On 14 Nov 2009, at 01:33, Brent Meeker wrote: >> Why should we use the term "God" in the sense of those who clearly >> have confused science with temporal authoritative argument? > > Because that's what most people who use the term mean. And if we tell > them we're agnostic about God
Who them? Which Christians? There are many Christian theologians who have reasonable (with respect to comp, or to the scientific attitude) conception of God. The difference between some american and european christians can be bigger than the difference between european atheists. But once we know some group does not argue, but use authoritatively some dogma, anyone with a scientific attitude should use its usual critical mind. > we will be telling them that we have no > good reason not to believe in their sky father and hence no good > reason > to resist the revealed morality they want to impose through laws. Then it is like rejecting the "object" of a theory, because we disagree with a theory. It is like concluding that earth does not exist, because some people said it to be flat. There are no reasons to do that (except bad habits). > >> The word and concept God have been used in all culture and tradition, >> and refer to to some projection of our ignorance, close to the idea >> of >> infinite, or inconceivable, in-something. >> May be this is due to the fact that many got a christian education. I >> did not. For me "God" refer to the all transcendant and ineffable >> things described by mystics and rationalized by the thinker who are >> searching. >> Like I said, atheists and christians defend the same concept of God, >> the first to believe in its non-existence, the second to believe in >> its existence. Why does atheist choose the definition of those in >> which they does not believe the theory. It is like to say "genetics >> is >> crap" because of Lyssenko. >> >> >> The agnostic search without prejudice and with a critical eyes on any >> theory. > Does your eye ever become so critical as to reject a theory - not > reject > for sure, but for all practical purposes you consider it false? Yes. One refutation is enough (in principle). The refutation can be internal, like when the theory is shown inconsistent, or external, when the theory is contradicted by some experiment. Or we can reject a theory because we don't like it, if we want. taste and esthetic features can play a role. Without contradiction, it is hard to conclude a theory is "false". With comp "true" and "false" are by themselves very complex and delicate notions, in need of theories. >>> You say you are agnostic on (primitive) matter; but you usually >>> claim >>> to have proven that matter doesn't exist, because to assume it does >>> leads to contradiction. >> >> >> Not at all. I am entirely agnostic about Matter. >> What I am pretty sure of is that Matter is incompatible with Digital >> Mechanism. I do believe that Comp entails Matter makes no sense. >> >> I am agnostic on Matter, because I am agnostic on Digital Mechanism. >> And then diabolically enough, I have too, because none correct >> machine >> can know for sure Digital Mechanism is true (even after surviving a >> classical teleportation). > > If not knowing for sure makes one an agnostic then I'm an agnostic on > everything. But that definition implies science is no better than > guessing and all opinions are equal. > I think we need to keep a > distinction between knowing for sure and knowing in the sense of > having > good evidence for. Well you right, and I just have insisted on this on the FOR list. But yes, I do believe that a scientist never know for sure, and that he does not commit *any* definitive ontological commitment. All theories are hypothetical. But this does not mean that all theories are equal. Some theories takes more time to be refuted. Some theories are more fertile, and can be more interestingly false. A scientist can judge a theory much better than another, without saying "I believe it to be true". He will say "I believe it to be more plausible than some other theories. We have to take our theory seriously until we find a better theory. > > Scientific theories are never proved. That doesn't mean we're > agnostic > about whether the Earth is flat or spheroidal. We can judge that "spheroidal" is far more plausible, and useful, given our current knowledge, but we can hardly say that science has proved that the earth is spheroidal, or that earth really exists. In science there are just no proof about anything concerning reality. Only radical atheists (unlike atheists like Carolyn Porco) can pretend that science has proved anything. Certainty is not among the goal of science. The goal of science is the "quest" of the truth, but it is a quest. I could say that religion is the goal, and science the means. It is like opening our eyes and observing, and then trying to figure a mental coherent picture of what we see. But no one can prove that we have find the last correct picture. No one. neither the scientist, nor the priest. Only politicians behave like that sometimes, and usually for opportunist reasons. There is nothing more modest than science. But by opposing science to (honest) religion, we tend to make science into a pseudo (authoritative) religion. I said in different forums that the divorce between science and religion is a symptom of schizophrenia. A human temporary (I hope) laps of insanity. Religion can only extends science. The Islamic al- Ghazali (eleven century) did already explains this in great detail. A religion which fear science can only be based on bad faith. A religion which fear the spirit of free research and free exam can only rely on lies and dishonest way to keep power. Some atheist today (in Europa) are acting like that, because they want to hide that atheism is a religion, actually a typically Aristotelian (easily anti-platonist) religion. As scientist we don't know, but can study and test different theories. Bruno http://iridia.ulb.ac.be/~marchal/ -- You received this message because you are subscribed to the Google Groups "Everything List" group. To post to this group, send email to [email protected]. To unsubscribe from this group, send email to [email protected]. For more options, visit this group at http://groups.google.com/group/everything-list?hl=.
