> On 16 Oct 2018, at 19:56, Brent Meeker <[email protected]> wrote: > > > > On 10/16/2018 1:00 AM, Philip Thrift wrote: >> >> >> On Monday, October 15, 2018 at 8:50:57 PM UTC-5, Brent wrote: >> >> >> The "separation" of science from religion was the invention of science as a >> way of knowing what was fact and what was superstition. Science was testing >> beliefs and holding them only provisionally. >> >> Brent >> >> >> >> They had myths. We have models. >> >> "As an empiricist I continue to think of the conceptual scheme of science as >> a tool, ultimately, for predicting future experience in the light of past >> experience. Physical objects are conceptually imported into the situation as >> convenient intermediaries -- not by definition in terms of experience, but >> simply as irreducible posits comparable, epistemologically, to the gods of >> Homer. Let me interject that for my part I do, qua lay physicist, believe in >> physical objects and not in Homer's gods; and I consider it a scientific >> error to believe otherwise. But in point of epistemological footing the >> physical objects and the gods differ only in degree and not in >> kind. Both sorts of entities enter our conception only as cultural posits. >> The myth of physical objects is epistemologically superior to most in that >> it has proved more efficacious than other myths as a device for working a >> manageable structure into the flux of experience." >> -- Willard Van Orman Quine >> >> "It's models almost all the way up and all the way down." >> -- Ronald Giere > > That misses the point. Of course religions and science have models. The > difference is that science test the models. Science isn't a body of beliefs, > it's an attitude.
An attitude born in theology, with Plato. That attitude was the attitude of the rationalist theologian for a millenium, but even “under the Church”, most theologian will be aware of this, and like the soviet dissidents, will continue to share deep thought in the field, usually unknown by the clergy, or dismissed, or attacked violently. To make theology coming back to science consists simply in encouraging that attitude in the fundamental question. But of course the pope will say that “doubt is the devil”, and the atheist (of the strong kind) says exactly the same thing with nature, and equate fundamental science with the belief in the god “matter”. They just use more sophisticate tools to silent the doubter; more efficacious. After all being burned alive makes too much advertising to the idea of the one burned alive. Like you say, we must confront the idea with the facts and change our theories accordingly. Today, the fact is that mechanism explain far better both matter and consciousness existence than any physical theory. Naturalist, when enough rigorous, like Dennett or the neurophilosophers, have to eliminate consciousness, but they don’t succeed (for an obvious reason). Bruno > > Brent > Science has questions that may never be answered. Religion has answers that > may never be questioned. > --- Bob Zanelli > > -- > 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] > <mailto:[email protected]>. > To post to this group, send email to [email protected] > <mailto:[email protected]>. > Visit this group at https://groups.google.com/group/everything-list > <https://groups.google.com/group/everything-list>. > For more options, visit https://groups.google.com/d/optout > <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 https://groups.google.com/group/everything-list. For more options, visit https://groups.google.com/d/optout.
