Re: [asa] Empiricism, Faith and Science

Thank you George and Wayne for those comments. I agree with you both that
this particular essay can be debunked on many fronts. For example, from my
perspective as a legal scholar cum social scientist, this assertion seems
absurd to me: "*Science is nonsectarian: those who disagree on scientific
issues do not blow each other up. Science encourages doubt; most religions
quash it.*" Maybe scientists don't literally blow each other up, but one
doesn't have to be a hard-line Kuhnian to observe that the community of
science is as full of "sects" and power games as any other human endeavor.
Just dare to question, say, multiregionalism among certain physical
anthropologists and geneticists, or out of Africa among others, and observe
how "nonsectarian" the community really is.

But here is my biggest concern vis-a-vis TE. The author says: *Scientific
"truths" are empirically supported observations agreed on by
different observers. Religious "truths," on the other hand, are personal,
unverifiable and contested by those of different faiths. *The epistemology
behind this seems to me appallingly simplistic and wrong -- it's just
old-school positivism. I can't see how anyone committed to an authentic
Christianity can accept this epistemology. But isn't this epistemology
implicit in a TE position that promotes a rigid methodological naturalism?
Even though the TE's MN is couched in pragmatic terms, isn't the
philosophical underpinning a belief that there really is no "empirical"
knowledge of religious truths?

On 9/14/06, Dawsonzhu@aol.com <Dawsonzhu@aol.com> wrote:
>
>
>
> There is not so much to add to what George Murphy wrote,
> but it is rather typical talk you will encounter on
> skeptic lists. When I worked at condensed matter physics,
> I was not so much exposed to this, but now in the biosciences,
> I have somehow encountered a lot more of this. Because of
> the nature of group dynamics, one does feel rather outside.
>
> It's a bit ironic in a way, because as you move closer and
> closer to the very fundamentals questions of life and what
> all this means, one would think that humility should greatly
> abound, yet in fact, I sense quite the opposite is some cases.
>
>
>
> Regardless of what they say to placate the faithful, most scientists
probably know in their hearts that science and religion are incompatible
ways of viewing the world.
>
>
> It depends. It is quite clear that doctors perform the
> operation and that most such things are routine now. But we
> can still thank God for having given us sight enough to
> develop these tools, and we still depend on God for the
> true healing. We have the technology to keep a person alive
> much longer than in the day the Bible was written, but how
> to live and why is still a very different question that science
> has no ability to answer.
>
>
> Supernatural forces and events, essential aspects of most religions, play
no role in
>
> science, not because we exclude them deliberately, but because they have
never been a useful way to understand nature.
>
>
> The supernatural is one of the more difficult matters of a
> scientist: particularly someone trained in physics. We like
> to know how things work, so there is a nature instinct to
> search for a mechanism for everything. I think
> I would respond like Confucius here: why should we spend time
> worrying about how to live in heaven if we cannot figure out
> how to live on earth? So if we do not understand what the
> world is, how can we hope to understand the supernatural?
>
>
> Scientific "truths" are empirically supported observations agreed on by
different
>
> observers. Religious "truths," on the other hand, are personal,
unverifiable and contested by those of different faiths. Science is
nonsectarian: those who disagree on scientific issues do not blow each other
up. Science encourages doubt; most religions quash it.
>
>
>
> He who shouts loudly about questioning authority has never
> been forced to really question any actual authority.
>
> It is clear that religious truths are more personal,
> but so what? A personal God should be, I guess, rather "personal".
> The thing that should matter is the truth, personal or not.
>
>
>
> But religion is not completely separable from science. Virtually all
religions make improbable claims that are in principle empirically testable,
and thus within the domain of science: Mary, in Catholic teaching, was
bodily taken to heaven, while Muhammad rode up on a white horse; and Jesus
(born of a virgin) came back from the dead. None of these claims has been
corroborated, and while science would never accept them as true without
evidence, religion does. A mind that accepts both science and religion is
thus a mind in conflict
>
>
>
> It is a delicate matter. At any rate, as George pointed out, the
resurrection did involve
> witnesses. Of all the other matters that could come up about the Bible
and all that,
> the resurrection is the most central to being a Christian. There are some
things that
> do matter, and somehow, I have received Grace enough to come to see it
here. But,
> given what we have in hand, these really are questions about how to live,
not what
> science can prove or disprove. I'm only given this one known chance, what
am I to
> do while I have that one chance?
>
> By Grace we proceed,
> Wayne
>
>
>
> Regardless of what they say to placate the faithful, most scientists
probably know in their hearts that science and religion are incompatible
ways of viewing the world.
>
>
> It depends. It is quite clear that doctors perform the
> operation and that most such things are routine now. But we
> can still thank God for having given us sight enough to
> develop these tools, and we still depend on God for the
> true healing. We have the technology to keep a person alive
> much longer than in the day the Bible was written, but how
> to live and why is still a very different question that science
> has no ability to answer.
>
>
> Supernatural forces and events, essential aspects of most religions, play
no role in
>
> science, not because we exclude them deliberately, but because they have
never been a useful way to understand nature.
>
>
> The supernatural is one of the more difficult matters of a
> scientist: particularly someone trained in physics. We like
> to know how things work, so there is a nature instinct to
> search for a mechanism for everything. I think
> I would respond like Confucius here: why should we spend time
> worrying about how to live in heaven if we cannot figure out
> how to live on earth? So if we do not understand what the
> world is, how can we hope to understand the supernatural?
>
>
> Scientific "truths" are empirically supported observations agreed on by
different
>
> observers. Religious "truths," on the other hand, are personal,
unverifiable and contested by those of different faiths. Science is
nonsectarian: those who disagree on scientific issues do not blow each other
up. Science encourages doubt; most religions quash it.
>
>
>
> He who shouts loudly about questioning authority has never
> been forced to really question any actual authority.
>
> It is clear that religious truths are more personal,
> but so what? A personal God should be, I guess, rather "personal".
> The thing that should matter is the truth, personal or not.
>
>
>
> But religion is not completely separable from science. Virtually all
religions make improbable claims that are in principle empirically testable,
and thus within the domain of science: Mary, in Catholic teaching, was
bodily taken to heaven, while Muhammad rode up on a white horse; and Jesus
(born of a virgin) came back from the dead. None of these claims has been
corroborated, and while science would never accept them as true without
evidence, religion does. A mind that accepts both science and religion is
thus a mind in conflict
>
>
>
> It is a delicate matter. At any rate, as George pointed out, the
resurrection did involve
> witnesses. Of all the other matters that could come up about the Bible
and all that,
> the resurrection is the most central to being a Christian. There are some
things that
> do matter, and somehow, I have received Grace enough to come to see it
here. But,
> given what we have in hand, these really are questions about how to live,
not what
> science can prove or disprove. I'm only given this one known chance, what
am I to
> do while I have that one chance?
>
> By Grace we proceed,
> Wayne

To unsubscribe, send a message to majordomo@calvin.edu with
"unsubscribe asa" (no quotes) as the body of the message.
Received on Thu Sep 14 10:26:16 2006