🚀 go-pugleaf

In article <Bz4n8I.CAp@world.std.com> jcf@world.std.com (Joseph C Fineman) writes:
>In my note "Religion vs science: two questions, with answers" I
>dissected the supposed conflict into two topics, the first of which
>(anthropics) has an obvious & well-explored connection with physics,
>whereas the second (the psychology of faith) has only a tenuous one.
>It is curious that on this newsgroup, the first topic excited no
>interest at all, whereas the second spun out a long, ragged thread,
>petering out in a discussion of what "the FAQ" (a person or
>institution whose acquaintance I have not yet made) ought to do about
>it.
>
>Cameron R Bass at least takes enough notice of the first question to
>harumph at it:
>
>> >(1) Is the preponderance of scientific evidence at present against the
>> >existence of an intelligent Creator?  Ans.: Yes, but it is not
>> >overwhelming, and some of the arguments (e.g. the argument from scale)
>> >do not look as impressive as they did 50 years ago.
>>       Ans:  No.  Science cannot make arguments on the existence or
>>       nonexistence of nonscientific concepts.   
>
>Whether the universe had an intelligent creator is just as much a
>scientific question as whether a plate of cookies had an intelligent
>creator.  The difference, aside from scale, is that the answer is
>probably no.  Some people to whom that is unpalatable have taken pains
>to sophisticate the question so that it can't be answered, but they
>don't fool me.

     Harumphing is my specialty.  And I challenge you to ask that 
     question in a scientific manner.  What is an 'intelligent creator'?
     How do you ask such a question in such a way as to actually
     be able to get a definitive (or even a suggestive) answer?
     Try to keep prejudicial concepts out of the question, and I 
     suggest you'll be hard pressed to say anything.  In a word, many
     usual concepts of God are irrelevant to science.

     Also, intellegent cookie makers presumably live within the system.
     How does one scientifically formulate a concept that may be
     outside everything?

>Now let me pick a couple of plums out of the Christmas pie that you
>people have made of the second question.  Once again Mr Bass:
>
>> >(2) Is there an inherent conflict between science as a human activity
>> >and faith as a human need?  Ans.: Yes, because science entails respect
>> >for evidence, and faith means contempt for evidence.  A person in whom
>> >they coexist must either be embattled or have worked out an internal
>> >truce with well-defended boundaries.
>>      Observation: Faith does not mean 'contempt for evidence'.  Evidence
>>      is irrelevant, but that does not imply contempt.   Do you have
>>      contempt for my opinion on whether you should water your houseplants
>>      tomorrow, or is it just irrelevant?
>
>To say that something is irrelevant, in my book, is to show contempt
>for it.  I use the word in its literal, neutral sense, not the debased
>sense in which it is a euphemism for "hate".  True faith involves
>*serenity* in the face of unpleasant evidence, comparable to the
>serenity Mr Bass imagines I might feel in the face of his advice about
>houseplants.

     And I asked if you show contempt for my feelings about your
     houseplants?  Or their feelings?  

     Showing contempt implies an emotional involvement that irrelevancy
     certainly does not imply.  The phases of the moon are irrelevant
     as far as my decision to go on vacation.  That certainly does not
     mean that I show contempt for the moon when I go on vacation.

     In my view, faith is such that evidence is irrelevant.  To imply that
     faith infers contempt for evidence is, to me, an improper prejudice
     towards the hegemony of evidence.  We will find you, Trotsky,
     and when we do ...

>And Douglas Craigen:
>
>>   Your definition reminds me of an old joke.  A Sunday school teacher asks 
>> what "faith" means, and one child answers "its when you believe something 
>> even though you know it isn't true".  (At this point everyone, except you, 
>> laughs because of the subtle misconception the child has picked up.)
>
>"Everyone, except you, laughs" is an unlovely & implausible fantasy.
>I laughed at the joke, in part, because I thought the child had
>expressed an unsubtle truth.  That is the *humor* in the joke: it

      Faith is very subtle.  That is the point here.  It is not
      necessarily doublethink since it is a consistent system.

                             dale bass
-- 
C. R. Bass                                          crb7q@virginia.edu        
Department of Mechanical, 
     Aerospace and Nuclear Engineering
University of Virginia                              (804) 924-7926