rlr@pyuxd.UUCP (Rich Rosen) (11/03/84)
[welcome back, Jeff]
It seems that since C. Wingate's original article on "scientism", which I
rebutted, there have been other articles which never reached here (of
course, typical!) continuing the discussion of scientism. Paul Torek
answered another author's remarks on how an unbiased untainted view of
motivations/suppositions is "scientism at its worst". ("Why" is still
beyond me.) Jeff Sargent has written another article in this vein. Since
I've obviously missed part of this discussion, I hope I'm not going over
old ground or misinterpreting.
> Scientism. It seems that some people view science as a nascent god, or at
> least as approaching omniscience, by claiming that there every phenomenon
> in the universe either can now be, or will eventually be able to be,
> explained *correctly* by science.
There seems to be an urge on the part of some 1) to invent a "religion"
called scientism which they claim that others follow, and 2) to ascribe to
it tenets that THEY feel it should have. I refer to the notion that people
who don't worship or believe in the existence of a deity believe in "science"
as a god. It has been explained before that science and the scientific
method are simply means of acquiring knowledge in the most objective fashion
possible. It does not make presuppositions about what sort of knowledge it
expects to find (such as asking "How do we explain how justice in the universe
is administered?" without asking "Must there be justice or is it just
something I'd like to see the universe have?"). It understands that the
phrase "the mind can play tricks on you" has a very literal meaning, and that
oftimes what people believe they have seen or experienced is not in fact
reality but rather reality filtered through sometimes faulty sensory organs
and misinterpreted based on preconceptions of what one expected to see. (Like
when you think you've seen someone you've recognized only to walk up to him and
find out that it isn't him.) Thus, such people may not feel that *everything*
may someday be fully understood by science, but they feel that the scientific
process offers more verifiable and correct information than less reliable
methods, such as the presumptive methods/belief systems already described.
> Believers in scientism assume the impossibility of miracles (an assumption
> for which there is no evidence that I know of).
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!!")
I'll reiterate an example I've used before: prior to the invention of the
microscope, it was assumed that mold/maggots formed on decaying meat/flesh by
spontaneous generation. Improved observational tools have offered a clearer
picture of what happens. Before, because we couldn't see what happened, one
might have assumed a "supernatural" cause. After, we have a better picture.
Was it really supernaturally caused before we were able to see it and not so
afterwards????? "Supernatural" implies something outside of the forces of
nature, outside the forces of the physical world. But what does it mean for
something to be "outside of the physical world"? In this context, it only
means not observable or understandable by human beings!! Thus the natural/
supernatural boundary is an artificial demarcation which simply delineates
the CURRENT limits of human knowledge. A few hundred years ago, mold formed
by supernatural causes, according to this line of thinking. (This applies to
specific events about which evidence is minimal, as well as unexplained
natural phenomena. In cases where an "unexplained" event occurs, one can seek
to explain it based on further research in terms of current or newfound
understandings of the workings of the universe, and one might possibly fail
(though this does not automatically ascribe the event to a "supernatural"
deity). Others seem to be in AUTOMATIC ASCRIBING mode. :-)
> When a phenomenon occurs which, as reported, can have no
> conceivable explanation according to known science or extrapolations
> therefrom, they either deny that any such incident ever occurred or else
> they devise explanations which differ from the observed, reported
> phenomenon.
Two important elements in this paragraph. "When a phenomenon occurs..." One
can either seek proof that the phenomenon did indeed occur, or one can simply
assume that it did. It appears that Jeff has chosen the latter. "...which, as
reported, can have no conceivable explanation..." I think I've dealt with the
"no conceivable explanation" part above. But "as reported" is something else.
Does one seek to confirm the veracity of these "reports" or does one accept
them at face value? Again, Jeff chooses the latter. I believe the answer to
the question "Why does he do that in both cases?" has to do with his personal
experience, as many religious believers have often said. But we've dealt with
the nature of (and the unreliability of) those personal experiences, those
subjective feelings. What causes those subjective feelings that lead to
certain interpretations of events (different interpretations by different
people of the same events!)? One can say it is part of the nature of the
human brain to impose preconceived patterns on events/feelings, and that the
brain can interpret these things based on such preconceptions, obtained through
environmental conditioning. Or one can say that these feelings come from god.
Again, Jeff chooses the latter. But which of the two possibilities is more
plausible? The latter one is based on the assumption that there is a deity.
What assumptions are made in the former one (remembering the basis for how the
knowledge contained in the former explanation was obtained)?
> Obviously I have the Resurrection in mind. I think that people
> try to explain away the Resurrection of Christ because they don't *want* to
> believe that any such thing as a miracle-working God more powerful than they
> can exist.
What I've said above applies just as much to the event referred to as the
Resurrection as to any other unexplained event or unverified report. Given
what I've just described in my last paragraph, am *I* trying to explain away
the event because I don't *want* to believe, or are *you* simply avoiding
other explanations because you *do* want to believe? (This, of course, gets
back to my earlier remarks on wishful thinking and preconception, many of
which have gone unanswered.) I don't wish to imply that Jeff and/or other
religious believers have done NO serious inquiry/questioning into such matters.
I sincerely believe that they have. But if you go into an inquiry expecting a
certain answer, and you ignore explanations that don't fit the way you expect
the answer to be, I would think you need to be more serious (read "objective")
next time you engage in such inquiry.
> Generally people will not respond positively to someone telling them that
> they're all real losers and deserve hell. Rather, they respond positively
> when someone meets their needs (or wants).
I believe very strongly in what you have said here. I don't have a
preconception that "human beings were PUT (implies a "PUT-er") on this
earth to help each other", but I do believe that everyone benefits from a
society in which people are supportive of one another. Where I differ from
religious believers is that I don't make assumptions about their having to
be a deity to make sure that we're all encouraged to be good, and I don't
make assumptions about what "being good" is other than not interfering in
other people's lives (and perhaps being helpful and supportive OF those
other people), while not insisting/encouraging/frightening people into being
"good", where "good" implies some additional arbitrary tenets. I also don't
assume that there is a deity to possibly take care of those needs and wants
that you describe, and thus I hope that each of us, individually AND
collectively, can do so ourselves. It isn't always easy. For some people
believing that there is a god makes it a little easier. But wishing doesn't
make it so. (I though I'd dwell for a minute here on common ground rather than
on differences. I hope this evokes some further comments.)
--
Anything's possible, but only a few things actually happen.
Rich Rosen pyuxd!rlrmangoe@umcp-cs.UUCP (Charley Wingate) (11/08/84)
[>> = Jeff Sargent] >> Scientism. It seems that some people view science as a nascent god, or at >> least as approaching omniscience, by claiming that there every phenomenon >> in the universe either can now be, or will eventually be able to be, >> explained *correctly* by science. > There seems to be an urge on the part of some 1) to invent a "religion" > called scientism which they claim that others follow, and 2) to ascribe to > it tenets that THEY feel it should have. I refer to the notion that people > who don't worship or believe in the existence of a deity believe in > "science" as a god. It has been explained before that science and the > scientific method are simply means of acquiring knowledge in the most > objective fashion possible. First, I want to disavow Jeff's nascient God statement. Rich's views on science can constitute religion with having a god. Second, I do not claim that all those who do not believe in a god are "scientismatics". Third, 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. Occam's razor is valid within this framework because it is not important that the hypothesized explanation is the True one; all it has to do is explain the data. Once you start looking for True explanations, this framework is no longer useful-- unless you assume that there are no external "causes" (I don't mean to imply causality of action, but that the activity we see takes place within a framework which we can't see). Once you introduce this as a principle, you are no longer talking about science, but about religion. > 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 ] 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.) 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. > What I've said above applies just as much to the event referred to as the > Resurrection as to any other unexplained event or unverified report. Given > what I've just described in my last paragraph, am *I* trying to explain > away the event because I don't *want* to believe, or are *you* simply > avoiding other explanations because you *do* want to believe? (This, of > course, gets back to my earlier remarks on wishful thinking and > preconception, many of which have gone unanswered.) You can't verify history; you can't even verify that Julius Caesar existed, if you choose to be picky enough. Historical evidence is weak in the face of disbelief, and arguments about wishful thinking and preconception cut both ways, wounding Christians and atheists alike. We came to this argument believing in the ressurection; you came to us denying it. One last time: none of the essential claims of Christianity can be tested scientifically. Charley Wingate umcp-cs!mangoe
rlr@pyuxd.UUCP (Rich Rosen) (11/12/84)
>> 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! (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.) >> 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. > 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. -- AT THE TONE PLEASE LEAVE YOUR NAME AND NET ADDRESS. THANK YOU. Rich Rosen pyuxd!rlr