Chronology Current Month Current Thread Current Date
[Year List] [Month List (current year)] [Date Index] [Thread Index] [Thread Prev] [Thread Next] [Date Prev] [Date Next]

[Phys-L] Re: [SPAM-4.611] Re: [SPAM-4.611] Re: THE WEDGE STRATEGY of The ID Movement



On Sat, 22 Oct 2005, James E Mackey wrote:

I don't see anything in your posting that contradicts my
statement. I understand you to say (amnong many other things) that the
conclusions you have reached by "faith" are not up for constant testing.
They are conclusions. You give reasons, satisfactory to you, for your
conclusions, but the conclusions themselves are immutable.
For those who have faith in biblical inerrancy, the archeological
conclusions of Israel Finkelstein are irrelevancies, to be explained away
through bible study. That some have reasons for adopting such a view
does not dispute the existence of the view.
In science, as is being repeatedly explained in the Kitzmiller
case, everything is up for grabs. There are no forbidden questions, only
uninteresting ones - and the definition of "interesting" is up for
constant revision.

Further remarks, below.

If I misunderstood your statement, I would appreciate it if you would explain what you meant by it. I took it as an argument against the kind of faith that permeates one's entire existence - which includes one's science. As a scientist, I will attempt to explain my personal view of faith below.

"Faith" means conclusion first, then thought."

1. Faith does not mean conclusion first, then thought. Faith is not some
unsubstantiated chimera of believing in something solely because I want
to. One has faith in something, such as faith in science,

You are making a sort of pun on the word "faith". "Science"
refers to a process, or, better yet, a collection of processes. People
who describe themselve as "persons of faith" are referring to belief in a
certain set of supposed facts. "Faith in science" is a quite different
uses of the word "faith". The discussion gets very confused if we
don't use consistent language.

because it
seems rational, because it seems to work, or because it seems to offer
an explanation of events or circumstances that is reasonable to the
individual. There are certainly aspects of one's faith that are hard
to communicate to another individual - hard but not necessarily
impossible. Faith should be produced by some hard thinking about the
world, human nature, and one's responsibility to other beings. The
decision whether or not to believe in the divine is based on how one
views the human condition,

That's quite a mouthful. Can you justify it? I suggest you do so
in the context of Steve Weinberg's reasons for not having such beliefs.
See "Dreams of a Final Theory".

and the nature of the universe we live in.
Some may view these things and decide there is no divine, which is one's
options as possessing free will - but that person should not assume that
others who reach a different conclusion are somehow deficient in
intelligence or reasoning. I am a scientist, and I believe that science
is the best possible field to work in (for reasons that all of us are
aware of), but I do not believe that the methods of science are the only
ways to human knowledge.

The fact that you work in a field labeled "science" does not, in
my estimation make you a scientist. That is because I will never know
whether the "truths" that you propound are reproducible by the ordinary
human methods ore are the results of self-proclaimed "miracles".

> I do not believe that the material universe is
all that there is, because that does not seem reasonable to me, based on
human experiences. Science is a marvelous human enterprise, but it is
not the only admirable human enterprise or avenue to knowledge.

"One who relies on"faith" cannot do science (by definition)."

2. As a person of faith, I rely on my faith in every avenue of my life,
but I can still do science in most

Here is the red flag: "most". If you insist, as some do, on
biblical inerrancy, you wipe out great chunks of learning in geology,
chemistry, physics, biology, genetics, astrphysics, and anthropology - to
name only the fields that come quickly to mind. ("Bible study" should be
included).

of the same ways I would if I did not
believe in anything except the material world. It is possible to do
immoral science. Science, by itself is amoral - just an attempt to
understand the way the divinely formulated universe operates. When
humans do science, I do not believe they can do so amorally. Logically,
if one wants to know the effects of chemicals on human beings, one
should test those chemicals on human beings, as was done in Nazi
Germany.

That statement is neither logical nor correct. Evolution has
given us animal - and other - models for testing chemical effects. In any
event, you are failing to distinguish between the asking of questions - an
essential step in scientific investigations - and methods adopted for
answering them.
This is all I have time for.


However, generally and universally this is viewed as wrong and
immoral, and the scientists who did this were immoral individuals, even
though this made sense scientifically. Personally I think the
repugnance at these actions stems from man's divine nature, certainly
not from science.
James Mackey

Regards,
Jack





Jack Uretsky wrote:

No James, you are not paying close attention. I did not say, " anyone who has
faith cannot do science". I said, "'Faith' means conclusion first, then
thought. One who relies on 'faith' cannot do science (by definition)."
The difference between "has" and "relies on" is crucial. Or, in a
rough analogy, "I breath when I sleep" is not the same as "I sleep when I
breathe".
Regards,
Jack

On Fri, 21 Oct 2005, James E Mackey wrote:



***Deleted comment here, I did not think was appropriate for the entire
list*******". So you say anyone who has faith cannot do science!
Newton, Faraday, etc. come to mind immediately! I don't think you
understand what faith means to a Christian, (or other believers perhaps-
I can only speak to what I have experienced).
James Mackey

Jack Uretsky wrote:



On Mon, 17 Oct 2005, James E Mackey wrote:





One who posses faith does not stop thinking critically, one just comes
to a different conclusion about the evidence than another perhaps.




"Faith" means conclusion first, then thought. One who relies on
"faith" cannot do science (by definition).
Regards,
Jack





Robert B Zannelli wrote:





Faith is the suspension of critical thinking. It's the acceptance of
something as true because we want it to be true in spite of all evidence to the
contrary.





That is not faith as I understand it. It is certainly not based on
scientific evidence, but since when did scientific evidence become the
only basis for judging things?





This perhaps explains why the faithful feel threatened by those not
accepting their particular faith assertions





Perhaps some do, I know many who do not feel threatened by others.
There are certainly many on this list who would disagree with my views,
but I don't feel threatened! I see many things that I see as complete
misunderstandings of religious viewpoints and of believers in general.
I attribute this to perhaps having had a very bad encounter with someone
professing religious beliefs at some time in their experiences.





and often seeks to get government on their side to enforce a public acceptance of their faith beliefs. Under God, ten commandments etc.

Bob Zannelli





Doesn't almost every group work to get government support of their
views. Isn't that what citizens have a right to do under a democratic
form of govenement - or is it only the religious who do not have that right?
James Mackey





--
"Trust me. I have a lot of experience at this."
General Custer's unremembered message to his men,
just before leading them into the Little Big Horn Valley





--
"Trust me. I have a lot of experience at this."
General Custer's unremembered message to his men,
just before leading them into the Little Big Horn Valley




--
"Trust me. I have a lot of experience at this."
General Custer's unremembered message to his men,
just before leading them into the Little Big Horn Valley