esk@wucs.UUCP (Paul V. Torek) (11/06/84)
[Replies to Gillette, Wingate, Rosen] From: lisa@phs.UUCP (Jeff Gillette) >What evidence would you accept as proof that, e.g., God really does exist, >or that Jesus really rose from the grave. Note that the hypothetical >counter-evidence must be logically possible ("Produce the witnesses to the >resurrection!" is not likely to qualify this side of science fiction), and >it must not rule out the possibility of Christianity in advance ("I must see >a miracle, and since I don't believe in miracles, I'll not be persuaded"). You misunderstand logical possibility: science fiction stories are (in general) logical possibilities; anything that is not self-contradictory is logically possible. Before anyone can give a list of hypothetical counter-evidences, she must have a definition of "God" or "rising from the grave". I suspect that people of different religious persuasions will have different definitions. In any case, it is up to believers to provide definitions of these terms before agnostics (like me) or atheists (like Rosen?) can say what would count as evidence for or against. From: mangoe@umcp-cs.UUCP (Charley Wingate) > Evidence is always in the eye of the beholder, ... > ... I don't believe in the objectivity of the scientific > rules. The scientific observer is always making subjective appraisals of > his evidence; otherwise, how does one reject obviously spurious data? I disagree. One rejects data on the basis of faulty experiment setup, unreliable conditions of observation, etc. > I expect a dedicated atheist to reject evidence of christianity; you can > always call the witnesses liars, which is easy when they are all dead. A "dedicated atheist" is by definition one who rejects evidence, and thus is by definition unobjective, right? You have defined the problem away. > To claim that scientific methods, however, are the only valid means of > acquiring knowledge is, however, to elevate it to a religion, and a shaky > one at that. ... I will use scientism to refer to this forma of science. I would say that scientism is the combination of that claim with a narrow view of what is scientifically legitimate. A lot depends on how one defines "scientific method"; your definition is apparently very narrow. *My* view is that the only sense in which there is a scientific method is a broad sense, in which the "scientific method" is basically just common sense in inquiry. > ... If you throw out anything that is not material, you throw away moral > authority. Not true. It is no harder to apply moral terms to the material than to any conception of the non-material. In fact many value judgements are straight- forwardly empirical (verifiable through experience) and do not depend on any knowledge of a non-material realm. And since I expect you to counter by trying to define the "material" as the value-free, let me point out in advance that such a definition would be question-begging. From: rlr@pyuxd.UUCP (Rich Rosen) > If there is no evidence of its existence, there is thus no effect on the > world resulting from the supposedly existing object. In that case, assuming > that something doesn't exist in the absence of evidence (say, unicorns or > mermaids) is equivalent to having an open mind about unicorns and mermaids. We have evidence *against* the existence of unicorns; we know (roughly) where to look and haven't found them. I don't know where to look for evidence for or against some conceptions of God. I say, where there is no evidence one should be agnostic (this may imply acting as if something does not exist, but it does not imply thinking that it does not exist). Rich on a different subject: > What Brunson calls a warped morality is, in fact, a morality prescribing > the right of all human beings to live as they please, provided that > their actions do not interfere with or violate another person's rights. > Brunson may argue that HIS right to interfere in other people's lives > is being violated (his right to discriminate). Yet that is clearly > not one of the "rights" this very simple, minimal and rational morality > includes. Is there anyone who finds fault with such a morality? Why? Far be it from me to agree with Brunson or his discrimination (insert other disclaimers here), BUT -- I find fault with such a morality. It's completely vague as it stands. You have told us nothing about what persons' rights are. If, as you imply at one point, persons have the right of noninterference, then you may have something specific (as long as you use the correct def. of noninterference). But in that case nobody has a right against discrimination, which is NOT an act of interference. In any case, the supposed general right to noninter- ference is pure ideological mystification ... --The aspiring iconoclast, Paul V Torek, ihnp4!wucs!wucec1!pvt1047 Please send any mail directly to this address, not the sender's. Thanks.
mangoe@umcp-cs.UUCP (Charley Wingate) (11/09/84)
In article <471@wucs.UUCP> esk@wucs.UUCP (Paul V. Torek) writes: >Before anyone can give a list of hypothetical counter-evidences, she must >have a definition of "God" or "rising from the grave". I suspect that >people of different religious persuasions will have different definitions. >In any case, it is up to believers to provide definitions of these terms >before agnostics (like me) or atheists (like Rosen?) can say what would >count as evidence for or against. Well, why not start with the gospel accounts, since that is the particular case that really matters. The gospels claim that Jesus was dead; I presume that the ordinary significance of the word will suffice. Then, beginning on the first day of the week, he appeared to a large number of his disciples in what appears to have been a human body substantial enough to eat broiled fish and to withstand Thomas's probings, and to share a meal with the travellers at Emmaus. Even given the not entirely reconcilable accounts, it seems to me that the witnesses, unless of course they were bald-faced liars, were convinced of what they were able to touch and see. [Me] >> Evidence is always in the eye of the beholder, ... >> ... I don't believe in the objectivity of the scientific >> rules. The scientific observer is always making subjective appraisals of >> his evidence; otherwise, how does one reject obviously spurious data? >I disagree. One rejects data on the basis of faulty experiment setup, >unreliable conditions of observation, etc. Yes, but in this case, there is no experiment in the first place. All we have is eyewitness testimony, and we have no real way to evaluate its reliability. Bringing existing scientific knowledge in as a counter- argument is not sufficient; the claim is that Jesus is risen IN DEFIANCE OF what we know to be the normal course of nature. [me again] >> I expect a dedicated atheist to reject evidence of christianity; you can >> always call the witnesses liars, which is easy when they are all dead. > >A "dedicated atheist" is by definition one who rejects evidence, and thus >is by definition unobjective, right? You have defined the problem away. My point was that since Rich seems to bring preconceived notions that the ressurections is "too improbable" to have happened, his objectivity in the matter is as suspect as mine. [more me] >> To claim that scientific methods, however, are the only valid means of >> acquiring knowledge is, however, to elevate it to a religion, and a shaky >> one at that. ... I will use scientism to refer to this forma of science. > >I would say that scientism is the combination of that claim with a narrow >view of what is scientifically legitimate. A lot depends on how one defines >"scientific method"; your definition is apparently very narrow. *My* view is >that the only sense in which there is a scientific method is a broad sense, >in which the "scientific method" is basically just common sense in inquiry. Unfortunately, this common sense has to dictate that nature is uniform in order to be able to allow us to apply our past observations to present and future behavior. WIth this assumption, you cannot objectively evaluate a claim that the natural order of the universe has been temporarily violated. The problem remains the same. [my last gasp] >> ... If you throw out anything that is not material, you throw away moral >> authority. > >Not true. It is no harder to apply moral terms to the material than to any >conception of the non-material. In fact many value judgements are straight- >forwardly empirical (verifiable through experience) and do not depend on any >knowledge of a non-material realm. And since I expect you to counter by >trying to define the "material" as the value-free, let me point out in advance >that such a definition would be question-begging. I retract my argument on this point. I won't attempt to define morality out of matter; on the other hand, I have concluded that my arguments about morality without celestial authority depend too heavily on Platonic principles. Charley Wingate umcp-cs!mangoe Congregavit Nos in Unum Christi Amor.