Relay-Version: version B 2.10 5/3/83; site utzoo.UUCP
Posting-Version: version B 2.10 5/3/83; site cmu-cs-edu1.ARPA
Path: utzoo!linus!philabs!cmcl2!seismo!rochester!pt.cs.cmu.edu!cmu-cs-edu1!hua
From: hua@cmu-cs-edu1.ARPA (Ernest Hua)
Newsgroups: net.origins
Subject: re: Christianity and Evolution
Message-ID: <410@cmu-cs-edu1.ARPA>
Date: Thu, 24-Oct-85 06:11:30 EST
Article-I.D.: cmu-cs-e.410
Posted: Thu Oct 24 06:11:30 1985
Date-Received: Thu, 31-Oct-85 05:34:21 EST
Organization: Carnegie-Mellon University, CS/RI
Lines: 98

______________________________________________________________________________

> From: ellis@spar.UUCP (Michael Ellis)
> 
> > > ... Religion (at least Christianity) doesn't freely recognize the majical
> > > and supernatural as real entities, at least not in the sense that I think
> > > you mean.
> >
> > Agreed.  I really meant to say that by allowing for supernatural entities,
> > religions conflict with science.
> 
> Baloney! 

Baloney!

Gee, I could say that word too!  It must mean that we are both right ... and
both wrong.

> That's as silly as saying {physics, law} conflict with pure reason because
> {empirical deduction, normative assertions} cannot be logically deduced.
> Reason is useful to science, but that does not mean that science conflicts
> with reason because its ideas transcend purely logical thinking.

Could you please define "reason"?  If it is not bounded by logic, reason has
no place in science.  You have not made any clear connections between what I
said and what your comment above.  Try again?

> Many efforts within religion have gone far to remove conflict with science
> (thereby purifying their spirituality by removing material constraints from
> their wisdom).

Like the flat earth view and geocentrism?  I think the cause for the update
is more like common sense or embarassment.

> Some have even eagerly sought out deeper revelations in the Creator's
> clearest word -- the creation we live in -- the universe itself.

Nice assumptions there ...  the universe was created ...  "deep" revelations
in the creations (how about giving a few examples of these revelations) ...

> > > Christianity is based on the fact that an omnipotent being, GOD, created
> > > the world.  This creation was not "outside" of physical laws.
> > 
> > That's quite an assumption ... that a "GOD" created the world ... more
> > specifically, that "He" created it with laws that "He" designed ... that
> > these laws still exist ...?  What evidence do you have to support this?
> 
> What evidence do you have for your own mind?  Could you demonstrate its
> existence to a strict behaviorist?

Simple X-ray photography, CAT scans, motor functionality, ...  I am talking
about my brain, of course.  If you are refering to something more ethereal,
forget it.

You have conveniently ignored my questions.  How about answering some?

> > If these laws are "orders magnitude above our present understanding", how
> > do you expect anyone to be able to figure out that they exist?  What kind
> > of evidence could possibly support the existence of laws beyond our under-
> > standing?
> > 
> > You have already assumed that God exists, of course, which is not support-
> > able by science by any means (certainly not the Christian God which you
> > mostly likely speak of).  Remember ... if God created physical laws, he
> > must be able to circumvent them or make up new ones.  If this is really
> > the case, then science has no value whatsoever as it cannot discover any
> > real useful information that will most likely apply beyond the next moment.
> 
> Science has already taken much that it needed from God, for example, the
> notion that the universe was created and is governed by absolute and
> immutable laws.

Okay.  But now we work backwards (to God of course!) and we find that we
have nothing to support a God.  So we reevaluate our situation.  Well, it
can be gotten from a different set of assumptions that is far more plausible
than a supernatural creator.  Guess which way we chose?

Again, what does your comment have to do with my comments?  Why have you
ignored my questions?

> No doubt, science will continue to raid religion again whenever it needs to.

No doubt, religion will continue to raid science again whenever its members
feel that their beliefs are threatened by the simple evidences and principles
revealed in scientific investigation.

> In the meantime, those who are unable to see that their vision is restricted
> by their pet methodology's definition of `observable' will continue to
> misunderstand religion.

In the meantime, those who are blinded by thousand-years-old beliefs etched
in stone will continue to misunderstand science.

Rhetoric for rhetoric ...
______________________________________________________________________________

Keebler