From: epowers@spock.NMSU.Edu (POWERS)
Subject: Re: Assertiveness of Non-divinity
Organization: New Mexico State University
Date: Mon, 16 Nov 1992 01:48:59 GMT

In article <1992Nov9.181304.3547@dcs.warwick.ac.uk> simon@dcs.warwick.ac.uk  
(Simon Clippingdale) writes:
> In article <1992Nov8.224256.10394@nmsu.edu> epowers@kirk.NMSU.Edu (POWERS)  
writes:

> 
> > No, no, if I did manage to "produce" this God (whatever that means), every
> > scientist who values being able to show his face in public would demand
> > that I demonstrate scientifically that this was God. Unfortunately,
> > scientific methods always assume that what you observe is not due to any
> > supernatural interference.            ~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~
> 
> Good, you've used the phrase "what you observe", and that is the crux of
> the matter. If we were to drop the scientific assumption that supernature
> is not operative, do you think even then that supernatural interference
> could reasonably be inferred from "what you observe" or from some part of
> it? How could we test whether or not this inference is indeed reasonable?
> Yes, I know this is all sounding like science again, but that is exactly my
> point. You inevitably get drawn back to asking scientific questions whenever
> you want to establish *anything* beyond sophistry.

	The most important thing here is actually that SCIENCE assumes that  
supernature is not operative.  My problem is that science starts with two  
assumptions, the validity of logic and the non-interference of the  
supernatural.  When I start with the validity of logic, I end up with a  
scientific method that works quite well.  When I assume that nature is a closed  
system (i.e., the non-interference of the supernatural) I find I can "verify"  
nothing, as my thoughts are no different than those chemical reactions that do  
not produce thought, and therefore the scientific method is invalid.  One  
assumption contradicts the other.  Without looking beyond science, I am afraid  
I must throw all of science away.  More details available, if you are  
interested.

> 
> >	What you are doing, it seems to me, is demand that theistic claims be  
> > verified by science, which assumes the non-validity of theistic claims.  
This
> > is exactly the same as when theists demand that scientific theories conform
> > to the current interpretation of their particular scriptures. It is a  
demand
> > that you use an axe to fix my plumbing instead of a toilet plunger.
> 
> Well, speaking personally, I'll consider any method of verification which
> actually *is* a method of verification, 

	Unfortunately, you know of no other verification method than science.   
Sigh.  I am well acquainted with the problem.


unlike those stalwart exhortations
> to "Open your heart to Jesus" or "Believe it's true and then its truth will
> be apparent." I'm sure that I could be convinced by any number of  
unscientific
> means, such as if I had dreams in which I was told that <insert here> would
> demonstrate <its> existence by causing me to witness highly unlikely and
> specifically predicted events which duly came to pass. I am quite sure that
> many of us, even the most ardent atheists, have had a `dialogue' with the
> night silence in which we have appealed to whatever might be `out there'
> to show itself in some -- any -- way. Nothing. But that kind of thing is
> quite capable of convincing me even if it were horrifyingly unscientific.
> I would of course suspect delusion on my part first, and no doubt I would
> attempt to inject some science by, say, writing down these predictions and
> mailing them to myself or to others before events unfolded.

	I doubt you would be convinced even then.  I would simply check myself  
into a mental hospital, or I would have before I became convinced of the  
validity of Christianity (through totally non-miraculous means, if you must  
know).  Part of the problem is that it is not that simple.  No set of beliefs,  
not even atheism, comes without any other effects.  Christianity is one  
religion that demands huge changes in every area of your life over time.  Not  
that many people (to be frank) have the balls to be serious about being a  
Christian.  I talked to a guy a few years ago who at least was honest: he said  
he believed every doctrine of Christianity, but didn't want to "become a  
Christian because I would just have to change my lifestyle too much, and I  
don't want to do that."
	Also, I know plenty of people who have had such experiences as you  
describe, and have had such things happen to me, too (after I decided, on my  
own, with no fancy preaching or evangelistic Billy Graham crusades nearby, that  
I was going to be a Christian and be serious about it).  But what happens the  
next day, or the next week, or several years later?  Would you need a constant  
influx of surprises, startling things that you could explain no other way, to  
keep you convinced?  If you didn't, I must say you have more guts than I do.   
I've seen those things, and none of them would ever have convinced me.  And I  
don't use them to tell people "you must believe what I do!" If you want to know  
about some, I can certainly tell you, but are you really willing to come and  
meet the people to find out?  Besides, I think you'll find the idea of science  
being self-contradictory much more immediately interesting.
 
> 
> >	The two assumptions are LOGICALLY equivalent-- they are both  
> > assumptions.  They are not SCIENTIFICALLY equivalent.
> 
> Still find myself unable to concede this. Even if we drop the scientific
> business and allow verification for me alone by some subjective experience
> (dare I use the word `revelation'?), the two remain asymmetric. I can have
> no revelation which will convince me that there is *no* supernature, although
> I *could* be convinced through revelation that there *is* a supernature.

	This is the scientific way of doing things!  The non-scientific way of  
examining things is to assume the truth of an assertion and follow it to its  
logical conclusions.  If these conclusions lead you into a circle, or a dead  
end, or a spiral, you reject the idea.  Science deals with the observation or  
experience of the researcher.  Boy, this is fun!  Boy, am I tired!
> 
>
				May your brain synapses fire happily, Simon!
						Erik Powers