Subject:
|
Re: Critical Thinking
|
Newsgroups:
|
lugnet.off-topic.debate
|
Date:
|
Mon, 4 Dec 2000 21:56:33 GMT
|
Viewed:
|
702 times
|
| |
|
|
In lugnet.off-topic.debate, Dave Schuler writes:
> 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;
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...
> if it were otherwise, we'd still rely on the Geocentric model of the universe,
A bald claim at best - a false statement in reality.
> 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.
No, not really. I suppose it depends on your definition of "prove."
You're actually applying a different standard for science that you do for
theists (God supporters).
You say on the one hand that theists have to prove the existance of God through
cold hard facts (or to "tap you on the shoulder" as soneone else put it).
*Then* you go and let "science" get away with loose theories that you accept as
truth. And you also let them change their "truth" (theories) as often as they
need to to explain what they observe. Furthermore, you allow science to
theorize the presence of something they've never witnessed (sub-atomic
particles for example) and you accept that as fact. (sounds like God? - or is
this just your religion?).
To summarize - You demand hard proof from theists and accept implied
circumstantial proof from "science".
You're playing the old game of 'double standard'.
> > 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.
Certainly it is not science's only role - but to prove the existance or
non-existance of something is indeed what science IS all about. (sorry, :-).
> 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.
You're misunderstanding "God" and have a limited little view of science.
Simply because God is (may be) separate from His creation as theists claim,
does not mean the creation can't give evidence of His existance. Many early
scientists (of our current scientific paradigm) accepted the existance of God,
just as totally as you deny His existance. They saw science as a means of
understand the works of the creator - not as an endless pursuit that had no
bearing on God. For them, such a view as yours would be seen as a sad state of
affairs in both how far we have come in undertanding the creation - and how
short our sight has grown when we attempt to understand science apart from God.
>
> > Precisely the problem with non-creationism folks is that they start out
> > wrong.
>
> That's simply an assumption based on your belief system.
Call it what you will - At least I admit that we don't start out in the same
place.
> > 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.
Hardly. Science without a view of the creator is empty.
> Do you suggest that it should be otherwise?
Yes.
> That science should endeavor to prove Faith?
Not prove, but witness the manifold genius of the Creator.
> That Faith is the source of the scientific method?
Originally it was.
> If not, then why should creationists and non-creationists even try to start
> their world view from the same point?
They did in in the beginning - but as you state, the point isn't (wasn't) to
prove God - but to better understand His creation, and thereby better
understand His nature and Him. Some sought God through study of His scriptures
alone - others believed that understanding His work could also lead to better
understanding Him - and thereby draw closer to Him.
> > 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.
Sorry - of course it's not required, but I can't help remembering how much is
denyed and blatently ignored by non-creationists if it doen't fit their view of
things.
> 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.
Just because we don't understand how something works should not put it in your
"supernatural" category. There are many thing we don't understand (see my list
below, please) but that doesn't make them "supernatural." For many, gravitation
was "supernatural" at one point - that didn't make it beyond the scope of
science. I will still submit that although science doesn't knock on God's
skin, it may show us what only He could have done.
> > 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.
No way that you know of. Science already tries to posit how the Big Bang might
have occurred - ie. mass/gravity theory which they were much bothered when they
realized that it didn't work. Indeed, the inability to explain what caused the
Big Bang has caused more than a few to posit an original creator.
> > 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.
Your definitions, again. When one denies that humanism is a religion you miss
the point - religion posits God, just as surely as humanism posits no-God.
Natural causes become your "creator". Theism sees Gd in His creation just as
surely as you see your "no-God " in nature. It is only through your eyes of
disbelief that you have come to accept that the theories of science
"prove" for you that there is no God. Equally so, your posit - "no-God" - you
cannot prove, and then, indeed, _because_ of your inability to face your own
unprovable stance, you attempt to put theism into a "unprovable" box, saying it
has nothing to do with science... I call that blindness - when you don't
recognize where you are.
-Jon
|
|
Message has 1 Reply:
 | | Religion and Science
|
| (...) Not intended against religion, though I'm intrigued that you read it that way. I was referring more to adherence to rote, like obeying the teachings of Aristotle in science without examining and verifying them. (...) That doesn't seem very (...) (24 years ago, 4-Dec-00, to lugnet.off-topic.debate)
|
Message is in Reply To:
| | Re: Critical Thinking
|
| (...) 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 (...) (24 years ago, 2-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
|
|
|
|
