Subject:
|
Re: We're being attacked by the intelligent, educated segment of culture!
|
Newsgroups:
|
lugnet.off-topic.debate
|
Date:
|
Mon, 11 Apr 2005 18:43:27 GMT
|
Viewed:
|
1407 times
|
| |
|
|
In lugnet.off-topic.debate, John Neal wrote:
| |
This may be the crux of my problem with Science. Science categorically
denies the existence of anything it cannot investigate. It requires proof,
something that is categorically impossible to obtain outside the natural
universe. So, in essence, a god or gods cannot exist because they cannot
be proved to exist, which I find to be conveniently circular.
|
I’m not comfortable with the capital “S,” by the way, but I suppose that’s a
stylistic choice rather than a deification of “Science.” But I digress...
I think that that’s a mischaracterization, though. Regarding something that it
can’t investigate, science leads the scientist to say “I can’t draw a scientific
conclusion on that thing.” That’s a lot different from “since science can’t
investigate that thing, that thing is impossible,” which I agree would be a
circular (and self-serving) position to take. Lenny gave a better
summation of this perspective
than I have done.
| |
The fact is that even if God appeared at the United Nations general assembly,
there would be people who wouldn’t be able to accept it, because Science
cannot handle such a concept. But my original point (God = Event1) still
stands: Science cannot handle a concept of God, but it hypocritically accepts
the concept of the existence of all things without probing as to their
origins. The best proof of the existence of God is the simple existence of
stuff. Rationally, it had to come from somewhere (according to Science).
|
I should think that any god worth calling God would be able to manifest in such
a way that he would be simultanously the-God-we’ve-all-heard-about and
accessible to scientific inquiry. But in any case, I’m sure that some people
would still refuse to accept him, for two main reasons:
1. Some people are hopelessly dogmatic. This is true of theists and
non-theists alike, alas.
2. People might not trust their perceptions. This kind of skepticism evokes
true humility, in my view, because it recognizes the fallibility of our finite
senses, especially regarding supposedly infinite phenomena.
And as far as accepting the non-probing of origins, I think that this, too,
might be a mischaracterization. Science accepts theories that might yet be
proven false only because, for now, those theories are the best that we have.
Without making any claims or accusations, I ask the following: is there
anything that can make a Christian say “Holy moley, I’ve been completely wrong
about God--I now conclude that he really doesn’t exist!” or is such a
statement fundamentally impossible for a Christian? The difference in science
is that the scientist by necessity must accept that future evidence or
observation may invalidate past theories, whereas I can’t think of a similar
flexibility in most of what I know about Christianity (which, I grant, is hardly
exhaustive!)
| |
The best proof of the existence of God is the simple existence of
stuff. Rationally, it had to come from somewhere (according to Science).
|
The existence of Thing-A doesn’t really prove the existence of Thing-B, unless
the existence of Thing-A can be proven and can also be proven to be impossible
without the existence of Thing-B. Beyond that, it’s just a leap of faith to say
that Thing-A’s existence prove’s Thing-B’s.
| |
Even if I accept the idea that stuff just always WAS, it is still equivalent
to saying that a Creator just always WAS (God = Perpetual Stuff).
|
Aha--pantheism! That only works if one claims that God = the universe, which
seems contrary to the biblical account. Additionally, the term “always” is
tricky here, due to the problems of time/space as it pertains to the “beginning”
of the universe.
| |
In my final analysis, it boils down to a discussion of semantics. But I
think that Scientists want their cake and eat it, too, by refusing to even
consider pre-Big Band era music (Therein one finds, among others, the music
of a Mozart:-)
|
Interesting. What you see as having/eating cake, I see as an awareness of
limitations. Scientists accept that the current toolbox isn’t adequate to
explain pre-Big Band events, so questions about those events must be put on hold
for now. Maybe later we’ll develop a mozartscope that allows us to view those
events, and maybe not.
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
|
|
|
|
