Subject:
|
Re: Religion and Science
|
Newsgroups:
|
lugnet.off-topic.debate
|
Date:
|
Tue, 5 Dec 2000 01:06:40 GMT
|
Viewed:
|
685 times
|
| |
|
|
In lugnet.off-topic.debate, Dave Schuler writes:
> In lugnet.off-topic.debate, Jon Kozan writes:
> 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.
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.
> > > 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.
I'm surrounded at work by scientists. Without him saying otherwise I'd
never deduct that Jon is a scientist - he seems to not understand the
purpose of science at all. He simultaneously wants to use science to prove
God, and then turns around and denigrates it when the conclusions don't
support him.
> > (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.
Again, I don't know why you have to explain this to a scientist. It's
perplexing.
> 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.
Indeed, if you could prove God exists, there wouldn't be a need for "faith".
Anyway, I just wanted to note that I have found your statements enlightened
and reasonable, with a great deal of understanding for all aspects of this
debate.
Bruce
|
|
Message has 1 Reply:
 | | Re: Religion and Science
|
| (...) And yet, Bruce, if I said to you "there is a God who exists as revealed by Jesus of Nazareth", what would be your first response? Maybe you'd say, "that's nice for you, now run along and play" (oops, that's what *Lar* would say). But what if (...) (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
|
|
|
|
