From: salem@pangea.Stanford.EDU (Bruce Salem)
Subject: Re: Science and God
Keywords: Science, God
Organization: DSO, Stanford University
Date: 16 Aug 92 00:46:37 GMT

julian@fraser.sfu.ca (Julian Shillcock) writes:

>This is irrelevant to the original argument and smells of ad hominem to me.
>The assertion I was trying to make is that it is possible to reconcile
>a christian view of God's creationa dna scientific exploration of the
>physical universe. How does one make sense of the world while holind both
>beliefs.

	This group has had numerous attempts at reconcilliation by
people who blieve both in Christianity and in the findings of science.
In brief, the answer is that you have to use two languages, one for
the precise, but limited, findings of science, and another for the
spiritual and religious needs of Man. The problem we face is that
many people get confused about these two kinds of language. In
particular you get from people that post to this group an assertion
that ammonts to saying that the Bible should be read in the samw way
as a scientific journal. This is laughable and it shows have these
same people misunderstand or misuse the basis for their religion. It
shows something else, it shows how much more concerned they are about
the authority of their world view, or the directives that they seem
to derive from it, than they are about almost anything else, like
truth, or true toleration for others who see the world different from
themselves.

> Of course it [Jesus runs the Universe] is not "necessay" any more
> than your premise that
>the world is based on a few simple principles that we can understand.
>BUT given some starting point what are the consequences is a valid
>line of reasoning. I prefer to start form the christian assumptions
>AND the scientifc method and see where I go. You are perfectly free to
>start anywhere you choose but don't make out that christians are always
>starting from wacko assumptions while others (evolutionists? atheists?
>somebody) start from an inheerently superior position.

>Certainly unsupported [ the idea that the universe was created for us ]
>but not particularly arrogant.

	Sayes, You. The unsupported assumption that it was, that
Man is somehow select, speaks reams, and justifies the homocentrism
within Christianity. Oh I know that some Christian would reply that
Christianty is not for Man, but about the problem Man created.

	Someone refresh my recollection that someone was burned at
the stake in the 16th Century for suggesting that intelligant
beings inhabited other worlds and thereby were as select as Man
in God's Creation. Now chew on that, and tell me that we have
not been arrogant about our position in the Universe.

>If you believe in Quantum mechanics the whole universe evolved
>to as to bring us into existence so
>that we could make observations on the history of the universe. This seems
>at least as untestable and/or arrogant.

	But you have repeated the same assumption as Lonel dressed in
different verbage, and within it is a non-sequitor that QM leads
inevetably to us. That is the same assumption, and I think that it
is questionable. There may be an argument where QM leads to intelligant
beings, but I don't now if there is a necessity for this in the idea
of universes. The weak statement that given enough time intellegance
will appear in a universe is at least arguable.

I wrote:

>>	The whole aim of this charade of seeking spiritualism
>>and opposing materialism with religion is to justify trancendant
>>moral standards, nothing more. That is why C. S. Lewis' argument
>>for God is such a joke.

>Who mentioned morals??? You sound rather defensive.

	Not at all. I have a basis for bringing up moral justification,
I can go back to a long debate within this group over this and have
heard it stated since that what causes the special response that
Darwinism gets from religiously motivated opposition groups is
that it results in a challenge to their notion of the origin and
nature of morals. At the foundation of their world view is the belief
that morals are God-given and that they are values that transcend
nature.

	The issue of some Christians trying to inject their dogma
as pseudoscience into the public schools is a threat, so you can
regard my comments as defensive on that score, of course, look how
far things have fallen since 1982. The current diaster for public
education makes the Creationism/Evolution debate pale in comparison,
but it is still very important in setting what is knowledge and what
is something else.

>>moral standards. Evolution is opposed because it is a cogant
>>answer to this. It suggests that nature, physical processes, alone,
>>can account for the choices in human behavior. The rest of science
>>suggests that the supernatural intercession is not needed in the
>>operation of the Universe.

>>Bruce Salem

>Evolution suggest nothing of the kind: it is a model for the transmission
>of genetic information and the transformation of species: unless you
>believe that evolution somehow picks out mental processes as well as
>physical traits.

	I need to clarify this. It is easy to read too much into
what I am saying. I am not saying that science or evolution lead
necessarily to moral prescriptions. The findings of science have
no inherit moral meaning and they should not be colored with bias.
This is not the same as saying that in studying behavior in Man and
animals that explainations can be found for tendencies that lead
to what we regard as conscience and institutions. For instance,
what may be called "family values" can be found to have a basis
in the evolutonary history of Mankind. The immaturity of young,
the long period of social and intellectual growth before maturity,
the tendency toward monogamy, can all be seen as adaptations in Man
suported by a long-term institution like the family group. This is
not to be construed as a sanction of that institution as opposed
to alternatives, and it must be strongly emphesized that the family
as an institution in most cultures is an economic unit, but it has
its roots in Man's bological adaptations shaped by his evolution.

> Personally I find it hard to imagine a scientific theory
>(viz one that make predictions and is testable as opposed to one that can
>be distorted to accomodate anything) that will postulate anythin about
>humans' ability to think. We do not even know what thinking is
>yet!
>julian

	Your respose makes two critical assumptions: That there is
a mind-body distinction, or better a soul-body distinction, and
that behavior is mostly about conscious choices. Some of it is, but
most of it is not. In a way, tradition, custom, and moral codes
allow us to go about our daily lives without having to think much.
What if you had to agonize about everything you did, whether it was
appropriate or acceptable to others? People thrown into strange
situations experience this anxiety. What you are talking about is
having to deliberate in situations where the traditions are not
a guide. That is the norm in our times. You may call it moral
choice, others will call it social change, and others will call it
freedom.

Bruce Salem

Newsgroups: talk.origins,soc.culture.african.american,alt.rap