arndt@lymph.DEC (04/13/85)
This was posted to net.origins as a reply to some points made by a person.
I thought perhaps some of the dialog might be of interest in these nets
as well:
(Other person)
o "The scientific method requires that all ideas and theories be tested and
tried."
(Ken Arndt)
*** ALL rational thought (as theology - the bible - is) is required
to be tested and tried. The law of noncontradiction, eh? Otherwise it's
just sound! Arf! Arf! You know?
(Other person)
o "Another requirement for a scientific method is that all preconceived
notions must be removed."
(Ken Arndt)
**** Wrong, Wrong! Don't look now (later than 1700) but there IS NO
WAY to remove ALL, that's ALL preconcieved notions!!!! Rational thought,
science itself, math, etc, etc. is based upon 'notions' about 'reality'!!
Feynman's quote, given by Lew, about physics being a 'model', a WAY of
looking at 'reality', etc. etc. There is no non preconceived place to
stand - no absolutes from which to start thinking about the 'reality'.
(other person)
o "In otherwords, the true scientist must be truly objective -- this is
extremely difficult."
(Ken Arndt)
*** Sorry. It appears to be IMPOSSIBLE!!!! Objectivity is a
construct of our imagination. Another model.
Your starting point seems to be God. "I believe in the all powerful God of
the bible . . ." Well, yes I know that's where many Christians DO start.
I think that they may be wrong in EXPLAINING their starting point if right
in their conclusions. May I refer you to TESTING CHRISTIANITY'S
TRUTH CLAIMS: APPROACHES TO CHRISTIAN APOLOGETICS, Gordon R. Lewis ed.,
Moody Press, '76.
In particular the sections on the approach of Edward Carnell, p176ff. and
the section on Francis Schaefer.
ONE HAS TO BE VERY VERY CAREFUL JUST WHAT ONE MEANS WHEN ONE SAYS "I START
WITH GOD". Therefore I ask you to clear this up for us.
Let me tell you what I mean in the words of this book about Carnell.
"Carnell cannot agree . . . that the logical starting point is a direct
experience of God." "If experience of God is really self-authenticating
and beyond rational examination, theology as an informative discipline
is impossible."
"Analogously Carnell has a place in his approach for empirical evidence,
but perception of the physical world is not his starting point. The
attempt to come to the world with a blank mind to nature does not end in
knowledge, but skepticism. " . . . the best a pure empiricist can do is
to describe a series of disjointed impressions. No universal or necessary
laws can be derived from nature."
"Rational empiricism also fails to show God's existence." "Granting
causality, all one needs to explain a finite universe is a finite God."
"If the cause of the universe is greater than the evidence indicates,
however, empiricists have no way of knowing it." (Rich Rosen take notice,
a point he has made many times!)
"THE STARTING POINTS OF PERSONAL TESTIMONY, SENSE DATA, AND RATIONAL PRINCIPLES
ALL FALL SHORT OF ABILITY TO CONFIRM OR DISCONFIRM TRUTHCLAIMS ABOUT ONE
INFINITE, WISE, AND LOVING GOD." (Italics mine)
So where to start?????
Carnell says, "The logical starting point is the coordinating ultimate which
gives being and meaning to the many of the time-space universe. For Thales
it was water; or Anaximines it was air, for Plato it was the Good; and for
the Christian it is the Trinity." AN INTRODUCTION TO APOLOGETICS, Eerdmans,
'48, p49-50;74-82.
This is the old problem of the 'one and the many'. That is, philosophers who
explained everything from one thing had difficulty accounting for diverse
character of the universe - and the old conundrum of what/who made God?
Those who started with many - atoms, etc - had difficulty accounting for
the unity of the universe. The Christian answer to the unity and the
diversity of the world is a God who exists as three persons in one essence!!
THE ULTIMATE EXPLANATION OF ALL THINGS IS ITSELF A MULTIPLICITY IN UNITY!!
The Trinity is a HYPOTHESIS used as a starting point!!!!
A second HYPOTHESIS is that this triune God has revealed himself in the
bible.
See the difference of this from just saying I assume the 'fact' of God,
even the God of the bible???
Now watch carefully. Hypothesis are 'true' only when 'verified' as not
contradictory and as adequate to account for all revelant data of
experience. That is a far cry from starting from 'exerience' and the
'fact' of God's existence, etc.
Someone like Van Til permitted no testing of his presupposition (of God)
by logic or experience.
And now the capstone!!! Carnell (my hero!) says; "All hypotheses are but
patterns of meaning which are thought out by the mind of the investigator
to explain the configuration of data which it faces. The hypotheses that
work well are called 'theories',and theories that stick are called 'laws'.
But let us not forget that these laws are but good hypotheses."
Is this not what science, and ALL thought is about. Ergo, what IS the
difference between a scientific and a 'religious' theory??? To put my
old question again.
But there is so much more in Carnell's book and the other book I reference
above. Look it up.
Warm regards,
Ken Arndt
polard@fortune.UUCP (Henry Polard) (04/18/85)
In article <1655@decwrl.UUCP> arndt@lymph.DEC writes: > >Is this not what science, and ALL thought is about. Ergo, what IS the >difference between a scientific and a 'religious' theory??? To put my >old question again. > It seems to me that the fundamental differences between "religious" and "scientific" theories is that religious theories attempt to deal with "private" experiences (people's inner relationships to the universe), whereas scientific theories attempt to deal with "public" experiences ("external" sense perceptions). If this hunch is correct, it may explain why religious and scientific theories are often in bitter conflict. -- Henry Polard (You bring the flames - I'll bring the marshmallows.) {ihnp4,cbosgd,amd}!fortune!polard N.B: The words in this posting do not necessarily express the opinions of me, my employer, or any AI project.
edhall@randvax.UUCP (Ed Hall) (04/21/85)
Einstein said that a ``Religious person is devout in the sense that he has no doubt of the signifigance of those supernatural objects and goals which neither require nor are capable of rational foundation.'' Accordingly, ``A legitimate conflict between science and religion cannot exist....Science without religion is lame, religion without science is blind.'' [Quote from `` `Subtle is the Lord...' The Science And The Life Of Albert Einstein'' by Abraham Pais.] Think about it. Conflicts between science and religion exist only because attempts are made to apply concepts from one domain upon the other. -Ed Hall decvax!randvax!edhall
mms1646@acf4.UUCP (Michael M. Sykora) (05/11/85)
How do you know?
bill@hpfcms.UUCP (bill) (05/12/85)
>It seems to me that the fundamental differences between "religious" >and "scientific" theories is that religious theories attempt to deal with >"private" experiences (people's inner relationships to the universe), >whereas scientific theories attempt to deal with "public" experiences >("external" sense perceptions). If this hunch is correct, it may explain why >religious and scientific theories are often in bitter conflict. Being a Christian, I thought I'd contribute my point of view on this. Christianity does not stop with personal experiences or feelings. It certainly encompasses this, but it goes further. Biblical Christianity (as opposed to that form which is based upon the Bible, supplemental "experiences", and the like) addresses all of life - personal experiences, feelings, your relationship with God, and your physical interaction with the world around you. There is absolutely no way that a Christian can believe in God without that belief permeating all that is associated with the person. The bitter conflicts occur for one simple reason. Science attempts to explain things via concrete, understandable, conceivable, and believable means. Christianity recognizes such things, but is not afraid (or ashamed) to attribute things to powers that are above, beyond, and not capable of being understood by, us. Science, by its very nature, refutes the existence of a God, or, at the very least, limits His power to the provable and understandable. Examples: Man is ultimately responsible for his own fate. vs. God is ultimately responsible for everything's fate, including man's. Man evolved from other, lower life forms. vs. God created man, just as he created all other life forms. How can there help but be bitter conflicts? Scientific theories such as these (remember, they're just hypotheses) directly oppose what we as Christians read to be true in the Word of God - the Bible. One last point. This notestring has been discussing how all laws and other absolute truths are but good hypotheses. Thus, nothing is absolute - it just hasn't been contradicted yet. Well, in a Christian's life, there ARE absolute truths. Since basic beliefs state that the Bible is the Word of God, what's written there must be absolutely true, having been written by the only One who knows it all! Thus, if we really believe, we have to stick by what's written in the Bible over what Science has decided to be true, because man is the origin of one, and God is the origin of the other. Just another point of view. Bill Gates hpfcla!bill-g
friesen@psivax.UUCP (Stanley Friesen) (05/13/85)
In article <45200003@hpfcms.UUCP> bill@hpfcms.UUCP (bill) writes: > >Being a Christian, I thought I'd contribute my point of view on this. > Being a Christian myself, I think I will add my comments, before someone assumes Bill talks for all Christians. >Christianity does not stop with personal experiences or feelings. It >certainly encompasses this, but it goes further. Biblical Christianity >(as opposed to that form which is based upon the Bible, supplemental >"experiences", and the like) addresses all of life - personal experiences, >feelings, your relationship with God, and your physical interaction with >the world around you. There is absolutely no way that a Christian can >believe in God without that belief permeating all that is associated with >the person. O.K, I agree so far. > >The bitter conflicts occur for one simple reason. Science attempts to >explain things via concrete, understandable, conceivable, and believable >means. Christianity recognizes such things, but is not afraid (or ashamed) >to attribute things to powers that are above, beyond, and not capable of >being understood by, us. Science, by its very nature, refutes the >existence of a God, or, at the very least, limits His power to the >provable and understandable. Examples: > Now I disagree, science and Christianity(or at least the Bible) address different sets of questions. The Bible is concerned with the relationships of man to man and man to God. Science is concerned with the causes of events *within* the structure of the Universe. Science does not refute the existence of God, it merely says that since He is outside the structure of the Universe, He is not a matter to be considered by science. That is science simply has nothing to say on the issue. > Man is ultimately responsible for his own fate. > vs. > God is ultimately responsible for everything's fate, including man's. > Even within Christianity there is this thing called free-will, which I consider equivilant to being responsible(at least in part) for my own fate. Remember also that science only deals with the Universe, and within that framework we *do* determine our own fate. > Man evolved from other, lower life forms. > vs. > God created man, just as he created all other life forms. > Again, not a real conflict. The first statement is a statement of a *process*, like the statement "Cars are made on assembly lines", that is it is a scientific statement. The second statement is a statement of a relationship, like "Ford Motors makes cars". Thus they are talking about different things and can *both* be true, just like both statements about cars are true. >How can there help but be bitter conflicts? Scientific theories such as >these (remember, they're just hypotheses) directly oppose what we as >Christians read to be true in the Word of God - the Bible. > No they don't, science and the Bible are not even talking about the same things, so the statements are not even comparible! The Bible should be read as what it is, a book about the relationships of man to his creator written in simple, colloquial language so that all may understand. It is *not* a science text, if it attempted to be scientifically accurate at all points it would be entirely incomprehensible to everyone, but especially to the pre-scientific cultures to which it was originally written. >One last point. This notestring has been discussing how all laws and >other absolute truths are but good hypotheses. Thus, nothing is absolute - >it just hasn't been contradicted yet. Well, in a Christian's life, there >ARE absolute truths. Since basic beliefs state that the Bible is the >Word of God, what's written there must be absolutely true, having been >written by the only One who knows it all! > But He had to write it so we could understand it! Also He didn't write it, He merely inspired the various authors to write it, each in thier own idiom and style. -- Sarima (Stanley Friesen) {trwrb|allegra|cbosgd|hplabs|ihnp4|aero!uscvax!akgua}!sdcrdcf!psivax!friesen or {ttdica|quad1|bellcore|scgvaxd}!psivax!friesen
savage@ssc-vax.UUCP (Lowell Savage) (05/14/85)
> >It seems to me that the fundamental differences between "religious" > >and "scientific" theories is that religious theories attempt to deal with > >"private" experiences (people's inner relationships to the universe), > >whereas scientific theories attempt to deal with "public" experiences > >("external" sense perceptions). If this hunch is correct, it may explain why > >religious and scientific theories are often in bitter conflict. > > Being a Christian, I thought I'd contribute my point of view on this. > > How can there help but be bitter conflicts? Scientific theories such as > these (remember, they're just hypotheses) directly oppose what we as > Christians read to be true in the Word of God - the Bible. I think I'll make a stab at clarifying the difference between religion and science. Religion is the study of God (or gods or lack of same) while science assumes that a supernatural being does not exist (or at least no longer "interferes" with the activity that takes place in the universe). Thus, from a scientific point of view, the only way to prove the existence of a God would be to observe inconsistencies in nature that are impossible to explain without negating that basic premise (i.e., assume that a super- natural being does exist). The trouble with this is that scientists are more likely to assume that an explanation exists but that they just aren't "smart" enough to figure it out yet. Remember, this is what has led to many of the great scientific theories which in turn have led to even greater discoveries. So, for science to work, it MUST "act" atheistically, even if its practitioners are theists. The upshot of all this is that any "scientific" evaluation of religious claims is pure E.S. (Elephant you-know-what) since science assumes that nothing exists outside of "nature" to begin with. Flame me--please! I like to see people shovel manure! There's more than one way to be savage. Lowell Savage
polard@fortune.UUCP (Henry Polard) (05/21/85)
In article <734@ssc-vax.UUCP> version B 2.10.2 9/18/84; site fortune.UUCP version B 2.10.2 9/5/84; site ssc-vax.UUCP fortune!hpda!hplabs!tektronix!uw-beaver!ssc-vax!savage savage@ssc-vax.UUCP (Lowell Savage) writes: > >I think I'll make a stab at clarifying the difference between religion and >science. Religion is the study of God (or gods or lack of same) while >science assumes that a supernatural being does not exist (or at least no >longer "interferes" with the activity that takes place in the universe). >Thus, from a scientific point of view, the only way to prove the existence >of a God would be to observe inconsistencies in nature that are impossible >to explain without negating that basic premise (i.e., assume that a super- >natural being does exist). Would you please tell us how you come to the conclusion that science ASSUMES that a supernatural being does not exist? My understanding is that that the existence of (a) supernatural being(s) has not been proved scientifically. This is quite different from claiming that they/she/he/it does not exist. There are THREE, not TWO scientific possibilities that apply to the existence of entities: (1)entity X exists (2)it does not exist (3)we can't scientifically prove either (1) or (2) and therefore the question is still open. The essential difference between science and religion is that the former is open to changing its conclusions, whereas most religions are not. If God appeared personally in all His glory for all to see, I think scientists would admit to the existence of God. -- Henry Polard (You bring the flames - I'll bring the marshmallows.) {ihnp4,cbosgd,amd}!fortune!polard N.B: The words in this posting do not necessarily express the opinions of me, my employer, or any AI project.
polard@fortune.UUCP (Henry Polard) (05/21/85)
In article <734@ssc-vax.UUCP> savage@ssc-vax.UUCP (Lowell Savage) writes: >Religion is the study of God (or gods or lack of same) while >science assumes that a supernatural being does not exist (or at least no >longer "interferes" with the activity that takes place in the universe). >Thus, from a scientific point of view, the only way to prove the existence >of a God would be to observe inconsistencies in nature that are impossible >to explain without negating that basic premise (i.e., assume that a super- >natural being does exist). There is an additional way to prove the existence of (a) God(s) - demonstration. If God were to appear personally in all His glory for everyone to see, that would certainly be proof of His existence. The fact that it hasn't happened recently tends to cloud the issue. -- Henry Polard (You bring the flames - I'll bring the marshmallows.) {ihnp4,cbosgd,amd}!fortune!polard N.B: The words in this posting do not necessarily express the opinions of me, my employer, or any AI project.
savage@ssc-vax.UUCP (Lowell Savage) (05/23/85)
Henry Polard writes: > There is an additional way to prove the existence of (a) God(s) - > demonstration. If God were to appear personally in all His glory > for everyone to see, that would certainly be proof of His existence. > The fact that it hasn't happened recently tends to cloud the issue. The trouble with such a thing occurring is that the phenomena of the God's (or god's) appearance would have to be explained by science as something occurring within the universe. In other words: "powerful, previously unknown entity 'reveals' self to a group of men with accompanying marvelous works. Entity claims to be 'God' (whatever that means). Scientists now say 'There exists a powerful, previously unknown entity which is capable of marvelous works and which claims to be God (whatever that means).' We still don't know whether the powerful entity is part of nature or not. If it is part of nature, then it is not God. If it is not a part of nature, we still don't know whether it is God since a God could have made nature and some other things as well. The main premise in this argument is that God (if such an entity exists) is the creator of the universe and of nature (perhaps that statement is redundant, perhaps not). I still stand by my statement, (which I have revised hoping for more clarity), "Science is incapable of investigating claims of beings outside of 'nature'. God is an entity which, in existence, must be outside of 'nature'. Therefore, the existence of God is scientifically unknowable." I hope you enjoyed your marshmellows, Henry. I'm going down to my local supermarket to get some for myself so that I can more fully enjoy your reply. There's more than one way to be savage. Lowell C. Savage (uw-beaver!ssc-vax!savage)
rlr@pyuxd.UUCP (Arthur Pewtey) (05/23/85)
> The trouble with such a thing occurring is that the phenomena of the > God's (or god's) appearance would have to be explained by science as > something occurring within the universe. In other words: "powerful, > previously unknown entity 'reveals' self to a group of men with > accompanying marvelous works. Entity claims to be 'God' (whatever > that means). Scientists now say 'There exists a powerful, previously > unknown entity which is capable of marvelous works and which claims > to be God (whatever that means).' We still don't know whether the > powerful entity is part of nature or not. If it is part of nature, > then it is not God. If it is not a part of nature, we still don't > know whether it is God since a God could have made nature and some > other things as well. > The main premise in this argument is that God (if such an entity > exists) is the creator of the universe and of nature (perhaps > that statement is redundant, perhaps not). > I still stand by my statement, (which I have revised hoping for more > clarity), "Science is incapable of investigating claims of beings > outside of 'nature'. God is an entity which, in existence, must be > outside of 'nature'. Therefore, the existence of God is scientifically > unknowable." Depends how you define "nature". If you use an arbitrary, anthropocentric definition that limits its scope specifically so that 1) "nature" is defined as that which is in the "universe" of humans and 2) there is a notion of "outside" that "nature" that is a priori defined as the realm of a creator, then you have assumed your conclusions about gods. -- "Ya dee apockety, rum fing f'doo. Ni, ni, ni, YOWWWWWWWWWW!" Rich Rosen ihnp4!pyuxd!rlr
polard@fortune.UUCP (Henry Polard) (05/25/85)
In article <766@ssc-vax.UUCP> savage@ssc-vax.UUCP (Lowell Savage) writes: >Henry Polard writes: >> There is an additional way to prove the existence of (a) God(s) - >> demonstration. If God were to appear personally in all His glory >> for everyone to see, that would certainly be proof of His existence. >> The fact that it hasn't happened recently tends to cloud the issue. > >The trouble with such a thing occurring is that the phenomena of the >God's (or god's) appearance would have to be explained by science as >something occurring within the universe. Why is that trouble? If God is not part of the universe, what prevents Him from acting, affecting, or manifesting in the universe? Further, what prevents God from doing whatever He wishes to do? >We still don't know whether the powerful entity is part of nature or not. >If it is part of nature, then it is not God. Both "universe" and "nature" are human concepts. If God appeared, then the term "nature" might be expanded to include God. How we use the term "nature" might not affect God Himself. >The main premise in this argument is that God (if such an entity >exists) is the creator of the universe and of nature (perhaps >that statement is redundant, perhaps not). I do not understand how God's creating nature and the universe prevents Him from entering the universe or nature. If I build a house, does that mean I can't enter it or change it? >I still stand by my statement, (which I have revised hoping for more >clarity), "Science is incapable of investigating claims of beings >outside of 'nature'. But Science (yes I know this is an abstaction and not a "real" entity) is flexible enough to extend the limits of the term "nature". >God is an entity which, in existence, must be outside of 'nature'. >Therefore, the existence of God is scientifically unknowable." See above re: "nature". Why must the existence of something outside "nature" not be knowable? I wonder why the following would not be possible: o Nature being one with God o Nature being part of God, and part of God being knowable o God being part of nature o God appearing differently to each individual (Please - no answers based exclusively on faith. You are absolutely right.) The main point of all of this typing is that our logic has no bearing on what God is like. > There's more than one way to be savage. Perhaps there's more than one way to be Divine. -- Henry Polard (You bring the flames - I'll bring the marshmallows.) {ihnp4,cbosgd,amd}!fortune!polard N.B: The words in this posting do not necessarily express the opinions of me, my employer, or any AI project.
savage@ssc-vax.UUCP (Lowell Savage) (05/25/85)
> > The main premise in this [my] argument is that God (if such an entity > > exists) is the creator of the universe and of nature (perhaps > > that statement is redundant, perhaps not). > > I still stand by my statement, (which I have revised hoping for more > > clarity), "Science is incapable of investigating claims of beings > > outside of 'nature'. God is an entity which, in existence, must be > > outside of 'nature'. Therefore, the existence of God is scientifically > > unknowable." > > Depends how you define "nature". If you use an arbitrary, anthropocentric > definition that limits its scope specifically so that 1) "nature" is defined > as that which is in the "universe" of humans and 2) there is a notion of > "outside" that "nature" that is a priori defined as the realm of a creator, > then you have assumed your conclusions about gods. > Rich Rosen ihnp4!pyuxd!rlr No, it depends on how I define "GOD". As I said in my previous posting (quoted above), GOD is defined as an entity which has created the universe. Science is inherently incapable of evaluating whether some entity has created the universe or not. My argument does not assume the EXISTENCE of such an entity, just the DEFINITION. Thus, I am NOT assuming a priori, the existence of GOD or gods. If you want to extend "nature" to include an entity which has created everything that humans are capable of percieving (which I have called "nature"), then all you've done is changed the words that I would have to use in my argument. What I called "nature" becomes something like "that part of nature which humans are capable of perceiving", and GOD becomes something like "an entity which created that part of nature which humans are capable of perceiving." Then, the limitations of science are more explicitly explained as the inherent limitations of humans to percieve their universe--even aided by all the tools they are capable of building. I LIKE this discustion. It lacks most of the invective that seems to be so common on this network--like the smelly stuff is in the barn. There's more than one way to be savage Lowell Savage (uw-beaver!ssc-vax!savage)
mms1646@acf4.UUCP (Michael M. Sykora) (05/27/85)
>/* savage@ssc-vax.UUCP (Lowell Savage) / 8:37 pm May 22, 1985 */ > . . . >Therefore, the existence of God is scientifically >unknowable." How do you know?
ellis@spar.UUCP (Michael Ellis) (05/28/85)
>> God is an entity which, in existence, must be outside of 'nature'. >> Therefore, the existence of God is scientifically unknowable." > >Depends how you define "nature". If you use an arbitrary, anthropocentric >definition that limits its scope specifically so that 1) "nature" is defined >as that which is in the "universe" of humans and 2) there is a notion of >"outside" that "nature" that is a priori defined as the realm of a creator, >then you have assumed your conclusions about gods. You folks should at least define what you mean by `Nature'. One definition I've encountered is: `That part of the world which is scientifically verifiable, or which can be objectively determined by independent observers' I suspect this is close to what Christians mean, but I'd hesitate to guess what Rich Rosen has in mind. SMASH CAUSALITY!! -michael