keebler@cmu-cs-edu1.ARPA (keebler) (04/04/85)
___________________________________________________________________ > Could someone please explain (Ethan??) the difference between a > "Religious theory" and a "Scientific theory"???? I am not qualified to tell you what a religious theory is. I can give you an educated guess ... A religious theory is a idea/con- cept, based upon religous facts/beliefs, that is not confirmed by authority. Corrections, anyone? A scientific theory is basically the same, except that it is based upon scientific facts/beliefs. The beliefs refer to fundamental assumptions, such as the consistency of nature. Therefore, science would be helpless if F=ma randomly changes to Fm=a and back without consistency. > In my view ALL theories, indeed ALL knowledge is based upon > presuppositions/axioms/assumptions that are basically 'religious/ > mystical' in nature. The first part of your view is correct; all knowledge is based upon presuppositions etc... I am not too certain how you would define "religious" and "mystical" in order to make some sense. If you mean that one must accept these assumptions on blind faith, you are incorrect, at the very least, in the area of science. There must be justifications for assumptions. > Absolute knowledge, certainty, objectivity, concrete proof, etc. > are constructs or 'models' of what we call 'reality'. This does not occur in science, since nothing is absolutely certain. > Sort of "objectivity is a figment of our imaginations". So is everything else, but there are practical reasons for which we don't just let it go at that. How you perceive your environment is subjective and at least partly a figment of your imagination since you will impose some imagination on your limited perception in your attempt to make some sense of it all. However you must draw a line somewhere since you do not question whether you are walking on solid ground or imaginary supports. Or do you? > I see only more or less 'evidence' for one theory over another - > religious or scientific! True, sort of ... religious evidence and scientific evidence are not exactly compatible, though. > I believe that this stance in line with modern 'scientific' > understanding as shown by the quotes that I have sent in to the > net from time to time. I see here from SOME of the contributors a > complete lack of understanding of science when they speak against > religious belief - just the way many religious people show a com- > plete lack of understanding of religion and science! It's just a feeling, but I believe that you have a lack of under- standing of science. (Perhaps this feeling is a little more jus- tified by your main question.) If this is the case, I do not see how you are qualified to make such accusations against others. > Remember Jastrow saying the scientists climbing up the mountain > of knowledge and finding the theologians there already? That's > the kind of thing I mean. Now Jastrow is NOT a Christian, > remember. I noticed that you did not say "Jastrow is NOT religious." Perhaps one of your biases is showing rather clearly here. > He's a scientist saying the same thing I am about the > way one goes about picking one's assumptions to build a world- > view. I know who he is. His short discussion about scientists finding theologians at the top of the mountain may be a sign of diminish- ing intelligence. When scientists are curious and want to seek knowledge, theologians often say "it is not your place to question God" or "you have no right to play God" or "it is blasphemous to place the created above the creator" ... Then, we find out that the earth is not flat, that the earth is not the center of the universe, ... I find it difficult to believe that theologians are anywhere ahead of scientists. In fact, I see them trailing far behind, still trying to pull scientists back. (Of course, these are my opinions, though anyone is entitled to them.) > I've quoted other non-Christian scientists as well on this > topic. Even Lew Mamel,Jr. quoted F-------- about using 'models' > in science. Who is F---------? Please elaborate for us. > Take a sentence like this recently posted in net.religion by > 'Lord Firth' (don't you just love the guy? Like to meet him.) > > "There are similar ways to verify the validity of subjective ex- > perience when they involve reality and concrete proof. Otherwise > there is only your subjective reality." So what's itching your rear? > He speaks as if his knowledge of philosophy and science stopped > at the year 1700. I mean, I've found interesting things in some > of what he has posted but this is very unclear - or clear that he > doesn't understand modern thought. "modern thought"? How about a little bit of justification for your accusations? I don't think he was born before 1700, therefore, a literal reading of your statement conveys the picture of a confused writer. Of course, you mean something else ... The question is: WHAT? > How does one define and example 'reality'. What IS 'concrete > proof'. Surely these things ARE constructs of the human mind used > as 'models' to explain the world we perceive! Damn right! We assume that there is a uniform set of things called "reality" which we perceive. Of course, our observation is quite limited, and likely distorted. We can make tools to help us expand our spectrum of observable things. (Microscope is a good example.) We may assume that the distortions unique to each individual can be eliminated through the collection and analysis of MANY observations by different observers. (We are now rapidly approaching "scientif- ic truth".) We assume that if something is observed to be so, many times, it is likely to be real. Of course, it may not be, but who knows? (Sorry, Ken, but we do not invoke God here. God is not an observation, it is only an explanation ... I will be glad to elab- orate for anyone interested in discussing this point.) > So many of the otherwise find minds here on the net parrot the > cant that we can 'prove' this or that thing and by that they mean > there is no other possibility of explanation that is legitimate > or fitting to reason. They don't seem to understand that what we > are doing is CHOOSING our models and testing them against our > perceptions of whatever 'reality' is. To limit 'reality' to only > the physical world IS an assumption that it is not NECESSARY to > make. Only one that CAN be so chosen. Like I said ... oops ... I mis-phrased it ... I really meant to say that the SUPERNATURAL is not an observation, it is only an explana- tion. I don't see reality as "limited" to the physical world. You seem to suggest that reality can be extended to supernatural, some- thing beyond the physical world. We have enough problems observing something that's there ... why bother introducing some bizarre, out of this world concept to confuse things? :-) > Let me just close with another comment by Jastrow. At a confer- > ence debate revolving around the question as to the likelihood of > intelligent extraterrestrial life in the galaxy (Jastrow says > yes) the moderator, Dr. Frank Tipler reports that Jastrow leaned > over to him and said, "Are you aware that this is essentially a > religious controversy on both sides?" (correction - Tipler wasn't > the moderator, he was on the panel) What's this for? I am not too interested in obviously opinionated comments whispered in a conference. (I seriously doubt anyone else would be interested, either.) If you are trying to make some point about science being religious, you have failed miserably. You have merely stated your opinions and the opinions of a few others, which does not even remotely justify your claim. > I see too many people here who know nothing of the basis for sci- > ence. They can do the math, but don't know WHAT it is that they > are doing! What's the problem??? Had bad experiences with reli- > gion as children? Had stupid teachers? Never took any liberal > arts courses or ones taught by the gym teacher? They act like > know-it-all graduate assistants. The larger minds in science > don't hold to their Time-Life views. Of course they are repulsed > by some of the religious views put forward. So am I. But again, > it seems to me ALL knowledge is based on 'religious' assumptions > and the range of evidence for which little probability of doubt > exists is so small so as to hardly exist! Well, I can't really say anything interesting in response. I can only restate something which I have "religiously" [:-)] stated far too many times to far too many people: You fail to provide any justifications for your claims, though you seem to expect us to accept them without question. How about some evidence next time? ___________________________________________________________________ Keebler { hua@cmu-cs-gandalf.arpa }