Columnist: A rational way to keep god in the classroom
Jason Spaceman
---------------------------------------------------------------------
PHILOSOPHY I We have a failure to understand what science is and
isn't, and a reluctance to consider what religion is and isn't
Peter McKnight
Vancouver Sun
Saturday, November 11, 2006
The wars over religion continue, and not just in Iraq and Afghanistan.
Indeed, some of the most important battles are occurring, not in areas
famous for sectarian storms, but in the becalmed jurisdictions of
Quebec and Massachusetts.
The epicentre of the Massachusetts battle is Harvard University, the
esteemed institution that began life as a training ground for Puritan
clerics. Though it divested itself of its religious mission years ago,
Harvard's Task Force on General Education has now recommended that it
resurrect its past.
This panel notes that many domestic and international disputes have
religion at their core, and it therefore suggests that all
undergraduate students take a course in a category called "Reason and
Faith." The committee stresses that the courses are not meant as
"religious apologetics," but instead examine "the interplay between
religion and various aspects of national and/or international culture
and society."
That sounds innocuous enough, but evidently not to some scientists.
Famed Harvard psychologist Stephen Pinker responded to the proposal by
telling the Harvard Crimson newspaper that "universities are about
reason pure and simple," and hence faith "has no place in anything but
a religious institution."
Although Pinker's objection seems a little overwrought, his sentiments
are understandable given the continuing attempts to introduce religion
into biology classes through creationism and intelligent design. And
that brings us to Quebec's latest religious war.
Concerned that some independent schools in la belle province are
teaching creationism, the Quebec Ministry of Education recently
ordered the schools to teach the theory of evolution or close their
doors.
Alan Buchanan of Eglise Evangelique responded that his school does
teach evolution, alongside intelligent design: "We want children to
understand what they're going to meet in the outside world, and what's
wrong with the theory [of evolution]," Buchanan said. "We also teach a
better theory -- that God created the universe and so on."
Now one has to wonder exactly what kids at Eglise Evangelique are
being taught, since by Buchanan's own words it can't be the scientific
theory of evolution. By offering a theistic theory as an alternative
to evolution, Buchanan is charging that the scientific theory is
necessarily atheistic. That this is false -- and reveals Buchanan's
ignorance of evolution and science -- is evidenced by the many
religious scientists, and by the eggheads in the Vatican, who assent
to the scientific theory of evolution and who, last time I checked,
also believe in God.
Clearly what we have here, in the responses to both the Harvard and
Quebec initiatives, is a failure to understand what science is and
isn't, and a reluctance to consider what religion is and isn't, and
the relationship between the two. But there is a solution to this
problem, and the solution involves teaching, not more science or
religion, but more philosophy.
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Read it at
http://www.canada.com/vancouversun/columnists/story.html?id=eec7f9ea-4e2c-4240-8728-bec22c93f11f
or http://tinyurl.com/yhojzy
J. Spaceman
CreateThis
I agree with both these statements, but mostly with the "overwrought"
one. This course sounds like a good idea because it's timely.
> And
>that brings us to Quebec's latest religious war.
>
>Concerned that some independent schools in la belle province are
>teaching creationism, the Quebec Ministry of Education recently
>ordered the schools to teach the theory of evolution or close their
>doors.
>
>Alan Buchanan of Eglise Evangelique responded that his school does
>teach evolution, alongside intelligent design: "We want children to
>understand what they're going to meet in the outside world, and what's
>wrong with the theory [of evolution]," Buchanan said. "We also teach a
>better theory -- that God created the universe and so on."
>
>Now one has to wonder exactly what kids at Eglise Evangelique are
>being taught, since by Buchanan's own words it can't be the scientific
>theory of evolution. By offering a theistic theory as an alternative
>to evolution, Buchanan is charging that the scientific theory is
>necessarily atheistic.
That would be bad enough, but it sounds like they're doing worse -
they're not "offering an alternative theory" but *requiring* students
to learn a "better" one.
CT
Scooter the Mighty
faith," it teaches them about religion. I took any number of classes
in college that tought about various religions and their beliefs.
> Although Pinker's objection seems a little overwrought, his sentiments
> are understandable given the continuing attempts to introduce religion
> into biology classes through creationism and intelligent design.
No, they really aren't understandable. This isn't that, and there's no
reason to get hysterical.
The problem is that the people who don't understand the difference are
the teachers, who presumably won't be taking any philosophy classes.
Perplexed in Peoria
"Jason Spaceman" <notr...@jspaceman.homelinux.org> wrote in message news:r44dl25ms2kvjoic0...@4ax.com...
> From the article:
>
> Clearly what we have here, in the responses to both the Harvard and
> Quebec initiatives, is a failure to understand what science is and
> isn't, and a reluctance to consider what religion is and isn't, and
> the relationship between the two. But there is a solution to this
> problem, and the solution involves teaching, not more science or
> religion, but more philosophy.
What a joke! If the philosophy teaching actually talks about "what
science is and isn't, and ... what religion is and isn't, and the
relationship between the two", rather than simply talking around
the question (as philosophers are wont to do), then it is going
to tell scientists that some issues are beyond the bounds of
science. And it will tell religious people that some issues
are beyond the bounds of religion. YECs, for example, will be
told that their religion is not really religion because it steps
beyond those bounds, and evolutionary psychologists may be told that
parts of their science are not really science.
That is, the teaching is bound to piss someone off, and is likely
to piss everyone off. Hmmm. But if done right, it can get everyone
working together against the philosophers, which may be a step in the
right direction. ;-)
John Wilkins
> "Jason Spaceman" <notr...@jspaceman.homelinux.org> wrote...
First thing we do is, kill all the philosophers.
--
John S. Wilkins, Postdoctoral Research Fellow, Biohumanities Project
University of Queensland - Blog: scienceblogs.com/evolvingthoughts
"He used... sarcasm. He knew all the tricks, dramatic irony, metaphor,
bathos, puns, parody, litotes and... satire. He was vicious."
Perplexed in Peoria
"John Wilkins" <j.wil...@uq.edu.au> wrote in message news:1hop4po.pufzv3ujwambN%j.wil...@uq.edu.au...
> Perplexed in Peoria <jimme...@sbcglobal.net> wrote:
>
> > "Jason Spaceman" <notr...@jspaceman.homelinux.org> wrote...
> > > From the article:
> > >
> > > Clearly what we have here, in the responses to both the Harvard and
> > > Quebec initiatives, is a failure to understand what science is and
> > > isn't, and a reluctance to consider what religion is and isn't, and
> > > the relationship between the two. But there is a solution to this
> > > problem, and the solution involves teaching, not more science or
> > > religion, but more philosophy.
> >
> > What a joke! If the philosophy teaching actually talks about "what
> > science is and isn't, and ... what religion is and isn't, and the
> > relationship between the two", rather than simply talking around
> > the question (as philosophers are wont to do), then it is going
> > to tell scientists that some issues are beyond the bounds of
> > science. And it will tell religious people that some issues
> > are beyond the bounds of religion. YECs, for example, will be
> > told that their religion is not really religion because it steps
> > beyond those bounds, and evolutionary psychologists may be told that
> > parts of their science are not really science.
> >
> > That is, the teaching is bound to piss someone off, and is likely
> > to piss everyone off. Hmmm. But if done right, it can get everyone
> > working together against the philosophers, which may be a step in the
> > right direction. ;-)
>
> First thing we do is, kill all the philosophers.
Can't kill them all. They breed like bloody rabbits. Maybe we can
control them though. Electrified fences or something. Have to keep
them away from the sheep somehow.
John Wilkins
> "John Wilkins" <j.wil...@uq.edu.au> wrote...
Tie all the philosophers to arrows and fire them at the sheep. They'll
never get to them that way. Or, you could have them race tortoises.
Walter Bushell
j.wil...@uq.edu.au (John Wilkins) wrote:
Since the execution of Socrates, people have generally considered theat
a bad idea. It's like killing Christians, it just makes the problem
wurst.
--
Divided we stand!
CreateThis
wrote:
Seems redundant. Most of them are already hot dogs.
CT
Mike
Jason Spaceman wrote:
> This panel notes that many domestic and international disputes have
> religion at their core, and it therefore suggests that all
> undergraduate students take a course in a category called "Reason and
> Faith." The committee stresses that the courses are not meant as
> "religious apologetics," but instead examine "the interplay between
> religion and various aspects of national and/or international culture
> and society."
"Reason and Faith."
Subtitle-
"We're outnumbered and outgunned, so let's try not to piss off the
hoards of morons."
Walter Bushell
CreateThis <Creat...@yippee.con> wrote:
Fot that, I should introduce you to my friend, Theopholos Bunofall.
--
Divided we stand!
LotsaQuestions
Jason Spaceman wrote:
> From the article:
> ---------------------------------------------------------------------
> PHILOSOPHY I We have a failure to understand what science is and
> isn't, and a reluctance to consider what religion is and isn't
>
The reason is that people don't seem to grasp the difference between a.
events that can be observed and experimented with b. events that can
only be observed once and c. events that can not be observed.
We need to properly segregate science from history and from philosophy
(religion) and then we can educate and learn.
Richard Forrest
No.
You need to learn more about the nature of science.
Then perhaps you can understand the way in which observation is used in
science.
Asking scientists questions about science and taking note of their
answers would be a good start.
Tell scientists they know nothing about science, and they understand
neither the processes of science nor the way in which evidence is used
in science is not, especially if you have any desire to learn.
However, as you prefer to pontificate from the dizzying heights of your
own ignorance, I doubt that you want to learn.
That's your loss. Science doesn't give a damn.
RF
CreateThis
<ivegotlots...@yahoo.com> wrote:
>
>Jason Spaceman wrote:
>> From the article:
>> ---------------------------------------------------------------------
>> PHILOSOPHY I We have a failure to understand what science is and
>> isn't, and a reluctance to consider what religion is and isn't
>>
>
>The reason is that people don't seem to grasp the difference between a.
>events that can be observed and experimented with b. events that can
>only be observed once and c. events that can not be observed.
Give examples of a, b and c.
CT
hersheyhv
Actually scientific theory and scientific practice *are* a-theistic.
The methods of science specifically reject the utility of supernatural
events and agents as explanatory of the material nature that it
studies. That does not, of course, mean that science is anti-theistic.
It merely means that theism of any sort is utterly irrelevant to
science practice and science theory.
T Pagano
wrote:
>
>Jason Spaceman wrote:
snip
>Actually scientific theory and scientific practice *are* a-theistic.
>The methods of science specifically reject the utility of supernatural
>events and agents as explanatory of the material nature that it
>studies.
Actually method, practice, and our observational tools are largely
silent when they are restricted to their ONLY domain of
competence-----observable, recurring and/or experimentally
reproducible events. The electron microscope and the mass
spectrometer are silent about whether or not supernatural action
occurs.
When the scientific investigator seeks to describe and explain events
which are NOT observable, NOT recurring and NOT experimentally
reproducible----like reconstruction of unique, non recurring, and non
experimentally reproducible evidents scientific theory and practice
must seek guidance from METAphysics. What Hersey fails explain is why
his atheistic metaphysical guidance, which is unscientific and
untestable, is preferable to others.
> That does not, of course, mean that science is anti-theistic.
> It merely means that theism of any sort is utterly irrelevant to
>science practice and science theory.
Christian theology offers metaphysical guidance about both the origin
of the world and the objects in it just as is offered by the atheistic
doctrine of Naturalism. As such, to completely reject the "theistic"
doctrine and choose the "atheistic" doctrine (that is, Naturalism)
when delving OUTSIDE the observable and OUTSIDE the recurring is to be
unmistakably anti-theistic.
To be clear: Big Bangism, abiogenesis and evolutionary biology all
deal with UNOBSERVED and UNOBSERVABLE events hypothesized to have
occurred. In order to even approach such unobserved and unobservable
events one is forced to seek a metaphysical guide. Hershey's decision
to wed atheism to scientific practice is itself NOT a scientific
decision.
Regards,
T Pagano
Glenn
challenged now, depending upon how one defines supernatural. Only when
a creative force is associated with it, is it seen as a challenge to
atheistic beliefs. Quantum events and hypotheses concerning
extra-dimensional or extra universal "branes" are just a couple
examples of the "supernatural". When an observer can change the
behavior of matter, even to the tiniest degree, I'd call that
supernatural. I've not heard one word from any atheist or so called
"theist" who would like to reduce God to natural causes complain about
these concepts being regarded as at least potentially valid.
But I heard one poster in another recent thread claim that there was
nothing before the Big Bang, and that it started with "quantum
fluctuations". This seems to ease his mind about such subjects, as I
would think those I mentioned above would as well, as long as a
designer is not proposed.
noctiluca
T Pagano wrote:
> On 12 Nov 2006 11:31:45 -0800, "hersheyhv" <hers...@indiana.edu>
> wrote:
>
> >
> >Jason Spaceman wrote:
>
> snip
>
> >Actually scientific theory and scientific practice *are* a-theistic.
> >The methods of science specifically reject the utility of supernatural
> >events and agents as explanatory of the material nature that it
> >studies.
>
> Actually method, practice, and our observational tools are largely
> silent when they are restricted to their ONLY domain of
> competence-----observable, recurring and/or experimentally
> reproducible events. The electron microscope and the mass
> spectrometer are silent about whether or not supernatural action
> occurs.
You say "actually" as if to offer argument contrary to Howard's point.
Then you proceed to further support it. Is it that you don't understand
the difference between atheistic and a-theistic?
> When the scientific investigator seeks to describe and explain events
> which are NOT observable, NOT recurring and NOT experimentally
> reproducible----like reconstruction of unique, non recurring, and non
> experimentally reproducible evidents scientific theory and practice
> must seek guidance from METAphysics. What Hersey fails explain is why
> his atheistic metaphysical guidance, which is unscientific and
> untestable, is preferable to others.
Silly strawman arguments fashioned from ignorant and dishonest
descriptions of the nature of biological investigation.
> > That does not, of course, mean that science is anti-theistic.
> > It merely means that theism of any sort is utterly irrelevant to
> >science practice and science theory.
>
> Christian theology offers metaphysical guidance about both the origin
> of the world and the objects in it just as is offered by the atheistic
> doctrine of Naturalism.
Naturalism, as employed scientifically, is not atheistic, it is a-, or
non-theistic. It is not a commitment to a philosophical "ought," it is
the application of a tool, a well established operational "is."
Your continued conflation of these different approaches is juvenile and
transparent.
> As such, to completely reject the "theistic"
> doctrine and choose the "atheistic" doctrine (that is, Naturalism)
> when delving OUTSIDE the observable and OUTSIDE the recurring is to be
> unmistakably anti-theistic.
>
> To be clear:
Did you think you were being subtle? Did you think anyone missed the
caps? Do you think anyone here doesn't realize you're replaying the
tired "Were you there?" nonsense?
> Big Bangism, abiogenesis and evolutionary biology all
> deal with UNOBSERVED and UNOBSERVABLE events hypothesized to have
> occurred. In order to even approach such unobserved and unobservable
> events one is forced to seek a metaphysical guide. Hershey's decision
> to wed atheism to scientific practice is itself NOT a scientific
> decision.
Utter nonsense, made all the more amusing by the caps. You're as
dissappointing as Dembski, Tony, what with your penchant for throwing a
sloppy coat of rhetorical paint over retread creationist canards and
your convenient conflation of philosophical and methodological
naturalism.
Of course it's clear to anyone who considers this logically (and that
includes a lot of theists, despite your representations to the
contrary) that Hershey's decision is the only possible one which could
preserve the operational utility of scientific practice. Which leads me
to pose yet again that question from which you've run countless times:
"Methodological naturalism is considered unfairly restrictive by ID
proponents. Please suggest a method by which science could accommodate
inference to the non-natural and remain operationally potent."
I breathlessly await your inevitable evasion.
Robert
> Regards,
> T Pagano
Steven J.
T Pagano wrote:
> On 12 Nov 2006 11:31:45 -0800, "hersheyhv" <hers...@indiana.edu>
> wrote:
>
> >
> >Jason Spaceman wrote:
>
> snip
>
> >Actually scientific theory and scientific practice *are* a-theistic.
> >The methods of science specifically reject the utility of supernatural
> >events and agents as explanatory of the material nature that it
> >studies.
>
> Actually method, practice, and our observational tools are largely
> silent when they are restricted to their ONLY domain of
> competence-----observable, recurring and/or experimentally
> reproducible events. The electron microscope and the mass
> spectrometer are silent about whether or not supernatural action
> occurs.
>
opinions on same-sex marriage, free trade, capital gains taxes, or the
war in Iraq. What you mean, or ought to mean, is that neither
scientific instruments nor the scientists operating them can tell the
difference between a supernatural action (if any such were to occur)
and the effects of unknown natural processes, or known natural
processes interacting in unknown ways.
The category "observable, recurring and/or experimentally reproducible
events" is rather ambiguous; either virtually nothing qualifies
(leaving one to wonder what science is supposed to be competent at), or
a host of phenomena (e.g. evolutionary events in the prehistoric past)
which you wish to exclude from the purview of science do qualify.
At the narrowest definition of "recurring," there are virtually no
recurring events. If this seems absurd to you, consider the claim
(explicit or implicit) in YEC views that we can't say that the laws
governing radioactive decay were the same in Noah's day as they are
today. By exactly the same line of reasoning, how can we be sure that
the laws of nature are the same in the lab at noon and at one PM of a
given day, or at the same time but in different labs? Scientists
cannot replicate exactly the same event at the same point in spacetime;
they have to assume (provisionally) uniformity of nature and try to
generalize rules that apply to broad classes of events.
>
> When the scientific investigator seeks to describe and explain events
> which are NOT observable, NOT recurring and NOT experimentally
> reproducible----like reconstruction of unique, non recurring, and non
> experimentally reproducible evidents scientific theory and practice
> must seek guidance from METAphysics. What Hersey fails explain is why
> his atheistic metaphysical guidance, which is unscientific and
> untestable, is preferable to others.
>
Now, Tony, this is why we complain when you leave us with the "last
word." There have been many, many critiques of these assertions of
yours, and you have not bothered to address them, either to modify your
position in light of criticisms or to offer coherent explanations of
why the criticisms are invalid.
An enormous number of events that are investigated by science are
"unique, nonrecurring, and non experimentally reproducible." This
includes, of course, the entire work of forensic investigators of all
types, physicians (your heart attack is not the same as someone else's
heart attack), archaeologists, etc.
The evolution of the avian wing from a theropod forelimb, to cite one
of your favorite examples, is an example, as much as (but no more than)
an arson or poisoning, of a unique, unrepeatable, not *directly*
observable phenomenon that is reconstructable because it depends on
phenomena that are, themselves, recurring and produce observable
effects that can be compared to the observable effects of the unique,
unobserved event. Just as the behavior of accelerants and fuels is
known, so are the effects of reproduction, inheritance, mutation,
variation, natural selection, and descent of populations from common
ancestors.
Implicitly, if you're doing more than stringing words together like a
magic charm against the encroachments of "secular science," you are
raising the possibility that the laws of nature were different in the
prehistoric (or, as a YEC would have it, the preNoachian) past. I do
not see how one could disprove this assumption, any more than one could
disprove Last Thursdayism or the idea that the laws of nature were
radically but undetectably different at this supposed arson site last
Tuesday, or that supposed homicide last year. Note, though, that this
implies that natural laws are *undetectably* changeable, which is the
sort of thing that makes science pretty much pointless.
>
>
> > That does not, of course, mean that science is anti-theistic.
> > It merely means that theism of any sort is utterly irrelevant to
> >science practice and science theory.
>
> Christian theology offers metaphysical guidance about both the origin
> of the world and the objects in it just as is offered by the atheistic
> doctrine of Naturalism. As such, to completely reject the "theistic"
> doctrine and choose the "atheistic" doctrine (that is, Naturalism)
> when delving OUTSIDE the observable and OUTSIDE the recurring is to be
> unmistakably anti-theistic.
>
You really ought to be a geocentrist, Tony. After all, back in
Galileo's day, and earlier, the Church offered metaphysical guidance
about the mechanics of the solar system and the planets in it, and it
is just the "atheistic" doctrine of Naturalism that leads us to prefer
the simplicity and clarity of heliocentric explanations of observed
planetary motions.
Now, of course, planetary orbits are "recurring," and even
"observable," but then, reproduction, mutation, natural selection,
adaption and speciation are recurring and observable phenomena. Shared
pseudogenes and endogenous retroviruses in human and other primate
genomes are observable, as are fossil skulls that straddle any boundary
you might wish to draw between the human and nonhuman "kinds." Is it
"atheistic" to infer, from detailed evidence of exactly the sort that
common descent with modification would produce (and that no known or
imagined process of design and separate origins would produce), that
such common descent actually occurred? Would the proper "theistic"
approach be to infer, instead, that God had written upon His creation
"one vast and superfluous lie?"
>
> To be clear: Big Bangism, abiogenesis and evolutionary biology all
> deal with UNOBSERVED and UNOBSERVABLE events hypothesized to have
> occurred. In order to even approach such unobserved and unobservable
> events one is forced to seek a metaphysical guide. Hershey's decision
> to wed atheism to scientific practice is itself NOT a scientific
> decision.
>
Oh, and you've never provided an honest and relevant reply to repeated
corrections on this subject of "observation." Every "observation"
beyond your own subjective awareness of your own perceptions is to some
extent "indirect," whether the effect on your eyes, optic nerves and
visual center of something right in front of your eyes, to more and
more indirect observations (e.g. those relying on the aforementioned
electron microscopes and mass spectrometers), to inferences of distant
events based on more direct observations (e.g. that a living animal
once clothed these fossil bones). The effects of the Big Bang and
common descent with modification are abundantly observable.
If you disagree, offer an actual explanation (not another tirade on
"atheistic naturalism") for the data in "supernaturalistic terms." For
that matter, explain how science would go about investigating any
"supernaturalistic" hypothesis, or decide between rival supernatural
accounts.
>
> Regards,
> T Pagano
-- Steven J.
Earle Jones
"hersheyhv" <hers...@indiana.edu> wrote:
*
That is well put. Science is not anti-theistic at all. To science,
the supernatural (including any gods) is just irrelevant. Science's
job is to first observe nature, and then to attempt to explain the
observations.
So far, no "God" has been necessary to explain what has been
observed. That is not to say that everything has been explained.
Far from it.
But every day that goes by, a bit more can be explained. A couple
of hundred years ago, tornadoes, hurricanes, earthquakes, and even
thunder and lightning were explained as God's revenge on sinning
human beings.
Today, because of science, we know better.
Tomorrow, we will know more.
earle
*
Sex -- to a UNIX guru:
# unzip ; strip ; touch ; finger ; mount ; fsck ; more ; yes ;
umount ; sleep
"I'm really sorry that my Karma ran over your Dogma."
--J. Smith-Slattery
Bobby Bryant
T Pagano <not....@address.net> writes:
> Christian theology offers metaphysical guidance about both the origin
> of the world and the objects in it just as is offered by the atheistic
> doctrine of Naturalism. As such, to completely reject the "theistic"
> doctrine and choose the "atheistic" doctrine (that is, Naturalism)
> when delving OUTSIDE the observable and OUTSIDE the recurring is to be
> unmistakably anti-theistic.
>
> To be clear: Big Bangism, abiogenesis and evolutionary biology all
> deal with UNOBSERVED and UNOBSERVABLE events hypothesized to have
> occurred. In order to even approach such unobserved and unobservable
> events one is forced to seek a metaphysical guide. Hershey's decision
> to wed atheism to scientific practice is itself NOT a scientific
> decision.
No, no metaphysics is required. Natural events, unlike creationism
and other superstitious beliefs, have consequences that *are*
observable.
For example, I mentioned a few days back that cosmologists have
developed a hypothesis about what was going on during the "Dark Ages"
of the universe, and that hypothesis has led to a plan to make
observations about the details. Does your theology's "guidance" about
the origin of the world make any predictions about what they'll find?
This is your big chance to show the naturalists up; don't miss it.
--
Bobby Bryant
Reno, Nevada
Remove your hat to reply by e-mail.
Glenn
Nick Keighley
a. an apple falls to the ground
b. a physics lecturer once told me about his research with cosmic rays.
He had events in his database that had only been observed once in
<long time period>.
c. pick a bible story.
--
Nick Keighley
josephus
>CreateThis wrote:
>
>
>>On 12 Nov 2006 08:58:59 -0800, "LotsaQuestions"
>><ivegotlots...@yahoo.com> wrote:
>>
>>
>>
>>>Jason Spaceman wrote:
>>>
>>>
>>>>From the article:
>>>>---------------------------------------------------------------------
>>>>PHILOSOPHY I We have a failure to understand what science is and
>>>>isn't, and a reluctance to consider what religion is and isn't
>>>>
>>>>
>>>>
>>>The reason is that people don't seem to grasp the difference between a.
>>>events that can be observed and experimented with b. events that can
>>>only be observed once and c. events that can not be observed.
>>>
>>>
>>Give examples of a, b and c.
>>
>>
>
>a. an apple falls to the ground
>
>
the apple and the falling are separate things not one event. it is
fuzzy , there are several attributes to be considered.
a better example is a photon released when a nuetrino transsfers enery.
>b. a physics lecturer once told me about his research with cosmic rays.
>
>
because he is looking for nuetrinos there are billions of
nuetrinos but only rarely interact with matter
>He had events in his database that had only been observed once in
><long time period>.
>
>
>c. pick a bible story.
>
>
>
>
abiogenisis
This example is not science or even scinentifc. it is not a
coherent idea.
0 observe the world,
1 collect data,
2 create a hypothesis to explain that data
3 compare notes
4 modify the hyothesis, and got to 1.
this collects DATA but after working up a thesis, you must pass
all the DATA and the hypothiesis and process to an enemy to test
this is called PEER REVIEW.
that is science. and what we do to our FRIENDS.
josephus
Nick Keighley
> Nick Keighley wrote:
> >CreateThis wrote:
> >>On 12 Nov 2006 08:58:59 -0800, "LotsaQuestions"
> >><ivegotlots...@yahoo.com> wrote:
> >>>Jason Spaceman wrote:
> >>>>From the article:
> >>>>---------------------------------------------------------------------
> >>>>PHILOSOPHY I We have a failure to understand what science is and
> >>>>isn't, and a reluctance to consider what religion is and isn't
> >>>>
> >>>The reason is that people don't seem to grasp the difference between a.
> >>>events that can be observed and experimented with b. events that can
> >>>only be observed once and c. events that can not be observed.
> >>>
> >>Give examples of a, b and c.
> >
> >a. an apple falls to the ground
>
> the apple and the falling are separate things not one event. it is
> fuzzy , there are several attributes to be considered.
> a better example is a photon released when a nuetrino transsfers enery.
>
> >b. a physics lecturer once told me about his research with cosmic rays.
>
> because he is looking for nuetrinos
no he wasn't.
> there are billions of
> nuetrinos but only rarely interact with matter
>
> >He had events in his database that had only been observed once in
> ><long time period>.
>
> >c. pick a bible story.
> >
> abiogenisis
>
> This example is not science or even scinentifc. it is not a
> coherent idea.
why not?
> 0 observe the world,
> 1 collect data,
> 2 create a hypothesis to explain that data
> 3 compare notes
> 4 modify the hyothesis, and got to 1.
>
> this collects DATA but after working up a thesis, you must pass
> all the DATA and the hypothiesis and process to an enemy to test
> this is called PEER REVIEW.
> that is science. and what we do to our FRIENDS.
so what?
--
Nick Keighley
T Pagano
wrote:
>In article <apagano-dapfl2ld0hakt...@4ax.com>,
> T Pagano <not....@address.net> writes:
>
>> Christian theology offers metaphysical guidance about both the origin
>> of the world and the objects in it just as is offered by the atheistic
>> doctrine of Naturalism. As such, to completely reject the "theistic"
>> doctrine and choose the "atheistic" doctrine (that is, Naturalism)
>> when delving OUTSIDE the observable and OUTSIDE the recurring is to be
>> unmistakably anti-theistic.
>>
>> To be clear: Big Bangism, abiogenesis and evolutionary biology all
>> deal with UNOBSERVED and UNOBSERVABLE events hypothesized to have
>> occurred. In order to even approach such unobserved and unobservable
>> events one is forced to seek a metaphysical guide. Hershey's decision
>> to wed atheism to scientific practice is itself NOT a scientific
>> decision.
>
>No, no metaphysics is required. Natural events, unlike creationism
>and other superstitious beliefs, have consequences that *are*
>observable.
How exactly does Bryant know that nothing but "natural" events
occurred 20,000, 1 billion or 20 billion years ago? There were no
observers, the events are not recurring, the events are not
experimentally reproducible (as far as we know) and there is no
scientific test to determine such an answer? It is unavoidable that
Bryant must seek metaphysical guidance "about" nature to obtain an
answer. For the atheist unscientific guidance is found in the
metaphysical doctrine of Naturalism.
>
>For example, I mentioned a few days back that cosmologists have
>developed a hypothesis about what was going on during the "Dark Ages"
>of the universe, and that hypothesis has led to a plan to make
>observations about the details. Does your theology's "guidance" about
>the origin of the world make any predictions about what they'll find?
Big Bangism proposes "occult" objects like the "Cosmic Singularity"
and proposes unknown occult forces causing the big expansion. These
forces and entities are no more observable or empirically testable
than is God and His supernatural action. This is indisputable.
As Bryant rightly points out in his example one need not be able to
test the intial conditions (which may include unknown and unobservable
forces) so long as the initial conditions entail empirical
consequences that can be observed now. Unfortunately for the atheist
this methodology would ALSO allow one to propose supernatural initial
conditions which might, for example, begin a world wide, short term
catastrophic flood. It is obvious to me that a flood of such
magnitude has empirical consequences observable now.
Nonetheless the atheist argues that he can justifiably include the
occult initial conditions of Big Bangism yet exclude the occult
initial conditions of the Noahic Flood. Again the decision being made
by the atheist is not a scientific one but a metaphysical one guided
by Naturalism.
>This is your big chance to show the naturalists up; don't miss it.
This is very old ground.
Regards,
T Pagano
Mark Nutter
T Pagano wrote:
> Actually method, practice, and our observational tools are largely
> silent when they are restricted to their ONLY domain of
> competence-----observable, recurring and/or experimentally
> reproducible events. The electron microscope and the mass
> spectrometer are silent about whether or not supernatural action
> occurs.
>
> When the scientific investigator seeks to describe and explain events
> which are NOT observable, NOT recurring and NOT experimentally
> reproducible----like reconstruction of unique, non recurring, and non
> experimentally reproducible evidents scientific theory and practice
> must seek guidance from METAphysics.
This is only the case in realms that are self-contradictory. In a
universe that is self-consistent, rational and cohesive, such as our
universe, the scientist can learn about non-observable phenomena by
studying the effect these phenomena have on what we can observe.
Otherwise, you would not be able to know anything about anything,
including metaphysics.
> What Hersey fails explain is why
> his atheistic metaphysical guidance, which is unscientific and
> untestable, is preferable to others.
Metaphysics does not enter into it. Scientific conclusions are based on
the inherent self-consistency of truth/reality in the cosmos in which
we live. Basically, the self-consistency of the observable universe
means that we can trace cause-and-effect relationships well enough to
understand how certain causes have certain predictable effects. We can
further extrapolate this process to propose new hypothetical causes,
with specific, predictable, and verifiable consequences. By observing
whether or not these expected consequences actually occur in the real
world, we can evaluate the likelihood that the proposed cause is indeed
one that exists and that causes the observed phenomena.
The problem with supernatural phenomena is that they are merely
unverifiable attributions, rather than well-defined hypotheses with
specific, predictable and verifiable consequences. Attributing the
creation of the universe to Jehovah, for instance, not only fails to
explain why we should attribute creation to Him rather than to Brahma,
Odin, Zeus, or the FSM, it also fails to provide a hypothesis with any
specific and predictable consequences. As a result, such attributions
are inherently unverifiable, and therefore unscientific.
> Christian theology offers metaphysical guidance about both the origin
> of the world and the objects in it just as is offered by the atheistic
> doctrine of Naturalism. As such, to completely reject the "theistic"
> doctrine and choose the "atheistic" doctrine (that is, Naturalism)
> when delving OUTSIDE the observable and OUTSIDE the recurring is to be
> unmistakably anti-theistic.
It is not unreasonable to regard "metaphysical guidance" as irrelevant
to a study that is not about metaphysics, nor is it "anti-theistic" to
clearly understand that unverifiable attributions are something other
than science. Restricting science to verifiable phenomena has the
advantage of making science *possible*. If we were to decide that
unverifiable "supernatural" causes were to be regarded as scientific,
we would have a problem, because false/wrong explanations also share
the characteristic of being unverifiable. Naturally, wrong explanations
cannot be verified--they're wrong! But if we say science must suddenly
begin to admit unverifiable "explanations," how then are we to
distinguish between explanations that are unverifiable because they are
wrong, and those that are unverifiable because they are supernatural?
All we would ultimately accomplish is to render a pragmatic witness to
the effect that Christian answers are scientifically indistinguishable
from false and erroneous ones!
> To be clear: Big Bangism, abiogenesis and evolutionary biology all
> deal with UNOBSERVED and UNOBSERVABLE events hypothesized to have
> occurred. In order to even approach such unobserved and unobservable
> events one is forced to seek a metaphysical guide. Hershey's decision
> to wed atheism to scientific practice is itself NOT a scientific
> decision.
To be more clear: the three areas you mention above are all events or
processes with specific, predictable consequences. In a rational and
self-consistent universe, it is possible to learn about causes by
studying the effects they produce. And in fact, most of what anyone
knows is knowledge they have acquired by learning about the
consequences of some event or process, rather than by first-hand
experience. The reason we are able to know and think and discover
rationally and reliably is due to the inherent self-consistency of the
real world. Truth does not contradict truth.
Because reality proceeds by self-consistent, logical, objective chains
of cause-and-effect, we can gain reliable and verifiable knowledge
about things which cannot be directly observed. It is not necessary to
resort to metaphysics, and indeed I can't think of any particular sense
in which it would even be helpful to do so. The best way to learn the
truth about the real world is to observe the real world. Human
philosophical ponderings are a second-hand source of information, at
best.
m
T Pagano
>
>T Pagano wrote:
>> On 12 Nov 2006 11:31:45 -0800, "hersheyhv" <hers...@indiana.edu>
>> wrote:
>>
>> >
>> >Jason Spaceman wrote:
>>
snip
>Tony, it occurs to me that supernatural events are not seriously
>challenged now, depending upon how one defines supernatural. Only when
>a creative force is associated with it, is it seen as a challenge to
>atheistic beliefs. Quantum events and hypotheses concerning
>extra-dimensional or extra universal "branes" are just a couple
>examples of the "supernatural". When an observer can change the
>behavior of matter, even to the tiniest degree, I'd call that
>supernatural. I've not heard one word from any atheist or so called
>"theist" who would like to reduce God to natural causes complain about
>these concepts being regarded as at least potentially valid.
It may be that occult forces and entities, like those proposed in
String theory and Quantum theory are not seriously challenged only so
long as they do not conflict with the doctrine of Naturalism.
Naturalism does let a great deal in but it still treats any non
material occult forces as unapproachable at best and imaginary at
worst.
The problem is not so much with these decisions, per se, which
necessitate metaphysical help, but that the atheists in the forum
don't realize that they are metaphysical decisions and not scientific
ones.
>But I heard one poster in another recent thread claim that there was
>nothing before the Big Bang, and that it started with "quantum
>fluctuations". This seems to ease his mind about such subjects, as I
>would think those I mentioned above would as well, as long as a
>designer is not proposed.
Again the atheists, secularists and agnostics fail to recognize or
refuse to recognize or have been blinded to the fact that the guidance
to make such descisions or propose such conjectures comes from
metaphysics and not science.
Regards,
T Pagano
Bobby Bryant
T Pagano <not....@address.net> writes:
> On Mon, 13 Nov 2006 07:05:40 GMT, bdbr...@wherever.ur (Bobby Bryant)
> wrote:
>
>>In article <apagano-dapfl2ld0hakt...@4ax.com>,
>> T Pagano <not....@address.net> writes:
>>
>>> Christian theology offers metaphysical guidance about both the origin
>>> of the world and the objects in it just as is offered by the atheistic
>>> doctrine of Naturalism. As such, to completely reject the "theistic"
>>> doctrine and choose the "atheistic" doctrine (that is, Naturalism)
>>> when delving OUTSIDE the observable and OUTSIDE the recurring is to be
>>> unmistakably anti-theistic.
>>>
>>> To be clear: Big Bangism, abiogenesis and evolutionary biology all
>>> deal with UNOBSERVED and UNOBSERVABLE events hypothesized to have
>>> occurred. In order to even approach such unobserved and unobservable
>>> events one is forced to seek a metaphysical guide. Hershey's decision
>>> to wed atheism to scientific practice is itself NOT a scientific
>>> decision.
>>
>>No, no metaphysics is required. Natural events, unlike creationism
>>and other superstitious beliefs, have consequences that *are*
>>observable.
>
> How exactly does Bryant know that nothing but "natural" events
> occurred 20,000, 1 billion or 20 billion years ago?
Those who can read without preconceived notions will notice that I
didn't make any such claim.
> There were no observers, the events are not recurring, the events
> are not experimentally reproducible (as far as we know) and there is
> no scientific test to determine such an answer? It is unavoidable
> that Bryant must seek metaphysical guidance "about" nature to obtain
> an answer. For the atheist unscientific guidance is found in the
> metaphysical doctrine of Naturalism.
No, I just rely on what's _possible_, without appealing to any b.s.
ideologies.
>>For example, I mentioned a few days back that cosmologists have
>>developed a hypothesis about what was going on during the "Dark Ages"
>>of the universe, and that hypothesis has led to a plan to make
>>observations about the details. Does your theology's "guidance" about
>>the origin of the world make any predictions about what they'll find?
>
> Big Bangism proposes "occult" objects like the "Cosmic Singularity"
Actually, I don't think any cosmologists believe that there was ever
actually a singularity: they think they won't understand the starting
condition until they have a GUT for relativity and quantum mechanics.
But details aside, they only propose stuff that is "occult" in the old
literal meaning of the word, namely "hidden". And yea, science propose
lots of "hidden" stuff. E.g., that I'm made of cells and those cells
have DNA in their nuclei, and that DNA is very similar to yours and
slightly less similar to chimps and still less similar to monkeys, etc.
But it's "occult" because no one has ever checked me to verify all that.
Does your supernaturalized 'science' make any such predictions?
> and proposes unknown occult forces causing the big expansion. These
> forces and entities are no more observable or empirically testable
> than is God and His supernatural action. This is indisputable.
Oh, it's disputable all right. As I said before, theories like the
big bang and GR and evolution have observable consequences, whereas
supernatual theories don't.
> As Bryant rightly points out in his example one need not be able to
> test the intial conditions (which may include unknown and unobservable
> forces) so long as the initial conditions entail empirical
> consequences that can be observed now. Unfortunately for the atheist
> this methodology would ALSO allow one to propose supernatural initial
> conditions which might, for example, begin a world wide, short term
> catastrophic flood. It is obvious to me that a flood of such
> magnitude has empirical consequences observable now.
It is obvious that such a flood, whether natural or not, would have
very visible consequences. Unfortunately for bibliolaters those
consequences are *not* observed.
Of course, you can patch up your 'theory' with "and then God hid all
the observable evidence", but you can tag that onto *any* claim.
That's why science can't do supernatural explanations.
> Nonetheless the atheist argues that he can justifiably include the
> occult initial conditions of Big Bangism yet exclude the occult
> initial conditions of the Noahic Flood.
The initial conditions of the non-existent flood are irrelevant. Unless
God hid the evidence, there never was such a flood.
> Again the decision being made by the atheist is not a scientific one
> but a metaphysical one guided by Naturalism.
Nope.
>>This is your big chance to show the naturalists up; don't miss it.
>
> This is very old ground.
Yes, and it's amazing that we keep having to explain it to you again
and again.
Mark Nutter
T Pagano wrote:
> How exactly does Bryant know that nothing but "natural" events
> occurred 20,000, 1 billion or 20 billion years ago?
Why would he need to? Astronomers know enough about natural cosmogenic
forces to be able to describe the specific consequences which would
result if those forces did indeed operate that long ago. They can
describe the specific characteristics which we ought to find if those
forces were at work, and they can look to see if those characteristics
were present. In a rational and self-consistent world, where truth does
not contradict truth, there is a relationship between how well the
observed consequences match the predicted consequences, and how
reliable a scientific explanation is.
Likewise, if you have some other model which you would care to propose,
involving supernatural events, then you need only show what the
specific, predictable consequences of those events should be, so that
we can make observations and see whether your predicted characteristics
are actually present in the real world. The predicted consequences need
to have some objectively demonstrable logical connection with the
nature of the supernatural forces at work, though. If you simply make a
post hoc observation of what is there, and then claim that supernatural
forces could have produced it, that's merely attribution, not a
scientific explanation. Attribution without logical connection is
superstition.
> Big Bangism proposes "occult" objects like the "Cosmic Singularity"
> and proposes unknown occult forces causing the big expansion. These
> forces and entities are no more observable or empirically testable
> than is God and His supernatural action. This is indisputable.
It is the nature of a self-consistent universe to have a certain order
and coherence. It is this self-consistency and coherence that makes it
possible to do math and physics, of the sort that leads to conclusions
like the idea of singularities and so on. Such things are "occult" only
to those unwilling or unable to do the math, but the math remains. Is
it "observable or empirically testable" that two plus two always equals
four? Math is not metaphysics, but there's an underlying mathematical
quality to the nature of reality that lets us rely on math for valid
answers.
> As Bryant rightly points out in his example one need not be able to
> test the intial conditions (which may include unknown and unobservable
> forces) so long as the initial conditions entail empirical
> consequences that can be observed now. Unfortunately for the atheist
> this methodology would ALSO allow one to propose supernatural initial
> conditions which might, for example, begin a world wide, short term
> catastrophic flood. It is obvious to me that a flood of such
> magnitude has empirical consequences observable now.
The problem with a global flood is not that it lacks predictable,
empirical consequences, it is that the predicted consequences are
significantly at variance with what we actually observe. Nor is it any
problem for the atheist that one could propose supernatural initial
conditions--such things will either be unverifiable, superstitious
*attributions* rather than scientific explanations, or else they will
be reduced to specific phenomena with specific, predictable
consequences, in which case they are scientifically indistinguishable
from natural causes.
> Nonetheless the atheist argues that he can justifiably include the
> occult initial conditions of Big Bangism yet exclude the occult
> initial conditions of the Noahic Flood.
You're comparing a set of objectively and mathematically derived
conclusions based on a study of observed laws and phenomena (the Big
Bang theory) against a set of initial conditions that are neither
derived by extrapolating from verifiable observations, nor are capable
of generating a specific, predictable, measurable set of consequences.
If you want to start with a proposed set of *natural* conditions (e.g.
the planet earth being flooded with enough water to cover all the land
masses), then your problem is not that you are proposing a set of
supernatural conditions, it's that the consequences of such (natural)
conditions would be markedly different from what we observe. If you
want truly supernatural causes, you have to go back to what would have
caused such a Flood, and what in turn would have caused that, until you
get to a set of conditions and forces that cannot reasonably be said to
have any logical connection to any specific, predictable set of
verifiable consequences.
> Again the decision being made
> by the atheist is not a scientific one but a metaphysical one guided
> by Naturalism.
No, it's being driven by the desire to stay scientific, which means
observing the self-consistent and coherent operation of laws such as
the fundamental law of cause and effect, and understanding them well
enough to be able to produce a proposed cause which can be objectively
and reasonably shown to imply certain specific consequences and
observable characteristics. This activity can be pursued just as well
by Christians as by atheists. It only demands belief in the principle
that truth does not contradict itself.
> >This is your big chance to show the naturalists up; don't miss it.
>
> This is very old ground.
You mean you've already made specific, detailed predictions about what
cosmologists ought to find if your supernatural assumptions were true?
m
SteveR
Are lurkers allowed to make a POTM nomination? This is a finely
articulated and coherent review of, in a nutshell, what science does.
Well done.
Steve R
Richard Forrest
T Pagano wrote:
> On Mon, 13 Nov 2006 07:05:40 GMT, bdbr...@wherever.ur (Bobby Bryant)
> wrote:
>
> >In article <apagano-dapfl2ld0hakt...@4ax.com>,
> > T Pagano <not....@address.net> writes:
> >
> >> Christian theology offers metaphysical guidance about both the origin
> >> of the world and the objects in it just as is offered by the atheistic
> >> doctrine of Naturalism. As such, to completely reject the "theistic"
> >> doctrine and choose the "atheistic" doctrine (that is, Naturalism)
> >> when delving OUTSIDE the observable and OUTSIDE the recurring is to be
> >> unmistakably anti-theistic.
> >>
> >> To be clear: Big Bangism, abiogenesis and evolutionary biology all
> >> deal with UNOBSERVED and UNOBSERVABLE events hypothesized to have
> >> occurred. In order to even approach such unobserved and unobservable
> >> events one is forced to seek a metaphysical guide. Hershey's decision
> >> to wed atheism to scientific practice is itself NOT a scientific
> >> decision.
> >
> >No, no metaphysics is required. Natural events, unlike creationism
> >and other superstitious beliefs, have consequences that *are*
> >observable.
>
> How exactly does Bryant know that nothing but "natural" events
> occurred 20,000, 1 billion or 20 billion years ago?
Nobody knows.
We can't know.
For all we know, the universe was magically created by the pink unicorn
ten minutes ago.
However science assumes that the universe behaves in a consistent and
coherent way. Without that assumption we can't do science. You can
attach the label of "naturalism" to that if you want, but the simple
fact is that science is a very, very powerful tool for investigating
the nature of the universe.
> There were no
> observers, the events are not recurring, the events are not
> experimentally reproducible (as far as we know) and there is no
> scientific test to determine such an answer? It is unavoidable that
> Bryant must seek metaphysical guidance "about" nature to obtain an
> answer. For the atheist unscientific guidance is found in the
> metaphysical doctrine of Naturalism.
If you want to reject science, that's up to you, though it's somewhat
ironic that to broadcast the message over the internet that you reject
science would not be possible without the discoveries science has made.
However, to conflate science with atheism as you persistently do is
downright dishonest. The simple fact that is that there are many
scientists who are not atheists. Science is atheistic, in the sense
that it does not invoke the intervention of the divine to explain the
natural world, but that does not mean that all scientists are atheists.
> >
> >For example, I mentioned a few days back that cosmologists have
> >developed a hypothesis about what was going on during the "Dark Ages"
> >of the universe, and that hypothesis has led to a plan to make
> >observations about the details. Does your theology's "guidance" about
> >the origin of the world make any predictions about what they'll find?
>
> Big Bangism proposes "occult" objects like the "Cosmic Singularity"
> and proposes unknown occult forces causing the big expansion. These
> forces and entities are no more observable or empirically testable
> than is God and His supernatural action. This is indisputable.
It is both disputable and disputed. Big bang theory makes very specific
predictions about the nature of matter and energy in time as space
which can and have been tested. This is why cosmologists have adopted
big bang theory over steady state theory as the ruling paradigm in
their branch of science.
So, you quite simply wrong.
>
> As Bryant rightly points out in his example one need not be able to
> test the intial conditions (which may include unknown and unobservable
> forces) so long as the initial conditions entail empirical
> consequences that can be observed now. Unfortunately for the atheist
> this methodology would ALSO allow one to propose supernatural initial
> conditions which might, for example, begin a world wide, short term
> catastrophic flood. It is obvious to me that a flood of such
> magnitude has empirical consequences observable now.
It may be obvious to you, but it is not obvious to the geologists who
have devoted their lives and careers to studying the evidence. The
evidence shows quite clearly and categorically that there was no global
flood, something which has has been obvious to geologists for well over
two centuries.
Of course, if you want to invoke a supernatural flood, the evidence for
which was supernaturally removed, that's up to you. But don't pretend
to yourself or anyone else that this is science.
>
> Nonetheless the atheist argues that he can justifiably include the
> occult initial conditions of Big Bangism yet exclude the occult
> initial conditions of the Noahic Flood.
The scientist, who may or may not be an atheist, concludes on the basis
of the evidence that our universe originated in a "big bang". The
scientist, who may or may not be an atheist, concludes on the basis of
the evidence that there was no global flood.
Your insistence in asserting that all scientists are atheists makes you
look dishonest.
> Again the decision being made
> by the atheist is not a scientific one but a metaphysical one guided
> by Naturalism.
It is a scientific one, because science is built on the assumption of
naturalism. Without that assumption it is impossible to do any science.
RF
josephus
so you dont like science how about evolution?
josephus
Nick Keighley
?!
how do you work *that* out?
--
Nick Keighley
'Rev Dr' Lenny Flank
On Nov 13, 8:06 pm, T Pagano <not.va...@address.net> wrote:
> On Mon, 13 Nov 2006 07:05:40 GMT, bdbry...@wherever.ur (Bobby Bryant)
> wrote:
>
>
>
> >In article <apagano-dapfl2ld0haktn91b0mv7dr6jcpg6je...@4ax.com>,
> > T Pagano <not.va...@address.net> writes:
>
> >> Christian theology offers metaphysical guidance about both the origin
> >> of the world and the objects in it just as is offered by the atheistic
> >> doctrine of Naturalism. As such, to completely reject the "theistic"
> >> doctrine and choose the "atheistic" doctrine (that is, Naturalism)
> >> when delving OUTSIDE the observable and OUTSIDE the recurring is to be
> >> unmistakably anti-theistic.
>
> >> To be clear: Big Bangism, abiogenesis and evolutionary biology all
> >> deal with UNOBSERVED and UNOBSERVABLE events hypothesized to have
> >> occurred. In order to even approach such unobserved and unobservable
> >> events one is forced to seek a metaphysical guide. Hershey's decision
> >> to wed atheism to scientific practice is itself NOT a scientific
> >> decision.
>
> >No, no metaphysics is required. Natural events, unlike creationism
> >and other superstitious beliefs, have consequences that *are*
> >observable.How exactly does Bryant know that nothing but "natural" events
> occurred 20,000, 1 billion or 20 billion years ago? There were no
> observers, the events are not recurring, the events are not
> experimentally reproducible (as far as we know) and there is no
> scientific test to determine such an answer? It is unavoidable that
> Bryant must seek metaphysical guidance "about" nature to obtain an
> answer. For the atheist unscientific guidance is found in the
> metaphysical doctrine of Naturalism.
>
>
>
> >For example, I mentioned a few days back that cosmologists have
> >developed a hypothesis about what was going on during the "Dark Ages"
> >of the universe, and that hypothesis has led to a plan to make
> >observations about the details. Does your theology's "guidance" about
> >the origin of the world make any predictions about what they'll find?Big Bangism proposes "occult" objects like the "Cosmic Singularity"
> and proposes unknown occult forces causing the big expansion. These
> forces and entities are no more observable or empirically testable
> than is God and His supernatural action. This is indisputable.
>
> As Bryant rightly points out in his example one need not be able to
> test the intial conditions (which may include unknown and unobservable
> forces) so long as the initial conditions entail empirical
> consequences that can be observed now. Unfortunately for the atheist
> this methodology would ALSO allow one to propose supernatural initial
> conditions which might, for example, begin a world wide, short term
> catastrophic flood. It is obvious to me that a flood of such
> magnitude has empirical consequences observable now.
>
> Nonetheless the atheist argues that he can justifiably include the
> occult initial conditions of Big Bangism yet exclude the occult
> initial conditions of the Noahic Flood. Again the decision being made
> by the atheist is not a scientific one but a metaphysical one guided
> by Naturalism.
>
> >This is your big chance to show the naturalists up; don't miss it.This is very old ground.
>
> Regards,
> T Pagano
Hey Tony, are you STILL yapping . . . .. ?
================================================
Lenny Flank
"There are no loose threads in the web of life"
Creation "Science" Debunked:
http://www.geocities.com/lflank
Reptile Page:
http://www.geocities.com/lflank/herp.html
Nick Keighley
> josephus wrote:
> > Nick Keighley wrote:
> > >josephus wrote:
> > >>Nick Keighley wrote:
> > >>>CreateThis wrote:
> > >>>>On 12 Nov 2006 08:58:59 -0800, "LotsaQuestions"
> > >>>><ivegotlots...@yahoo.com> wrote:
> > >>>>>Jason Spaceman wrote:
I think we've seriously got our wires crossed. I've trimmed the post
down to the bare essentials in the hope of clarifying things.
> > >>>>>>From the article:
> > >>>>>>---------------------------------------------------------------------
> > >>>>>>PHILOSOPHY I We have a failure to understand what science is and
> > >>>>>>isn't, and a reluctance to consider what religion is and isn't
> > >>>>>>
> > >>>>>The reason is that people don't seem to grasp the difference between a.
> > >>>>>events that can be observed and experimented with b. events that can
> > >>>>>only be observed once and c. events that can not be observed.
type "c" events are those that DO NOT OCCUR
> >>>>Give examples of a, b and c.
<snip>
> > >>>c. pick a bible story.
I was thinking, parting of the red sea, sun stopping, water into wine
etc.
etc. as examples of events that did not occur.
> > >> abiogenisis
> > >>
> > >> This example is not science or even scinentifc. it is not a
> > >>coherent idea.
> > >
> > >why not?
Are you talking about scientific hypotheses about how life arose? Or
the Genesis story? They are both coherent ideas.
> > >> 0 observe the world,
> > >> 1 collect data,
> > >> 2 create a hypothesis to explain that data
> > >> 3 compare notes
> > >> 4 modify the hyothesis, and got to 1.
> > >>
> > >> this collects DATA but after working up a thesis, you must pass
> > >>all the DATA and the hypothiesis and process to an enemy to test
> > >> this is called PEER REVIEW.
> > >> that is science. and what we do to our FRIENDS.
> > >
> > >so what?
I really didn't understand why you posted this (naive) explanation of
the
scientifc method. What has it got to do with biblical stories?
You use the scientifiv method on your friends? Do you have many?
> > so you dont like science
>
> ?!
>
> how do you work *that* out?
my degree is partly in physics I've always had a layman's interest in
science. Why the hell do you think I was talking to someone about
cosmic rays (*not* netrinos) if I don't like science?
this was what I was talking about
http://www.ast.leeds.ac.uk/haverah/havpark.shtml
> how about evolution?
do I *like* evolution? What an odd question. I didn't know we got to
pick
scientific theories on personnel preference. I've always been a bit of
a
fan of phlogiston myself.
--
Nick Keighley
Mark Iredell
I think anyone can nominate. Be sure to tag the subject line with POTM
so the recorder can find it. Nomination seconded.
josephus
the confusion came when you started talking about biblical stuff in a
science mode. it usually signifies someone trying to criticize science
or evolution. sorry if I misunderstood you. I have been talking to a
recalcitrant anti something. we still dont know what.
he thinks aliens fiddling with DNA is science.
josephus
Earle Jones
j.wil...@uq.edu.au (John Wilkins) wrote:
> Perplexed in Peoria <jimme...@sbcglobal.net> wrote:
>
> > "Jason Spaceman" <notr...@jspaceman.homelinux.org> wrote...
> > > From the article:
> > >
> > > Clearly what we have here, in the responses to both the Harvard and
> > > Quebec initiatives, is a failure to understand what science is and
> > > isn't, and a reluctance to consider what religion is and isn't, and
> > > the relationship between the two. But there is a solution to this
> > > problem, and the solution involves teaching, not more science or
> > > religion, but more philosophy.
> >
> > What a joke! If the philosophy teaching actually talks about "what
> > science is and isn't, and ... what religion is and isn't, and the
> > relationship between the two", rather than simply talking around
> > the question (as philosophers are wont to do), then it is going
> > to tell scientists that some issues are beyond the bounds of
> > science. And it will tell religious people that some issues
> > are beyond the bounds of religion. YECs, for example, will be
> > told that their religion is not really religion because it steps
> > beyond those bounds, and evolutionary psychologists may be told that
> > parts of their science are not really science.
> >
> > That is, the teaching is bound to piss someone off, and is likely
> > to piss everyone off. Hmmm. But if done right, it can get everyone
> > working together against the philosophers, which may be a step in the
> > right direction. ;-)
>
> First thing we do is, kill all the philosophers.
*
Reminds me of that story that took place in ancient China. The king
decided to get rid of all the doctors and lawyers. So he rounded
them up and sent them away.
Then he noticed that people were getting sick.
So he brought back the doctors.
earle
*
bullpup
"'Rev Dr' Lenny Flank" <lfl...@yahoo.com> wrote in message
news:1163510139....@m7g2000cwm.googlegroups.com...
>
<snip>
> Hey Tony, are you STILL yapping . . . .. ?
>
>
Why is it that Pangy, nando, and a few other cretinoids cannot seem to grasp
the basic fact that science cannot address metaphysical (as in the
"spiritual realm") since the metaphysical, in that sense is beyond any
ability to measure or test? Sure, youhave those twits running aroiund on TV
with their little magnetic sensor thingies, "Oohing" and "Aahing" over a
quivering needle, and asking in astonishment "did you feel that?" when they
feel a draft of cold air when they are running around in a "haunted house".
But that's entertainment, and not science.
Why can these numbskulls not understand that in order for science to be
valid, it can only deal with those phenomena that can be tested or modeled
in some way, and not rely on "and then a miracle occured" as part of the
process? Where's the difficulty in understanding that? Or, from the other
end, how do you even test "a miracle" scientifically and expect a positive
result? (Investigating "miracles" is a profession in India, and not
surprisingly, the "miracles" all seem to have prosaic explanations, frauds
or natural phenomena..)
I just do not understand how these guys can still not understand the self
imposed constraints of logic that science employs in order to be effective,
and not the mushed up farce that "scientific" creationism represents from a
logical POV. These guys have had this pointed out to them for a long time
(and they've been regular posters here longer than I have, I think). What
is their "effin" problem?
Boikat
--
"I reject your reality, and substitute my own"
-Adam Savage, Mythbusters-
Boikat
--
"I reject your reality, and substitute my own"
-Adam Savage, Mythbusters-
Bobby Bryant
"bullpup" <bul...@bellsouth.net> writes:
>
> "'Rev Dr' Lenny Flank" <lfl...@yahoo.com> wrote in message
> news:1163510139....@m7g2000cwm.googlegroups.com...
>>
> <snip>
>> Hey Tony, are you STILL yapping . . . .. ?
>
> Why is it that Pangy, nando, and a few other cretinoids cannot seem
> to grasp the basic fact that science cannot address metaphysical (as
> in the "spiritual realm") since the metaphysical, in that sense is
> beyond any ability to measure or test?
Because he wants to "be scientific" and yet reject some of the major
findings of science, so he has to claim that science is missing lots
of stuff because it is ignoring the supernatual.
It's kind of like a God-of-the-gaps posture, except that he's just
pretending that there's a gap.
bullpup
"Bobby Bryant" <bdbr...@wherever.ur> wrote in message
news:Xvv6h.25438$TV3....@newssvr21.news.prodigy.com...
> In article <zdv6h.23180$3L....@bignews2.bellsouth.net>,
> "bullpup" <bul...@bellsouth.net> writes:
> >
> > "'Rev Dr' Lenny Flank" <lfl...@yahoo.com> wrote in message
> > news:1163510139....@m7g2000cwm.googlegroups.com...
> >>
> > <snip>
> >> Hey Tony, are you STILL yapping . . . .. ?
> >
> > Why is it that Pangy, nando, and a few other cretinoids cannot seem
> > to grasp the basic fact that science cannot address metaphysical (as
> > in the "spiritual realm") since the metaphysical, in that sense is
> > beyond any ability to measure or test?
>
> Because he wants to "be scientific" and yet reject some of the major
> findings of science, so he has to claim that science is missing lots
> of stuff because it is ignoring the supernatual.
By now, he (They, both Pangy and nando) should know that isn't going to
work.
>
> It's kind of like a God-of-the-gaps posture, except that he's just
> pretending that there's a gap.
Delusional. maybe that's the answer.
Boikat
Bobby Bryant
"bullpup" <bul...@bellsouth.net> writes:
>
> "Bobby Bryant" <bdbr...@wherever.ur> wrote in message
> news:Xvv6h.25438$TV3....@newssvr21.news.prodigy.com...
>> It's kind of like a God-of-the-gaps posture, except that he's just
>> pretending that there's a gap.
>
> Delusional. maybe that's the answer.
I suspect he knows what he's doing, and just wants to delude other people.
Nick Keighley
I don't have "modes", I was giving examples of events that don't occur.
> it usually signifies someone trying to criticize science
> or evolution. sorry if I misunderstood you. I have been talking to a
> recalcitrant anti something. we still dont know what.
> he thinks aliens fiddling with DNA is science.
--
Nick keighley
dgen...@hotmail.com
T Pagano wrote:
> On 12 Nov 2006 11:31:45 -0800, "hersheyhv" <hers...@indiana.edu>
> wrote:
>
> >
> >Jason Spaceman wrote:
>
> snip
>
> >The methods of science specifically reject the utility of supernatural
> >events and agents as explanatory of the material nature that it
> >studies.
>
> silent when they are restricted to their ONLY domain of
> competence-----observable, recurring and/or experimentally
> reproducible events. The electron microscope and the mass
> spectrometer are silent about whether or not supernatural action
> occurs.
>
The instruments themselves may be silent about supernatural action, but
the observer who applies these tools must be confident in the
underlying physical theories of their use.
If a deity exists, who frequently intervenes and arbitrarily
manipulates the images under the microscope to their own
incomprehensible ends, then the microscope is a useless tool for
scientific investigation.
Dave
Perplexed in Peoria
<dgen...@hotmail.com> wrote in message news:1163590272....@h54g2000cwb.googlegroups.com...
But another way of saying much the same thing is "The microscope
is, by definition, still useful for *scientific* investigation,
but science only proves itself as a useful enterprise if such
a deity doesn't exist.
Hmmm. But since science *has* proved itself as a useful enterprise,
that means that we have scientific evidence bearing on a theological
question - that of God's lack of frequent arbitrary behavior. There
must be something philosophically wrong with this line of thinking.
;-)
tgde...@earthlink.net
You can't have evidence of lack of *frequent* arbitrary behavior. God
could change the laws of physics *and* cause you to forget that you
previously were working with different laws.
What we do believe, however, is that there have been some events
indistinguishable from such arbitrary acts (inception of the Big Bang,
quantum phenomena). It would be useful to distinguish between such
events and those like abiogenesis which are likely to be subject to
causality as it is conventionally understood.
So the problem is that you can't rule out some future arbitrary change.
You can, of course, operate as if, just as we assume that a bunch of
U-235 isn't going to all decay at once, even though there is some
probability of that happening.
-tg
Richard Forrest
This is why the presumption of the intervention of God is
scientifically useless.
>
> What we do believe, however, is that there have been some events
> indistinguishable from such arbitrary acts (inception of the Big Bang,
> quantum phenomena). It would be useful to distinguish between such
> events and those like abiogenesis which are likely to be subject to
> causality as it is conventionally understood.
Why?
More to the point, the "Big Bang" is not interpreted by science as an
arbitrary act, but an event which has a cause in a broader conception
of the universe.
>
> So the problem is that you can't rule out some future arbitrary change.
We can't rule out *any* arbitrary change in the future or the past. If
supernatural intervention is involved, changes to the past as no less
likely than changes in the future.
> You can, of course, operate as if, just as we assume that a bunch of
> U-235 isn't going to all decay at once, even though there is some
> probability of that happening.
We can't operate any other way if we are using science.
RF
>
> -tg
Walter Bushell
He is capable of learning by now.
He certainly has no observable effects, their is, if anything a negative
association of piety and grades, AFAIKT.
--
Divided we stand!
tgde...@earthlink.net
What cause is that?
-tg
er...@swva.net
> On Mon, 13 Nov 2006 07:05:40 GMT, bdbr...@wherever.ur (Bobby Bryant)
> wrote:
>
> >In article <apagano-dapfl2ld0hakt...@4ax.com>,
> > T Pagano <not....@address.net> writes:
> >
> >> Christian theology offers metaphysical guidance about both the origin
> >> of the world and the objects in it just as is offered by the atheistic
> >>
Just out of curiosity, why do you keep going on and on about atheists?
(snip)
Eric Root
Pithecanthropus Erectus
> From the article:
> ---------------------------------------------------------------------
> PHILOSOPHY I We have a failure to understand what science is and
> isn't, and a reluctance to consider what religion is and isn't
>
> Vancouver Sun
>
> Saturday, November 11, 2006
>
> The wars over religion continue, and not just in Iraq and Afghanistan.
> Indeed, some of the most important battles are occurring, not in areas
> famous for sectarian storms, but in the becalmed jurisdictions of
> Quebec and Massachusetts.
>
> The epicentre of the Massachusetts battle is Harvard University, the
> esteemed institution that began life as a training ground for Puritan
> clerics. Though it divested itself of its religious mission years ago,
> Harvard's Task Force on General Education has now recommended that it
> resurrect its past.
>
> This panel notes that many domestic and international disputes have
> religion at their core, and it therefore suggests that all
> undergraduate students take a course in a category called "Reason and
> Faith." The committee stresses that the courses are not meant as
> "religious apologetics," but instead examine "the interplay between
> religion and various aspects of national and/or international culture
> and society."
>
> That sounds innocuous enough, but evidently not to some scientists.
> Famed Harvard psychologist Stephen Pinker responded to the proposal by
> telling the Harvard Crimson newspaper that "universities are about
> reason pure and simple," and hence faith "has no place in anything but
> a religious institution."
>
> Although Pinker's objection seems a little overwrought, his sentiments
> are understandable given the continuing attempts to introduce religion
> into biology classes through creationism and intelligent design. And
> that brings us to Quebec's latest religious war.
>
> Concerned that some independent schools in la belle province are
> teaching creationism, the Quebec Ministry of Education recently
> ordered the schools to teach the theory of evolution or close their
> doors.
>
> Alan Buchanan of Eglise Evangelique responded that his school does
> teach evolution, alongside intelligent design: "We want children to
> understand what they're going to meet in the outside world, and what's
> wrong with the theory [of evolution]," Buchanan said. "We also teach a
> better theory -- that God created the universe and so on."
>
> Now one has to wonder exactly what kids at Eglise Evangelique are
> being taught, since by Buchanan's own words it can't be the scientific
> theory of evolution. By offering a theistic theory as an alternative
> to evolution, Buchanan is charging that the scientific theory is
> necessarily atheistic. That this is false -- and reveals Buchanan's
> ignorance of evolution and science -- is evidenced by the many
> religious scientists, and by the eggheads in the Vatican, who assent
> to the scientific theory of evolution and who, last time I checked,
> also believe in God.
>
> Clearly what we have here, in the responses to both the Harvard and
> Quebec initiatives, is a failure to understand what science is and
> isn't, and a reluctance to consider what religion is and isn't, and
> the relationship between the two. But there is a solution to this
> problem, and the solution involves teaching, not more science or
> religion, but more philosophy.
I propose that any reasonable instruction of religion will offend the
parents of students far more than the teaching of evolution. Applying
reason to religion will have the effect of a hot knife through butter,
dissecting it will expose its weaknesses.
I favor this approach, however I believe that there would be an outcry
if it were taught dispassionately.
> ----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
>
> Read it at
> http://www.canada.com/vancouversun/columnists/story.html?id=eec7f9ea-4e2c-4240-8728-bec22c93f11f
> or http://tinyurl.com/yhojzy
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
> J. Spaceman
>
RAMat...@gmail.com
I completely agree. It would be the best thing to happen to H.S.s
since the progressive education movement. It will place a context on
understanding religion that is avoided by most denominations and you
are correct that there will be a large outcry against it. There will
be as well denominations trying to insert curricula that gives them the
most favorable view. It will be a jolly good time had by all except
those who teach the course of course (hazardous duty pay may be
needed!). The term "religously correct" will will become part of the
linqua franca along with "atheist studies."
RAM
l
fredf...@spamcop.net
LotsaQuestions wrote:
> Jason Spaceman wrote:
> > From the article:
> > ---------------------------------------------------------------------
> > PHILOSOPHY I We have a failure to understand what science is and
> > isn't, and a reluctance to consider what religion is and isn't
> >
>
> events that can be observed and experimented with b. events that can
> only be observed once and c. events that can not be observed.
>
> (religion) and then we can educate and learn.
I daresay that you aren't going to have much luck separating
natural philosophy from science.
--
FF