Re: [Phys-l] About the "why" and "how" questions.

[ludwik kowalski <kowalskil@mail.montclair.edu>]

I agree with Bill and Hugh (see below).  Let me repeat what I already  
said about peaceful coexistence between science and faith.

Most people are neither professional scientists nor professional  
theologians. Some of them believe only in what theologians say,  while  
others belive only in what scietists say. Some accept the authority of  
both and some are indifferent to both. Peaceful coexistence is  
threaten by those who attack deism pretending to be scientists, and by  
those who atack science pretending to be theologians. It is also  
threatened by politicians who exploit people’s beliefs (to promote  
wars and revolutions).

Deists should not make pronouncements about physical world, by using  
their methods of validation--authority of holy books. And scientists  
should not make pronouncements about spiritual world, by using their  
methods--reproducible experimental and observational data. I think  
that Bruno, Galileo and Newton would agree. Yes, I know that this  
topic belongs to other websites. But numerous people keep discussing it.

Ludwik
= = = = = = = = = = =




On Dec 24, 2010, at 1:56 AM, William Robertson wrote:

> This illustrates much of what I've been talking about regarding
> science and religion. I just don't see why anyone would see it as a
> competition, and would see the need to denigrate people with religious
> beliefs. Religion and science don't play the same game, though some
> think they do, on both sides. Of course religion answers the final
> "why" question, for millions of people. And that's the end of my
> comments on this.
>
> Bill
>
>
>
>
> On Dec 23, 2010, at 10:18 PM, Hugh Haskell wrote:
>
> > Putting the answer to the final "why" in "the province of religion"
> > is debatable. It certainly isn't the province of science, but
> > religion has little to contribute here either, other than more or
> > less ancient man-made myths. Since those answers are speculation of
> > the most idle kind, I would not give religion the comfort of thinking
> > that they have found an answer to a question that science cannot. To
> > assume that religion rules here is, just as accepting a "god of the
> > gaps" argument, a dead end. Historically, science has repeatedly
> > moved the limit of the final question down the road, each time
> > pushing the "province of religion" before it. It seems clear to me
> > that religion has nothing of value to offer as an answer the final
> > "why" question, any more than science does--less, in fact, since we
> > can assume that the efforts of science will in fact move the final
> > "why" further along with time.
>
> _______________________________________________
> Forum for Physics Educators
> Phys-l@carnot.physics.buffalo.edu
> https://carnot.physics.buffalo.edu/mailman/listinfo/phys-l

Ludwik

http://csam.montclair.edu/~kowalski/life/intro.html