From: klopfer@natinst.com (Mike Klopfer)
Newsgroups: alt.atheism
Subject: Re: science a religion?
Date: 15 Dec 1992 00:52:20 -0600
Organization: National Instruments, Austin, TX
NNTP-Posting-Host: eagle.natinst.com


0 is <9212081307.AA18629@inet-gw-1.pa.dec.com> (Benedikt Rosenau)
1 is <1992Dec09.093200.10208@bnr.ca> (Brian Cash)
2 is <9212092048.AA12322@inet-gw-1.pa.dec.com> (Benedikt Rosenau)
3 is <1992Dec11.145313.2787@dcs.warwick.ac.uk> (Simon Clippingdale)

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.

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.

3Hmmm. I think this is a non-sequitur. Sensory systems don't have to be
3noise-free (luckily) to provide data which is useful because it has some
3nonzero correlation with reality. 

What does Hmmm spell? You really oughten to use words like "non-sequitur"
which nobody know what means. I'm not sure
my statement precluded this possibility (or is it probability Brian?) but
I don't see that we can get around relying on some data to arrive at whatever
we call a falsification.
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.

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. 
But none the less this is what Jesus claimed when He demonstrated what that 
love means.
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.

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.

Actually I would distinguish beliefs from statements.
I am calling beliefs those things on which we base our lives,
our actions, our walking our talking, our experimenting. It isn't clear
that all the things that are claimed as beliefs are belief in this restricted
sense. In fact in light of the distance between the christian and Christ
he is often brought to acknowledge that he doesn't believe in Him and he
has to let himself be shown what god has taken His place.

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. 

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.
Specifically we use it when we try provide a basis for the priority
we give to our actions including science. The
thread itself and as far as I can tell all the contributors have only
provided evidence (of which the last one I read provides
the most compelling evidence) of this assertion. I don't know that we are 
any closer
to agreement on this matter. In fact we will need to be very cautious lest
we find ourselves able to agree even on this apparently minor point. This
would quickly lead to an idea that we could enter into a genuine and useful
dialog with this religious neighbor even at his own level, that we could 
attempt to understand the relation between his thoughts, statements and 
actions, that we could not only help him out but that we might even be helped 
in the process.

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.
Although I'm willing to think along these lines I would like to attempt a
vague understanding of why we are going this direction and
what is the likelyhood of it leading us to the desired results. 

First of all
in choosing to proceed along this course we have implicitly cast aside any
attempt at finding help by considering Jesus. Why? because we think
we know the proper method to arrive at the best answers to any problem
independent of the problem. Lets consider how well this process of rigorous
definition has helped us with problems in the past. For example lets
suppose we look at how well mathematics has been subsumed by logic, or
set theory. I don't know a great deal about the area and I'm sure it still
holds some surprises but I think we might find that a very small amount
of mathematics is done at the level of these types of precise logics which
are quite easy to implement in the form of theorem provers but don't
seem to really have had much of a powerful or useful consequence for the
carrying out of mathematics in general. How successfully have we reduced
newtonian physics, chemistry and worst of all biology to the axioms of
quantum physics and aren't there all kinds of shades in between? Or have
any of these even succeeded in generating a set of mathematical axioms on
which to begin a rigorous exploration of them say by a computer.
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. But more 
importantly we want
to find out what kinds of systems can't learn since our goal is to once and
for all eliminate the kinds of questions, statement and activities that
religious people involve themselves in. 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? 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.

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?

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.

2Further, with the lack of evidence stated, how do you know it is Jesus?

1Here I am asking for the meathod used to know if one is contradicting
1God or not. (eg. Bible, Pope, Prayer (this, to me, is like listening
1to yourself), Priest, TV evangelist)

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.