Subject:
|
Re: Problems with Christianity and Darwinism
|
Newsgroups:
|
lugnet.off-topic.debate
|
Date:
|
Fri, 19 Jan 2001 15:49:16 GMT
|
Viewed:
|
1332 times
|
| |
|
|
In lugnet.off-topic.debate, Dave Schuler writes:
> But do you really experience life in this fashion? Either doubting
> everything that you haven't perceived personally, or equating the acceptance
> of another's testimony with the kind of Faith necessary to believe in a
> supreme being?
I'm not sure exactly if you're asking this as an either/or question or
not... Really the answer is yes to both. If someone tells you the door is
locked, what's the first thing you do? Try to open the door. You don't take
it on faith. But if someone tells you something that you process mentally as
being plausible, and that someone is someone whom you deem trustworth based
on experience, you'll take it on faith. If your friend comes in and tells
you that his car broke down, don't you take that on faith? So really, it's
both... but the degree to which *I* do it may differ from the degree to
which someone else does it.
> The flaw in your chain of reasoning is that, since there is
> no way for me to verify your (or Bruce's, or Steve's) metaphysical
> experiment--no way, in short, to reproduce it to the satisfaction of my own
> senses--I would have to accept your testimony, if I choose to accept it, on
> Faith alone.
Exactly true. If your friend tells you that Bob died in the car accident,
and that some of his last words were "Tell Dave I'm sorry I don't have his
five bucks", then do you accept that on faith or not? Do you trust your
friend? Does that sound like the sort of thing Bob would say? Or do you
disbelieve your friend? Now, had you BEEN there, would you not believe it
moreso than having only heard it secondhand? It's really a grey part of
faith... how much faith are you willing to put into a certain conclusion
presented by a certain person in a certain manner?
> If Bruce claims that he's come up with revolutionary way of
> transmuting ice to water (to pose a hypothetical scientific "breakthrough"
> into uncharted teritory), I don't have to accept it on faith alone, since I
> can reproduce his hi-tech experiment given the proper tools. This is true
> whether the experiment is in quantum mechanics or auto mechanics.
And to clarify, we CAN suggest metaphysical experiments. I suggested one to
Steve earlier. Think about a someone who's crying. How do you feel about
that? Now think about someone who's laughing. How do you feel about that?
The experiment is unspecific and very hard to quantitatively measure, but it
IS an experiment. But the most dangerous part for a religious type in such
an experiment is its non-descript nature. If someone tries the same
experiement and gets a different result, what's the conclusion? Can't we
apply the scientific method? I would say yes. BUT, we've got to account for
error potential before we conclude anything by science. And because of the
lack of faith science has in the metaphysical experience (actually OUR lack
of faith in the metaphysical event), we argue that such an experiment is
inconclusive, almost no matter WHAT the outcome. On the other hand,
religious types will argue that their conclusion is still valid (which IS
based on THEIR PERSONAL experience), and that you simply mis-executed the
experiment. And sadly, they can't be more specific on how to perform it.
> The event
> itself doesn't preclude my understanding and reproduction of it. If it
> cannot be reproduced, then science cannot accept it; there is no faith
> involved whatsoever,
Very true. If the result cannot be reproduced (I.E. others try the
experiment and do not get the same result), then science will reject any
conclusions based on the initial result which do not take into account the
other results recieved (I.E. would contradict the other results). BUT, if
the experiment itself isn't replicable, do we take the result on faith? And
the answer is: kinda. We'll take it with a grain of salt, and almost always
precede it with "IF this is true", and the like. But the MOMENT that
something else would contradict it that IS replicable, we'll be quick to
disallow the initial result.
> especially, as Bruce pointed out, since one
> individual's perceptions are not the sole proving/disproving factor in such
> an experiment. A metaphysical experience such as you've elsewhere described
> is an inherently personal and non-reproducible (by others) event, so I can
> only accept it if:
>
> a) I have Faith that such a thing is possible
> b) I have Faith in your testimony of your own experience
Exactly. And I think we do that a lot with scientific theories because we DO
think they're possible and we DO trust the sources. If some famous MIT
professor conducted what he claimed to be a replicable experiment and
derived a new theory that sounded plausible based upon the results of the
experiment, do you, as a non-scientist, accept such? By the strict rules of
science, perhaps you shouldn't, because you don't *know* that it's
repeatable or that the same results would be found if it were repetead. But,
chances are, if you find the conclusion to make sense, and you trust the guy
(probably both are true), then you'll take it on faith.
> I'm intrigued and a little distressed that you seem to feel a need to force
> science into the role of a faith-driven religion, whereas science is in many
> ways the cure for faith. Acceptance of sensory data, while not ironclad, is
> based on associative experience--sensory datum A coincides with situation A,
> and so on.
It's more my desire to implicate scientific DATA as up for scrutiny, rather
than scientific method, which is, indeed, that which introduces an attempt
at doubt rather than faith, and is potentially different thereby from
religion. But mayhap we can better define religion this way? As the
exclusion of the scientific method? It all depends on how you define
religion, really, which, as I said, is something I've been trying to do
concretely without satisfaction.
DaveE
|
|
Message is in Reply To:
 | | Re: Problems with Christianity and Darwinism
|
| (...) But do you really experience life in this fashion? Either doubting everything that you haven't perceived personally, or equating the acceptance of another's testimony with the kind of Faith necessary to believe in a supreme being? The flaw in (...) (24 years ago, 19-Jan-01, to lugnet.off-topic.debate)
|
298 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
|
|
|
|
