Re: [asa] Science proves there's no need for God?

Bernie said: *It seems to me that science and technology is growing
exponentially and our lives are greatly enhanced by it. Imagine being
diagnosed by your doctor today for some serious illness compared to what it
would have been like 50 years ago (blood work, medical equipment, etc.).
*
I respond: "enhanced" is a value judgment. Why is it "good" that diagnosis
and treatment of diseases is more efficient today than 50 years ago? You
cannot answer this question on "scientific" grounds. It's a moral
judgment. And the fact that you think it "should be obvious" isn't a
scientific argument either. I agree, it "should be obvious" that medical
technology has "enhanced" human society, but underlying that is an enormous
set of philosophical and theological presuppositions about the value of
human life.

Further, technological "advancement" is often more harmful than beneficial.
The obvious example here is nuclear weaponry, or any "advances" in weapons
technology.

Finally, some (maybe most) technological "advancement" is morally
ambiguous. "Advances" in reproductive technologies have enabled many
infertile couples to conceive children; but at the same time, those same
technologies have resulted in a dubious industry that engages in
preimplantation screening practices that amount to eugenics. "Advances" in
communications technology enable us to communicate asynchronously by email;
but they also enable child pornography to proliferate. And so on.

There is no "scientifically" neutral place from which to evaluate whether
technological / scientific progress is "good."

-- 
David W. Opderbeck
Associate Professor of Law
Seton Hall University Law School
Gibbons Institute of Law, Science & Technology
On Wed, Oct 8, 2008 at 12:43 PM, Dehler, Bernie <bernie.dehler@intel.com>wrote:
>    I think there's an enormous question-begging definitional problem
> here:  what is meant by "universe?"
>
>
>
> If you assume metaphysical naturalism, reject any kind of top-down
> causation, and agree that the "universe" must be a hermetically closed
> causal system, then perhaps there's no need for God as an "explanation."
> But why should we accept those titanic assumptions based on "science?"  By
> definition, "science" only investigates the "natural."  "Science" cannot
> prove or disprove whether metaphysical naturalism is true, because that is a
> question outside the domain of "science."
>
>
>
> As to the "success" of "science," it hasn't come close yet to explaining
> all the mysteries of the universe.  Most of the matter in the universe is
> "dark matter" or "dark energy," which "science" cannot yet explain.  Nor can
> "science" yet explain what preceded the big bang.  These, as well as other
> things, are huge gaps in "science's" ability to explain the universe.
>
>
>
> Of course, "science" may one day be able to explain these things, and we
> would not argue that these gaps must be "God."  But our *belief* that
> science might one day explain these things is simply that, a belief.  That
> belief is not, in itself, "scientific."  As Ted noted, we need to go outside
> "science" to explain how it is that we can develop such a "belief."
>
>
>
> Indeed, the very notion of the "success" of "science" is not a "scientific"
> one.  What do we mean by "success?"  "Success" is a value judgment.  What
> "scientific" principle defines "success?"  The fathers of the modern
> scientific method -- Bacon, et al. -- based their notions of "progress" in
> scientific study on social and moral judgments that fall outside the realm
> of "science."
>
>
> David W. Opderbeck
>
> . . . . . . . . . . . . .
>
> Hi David-
>
> You said: "Indeed, the very notion of the "success" of "science" is not a
> "scientific" one.  What do we mean by "success?"  "Success" is a value
> judgment"
>
> I think the "success of science" should be obvious.  Look at the leaps in
> technology in the last 50 years- in the computer, medical, automotive, etc.
> worlds.  It seems to me that science and technology is growing exponentially
> and our lives are greatly enhanced by it.  Imagine being diagnosed by your
> doctor today for some serious illness compared to what it would have been
> like 50 years ago (blood work, medical equipment, etc.).
>
> …Bernie
>
>
>
To unsubscribe, send a message to majordomo@calvin.edu with
"unsubscribe asa" (no quotes) as the body of the message.