________________________________
From: Platonist Guitar Cowboy <[email protected]>
To: [email protected]
Sent: Wednesday, July 2, 2014 11:27 AM
Subject: Re: Pluto bounces back!
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
<[email protected]> 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?
No, but that does not mean we should all accept claim's that arise from dogma
either. Had, a "free" doughnut earlier (they bring them and usually I try to
avoid them not wishing to become fat, but today, walking by the table and
seeing them all laid out.. beckoning me as I was there holding a espresso
coffee in my hand... impulse won out and I grabbed my 600 calorie bomb and
quite enjoyed it, thank you)
I love camping though.
Me too -- some of the best camping on the planet in the region I live in.
>
>>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.
We should derive our ethical belief systems based on what works rather than
based on ancient texts of dubious origin.
>
>
>
>>>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)".
If you choose to view the supposed virgin birth of Jesus on the same footing as
a highly and repeatedly verified hypothesis that of course is your prerogative,
but that I do not does not mean I am just supplanting one set of beliefs for
another. I think it is logical to state that the one is on firmer footing than
the other, for it is supported by much evidence, whilst the virgin birth is
based on accepting some say so.
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.
No it is not a double standard at all. I disagree with your applying some kind
of equivalency to the two separate statements. Pointing out that science can be
corrupted and abused -- as it has been and will continue to be abused by
unscrupulous private interests is just a statement of fact, reflecting the
underbelly of less than noble human behavior. People will try to game any
system, including the scientific method.
Religion instead demands -- it does not ask; religion demands -- we accept all
kinds of fairy tales; just on this basis it is transparently inferior to the
scientific method as a means of informing ourselves about the universe we
actually do find ourselves living in. A universe with definite, measurable
values and behaviors.
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.
There was no fooling around in the alleged virgin birth -- God Himself came
down from the sky (or wherever His celestial throne may be) to inseminate some
woman... Joseph was a cuckold... there was no fooling around (at least on the
part of the cuckold dude called Joseph. The bible is full of fantastical BS --
for example God making the earth stand still so the Israelite army could have
time to finish a battle.
How can you put BS like this crap from the bible, on the same footing as say
the Theory of relativity -- or even the existence of Dark Matter, which though
it is still subject to debate, also presents quite convincing cosmic evidence
to back its case up.
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
Religion, especially the monotheist varietals, demand obedience to a core dogma
and deity. There is no discussion, no questioning; only blind acceptance. For
this reason alone monotheism, especially, is inferior to science.
Chris
--
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 [email protected].
To post to this group, send email to [email protected].
Visit this group at http://groups.google.com/group/everything-list.
For more options, visit https://groups.google.com/d/optout.
--
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 [email protected].
To post to this group, send email to [email protected].
Visit this group at http://groups.google.com/group/everything-list.
For more options, visit https://groups.google.com/d/optout.
