[Vision2020] Creation vs. science (was NSA's accrediting agency)

[Chasuk]

On Dec 22, 2007 7:39 PM, Joe Campbell <joekc at adelphia.net> wrote:

> First, let me say what a breath of fresh air it is to encounter people on this forum who can
> disagree with my views in a civil and humorous way without resorting to personal attacks
> and unsupported accusations!

Thanks.  :-)  I try, and sometims I succeed.

> Second, do you think that science REFUTES the existence of God?

No, I don't think that science refutes God.  However, I do think that
science provides a more satisfying answer to questions that were
formerly explained by passing it off to an unnecessary concept called
"god," all without recourse to the inventions and obfuscations of
theology or myth.  Further, it is more consistent with everything else
that we know, without fudging.  Lastly, it is measurable, and almost
infinitely malleable, but without resorting to any self-deceit.

> But it also seems that science has its limitations and is ill equipped to deal
> with non-physical truths -- mathematical truths, philosophical truths, moral truths, or
> religious truths. It doesn't have much to say about whether God exists or abortion is
> moral and to think that it does is to make a kind of category mistake, IMHO.

Non-physical truths?  I don't look to science to satisfy philosophical
truths, but I can use the findings of science to inform those
decisions.  The questions examined by the philosophy of mind, for
example, I think have been adequately answered by science, and it is
is time to admit that the philosophy of mind has been trumped by
findings in the empirical realm.  Mathematical truths?  What are those
except convenient rules that we have devised or observed that help us
in our science?  Moral truths are the construction of sentient beings
that sometimes guide us and sometimes cause us pain, but are
ultimately subjective, and always relative.  Religious truths are the
fairy tales we tell to each other because they comfort us, or
sometimes compel is to kill each other.  I think we could generally
live better without them.

> 1. How do we arrive at the joint assumptions of physicalism and empiricism? If one says
> that science establishes them, then we have a problem of circularity. If one says that there
> is another methodology that establishes these truths, then empiricism is false.

Agreed, sort of.  Still, I am primarily a pragmatist.  Maybe there are
other kinds of truth and other ways of knowing; I have often heard the
claim.  When I was a Christian, I ardently believed it.  But what are
these truths?  Are they of any value?  Do they really provide us
better, or even worthwhile, answers to questions that aren't
narcissistic navel-gazing?  Will thy feed us, cloth u, shelter us,
build us bridges?  If the answer is yes, are these truths compatible
with other things that we know?

Chas