Relay-Version: version B 2.10 5/3/83; site utzoo.UUCP Posting-Version: version B 2.10.2 9/5/84; site philabs.UUCP Path: utzoo!watmath!clyde!burl!ulysses!unc!mcnc!philabs!jah From: jah@philabs.UUCP (Julie Harazduk) Newsgroups: net.religion,net.flame Subject: Re: Re: A Conversation With Sir John Eccles (tired of Rosen!) Message-ID: <205@philabs.UUCP> Date: Thu, 3-Jan-85 14:50:13 EST Article-I.D.: philabs.205 Posted: Thu Jan 3 14:50:13 1985 Date-Received: Sun, 6-Jan-85 01:20:47 EST References: <79@decwrl.UUCP> <345@pyuxd.UUCP> Organization: Philips Labs, Briarcliff Manor, NY Lines: 84 Xref: watmath net.religion:5221 net.flame:7477 > > Ken Arndt > Rich Rosen From Sir John Eccles as quoted by Ken Arndt > > "We need to discredit the belief held by many scientists that science will > > ultimately deliever the final truth about everything." > > REASON: because believing that rational analysis and scientific method are > THE means to acquire true truth (not truth based on standards and ethic, > as Arndt would suppose) would INVALIDATE irrational superstitions and > nonsensical belief systems, and we (whoever "we" is) can't afford that, > can "we"? No, this is not really the reason as I see it. Instead, it is because as the universe of known knowledge in science is increased the universe of unknown knowledge increases. He's not saying, stop investigating; he's just saying remove the false hope that science gives that everything is explainable by observation. It is possible that some things will never be explained by observation, and in addition, some things may not be explained at all. Also, if a wrong turn is taken, much of the knowledge built up on that fact must be discredited, as we've seen happen so many times in the past. With the increase in the amount of knowledge, there is a greater probability for wrong conclusions to be drawn. This probably accounts for much of the contradictory results found in many published studies, especially in the area of the social sciences where testing cannot be controlled and all factors cannot be properly measured experimentally. It's actually time for people to become realistic in their hopes for science. Yet, we must continue to investigate and invent new methods of investigation for those things it reveals to us and the quality of life it tends to advance. > > "Science also cannot explain the existence of each of us as a unique self, > > nor can it answer such fundamental questions as: Who am I? Why am I here? > > How did I come to be at a certain place and time? What happens after death? > > These are all mysteries that are beyond science." > > Thus, religion, which provides pre-fab ASSUMED answers to these questions > that are PLEASING to the wishful thinking human mind who NEEDS/WANTS to > have a pre-defined purpose (rather than defining his/her own), NEEDS/WANTS > to "know" that there will be life after death, NEEDS/WANTS to have a > "reason" for existing, for "being at a certain place and time (i.e., a > reason determined by an overseeing deity and not one owing itself to simple > physical processes), thus, RELIGION holds the key. The key to an imaginary > door. Eccles is right, though. You don't need to be a particularly religious person at all to understand that there are limits to science. These limits arise with the limits of observation. Sure, the better our ability to observe things, the more we can understand, but other limitations come in with discernment and the separation of factors. Great strides can be made, granted. However, there may be factors that can never be truly "seen" by the methods that we can come up with. Also, we have to be practical about the fact that man is finite, at least here on earth. Assuming that everything is eventually observable, do we have the time to observe it all before we destroy ourselves? Is there an end to the observable things that stir our curiosity? How much can we narrow down the knowledge and physical stimulus that determines how people react, think, feel, live and die. Can we ever measure what happens to people after they're dead without being dead? And what does it all get us? Have the behavioral sciences and social sciences in general made us any better? or does it give better odds than religion does? Sometimes being able to explain away a persons reactions with behavioral reasons serves to condone that behavior. Can it fulfill us knowing how, why, when and where or does it take something more for fulfillment? > > Gee, could there be somethin' to it???? There definitely is something to it. It's not necessarily limited to what Eccles and Popper have said, either. A responsible position must be taken by all scientists because, in many ways, science has gained the confidence of the masses in the way that religion once had it. Any (and I mean ANY) group with that kind of influence must be monitored and must be held responsible for the possible results of their influence (discoveries and announcements). Julie Harazduk {ihnp4|allegra}!philabs!jah Prov.9:9 Give instruction to a wise man and he will be yet wiser: teach a just man, and he will increase in learning.