RE: sciDocument.rtf

From: Dr. Blake Nelson (
Date: Thu Jul 04 2002 - 10:27:30 EDT

  • Next message: Peter Ruest: "RE: sciDocument.rtf"

    What philosophy does point out, that science does not,
    is that epistmological and ontological presuppositions
    cannot be tested in science. Science is a VERY
    limited realm of inquiry. To limit theological truth
    to what is scientifically verifiable guts the meaning
    of theology. To limit our lives to what is
    scientifically verifiable guts our lives of meaning.

    How does science prove my friends exist? How does
    science prove my thoughts are rational or even my own?
      How does science test whether my wife or children
    love me? How does science tell me whether I should
    join the French resistance in Nazi occupied France or
    stay at home with my ailing mother who may die without
    my help? How does science verify wether an act of
    kindndess to those less fortunate is a good or bad

    The only way science can even begin to say anything
    about these and a billion more questions that are of
    REAL importance to human lives is by making
    suppositions which are not scientifically testable.
    Indeed, if scientists can even feign an answer to any
    of these things, it is only by importing philosophical
    positions into the mix, almost always without
    admitting that it is doing so.

    I find the idea that we judge a religion by
    scientifically testable claims naive and simply
    unworkable. Which claims are subject to scientific
    test? You already agreed that whether God works in
    the world is not testable. This, according to Atkins
    and Dawkins, is victory for atheism, because God is a
    scientific claim and if it is not demonstrable, it
    does not exist. How do you respond to their position
    that you are right, religious claims are scientific,
    and all have been found wanting, "proving" that God
    does not exist?

    > It is this wide range of claims in philosophy which
    > made me decide that
    > philosophy wasn't for me. There is no grounding of
    > truth, just assumptions
    > followed by logical consistency. Now, you are
    > correct that science has the
    > advantage of having a judge for the divergent
    > claims--observation and no
    > such mechanism applies to theology. And that is in
    > large part my point. The
    > only way we have to judge the theological claims
    > which come into our mind,
    > or come to us in a vision is by the means of
    > science. Look at all the
    > divergent, mutually exclusive religious claims
    > today. All claim to be the
    > word of some god. How does one go about the job of
    > determining which
    > theology is the true theology? We simply can't
    > decide that the religous
    > claims of our parents are correct because all the
    > adherents of the other
    > religions have parents who told them that their
    > religion was the correct
    > one. Simply put, without some attachment to
    > scientific observation, the
    > veracity of religious claims are as adrift from
    > verification as are the
    > claims of Locke Berkely, Spinoza, Ficte, etc. And
    > that turns theology into
    > a game of what claims do I like the best rather than
    > what claims are true!
    > In short, if God did what you say, he left us with
    > no way to determine the
    > truth.
    > glenn
    > see
    > for lots of creation/evolution information
    > anthropology/geology/paleontology/theology\
    > personal stories of struggle

    Do You Yahoo!?
    Sign up for SBC Yahoo! Dial - First Month Free

    This archive was generated by hypermail 2b29 : Thu Jul 04 2002 - 12:51:40 EDT