Silicon Investor (SI) -- The First Internet Community

STOCKTALK

We've detected that you're using an ad content blocking browser plug-in or feature. Ads provide a critical source of revenue to the continued operation of Silicon Investor. We ask that you disable ad blocking while on Silicon Investor in the best interests of our community. If you are not using an ad blocker but are still receiving this message, make sure your browser's tracking protection is set to the 'standard' level.

Politics : Sharks in the Septic Tank -- Ignore unavailable to you. Want to Upgrade?

To: Neocon who wrote (46188)	4/3/2002 8:34:10 PM
From: Solon	Read Replies (3) \| Respond to of 82486

One thing that is wrong with the essay is that science is not the only way in which we know important things He did not say that it was the only way to "know" things. He said it was the "path to highly probable* human knowledge" He showed clearly that all experimental results can be explained by a material hypothesis. No experimental results have ever been found that require explanation from other than the natural world. Therefore, he correctly states that "the objectivity of the universe is one of the most tested, and most highly confirmed theories in science. I dare say, the hypothesis that God does not exist, or that, if he does exist, he does not interfere in the daily affairs of the world, is better confirmed than is the hypothesis that the world is round." This seems clear and accurate to me. Also, you seem to have missed his point about the quarters, and my own point as to posting the article which was to show the incompatibility of science and religion at the nether level: "It doesn't matter how many experiments have been done in which water didn't turn into wine, the dead didn't rise, and nobody walked on water. Since God can do anything, he can make the world look like he doesn't exist. He can make physical, chemical, and biological experiments all turn out to be compatible with a godless, material, random interpretation of the universe. He can make Adam have a belly button, and life look like an inevitable product of mindless matter. And the scientists can draw out plain old material quarters as many times as they wish, but they will still not have reduced by so much as a hairbreadth your initial belief that the probability that the Almighty red quarter is actually in there is actually one. Fine. Be that way. But don't tell me that you can make such thinking consistent with the practice of science." _____________________ "Well, for example, science cannot address the issue of whether there is an implicit meaning or structure to the universe, since it assumes physical causation and randomness"* Unless you have some evidence against entropy, what is your point in invoking "meaning or structure" for the universe? The universe does not have meaning or structure unless you both deny entropy, and beg the question of a supernatural agent. Again, my point: Metaphysics/mythology...science/reason do not meet. "Actually, I have no confidence, reading his essay, that he even understands the point of contention, which is that science is beginning to push the limits of its assumptions as explanatory tools. Also, most religious people are not fundamentalist, and do not purely rely upon revelation for supposed truth, much less for a comprehensive morality" No, they rely upon opinion rather than fact. And who really cares where the opinions come from so long as they are all different and contradictory? Science explains things with a high probability of truth, and science meets with consensus. You say that most religious people do not purely rely upon revelation for supposed truth. I wonder what they do rely on then? Here is a list of over 4000 distinct belief groups. Many of them despise each other. What do any of their opinions have to offer either as a "comprehensive morality", or as "explanatory tools"?? adherents.com People are free to pursue "supposed truth" in whichever of the unnamed ways you were referring to. But as Dr. Hall rightly said: "the God hypothesis is worthless for understanding the physical world."