From: Scott Roberts (jse885@localnet.com)
Date: Mon May 02 2005 - 20:16:11 BST
Mark et al,
On 2 May 2005 at 14:36, Sam Norton wrote:
And as, to me, it seems the core of the thread is Scott's question
about whether science and 'contemporary non-fundamentalist theism'
are in conflict.
msh:
I agree and, as often happens, comments have galloped away from the
original subject, so let's see if we can rein them into a new corral.
<skip>
3) Sam claimed, therefore, that no Catholics really believe they are
eating flesh and drinking blood.
5) I claimed that this is not the impression I got as a young
Catechism student. But maybe Sister Mary hadn't read Aquinas.
Scott:
This was resolved, I presume, when you tasted bread and not flesh, no?
6) Ant said that maybe she had but was doing what the church seeks to
do: indoctrinating members to adopt non-questioning, non-scientific,
authoritarian explanations of what is and isn't true.
Scott:
One must distinguish between what one can tell a child and what one can tell
an adult. How many children learn of the Big Bang as a fact, without going
into an explanation of what a scientific theory is (and how many adults
think it is a fact)?
msh:
7) In a similar vein, very recently, DMB said that this is how
theologians protect themselves from scientific criticism, claiming,
basically, for example in this case (TS), there is a substantial
change that is not measurable by science, but is nevertheless real.
msh now says:
If David is correct, and I think he is, then it will be IMPOSSIBLE
for any scientist to show a conflict between science and theology.
Scott:
But this is my point, and what you and DMB are doing is putting a spin on
it: Science cannot disprove a religious claim. Therefore religious claims
are spurious. That spin is called scientism.
msh:
This doesn't bother me much, because I've always claimed that science
and theology are mutually exclusive areas of investigation, one with
its roots in practical empiricism, the other stemming from
assumptions based on faith.
Scott:
So why are you concerned that transubstantiation cannot be disproved by
science?
msh:
It seems to me that, at this point, the discussion would be over but,
because, for whatever reason, most (all?) theologians are desirous
of science's stamp of approval, they constantly offer challenges
exactly like the challenge offered by Scott to begin this thread.
And the circle goes round...
Scott:
In the first place, my asking for an example of conflict was in response to
DMB's saying that science and theism *are* in conflict. In any case, my
challenge had nothing to do with seeking science's stamp of approval. What
makes you think it does?
msh:
So, to me the interesting question has always been, why do
theologians so often appear to seek the imprimatur of science?
Scott:
This is where you and DMB are out of date. Some theologians used to make
pseudo-scientific arguments (of the God of the gaps sort), but most have
learned not to. There are still many theists around who continue to do so,
but the higher quality theology does not. I am, in fact doing precisely the
opposite of offering a scientific argument, or seeking the imprimatur of
science. I am, instead, saying that science does one thing, and theology
another, and there is no conflict between them.
For comparison, science cannot demonstrate, but is not in conflict with, the
MOQ claim that electrons show preference (as opposed, say, to selecting a
position randomly).
- 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
This archive was generated by hypermail 2.1.5 : Tue May 03 2005 - 00:03:40 BST