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: compromise on ID ... or not



FYI, John, among Unitarians (in the U.S.) all beliefs are
optional, including this one.
Regards,
Jack




On Mon, 29 Aug 2005, John Clement wrote:

There is little conflict between the RC church and science because in recent
centuries they have wisely decided that science is not within the purview of
religious dogma. The idea that science does not decide absolute truth
should not be a conflict. Truth only comes into science in the experimental
results, but not in the models which are constructs designed to predict
results.

The recent issue of Newsweek has a large spread on religion. One of the
surprising polls showed that Catholics were the most willing to concede that
other religious people could go to heaven, but the more fundamentalist
groups were the least willing. One would assume that Unitarians would be
100% on this question if they believe in heaven.

The article seemed to indicate that the current trend towards sprirituality
actually breeds tolerance of other points of view. Perhaps the intolerance
towards evolution by some religious is a sign of insecurity. They have
doubts which compel them to kill dissent from their ideas lest they be
tempted to lose their faith. Again I see this as immaturity in a moral
sense.

John M. Clement
Houston, TX


Chris,
I guess it is time to put my foot in my mouth. I teach a general
astronomy section which lends itself well to a discussion of what a
science
is and more importantly isn't. One straw dog I have used is a theory that
has an answer for everything. It is called "What will be will be". The
explanation to any observation or experiment can be explained by that
answer, but it is very unsatisfactory since it has zero predictive power.
Saying the deity did it comes close to this.
Another issue that has been talked around in this discussion,
evolves out of a criticism of Cardinal Bellarmine of the method of
Galileo. The Cardinal points out that Galileo's method can only find
falsity, but not truth. Since he can show various theories are wrong but
can't prove that a theory is correct. We can, as noted by many of you,
always make up other theories that explain what we see, but can only
eliminate them by performing experiments or taking observations that are
not consistent with their predictions. Bellarmine's criticism
is fundamental to our modern view of science, and is one of its intrinsic
limitations.
As one who teaches at a Catholic institution that professes that
we teach only the truth, it leaves me in something of a quandary.
Gary


--
"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