hua@cmu-cs-edu1.ARPA (Ernest Hua) (05/18/85)
___________________________________________________________________________ I have only included my response and Gary's response to these in the quoted material. I have retained the original article which I used to respond to, so it is available for references. > From: garys@bunkerb.UUCP (Gary M. Samuelson) > > I thank Keebler for his explanation. It confirms what I had > suspected, namely, that his (and many others') definition of > science rules out God a priori. This puts a severe limitation > on discussion in a group which purports to be on the subject > of creation vs. evolution. If by definition God does not exist, > or is at best irrelevant, then how can any discussion proceed? I am glad you brought this up, since I have been addressing the idea for quite some time, although few others have really attempted any meaningful discussion on it. You are quite correct in that my definition of science rules out God a priori. It is also quite true that, as you mentioned later, this definition rules out miracles and all other events or processes that, by definition, disobey certain rules of nature. In science, it is strictly impossible to study anything which may disobey particular rules of nature, especially if this occurs at whimsical/random/un- predictable occurances. The whole idea of science is to figure out what rules nature obeys. If something occurs, it is considered a fact of nature, and it must be explained using known facts of nature or some naturalistic ("materialistic" is another word commonly used here for the sake of denigrating the whole idea) explanation. (more clarifications later on) > > 1) I make this assumption, as scientists must do, because science becomes > > a joke if this is incorrect. (I am not saying that this is correct; I am > > just making this assumption to make scientific study possible.) Science > > tries to find out about laws of nature. Laws that change with time are > > not laws themselves, but only sub-laws in a much bigger law, a dependency > > of which is time. It may actually be that no law really exist at all, and > > in fact, all that we have gathered as data for evidence of laws is just > > simple coincidence or, better yet, a cruel joke devised by some omniscient > > being. But until we figure that out, we have to live with the assumption > > that nature is consistent. > > I can accept the above, with the following comments: > > 1. You earlier say that the 'natural flow of things' has always happened > and always will. It does no harm to the assumption that nature is > consistent to suppose that the material universe had a beginning and > will have an end. Unfortunately, there is no reason to believe that there is some "beginning" or some "end". You might mark some event as a "beginning" of a particular era (and certainly, another event as the "end" of it). The entire concept of time is some linear progression. There is nothing to support a finite "time line". > 2. Anything we call a law today might turn out to be a sub-law tomorrow. > All of the physical laws are merely approximations of reality as we > are able to perceive it. Newton's laws of motion are sufficiently > accurate most of the time, but in some cases (e.g. very high speeds), > the error becomes significant, and we switch to Einstein. Newton's > laws are exact within Newton's model of the universe, but are merely > approximations to the real universe. Okay by me. Note that the goal of science is to close the gap between scientific laws and natural laws, assuming that natural laws exist at all. > 3. Your assumption also rules out miracles a priori. That's ok, though, > to some extent, because by definition a miracle is an exception, or, > if you prefer, an inconsistency. So, it is in a sense true that miracles > are not scientific -- if you could reproduce a miracle under controlled > conditions, it wouldn't be a miracle, but, as you imply, an example > of some other law. Now don't misunderstand -- I agree that any > claim of miracle should be viewed with a large dose of skepticism, > and that 99+% of all such claims are bogus (largely, I think, these > claims occur because a lot of people have a rather loose definition > of 'miracle'). But I don't think it necessary to assume that there > has never been a miracle, and never will be. Again, it is an > approximation, even a very close approximation, to say that miracles > do not occur, but one must remember that there is a difference > between the model and reality. The difficulties lies in trying to find some objective/first-order descriptions of miracles. Again, the whole idea behind science is to figure out what reality is. Scientific method requires the existence of a set of rules that define the workings of reality. If such a set of rules can be violated in reality, then it is point- less to study reality via science. I guess it comes down to a mat- ter of trust. Would you trust someone's word? or evidence? If you trust evidence, you must first make the assumption that that which your evidence supports is consistent in the context from which the evidence was taken. Otherwise, the evidence is not evidence at all. I must make a point about the statistics that you brought up. There is no way to "prove" via evidence, something which, by definition, may be inconsistent. Therefore, it is really difficult to figure out whether something is a "true" miracle or a hoax, unless someone spill the beans. The question comes down to this (in response to your last statement): "How do you know that there are miracles in reality?" My answer to the question is: "I don't know." I cannot say, with confidence, that, in reality, natural laws are not violated. But if I allow for such violations, the study of reality becomes a matter of pure unadulterated blind guesswork. There is no reason to study reality if the knowledge gained may not necessarily apply later. I really have no problems with the fact that there is that distinct possibility that the rules I have studied/study/will study truly have no reflection on reality. I think the creationists have gone too far by saying that these violations DO occur and are DIRECTLY ATTIBUTABLE to a single entity which uses some set of thought processes of which our thought processes are subsets. Violations of natural laws are already out of reach of scientists. I see no legitimate reason to make such a specific recommendation of what "really" goes on. Of course, for some, there is always the religious motive ... > > If you want to find consistency, you have to expect it to exist. > > Interesting the similarity between this statement and Hebrews 11:6: > "...anyone who comes to him [God] must believe that he exists and > that he rewards those who earnestly seek him." Certainly, those > who operate from the assumption that there is no God will never > find him. (Please note that I am not saying it is wrong to expect > consistency -- except in the beliefs of humans, of course :-). Quite true. However, I am operating under the assumption that I cannot possibly understand God or miracles or other supernatural things. From this assumption, I have decided not to bother to study them. That is not the same as assuming that they do not exist. By the way, this seems to be a frequent creationist error. I recall several passages by Henry Morris himself saying something to the effect of: "... if teaching the absence of God is allowed, then teaching the presence of God should also be given equal con- sideration ..." > > Certainly. There are certain qualifications that we use to define > > life. A rock cannot satisfy any of them, therefore, we cannot con- > > sider a rock as a life form. However, what about a virus. It is > > capable of self-replication under certain circumstances, though it > > is most often dormant. Is it a part-time life form? > > There are plants whose seeds can remain dormant for thousands of > years and germinate normally. I would not call them part-time > life forms. Frankly, I don't know what to call a virus. (I know I will get in trouble with some purist biologist on the net for saying this.) A virus, in the strictest definition, is a life form. Under certain circumstances, it can reproduce itself. I guess the difficulty lies in separating life from non-life, since there are a lot of things (which we consider as non-living) which can generate itself, given the right set of circumstances. I am getting in trouble with some biologist here because the usual way to separate the set of extremely rigid circumstances from the set of "common" circumstances is by determining the main mechanism(s) for the reproduction. The main mechanisms for cellular fission is inside the cell. Thus the cell provides most of the mechanism for reproduction. The main mechanism for the seed example (above) is also in the cell. Even if the germination process is triggered/supported by the environment, most of the required machinery is already in the cell, and what is taken in is just raw material. A virus, however, uses the reproductive mechanisms in its environment (read: the host). It provides some "programming" for the machinery, but the machinery is supplied by outside sources. Oh boy. Time to change my mind ... (this is allowable in science, thank good- ness) ... I am no longer considering the virus as a life form. I am, instead, going to put it in the fuzzy area between life and non-life. > > By the way, your first sentence in this past paragraph is self-con- > > tradictory. Life cannot exist "in a form we would not recognize as > > life" because then we would not call it life. There is also the > > misunderstanding that there is some continuum which someone (perhaps > > you are refering to me?) partitioned into life and non-life. > > I was only trying to consider all possibilities. Someone made > a statement that there was no clear distinction between life > and nonlife, and that therefore it wasn't entirely meaningful > to ask when 'life' began. Since you say this is not your view, > I am content to drop it. Ooops! Sorry! My paragraph was poorly and insufficiently worded. What I meant to say was that there is no reasonable way to partition all things into two classes consisting of "life" and "non-life". The virus, of course, is a good example. The conflict is problematic in the fuzzy area, in which the virus resides. What do you call some metalic machine that is capable of making more of itself simply by taking in raw materials from the ground? I don't know of any yet, but it does not seem too farfetched an idea. It need not be perfect in routine operation or reproduction. Sounds awefully like life to me. I might not consider it as life out of pure arrogance (I really do have some of this arrogance), but that's not objective. I think, when we are forced to make some clear distinctions, we will have to figure out the purpose of making the distinction. A good question to raise might be: "Why must biological systems be limited to those constructed mostly of organic substances, since other factors such as artificial contaminants also contribute to the workings of these systems?" I really cannot say that there is some "continuum" except in some vague abstract sense. (e.g. a pool of all things plus some dividing line to be placed between "life" and "non-life".) I guess that is a valid way to look at it, though. ___________________________________________________________________________ Live long and prosper. Keebler { hua@cmu-cs-gandalf.arpa }
garys@bunker.UUCP (Gary M. Samuelson) (05/22/85)
I, also, am trying to keep the size of these articles down. So far I don't think either of us has quoted the other out of context. ( '> ' == Keebler, '> > ' == Me.) > You are quite correct in that my definition of science rules out God > a priori. It is also quite true that, as you mentioned later, this > definition rules out miracles and all other events or processes that, > by definition, disobey certain rules of nature. In science, it is > strictly impossible to study anything which may disobey particular > rules of nature, especially if this occurs at whimsical/random/un- > predictable occurances. I don't know anyone who believes in a "whimsical/random/unpredictable" God -- do you? If not, then this is a strawgod argument. > Unfortunately, there is no reason to believe that there is some "beginning" > or some "end". > There is nothing to support a finite "time line". Nor is there reason to believe that there is not a beginning or an end; nor is there anything to support an infinite time line. You made the assumption that there is no beginning or end; do you have a reason, other than "no reason to believe otherwise" ? --------- This is a key point (I paraphrase, slightly, myself): > > It is a very close approximation to reality, to say > > that miracles do not occur, but one must remember that there is > > a difference between the model and reality. --------- > The difficulties lies in trying to find some objective/first-order > descriptions of miracles. Again, the whole idea behind science is > to figure out what reality is. Scientific method requires the > existence of a set of rules that define the workings of reality. > If such a set of rules can be violated in reality, then it is point- > less to study reality via science. You seem to have missed my point; I will try again. There are two sets of rules. One contains those rules which exist in reality, and which *define* the workings of reality. The other contains those rules which people have invented to *describe* the workings of reality. We wish that the two sets were identical (though we know that it isn't so); we hope that they are sufficiently alike that we can get on with life (e.g., our machines will work as planned. We study reality via science in the hope that we can make the set of descriptive rules more closely approximate the definitive rules. One of the descriptive rules says that the universe is a closed system. But the only reason for accepting the premise that the universe is closed is that it makes it easier to do our science. Now, the best way I can think of to express the concept of miracles in scientific terms is to say that the universe is not a closed system. This doesn't make scientific study pointless; it merely acknowledges the fact that science is not perfect. Additionally, there have been (and still are) *lots* of scientists who also believe in God; they don't think that scientific study is pointless, though they believe that the rules may *occassionally* be broken. --------------- You seem to think that God would want to mess up your experiments just out of spite or something (and people say I have anthropomorphic concepts of God). Suppose he promised not to do that? > I guess it comes down to a matter of trust. > Would you trust someone's word? or evidence? False dichotomy. Virtually all of the evidence I know about is second hand. Therefore I not only need to trust 'evidence', but the word of someone who told me about it. In addition, I have to decide whether to trust the word of anyone who purports to give me an explanation or interpretation of the evidence. One person sees the similarities of various life-forms and says that that is evidence that they had a common ancestor. Another sees the same similarities and says that that is evidence that they had a common creator. > If you > trust evidence, you must first make the assumption that that which > your evidence supports is consistent in the context from which the > evidence was taken. Otherwise, the evidence is not evidence at all. Come again? > I must make a point about the statistics that you brought up. There > is no way to "prove" via evidence, something which, by definition, > may be inconsistent. First, my figure (99+%) was not intended as a "statistic" (let alone "statistics") -- I just used it as shorthand for "nearly all." Second, and more important, distinguishing a miracle from a hoax is a historical problem more than a scientific problem, and it is true that no historical statement can be "proved" beyond everyone's capacity to doubt. > Therefore, it is really difficult to figure > out whether something is a "true" miracle or a hoax, unless someone > spill the beans. "Spilling the beans" doesn't help unless you trust the word of the one doing the "spilling" (or are predisposed to accept the statement that it is a hoax). > The question comes down to this (in response to > your last statement): "How do you know that there are no miracles in > reality?" My answer to the question is: "I don't know." I cannot > say, with confidence, that, in reality, natural laws are not violated. > But if I allow for such violations, the study of reality becomes a > matter of pure unadulterated blind guesswork. (Deja vu.) Miracles do not make the study of reality a matter of guesswork any more than the fact that our knowledge is imperfect. I have plans for the weekend, even though I might not be alive that long. I am editting this article, even though a power failure or a disk crash could make the effort vain. I consider the probabilities of these events sufficiently small that I act as if they won't happen, though I don't know that. > There is no reason > to study reality if the knowledge gained may not necessarily apply > later. I really have no problems with the fact that there is that > distinct possibility that the rules I have studied/study/will study > truly have no reflection on reality. How come this possibility doesn't mean that "the study of reality becomes a matter of pure unadulterated blind guesswork" ? If the rules you study have no reflection on reality, then the knowledge gained may not necessarily apply later. You appear to be saying that if you are wrong about the existence and influence of God, then you would have to give up science, but that if you are wrong about anything else, that's OK. > I think the creationists have > gone too far by saying that these violations DO occur and are DIRECTLY > ATTIBUTABLE to a single entity which uses some set of thought processes > of which our thought processes are subsets. Violations of natural laws > are already out of reach of scientists. I see no legitimate reason > to make such a specific recommendation of what "really" goes on. Of > course, for some, there is always the religious motive ... >------- > However, I am operating under the assumption that I > cannot possibly understand God or miracles or other supernatural > things. I don't what to do besides suggest a different assumption: that God (if you are willing to consider the possibility that he exists) *wants* you to understand him, at least to some extent. > What do you call some > metalic machine that is capable of making more of itself simply by > taking in raw materials from the ground? I suppose I would call it a created being :-). > Live long and prosper. > Keebler { hua@cmu-cs-gandalf.arpa } *** REPLACE THIS LINE WITH YOUR MESSAGE ***