Subject:
|
Re: Critical Thinking
|
Newsgroups:
|
lugnet.off-topic.debate
|
Date:
|
Tue, 5 Dec 2000 12:17:24 GMT
|
Viewed:
|
818 times
|
| |
|
|
In lugnet.off-topic.debate, John Neal writes:
>
>
> Larry Pieniazek wrote:
>
> > I politely decline unless you use metrics of my choosing.
>
> Okay, here is my point (again). If I turned water in wine right in front of
> your eyes, what I am hearing you say is that you wouldn't believe it to be a
> miracle. First, you'd try to explain it rationally. When you couldn't
> (because there would be no rational explanation), you would finally assert that
> there is a rational explanation, you just don't know it yet, and leave the
> whole matter. You are not able to admit that a miracle is a possibility. What
> possible cause would you have to not consider that option? Because it doesn't
> fit into the scientific method. But please tell me why that if something can't
> be explained by science, it doesn't exist. That is just illogical. Especially
> since science will never ever be able to explain the very first occurrence in
> the universe!
In a way, it's because time itself doesn't really exist
"at the beginning." All the rules are off before, I believe,
the first microsecond after the bang or poof or whatever--
our understanding of things Science can only take us so far,
because of our nature as 3-D beings.
However, the atheist's statement in response to your case
would be probably similar to your statement if an atheist
came up with proof that God does not exist. You'd respond
that it's not possible--the hypothetical is bankrupt because
it could never happen. However, even if you did turn water
to wine in some scientifically inexplicable way, and we
chose to label it a "miracle," who's to say it's a divine
doing by the God you ascribe it to? Maybe it's Ganesh...or
Dionysus. ;) Another infuriating thing about Science--
even with Occam around, the avenues of possible attribution
multiply--it's not a zero-sum game.
And, of course, you must use the scientific method to come
to the conclusion that it's a miracle. ;) The method has
truly pervaded all levels of Western society!
> Please don't get me wrong. I think science is swell. It just isn't very
> useful when talking about religion. So why insist upon using a metric which is
> so poorly suited to evaluate the subject?
I can see both sides of this, so I'm going to try (however badly)
to explain. There's an act of faith involved in putting a null
value in the 'God' slot--or even an asterisk with the note "Blind
Watchmaker." It's a faith that the proven advance of science (or
Science?) will continue, that the inexplicable will not remain so,
and that recurring, predictable (at least theoretically, or in
hindsight for those meteorological oopses) behaviour of the natural
world shall continue to be. That's what all science is founded
upon--especially natural science--and it's proven reliable time
and time again, as the very existence of this forum is proof. It's
also self-correcting when proven wrong, which religious faith would
have an *exceedingly* hard time matching.
Nonetheless, totalizing rationality to include theology is an act of
faith as long as there are still dark or grey areas on the map of
knowledge. Again, not a zero-sum act of faith--it's based upon
the extension of a system proven to work every time we flip a light
switch, turn the key in our ignition, or post to LUGnet. Some
have made another choice with their faith, based on evidence that
they feel for one reason or another to drag those greys in another
direction, towards a truth that appears more compelling. (Some
even contest the areas that aren't grey anymore--but that's
another .debate, and even some of the more religous souls bristle
at it.)
YMMV, naturally. I fall into the "rationalist" camp, after long
study and searching, but I feel that those who take other avenues
of faith are simply taking in a different rational calculus. Religion
can't follow "irrational logic," which is quite an oxymoron to beat all!
And one can surely .debate whether the existence of religion *at all*
is rational, but whether or not it was long ago, its practitioners today
rely heavily on logic (see the counterfactual above and in various
points in this eternal .debate to spot the use of logic to make
theological points). It's only the *basis* of reason that's different.
> > And when you come round and *demand* that I believe (and there are laws
> > influenced by believers a lot worse than wednesday closings) I shoot back.
>
> No idea where you are here-- please signal all turns.
Thank you, drive through? Would you like fries with that?
(Practice for the budding historian...)
best
LFB
|
|
Message is in Reply To:
 | | Re: Critical Thinking
|
| (...) It is you, sir, who hasn't been listening. (...) NEVER ASKED YOU TO BELIEVE ONCE. Go back and check. (...) Okay, here is my point (again). If I turned water in wine right in front of your eyes, what I am hearing you say is that you wouldn't (...) (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
|
|
|
|
