Subject:
|
Re: We're being attacked by the intelligent, educated segment of culture!
|
Newsgroups:
|
lugnet.off-topic.debate
|
Date:
|
Mon, 11 Apr 2005 20:25:52 GMT
|
Viewed:
|
1435 times
|
| |
|
|
In lugnet.off-topic.debate, Dave Schuler wrote:
| |
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...
|
It sort of bugs me when people who are referring to God not capitalize it in
an attempt to somehow disacknowledge His existence, but I digress (and demote
“Science” to “science”)
| |
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.
|
I like Lenny’s statement, but I think there is much confusion on this topic. I
think that if a science teacher was teaching about the Big Bang, and a student
asked, “But what happened before the Big Bang?”, his reply wouldn’t be “science
cannot address that question”, but rather offer some “scientific” explanation.
| |
| |
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.
|
Hmm. Jesus was God incarnate, although He arrived before the study of science
did. One could say that the story of Thomas was a direct statement to
skeptics-- “seeing” is believing, but not necessary for believing.
| |
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.
|
Granted. I hope Jesus doesn’t come back during my lifetime-- I would be just
as skeptical of a fraud as you would be.
| |
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.
|
But perhaps a bit hypocritical? Why trust certain perceptions more than other
ones? Sounds like there is more of an agenda behind that particular reason.
| |
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?
|
I would contend that it happens all the time. In times of tragedy, many people
blame God and loose their faiths. Or even in prosperous times (I’m doing great
and getting along without God just fine!). Of course, times of tragedy and
prosperity also bring people to God as well...
| |
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!)
|
Oh, I don’t know. Talk to a Roman Catholic and to a member of the United Church
of Christ. You will swear that the two are members of two completely different
religions! Christianity is flexible, it’s just that the whole religion
doesn’t adapt to change, only parts, which is why there are so many
denominations.
| |
| |
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.
|
But certainly I can say that Thing-C originated from Thing-B, or do I need to
show from where Thing-B originated? (Thing-A, ad infinitum). I’m afraid I’m
lost here.
| |
| |
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.
|
Not at all! The Bible was recorded during a time of pantheism; it’s main
legacy is that there is only ONE God, not many.
| |
| |
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.
|
Perhaps a moment of agreement? I have no problem with science discussing the
theory of evolution, just not any theories of creation. Science should be
moot (;-)) on the subject of the origin of the universe.
JOHN
|
|
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
|
|
|
|
