Subject:
|
Re: Ya wanna talk about legislating morality?
|
Newsgroups:
|
lugnet.off-topic.debate
|
Date:
|
Fri, 6 May 2005 16:15:59 GMT
|
Viewed:
|
1217 times
|
| |
|
|
In lugnet.off-topic.debate, John Neal wrote:
| |
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.
|
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 universe is unlike any thing in it, so any analogy between the universe and
a thing in the universe is doomed to fail. The set of all numbers is not a
number, even though it contains numbers. The universe is not a thing, even
though it contains things. Therefore, any assumptions you make about the nature
of things can’t be applied to the universe as a whole, even regarding the origin
thereof. You are, by default, assuming that something must precede the
origin of the universe, though you are entirely lacking any justification for
that assumption.
What created God, while we’re at it? If faith can’t answer that question (and
“he always existed” or “he created himself” are not answers), then faith is of
no value to me.
| |
| |
| |
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.
|
I’m sorry that you feel that way, but that’s how it is. You are requiring
science to perform a task that, by definition, it can’t perform (ie., to make an
assessment based on insufficient evidence), and they you’re crying foul when if
fails to perform that task to your satisfaction.
How about this: my faith in God, in itself, did not repair the transmission in
my car or give me a million dollars, therefore faith 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.
|
That’s argument by assertion, not to mention ad hominem.
I’m not saying that science will be able to explain the origin of the
universe; I’m saying that currently it can not. It may someday be able to
explain it, but that’s not for me to say. To assume that science will never be
able to answer a certain question is far too presumptuous.
| |
| |
Some people find this
aesthetically unsatisfying
|
If not intellectually dishonest.
|
Well, faith in an imaginary alpha male in the sky is frankly infantile, so I
guess we’re even.
| |
| |
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.
|
On what basis to you make this absolutist claim? Science will never be able to
produce a heavier-than-air vehicle capable of flight, right?
| |
| |
| |
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.
|
Oh, brother. My whole outlook on life? Please. No problem in life is so bad
that blind faith won’t make it worse.
Faith is wholly incompatible with logic, reason, and rationalism because faith
is non-falsifiable. That’s the end of it. You might flatter yourself to think
that you can maintain both faith and reason, but really what you’re doing is
holding one in each hand and never allowing them to mingle.
Dave!
|
|
Message is in Reply To:
 | | Re: Ya wanna talk about legislating morality?
|
| (...) But that's a disengenuous assertment. There will never be enough "data" to answer that question. It is unknowable. (...) Because there isn't or never will be any such data. The scientific method cannot explain the origin of something without (...) (20 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
|
|
|
|
