Posted on 11/13/2006 7:34:14 PM PST by betty boop
Indeed ModelBreaker. Then he asserts that, as a scientist, he has "no need of the 'God' hypothesis"....
We see eye to eye here, Alkhin. Especially WRT your observation that the scientific method needs to be held to high[er] (epistemological) standards.
We very much kept in mind the home-schooling market while writing this book.
Thank you so much for writing!
Scientists don't, when they do science. All they need is calipers, methodology, and math. With just that, they can determine the amount by which we are uncertain about the truth of any given proposition and how uncertain we are about the uncertainty. Of course, that's not God's perspective; so God really doesn't play a role in science, unless one is testing the God hypothesis, itself. That's why science is fundamentally amoral.
Where scientists can go wrong is when they begin to make pronouncements about philosophy and values, as scientists. In that case, they are just like anyone else: The values they bring to the table are only as good as the values they bring to the table. Sometimes good and sometimes not so good--Stephen Pinker being a great example of the later.
When scientists start trying to derive values scientifically (or slide them in thru resort to their AUTHORITY as scientists), we're back to the Sin of Adam. IMHO, there is no such thing as a scientifically derived or supportable value. One can make a statement such as, "Sexually promiscuity in a marriage leads to a 50% higher probability of divorce"--probably roughly a true statement. That sounds like a scientifically supported value statement about the undesirablity of promiscuity. But its value content depends on on the value one places on not getting a divorce, which is not, in this statement, scientifically derived. If you then gather evidence about the effects of divorce, you introduce new, and unscientific, values in an endless recursion.
The scientific method and its accomplishments are magnificent achievements. But we know there are limits to what science and math can know (see LaPlace, Turing and Goedel, e.g.). Simply put, science and math cannot speak to many "scientific" issuse (the orbital trajectory problm r9 spoke about earlier), let alone speak to values or morality. It is only when science and values get confabulated--often intentionally--that things go awry.
spunkets agrees with Laplace. God came in person to teach who He was. He didn't leave a trace in the physical world. That's, because he's not concerned with physical attractions. He's concerned with the inner beauty of the spirit.
from a conversation between Laplace and Lagrange, mediated by Napolean...
Napolean: How is it that, although you say so much about the universe, you say nothing about it's creator?
Laplace: No Sire, I had no need of that hypothesis.
Lagrange: Ah, but it is such a good hypothesis: it explains so many things!
Laplace: Indeed Sire, Monsieur Lagrange has, with his usual sagacity, put his finger on the precise difficulty with the hypothesis: it explains everything, but predicts nothing.
What did God promise? It was eternal life. Is that to be found in nature, or in Him? Here's what God said in the matter:
Matthew 12:39
He answered, "A wicked and adulterous generation asks for a miraculous sign! But none will be given it except the sign of the prophet Jonah.
No physical sign would be given. His promise of salvation was to be found only by man's recognition and judgement of the Holy Spirit, as a person of beauty and worthy of following. Only through that way can God be known and recognized as the creator. It was His intent, that be so. The physics of this world is the cherubim with the flaming sword that blocks the way to the tree of life.
Matthew 12:32
Anyone who speaks a word against the Son of Man will be forgiven, but anyone who speaks against the Holy Spirit will not be forgiven, either in this age or in the age to come.
Thank you so much for your encouragements! We are learning those new inroads. And yes, I'm sure we could arrange a double autograph - though it would a bit more since betty boop and I live many, many miles apart. LOL!
I'm not sure yet, Ignatz. But we'll let everyone know all the details as soon as we figure them out.
LOLOL! Don't hold your breath ...
Thank you oh so very much for your encouragements, flaglady47!
Would an immense pleasure to do that.. But I suspect.. the large Alaska Prawns(Spot shrimp) would trump the various kinds of fish in the crock pot aboard.. in my own version of Bouillabaisse..
I'm not sure why there would be any tax or legal implications for Free Republic if it did not benefit financially from the sidebar. But that's a question for the lawyers around here.
Oh my goodness, .30Carbine - you give me way too much credit. I'm blushing here. Thank you oh so very much for your encouragements, dear sister in Christ!
LOLOL! Thank you so much for bumping by.
Thank you so much for the additional recommendation, RightWhale!
Thank you so very much for sharing all of your insights! Truly, if a man does not have "ears to hear" he'll miss the important part of life.
If you had any idea how much I love Bouillabaisse, Alaska, Alaskan seafood and fishing...
Scientists don't, when they do science. All they need is calipers, methodology, and math.
I'd add something else to this list: assumptions.
I'm often reminded of something Einstein said about his development of Special Relativity, to the effect that the first and most important step in his work was to scrutinize the assumptions underlying Newtonian physics; as I recall it, the culprit was a Newtonian assumption that rate of passage of time is invariant.
Once I started looking for this sort of thing, I was surprised how many "scientific" statements are actually statements of what scientists currently assume, and which have attained in their minds the status of physical laws. (Such was the case for Newtonian physics, for example.)
Mee Too...
Benjamin Franklin's Powerful Speech
Posted on 11/08/2006 10:00:16 AM EST by Nancee
'Mr. President: The small progress we have made after four or five weeks close attendance & continual reasonings with each other-our different sentiments on almost every question, several of the last producing as many noes as ayes, is methinks a melancholy proof of the imperfection of the Human Understanding.
We indeed seem to feel our own want of political wisdom, since we have been running about in search of it. We have gone back to ancient history for models of government, and examined the different forms of those Republics which, having been formed with the seeds of their own dissolution, now no longer exist.
And we have viewed Modern States all around Europe, but find none of their Constitutions suitable to our circumstances. In this situation of this Assembly, groping as it were in the dark to find political truth, and scarce able to distinguish it when presented to us, how has it happened, Sir, that we have not hitherto once thought of humbly applying to the Father of lights to illuminate our understanding?
In the beginning of the contest with Great Britain, when we were sensible of danger, we had daily prayer in this room for Devine protection.-Our prayers, Sir, were heard, & they were graciously answered. All of us who were engaged in the struggle must have observed frequent instances of a superintending Providence in our favor.
To that kind Providence we owe this happy opportunity of consulting in peace on the means of establishing our future national felicity. And have we now forgotten that powerful Friend? Or do we imagine we no longer need His assistance? I have lived, Sir, a long time, and the longer I live, the more convincing proofs I see of this truth-that God Governs in the affairs of men. And if a sparrow cannot fall to the ground without His notice, is it probable that an empire can rise without His aid? We have been assured, Sir, in the Sacred Writings, that 'except the Lord build the House, they labor in vain that build it.'
I firmly believe this; and I also believe that without His concurring aid we shall succeed in this political building no better than the Builders of Babel: We shall be divided by our partial local interests; our projects will be confounded, and we ourselves shall become a reproach and bye word down to future ages. And what is worse, mankind may hereafter from this unfortunate instance, despair of establishing Governments by Human wisdom and leave it to chance, war and conquest.
I therefore beg leave to move-that henceforth prayers imploring the assistance of Heaven, and its blessing on our deliberations, be held in this Assembly every morning before we proceed to business, and that one or more of the clergy of this city be requested to officiate in that service.'"
Well said, r9etb!
And if you keep digging long enuf, and you'll often (usually) find some kind of metaphysical presupposition at the root.
Thanks so much for writing!
Ping! Thanks! ;-)
Disclaimer: Opinions posted on Free Republic are those of the individual posters and do not necessarily represent the opinion of Free Republic or its management. All materials posted herein are protected by copyright law and the exemption for fair use of copyrighted works.