From: Erin (macavity11@yahoo.com)
Date: Tue Apr 19 2005 - 04:35:43 BST
IAN: Science wouldn't presume to say anything about "beauty" or aesthetics,
It could say someting about "objective" qualities of the art work and
it's processes, if asked, but the person asking would be missing the
points of both art and science.
ERIN: Science wouldn't say the beauty or quality of a painting is empirical but many MOQists do say that and that is what I thought Scott's point was. If masses of people are "experiencing" transubstantion then why not call it empirical...as militant MOQists say justifying their expansion of empirical "ideas are real as rocks".
ian glendinning <psybertron@gmail.com> wrote:
Scott, you said
The doctrine of transubstantiation does not declare
that something that science can measure has been changed. If you are going
to say that there is conflict because science cannot detect Christ in the
bread and wine, then you would have to say that art and science are in
conflict because science cannot detect the beauty of a painting.
I say, I despair ...
This is the theistic fallacy of science, a caricature, but not science itself.
99% of things in the world can not be proven (and 100% cannot be
disproven) by scientific test methods. Science is based on doubt,
supported by plausible explanation. Not - "I can't demonstrate that by
a test - so I'll explain it by divine magic."
Science wouldn't presume to say anything about "beauty" or aesthetics,
It could say someting about "objective" qualities of the art work and
it's processes, if asked, but the person asking would be missing the
points of both art and science.
As to the rest of this thread, I find myself returning to my plea from
a year ago that religion and global politics of war be banned from
this forum - they're far too complicated for either science or
doctrine-based causal explanations They depend primarily on whose
version of history you believe. That's in the memes.
Back to basics please.
Ian
On 4/19/05, Scott Roberts wrote:
> Ant,
>
> Scott Roberts stated April 18th 2005:
>
> >Oh yes, and I'm still waiting for an example where science and
> >contemporary,
> >non-fundamentalist theism are in conflict. As I've said before, you're
> >about
> >50 to 100 years out of date.
>
> Ant:
> For starters, what about transubstantiation? i.e. the Roman Catholic belief
> that the Eucharist (that represents the presence of Christ in the mass) is
> literally the body and blood of Jesus.
>
> Scott:
> Where's the conflict? The doctrine of transubstantiation does not declare
> that something that science can measure has been changed. If you are going
> to say that there is conflict because science cannot detect Christ in the
> bread and wine, then you would have to say that art and science are in
> conflict because science cannot detect the beauty of a painting.
>
> - Scott
>
>
> MOQ.ORG - http://www.moq.org
> Mail Archives:
> Aug '98 - Oct '02 - http://alt.venus.co.uk/hypermail/moq_discuss/
> Nov '02 Onward - http://www.venus.co.uk/hypermail/moq_discuss/summary.html
> MD Queries - horse@darkstar.uk.net
>
> To unsubscribe from moq_discuss follow the instructions at:
> http://www.moq.org/md/subscribe.html
>
>
MOQ.ORG - http://www.moq.org
Mail Archives:
Aug '98 - Oct '02 - http://alt.venus.co.uk/hypermail/moq_discuss/
Nov '02 Onward - http://www.venus.co.uk/hypermail/moq_discuss/summary.html
MD Queries - horse@darkstar.uk.net
To unsubscribe from moq_discuss follow the instructions at:
http://www.moq.org/md/subscribe.html
MOQ.ORG - http://www.moq.org
Mail Archives:
Aug '98 - Oct '02 - http://alt.venus.co.uk/hypermail/moq_discuss/
Nov '02 Onward - http://www.venus.co.uk/hypermail/moq_discuss/summary.html
MD Queries - horse@darkstar.uk.net
To unsubscribe from moq_discuss follow the instructions at:
http://www.moq.org/md/subscribe.html
This archive was generated by hypermail 2.1.5 : Tue Apr 19 2005 - 05:26:32 BST