Relay-Version: version B 2.10 5/3/83; site utzoo.UUCP Posting-Version: version B 2.10.2 9/18/84; site cybvax0.UUCP Path: utzoo!watmath!clyde!burl!ulysses!allegra!mit-eddie!cybvax0!mrh From: mrh@cybvax0.UUCP (Mike Huybensz) Newsgroups: net.religion Subject: Re: History as Fact / Science and Religion Message-ID: <256@cybvax0.UUCP> Date: Thu, 6-Dec-84 09:59:40 EST Article-I.D.: cybvax0.256 Posted: Thu Dec 6 09:59:40 1984 Date-Received: Fri, 7-Dec-84 02:01:49 EST References: <29@rti-sel.UUCP> <674@amdahl.UUCP> <675@amdahl.UUCP> Reply-To: mrh@cybvax0.UUCP (Mike Huybensz) Distribution: net Organization: Cybermation, Inc., Cambridge, MA Lines: 36 Summary: [Keep religion out of net.flame committee] In article <675@amdahl.UUCP> gam@amdahl.UUCP (Gordon A. Moffett) writes: > ... I don't understand why "scientists" argue with religious people. > They are never going to convince each other of their view. Religion > is based on belief, and is a private experience between one's self > and one's Creator. Science doesn't DEAL with "Creators" or "Miracles" > or other religious matters. They are two different world views -- > Not incompatable, just different. Religious persons should not have > to "justify" their beliefs to the satisfaction of a scientist or > anyone else. Scientists should not expect their facts to obliterate > religious belief. Never is a long time. But besides that, when I argue science vs religion, I do it for the undecided audience. There's a sucker born every minute: I'd like to save some of them from the clutches of irrationality. And the undecided probably outnumber by far those with definite opinions either way. As for whether the world-views of science and religion are incompatible, it depends on the frame of referrence. There are at least four. 1) From the frame of referrence of science, religion is incompatable with the basic principles of skepticism and Occam's razor (which suggest agnosticism as the only rational choice.) 2) From the frame of referrence of religions, science may or may not be in part incompatible. They will naturally want to exploit what they can, and reject conflicts (like old-earth theories.) 3) From some mixed-frame of reference that includes elements of both, there may or may not be some cognitive dissonance, depending on how much is known of each. This is a common state. 4) From a hypothetical meta-frame of reference, they may or may not conflict. Finally, I don't expect facts to obliterate religious belief. I'm happy just to reduce its influence. -- Mike Huybensz ...decvax!genrad!mit-eddie!cybvax0!mrh