From: lawson@acuson.com (Drew Lawson)
Newsgroups: sci.skeptic,talk.origins
Subject: Re: Logic and God (was: Young earth creationist logic NOT!)
Date: 28 Aug 92 16:42:52 GMT
Reply-To: lawson@aldia.UUCP (Drew Lawson)
Organization: ACUSON, Mountain View, CA

In article <1992Aug27.230446.28643@Princeton.EDU> ydobyns@phoenix.Princeton.EDU (York H. Dobyns) writes:
>In article <1992Aug27.151959.11603@acuson.com> lawson@aldia.UUCP (Drew Lawson) writes:
>>In article <1992Aug25.021757.9487@panix.com> carlf@panix.com (Carl Fink) writes:


>>A researcher comes to a fork in the road (figuratively speaking), and
>>has to choose between A and B, and chooses A.  If he is asked why he
>>made that choice and responds that his doctrinal learning has told him
>>that B is a dead-end, he is likely to be laughed to scorn.  
>
>*And rightly so!* See below.
>
>>That is the
>>kind of thing I want removed.  Sure, he could be wrong, but so could
>>the guy with the 300 page justification of choosing A over B.
>
>The crucial difference is the *justification*. The second researcher,
>as you yourself say, *justifies* his decision. He may be wrong, but
>he's wrong for the right reasons: because the available evidence was
>misleading or misunderstood. The "researcher" who bases his choice
>on faith (doctrinal learning) has no such excuse. If he happens to
>make the wrong choice, he's wrong for the wrong reasons;

And what if he's right?

Consider dropping the religious vocabulary.  Joe Scientist, with 20
years research experience says, "I have a hunch I should check out A."

What is your reaction?


>So look at it this way: If you, (Drew or any other firm believer in a
>doctrinal religion) made a scientific prediction based on some element
>of your religious faith, and that prediction proved *wrong*, would you
>then recant your faith and adopt a different religion, or none at all?

That would depend strongly on the nature of the situation.  If you have
a scientific theory and find a counter example, do you recant science
entirely?  There is the possibility in either case of misunderstanding
the situation.


>>>  It's a real question, Sir:  why are your religious beliefs to be used
>>>as a guide to science, and not theirs?
>[Drew:]
>>Let them worship as they please, but DO let them worship.
>
>Huh? I'm as much in favor of religious freedom as anyone, but this
>seems a total non-sequitur to the question it seems intended to answer.

The question asked was implying that I felt that _my_ religious views
should be _enforced_ on others.  That is not my position.

>If your faith is a valid guide to real-world conclusions, why is not
>any other strongly held faith an equally valid guide? Your response
>of "Let them worship as they please" seems to imply that you think that
>those other faiths *are* as valid as yours, in terms of informing
>scientific decisions. But if you think that, how do you account for
>the fact that those faiths contain mutually exclusive elements?

I do not feel that they are all equivilent, but I cannot prove that to
their adherents.  It is their right to choose.  I am not looking to
enforce anything on anyone, despite what others infer from my
postings.


>The essence of this argument, at least on the side against Drew, is
>simply that *faith is not a valid criterion for determining matters
>of fact.*

That is a sound metaphysical view.  But it is not the only one
possible.  That is all the original posting was intended to point out.

-- 
Drew Lawson                      If you're not part of the solution,
lawson@acuson.com                you're part of the precipitate
Xref: sparky sci.skeptic:14982 talk.origins:10070