|
|
Thread Tools | Display Modes |
#21
|
|||
|
|||
David Hansen wrote:
On Wed, 01 Dec 2004 13:28:22 +0000 someone who may be JLB wrote this:- there is a vast difference between belief based on faith and authority, and seeking to improve one's understanding of the world through empirical tests of theories about the world. You make them sound mutually exclusive. I'd say he makes them sound different, which they are. They involve different processes to achieve different things. Different does not necessarily imply mutually exclusive, though metaphysics and the natural world described by science are, at least with our current level of understanding of totality, not measurable with the same tools. However, the Roman Catholic Church maintains a small staff improving understanding through empirical tests of physical things. IIRC they do a lot of astronomy, amongst other things. It is good that a church is willing to reconcile scientific understanding with its own view of the natural world, for example admitting that the world isn't flat and that evolution takes place. However, I don't think this is fundamental to either the religion that does it (the Roman Catholic church is, quite rightly, rather more concerned with the direct teachings of Jesus Christ rather than how quantum mechanical theory reflects on God's design of creation) or to science. In other words, it helps evolve the universal view of that religion, but does not affect the primary teachings. Hubble scientists aren't going to discover something that renders Mass and Communion pointless, for example, and Mass and Communion aren't going to tell us how stars are formed. May I respectfully suggest that your knowledge of religion is not up to date. To take Christianity as an example one can look at such challenges being discussed by theologians 100 odd years ago, put into books 50 odd years ago and still being discussed today. There are of course religious people who crave the certainty of simple ideas, but that does not mean all religious people crave that. But the Christian Church isn't going to say, "actually, we got it all wrong and Christ wasn't the son of God as we'd thought, we suggest you have a look at what the Buddhists say as we're not confident we're right any more". There are fundamentals in religious belief that are beyond simple evidence based questioning, and that is not true (or at least should not be true) of science. Pete. -- Peter Clinch Medical Physics IT Officer Tel 44 1382 660111 ext. 33637 Univ. of Dundee, Ninewells Hospital Fax 44 1382 640177 Dundee DD1 9SY Scotland UK net http://www.dundee.ac.uk/~pjclinch/ |
Ads |
#22
|
|||
|
|||
in message , JLB
') wrote: David Hansen wrote: You need to understand religion rather better before making such sweeping statements. What you describe is not religion, but the actions of zealots. Cults and suicide bombers are not representative of religion in general. If you think religion does not involve questioning things then you have a lot to learn. I could add that science is another religion, though its adherents usually fail to see that. There are at least as great a proportion of zealots in this religion as there are in the more well known religions. You could add that, and it seems you have done so, but it would not make it correct. There is a fundamental qualitiative distinction between science and religion. I'd have to agree that its easy to find people who talk in favour of science by using quasi-religious arguments. They say they support science, but it is apparent they do not understand it. That is unfortunate. But there is a vast difference between belief based on faith and authority, and seeking to improve one's understanding of the world through empirical tests of theories about the world. If you believe this you need to read more Feyerabend. The ideology of Science is arguably not religious; the language in which scientists describe their practice is arguably not religious; but what they actually do as opposed to what they say they do has many of the hallmarks of religion. URL:http://www.amazon.co.uk/exec/obidos/ASIN/0860916464 (In a past life I was author of the world's first strictly Popperian inference engine, so I know a bit about these things. It's what happens when you take philosophers and let them loose with a LISP Machine...) -- (Simon Brooke) http://www.jasmine.org.uk/~simon/ ;; making jokes about dyslexia isn't big, it isn't clever and ;; it isn't furry. |
#23
|
|||
|
|||
David Hansen wrote:
On Wed, 01 Dec 2004 13:28:22 +0000 someone who may be JLB wrote this:- there is a vast difference between belief based on faith and authority, and seeking to improve one's understanding of the world through empirical tests of theories about the world. You make them sound mutually exclusive. However, the Roman Catholic Church maintains a small staff improving understanding through empirical tests of physical things. IIRC they do a lot of astronomy, amongst other things. That is absolutely not what I was doing. Why would you interpret "different" as "mutually exclusive"? Note that an empirical test does not prove that a theory is true. It either shows it is false or shows that it satisfies that test. Any scientific theory is available to be thrown down at any time by any scientist who can find a test that does that. Religions do not even come close to admitting such a challenge to any of their fundamental tenets [1], most of which are beyond being tested anyway. May I respectfully suggest that your knowledge of religion is not up to date. To take Christianity as an example one can look at such challenges being discussed by theologians 100 odd years ago, put into books 50 odd years ago and still being discussed today. There are of course religious people who crave the certainty of simple ideas, but that does not mean all religious people crave that. Neither did I say that. -- Joe * If I cannot be free I'll be cheap |
#24
|
|||
|
|||
On Wed, 01 Dec 2004 14:05:13 +0000 someone who may be Peter Clinch
wrote this:- Religion does require a degree of pure faith that is beyond question. Some religions do, some do not. Anyway, parts of science require a degree of pure faith. The history of the understanding of the basic building blocks of chemical elements, which started off as chemistry and then moved to physics, involved and involves steps of pure faith. Is Niels Bohr's model of an atom true? Well, it is true up to a point. It all depends on how deep one wants to delve and how much one is capable of understanding. Will the quest come to some ultimate truth? It might do, but the searchers have thought they were on the brink of some ultimate knowledge many times before. Those who do not understand and do not want to delve deeply can simply accept Niels Bohr's model of an atom on faith. Some people can't even grasp that simple model. It is much the same with religions. Many people are only capable of dealing with a simple faith. I have no objection to this, provided they do not try and ram it down other's throats. However, others are able and willing to take things further. For example I wouldn't advise anyone with a simple Christian faith to read any of the books of Dietrich Bonhoeffer [1] (except for Letters and Papers from Prison, where the letters were written for the censors), but these books have had great influence. Those with a limited grasp of Christianity would find some of his concepts difficult or outrageous, such as perhaps the most famous "religionless Christianity" [2]. But to fire your own point back at you, what you describe is not science, but the actions of zealots, and not really representative of science itself. I disagree. The zealots I was thinking of tend to be atheists who try and go out of their way to mock religion. Many of these people are senior scientists (science has a hierarchy too). [1] http://www.dbonhoeffer.org/who-was-db2.htm is a fairly short biography. [2] for a glimpse of how much some Christians dislike his work try http://www.rapidnet.com/~jbeard/bdm/...er/general.htm where he is described as an atheist. -- David Hansen, Edinburgh | PGP email preferred-key number F566DA0E I will always explain revoked keys, unless the UK government prevents me by using the RIP Act 2000. |
#25
|
|||
|
|||
On Wed, 01 Dec 2004 14:57:05 +0000 someone who may be Peter Clinch
wrote this:- I'd say he makes them sound different, which they are. While I have been tweaking the tail of the religious aspects of science a little bit there is not as much clear blue water between them as some people like to think. It is very cosy to sit in a bunker and laugh at those in the other bunker, but not something everyone finds comfortable. -- David Hansen, Edinburgh | PGP email preferred-key number F566DA0E I will always explain revoked keys, unless the UK government prevents me by using the RIP Act 2000. |
#26
|
|||
|
|||
On Wed, 01 Dec 2004 15:49:44 +0000 someone who may be Simon Brooke
wrote this:- there is a vast difference between belief based on faith and authority, and seeking to improve one's understanding of the world through empirical tests of theories about the world. If you believe this you need to read more Feyerabend. The ideology of Science is arguably not religious; the language in which scientists describe their practice is arguably not religious; but what they actually do as opposed to what they say they do has many of the hallmarks of religion. I would add that the artistic critique of science has merits. Expressing one's opinions in third person language does not mean that the opinions are impersonal unvarnished truths. -- David Hansen, Edinburgh | PGP email preferred-key number F566DA0E I will always explain revoked keys, unless the UK government prevents me by using the RIP Act 2000. |
#27
|
|||
|
|||
Simon Brooke wrote:
It's what happens when you take philosophers and let them loose with a LISP Machine...) You end up with philothophers don't you? Tony ;-) |
#28
|
|||
|
|||
David Hansen wrote:
While I have been tweaking the tail of the religious aspects of science a little bit there is not as much clear blue water between them as some people like to think. It is very cosy to sit in a bunker and laugh at those in the other bunker, but not something everyone finds comfortable. But to my mind the bunkers aren't really dug into the same soil. Science and Religion are (generally) dealing with fundametally different things. The most famous journal of science is called "nature", because it is physical nature that science seeks to understand. Religion is about /super/nature, by definition entirely outside of the place science operates. So I think that one does not really relate to the other (at least beyond a human level, in areas such as medical ethics), and they only become exclusive to one another where eejits insist that Pi is 3 becuase they're done some dopey inference from II Kings or the like, or other eejits say that since nobody has scientifically proven God exists, therefore he doesn't. Eejits aren't exclusive to either camp, just generally ocurring in human populations. So I think people in one laughing at the other are probably mistakenly thinking they are trying to do the same thing, which they aren't AFAICT. The zealots I was thinking of tend to be atheists who try and go out of their way to mock religion. Many of these people are senior scientists (science has a hierarchy too). Idiots, to my thinking. Atheism requires a blind faith in something that cannot be proven, so for atheists to mock religion is to mock themselves. Many senior scientists have deep religous conviction, so I do not believe that sciences hierarchy is in any way connected to an attitude to religion. Pete. -- Peter Clinch Medical Physics IT Officer Tel 44 1382 660111 ext. 33637 Univ. of Dundee, Ninewells Hospital Fax 44 1382 640177 Dundee DD1 9SY Scotland UK net http://www.dundee.ac.uk/~pjclinch/ |
#29
|
|||
|
|||
Peter Clinch wrote:
But to my mind the bunkers aren't really dug into the same soil. Science and Religion are (generally) dealing with fundametally different things. The most famous journal of science is called "nature", because it is physical nature that science seeks to understand. Religion is about /super/nature, by definition entirely outside of the place science operates. So I think that one does not really relate to the other (at least beyond a human level, in areas such as medical ethics), and they only become exclusive to one another where eejits insist that Pi is 3 becuase they're done some dopey inference from II Kings or the like, or other eejits say that since nobody has scientifically proven God exists, therefore he doesn't. Religion is based on the belief that the Universe is governed by supreme being(s). Science is based on the belief it is governed by mathematics. Tony ;-) |
#30
|
|||
|
|||
|
Thread Tools | |
Display Modes | |
|
|
Similar Threads | ||||
Thread | Thread Starter | Forum | Replies | Last Post |
What doctors/researchers think about wearing a helmet. | John Doe | UK | 304 | December 5th 04 01:32 PM |
Does public health care pay for your head injuries? | John Doe | UK | 187 | November 30th 04 02:51 PM |
published helmet research - not troll | patrick | Racing | 1790 | November 8th 04 03:16 AM |
Billy removes support from Peewee (seeXXXVII for a Laugh) | Di | Social Issues | 3 | October 29th 04 05:31 AM |
Who is going to Interbike? | Bruce Gilbert | Techniques | 2 | October 10th 03 09:26 PM |