From: I3150101@DBSTU1.RZ.TU-BS.DE (Benedikt Rosenau)
Newsgroups: alt.atheism
Subject: Re: Science a Religion?
Date: 17 Dec 92 00:02:52 GMT
X-Received: by usenet.pa.dec.com; id AA12793; Wed, 16 Dec 92 11:33:46 -0800
X-Received: by inet-gw-1.pa.dec.com; id AA01098; Wed, 16 Dec 92 11:33:29 -0800
X-Received: from DBSTU1 by DBSTU1.RZ.TU-BS.DE (IBM VM SMTP V2R2)
   with BSMTP id 0475; Wed, 16 Dec 92 20:32:50 MEZ
X-To: alt.atheism.usenet

Mike Klopfer types:

>0 is <9212081307.AA18629@inet-gw-1.pa.dec.com> (Benedikt Rosenau)
>2 is <9212092048.AA12322@inet-gw-1.pa.dec.com> (Benedikt Rosenau)

>0Yes, science has axioms. But as opposed to the axioms of religion they
>0form a consistent system.

>But if the idea that a set of axioms is consistent (something that is
>difficult if not impossible to prove) is the best reason for doing things
>why don't you restict yourself of peano's axioms or some that have been
>explored a great deal and thus you could have a higher confidence that
>they are consistent.

In Mathematics it is possible to prove for certain systems if they are
consistent or not, and it is even possible to show that systems exist
proven to be consistent.
However, I meant that Axioms and Science do not contradict each other
and normally they don't contradict their measurable implications.
As opposed to yours. See below.

>Maybe something like this is the reason we engage in science. At least
>we have a better idea of how to go about solving the problems we encounter.
>Where as the problems posed by Jesus (of trying to deal
>with our neighbor) are far too difficult.

Someone who demands things too difficult is not benevolent. However, before
you can make assumptions about your Jesus that exceed intellectual games,
you have to prove that it is not a void concept. This has been pointed out
to you before, and you have failed to do so.
any

(Deletions)
>As far as the rest of the post goes I'm not worrying about appearing
>smart (no doubt this is sufficient reason for some to refuse to
>consider Jesus) I'm trying to communicate and not pretending that
>scientific or more likely scientific-like statements are the only ones
>that are important.

Repeating yourself doesn't prove your point. What about the reasoning
that a concept we can talk about has to be communicable and meaningful.
In order to be meaningful, it has to be defined and falsifiable.

Can you answer that?

2I am not too thrilled by the throwing together of "love", "truth",
2"law", and "exist".  These might make sense to another theist,
2but you will have to translate for us atheists.  We use these
2words differently.

>Why should we try to understand love as something other than the law by which
>we exist? (by the phrase "law by which we exist" I mean that upon which we
>should base our actions). Maybe we think when we love we are doing something
>against God.

Your definition of love looks like another word for morals. Anyway, there
are moral problems possible that cannot be solved by what love usually
implies.

(Deletion)
>And confronted by this assertion and its concrete expression in Him I am
>continually forced to admit that this is the proper assumption on which to
>live my life. I am forced to admit that I can give myself to others as He
>did, that I can find what is most important and proper in that kind of
>existence. Likewise I find that I can only do so when I am willing to
>listen to and follow Him.

Damn, either give evidence for what you say, and it is not the first time
that seomeone demands that from you, or quit preaching.

2We were talking falsifiability, ok. Do you say an X exists which restructures
2everything so that every statement will become wrong on the long term?

I don't think we have to assume the God moves the furniture on us
because we're blind. The problem is that we think we know everything at
least at some level (eg. we know what falsifiability is and we don't have
to give an consideration to the fact that it may be bigger than we know.
We merely have to apply our certain knowledge of it.). So even if we do
allow for learning at some level we ignore the possibility at the most
important one.

(More religiouis self references deleted)
>2Let me apply your X to this sentence. X will make your belief in Jesus become
>2wrong on the long term. Or, like in the Omni- thread, X will falsify itself.
>2And will falsify falsifying. And again.

>Jesus is constantly falsifying every concept of Him. That is why we must
>live in relationship to Him because He cannot be replaced by any of our
>concepts. We will always need to learn from Him.

Jesus is constantly falsifying every concept of him. This is a concept.
This he will falsify it. That means he won't falsify every concept of
him. And bingo, we have a contradiction.

Or for fun's sake, Jesus will falsify the concept of him of a loving and
caring god, and will falsify the very cencept of himself. Note that falsify
means to show that the concept is wrong. That means jesus will disprove of
his own existence. Looks as if he is a strong atheist, doesn't it?

>Although it seems to have gotten lost somewhere my original intent was to
>demonstrate that we all live in a world where we use this vague ambiguous
>reasoning that is often attributed solely to stupid religious types.

And my intent is that when you have not got evidence you argue like these
stupid religious types.


>It appears that we are trying to move in the direction of more precisely
>defining the notion of falsifiability. This is so that we can show that it
>is itself a falsifiable notion and that it excludes religious statements
>like the ones I've been making but includes and justifies the scientific
>statements that other have been making.

Do you understand falsifiability? It does NOT mean that one has to be able
to disprove one's own system, it says that one has to come up with statements
about it that can be checked. And when they can be checked one has a chance
to see if the system makes accurate statements or if it is a useless one.

(Big deletion)
>I'm simply asking how well this idea that we can reduce questions to more
>certain ones works. Aren't there many in fact the majority of the questions
>in which our main response isn't to try to reduce the question to some
>more certain theory but to use whatever techniques we can to explore the
>question further however vaguely or inadequately we may understand it.

>This process of defining and redefining would likely lead us to a
>precise definition of a system which we could agree is scientific.

Vague theories do not hold much information. By the way, the Scientific System
has evolved the way you describe it.


>Even so is it really likely that we
>would ever be able to find a precise way to define what human behavior does
>and doesn't conform to this theory, especially in light of the fact that
>we don't have any practical way to determine what human behavior is and
>isn't mathematical in the strict sense of logic?

Read about Human Ethology and Game Theory. It already explains a lot.


>The belief that we are
>trying to call into question is that we have a scientifically derived
>notion of falsifiability by which we can clearly distinguish scientific
>from unscientific beliefs.

Because they do not hold any information. That is the point. You can indulge
in any theories you wish, but they will not hold information unless they
have certain properties, such as falsifiability. And I do not chase cats
in dark rooms when I have no chance to catch one.

>2The scientific method is an evil ploy to get rid of the effects (sic!) of
>2Jesus on our life?

>Any activity that I have allowed to exclude Jesus and His claim on
>my life has proved itself to be evil because it takes away life. By the
>way what does sic mean?

Sic means 'see','gotcha' - literally 'so'. You state that excluding Jesus and
his claims on your life has the effect of taking away life. Have you got
evidence for us to check?

>2I note that I am neither your neighbor nor your fellow worshipper.

>Actually it appears that you are both. Because to be honest I whorship
>the same god.

I don't worship any god. Keep your assumptions to yourself.

>2 With the lack of evidence stated, how do you know it's Jesus?

>The experimental method of course. Just like you find out how useful
>science is by using it you find out whether you can seriously depend on
>and live on the basis of what is revealed in Christ by seriously depending
>on Him, being obedient.

Describe the experiments that prove that it is Jesus.
   Benedikt
Newsgroups: alt.atheism