Salu2
Joel Cannon wrote:
>
> In hopes that someone might find it useful here is an excerpt from my
> critique of the movie "Contact", which has been (thankfully) edited
> extensively since I posted a premature version here. I believe that
> this critique applies equally to any naturalistic claims
> (e.g. Dawkins, and Dennet) that science provides a privileged
> viewpoint for looking for evidence of God.
>
> The complete critique can be read at
> http://alpha.centenary.edu/joel/contact.html or if you want I can send
> you a copy.
>
> Concerning Sagan's "No Evidence" assertion:
>
> {\bf A Dissenting Opinion}\\ It looks dark indeed for Christians when
> an internationally renowned astronomer applies the same techniques he
> used to unlock Mars's secrets to investigate our God and finds no
> evidence of the His existence. Thankfully, closer scrutiny
> produces a brighter outlook. Sagan confuses assumptions for evidence,
> and provides sufficient personal data to discredit his claim to go
> only where evidence leads him.
>
> Indeed, the dubious logic in Sagan's ``no evidence'' claim bears an
> instructive symmetry to the Russian Cosmonaut Yuri Gugarin's statement
> after returning from the first manned space flight: He knew God didn't
> exist because he had looked for and not found God while in outer
> space. The algorithm: Make an assumption of God's signature--if you
> don't find it you can safely conclude God's non-existence.
>
> Like Gugarin, Sagan's claim's central feature, his ``no evidence''
> assertion rests directly on assumptions, specifically:
> 1) his assumptions concerning God's nature (which is at odds with
> Judaism, Christianity, and presumably Islam); and 2) his assumption
> concerning the likelihood that God exists.
>
> Before Sagan could look for evidence, he had to assume or determine by
> empirical means what might constitute valid evidence. Deciding just
> how God could or couldn't act could not be tested empirically so he
> had to make assumptions about the character and action of
> God. Arguably, in this case Sagan was likely to guess wrong, casting
> doubt on his conclusions. Garbage in--garbage out; bad assumptions
> yield bad answers.
>
> In the case of God's existence, the only evidence Sagan would accept is the
> miraculous violation of the laws of cause and effect. Sagan assumes
> that any self-respecting deity would interrupt the natural flow of his/her
> creation so that even the most skeptical scientist could be convinced.
> Interestingly, in the book {\it Contact}, Ellie suggests some means by
> which God could do this such as ``a monster crucifix orbiting the Earth.''
> or ``the surface of the moon covered with the Ten Commandments '' (p. 164).
> Perhaps less evidence for biological evolution might also have made Sagan
> more inclined to trust the Almighty.
>
> Sagan's failure to find flying crosses or holes in evolutionary theory
> may entail God's non-existence but that seems dubious. Bad assumption
> might be a better conclusion; God need not operate in the miraculous
> way Sagan expects him to. Or perhaps God's secure self-image may
> preclude having to prove himself to every gun-slinging scientist
> challenging his existence.
>
> Note that which alternative one chooses from these or other choices
> depends strictly on one's prior assumptions concerning God, rendering
> Sagan's ``data'' useless as an empirical test. If you begin thinking
> it probable God exists you reject Sagan's interpretation (and vice
> versa). The ``evidence'' doesn't change peoples minds; only reinforces
> prior prejudices. To claim otherwise, as Sagan does, is sheer
> self-deception. Like the Cosmonaut, he's failed to see that his
> assumptions determined his conclusion.
>
> ......http://alpha.centenary.edu/joel/contact.html
>
> -------
> Joel W. Cannon
> Dept. of Physics
> Centenary College of Louisiana
> P. O. Box 41188
> Shreveport, LA 71134-1188
>
> (318)869-5160
> (318)869-5026 FAX