From: Scott Roberts (jse885@localnet.com)
Date: Tue Apr 19 2005 - 19:35:15 BST
Ian,
Ian said:
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.
Scott:
Ok. Yes, I agree, though there are political ramifications of being
"anti-theist" that I think are worth exploring, though separately (that, in
America, the natural ally of those secularists who are fighting the
Christian Right, is the quite substantial Christian Middle/Left).
Ian said:
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.
Scott:
There is definitely a conflict between scientism and theism, over what
counts as real. But I see no conflict between science and theism, or other
immaterialist philosophies. If one thinks, as I do, that space and time are
products of consciousness, that makes no difference in the study of
spatio-temporal objects and events as such. The scientific theories are the
same: given this situation one can confidently predict that such-and-such
will happen. I happen to think that physics is the "one, true" science of
perception (since I think that perception creates the spatio-temporal aspect
of things/events), but this wouldn't change the way I would do physics if I
were a physicist.
Ian said:
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.)
Scott:
This all hinges on what you mean be being "part of the real world". A
substance, to a Catholic, is not, or not just, matter (it is roughly
equivalent to the word "essence" or "nature", as in "the nature of God"). So
to say the substance has changed does not mean that what has changed is
measurable by any of our senses or instruments. The doctrine is that the
appearance is the same (it will still taste like bread and wine, there is no
change in chemical composition, etc.), but the substance has changed.
Science can only study appearance, so there is no scientific test that can
be made. The hypothesis is being made in a language that science has no use
for. To take that as being in conflict with science is to imply that only
scientific language is valid, that is, to be a scientific materialist.
Ian said:
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.
Scott:
?? Did you mean "art" or "science" that "cannot fundamentally provide
explanations - it can and eventually will"? I do not see art as being in the
business of providing explanations. If that is a typo and you meant
"science", then I would say you are speaking dogmatically.
Ian goes on:
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.
Scott:
A theologian would also not say that anything the theologian says is
definitely proven or disproven, since God and transubstantiation, etc., are
ultimately mysteries, and a given theology is an attempt to discuss (but not
explain) those mysteries in the language and knowledge of the time. But the
question here is whether science has anything to say about religious issues.
It certainly has in the past, since until the modern era religion was
all-encompassing, and included statements in its religious writing things
that an empirical investigation showed to be false. I suspect it will in the
future as well (quantum gravity, for example, if it ever shakes out with
saying something interesting about space and time), but theologians are now
ready for such eventualities. Nor is it assumed that such investigations
will be negative. Quantum physics can be taken as lending supporting to a
religious outlook (by opening a crack into the non-spatio-temporal), though
certainly it doesn't justify one. But in the main, science has nothing to
say about what is considered to be intrinsically non-physical, for example,
the cause (speaking most generally) of the physical. So why meddle with
such?
Ian said:
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.
Scott:
But are you saying that science can in principle explain everything (granted
with some necessary uncertainty)? I'm not clear on that (see above).
Ian said:
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.
Scott:
I would say that morality is in the province of religion, philosophy, art,
politics, and the individual (searching one's own conscience), so
secularists have their say as well. But I would deny that morality falls
into the province of science or mathematics. And, as mentioned above, doubt
plays a big role in religion as well ("God, I believe, help me in my
disbelief"). The line between "faith" and "hypothesis" is a blurry one. The
familiar phrase "faith seeking understanding" is an acknowledgment that one
does NOT understand. Of course, for the majority, faith comes along with the
rest of one's social environment, and doesn't much get questioned, but any
contemporary religious intellectual is well acquainted with uncertainty,
doubt, and self-questioning. I recommend Peter Berger's *The Heretical
Imperative* in this regard.
Ian said:
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:
But what are the fundamentals? Consciousness/Quality/Intellect (as I
believe) or physical things/forces? Can science decide between these two
(and other) choices, or is the choice being made for the latter because that
is the only one that science *can* deal with?
Ian said:
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 :-)
Scott:
Likewise. However, we may end debating what constitutes a pointless debate
:-)
- 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
This archive was generated by hypermail 2.1.5 : Tue Apr 19 2005 - 22:30:47 BST