Subject:
|
Re: Ya wanna talk about legislating morality?
|
Newsgroups:
|
lugnet.off-topic.debate
|
Date:
|
Fri, 6 May 2005 15:42:38 GMT
|
Viewed:
|
1087 times
|
| |
|
|
In lugnet.off-topic.debate, Dave Schuler wrote:
| |
In lugnet.off-topic.debate, John Neal wrote:
| |
Everything that exists had to come from something. Whether you want to
call Event 1 “God” or just “Some Random Occurance”, neither fit into the
model of Science.
|
That’s a false dilemma. The current (and correct) response is: “We currently
don’t have enough data to answer that question.”
|
But that’s a disengenuous assertment. There will never be enough “data” to
answer that question. It is unknowable.
| |
| |
Even if you want to say that “the universe always was”, that is still beyond
logic and beyond the peruse of Science.
|
Suppose that one says “Current data suggests that the universe has always
existed, in some form.” How is that inconsistent with the scientific method?
|
Because there isn’t or never will be any such data. The scientific method
cannot explain the origin of something without data that precedes that
something. Since, by definition, there is no data which precedes Creation, the
whole issue is mute as a scream in space. So Science merely shrugs and says,
“There currently isn’t enough data to form a conclusion” as if there might be at
some point in the future, but which there never will be.
| |
| |
I thought we all had agreed that Science had nothing to say about Creation.
But certainly you can’t deny that it occured.
|
I think we agreed that evolution says nothing about the creation of life
or the universe. However, science says “We currently don’t have enough
data to answer that question.”
|
No, that is too convenient, and a complete dodge.
| |
That’s not a denial or a dimissal; it’s a recognition that the data currently
available to us are inadequate to formulate an answer.
|
You are simply deluding yourself if you think that Science will ever be able
explain the origin of the universe.
| |
Some people find this
aesthetically unsatisfying
|
If not intellectually dishonest.
| |
and look to faith for an answer, but that is, once
again, the God Of The Gaps fallacy.
|
And it is a fallacy to believe that Science is capable of bridging that Gap.
| |
| |
Creation is the elephant in the room of Science.
|
Logic, reason, and rationalism are the elephants entirely missing from the
room of faith. But I’ll wager that you’d still take an antibiotic if you
developed an infection.
|
The whole problem with your assertion, and maybe even your very outlook on life,
is that logic, reason, rationalism, and faith are not mutually exclusive.
JOHN
|
|
Message has 1 Reply:
 | | Re: Ya wanna talk about legislating morality?
|
| (...) Let's throw out the term "Creation" in this context, because it stacks the deck in favor your argument. Additionally, we've previously discussed the imprecision of term "Science" with a capital-S, so can we refer instead to science? The (...) (19 years ago, 6-May-05, to lugnet.off-topic.debate, FTX)
|
Message is in Reply To:
| | Re: Ya wanna talk about legislating morality?
|
| (...) That's a false dilemma. The current (and correct) response is: "We currently don't have enough data to answer that question." (...) Suppose that one says "Current data suggests that the universe has always existed, in some form." How is that (...) (19 years ago, 6-May-05, to lugnet.off-topic.debate, FTX)
|
46 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
|
|
|
|
