crummer%AEROSPACE@sri-unix.UUCP (05/24/84)
From: Charlie Crummer <crummer@AEROSPACE> I agree. I have never seen a "proof" of the existence of God that compels me. I had the same reaction to the "first cause" argument that you did. I see no threat in the provable; I have a feeling that if the provable is said to form a subspace, then religious faith covers the spaces orthogonal to it. (If you'll allow a little geometric metaphor.) --Charlie
gpark@DDN1.ARPA (05/25/84)
Your geometric metaphor is a good one. Of course, it is also necessary to ask what is provable, to what degree or level is it provable, and what assumptions have been accepted axiomatically as a basis for the proof. There is a level at which one could argue that nothing is provable, i.e., the level at which one rejects all assumptions and demands hard evidence for all premises. However, that is not a profitable line of reasoning since it rejects the very basis of our ability to comprehend the stimuli by which we measure our surroundings. "I think, therefore I am" is a good statement, but it is an unprovable assumption that my interpretation of the stimuli I receive from my environment is rational. According to an Oriental proverb, "Am I a man dreaming that I am a butterfly, or am I a butterfly dreaming that I am a man?" The asylums are filled with those whose perceptions of reality differ from the commonly accepted. The point, of course, is that even the most hard-nosed empiricist must begin by accepting some things axiomatically, i.e., on faith. There is a fundamental set of such axioms without which crumbles the entire logical structure on which we base our understanding of nature. I suppose we could refer to fully provable facts as those whose proofs contain only these assumptions and none other. Beyond these lie various theories which are accepted to a greater or lesser degree because they are useful in describing evidence in a consistent manner, but which contain assumptions in addition to the fundamental set discussed above. Of course there a theories and there are theories. Some contain many assumptions and some contain few. In recognition of this, I believe it is standard practice to accept a theory until a better one comes along, i.e., one with fewer known assumptions or a more consistent interpretation of known facts. I contend that religious beliefs should also fit in this category, i.e., the best belief being the one which most consistently describes or interprets known facts. I do not consider the so called classical proofs for the existence of God to contribute anything useful to such an analysis. However, I do think the historical evidence available is sufficient to justify a considerable belief system. That belief system may be wrong just as a scientific theory may be wrong. I don't know many people today who believe in Zeus, nor many who believe in ether (unless your physics textbook is pretty old). Where science and religion get into trouble is when the proponents of either or both start forgetting the assumptions and often incomplete evidence underlying their theory or faith. It is at that point that theory may become dogma and faith often becomes fanaticism. Summary: Scientific theory and religious faith are not incompatable. Science dogmatists and religious fanatics usually are, and neither are a great credit to their calling. Glynn Parker