Relay-Version: version B 2.10 5/3/83; site utzoo.UUCP Posting-Version: version B 2.10.2 9/18/84; site amdahl.UUCP Path: utzoo!watmath!clyde!cbosgd!ihnp4!zehntel!dual!amdahl!gam From: gam@amdahl.UUCP (Gordon A. Moffett) Newsgroups: net.flame,net.religion Subject: Re: History as Fact / Science and Religion Message-ID: <700@amdahl.UUCP> Date: Sat, 8-Dec-84 07:48:03 EST Article-I.D.: amdahl.700 Posted: Sat Dec 8 07:48:03 1984 Date-Received: Mon, 10-Dec-84 02:29:59 EST References: <29@rti-sel.UUCP> <674@amdahl.UUCP> <675@amdahl.UUCP> <4750@fortune.UUCP> Distribution: net Organization: Amdahl Corp, Sunnyvale CA Lines: 87 Xref: watmath net.flame:7152 net.religion:5010 > = Henry Polard - {ihnp4,cbosgd,amd}!fortune!polard > > = me > >.... 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. > > Science is public. You either show the goods and reasoning or you > shut up. Religion is private. Some people - especially Christian > proseletizers on the net - think:"MY experience counts more than > anyone else's. Believe what I believe or burn." Well, as long > as one is talking to someone else, especially when trying to convince > the listener of the existence of a deity, it's not private experience > anymore. I was refering to religious belief and spirituality. Proseletizers are loud obnoxious people whose intense belief has allowed themselves an excuse to be rude to people. Proseletizing has little to do with spirituality; it is blather. > There are two major ways to convince people something > exists: > > 1. Intimidation - if you don't agree, something bad > will happen to you. If you don't believe in Ubizmo > and make hIM your personal savior, you will burn > forever. The person who uses this method cannnot be wrong. > It involves a claim of superiority (because he knows more than > you do - i.e, that Ubizmo exists and wants such-and such) > on the part of the proponent. The issue of whether Ubizmo exists > is muddied by the issue of the authority of the proponent. For > the proponent there is always an "out" if the listener > doesn't agree with the proponent: the proponent isn't wrong, > nor has the proponent presented the case unskillfully - the > listener is just prideful and stubborn. > > 2. The scientific method. In its simplest form it is: "there it is". > Reasoning enters into the picture to make sure that > what is being claimed contains no contradictions, > and unique events need independent corroboration to > establish them as facts. > From the point of view of talking about religion, > science enters into the picture when religion makes claims about the > about the physical world or history. Fine, this is all fine, but: > In terms of proving or disproving the existence of God > or Christ or Ubizmo scientifically, the strongest thing that a > believer in one or all of these can do is show e.g, Ubizmo. There is > nothing like the actual presence of an object to establish its > existence. > There is no "out" for the proponent in a scientific > argument - the item in question can be shown (even if only indirectly) > or it can't, or one settles for "we don't know because of lack of > evidence"(Uncertainty implies humility). The burden of proof is > on the proponent, and the proponent can be wrong. I think at this point a responsable scientist should back off and say, "That's a nice belief you have there," and go dissect a frog or something. It doesn't take much to see that this attempt at "proving" a religious belief is a despirate act, a manifestation of religious insecurity. To take advantage of it, to enter a scientific debate with a Devout Believer in Something, is sport not science. Do not pretend are doing them a service when your real intent is to show just how flimsy their religious beliefs are. > Here is where the difference in world view shows itself - whereas in a > scientific framework the proponent of a point of view must constantly > face the possibility of being wrong, in a religious frameworkof your choice> is always on the side of the proponent, who is always right. > That is one reason why scientists and religionists have a hard time talking > with each other. Maybe they expect too much from each other. -- Gordon A. Moffett ...!{ihnp4,hplabs,amd,sun}!amdahl!gam 37 22'50" N / 121 59'12" W [ This is just me talking. ] [ Note longitude correction; I am no longer in the Pacific Ocean ]