From: jbrown@doc.bmd.trw.com
Newsgroups: alt.atheism
Subject: Re: Atheism and Culture
Date: 21 Jul 92 16:06:02 MST

X-NEWS: doc alt.atheism: 7009
Newsgroups: alt.atheism
Subject: Re: Atheism and culture

The following article begins with an exchange between Jarek and Brian.
My comments are indented 4 spaces.  -Jim B.

In article <dabrowsk.711184276@liveboard10> dabrowsk@parc.xerox.com (Jarek Dabrowski) writes:
>SUMMARY: What science is, what it is not, and what all this 
>         has to do with atheism, religion, and culture. Also
>         some formal suggestions: A peace treaty, a subject
>         redistribution. And some boastful sentences :->.

From: brianc@jekyll.ucsf.edu (Brian Colfer)
Date: 15 Jul 92 16:57:13 GMT

Mostly you are trying to create a epistomologic dualism... you seem to
be saying "When we talk about objectively accessable knowledge we are
talking about science, but when we talk about other types of knowledge,
mostly here subjective information, then we are talking metaphysics,
religion, etc."

I don't see a need for a dualistic perspective.  Just because the
information is subjective why does it necessarily address a different
realm of phenomena.

>In <BrCpF1.BHB@cgl.ucsf.edu> Brian Colfer praised science:

Jarek:
[religion's realm is ] 
>its devotional role as a practical guide to objectively unaccessible
>but subjectively recognizable God. 

This is our point as atheists what is subjectively obvious to you 
as god is not obvious at all.

>Science doesn't contradict religion, it only helps to separate these
>two parts.

Excuse me!? (not a flame just emphatic speach.)  It contradicts every 
religion by presenting a materialistic perspective.

    Correction please!	True "Science" does no such thing.  Science
    observes phenomena within the universe, conducts experiments on
    observables through the scientific method, and proposes theories
    on what these observables mean in our quest to understand the
    universe.

    By saying that "science presents a materialistic perspective",
    you introduce a premise formulated according to your own worldview.
    What you have actually defined is "Scientism", the belief or
    philosophy that all things have a materialistic explanation
    which can [eventually] be postulated through observations made in
    accordance with the scientific method.

    Pure science says nothing about how things/observables are explained.
    It only tells us how things relate to one another within the frame-
    work of the universe.

    I could just as easily say that "Science is the study of how God
    made the universe."  This would have just as valid a basis as your
    statement.	The fact is that Science of itself and by itself says
    nothing for or against the existence of God, nor for or against
    the supernatural, nor for or against the basis of religion.


[....]


>Eventually, the physical and metaphysical branches of human
>activity will (I hope) become separated in our thinking; we will then
>have an educated, scientific society of atheists and theists aware of
>the philosophical status of their views.

Dualist alert!!!

    Where?!  Where!?

    Note:  Everyone should be aware of the philosophical import of their
    own worldview.  If they do not, then they have adopted their worldview
    rather naively, I would think.

>
>-Brian:
>>If science is has a philosophic foundation in materialism,
>>
>No, it does not. See below.

If science is a method for understanding phenomena... the only reason
we would use this method is if we could hope that there is a
materialistic explanation.

    Correction.  "...hope that there is a physical relation."
    Only in Scientism is there hope for "a materialistic explanation."


Science is not so much a set of
explanations as it is a method for validating facts.  Part of this 
is meta facts ... the relationships between know[ing] things.

    Actually, validating *interpretations* of what certain facts mean
    or the predicted behavior of observables within an experiment
    as described by the theory in question.  Facts need no verification.



>>that is every thing has a materialist explanation,
>In other words, philosophy of science can be atheistic or theistic.

It really has to be materialistic though... otherwise, rather than
saying I don't know why X is so one would say X is a manifestation of
the supernatural.

    Not necessarily.


>As for my cosmology: We discussed it not to PROVE or DISPROVE it but to
>verify whether it is logical or not, whether it leaves enough room for
>God's interventions in a deterministic world, and whether it allows or
>does not allow for free will. 

Since god is omnicient, omnipotent, etc. and therefor can do anything
then anything could be logical.  For example,  I was at a creationist
meeting a long time ago and posed the question of how could the
universe be so young and the light from many galaxies is so old.  Well,
the creationist (I'm not accusing you of being one) said that since god
can do anything maybe the image, ie light of the galaxy, was created in
mid stream.  My problem with your model is inferior because it is
unecessarily complicated... 8^).

    There are other explanations although I, as a creationist, do not
    necessarily ascribe to a young universe model.

 [...]

>-Brian:
>>the only way to knowledge of theism is through unchallengable
>>authority... 
>>
>No. Brian, ME accepting unchallengable authority??! Ask my friends :->

But this is my point your religion is very different than religion to
most people today and the religion of most people today is very
different than religion of 30 years ago.

-- 
Brian  Colfer

    How is religion today different than 30 years ago?	If you are
    speaking about Christianity in particular, the Bible (the basis)
    of Christianity has not changed in 1900 years.  Some things like
    certain interpretations may change, but the essence of what
    Christianity *is* has not.

    How is "...the only way to knowledge of theism is through
    unchallengable authority..."?  Sounds like a strawman to me.
    God never says that you cannot question or challenge Him; I
    question and challenge certain teachings and doctrines all the
    time.  (Actually, I don't question God so much as I do certain
    people's teachings and views concerning God.)  The questioning/
    challenging serves to help one get closer to what God's true
    Word is.  But, if one's point-of-view is to challenge the right
    or justification for God to have authority, then truly, you are
    challenging the unchallengable.  If God is infinite, all powerful,
    and our Creator, then it is patently obvious that He has the right
    to have authority over us.	The Creator has an inalienable right
    to rule His own creation.

    Regards,

    Jim B.

    replies to: Jim_Brown@oz.bmd.trw.com

Newsgroups: alt.atheism,sci.skeptic