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

[Joe Campbell]

Chas writes:

>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. 

I agree with regard to some questions. Questions about morality and values, 
or even questions about the how and why of existence, I'm not so sure. You have 
to admit that science has not yet answered the question of why there is something 
rather than nothing. Maybe there is a hope for an answer  but that is something 
different. Until the answers are in it seems presumptuous to say that God is unnecessary.

>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.

Science offers the best model of knowledge that we have. In important 
respects it is even better than mathematics. I'm not sure what to make of terms like 
'fudging' and 'self-deceit.' 

>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.

This is a good point. I don't want to suggest that empirical findings don't inform 
philosophy. As you note, the philosophy of mind is a key area where empirical science 
will influence philosophical views in new and exciting ways.

>Mathematical truths?  What are those except convenient rules that we have 
>devised or observed that help us in our science?  

Now you've gone too far. An example of a convenient rule is something like "Drive on 
the right side of the road." Here we are the truth-makers. We decide the rule and that 
makes it the case. But do you really want to say that we are the truth-makers for 
mathematical claims? If we had wanted to make it the case that 1 + 1 = 3 we need only 
have decided it to be so? In some respect, I'd like to live in that world, for all I would 
need is two dollars and from that I could make a million!

>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.

These are interesting theories but I note a lack of argument in their support. I 
don't think that the rule that you should not abuse children is a "construct" – that there 
might be a world in which humans reasonably chose otherwise. Nor do I think that rules 
of morality are essentially subjective. If I steal from you, how is the wrong subjective? It 
is bad for you but good (in a sense) for me. An appeal to the subject doesn't settle things.

Religion, I think, is now in a stage that is similar to the one that science was in around 
1600. Math and logic we had figured out, for the most part, in Ancient times. Science 
came latter -- after math and logic hit their peak in the 1800's. Morality and religion are more complex and will take more time. Making judgments about religion based on what 
we know today is a bit like making judgments about science based on what we knew 
prior to the 1600's.

>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, these are REALLY good questions! I can't answer them -- I hope to do so one day 
but deep inside I know that is nothing more than a hope. Let me say this much for now. 

I think that moral and religious truths are of value. The former tell us what we should do 
and the latter tell us how we should be. I don't think that science -- as glorious as it is – 
even attempts to say anything about any of these matters. That is not to say that science 
doesn't have a lot to offer to these disciplines -- just as it has a lot to offer to philosophy. 
But, IMHO, a mere pragmatic response to our moral and religious needs is left wanting. 

Pragmism alone would lead us to an increase of capital punishment. For we have too 
many folks in prison to be cost-effective and, in a pragmatic sense, many of them would 
be better off dead. It takes something else to regard even criminals as persons and to 
accept that they are worthy of a better lot and more consideration. Suppose an innocent 
loved one of yours was murdered for mere pragmatic convenience. I'm not sure that the 
quantitative justification would leave you feeling that it was all just fine and good.

You have a choice. You can decide that we've reached the end of knowledge and that all 
of it translates into quantitative facts gained by experience. Here morality is nothing more 
than illusion or pragmatic consideration. On the other hand, you can suppose that our 
knowledge is only partway there. We have logic, math, and science down but we’re still 
confused about morality and religion. I'm willing to wait out evolution in the hope that 
these things will all be clarified in the future.

Best, Joe

---- Chasuk <chasuk at gmail.com> wrote: 

=============
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