Responding to Louis' and Jim's exchange (below), I must agree with Jim in part. I do not think that "religionists" are being disingenuous when they make the argument, but it seems to me that their position is primarily that science and religion are equally imperfect approaches to knowledge, because they are both based on faith. Why is it that they seldom (if ever) argue that science and religion are equally effective because both utilize reason consciously guard against the influence of bias? (They must see reason to be the stronger--more effective; after all, they have chosen it rather than faith to convince us of the validity of their position.) The answer is, I think, that the "religion-is-just-as-good-as-science-as-a-way-of-knowing" argument was lost long ago, because there is no evidence to support the most basic religious tenets.
Religionists appear to have been left with an argument from weakness ("your scientific way of knowing is just as irrational as our religious way"). Again, I am not suggesting they are being disingenuous when they diminish the role of reason in science, only that their bias makes them unaware of the implications of their argument.
Even if we concede that science has an element of faith, that does not change the fact that by definition religion is predominately faith; its epistemology is revelation. The epistemology of science is observation and reason. They could not be more different! The effort of religionists to equate them is, in my view, an indication of some insecurity and doubt in the validity of their tenets that they cannot bring themselves to admit to.
Keith
At 01:27 AM 6/16/99 -0500, Jim Clark wrote:
>Hi
>
>On Wed, 16 Jun 1999, Louis_Schmier wrote:
>> Jim, if you reread what I wrote, you'll see that I never said the mass of
>> scientific knowledge is static. I merely addressed the basic tenets of
>> science within the context of Rick's message. As for tearing down
>> science, you still don't know on which side, if any, I fall.
>
>.... With respect to the "tearing down science" part, I sincerely
>doubt that many of the participants in this debate believe that
>is what they are doing. But our actions do not always have the
>consequences that we intend or would like. For example, I am
>sure that my commentary will lead some people to have even
>greater antipathy to science than before, not exactly what I
>would like to happen. Likewise, people who attack science either
>directly (e.g., holding science responsible for the ills of the
>world) or indirectly (e.g., asserting that other ways of knowing
>are just as valid and legitimate as science) may be contributing
>unintentionally to an undermining of science, especially in a
>time like ours when, I believe, there are many anti-science
>forces operating in society and the academy.
>
>Best wishes
>Jim
Keith A. Maxwell |
Professor of Legal Studies and Ethics | E-mail [EMAIL PROTECTED]
University of Puget Sound | Office Phone 253.756.3703
Tacoma, WA 98416 | Home Phone 253. 564. 2191
<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<< >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>
Work like you don't need money.W.A. Mukatis
Love like you've never been hurt.
And dance like no one's Watching.
