🚀 go-pugleaf

In article <1992Dec8.190712.3680@aee.aee.com> gene@aee.aee.com (Gene Kochanowsky) writes:
>andrew@rentec.com (Andrew Mullhaupt) writes:
>
>>In article <1992Dec5.180042.7861@aee.aee.com> gene@aee.aee.com (Gene Kochanowsky) writes:

>... So your point about science delving into the
>supernatural is a matter of definition.

Ultimately, it's all a matter of definitions. This is why it is often best
to avoid making generalizations about what the relationship is between science
and religion until after you've agreed what these terms mean. Deciding on
good definitions is very difficult.

>If the phenomena is reapeatable, verifyable and can be demonstraited 
>rigourously, on demand, then that phenomena is of nature or "natural". 
>Those things that do not satisfy this, are of the "supra" natural, 
>or supernatural, they transcend the laws of nature. Most religions,
>possibly not the religion you may speak of, deal with God, and spirit(s).

You won't go too far if this is _all_ you allow to be natural. Your self,
for example, to the extent that you are an apparently unique individual,
are _not_ repeatable on demand. Are you therefore supernatural? The ultimate
extinction of the dinosaurs is an equally challenging thing to repeat. If
you make a very strict definition of what's nature along the lines of what
has been repeated, verified, etc., then anything we find out by science
tomorrow will have been unnatural today. Is there any serious person who
can possibly accept that until J. J. Thomson, the world did not contain
any electrons? So there are almost certainly things 'really in nature'
which are not dreamt of in our philosophy. In other words, you cannot
succeed in 'defining away' the reality of what has not been repeated.

Almost every historic event, including the putative Big Bang, (or "Bing" Bang
according to Brother Abian) is not repeatable. By excluding all of these
things you get a really small natural world. Interestingly enough, there
are some religions which need this kind of disregard of history, for example
creationists who want to claim that the fossil record might not really have
been piled up over millions of years.

>These things are in the supernatural, and therefore transcend natural
>law. Thus the supernatural and religion, are outside the realm of science. 
>On this, both Webster and I agree. Your disagreement on this point, is 
>an artifact of our differing definitions of supernatural and religion.

Nope, it's a misunderstanding of what a dictionary is for on your part.
And I doubt that it is _Noah_ Webster you are referring to, in which case you
may be surprised not to find anyone named Webster on the editorial board
of your dictionary...

But of course it is beside the point. Just because someone called Webster,
(or not called Webster) claims that the 'supernatural' is 'outside science'
does not mean that that statement can be given any kind of scientific
validation. In fact quite the opposite. The hypothesis cannot be taken
to have much meaning at all unless there is some sort of experimental
verification, etc.

>It would be interesting to see if you could agree, that given the
>definitions presented, that the argument is correct even though you
>do not agree with the definitions. This would be progress.

There won't be much of that since an unsound argument, although possibly
valid, is not probative in any way.

>>It is pretty naive to think you can use the language without inventing it in
>>some sense. In particular English is a language which was invented through
>>use. You can see what this means in terms of definitions by comparing
>>different dictionaries. If there were a 'correct' way to define these terms
>>then why do dictionaries not agree word for word? As is ultimately the case
>>in this kind of philosophical discussion (which belongs in sci.philosophy.meta)
>>the definition must be a matter of agreement among the parties to the
>>discussion.
>
>I agree, if we are not using words that mean the same thing to each of us, 
>there is no point in continuing this discussion.

Not quite. It is almost impossible for any two people to expect that words
mean the same thing to each of them, but it is possible for them to agree
to meanings. These are quite different things.

>>>I am not saying that a person cannot both be a scientist and a religious
>>>person at the same time, but it requires, a split mind, different
>>>but parralel thought process, a sort of "double think".
>
>>Not at all. The problems arise in religions which have very specific and
>>literal interpretations of ancient texts, and then not in _all_ of those
>>religions.

>This discussion must be about religion in general, and not deal with
>any specific religion, otherwise you might be maintaining that certain 
>religions are incorrect, and might claim the converse, that some of them 
>are correct.

The point is that the relation between religion and science depends on the
religion (and to some extent on the science, although physics is the one
in question here.) You will find very little explicit contradiction of
scientific hypotheses offered by Zen Buddhism, but there are other religions
which are expicitly contradictory to what most people accept as science.
In particular, there may still be some 'flat earth' Christians living in
the midwestern part of the U.S. Their religion (at least as they see it)
is completely at variance with almost any serious study of mechanics. Now
even in Christianity you have a diversity of opinion which makes it
impossible to have one unique relationship between this religion and science.

In particular the Catholic church does not teach that the Bible is _literally_
true, (which saves it from having problems with Maxwell's laws before Noah's
flood), and the Catholics have doctrines about the supernatural which are
stated in somewhat speculative language. There are Catholics who probably
feel that there is some conflict between Catholicism and science, but this
is not the opinion of most that I know. So what can you say?

>... the majority of the 
>worlds religions are guilty of making literal interpretations of ancient 
>texts.

I'd be surprised if this is strictly true. I would guess that it depends
on how you count religions and what you call literal. My point is that
some do, some don't. One size doesn't fit all...

>The other possibility is, most of your arguments are not for 
>the purposes of understanding, but for converting people to your 
>particular religion.

Not at all. The arguments here are entirely aimed at making sure that people
understand what _is_ science. Science does _not_, as I presently understand
it, make any reference to God. Perhaps what is bothering you is that you
can think of some things which some religions claim which you feel are
contrary to science (such as the flat-earthers) and so you would like to
draw the conclusion that science is _against_ religion in general. But
science does not do this. What it does in such a case is that it treats
the flat-earth hypothesis (which is testable) like any other scientific
hypothesis, and after experimental verification, most people tend to
think that we can reject the flat earth hypothesis. Science at the experimental
end is a _retail_ business. The theorist is supposed to stay close the the
range of callected data when he extrapolates, and the experimentalist is
supposed to be utterly scrupulous about exactly what _has_ and what _has not_
been observed. Unless you can show us an experiment which has been done
which discredits religion in general, you have _at best_ a theory, and
probably just a speculation until you can propose the experiment.

Later,
Andrew Mullhaupt