Replies

What limits would you then put on what can call itself science, and what is too big for science? Mine are that it can be addressed with the scientific method, that you can't appeal to miraculous events. Just out of interest sake, I'd like to know yours. For example, philisophical pondering of morality and meaning? I understand you don't like the current definition of scientific material, but what limits yours?

I have not ignored this VERY GOOD question. Thank you for showing that you at least understand my problems with this issue here, and asking a respectful question. This deserves an answer better than I can give composed on the fly while dealing with customers (I left chemistry over 14 years ago and own a small financial services firm). I will try to give a coherent, if not convincing, answer.

Again, thank you for showing that you are respectful of my position, even if you don't agree.

What limits would you then put on what can call itself science, and what is too big for science? Mine are that it can be addressed with the scientific method, that you can't appeal to miraculous events. Just out of interest sake, I'd like to know yours. For example, philisophical pondering of morality and meaning? I understand you don't like the current definition of scientific material, but what limits yours?>>>

Again,I thought this a very good and insightful question. Let me make a stab at it, then I have to go eat.

The answer to the question "what limits would I put on what I call "science" is fairly close to what I suspect yours would be....., at least theoretically. All the standard stuff you learn in freshman bio. The difference, I suspect, is that I believe science is not a field of knowledge "apart" on its own. It cannot be. Just as one example, science itself is predicated on the ideas that we live in an ordered universe that has uniformity of natural laws, and that our brains are predisposed to correctly take in and correlate sensory input in a manner consistent with what is "really" out there. Those ideas are not "science" at all, nor are they scientifically verifiable (they are philosophical assumptions or "faith" positions), but relate to science so closely that they have to come into play.

Then the question becomes "how do I relate science to my philosophical tenets,and what happens if some tenet which SUPPORT my view of science is seriously challenged by the data itself? I have the following options:

1) I can live in a divided world. Many modern scientists do exactly this. In the lab, they are convinced materialists, yet they want to go home to wives and family and act as though "love" were more than some description of biochemical reactions in a complex machine. I can say that I am a process of billions of accidents farted up by a dead universe, and get all offended if you don't give me the respect on I want on a bulletin board (A ***BULLETIN BOARD*** for Christ's sake!!!!). A fundamentalist does the same thing when he is afraid of learning and academics lest he find out his faith is unsupportable.

2) I can re-examine my philosophical underpinnings to determine if they need adjustment or (for the sake of argument) abandonment. I have adjusted my own beliefs several times, having been all over the map on the age of the earth and the extent to which evolution has occurred. I expect my world view to "synch" with the world around me. For example, I believe the first chapter of Genesis is not a chronological account at all, but rather a poetic way of simply stating that God is creator and Lord of all. This is called the "framework hypothesis" and says that the "framework" for Genesis simply states that God created the "realms" correlated with the "rulers" or "dominions" of each
Day 1: Light and darkness
Day 4: Sun and moon and stars- the "rulers" or dominion
Day 2: Realm of heavens and waters
Day 5: Birds and fish - the resident rulers
Day 3: Plants/dry land
Day 6: Animals and man the capstone ruler in God's image
This is a tenable description which is faithful to the text (though fundies would argue not) and is consistent with a WIDE variety of viewpoints. It simply teaches that there is a sovereign creator "ELOHIM" who is lord of all the cosmos, consistent with the message of Genesis. It is not designed nor does it purport to teach a seriatum description of events.

3) I can re-examine my construct of the data to see if it really DOES point to a problem (maybe I have misconstured the data? are there other theories which explain the data as well as the one causing problems?)
ditto example in 2 above, and of course, reevaluation of accepted material constructs

4) I can say "there appears to be a problem! I will wait to see if there is a heretofore unseen resolution of the conflict."

5) I can deny that the data exists, and "fix" the problem that way

In my experience, neither theists nor naturalists do #2) very often. The reason for this is that for all the pretentiousness and posturing, world views are almost NEVER chosen because of the relentless demands of the data. #3) is sometimes the mark of an honest man, who looks at what he sees and seeks to reconcile it with what he believes #4) is more common tack (not that it is "less honest" than #3..., it is just more common). The person says "this seems right to me, and although the present data does not support it (he never says THAT, rather that it is "incomplete, inconclusive, or partial"), he takes an attitude of FAITH that there will be an ultimate reconciliation. #5) is the most common solution. Just look around you. Happens with the religious and irreligious. That is an "outline" of how I view scientific content interacting with philosophical principles.

I would love to BS you with a story of how I chose my own decidedly religious worldview on the basis of pure reason, but that would be a lie. However, I have been delighted over the years to see more and more clearly that not only is the biblical world view (which is, by the way decidedly NOT the fundamentalist world view in many cases) coherent, rational and reasonable, it is actually the best "model" for assimilating the facts and observations of the world and the people who live in it, including myself.

...... In reading what I just wrote, I am disgusted with myself for being so inarticualate and doing such a poor job. Better luck next time, but I need to go home and eat.