| Topic: |
Religions > Atheism |
| User: |
"Clothaire" |
| Date: |
29 Nov 2007 12:40:41 AM |
| Object: |
Re: Opinion piece in NY Times - Taking Science on Faith |
On Wed, 28 Nov 2007 11:34:24 +0100, "Rolf" <rolf@tele2.no> wrote:
"Ray Martinez" <pyramidial@yahoo.com> wrote in message
news:57c41e73-cd37-41a7-aab6-73cc0ee6c12f@s36g2000prg.googlegroups.com...
On Nov 24, 8:43 pm, Gary Bohn <gary.b...@REMOVETHISgmail.com> wrote:
Ray Martinez <pyramid...@yahoo.com> wrote
innews:aec185c1-3a49-4474-b341-aa0962446582@i12g2000prf.googlegroups.com:
On Nov 24, 11:34 am, Ron O <rokim...@cox.net> wrote:
On Nov 24, 1:10 pm, Timberwoof
<timberwoof.s...@inferNOnoSPAMsoft.com> wrote:
In article
<13faa80b-2414-4fba-92bd-bbd8be0a8...@i29g2000prf.googlegroups.com>,
9fingers <gd9fing...@gmail.com> wrote:
http://www.nytimes.com/2007/11/24/opinion/24davies.html?_r=1&ref=op
Here is a quote mine by me from the above article:
"SCIENCE, we are repeatedly told, is the most reliable form of
knowledge about the world because it is based on testable hypotheses.
Religion, by contrast, is based on faith. The term “doubting Thomas”
well illustrates the difference. In science, a healthy skepticism is a
professional necessity, whereas in religion, having belief without
evidence is regarded as a virtue."--Davies
At least the author gets it right in the first paragraph.
Why do fundies like Ray insist on equivocating 'faith' which could be
used in an entry level book on logic as an example of 'The Fallacy of
Equivocation'?
Scientific use of faith: Belief based on evidence.
Religious use of faith: Belief based on lack of evidence.
Clothaire
.
|
|
| User: "jientho" |
|
| Title: Re: Opinion piece in NY Times - Taking Science on Faith |
30 Nov 2007 10:26:11 AM |
|
|
On Nov 29, 1:40 am, Clothaire <clotha...@ieee.org> wrote:
On Wed, 28 Nov 2007 11:34:24 +0100, "Rolf" <r...@tele2.no> wrote:
"Ray Martinez" <pyramid...@yahoo.com> wrote in message
news:57c41e73-cd37-41a7-aab6-73cc0ee6c12f@s36g2000prg.googlegroups.com...
On Nov 24, 8:43 pm, Gary Bohn <gary.b...@REMOVETHISgmail.com> wrote:
Ray Martinez <pyramid...@yahoo.com> wrote
innews:aec185c1-3a49-4474-b341-aa0962446582@i12g2000prf.googlegroups.com:
On Nov 24, 11:34 am, Ron O <rokim...@cox.net> wrote:
On Nov 24, 1:10 pm, Timberwoof
<timberwoof.s...@inferNOnoSPAMsoft.com> wrote:
In article
<13faa80b-2414-4fba-92bd-bbd8be0a8...@i29g2000prf.googlegroups.com>,
9fingers <gd9fing...@gmail.com> wrote:
http://www.nytimes.com/2007/11/24/opinion/24davies.html?_r=1&ref=op
Here is a quote mine by me from the above article:
"SCIENCE, we are repeatedly told, is the most reliable form of
knowledge about the world because it is based on testable hypotheses.
Religion, by contrast, is based on faith. The term "doubting Thomas"
well illustrates the difference. In science, a healthy skepticism is a
professional necessity, whereas in religion, having belief without
evidence is regarded as a virtue."--Davies
At least the author gets it right in the first paragraph.
Why do fundies like Ray insist on equivocating 'faith' which could be
used in an entry level book on logic as an example of 'The Fallacy of
Equivocation'?
Scientific use of faith: Belief based on evidence.
Religious use of faith: Belief based on lack of evidence.
You evidently didn't read and understand the article. Because the
article does point out the scientific use (or at least the use _in_
science) of faith based on no evidence. In particular, the non-
evidence-based faith that there exist laws of physics:
"When I was a student, the laws of physics were regarded as completely
off limits. The job of the scientist, we were told, is to discover the
laws and apply them, not inquire into their provenance. The laws were
treated as "given" -- imprinted on the universe like a maker's mark at
the moment of cosmic birth -- and fixed forevermore. Therefore, to be a
scientist, you had to have faith that the universe is governed by
dependable, immutable, absolute, universal, mathematical laws of an
unspecified origin."
(I think this rather points out egregious flaws in the teaching of
science and not so much in science itself, but there it is. And if
you're tempted to retort that "all scientific 'laws' are provisional,
then it is you who equivocate on "law" every time you use the term in
science without at least the scare quotes. (And I would prefer a
Seinfeldian caveat, every time, "not that there's anything immutable
about that".))
Here's another good point showing a reductio ad absurdum of science
(as popularly defined):
"The idea that the laws exist reasonlessly is deeply anti-rational.
After all, the very essence of a scientific explanation of some
phenomenon is that the world is ordered logically and that there are
reasons things are as they are. If one traces these reasons all the
way down to the bedrock of reality -- the laws of physics -- only to
find that reason then deserts us, it makes a mockery of science."
I would also point out that the laws of physics are either part of the
natural world or they're not. If not, then all scientists truck in
the supernatural (those laws) at all times. And if so, it is a valid
request that those laws themselves be regarded scientifically, on pain
of science not addressing the whole of the natural world, as it is
claims that it does. Dismissing scientific questions (such as
provenance) about laws of physics themselves is not an option.
And thus the conclusory sentence:
"But until science comes up with a testable theory of the laws of the
universe, its claim to be free of faith is manifestly bogus."
I would add that Kant long ago gave a rational explanation showing
that much if not all of the origin of such laws is somewhere within
our own mental makeup, rather than "out in the natural world"
somewhere. (Not that our mental makeup is not natural, just that we
tend to locate the (source of the) laws in the wrong place.)
Colloquially, the laws (and especially their nature as immutable etc.)
are just as much a "figment of your imagination" as many atheists
claim "God" to be for theists.
Jeff
.
|
|
|
|
|
Related Articles |
|
|
