Subject:
|
Re: Problems with Christianity and Darwinism
|
Newsgroups:
|
lugnet.off-topic.debate
|
Date:
|
Mon, 22 Jan 2001 18:18:50 GMT
|
Viewed:
|
1626 times
|
| |
|
|
In lugnet.off-topic.debate, Bruce Schlickbernd writes:
> > Ah, but you do... can you PROVE that any of your senses will always be
> > consistant? I don't think so, at least. But you develop a trust-- a faith--
> > in your physical senses. You come to believe them, because they've been
> > consistant in the past. But can you PROVE that:
> > ...
> > A. they will ALWAYS be so
>
> Clearly I can't. :-)
>
> > B. that other 'inconsistant' senses aren't really being consistant in a way
> > you can't see?
>
> Or inconsistent in a way I can't see. Yes to both.
Wait, just got confused for a sec-- yes what? Yes you can prove both A & B?
(I assume no) Yes you can prove that metaphysical senses AREN'T being
consistant, AND that metaphysical senses are inconsistent in ways you can't
see? Or yes you can prove that metaphysical senses aren't being consistant,
and physical senses are being inconsistant in ways you can't see? Or were
you just agreeing with me that I don't think those things can be proven?
> > Hence, who's to say in the theoretical world that one sense is NECESSARILY
> > better than anther?
>
> Since we are speaking of a non-theoretical world, I'm not sure what this has
> to do with it.
Entirely agree.
> Science just explains it and hopefully can define the rules that produce the
> results.
And so does religion (I think). The only difference being that in my
experience (and most people's, I think), the data that founds religious
beliefs isn't nearly as solid. And also, religions have the aspect of being
difficult to disprove, hence many of them remain rigid to their history
despite 'new' or varying evidence. And that's really when the inconsistancy
in the metaphysical event shows it's ability to uproot anything founded upon it.
> Then they stopped applying the logical process and have opened themselves to
> error (and yes, I noted that they are human and do just that on occasion -
> which is one of the reasons why scientists seek to duplicate work rather
> than accept it on faith). You once again made the assumption that somehow,
> somewhere along the chain, the scientists stop applying the logical process.
Not necessarily. One big thing I'm getting at here isn't that science is
wrong, but that many people tote around science as being necessarily right.
Science in and of itself has NEVER (nor will) 'proven' ANYTHING. It's only
showed that which is probable. And it's shown so to an amazing degree-- so
amazing that we take it for granted. Science IS fallable. And as long as we
acknowledge that fallibility, I won't argue. If you want to say that
evolution is 99% probable, that's fine. If you want to say evolution is 100%
right, or that creationism is 100% WRONG, then I'll tell you that YOU'RE wrong.
And the same thing goes for religion. If religions go around saying that
they're necessarily RIGHT, then I'll tell them that they're necessarily
WRONG to say so (odd how that works, I guess). And as long as they
acknowledge the possibility for error, I have no quarrel with them.
> > > I've addressed this continuously and you keep ignoring what I have said and
> > > restating the exact same thing over and over. You are simply playing a
> > > semantic game with the word "faith".
> > > ...
> > > Science=faith. Religion=faith. Therefore science=religion. And you just
> > > denied that that's what you were saying in another message. A specious
> > > conclusion based on two different applications of the word "faith" and
> > > hoping since the word is the same, no one notices the word as applied isn't
> > > the same.
>
> Why leave this in and cut out your own comments where you essentially draw
> the conclusion I note above (science=faith, etc)? Note that the comments
> above (two different applications of "faith") apply to your comments below.
?
Bottom line on faith-
You have faith that your physical perceptions are more reliable than your
metaphysical ones. Why? Because you've seen evidence to believe so. And you
have faith in your ability to reason logically. Faith in the fact that you
think that if there WERE consistancies in the metaphysical or that there
WERE INconsistancies in the physical, that you'd remember them, notice them,
whatever. And really, here's the semantics we're discussing. I don't care if
I call it 'faith' or 'trust' or whatever. I'm trying to get across the idea
that the basis for which we decide to interpret physical vs. metaphysical
events is fundamentally similar for religion and science. The difference
being that in all my experience, people have preferred the physical as
opposed to the metaphysical when it comes right down to it. And while they
might still appreciate the metaphysical AS MUCH AS the physical, I've never
seen it to the extent that people value their metaphysical senses over their
physical ones. So to me, the physical-- that which leads to 'science' as we
know it via the scientific method-- is *perhaps*, but *not* necessarily, the
best choice to make for all humans.
Hence- are you right to assume that I'm saying that science==religion? Well,
yes-- that's why I haven't disagreed with you any time I've tried to clarify
the position. BUT, at the same time, I'll propose that because I think that
for all humans the physical is preferable, that science>=religion-- wherein
I really *WANT* to say that science>religion, but force myself because I
can't prove otherwise, to allow for the possibility that the two are equal.
And note that I don't say science>=<religion, either...
> > > And sure enough, you went right back to the semantic game. Sigh.
> >
> > Oh? I've disclosed the definition of 'faith' I'm using (after the clear
> > misunderstanding), and you've done the same. Hence, you should know what I
> > mean when I say it, and I should know what you mean when you say it, yes? Or
> > do you think one of us is more right than the other?
> >
> > DaveE
>
> Because you went right back to the science=faith, blah, blah, blah claim.
> You are trying to equate "faith" based on logical proof as the same "faith"
> as religious faith that doesn't require such. You are drawing conclusions I
> don't agree with. It remains a semantic game.
Of course I'm not sure, but I think you're playing a greater semantic game
than I. I'm not really trying to say 'faith' per se-- In such a respect
language in general and specifically with respect to the metaphysical ideals
we're discussing (philosophy in general), is rather inadequately defined.
Again, we all define things our own way because our metaphysical experiences
have differed, no? Hence, I'm trying to communicate the idea, not the exact
wording... See above...
Wow, I almost get the sense that we're (you and I, not me & Steve, etc
reaching the point where we'll agree to disagree (or maybe even agree?
Depends on the semantics, I guess)... huh... rather faster than I thought,
unless I'm mistaken :)
DaveE
|
|
Message has 1 Reply:
 | | Re: Problems with Christianity and Darwinism
|
| (...) My brain hurts just reading that! :-) I was agreeing with you. (...) Both seek to explain the world around us, but approach it at different levels. Ultimately, one is taken as a matter of faith, the other isn't. (...) That is correct. Well, (...) (23 years ago, 22-Jan-01, to lugnet.off-topic.debate)
|
Message is in Reply To:
| | Re: Problems with Christianity and Darwinism
|
| (...) Heck no! My right eye is slightly red shifted and my left eye sees slightly green shifted (relative to each other). Further, the effect is more pronounced when I wake up sometimes. (...) Clearly I can't. :-) (...) Or inconsistent in a way I (...) (23 years ago, 22-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
This Message and its Replies on One Page:
- Nested:
All | Brief | Compact | Dots
Linear:
All | Brief | Compact
|
|
|
|
