From: Scott Roberts (jse885@localnet.com)
Date: Tue May 03 2005 - 18:20:28 BST
Mark,
Scott said:
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:
In matters other than size and body hair, I think the difference
between adults and children is highly over-rated. I think adults
underestimate children on a regular basis. And I know a bunch of
adults who have no business "telling" children anything. And I've
met children whose understanding of the world far exceeds that of
their parents. So I guess I'm not as impressed with the
distinction. I think we'll give the world an evolutionary boost when
we stop telling our children fairy tales of any kind.
Scott:
I'm not much of child psychologist, but I do think Piaget had some important
things to say about what sorts of things a child can and cannot take in. In
any case, I'm not worried about telling children fairy tales -- I was told
plenty. But I would agree that there is a problem with -- I'm not sure how
to put it -- excessive hell, fire and brimstone indoctrination. At some
point this becomes abuse.
Scott before:
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 says:
Whenever I hear the word "scientism" I think of females who act
telling us they want to be called "actors" not "actresses." I won't
believe it till they stop accepting Best Actress Awards. There's a
similar dishonest undertone, don't you think?
Besides, what I've always said, from the beginning, is that
scientific claims ARE NOT epistemologically equivalent to religious
claims. There is no valid basis for comparison.
msh still talking:
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:
I'm not. At least I don't think I am. I'm getting confused about
who's said what and why. What I've said is that TS is in conflict
with science to the extent that it cannot be proved by science, at
least up till now. Same as the belief in the Loch Ness monster. It
is a faith-based, not a scientific belief.
What's the problem?
Scott:
The problem is that you are treating belief in TS with belief in the Loch
Ness monster in the same way. If the monster existed, then science could
detect it, so belief in the monster is in conflict with science. Whether or
not the substance of the wafer and wine changed, science could never detect
it. Science has nothing to say about TS, while it does have something to say
about the monster. If you say that "TS is in conflict with science to the
extent that it cannot be proved by science", then you would have to say that
the MOQ is in conflict with science, since the claim that electrons have
preferences cannot be proved (or disproved) by science.
msh:
The important point, made recently by DMB, is that theologians who
seek scientific approval (both you and Sam agree there are those who
do) will never have to worry about being disproved by science; they
always have the back door of saying it is true because I have faith
that it is true, regardless of what science can and cannot detect.
Scott:
That's why they are bad theologians -- they are misapplying science. The
question is whether science and theism are in conflict. They can certainly
be put into conflict, either by bad theology (which would also include
fundamentalists) or by scientism -- or if you prefer, logical positivism --
those who claim that if science has no input to the question the question
should be rejected. So when you and DMB and Ian keep maintaining that they
are in conflict, and since I know you are not religious fundamentalists, and
since you deny that you are logical positivists, then I am led to believe
that you are judging theism by its bad apples. Which has been my more
general complaint all along to Pirsig's anti-theism stance. It is one thing
to not have a use for theistic language (for the most part I don't either,
but I have learned a great deal from theists). It is quite another to be
against it because one has based one's judgment on its less reputable
elements.
<skip Sam and my supposed conflicting stories -- Sam answered that well>
scott said:
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.
msh says:
Sounds right to me. So, "Where's The Beef?" Other than what I said
3 msh's above?
Scott:
See response to 3 (now 2) msh's above. The beef comes from bad theology, bad
metaphysics (materialism), and ignorance of good theology.
- 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 - 18:57:57 BST