by independent observation and experiment, whereas
Mummert et al are arguing that we should teach creationism because the bible
says it’s so.
| |
| |
| |
Heh, what I find hysterical is the thought of “educated” people finding
this hysterical. It’s all about the blind men and the elephant.
|
But Mummert (et al) is feeling the tree trunk and assuming an Infinite
and Divine Creator Elephant, while Rehm (et al) is saying “hey, according
to one survey this feels like a tree trunk--let’s see if other surveys
confirm or contradict this analysis.”
|
See, here is the crux of the issue for me: science has the temerity to assume
that it will ever come close to understanding that which is impossible to
understand. Its tools are useless to solve the mystery of creation. It is
as impossible as a 2 dimensional person trying to understand a sphere. Sure,
he thinks he has it figured out (it’s circle of course!), but he hasn’t
even the ability to comprehend the truth.
|
But John, don’t you see that you’re just witnessing? I expect that “the truth”
to which you refer is some fundamentally unknowable truth, and to say that
science won’t ever understand it is equivalent to assuming your conclusion,
which of course is circular. All you can say for certain is that our current
tools for understanding the universe appear to be inadequate to explain all that
we can perceive; any absolute statements about ultimate knowledge are
assumptions.
Additionally, praise for the “mysteries of creation” carries no rhetorical
weight and is unconvincing to me.
We can quibble about “understanding” in this context all day long; I have a
friend who has done extensive work in 5th dimensional calculus, and I say with
some confidence that she understands five dimensions pretty well. You might
object that she’s not really “understanding” it in the way that you or I might
“understand” a 3-D sphere, but that’s a trivial difference to me. I don’t
“understand” 8-wide trains as well as you do, and you don’t “understand” clone
bricks as well as I do (despite your collusion with Courtney). We all have
different levels of understanding because we’re all different. The deficient
“understanding” of any group of people can’t be used as an argument in favor of
some higher, non-confirmable “truth.”
| |
Bruce H. Margon, chairman of the astronomy department at the University of
Washington, told the New York Times, “It’s a fairly embarrassing situation to
admit that we can’t find 90 percent of the universe”. This problem has
scientists scrambling to try and find where and what this dark matter is.
“What it is, is any body’s guess,” adds Dr. Margon. “Mother Nature is having
a double laugh. She’s hidden most of the matter in the universe, and hidden
it in a form that can’t be seen”.
|
This is dangerously close to “quote mining,” which is a common (and fallacious)
creationist tactic. In its most basic form, the creationist finds some
scientist’s quote out of context or part of a quote and holds it up as proof
that science is therefore deficient because this one scientist can’t remember
where he left his keys (or whatever). A quick googling reveals that Margon’s
mined quote is a darling among creationist websites, by the way.
But even if Margon is 100% right in his framing of the 90%, you’re still sort of
leaping from “we don’t know” to “it must be God.” This is, naturally, the
fallacious Argument from Ignorance.
| |
| |
| |
“The fear of the Lord is the beginning of knowledge.”
|
|
|
| |
The word “fear” in this context isn’t what we would normally parse it to
mean. It is more along the lines of “respect” or “awe” or “acknowledgement”.
And it is not an expectation of God, but an attitude of humility from us.
|
Not trying to be funny, but are you comfortable with the term “knowledge” in
this translation? I can think immediately of two incompatible definitions,
either of which might be the one intended.
Also, I’ve mentioned previously that it is more humble to conclude that we
finite and temporary creatures can’t draw conclusions about infinite omnipotent
entities than it would be to say “I am certain that Christ is my Savior and I
will go to Heaven because I have accepted Him in my heart.” That latter
statement presumes to speak of absolutes that we simply aren’t qualified to
assess.
Dave!
|
|
Message has 1 Reply:
Message is in Reply To:
90 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
|
|
|
|
