bill@hpfcla.UUCP (10/08/85)
This is mainly written in response to Rich Rosen's repeated assertions that religion wants science stamped out (a paraphrase), and to clarify (hopefully) Rich's misunderstanding that my initial "attacks" on science are intended to discredit that discipline. First, religion vs. science: I guess I'm "religious" - I've come to hate that label. I'm a Christian, and I believe in a set of things that science has not validated. However, nothing in my belief system (and I adhere pretty much to what the Bible says) causes me to want science taken out of the way so that I no longer encounter hinderances in my faith. During my schooling while I was earning my BSEE, I was taught nothing that conflicted with my faith. Someone has already made the point that perhaps 97% of science can approach a certain degree of neutrality, simply because there are no opposing viewpoints (electrical theory, physics, sound/optics, mechanics, fluids, particle theory, and on and on...). However, there are small areas (compared to science as a whole) where my viewpoints differ with accepted scientific theories. This in no way constitutes a desire on my part to stamp out those portions of science with which I disagree, simply because those areas still remain theoretical. If there were cold, hard facts, I would be forced to re-evaluate my position. Therefore: I can't speak for "religion" in general. However, as far as Biblical Christianity goes, neither Christianity nor science has anything to fear from each other. It is perhaps an unfortunate result of various forms of anti-science teaching from the pulpit (or from misinformation) that has caused many Christians to "fear" or "hate" science for the sake of what it might do to their faith. In truth, there is nothing that science has PROVED (note the emphasis) to date that in any way impacts Biblical reliability. Nor is there any reason to refer to those people who deny "religion" as "logical", "thinking", "strong", "truth-seekers", etc., while those that believe in some form of "religion" are "weak", "wishful-thinkers", "easily- swayed", etc. Why? It would be ridiculous for me to believe that the sun revolves around the earth. It has been convincingly proven that this is not the case. It would also be ridiculous to believe that unicorns exist (somewhere other than the Ringling Bros Circus) because convincing proof has been offered to the contrary. However, to scoff at a belief in a supreme being because you adhere to science is bogus. Show me the proof of God's non-existence. If you rely only on proven facts, then you cannot say that science is on your side in your denial of God. There is no proof. Why is belief in God a "notion" or "wishful thinking", when as yet unproven scientific notions are called "theories"? Is it because you can't reproduce God in the laboratory? Just like you can't reproduce spontaneous generation of life in the laboratory under conditions that are anything close to those occuring naturally? Yet you believe in evolution. So, please don't be so condescending toward those of us who believe in some form of supreme being. Factually speaking, you've got no proof of your disbelief. My original postings on science, neutrality, fallibility, etc. were posted not to try to silence scientific inquiry or to discredit its value, but simply to point out that it often is as much a "walk of faith" as "religion". Please keep things in perspective. Bill Gates ihnp4!hpfcla!bill-g
rlr@pyuxd.UUCP (Rich Rosen) (10/18/85)
> This is mainly written in response to Rich Rosen's repeated assertions > that religion wants science stamped out (a paraphrase), and to clarify > (hopefully) Rich's misunderstanding that my initial "attacks" on science > are intended to discredit that discipline. > During my schooling while I was earning my BSEE, I > was taught nothing that conflicted with my faith. Someone has already made > the point that perhaps 97% of science can approach a certain degree > of neutrality, simply because there are no opposing viewpoints (electrical > theory, physics, sound/optics, mechanics, fluids, particle theory, and on > and on...). However, there are small areas (compared to science as a whole) > where my viewpoints differ with accepted scientific theories. This in no > way constitutes a desire on my part to stamp out those portions of science > with which I disagree, simply because those areas still remain theoretical. > If there were cold, hard facts, I would be forced to re-evaluate my position. Odd that you should fail to mention biology, which evolution is a part of. I think you are ignoring the broader perspective here. Had not science fought vigorously to prove its well founded points against the tyranny of the church who branded any heterodoxical thinking "heresy", you would not be in the position you are in today where you were able to learn all these things you now accept so readily. And it would seem in many cases that religious viewpoints are at odds with the scientific viewpoints (some of which you disagree with) for the very same reasons that the church clamped down on people like Galileo---the scientific viewpoints simply run counter to the axiomatic beliefs of religion. Of course, today, the church lacks the autocratic authority over our lives (thank... ?? :-) that it had in those days, so now all we are likely to hear is "well, that's just a theory", instead of a call to burn evolutionists at the stake. I guess they're saving that for the humanists. :-? I joke about that, but it's not really a subject to be joked about. As the floor under religious beliefs gives way when scientific discovery uncovers facts contrary to those beliefs, what is the reaction of religious believers? > I can't speak for "religion" in general. However, as far as Biblical > Christianity goes, neither Christianity nor science has anything to fear > from each other. It is perhaps an unfortunate result of various forms > of anti-science teaching from the pulpit (or from misinformation) that has > caused many Christians to "fear" or "hate" science for the sake of what it > might do to their faith. In truth, there is nothing that science has PROVED > (note the emphasis) to date that in any way impacts Biblical reliability. And I think we are seeing an example of the very thing I just spoke of. Just as the medieval church insisted that Galileo could not prove his theses, we hear exactly the same line echoed today. > Nor is there any reason to refer to those people who deny "religion" as > "logical", "thinking", "strong", "truth-seekers", etc., while those that > believe in some form of "religion" are "weak", "wishful-thinkers", "easily- > swayed", etc. Why? It would be ridiculous for me to believe that the sun > revolves around the earth. It has been convincingly proven that this is not > the case. It would also be ridiculous to believe that unicorns exist > (somewhere other than the Ringling Bros Circus) because convincing proof has > been offered to the contrary. However, to scoff at a belief in a supreme > being because you adhere to science is bogus. Show me the proof of God's > non-existence. If you rely only on proven facts, then you cannot say that > science is on your side in your denial of God. There is no proof. This whole paragraph is rife with contradictions. First, Bill accepts the notion that there are no unicorns because there has been convincing proof to the contrary. In fact, there can never be convincing proof that something doesn't exist. Unicorns may indeed exist on some undiscovered island of the lost where dinosaurs and missing links run free about which an extremely profitable movie could be made by Steven Spielberg. Yet you accept the much more reasonable notion, that unicorns are a myth, which you get by a (perhaps unconscious) application of good old Occam's Razor. In fact, religious believers are no weaker than any other people. And I don't think they are any more easily swayed than any others among us. It took years of being subjected to exposure to these beliefs that gets them to the point of being accepted as givens. Frankly, I just think those who understand scientific method and rationality have just been more fortunate in their being exposed to the chance to either learn such things directly or in their gaining an insight to allow them to learn such things. > Why is belief in God a "notion" or "wishful thinking", when as yet unproven > scientific notions are called "theories"? Because belief in god is a means of reaching conclusions about the world that you want, whereas scientific theories are models which posit explanations for un-understood phenomena. You still need clarification on the difference? Let me give an example. What about the claim that god represents an arbiter of absolute good/evil and ultimate justice? Can there ever be such a thing as "absolute good" in a world in which good is defined by perspective (good for me, good for humanitty at large...)? If you take good for humanity as a whole as a step towards a maximal absolute definition, where does that put the animals? Is it "good" that we eat them? Is it "good" to them? Can you just dismiss this issue by saying "well, they're just animals and don't know good and evil, but we do"? The fact remains that in a world with multiple perspectives there cannot be an absolute good/evil, and that belief in god is part of a convoluted desire to "get" absolute good/evil and justice by asserting that it exists, by stating it as an axiom just because you want it to be so. > Is it because you can't reproduce > God in the laboratory? Just like you can't reproduce spontaneous generation > of life in the laboratory under conditions that are anything close to those > occuring naturally? Yet you believe in evolution. Indeed. "Nature" has had a whole planet (nay, a whole universe) and billions of years. We've got a few laboratories experimenting for less than a hundred years. Yet evolution is a valid explanation for what goes on in organisms as they reproduce over time. You simply want to "not believe" this because it interferes with your presuppositions. > So, please don't be so condescending toward those of us who believe in some > form of supreme being. Factually speaking, you've got no proof of your > disbelief. My original postings on science, neutrality, fallibility, etc. > were posted not to try to silence scientific inquiry or to discredit its > value, but simply to point out that it often is as much a "walk of faith" > as "religion". Please keep things in perspective. But the fact remains that it most certainly is not just as much a "walk of faith". Reduce all our beliefs to the common denominator, and you get to the existence of an outward reality and the existence of sensory inputs that reflect that reality, subject to possible misinterpretation by the brain due to distortion, preconception, etc. If you don't believe in that, then you wouldn't (shouldn't?) be using a terminal. Or a car. Or reading the Bible. (Who knows if that's real or an illusion produced by the damager god? :-) And evidence has shown the reliability of those notions when subjected to careful scrutiny called the scientific method. Whereas the notions you have come up with are nothing but presumption about things you WISH were so. -- "There! I've run rings 'round you logically!" "Oh, intercourse the penguin!" Rich Rosen ihnp4!pyuxd!rlr