gam@amdahl.UUCP (Gordon A. Moffett) (12/05/84)
> [Flaming Asteroid] > I think I would be a bit hesitant to argue against the validity of things > which are not reproducible. For example, many historical events have > occurred which are not reproducible, that I am sure you will agree > are "valid" i.e the existence of the universe (how many universes have > you been able to create lately in the laboratory?), and your own > existence (unless, of course, you believe you are invalid [:-)]). > > Most of the events in the Bible are a written account of an oral > history which has been handed down for generations. As is the case > with most historical events, they are not reproducible, but I wouldn't > say that they didn't happen. Most of us believe what we read in the > history books (granted, they are probably more factually accurate > than the Bible), and take the information as fact. Events in the > Bible can (at this time) be neither proved nor disproved; belief > in the biblical events is an act of religious faith, which most > scientists recognize, and have no problems with. Ah, but there IS corroborative evidence to support some biblical events (ie., there really was a Pontius Pilate, a Herod, etc). Biblical history -- that is, tracing historical events mentioned in the Bible -- is an interesting topic. A good book in this area is "Asimov's Guide to the Bible" (sometimes as two books for each Testament). Isaac Asimov traces many historical parallels between Biblical history and other historical records. Of course, there are also chronological inaccuracies noted as well. He also discusses interesting topics like "what WAS the Star of Bethlahem anyway?" > You seem to be as "hung up" on your Scientific Dogma as much as your > counterpart is "hung up" in his religious dogma. Recognize it for > what it is, and keep an open mind! I wouldn't worry about a return > to Church Domination etc etc. We all have too much knowledge for > this to ever happen (my belief only). It's the Astrologers you have > to watch out for! I don't understand why "scientists" argue with religious people. They are never going to convince each other of their view. Religion is based on belief, and is a private experience between one's self and one's Creator. Science doesn't DEAL with "Creators" or "Miracles" or other religious matters. They are two different world views -- Not incompatable, just different. Religious persons should not have to "justify" their beliefs to the satisfaction of a scientist or anyone else. Scientists should not expect their facts to obliterate religious belief. I believe there is the tao, but I can't demonstrate it to you. This does not affect my belief. -- Gordon A. Moffett ...!{ihnp4,hplabs,amd,sun}!amdahl!gam 37 22'50" N / 122 59'12" W [ This is just me talking. ]
mrh@cybvax0.UUCP (Mike Huybensz) (12/06/84)
[Keep religion out of net.flame committee] In article <675@amdahl.UUCP> gam@amdahl.UUCP (Gordon A. Moffett) writes: > ... I don't understand why "scientists" argue with religious people. > They are never going to convince each other of their view. Religion > is based on belief, and is a private experience between one's self > and one's Creator. Science doesn't DEAL with "Creators" or "Miracles" > or other religious matters. They are two different world views -- > Not incompatable, just different. Religious persons should not have > to "justify" their beliefs to the satisfaction of a scientist or > anyone else. Scientists should not expect their facts to obliterate > religious belief. Never is a long time. But besides that, when I argue science vs religion, I do it for the undecided audience. There's a sucker born every minute: I'd like to save some of them from the clutches of irrationality. And the undecided probably outnumber by far those with definite opinions either way. As for whether the world-views of science and religion are incompatible, it depends on the frame of referrence. There are at least four. 1) From the frame of referrence of science, religion is incompatable with the basic principles of skepticism and Occam's razor (which suggest agnosticism as the only rational choice.) 2) From the frame of referrence of religions, science may or may not be in part incompatible. They will naturally want to exploit what they can, and reject conflicts (like old-earth theories.) 3) From some mixed-frame of reference that includes elements of both, there may or may not be some cognitive dissonance, depending on how much is known of each. This is a common state. 4) From a hypothetical meta-frame of reference, they may or may not conflict. Finally, I don't expect facts to obliterate religious belief. I'm happy just to reduce its influence. -- Mike Huybensz ...decvax!genrad!mit-eddie!cybvax0!mrh
polard@fortune.UUCP (Henry Polard) (12/07/84)
In article <675@amdahl.UUCP> gam@amdahl.UUCP (Gordon A. Moffett) writes: >.... Religion is based on belief, and is a private experience >between one's self and one's Creator. >Science doesn't DEAL with "Creators" or "Miracles" >or other religious matters. They are two different world views -- >Not incompatable, just different. Religious persons should not have >to "justify" their beliefs to the satisfaction of a scientist or >anyone else. Scientists should not expect their facts to obliterate >religious belief. Science is public. You either show the goods and reasoning or you shut up. Religion is private. Some people - especially Christian proseletizers on the net - think:"MY experience counts more than anyone else's. Believe what I believe or burn." Well, as long as one is talking to someone else, especially when trying to convince the listener of the existence of a deity, it's not private experience anymore. There are two major ways to convince people something exists: 1. Intimidation - if you don't agree, something bad will happen to you. If you don't believe in Ubizmo and make hIM your personal savior, you will burn forever. The person who uses this method cannnot be wrong. It involves a claim of superiority (because he knows more than you do - i.e, that Ubizmo exists and wants such-and such) on the part of the proponent. The issue of whether Ubizmo exists is muddied by the issue of the authority of the proponent. For the proponent there is always an "out" if the listener doesn't agree with the proponent: the proponent isn't wrong, nor has the proponent presented the case unskillfully - the listener is just prideful and stubborn. 2. The scientific method. In its simplest form it is: "there it is". Reasoning enters into the picture to make sure that what is being claimed contains no contradictions, and unique events need independent corroboration to establish them as facts. From the point of view of talking about religion, science enters into the picture when religion makes claims about the about the physical world or history. In terms of proving or disproving the existence of God or Christ or Ubizmo scientifically, the strongest thing that a believer in one or all of these can do is show e.g, Ubizmo. There is nothing like the actual presence of an object to establish its existence. There is no "out" for the proponent in a scientific argument - the item in question can be shown (even if only indirectly) or it can't, or one settles for "we don't know because of lack of evidence"(Uncertainty implies humility). The burden of proof is on the proponent, and the proponent can be wrong. Here is where the difference in world view shows itself - whereas in a scientific framework the proponent of a point of view must constantly face the possibility of being wrong, in a religious framework <insert deity of your choice> is always on the side of the proponent, who is always right. That is one reason why scientists and religionists have a hard time talking with each other. -- 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.
gam@amdahl.UUCP (Gordon A. Moffett) (12/08/84)
> = Henry Polard - {ihnp4,cbosgd,amd}!fortune!polard > > = me > >.... Religion is based on belief, and is a private experience > >between one's self and one's Creator. > >Science doesn't DEAL with "Creators" or "Miracles" > >or other religious matters. They are two different world views -- > >Not incompatable, just different. Religious persons should not have > >to "justify" their beliefs to the satisfaction of a scientist or > >anyone else. Scientists should not expect their facts to obliterate > >religious belief. > > Science is public. You either show the goods and reasoning or you > shut up. Religion is private. Some people - especially Christian > proseletizers on the net - think:"MY experience counts more than > anyone else's. Believe what I believe or burn." Well, as long > as one is talking to someone else, especially when trying to convince > the listener of the existence of a deity, it's not private experience > anymore. I was refering to religious belief and spirituality. Proseletizers are loud obnoxious people whose intense belief has allowed themselves an excuse to be rude to people. Proseletizing has little to do with spirituality; it is blather. > There are two major ways to convince people something > exists: > > 1. Intimidation - if you don't agree, something bad > will happen to you. If you don't believe in Ubizmo > and make hIM your personal savior, you will burn > forever. The person who uses this method cannnot be wrong. > It involves a claim of superiority (because he knows more than > you do - i.e, that Ubizmo exists and wants such-and such) > on the part of the proponent. The issue of whether Ubizmo exists > is muddied by the issue of the authority of the proponent. For > the proponent there is always an "out" if the listener > doesn't agree with the proponent: the proponent isn't wrong, > nor has the proponent presented the case unskillfully - the > listener is just prideful and stubborn. > > 2. The scientific method. In its simplest form it is: "there it is". > Reasoning enters into the picture to make sure that > what is being claimed contains no contradictions, > and unique events need independent corroboration to > establish them as facts. > From the point of view of talking about religion, > science enters into the picture when religion makes claims about the > about the physical world or history. Fine, this is all fine, but: > In terms of proving or disproving the existence of God > or Christ or Ubizmo scientifically, the strongest thing that a > believer in one or all of these can do is show e.g, Ubizmo. There is > nothing like the actual presence of an object to establish its > existence. > There is no "out" for the proponent in a scientific > argument - the item in question can be shown (even if only indirectly) > or it can't, or one settles for "we don't know because of lack of > evidence"(Uncertainty implies humility). The burden of proof is > on the proponent, and the proponent can be wrong. I think at this point a responsable scientist should back off and say, "That's a nice belief you have there," and go dissect a frog or something. It doesn't take much to see that this attempt at "proving" a religious belief is a despirate act, a manifestation of religious insecurity. To take advantage of it, to enter a scientific debate with a Devout Believer in Something, is sport not science. Do not pretend are doing them a service when your real intent is to show just how flimsy their religious beliefs are. > Here is where the difference in world view shows itself - whereas in a > scientific framework the proponent of a point of view must constantly > face the possibility of being wrong, in a religious framework <insert deity > of your choice> is always on the side of the proponent, who is always right. > That is one reason why scientists and religionists have a hard time talking > with each other. Maybe they expect too much from each other. -- Gordon A. Moffett ...!{ihnp4,hplabs,amd,sun}!amdahl!gam 37 22'50" N / 121 59'12" W [ This is just me talking. ] [ Note longitude correction; I am no longer in the Pacific Ocean ]
rjb@akgua.UUCP (R.J. Brown [Bob]) (12/13/84)
Hey Marshmallow Breath :-),
You have set up a false dichotomy between the scientifically
"reasonable" person and the religious extremist. Not every
adherent to Christianity or any other religion is so reflexively
intolerant of ideas that are counter to their beliefs. I think
one of the marks of maturity is to be able to tolerate some
ambiguity in this life. I also think that the rise of science
has helped those who are "religionists" understand their own
positions a bit better.
Bob Brown {...ihnp4!akgua!rjb}