Jim,
I'm sorry to have misinterpreted your response to the students'
statements. However, IMO I dealt with the implications of your
statements. I was not angry, merely analytical, for I both studied and
taught logic for many years.
On Sat, 17 Jun 2000 10:13:52 -0400 James W Stark <stark2301@voyager.net>
writes:
> (and quotes, though all has been chopped up)
> > From: dfsiemensjr@juno.com
> > Date: Fri, 16 Jun 2000 13:46:36 -0600
> No one was giving Loren any feedback so I presented some points of
> consideration. They do involve real issues in science.
Now I understand your purpose, but I still have problems with some of the
means.
> >
> > On Fri, 16 Jun 2000 12:56:59 -0400 James W Stark
> <stark2301@voyager.net>
> > writes:
> >>
>
> There are assumptions that scientists use that are consistent with
> humanism. Fundamentalist do like to accuses science as being
> humanistic.
>
So? I agree with secular humanists that human beings should act
rationally and that science is the best way to understand the material
universe. Can that make me a secular humanist? True, fundamentalists love
to abuse science as humanistic and atheistic, but that is because they
have adopted a deistic view of nature and the necessity of gaps for God
to act. They simply don't understand the traditional theistic view and
consequently misinterpret both theology and science.
> From the World Book CD
> Later influence. Humanism had a major impact on the
> Reformation of
> the 1500's, and on the scientific revolution and Age of Reason of
> the 1600's
> and 1700's. Humanism's emphasis on a liberal education and the
> well-rounded
> individual has made a permanent contribution to the modern world.
> Today,
> some people use the term secular humanism to describe a philosophy
> whose
> value systems depend on human rather than spiritual standards.
>
> There are Christian humanists, who try to redirect the focus of
> service.
True, but I think you used "humanist" as "secular humanist," which is its
most common sense when unqualified. The broader discussion,
unfortunately, bypasses the emphasis of the early humanists on the study
of the ancient texts and their denigration of the medieval. One
consequence of this is that they neglected the brilliant logical works of
the preceding period and misinterpreted Aristotle, so that what passes
for Aristotelian logic today is pathetic. I mention this to illustrate
that, whatever is said, more may be added. Then, when the broad scope is
convered, one can add the individual idiosyncrasies.
>
> In the tension between the self and God science serves the self not
> God.
Huh? Are the missionary doctors serving only themselves by their science?
I have always thought that human beings could use scientific discoveries
and the technology built on them either in the service of God or to do
evil. Have I been mistaken all these years?
> Science has no need for God. The cause of any action is almost
> always seen
> as from within the system. Science is self-referencing rather than
> God-referencing. Science ignores purpose for a system. Christianity
> does
> not. Most science treats free will as a program. Christianity does
> not.
That's right, but because "miracle" cannot be entertained as an empirical
category in an investigation. Of course it neglects purpose, for that
also is not an empirical category. A hospital is a hospital, whether
built to serve the sick or to exalt the name of the donor. Science is a
limited system asking _how_ things work, and "free will" does not deal
with something that can be empirically demonstrated or negated. All that
is claimed at base is that science is neither religion nor philosophy.
One must not confuse scientism with science, though many do.
> >
>
> This is your projected reasoning not mine. Many scientists do
> support
> religion. It just is not very visible in their research
> assumptions.
>
How does one's research change by including religious assumptions?
Perhaps the choice of a problem to study will be affected. I think of the
study on making velvet beans suitable for food by removing the
dopamine-producing component. However, I doubt that one can parlay
anything like that into a dissertation topic, unless it involves the
genes involved in the natural synthesis--if that isn't already known. And
the benefit is physical, not spiritual, though the study springs from
Christian concern.
>
> No, you chose to interpret it that way. Assertion for effect is not
> dogma.
> You are too quick to attack me because I apparently offended you.
> Sorry, my
> objective was to illicit open discussion.
But even if one is playing devil's advocate, qualifications are relevant.
If you intended them, I did not find them in your statement.
>
> Students should be given the freedom to challenge any model
> assumption.
> Scientist build their models based on their personal worldviews just
> like
> anyone else.
But there is a vast gulf between the models and the worldviews. I do not
see how my worldview changed when I studied chemistry from when I studied
English or went to church. Further, if I challenge such fundamental parts
of models as atoms, orbitals and valence, I won't be doing
chemistry--unless I have solid data. I understand that valence is not as
simple as what I was taught many years ago. Cu2S isn't exactly, but that
comes from more careful empirical measurement, not somebody not liking
the model. Of course, a number of individuals have challenged Einstein's
model, beginning with Whitehead. They have all been shot down by the
data, unless there is one out there that happens to duplicate Einstein's
predictions. I think, as an analogy, of the "particle"-wave theories that
Schrodinger proved equivalent.
> >
>
> >>> 1) North-American society today equates "religious neutrality"
> >> with the
> >>> complete absence of talk about God --- functional agnosticism or
> >>> functional atheism. So when people today attempt to talk about
> >> science
> >>> and the results of science in a "religiously neutral" way, they
> >> believe
> >>> that, in order to do so, they must make no mention of God at
> all.
> >> NO WORLDVIEW IS RELIGIOUSLY NEUTRAL. ITS BASIC ASSUMPTIONS WILL
> >> REVEAL THAT
> >> RELIGOUS BASE.
> >
> > Since when is science a worldview?
> I did not say it was. Science, of course, is a method. The
> scientists are
> the owners of the worldviews. A field of science will present its
> own
> worldview, which should be open to challenges including its basic
> assumptions.
> Scientific research is kept quite separate from faith, but their
> interpretive writing is not, which is what students see and think is
> science.
Do you see the confusion? The students talked about the presentation of
scientific results. You jumped to worldview. In your latest response, you
claim that "science will present its own worldview . . ." No scientific
discipline does, but practicing scientists have various worldviews, and
the philosophically illiterate proclam them as scientific.
> >
> >>>
> >>> 2) People confuse methodological naturalism with philosophical
> >>> naturalism.
> >> NEITHER IS A HEALTHY PERSPECTIVE
> >
> > If methodological naturalism is unhealthy, how can chemistry be
> > practiced? Where, in the chemical equations, does miracle enter?
>
> The perspective I am referring to is the persons worldview for
> making moral
> decisions not scientific research decisions. No one labels
> chemistry as
> unhealthy. I certainly did not.
> >
Again the confusion, for methodological naturalism is not a worldview. It
merely indicates where one looks for scientific answers and the kind of
questions which may be addressed scientifically. As for moral decisions,
the most I can get from science is a description of the consequences of
certain empirical actions. These may help clarify the moral situation.
But they cannot produce the moral decision.
>
> Sorry, but you were not very rational. Those caps must have blown
> you apart.
> George's comment was more appropriate and clarifying.
>
> Jim
>
More could be said, but I end only with the note that George merely noted
a definition. He did not deal with the tacit implications in what you
wrote. What I responded to may not have been what you intended, but I
have no way to determine that from a document. Were we talking together,
many matters would be quickly clarified. Since I have noted a number of
problems in your response, I have the feeling that there is conflation of
such terms as science, model, worldview, etc., and a neglect to present
some relevant qualifications. I believe that our views are quite similar,
but I don't see that this comes out in what you have written.
Dave
This archive was generated by hypermail 2b29 : Sat Jun 17 2000 - 16:53:43 EDT