<!DOCTYPE HTML PUBLIC "-//W3C//DTD HTML 4.0 Transitional//EN">
<HTML><HEAD><TITLE></TITLE>
<META http-equiv=Content-Type content=text/html;charset=ISO-8859-1>
<META content="MSHTML 6.00.5730.11" name=GENERATOR></HEAD>
<BODY text=#000000 bgColor=#ffffff>
<DIV>Thank you for your response.</DIV>
<DIV> </DIV>
<DIV>First, the writing I posted is not mine; it came from someone's blog.
It was forwarded to me in a discussion on logic and epistemology.</DIV>
<DIV> </DIV>
<DIV>I have commented on this issue before in depth and before you were a V
2020 poster. If you like, I can repost a long Word document that looks at
the nature of knowledge claims of which both many religious, scientific,
ethical, political, etc statements are.</DIV>
<DIV> </DIV>
<DIV>Time constraints do not allow me at this time to give you a detailed
response. However, I will give you something to think about when relying
on the Same Worlds Model.</DIV>
<DIV> </DIV>
<DIV>At one time (and for many, even now) mental illness was thought by some of
the religious to be caused by possession by the devil. Even in this day we
do not understand yet all the different causes of mental health problems, but
progress has been made, and thus many mental health problems are
treatable/mitigatable by various therapeutic strategies.</DIV>
<DIV> </DIV>
<DIV>Even realizing this, some who believe in devil continue to claim that all
mental illness is still caused by the devil. Only we are now figuring out
ways to outsmart the devil. Like Descartes "little demon," this theory is
sometimes called "the ghost in the machine" (not to be confused with Gilbert
Ryle's different use of the same phrase) for obvious reasons.</DIV>
<DIV> </DIV>
<DIV>However, unlike testable knowledge claims, there is no way to test the
possession by the devil theory, hence it is a pseudo knowledge claim -- an empty
fantasy.</DIV>
<DIV> </DIV>
<DIV>Another well known example from a previous post:</DIV>
<DIV> </DIV>
<DIV>...
<DIV><FONT face=Verdana size=4>Just because words can be strung together in an
apparently syntactically correct sentence doesn't mean the sentence has a
comprehensible, literal, testable meaning.</FONT></DIV>
<DIV><FONT face=Verdana size=4></FONT> </DIV>
<DIV><FONT face=Verdana size=4>In your quest for "the truth" you might watch out
for these kind of assertions. Religion, philosophy, politics,
etc. are rife with such statements. These assertions are
generally recognizable <STRONG><FONT color=#ff0000>by the practical
impossibility of being neither unequivocally confirmable nor falsifiable or for
the establishment of any significant probability of their
truth.</FONT></STRONG> The latter two cases is often especially the
case.</FONT></DIV>
<DIV><FONT face=Verdana size=4></FONT> </DIV>
<DIV><FONT face=Verdana size=4>A parable derived from an example written by an
apostate Catholic disciple of Wittgenstein intended to illustrate the point
of Occam's Razor may be helpful as an illustration to you. </FONT></DIV>
<DIV><FONT size=4></FONT> </DIV>
<DIV><FONT size=4></FONT> </DIV>
<DIV><FONT face="Times New Roman" size=4>Neighbors A & B were having an
over-the-back-fence discussion:</FONT></DIV>
<DIV><FONT face="Times New Roman" size=4></FONT> </DIV>
<DIV><FONT face="Times New Roman" size=4>A: I heard you have a
new kind of powerful watchdog or something.</FONT></DIV>
<DIV><FONT face="Times New Roman" size=4></FONT> </DIV>
<DIV><FONT face="Times New Roman" size=4>B: Yes, it is called
the Odg.</FONT></DIV>
<DIV><FONT face="Times New Roman" size=4></FONT> </DIV>
<DIV><FONT face="Times New Roman" size=4>A: What does it
do?</FONT></DIV>
<DIV><FONT face="Times New Roman" size=4></FONT> </DIV>
<DIV><FONT face="Times New Roman" size=4>B: It watches over us
continually and protects us and our property from harm.</FONT></DIV>
<DIV><FONT face="Times New Roman" size=4></FONT> </DIV>
<DIV><FONT face="Times New Roman" size=4>A: I haven't seen
anything. Where is it?</FONT></DIV>
<DIV><FONT face="Times New Roman" size=4></FONT> </DIV>
<DIV><FONT face="Times New Roman" size=4>B: The Odg is
invisible.</FONT></DIV>
<DIV><FONT face="Times New Roman" size=4></FONT> </DIV>
<DIV><FONT face="Times New Roman" size=4>A: I have heard any
barking or anything.</FONT></DIV>
<DIV><FONT face="Times New Roman" size=4></FONT> </DIV>
<DIV><FONT face="Times New Roman" size=4>B: The Odg
makes no sound.</FONT></DIV>
<DIV><FONT face="Times New Roman" size=4></FONT> </DIV>
<DIV><FONT face="Times New Roman" size=4>A: You don't have a
fence. How do you keep the Odg in?</FONT></DIV>
<DIV><FONT face="Times New Roman" size=4></FONT> </DIV>
<DIV><FONT face="Times New Roman" size=4>B: The Odg stays with
us always. It is the loving nature of the Odg to do so.</FONT></DIV>
<DIV><FONT face="Times New Roman" size=4></FONT> </DIV>
<DIV><FONT face="Times New Roman" size=4>A: Your lawn is
immaculate. I don't see any Odg droppings at all.</FONT></DIV>
<DIV><FONT face="Times New Roman" size=4></FONT> </DIV>
<DIV><FONT face="Times New Roman" size=4>B: The Odg never
eats. Consequently, it makes no droppings. It doesn't slobber or
have bad breath either.</FONT></DIV>
<DIV><FONT face="Times New Roman" size=4></FONT> </DIV>
<DIV><FONT face="Times New Roman" size=4>A: Tell me again what
it does.</FONT></DIV>
<DIV><FONT face="Times New Roman" size=4></FONT> </DIV>
<DIV><FONT face="Times New Roman" size=4>B: It watches over us
and protects us from all harms. It requires only unquestioning belief and
adulation on our part in return.</FONT></DIV>
<DIV><FONT face="Times New Roman" size=4></FONT> </DIV>
<DIV><FONT face="Times New Roman" size=4>A: But wasn't your
home robbed of everything of value, weren't you badly beaten up, and wasn't
your wife taken for and enjoyed a month-long sexual romp by a motorcycle
gang a few months ago?</FONT></DIV>
<DIV><FONT face="Times New Roman" size=4></FONT> </DIV>
<DIV><FONT face="Times New Roman" size=4>B: Yes, but it must
of been good for us, else the Odg would not have let it happen. </FONT></DIV>
<DIV><FONT face="Times New Roman" size=4> </FONT></DIV>
<DIV><FONT face=Verdana size=4> </FONT></DIV>
<DIV><FONT face=Verdana size=4>Can you do anagrams?</FONT></DIV>
<DIV><FONT size=4></FONT> </DIV>
<DIV><FONT size=4></FONT> </DIV>
<DIV><FONT size=4><BR>Art Deco (Wayne A. Fox)<BR><A
href="mailto:deco@moscow.com">deco@moscow.com</A><BR></FONT></DIV></DIV>
<DIV style="FONT: 10pt arial">----- Original Message -----
<DIV style="BACKGROUND: #e4e4e4; font-color: black"><B>From:</B> <A
title=godshatter@yahoo.com href="mailto:godshatter@yahoo.com">Paul Rumelhart</A>
</DIV>
<DIV><B>To:</B> <A title=vision2020@moscow.com
href="mailto:vision2020@moscow.com">Vision 2020</A> </DIV>
<DIV><B>Sent:</B> Friday, February 09, 2007 8:11 AM</DIV>
<DIV><B>Subject:</B> Re: [Vision2020] Does Science and Religion
Conflict?</DIV></DIV>
<DIV><BR></DIV>Art Deco wrote:
<BLOCKQUOTE cite=mid001201c74c5c$26c315d0$6401a8c0@opalpeakkiosk type="cite">
<META content="MSHTML 6.00.5730.11" name=GENERATOR>
<STYLE></STYLE>
<DIV>
<DIV class=node>
<DIV class=content>
<P>(2) The Same Worlds Model. This model says that science and religion are
not in conflict. They are different ways of looking at the universe but they
both are valid. Since “truth” cannot contradict “truth”, they cannot be in
conflict. Any apparent conflict then is due to our lack of understanding what
the real “truth” of at least one of those views
is.</P></DIV></DIV></DIV></BLOCKQUOTE><BR>I pretty much agree with this model
when it comes to most things supernatural. Darwin's Beagle (not sure if
that's you or not) doesn't touch upon this one much except to say that theists
tend to believe it. For example, I see auras. Not all the time, but
often. I assume that there is some natural explanation for this, even as I
learn how to improve upon the ability. Science has come a long way, but I
imagine that there is still a much, much longer way to go.<BR><BR>Even an
active, omnipotent god doesn't break this model. Science can only pertain
to what is measurable. If a god can tweak the system, then science is
worthless for studying that god. For example, the world might have been
created a week ago, but created such that all the evidence was in place,
including our personal memories and all measurable data, of a much longer
timescale. It's basically a variation of the "brain in a bottle"
hypothesis. Science is not wrong in this case, because it correctly
describes this newly created universe in terms of what can be measured.
That is still Truth, even if it can never uncover the fact that all it's answers
are bogus. Science can only test the self-consistency of the universe in
this case.<BR><BR>So the Book of Genesis could be correct, just not testable by
science. The God of the bible could have taken seven exact 24-hour days in
the exact order described to create a self-consistent universe that appears to
be much older than it is. I don't see any reason to believe this over any
other creation story in which the same can be said to be true, nor do I see any
reason to believe this for any other reason. But it could be true and
wouldn't invalidate the Same Worlds Model.<BR><BR>Paul<BR>
<P>
<HR>
<P></P>=======================================================<BR> List
services made available by First Step Internet, <BR> serving the
communities of the Palouse since 1994.
<BR>
http://www.fsr.net
<BR>
mailto:Vision2020@moscow.com<BR>=======================================================</BODY></HTML>