From: mrl@st-andrews.ac.uk (  Michael Ladomery)
Newsgroups: talk.origins
Subject: Re: Question for Creationists
Date: 30 Sep 92 09:05:08 GMT
Organization: St. Andrews University, Scotland.

In article <1476@esl.ESL.COM> markwc@barney.esl.com (Mark Christiansen) writes:
>In article <1992Sep28.170643.14110@st-andrews.ac.uk>
>mrl@st-andrews.ac.uk (  Michael Ladomery) writes:
>
>>In article <1457@esl.ESL.COM>
>>markwc@barney.esl.com (Mark Christiansen) writes:
>
>>>Circular arguments do exist for a majority of people; I have not
>>>contradicted myself or sidestepped the issue.  I've clarified my
>>>position that many people have "faith" in science and the scientist
>>>much like many people have faith in religious leaders.
>
>>I have trouble understanding your analogy. I thought, BTW, that
>>religious people had faith in God, in the scriptures etc etc, not
>>necessarily in the "religious leaders."
>
>What is the difference between faith in the scriptures and faith in
>religious leaders?  The scriptures were written by religious leaders
>who are now dead and we have some that are alive now.  I see no
>difference.  Faith in God requires one to do some independant research
>to find out if God exists, otherwise one has faith in a religious
>leader that said that God exists.

Well I was criticizing your analogy between "faith in science/scientists"
and "faith in religious leaders" and I was pointing out that science and
religion can't be compared simplistically.

>>What are the "shrines" of science? The "temples" of science? In what
>>way does science claim to deal with the spiritual, whatever the
>>spiritual is? It doesn't. Therefore I really think we have a problem
>>of incommensurability here.
>
>Religion is not the same as science.  Religion is an organized forum
>for performing specific acts.  Science does not claim to deal with the
>spiritual, but to describe the Universe.  God created this Universe
>and thus Science seeks to understand what God did.
 
No sorry it is your assumption that God created the Universe; science
is not therefore seeking to understand what God did 'a priori'.
I'm glad you acknowledge that religion is not the same as science.

I happen not to be a believer; but even if I were one, I do not
believe that the way I do science would be affected; I might have
some different philosophical views, but the 'process' or 'method'
whatever it is would not change.
>
>>>Look around at all the people who take science on faith.  They
>>>have no understanding at all of the scientific process and yet they
>>>believe what they are told by scientists.  This is no different than
>>>most religions.  The key is to ground yourself with basic principles
>>>of science or religion so that you don't have to work off of blind
>>>faith.
>
>>As a worker in science, you are encouraged throughout training to be
>>ultra-skeptical, and you certainly don't or shouldn't base your work
>>on blind faith. In religion, I understand that a priest must have a
>>strong faith. It's a different matter; I'm not denigrating faith but
>>I do insist that we're dealing with incommensurable things here.
>
>Exactly: you should not base you Scientific research on "blind faith"
>and likewise your Study of God on "blind faith."

Fine; as long as those who have a blind faith in God don't interfere
dogmatically in the process of science.

>Mark