hua@cmu-cs-edu1.ARPA (Ernest Hua) (10/24/85)
______________________________________________________________________________ > { From: dubois@uwmacc.UUCP (Paul DuBois) } > > > > ... > > > > Agreed. I really meant to say that by allowing for supernatural entities, > > religions conflict with science. > > When "science" is equated with "naturalism". > > However, the word "science" means "the search for knowledge". It does not > specify that the search must be naturalistic. Such seems to be the meaning > in modern times, true. But that meaning is not a logical necessity. Of course it is a logical necessity. I am discussing the "natural sciences". I am not discussing, for example, computer science or Bible science. A search for knowledge never implies a valid or a supportable or even a logical search. It is only a search. I am talking about ones that are supportable through rigorous tests, not "it says so in the Bible". "It says so in the Bible" may be valid in a different type of search for knowledge, but not a naturalistically scientific one. Allowing for supernatural entities makes everything trivial. If you explain the solidification of water as a drop in temperature, I could just as well explain it through an act of God in response to your behavior last Tuesday and be completely reasonable. I know of your gripes of the straw man attack via the God-said-so accusation. Whether this actually used or not, it is irrelevant. It is the fact that accepting supernatural explanations allows for completely trivializing answers that provide no useful information. Once again, I am not saying that such things do not exist. They are, however, outside the realm of the natural sciences. > > > Christianity is based on the fact that an omnipotent being, GOD, created > > > the world. This creation was not "outside" of physical laws. > > > > That's quite an assumption ... that a "GOD" created the world ... more > > specifically, that "He" created it with laws that "He" designed ... that > > these laws still exist ...? What evidence do you have to support this? > > It was observed for you long ago that one does not prove assumptions. > One assumes them, and proceeds from there. I also observed that he wrote the word "fact" which is not what I find terribly well supported in his statements. Since he provided no evidence to show that his fact was somehow derived, I can only assume that he assumed it to be factual. Since I hardly agree (and I certainly have no reason to make the assumption that he did), I asked for supporting evidence. > > > Miracles, and even original human thought is merely evidence that the > > > laws of physics that GOD wrote, are orders of magnitute above our present > > > understanding and perhaps even our ability to understand (although I > > > certainly advocate trying) the real fabric of the universe. > > > > If these laws are "orders magnitude above our present understanding", how > > do you expect anyone to be able to figure out that they exist? What kind > > of evidence could possibly support the existence of laws beyond our under- > > standing? > > Read what he wrote. > > The key word is "present". Our present understanding of several phenomena > is now orders of magnitude above what it used to be. For instance, the > processes involved in putting a man on the moon are now understood much > better than, say, two thousand years ago. Fine. But my objection was that he predicts something which he has given nothing to support. I, myself, am pretty sure, intuitively, that we will eventually find laws that are "orders of magnitude above our present understanding". I, however, do not use intuition to support a scientific argument unless I have something concrete to back it up. > The irony of your comment is that in it you deny (without meaning to, > probably) the cumulative nature of scientific endeavor, in asserting that > our understanding will not reach certain levels. If you can find my stating such, do so, and show it. Meanwhile refrain from making unsupported accusations. (Sounds rather familiar?) This is very much like someone accusing me of atheism. I do not deny the existence of any supernatural entity that anyone could think of. That does not imply that I accept the existences of supernatural entities either. > Note also your error of interpretation. John did not say that the laws > *are* above our understanding (as you seem to assume), but that they *may* > be. Please read the original words: "Miracles, and even original human thought is merely evidence that the laws of physics that GOD wrote, are orders of magnitute above our present ^^^ understanding ..." Miracles are evidence? You mean there are miracles? Laws of physics that God wrote? How do you know that? etc ... > > You have already assumed that God exists, of course, which is not support- > > able by science by any means (certainly not the Christian God which you > > mostly likely speak of). Remember ... if God created physical laws, he > > must be able to circumvent them or make up new ones. If this is really > > the case, then science has no value whatsoever as it cannot discover any > > real useful information that will most likely apply beyond the next moment. > > Assuming that such a God *must* be arbitrary and capricious from moment to > moment. Once again, you have misunderstood my complaint. It does not matter whether God really is arbitrary or not; it does matter that God can be arbitrary. > ... Note also your ignorance of the historical development of scientific > investigation: Modern scientific enterprise (in western circles, at least) > has its most fundamental roots in the foundation laid by those who believed > that God was reasonable and consistent, and that His creation was ordered > according to those attributes, and therefore could be investigated under the > assumption that laws and processes found to hold today would also hold > tomorrow. The same logic may be used to support full theorcratic censorship of scientific publications. An Italian sailor greatly responsible for the existence of the United States does not justify allowing Italy to determine the type of government and society we shall have. Just because religion directly or indirectly helped brought about scientific advancement does not mean that religion should be the basis of science. I am not ignorant of history development; you are ignorant of the difference between history and fundamental principles. I look at that which is around me and assume that there is some set of fundamental rules that predict the characteristics and the behaviors that exist around me. (If not, why bother learning it all?) If you prefer to call the rules God, or if you prefer to believe that something fairly similiar to a human being fixed these rules, go right on ahead. But don't try to force it on me as "scientific" because you don't have the evidence to support it. Think about it. If you expect to prove that something could set rules, you will, in all likelyhood, have to prove that this something could set the rules to something different. Now you have gotten a deadend in your hands. Some comments in simple terms ... If you simply want it simply because you like it, tough cookies. If you cry, "Indoctrination!", keep in mind that we have got the evidence, and you don't. If you cry, "That's not evidence!", keep in mind that we call it evidence so tough cookies. You want to play our game, you have to obey our rules. I do not tell you what constitutes prayer; do not tell me what constitutes evidence. etc ... ______________________________________________________________________________ Keebler
hua@cmu-cs-edu1.ARPA (Ernest Hua) (10/24/85)
______________________________________________________________________________ > From: ellis@spar.UUCP (Michael Ellis) > > > > ... Religion (at least Christianity) doesn't freely recognize the majical > > > and supernatural as real entities, at least not in the sense that I think > > > you mean. > > > > Agreed. I really meant to say that by allowing for supernatural entities, > > religions conflict with science. > > Baloney! Baloney! Gee, I could say that word too! It must mean that we are both right ... and both wrong. > That's as silly as saying {physics, law} conflict with pure reason because > {empirical deduction, normative assertions} cannot be logically deduced. > Reason is useful to science, but that does not mean that science conflicts > with reason because its ideas transcend purely logical thinking. Could you please define "reason"? If it is not bounded by logic, reason has no place in science. You have not made any clear connections between what I said and what your comment above. Try again? > Many efforts within religion have gone far to remove conflict with science > (thereby purifying their spirituality by removing material constraints from > their wisdom). Like the flat earth view and geocentrism? I think the cause for the update is more like common sense or embarassment. > Some have even eagerly sought out deeper revelations in the Creator's > clearest word -- the creation we live in -- the universe itself. Nice assumptions there ... the universe was created ... "deep" revelations in the creations (how about giving a few examples of these revelations) ... > > > Christianity is based on the fact that an omnipotent being, GOD, created > > > the world. This creation was not "outside" of physical laws. > > > > That's quite an assumption ... that a "GOD" created the world ... more > > specifically, that "He" created it with laws that "He" designed ... that > > these laws still exist ...? What evidence do you have to support this? > > What evidence do you have for your own mind? Could you demonstrate its > existence to a strict behaviorist? Simple X-ray photography, CAT scans, motor functionality, ... I am talking about my brain, of course. If you are refering to something more ethereal, forget it. You have conveniently ignored my questions. How about answering some? > > If these laws are "orders magnitude above our present understanding", how > > do you expect anyone to be able to figure out that they exist? What kind > > of evidence could possibly support the existence of laws beyond our under- > > standing? > > > > You have already assumed that God exists, of course, which is not support- > > able by science by any means (certainly not the Christian God which you > > mostly likely speak of). Remember ... if God created physical laws, he > > must be able to circumvent them or make up new ones. If this is really > > the case, then science has no value whatsoever as it cannot discover any > > real useful information that will most likely apply beyond the next moment. > > Science has already taken much that it needed from God, for example, the > notion that the universe was created and is governed by absolute and > immutable laws. Okay. But now we work backwards (to God of course!) and we find that we have nothing to support a God. So we reevaluate our situation. Well, it can be gotten from a different set of assumptions that is far more plausible than a supernatural creator. Guess which way we chose? Again, what does your comment have to do with my comments? Why have you ignored my questions? > No doubt, science will continue to raid religion again whenever it needs to. No doubt, religion will continue to raid science again whenever its members feel that their beliefs are threatened by the simple evidences and principles revealed in scientific investigation. > In the meantime, those who are unable to see that their vision is restricted > by their pet methodology's definition of `observable' will continue to > misunderstand religion. In the meantime, those who are blinded by thousand-years-old beliefs etched in stone will continue to misunderstand science. Rhetoric for rhetoric ... ______________________________________________________________________________ Keebler