From: ian glendinning (psybertron@gmail.com)
Date: Tue Apr 19 2005 - 14:20:49 BST
Scott,
Last first - when I said back to basics - I was as I said, referring
to the rest of the previous mail / thread - Platt's stuff about which
historical political leaders were more murderous than others, and how
one religious or scientific belief or other "caused" any one to be
"better" than another. False logic like "soviet communism failed
therefore western christianity is better". Just not worth the breath,
too many snags. That was the garbage I was suggesting we steer clear
of.
So, back to whether scientific or "religious" explanations are
fundamentally in "conflict" ....
I say they most definitely are are in conflict. What I disagree with
is your reasoning. Whether or not they are in conflict in "expalining"
something, has nothing to do with the detectablity of something by
empirical scientific method. I do not buy your suggestion that
conflict is avoided because there are somehow two realms in the world,
one where scientific explanations apply and one where "faith-based"
beliefs apply. No such luck.
So IF transubstantiation were seriously suggested as part of the real
world, science would indeed have something to say about the truth of
it, explaining it, etc. Unless a worthwhile test could be proposed
(which in this case I suspect it could, it's not that complicated a
problem) the empirical testability is only a minor part of the story -
you need a hypothesis, an explantion, BEFORE you test it. (And , true
or not, explaining why people "believe" it is yet another area to
discuss - memetic, I would say.)
Returning to the "science wouldn't presume" bit, about art and
aesthetics - again I say that not for the reason that it is a realm
where art cannot fundamentally provide explanations - it can and
eventually will. What science would not do is say anything
definitively proven / disproven, true / false about it, without a good
explanation, and without some (eventual) empirical test(s). In the
case of art and aesthetics, like quantum theory, science is mature
enough to recognise that adding explanation and testable evidence may
not contribute any aesthetic value, so why meddle.
My main thrust was to remind that science is about explanation.
Empirical testing is one tiny part of sorting out testable hypotheses.
What is testable sets the limits to so-called "scientific method", not
the bounds of science itself.
No way can science stand back and allow it to be said that morality is
the realm of religion. That is precisely my point. People arguing from
that stance (like yourself ?) have a massive advantage rhetorically
over science, since science starts and ends with with doubt. It is not
an explanation to start from massively complex real-world outcomes of
religious / moral thinking and conclude something is proven one way or
another. The lesson science has learned is never to presume such a
thing, or develop simply pseudo-scientific logical argumenmt, but it
does not prevent science constructing synthetic explanations, from the
fundamentals (basics) upwards.
Scott, I'm not shy of an argument where there is disagreement - just
choosy about not wasting my breath in areas of pointless debate. I'm
happy with this battlefield :-)
Sincerely,
Ian
On 4/19/05, Scott Roberts <jse885@localnet.com> wrote:
> Ian,
>
> 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.
>
> Ian said:
> 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."
>
> Scott:
> DMB claimed there is a conflict between religion (specifically theism) and
> science. I ask for an example (excluding fundamentalists). Anthony gives
> transubstantiation. I ask where they conflict. I am not saying that
> transubstantiation is true (I don't hold with it). I am only pointing out
> that science has nothing to say in the matter. Hence there is no conflict.
> Isn't that your position as well?
>
> Ian said:
> 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.
>
> Scott:
> Precisely my point. It applies to religion as well, as long as religion
> doesn't claim things that science *can* say something about it. Science can
> only deal with the inorganic. Art and religion deal with the moral and the
> transcendent. It took a while for theism to learn this lesson, but it did
> (always excluding the fundamentalists). Now it is time for the scientific
> materialists and naturalists to learn the lesson.
>
> Ian said:
> 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.
>
> Scott:
> I'd say this is about as basic as it gets. Are you suggesting that we should
> not discuss anything that questions your beliefs?
>
> - Scott R
>
>
> 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 - 14:27:41 BST