Discussion Topic |
|
This thread has been locked |
pistis
climber
|
|
|
Apr 21, 2007 - 11:48am PT
|
Hello 426:
I'm interested in what you mean by the sign. I assume you believe that this sign somehow does damage to the Christian faith in general? If so, you must also believe that in some way it was posted by the whole of Christendom? Please elaborate.
|
|
pistis
climber
|
|
|
Apr 21, 2007 - 12:35pm PT
|
Ed:
I may agree with everything you wrote. You write that "one can make a philosophy of it (SM), but scientists do not." And then you immediately go on to say that a commitment to "nature (as) the only authority" is important to the SM. Depending upon what you mean, this latter thing may be a philosophical precommitment without support.
For the sake of using the SM as a tool of inquiry, it is entirely correct to assume "only nature" when examining what is essentially natural. And if this is what you mean, than I agree with your last posting entirely. However, if you mean that science needs to authoritatively assume the absence of the supernatural in order to meaningfully investigate the natural, then you are necessarily incorrect as a matter of logic. And as a matter of practice, Christian and other religious scientists are routinely working at the tops of their fields these days.
Your comment about mathematics is interesting. Actually, I'm favored to have as a friend one of the world's preeminent minds today in a particular discipline of mathematics. Whether mathematics is something created or discovered by humans is something very much debated today among mathematicians at the highest levels. There is nothing like agreement on the matter.
|
|
426
Sport climber
Buzzard Point, TN
|
|
|
Apr 21, 2007 - 12:48pm PT
|
It's a "southern thing"...just a comment on "fundamentalism" in general...there's no dearth of it in the world--jmo.
"The most formidable weapon against errors of every kind is reason."-TP, Age of Reason
|
|
Mimi
climber
|
|
|
Apr 21, 2007 - 01:19pm PT
|
To Ed and the epistemologist, thanks for steering this thread in such a positive direction.
These posts made me think of a funny spot on the East side.
Does one still have to trespass to get right with God?
|
|
Ed Hartouni
Trad climber
Livermore, CA
|
|
|
Apr 22, 2007 - 06:21pm PT
|
interesting comments by pistis
'I may agree with everything you wrote. You write that "one can make a philosophy of it (SM), but scientists do not." And then you immediately go on to say that a commitment to "nature (as) the only authority" is important to the SM. Depending upon what you mean, this latter thing may be a philosophical precommitment without support.'
My point was that most scientists do not need to have the philosophical precommitment, they see it as a practical matter, does it work or not? Can I observer it or not? Can I explain it in terms of what is known? Whether or not it is based on a rigorous philosophical foundation is not relevant.
'For the sake of using the SM as a tool of inquiry, it is entirely correct to assume "only nature" when examining what is essentially natural. And if this is what you mean, than I agree with your last posting entirely. However, if you mean that science needs to authoritatively assume the absence of the supernatural in order to meaningfully investigate the natural, then you are necessarily incorrect as a matter of logic. And as a matter of practice, Christian and other religious scientists are routinely working at the tops of their fields these days.'
I would only say that if the "supernatural" affects the "natural" then it is measurable and subject to scientific investigation. My statements do not rule out the possibilities that Christians, or adherents to any other religious or philosophical systems cannot be scientists. However one reconciles one's ideas of faith, it has no role in the execution of science. In the end, we have only the scientific method to stand on.
'Your comment about mathematics is interesting. Actually, I'm favored to have as a friend one of the world's preeminent minds today in a particular discipline of mathematics. Whether mathematics is something created or discovered by humans is something very much debated today among mathematicians at the highest levels. There is nothing like agreement on the matter.'
I left an opening for the spiritual and mystical aspects of human consciousness. That is, the generation of ideas quite separate from reality, from the natural. Ideas are an interesting topic in their own right and play a critical role in creativity in many fields. I mention it here for two reasons: 1) mathematics while grounded in the quantitative explanation of the world, has elements of "pure thought" which I believe are quite outside the "natural" and 2) the scientific method has us sharing our work in an open way so that others can check it and verify that our claims are supported.
Of 2), I can sit with a copy of Newton's Optics on my desk and work through his experiments, exactly as he did, and observe what he observed. It is quite an amazing exercise and the ability to capture the historic thought of scientists, to have a "conversation" of sorts with them, is unique among intellectual disciplines. This is largely because we are describing nature, and the observations of natural phenomena.
As for 1) I marvel that there is no requirement in physical theory that states that mathematics is a necessary precondition to the universe. The logical system represented by mathematics exists, but the application of the system to describe nature, science, is approximate. More, the domaine of mathematics extends quite beyond the physical. It is possible that the mathematics is merely an approximation to some natural phenomena, but I am not sure that it is just the way we organize our thinking. And thus approximate and provisional. But it too seems to work apart from any established philosophical basis. We make the comitment because it works.
For me, the evolutionary pressures are sufficient explanation of thought and consciousness, but certainly, thought can be "supernatural." Those "supernatural" thoughts can also have a measurable affect on the "natural", but by their very nature they are subjective, rather than objective. I cannot, yet, reproduce your thought process, nor can you describe your though process objectively.
So I would agree that belief in the "supernatural" is supportable through this subjective process of thought. I do not believe that anything more than your brain is involved. So religions, to my way of thinking, are really just something someone thought up and believed in, nothing more than that. While this sounds flip, the consequences of acting on these thoughts has profound consequences. This train of thought would be rejected by most religious people because the authority conveyed by simple thought is not sufficient, in their minds, to justify their actions. But a collective belief, held by many people, can have great power even if the natural basis of the belief is absent.
|
|
L
climber
NoName City and It Don't Look Pretty
|
|
|
Apr 22, 2007 - 07:49pm PT
|
I hope you guys will take a minute to listen to Richard Dawkins--this is his presentation at TED 2002.
http://www.glumbert.com/media/calltoarms
|
|
Jaybro
Social climber
The West
|
|
|
Apr 22, 2007 - 08:28pm PT
|
Thanks, L, a little over the top at times (not that I disagree)but makes too much sense to ever be considered seriously.
The powers that be don't seem to want me to hear the last seven minutes, though.
|
|
Jaybro
Social climber
The West
|
|
|
Apr 22, 2007 - 08:47pm PT
|
Alister, it's a matter of faith, dude. Don't bring it up, again.
|
|
L
climber
NoName City and It Don't Look Pretty
|
|
|
Apr 22, 2007 - 08:49pm PT
|
Yeah Jaybro, a little over the top at times, but it gave me a whole new perspective of atheism and its relationship to science...which I truly hadn't thought about before. And not only science, but politics!
The last 7 minutes are worth the wait if you can convince the computer gods to work with you...(hee-hee-hee)
|
|
|
SuperTopo on the Web
|
Let us know!