Subject:
|
Re: Problems with Christianity and Darwinism
|
Newsgroups:
|
lugnet.off-topic.debate
|
Date:
|
Mon, 22 Jan 2001 19:35:44 GMT
|
Viewed:
|
1926 times
|
| |
|
|
In lugnet.off-topic.debate, David Eaton writes:
> 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?
My brain hurts just reading that! :-)
I was agreeing with you.
> > > 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.
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.
>
> > 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.
That is correct. Well, maybe mathematical proofs.
> And it's shown so to an amazing degree-- so
> amazing that we take it for granted.
This is true, but you are making the error of thinking science is supposed
to take itself 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.
99.9999999999999999999999999999999999999999(keep adding nines for a long
time) proven. Then proceed on the odds.
>
> 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.
Generally, they don't admit that possiblity. They don't have to - just so
long as they don't try to inflict their religious beliefs in a science course.
>
> > > > 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.
No, I don't have faith in my physical perceptions, only so far as they can
be tested.
> Why? Because you've seen evidence to believe so.
That's evidence, not faith.
> And you
> have faith in your ability to reason logically.
No. Only so far as I can test it.
> 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.
If you are going to say science=trust, religion=trust, therefore
science=religion, I'm going to disagree. Science is based on lack of
faith/trust/whatever-word-you-wish-to-call-it.
> 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.
Found it through experimentation and test to be more reliable, demonstrable,
and repeatable to others.
> 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.
Science will go for that if it can be proven (please note that this is
proven as we know it at the moment, not 100% this is fixed in stone
throughout eternity).
>
> 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...
Science=/=religion.
> 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...
And I'm trying to communicate that the idea is wrong. Regardless of the
word you wish to plug into the formula: science=X, religion=X, therefore
religion=science; it's wrong.
>
> 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
Yup, we just gotta disagree. But you were fun to read! :-)
Bruce
|
|
Message has 1 Reply:
 | | Re: Problems with Christianity and Darwinism
|
| (...) Ok, phew! (...) Ah. Maybe this is the semantic that we've been missing. I'm dealing with religion in the theoretical sense. In my mind, I'm referring to what religion COULD be, not necessarily what it IS. My implication is that IF one judged (...) (24 years ago, 22-Jan-01, to lugnet.off-topic.debate)
|
Message is in Reply To:
| | Re: Problems with Christianity and Darwinism
|
| (...) 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 (...) (24 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
|
|
|
|
