You make statements where the difference between science and theology is a matter of degree:
On Wed, Jul 2, 2014 at 7:32 PM, 'Chris de Morsella' via Everything List < everything-list@googlegroups.com> wrote: > > > You are being a purist. > We all begin with the assumption that an external reality actually exists. > So on some level sure everything is based on assumptions. It is a question > of degree. > > > >>Brent has said things sounding like "doesn't matter, whatever works who > cares how and why", to which my reply is: then we should completely ban all > ethical/theological consideration from scientific inquiry. > Here ethics should play a role in science according to you. I would offer that ethics finally is derived from humanism, religious views, flavors of existentialism and other theological phenomena. I agree and think there is merit in reflecting whether there is a fundamental difference at all. > > Who is suggesting that ethics should play no role? WHo is suggesting that > human activity dominated by the profit motive is science -- even when it is > dressed up in the forms and language of science? Not me for sure. When big > pharma does drug studies with scary NDAs and then buries all the results > that do not support the profit driven desired results... this is not > science in action. And I am NOT claiming that that kind of human activity > is science. It is marketing perhaps, but it is not science. > > >>But we can expect more poison in our foods, and more justification for > people to suffer verdicts of science infallibility. > > We can expect that if people -- in their ignorance of the actual nature of > science accept this kind of marketing -- that uses the langauge and forms > of science to produce marketing materials for drugs etc. -- blindly accept > anything that seems "scientific" as actually being science. When -- I think > you clearly know -- it is not! > > That's just swapping overly transcendental materialist theology with > overly untranscendental materialist theology; in both cases you'll end up > with reductionism sharp enough to justify hurting the other camp. > > A blind acceptance of any claim made by someone wearing a white lab coat > and producing some study written in scientific sounding language and > employing scientific sounding methodologies would be a materialist > theology. I am not proposing that however and apologies if you > misunderstood me. > Agree on most points here. > > I'm sick of the camp business frankly. > > And I am sick of religion (or anything) demanding that I (we) take it > seriously based on blind faith and ancient texts.. When we do not know, > then we should have the courage of admitting that we do not know. Science > (in the ideal at least) admits the bounds of its own ignorance; it has the > humility to accept that it cannot provide an answer for many questions. > So what, should we build some camps now? You seem vexed... doughnut perhaps? I love camping though. > > > > Religion does not stand on the same footing as science. Religion > overarches and encompasses everything, including science. > > It certainly makes the claim, but religion – including Islam -- is sadly > deficient in providing an experimental proof. Science stands on a much more > solid foundation than any faith, because it accepts that its propositions > must stand up to experimental verification. The strength of science is that > it is falsifiable. > > > >>You pretend as if there were consensus on this, when threads of recent > weeks display the opposite. > > I am not pretending anything. I feel that the experimental method is > superior within the physically verifiable material realm than taking some > ancient person's idealization of reality as literal TRUTH. > Then we can use that method to derive appropriate ethics/theology and share the results. I don't see much of this happening. > > > >>But as suspect only as the claims of any school of thought, sure. > > I disagree. The Laws of Gravity stand on much firmer ground than the > Virgin Mary's alleged virgin birth. Are you really suggesting that these > two claims have equivalent basis for being believable? > Now it no longer seems you are arguing for "matter of degree"; more like "fundamental difference reflecting truth (with your capital T)". It's perhaps double standard to claim "pesticides are bad example, not really science, don't be such literal purist..." and then throw back some relatively convenient example to "debunk religion" in such transparent manner. Easy to invert, what is more plausible: existence of dark energy or that people fooling around, without intercourse, could still exchange genetic material? This is as specious as your example perhaps. It's definitely cherry picking truths with capital Ts, as non-confessional theology is not about literal, fanatical interpretation of text in the first place, just as science is not about merely wearing lab coat and maximizing profit margin. I need a doughnut now. PGC -- You received this message because you are subscribed to the Google Groups "Everything List" group. To unsubscribe from this group and stop receiving emails from it, send an email to everything-list+unsubscr...@googlegroups.com. To post to this group, send email to everything-list@googlegroups.com. Visit this group at http://groups.google.com/group/everything-list. For more options, visit https://groups.google.com/d/optout.
