mangoe@umcp-cs.UUCP (Charley Wingate) (11/15/84)
>>> It has been explained before that science and the >>> scientific method are simply means of acquiring knowledge in the most >>> objective fashion possible. [ROSEN] > >> Rich's statement concerning the purpose of the scientific methood is >> highly subjective. Science is an attempt to form a model of the operation >> of nature through the use of the assumption of continuity, mathematics, >> and experiment; it cannot provide Truth because it HAS to proceed on the >> principle that external interference does not happen as a matter of course. >> [WINGATE] > >First, I'll use a Larry Bickford technique to answer the first sentence in >the above paragraph: Balderdash and poppycock! So What? That is, if anything, MUCH less abusive than Rich usual mixture of insults and misrepresentations which usually comprise a RR article. As we all shall see, however, he is not able to restrain himself for long... >(Let's see if we hear more complaints than were made against Mr. Bickford >response by pithy phrase. Fact is, it IS balderdash and poppycock.) >Next, I'll ask again: what is "external" interference? What is meant by >"external"? External to what? Is that like the term "supernatural"? >(Implying "beyond the natural", but really meaning "beyond that which we >currently understand.) I don't think I need to quote Humpty Dumpty here. I MEAN "existing yet not part of nature" when I say supernatural. Anybody can see that there are parts of what everybody, theologians and atheists alike, would admit to be natural that we don't understand. Rich implies that I believe that turbulence, for instance, is supernatural. I do not so believe. There is an obvious distinction between the statement that a phenomenon is not YET understood, and the statement that it cannot be understood. Rich's statements lead me to believe that he thinks that humanity is capable of understanding anything (or alternately that naything we cannot understand cannot exist). He also seems to think that there is some kind of ultimate reality to time. I'd like to see some non-circular justifications of these beliefs (a convincing denial of them would be sufficient). For my part, I deny all of them; I see no way any of them can be disproved, so they are not scientific theories. >>> What is a miracle? "An event that appears unexplainable by the laws of >>> nature and so is held to be supernatural in origin or an act of god." >>> (American Heritage Dictionary) Let's analyze that definition carefully. >>> BECAUSE an event APPEARS to be *unexplainable* by the laws of nature >>> (i.e., what >humanity currently understands about the workings of the >>> universe), THUS, IT IS HELD (assumed) that the event is of supernatural or >>> deific origin!!!!! How presumptive can you get!!! Honestly, I'd never >>> seen the precise definition of "miracle" before writing this paragraph, >>> but it's so very interesting that it confirms what I've been saying all >>> along!! Because human beings don't understand how something happened, it >>> MUST have been caused by a supernatural entity!! ("*I* don't understand >>> this, therefore God did it!!") >>> >>> [ spontaneous generation example ] (Apparently Mr. Wingate simply didn't >>> feel like including it, for whatever reason.) > >> I think the definition is faulty, and I will rely on The Miracle (the >> ressurection) as an illustration. (Spontaneous generation is not a relevant >> example, because it is was never claimed to be miraculous; it was a >> mal-formed law of nature.) > >Ah, I see. Only if you claim something to be a "miracle", a "divine act", >only THEN does it "count". The definition is far from faulty: it hits the >nail right on the head. [Extremely patient tone] If you claim that "X" is a law of nature, which IS THE CASE FOR SPONTANEOUS GENERATION, then "X" is subject to the normal rules of testing such a theory. No one ever claimed that spontaneous generation was miraculous; it only could become miraculous when you maintain that matter and energy are conserved, which the proponents of that theory did not. We only claim a miracle when the event appears to fly in the face of the current explanation of science. Spontaneous generation does not represent such a claim. The ressurection does. >> The resurrection seems to clearly violate the >> established laws of nature, specifically, the second law of thermodynamics, >> just for starters. Therefore, to deny it as a miracle (according to the >> definition) you must either introduce a new system of laws, or claim that >> he did not die. Ordinarily, of course, we would take the second approach. >> Now we have a hypothesis; how then to test it? We can't. It is a one-time >> event. All we can do is either say, "this has apparently never happened >> before, and conflicts with our current understanding of the universe; >> therefore it did not happen"; or admit that it might be a miracle. > >Thus, all we have to do is to ASSUME the veracity of the unverified sources >called the gospels (advertising for a religion can hardly be considered >objective fact, unless you assume in advance...), and all these violations >of physical laws can be ASSUMED to have occurred. You have no proof that >any of these things actually occurred, or that they were fraudulently >executed. I hope that when someone comes along with an equally shoddy proof >that god does NOT exist, that you will all jump on the bandwagon because you >gave IT the same level of objective evaluation that you gave to your current >belief system. You won't, of course, if the basis of your beliefs is >presumption of their truthfulness in advance. The gospel accounts and christian tradition are all we have, apart from individual experiences of various christians, and these have proved to be hard to relate well and have not been very convincing. I have deliberately withheld my personal experiences of religion because I find that my account of them is pretty poor; I also do not wish to have my inadequate descriptions be used as the objects of ridicule. Yirmiyahu's and Rich's behavior indicates that any statements I would make would be used to make sport of me and my positions, rather than being given due consideration. Rich openly indicates that he has had no convincing religious experiences. Very well, on the evidence of the gospels, you can either assume they false or assume they are true. You cannot prove scientifically that they are either false or true, without making the statement that Occam's razor produces True explanations, as opposed to useful ones. Charley Wingate umcp-cs!mangoe