Subject:
|
Re: Critical Thinking
|
Newsgroups:
|
lugnet.off-topic.debate
|
Date:
|
Sat, 2 Dec 2000 04:09:30 GMT
|
Viewed:
|
533 times
|
| |
|
|
In lugnet.off-topic.debate, Jon Kozan writes:
> That's why [the big bang is] a theory - once it's gets more evidence they'll
> refine the theory yet again. Unfortunately, they'll never be able to prove the
> theory which is what science drives for.
I suppose you're testing me with this false statement, since as a physicist
you surely know that the greatest strength of science is precisely its ability
to grow as understanding grows, rather than stagnate on centuries of dogma; if
it were otherwise, we'd still rely on the Geocentric model of the universe, and
all our efforts would go into verifying that theory. Science doesn't try to
prove a theory--by which I mean that science doesn't try to say "this theory is
truth"--but rather to validate the theory through contined experimentation and
observation. Science isn't an end, nor is any theory the end; science is a
method of explanation.
> That is, without a supernatural force entering into the equation - which is
> what more than a few scientists have suggested lately -- God anyone?
Care to name a few? I imagine you're referring, for instance, to Gould and
perhaps Hawking, among others, who do not reject the notion of a God, as well
as other scientists who are themselves religious. But none of these scientists
is asserting that scientific method can prove God's existence, which remains
ultimately and *by definition* a matter of Faith.
> As dissappointing as it may be to the non-God crowd, science actually is
> leading us to God.
This bald statement is simply wrong for a number of reasons. Most glaringly
because, once again, the role of science is not to prove nor disprove God,
since SCIENCE CANNOT AND DOES NOT PRESUME TO DO SO. The very notion that
someone would suggest "science... is leading us to God" suggests either an
utter rejection of scientific method or a real misunderstanding of God.
> Precisely the problem with non-creationism folks is that they start out wrong.
That's simply an assumption based on your belief system.
> The 2 divergent world views start at different points, and are doomed to never
> seeing the world from the same vantage point.
Exactly, and that's appropriate, since Faith has nothing to do with science,
and science is utterly separate from Faith. Do you suggest that it should be
otherwise? That science should endeavor to prove Faith? That Faith is the
source of the scientific method? If not, then why should creationists and
non-creationists even try to start their world view from the same point?
> Fortunately, the honest scientist recognizes that non-causal/supernatural
> forces _may_ indeed play a part in reality as we currently know it and is not
> as quick to rule out things that we don't understand.
I should begin by pointing out that your reference to "honest scientists"--
apparently in contrast to me and those who share my views--is a thinly veiled
and perhaps unintentional ad hominem, since in praising my opposite you are
deriding me. That's your option, of course, but you must recognize that it
doesn't invalidate my arguments.
Anyway, who are these "honest scientists?" And can you name a few actual
scientists (as opposed to "creation-scientists") who've published proposals
identifying the role of supernatural forces in science? Science is a method
for understanding the natural world, and the supernatural (a la Faith) is
therefore by definition beyond the scope of science.
> Questions that we can't (currently) answer include -
> Why was there a Bang?
> What was before the Bang?
> No current theory has any supporting evidence that answers these questions.
Nor does science presume to do so, since there is currently no way to derive
empirical evidence from before the first singularity (if "before" even has any
meaning in that context). As a physicist, I'm sure you're aware that science
tries to explain what took place *after* the Big Bang.
> Ulitmately, even the humanist must admit his starting point - no God.
> And that becomes his religion.
Religion is inherently involved in the service, pursuit, or worship of the
supernatural, be it God, Gaia, or L. Ron Hubbard, and as such concerns itself
with Faith and the unseen. Faith is by definition belief despite the absence
of proof. Humanism, by absolute contrast, and more specifically humanist
science, is concerned with exploring and explaining the natural and observable
world. To try to undermine humanism by calling it a religion is to expand the
definition of religion so widely that it loses all useful meaning. Religion
becomes, in essence, simply another way of viewing the world, like
Postmodernism. Religion cannot be tested, nor verified, nor falsified, and its
fundamental principles are off-limits to change. Science and humanism have at
their cores a dynamism allowing them to grow--slowly perhaps--with the
ever-evolving systems of understanding on which they are based.
Dave!
|
|
Message has 3 Replies:
 | | Re: Critical Thinking
|
| (...) I know Jon can speak for himself, but just to clarify things -- I think Jon is alluding to the idea of the "prime mover" or "first cause." No one knows what the first cause of the universe was or is. Science, on this count as well as others, (...) (24 years ago, 2-Dec-00, to lugnet.off-topic.debate)
| | | Re: Critical Thinking
|
| (...) Hey Dave!-- I just thought of a question to which I would like to hear your response: What do you think about scientists who believe in God? Does believing in something unprovable put into question their worthiness as scientists? Or is there (...) (24 years ago, 2-Dec-00, to lugnet.off-topic.debate)
| | | Re: Critical Thinking
|
| (...) A suppose this is a slight against religion - stagnation from dogma? If so, I should point out that religion (Christianity at least) hasn't stagnated at all... (...) A bald claim at best - a false statement in reality. (...) No, not really. I (...) (24 years ago, 4-Dec-00, to lugnet.off-topic.debate)
|
Message is in Reply To:
| | Re: Critical Thinking
|
| (...) HA HA That's why it's a theory - once it's gets more evidence they'll refine the theory yet again. Unfortunately, they'll never be able to prove the theory which is what science drives for. That is, without a supernatural force entering into (...) (24 years ago, 1-Dec-00, to lugnet.off-topic.debate)
|
198 Messages in This Thread:
(Inline display suppressed due to large size. Click Dots below to view.)
- 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
|
|
|
|
