Subject:
|
Re: Religion and Science
|
Newsgroups:
|
lugnet.off-topic.debate
|
Date:
|
Tue, 5 Dec 2000 01:00:14 GMT
|
Viewed:
|
747 times
|
| |
|
|
In lugnet.off-topic.debate, Dave Schuler writes:
> In lugnet.off-topic.debate, Jon Kozan writes:
>
> > ...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.
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 that are constantly fluxing and reifning their understanding of a
variety of key points. It would only be lack a knowledge to assume otherwise.
Christology, soteriology, eschatology, hermanuetics, trinitarianism etc are
hotly debated topics within Christianity...
> > > 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.
Sorry - Geocentricism merely highlighted our different views of how "current"
is defined.
> > > 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.
Perhaps I have confused you with other - I hate it when I do that - sorry.
I still contend that science can't prove much since the explaination of things
is in continual evolution as more knowledge comes in.
> > *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!
Ok, I stand corrected,- see, I'm affable. I see that perhaps we have a deeper
discussion on truth ahead then...
> 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.
But not all of them - which is my point.
> 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.
Actually I attempted to name humanism a religion. Which it is. Science is the
tool of the humanist - at least it has become that.
> Religion is based on faith in the unseen and invisible (not just
> really small, but un-seeable),
Hardly. Religion (Christianity, at least) is based on the seen and manifest as
well as the unseen and unknown. Itis a fact that Jesus walked on the earth.
Many witnessed his life and death. Many also witnessed his presence on earth
after his death. I haven't yet met anyone who says history is unseen and
invisible. You surely don't propose that.
> 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.
No, actually just humanism and religion.
> > > > 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.
Not really, (or at least I didn't mean to be) I just think you've put God and
science in a neat little box ..
> > 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.
Actually I've not mentioned a particular scientist yet - you did, though in
another post, answering your own question for me.
Here I refer to historical scientists - 16, 17, 1800's
> > 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?
No, it's an assumption.
> > > > 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
Sure, but I'm only saying that they are not.
> > Science without a view of the creator is empty.
> Yet again, that's according to your belief system.
ok, as are yours..
> > > 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.
Ditto.
> > > 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.
Is science now an art?
> > 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.
No, I'm agreeing with you statements above, indeed, that science is a series of
theories the attempt, but don't claim to explain reality.
> > 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.
As, I state - that was disproved.
> > 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 God 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.
Worship is a belief system. Humanism is a belief system. It starts with
assuming that everything is as we see it. That is ultimately a belief system.
> > 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).
Ok, now we're getting to what you believe. Could you expand on that please?
> 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.
Not at all. Not intended. Sorry. (I don't remember calling you those names)
I may have appeared to you to refer specifically to you, but I was at least
attempting to be more general. As far as I'm aware, I have only just now heard
what you've believed. (parargraph above)
-Jon
|
|
Message has 1 Reply:
 | | Re: Religion and Science
|
| (...) Science is not in the business of proving anything. Proof is not a stage in the scientific life cycle. Scientists don't even believe in proof. Proof isn't what we're looking for. Increasing evidence and plausibility are the goals. This may (...) (24 years ago, 5-Dec-00, to lugnet.off-topic.debate)
|
Message is in Reply To:
| | 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)
|
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
|
|
|
|
