From: keithd@well.sf.ca.us (Keith Doyle)
Subject: Re: Logic and God (was: Young earth creationist logic NOT!)
Organization: Whole Earth 'Lectronic Link
Date: Thu, 3 Sep 1992 04:50:04 GMT



lawson@acuson.com (Drew Lawson) writes:
>A good question.  If I may counter it with another question.  Why
>should my religious views be excluded from a scientific endevor in
>which I am involved?  I do not ask for my views to be imposed on all of
>science.  I do ask that the veiled hostility toward religion be removed
>from science.

Um, perhaps you are not aware of it, but a recent poll discovered that
something like 80% of evolutionary scientists believe in God.  Where
then are these "veiled" hostilities coming from other than the scapegoating
paranoid imaginations of the Religious Right?

If science uncovers some evidence that contradicts some religious claim,
is that considered "hostility toward religion"?  What should the scientist
then do to protect religious rights (right not meaning "-of-center" here.)?:

1. Cover up the evidence, and pretend it never happened.
2. Invent a contorted explanation attempting to reconcile the new
   evidence with the conflicting claims.
3. Simply release the information, for other scientists to examine,
   including an estimation as to its significance.
4. Some other option I haven't thought of? (give examples, please)

>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.

Your choice "B" begins to look like my choice #2 above, when you consider
that scientists have not gotten to those forks in the road in a vacuum,
blindly accepting the intermediate steps it took them to get there as
"doctrinal learning".  Most biologists and paleontologists got there by
examining a significant amount of evidence along the way, and the handful
that still feel that choice "B" has any merit whatsoever, are probably now
working for the ICR where they HAVE chosen "B".

>You will note that I have never stated that creation is a scientific
>hypothesis.

But you do seem to imply that a "researcher" who "comes to a fork in
the road" should somehow act differently than he currently does.

So what role *should* creation or God have in the scientific process, so
that we aren't considering him "left out"?  Should we:

1. Assume that he exists, and examine the evidence in that context.
2. Assume that he doesn't exist, and examine the evidence in that context.
3. Make no assumptions about his existance, and examine the evidence
	   in that context.
4. Some other option I haven't thought of? (give examples, please)

On another subject from another of your posts:
>I can intentionally shoot a gun without intending to shoot you.  I can
>intentionally build a tower without intending you to fall off of it.

The equation is a little different if you are omnicient.  You therefore
would know full in advance that if you build it I'll fall off.  Knowing
that, what can be said about your intentions if you go ahead and build
it anyway?

And from another of Drew's posts (prolific, ain't he?):
>Note that all science tends to proceed from the assumption to ignore
>God in the process.  The reason that I feel this is inappropriate in
>this case (personally I feel it is wrong in all cases == opinion) is
>that this is a question of the origin of Man.  I do not feel that I am
>the result of random permutations of slime.

The point is, what *scientific* evidence do you have to offer with this
opinion?  If the answer is none, then how do you expect science to
act any different?  Science does not arbitrarily plug in the phrase
"on the other hand, it could have been a miracle here" at regular intervals
(though in certain philisophical points of view it could be said to be
implicit, I suppose) just to avoid pissing off adherents of the current
mainstream theology.  (Am I Theologically Correct yet?)

From Drew's response to Brett Vickers
>>Let me be more specific.  Why don't you produce a scientific
>>theory of creation?

>Because I don't feel it is a scientific matter.

Ok, I'm beginning to think that what is going on here, is you think that
scientists are somehow being non-scientific in some way with regards to
not simply leaving God out, but to more specifically shutting him out.
If this were the case I would agree with you, but you haven't shown that
estimation bears any resemblance to reality.  What is it that you think
scientists are doing in this regards?   Can you give examples?

From another message by Drew:
>I should have said that it is taken as evidence of the non-existance of
>God as portrayed in the Bible.

No, more specifically "as portrayed in certain self-proclaimed literalist
interpretations of the Bible."

>Discernment requires, of course, a basis or background to judge
>against.  If you have no value system, you cannot choose between
>options.  My value system is based on scripture, personal revalation
>(you knew it would be there, didn't you) and prophetic wisdom.

>Some have a value system based on physical proof and consensus on
>interpretation.

In an ideal world, wouldn't these tend to work out to be the same?  Granted,
your "consensus on interpretation" leaves a wide enough margin for error to
explain pretty much anything if that's what you feel you have to do (I
prefer to use the word "reason").  But for that matter, by this sort of
argument "consensus on interpretation" isn't even inserted in *your* value
system, and perhaps rightly so, because there would appear to be not even
consensus other than in your own mind.  Remember that scripture, personal
revelation and prophetic wisdom are interpreted as well, even if only by
you, and error correction seems pretty weak.  At least with consensus on
interpretation there is some basis for some independent and while not
unbiased, at least less biased examination.

>Those who disagree needn't worry.  If they are right, nothing done by
>people in this life matters afterward.

My estimation is exactly the opposite.  If you are truly "saved", then
nothing done by you in this life really matters afterward (as long as you
remain saved), as your slate is cleaned.  But if you are not saved (either
because God is particularly interested in that or because God doesn't exist),
then the ONLY thing that could possibly matter afterwards is what you do
in this life.  What you do now might just be all that there will ever be
of you, so you'd better make the most of it.  Sure, if God doesn't exist,
you'll never know, but by the time you get around to never knowing, you
may have wasted what little chance you did have to make a difference.

Keith
Newsgroups: sci.skeptic