torek@umich.UUCP (Paul V. Torek ) (01/01/70)
bill@utastro.UUCP (William H. Jefferys) writes: >>>NOTHING could in principle ever disprove [...] that "what we observe >>>in nature is...the effect God has had on nature, namely, creationism". >>I'm an agnostic, but in fairness to atheists, I wouldn't rule out the possi- >>bility of disproving that assertion -- it might be done by proving that God >>does not exist. >I don't see any way that metaphysical assertions about the existence or >nonexistence of God (or the Damager-God, for that matter :-) can ever be >proven. Correct me if I am wrong, but how could one establish the truth >or falsehood of such propositions? Well, (by one definition) God is supposed to maximally benevolent and omnipotent, which seems to have observational consequences that could be falsified .... >>But more to the point, you have understated creationism. >>It doesn't just say that "whatever is in nature, God created it". It says >>"certain things (e.g. evolution, a multibillion-year-old earth, etc.) ARE >>NOT in nature". That statement is falsifiable -- and falsified! >I agree that from the point of view of science, these assertions have >been falsified. But I don't think that the issue. To me the issue is >whether Creationists sidestep such falsifications when they arise by >resorting to the unfalsifiable hypothesis of an omnipotent God. Well, although I can't argue with the example (omitted to save space) which you gave concerning Henry Morris's views on the age of the universe, I don't think that's the typical pattern. In most cases they try to deny the evidence against them. So, insofar as they hold to falsifiable claims, they are within the domain of science; thus their theory is "scientific" in the neutral sense which does not connote truth or evidential support. This may have unappetizing consequences for the constitutionality of certain laws mandating equal time for their theory. --Paul V Torek, cutting the Gordian knots torek@umich
bill@utastro.UUCP (William H. Jefferys) (10/24/85)
> >I don't see any way that metaphysical assertions about the existence or > >nonexistence of God (or the Damager-God, for that matter :-) can ever be > >proven. Correct me if I am wrong, but how could one establish the truth > >or falsehood of such propositions? > Well, (by one definition) God is supposed to maximally benevolent and > omnipotent, which seems to have observational consequences that could be > falsified .... But whenever this argument is brought up, it is countered by defining it out of existence. You know, "God's ideas of good are beyond the understanding of limited human minds." Such arguments may not cut much ice with you or me, but they are impossible to defeat as long as the person you are trying to convince accepts the logic of Creationism. > >I agree that from the point of view of science, these assertions have > >been falsified. But I don't think that the issue. To me the issue is > >whether Creationists sidestep such falsifications when they arise by > >resorting to the unfalsifiable hypothesis of an omnipotent God. > Well, although I can't argue with the example (omitted to save space) > which you gave concerning Henry Morris's views on the age of the universe, > I don't think that's the typical pattern. In most cases they try to deny > the evidence against them. So, insofar as they hold to falsifiable claims, > they are within the domain of science; thus their theory is "scientific" > in the neutral sense which does not connote truth or evidential support. In my experience, Morris' views are quite typical. My reading of Creationist literature shows it to be replete with similar examples. Bringing in the Omnipotent Creator may be the last resort, but it's always there in the wings to use when no other apologetic will work. But in any case, when Creationists deny the obvious fact that their scientific claims have been falsified, it doesn't matter much which argument they use. *By their logic* they have not been falsified, and indeed *by their logic* they cannot be falsified. All this goes to show is that Creationist logic != scientific logic. The game they are playing remains firmly rooted in the pseudoscientific camp. The usual response of Creationists to this challenge is to claim that neither creation nor evolution is falsifiable (and therefore that both have equal rights in the classroom). Philip Kitcher has written an interesting article on this question (J. College Science Teaching, December 1984/January 1985 Issue, pp. 168-173). While I disagree with Kitcher's initial premise, it is a thoughtful article that merits attention. -- Glend. I can call spirits from the vasty deep. Hot. Why, so can I, or so can any man; But will they come when you do call for them? -- Henry IV Pt. I, III, i, 53 Bill Jefferys 8-% Astronomy Dept, University of Texas, Austin TX 78712 (USnail) {allegra,ihnp4}!{ut-sally,noao}!utastro!bill (UUCP) bill@astro.UTEXAS.EDU. (Internet)
shiue@h-sc1.UUCP (steve shiue) (10/25/85)
> > Well, (by one definition) God is supposed to maximally benevolent and > omnipotent, which seems to have observational consequences that could be > falsified .... > This is not necessarily true. People like Alexander Pope (see the Essay on Man) have been saying for hundreds of years that because God is OMNISCIENT as well as omnipotent, and therefore is not subject to questioning. For instance, suppose that a scientist told a creationist that observation indicates that if there is a benevolent, omniscient, and omnipotent God, then he must be out to lunch. The creationist, by the very definition of God that endows him with the above properties, could refute this by saying that God understands the broader picture that the scientist is incapable of seeing or understanding even if he could see it. The creationist argument is rather facile, and completely lacking in rigor. It amounts to ducking out of the intellectual fray before it even begins - the creationists ask to have it both ways, but I think it is a bit much to ask science to respect your theory when the nature of the theory places it above and outside of science. > >I agree that from the point of view of science, these assertions have > >been falsified. But I don't think that the issue. To me the issue is > >whether Creationists sidestep such falsifications when they arise by > >resorting to the unfalsifiable hypothesis of an omnipotent God. > ^Of course they sidestep such falsifications, for the reasons mentioned above. The essential point is this: the introduction of an all-powerful, all-knowing entity (regardless of its politics and whether you choose to call it God or Kate Bush) is, by intuition and logic, anathema to scientific inquiry. It allows any theory to survive poverty of evidence and outright contradiction, and by doing so, provides the ultimate "fudge factor" to justify any theory, even one as poorly supported as creationism. Certainly I cannot prove that the universe wasn't created a millisecond ago, exactly as it is (or ten or forty thousand years ago, for that matter). I can't even prove that anything exists outside of my own mind (see Hume's An Enquiry Concerning Human Understanding), or that my senses don't deceive me (as a matter of fact, I've recently come to suspect that people like Ken Arndt are merely perverse phantoms of my own imagination). But the advance of evolutionary theory and its study has proved enormously useful in the study of biological and anthropological phenomena, while the assertion of creationist theories has had if anything a negative influence on science and education. -Steve Shiue "I wish I could give Brother Bill his great thrill, I'd set him in chains at the top of the hill, And send for some pillars and Cecil B. DeMille So he could die happily ever after." -Bob Dylan, "Tombstone Blues"
mrh@cybvax0.UUCP (Mike Huybensz) (10/25/85)
In article <634@h-sc1.UUCP> shiue@h-sc1.UUCP (steve shiue) writes: > People like Alexander > Pope (see the Essay on Man) have been saying for hundreds of > years that because God is OMNISCIENT as well as omnipotent, > and therefore is not subject to questioning. By that same standard, a hypothetical God is not subject to ANY understanding. Even assuming the Bible is inspired by God, we cannot know God's purpose in giving it to us. Because we cannot understand the purpose, we have no way of knowing if God intended us to accept/reject/believe/disbelieve the Bible. -- Mike Huybensz ...decvax!genrad!mit-eddie!cybvax0!mrh
shiue@h-sc1.UUCP (steve shiue) (10/26/85)
> In article <634@h-sc1.UUCP> shiue@h-sc1.UUCP (steve shiue) writes: > > People like Alexander > > Pope (see the Essay on Man) have been saying for hundreds of > > years that because God is OMNISCIENT as well as omnipotent, > > and therefore is not subject to questioning. > > By that same standard, a hypothetical God is not subject to ANY understanding. > > Even assuming the Bible is inspired by God, we cannot know God's purpose > in giving it to us. Because we cannot understand the purpose, we have no > way of knowing if God intended us to accept/reject/believe/disbelieve the > Bible. > -- > > Mike Huybensz ...decvax!genrad!mit-eddie!cybvax0!mrh Did you read the rest of my article, Mike? If so, then it should be obvious that the viewpoint I was presenting was not my own - I was attempting to point out that the assumption of an omniscient, omnipotent being "allows" creationists to avoid any scientific rigor. -Steve Shiue
ln63fac@sdcc7.UUCP (Rick Frey) (10/29/85)
In article <799@cybvax0.UUCP>, mrh@cybvax0.UUCP (Mike Huybensz) writes: > > Even assuming the Bible is inspired by God, we cannot know God's purpose > in giving it to us. Because we cannot understand the purpose, we have no > way of knowing if God intended us to accept/reject/believe/disbelieve the > Bible. > -- But what about what the Bible says about God's purpose in giving it to us? "All scripture is inspired by God and is profitable for teaching, for reproof, for correction, for training in righteousness; that the man of God may be perfect, furnished unto all good works." (II Timothy 3:16,17) "Thy word is a lamp unto my feet and a light unto my path." Psalm 119:105 David, a man after God's own heart, felt that the Bible served the purpose of guiding his life in the direction God wanted it. Paul says that the message of the Bible, the gospel is the power of God for salvation. And last but not least, Christ Himself says, "The words that I have spoken to you are Spirit and are Life." (John 6:63) Christ in John 1:1 is called the 'word' of God and throughout the old testament (Isaiah 40:8) God makes it clear that His word goes and that His word, as Isaiah says, "will last forever." Unless God is deliberatley lying to us in the Bible as some kind of test, there's no way we can do anything else but take God at His word. John 20:30,31 makes clear the intent of why God gave us the Bible. "Many other signs therefore Jesus also performed in the presence of the disciples, which are not written in this book; but these have been written that you may believe that Jesus is the Christ, the Son of God; and in believing you may have life in His name." Rick Frey p.s. If this happens to inspire any follow up or response, we probably ought to finish it off in net.religion. This will be posted there also.