janc@uofm-cv.UUCP (Jan D. Wolter) (11/06/83)
I usually write an article by writing a bunch of fragmentary thoughts on the subject as they occur to me, and then try to work them together into a consistent fabric. This article began as a discussion of why creationism is not science, but I hit rocky ground. So I'm submitting this is a mildly fragmented state just to point out some dead ends and misconceptions. The central question of this article seems to have become: What is the difference between a religious belief, and a scientific theory? My first shot at defining the distinction was the following: >>> Religion addresses the question: >>> >>> Why does the world exist? >>> >>> Science addresses the (less ambitious) question: >>> >>> How can we understand the world as it exists? This sounds nice at first. Unfortunately it runs quickly into problems. Science doesn't really confine itself to "how" nor does Religion really address "why". >>> As most children have discovered, both Science and Religion fail if you >>> keep asking "Why?". >>> >>> Why does a pendulum work? | Why do mosquito's exist? >>> | >>> Because of Conservation of Energy. | Because God wanted them to. >>> | >>> Why is Energy Conserved? | Why does God exist? >>> | >>> ------------------------- End of Conversation ---------------------- >>> >>> Probably a physicist or a theologian could carry these further, but a >>> persistent questioner can eventually drive you down to basic assumptions. This seems to indicate that at some level science and religion are both based on faith. Thus, science really is, as many fundamental Christians seem to believe, just another pagan religion, and should not be taught in schools. I believe the flaw in the above argument is that it is based on the following fallacy: Science is based on reason, and religion is based on faith. WHOOPS! Suddenly I'm in net.philosophy, debating the meaning of reason: >>> Reason is the way we study the relationships between ideas. It can >>> be used to find what the results of a course of action are likely to >>> be. It can be used to check for consistency between ideas. It can >>> *not* be used to find assumptions. For that we must rely on experience >>> and the irrational belief that things which have always been true in >>> the past will continue to be true in the future. Suppose I dive out >>> my office window. I need to assume that experience is applicable to >>> be able to conclude that I will fall and crack open my skull. Even >>> being able to conclude this, doesn't let me decide whether or not to >>> take the dive. I can't use just reason and experience to decide if >>> I *want* to be dead. To be able to make decisions, my desires have >>> to be given too. Thus all decisions are made in what is ultimately >>> an emotional context. The idea of a rational man is a fantasy. The point is, that *everything* we do is based at on something you could call faith. The idea that science is based on reason, is, however, not without merit. In many areas differences of opinion are notoriously difficult to resolve (e.g., religion and politics). In science, on the other hand, controversies are usually resolved fairly easily. Very few wars have been fought over scientific theories. If both topics are based on individual faith, why is this true? >>> Science is distinguish by its method of evaluating truth. All scientists >>> use basically the same criteria for judging the quality of a scientific >>> theory. >>> >>> (1) A good theory is in agreement with all evidence. >>> >>> (2) A good theory can be used to predict events in new situations. >>> >>> Thus, a good scientific theory is a tool for extending limited past >>> experience into the unknown. A theory that fails the first test is false, >>> a theory that fails the second is worthless. To chose between two >>> theories which pass both of these tests, we have Occam's razor: >>> >>> (3) A good theory is simple. >>> >>> Just because we prefer tools that are cleanly designed and easy to use. Once these criteria are accepted, most scientific discussion can be focused in the domain of reason and experience. Thus, because scientists usually spend little time struggling with the emotional foundations of their theorys, we easily get the impression that it is an entirely rational pursuit. Notice that I've made no claim that something satisfying these requirements it is in some deeper sense *true*. Only that it makes a useful tool for reasoning about cause and effect in our Universe. This is something that is very important to us, even if it does not explain *why* things happen, only *how* they happen. Clearly these are not the criteria we judge religious beliefs by. Personally, I would insist on rule (1), consistency with evidence, and I guess most people do. But I've never heard of any religion that was much use in predicting future events, though some try, and trying to apply Occam's Razor would get any of us in trouble. Furthermore, there is no obvious merit to the idea of trying to apply scientific criteria to religious thought. Simply because they are useful in one domain of though, doesn't imply their applicability every- where. Getting back to Scientific Creationism for a minute, we see some weak arguments that it does, in fact satisfy (1). But can anyone claim it has any predictive value? Saying that everything is as it is because God wanted it that way, only allows me to conclude that everything will continue to be the way God wants it to be. This may be some consolation to the insecure, but it does help me decide what building a dam will do to the snail darter. Creationism is worthless as a scientific theory, though that doesn't necessarily mean that it is not, in some deeper sense, *true*. If you want to discuss what is ultimately true however, you are discussing theology or philosophy, not science. Getting back to the stream of this article, what is the criterion for religious or philosophical truth? Personally, I believe what feels right to me. Ultimately, I am responsible for my own actions, and must follow the only guide given to me. If religion is based solely on personal preference, that at least explains why arguments are often irresolvable. Question left to the reader (because I've broken my philosophical bent): (1) Where did the consensus on Scientific Truth come from? (2) Why is there no consensus on Religious Truth? (3) How does Philosophy fit into all this? (4) Does Ronald Reagon dye his hair? Jan Wolter University of Michigan uofm-cv!janc
djhawley@watmath.UUCP (djhawley) (11/21/83)
I always thought that a scientific theory was not deemed useful because
it predicted FUTURE events, but that it predicted previously unlooked
for or previously unexplained phenomena.
I think that religious theories strive to do the same; enable us to
understand God, human nature, morality, etc., better.
David Hawley ( 6 months since last on the net.
and hoping for a good argument )