Subject:
|
Religion and Science
|
Newsgroups:
|
lugnet.off-topic.debate
|
Date:
|
Mon, 4 Dec 2000 23:24:07 GMT
|
Viewed:
|
642 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;
> A suppose this is a slight against religion - stagnation from dogma?
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.
> If so, I should point out that religion (Christianity at least) hasn't
> stagnated at all...
That doesn't seem very immutable or ineffable to me! Does Christianity
change with the times? That comes as a surprise to me, if it's the case.
> > 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.
Please be more specific; you're sound-byting me and I'm not getting your
message.
> > 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).
If you're addressing me specifically, then I can only infer that you've
misread my posts, or you're attributing someone else's arguments to me. I
haven't asked anyone to prove God's existence, since I've said all along
that science *cannot* prove that. Nor have I asked theists to prove God's
existence. I have, however, asked for proof of prophesy, which is a
different matter entirely, as I've said elsewhere.
> *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.
THEORIES ARE NOT "TRUTH," AND I HAVE NEVER ASSERTED THEM TO BE SO!
Anyway, the reason we let science "get away with loose theories" is because
the point of science is to propose progressive and evolving theories to aid
in understanding the natural world. Science is not required to give
absolute truth because it doesn't presume to give absolute truth.
Additionally, as a physicist, I'm sure you're aware that the reason
sub-atomic particles are accepted as "fact" (which, as you and I know, means
different things in science and religion) is because their presence is borne
out through replicable experimentation as predicted by quantum theory.
Further, any theory in science can be adjusted and modified as more
information comes into the mix. This, again, is the strength of science.
> (sounds like God? - or is this just your religion?).
Is that what God sounds like? Yet again, by likening science to religion
you discredit both. To name science as a religion is to stretch the
definition of religion so thinly as to dillute all useful meaning of the
word. Religion is based on faith in the unseen and invisible (not just
really small, but un-seeable), while science is a methodology for describing
observable phenomena (or phenomena that can be inferred through interaction
in measurable and detectable ways).
> To summarize - You demand hard proof from theists and accept implied
> circumstantial proof from "science".
Yes! But that's because no one No One NO ONE is claiming that science is
the Absolute Truth, so best-at-this-time theories are acceptable.
Christianity, and any exclusionary (by which I mean "thou shalt not have
strange gods before me" style of) faith purports itself to be the whole
truth and nothing but the truth. As such, more stringent criteria are
appropriate, because the implied stakes are much higher.
> You're playing the old game of 'double standard'.
No, you're trying to force me to hold science and religion to the same
standards, and that's just not appropriate.
> > > 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.
Something in the natural world, and something which is ultimately
observable. God's presence in the world is a matter of Faith, and therefore
not subject to proof or disproof by science. I've said this time and again,
and either you're deliberately misreading it, ignoring it, or simply not
getting it.
> > 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.
And now you're being directly and personally insulting. Very nice.
> 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.
I see; now you're putting words in my mouth. I've never claimed that He
doesn't exist--I have asserted, and continue to assert, that SCIENCE CANNOT
PROVE NOR DISPROVE GOD'S EXISTENCE. The scientists you mention were hardly
scientists in the modern sense, and those are the people who pursue the
science I've been discussing.
> 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.
Using science to understand the works of the creator presupposes that
creator's existence. You recognize that that's also circular reasoning, right?
> > > 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.
Have you read anything I've posted? I've been saying all along that
science and religion are two different realms! That they don't start out in
the same place should be self-evident
> Science without a view of the creator is empty.
Yet again, that's according to your belief system.
> > That science should endeavor to prove Faith?
> Not prove, but witness the manifold genius of the Creator.
Yet again, that's according to your belief system.
> > That Faith is the source of the scientific method?
> Originally it was.
Give me some citations, please. And so were alchemy, necromancy, and
other dark arts, by the way.
> 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.
It's clear that you're ignoring the parts of my posts that you find
inconvenient. The theories haven't worked yet, and so they are being
refined. When they work well enough and can be verified suffiently, they
will be used until further observation and experimentation cause them to be
modified again.
You're also committing a basic falacy by stating that because science has
not done something correctly it cannot nor will not do it correctly.
> Indeed, the inability to explain what caused the
> Big Bang has caused more than a few to posit an original creator.
Name some actual scientists please (as opposed, once again, to
Creation-Scientists) It's also caused more than a few to posit a cyclical
universe, prone to expansion, contraction, and re-expansion over eons.
Hawking, for one.
> 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.
But I don't worship science or humanism, nor does anyone else, unless you
count trying to expand the bounds of science as worship, or trying to
develop and test new theories worship. If so, then once again your
definition of religion is uselessly broad.
> 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.
Through several posts on various branches of these various threads I had
hoped to make clear that I understand your position, but I just don't agree
with it. I'm not saying your conclusions are flawed or inconsistent; I'm
saying I disagree with your assumptions (that the Christian God is the One
True God and the Bible is His Word).
I find your repeated insistence that I am blind, cowardly, ignorant,
guilty of double-standards, and limited to be offensive and insulting. If
you are unable to discuss this matter rationally, and if you are unable--as
you apparently are unable--to read my posts before misquoting me, there is
no further need for us to correspond. I expect you'll take my annoyance at
your style of "rhetoric" to be some admission of defeat, but I'm really
simply tired of repeating myself when you've made it clear that you're not
interested in reading what I write.
Dave!
|
|
Message has 2 Replies:
 | | Re: Religion and Science
|
| (...) I didn't say change with the times - rather that it doesn't stagnate. I guess you could define stagnation as you will, but there are many levels of learnign and debate within the Protestant and Catholic (to name but 2) parts of Christianity (...) (24 years ago, 5-Dec-00, to lugnet.off-topic.debate)
| | | Re: Religion and Science
|
| (...) All the religious relics of the middle-ages. Eastern Orthodoxism. Protestantism. Reformation. Warrior knights. Pacifists. Rise and disappearance of saints. Mary cults. Seems to change a lot. Sometimes for the better, sometimes for the worse. (...) (24 years ago, 5-Dec-00, to lugnet.off-topic.debate)
|
Message is in Reply To:
| | 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)
|
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
|
|
|
|
