From: gustin@nat2.uia.ac.be (Emmanuel Gustin)
Subject: Re: Religion & Physics Don't Mix
Organization: U.I.A.
Date: Wed, 18 Nov 1992 18:38:16 GMT

crb7q@kelvin.seas.Virginia.EDU (Cameron Randale Bass) writes:
: In article <1992Nov17.213226.11458@reks.uia.ac.be> gustin@nat2.uia.ac.be (Emmanuel Gustin) writes:
: >crb7q@kelvin.seas.Virginia.EDU (Cameron Randale Bass) writes:
: >
: >I didn't write that morality and etics are part of science. I
: >think that science has important consequences for morality and ethics. I
: >did not even write that moral issues are 'inside science'. I insist that
: >they can be *created* by science (Ever heard of genetic engineering?) and
: >are very much inside religion. 
: 
:      Good.  If they are outside, why are we discussing them here?

For no good reason. We like it, I think.

: >:      There are any number of religions that could claim that large 
: >:      elements of what you consider 'reality' are illusory.  Outside of 
: >:      science, you'd be hard-pressed to defend your 'reality' as any 
: >:      different from theirs.  Maybe you are living in *their* reality and all 
: >:      of our physical laws are simply illusions.     
: >
: >1. But a scientist has to select a religion that accepts physical  
: >   laws, or create a new religion, or explain his beliefs in a 
: >   scientifically acceptable 'reality'. And this scientific reality is
: >   quite hard to ignore even for the non-scientist.
: 
:      A scientist has to do nothing of the sort.

1. Erratum: I meant a RELIGIOUS scientist has to do this. Sorry.

2. As you wrote that 'science involves a very restricted subset of
   realities', do you think this subset is all you need? If not, you will
   have to consider other realities. And I think your 'realities' will
   contain the 'scientific subset' and need to be consistent with it. 

: >2. Are you saying that the 'reality of science' is not qualitatively different
: >   from any (other) illusion? Then science is at most some kind of religion.
: >   Would be nice for you, has one clearly cannot believe in TWO religions
: >   at the same time.
: 
:      Yes, 'the reality of science' runs by a fundamentally different
:      set of rules.  It is not a religion.  The question of whether science
:      is an illusion or not is not answerable within science so is
:      completely moot within science.

I don't exactly understand your position on this. Maybe science is an
illusion. But then 'reality' is an illusion. But a reality that you can
study in a scientific way is as real a reality as you will ever get. Maybe
everything is just a dream, but TO US it is reality and then science is
real. I agree that the question whether science is an illusion can't be
answered within science; but it is irrelevant, both within and outside of
science. 

:      Science proves nothing.  See our most recent thread on Popper.

Sorry, I don't know what 'Popper' is. 

: >Example: '2+2=5' is 'clearly not true'. This is a scientific question with a
: >scientific answer, and even religious people have to accept that 2+2=4.
: 
:      Where did you get the idea that 2+2 = 4?  Take two protons (rest mass
:      assumed to be 1) and another two protons  (again rest mass of 1),
:      put them together and you get a helium atom with a rest mass somewhat 
:      less than 4 (in our assumed units).  Sometimes 2+2=4, sometimes it
:      doesn't.
:
:      You are confusing mathematics with science.

Oh no. Some things in physics are conserved (or at least we think (hope)
that they are), e.g. energy, some not, e.g. mass. But that there is no
conservation of mass does NOT mean that 2+2<>4. It only means that you
have to consider the energy to get consistency. When you calculate that
2+2=3.9998, you don't say 'Fine!' but 'Something's wrong here!'
 
: >One can be sorry for it, and it of course has lots of disadvantages, but
: >'general acceptance' is the way science often works. It is not the way
: >religion works. 
: 
:      Actually, that is usually the way religion works too, ultimately.
:      However, what difference does the sociology of religion make for
:      the purposes of this discussion?

We are discussing 'science and religion', I thought. Now science may or
may not involve people (I don't even try to guess your opinion on this!)
but religion does. 

A religious truth stays a religious truth, and it is not important then
how many people disagree with. A preacher will say 'Maybe 99.99% of people
disagree with this, but is is TRUE!'. A (good) scientist will say 'Now
this is my opinion -- but I have to admit that most other ...-ists disagree
with it.' 
 
But I agree that sociologuy is not entirely to the point.

: >:      It is inappropriate to judge theology by the rules of science.
: >
: >Except when theology enters the realm of science.
: 
:      My point exactly.

How disappointing.


Emmanuel Gustin
gustin@nats.uia.ac.be