NetNews Usenet Archive 1992 #27/NN_1992_27.iso/spool/alt/callahan/13681

Text File | 1992-11-17 | 11.2 KB | 226 lines

Newsgroups: alt.callahans
Path: sparky!uunet!gumby!yale!cs.yale.edu!news-mail-gateway!daemon
From: [e-mail] (J.P.Gardner)
Subject: Re:  Science and god:  Are they incompatible?  If so, why?
Message-ID: <[e-mail]>
Sender: [e-mail]
Organization: Yale CS Mail/News Gateway
Date: Mon, 16 Nov 1992 21:57:49 GMT
Lines: 215

The Space Cadet listens to STM give his view of science and religion.

"What?" he says, "You mean after all that shouting, STM and Nightstalker
agree with each other?"

"Well, that's the way I read it. Their stated views differ a bit in the
details, but what I got from each of their essays was that science
and Christianity are not incompatible. That is, the form of Christianity
that NS believes does not claim that science is wrong, and science is
incapable of disproving the existence of a God which is not currently
and commonly active in the world. (My opinion on this later.) NS stated
this explicitly, STM put a lot of qualifiers on it, but in the final
analysis, they agree with each other.

"Of course one disagreement that is implied is that Nightstalker
believes the Christian religion and STM doesn't.

"I do have a few comments on the exchange, though," he says as he
climbs on a soapbox.

"Let's see: First of all, it is obvious that STM and Nightstalker just
plain don't like each other. Next, STM is very rude. When someone
posted this before he asked for specific examples, so I'll provide
some. Use of profanity is usually not considered to be good manners,
and STM called NS's arguments bullshit. He also called him a bigot --
presumeably an anti-scientific bigot. Now NS is himself a scientist, so
this is a little hard to believe.  But in any case, this was just
name-calling, and there was no support for it in what NS wrote. In a
broader sense, from STM's many posts, I have never seen him up on a
soapbox, I have never seen him admit he is, was, or even could possibly
be wrong. He rarely uses the initials IMHO, and when he does, it is
almost always IMNSHO, which really defeats the purpose. OK -- maybe the
first time someone did that it was funny. It isn't funny anymore, it is
just arrogant. STM could greatly benefit from a good healthy dose of
humility.

"Now re-read the above paragraph with this in mind: good manners in an
argument has nothing to do with whether you are right or wrong. Being
right, even about something that is obvious (to you) is not an excuse
for bad manners.

"Now, NS, don't think I am completely on your side from this. The
proper response to being flamed is to ignore it. It is not to tell the
person you are ignoring them, that is just rude, and arrogant; same as
STM has done. Your religion preaches humility, I would recommend that
you think about what that really means.  It does not mean putting on a
big show about how humble you are, it means really being humble. It
most certainly does not mean praying aloud for the strength to love
someone who is difficult to love -- at least not in that person's
hearing.

"The flame-proof suit is better than flaming back. But this, also,
is a joke that had best be used sparingly.

"I suggest you both subscribe to clari.features.miss-manners. :-)

"<<SIGH>> I also think it is bad manners to point out when someone
is being rude, especially publically. I guess I'm guilty too. :-<

"Now, as to what has been discussed in this thread, here are my humble
opinions. I found the thread pretty interesting for the most part. I
hope it can continue without tempers being raised any more than they
have.

"Let's see... Well, I found most of STM's objections to NS's first post
to be either nit-picking, or knocking down straw men. (And I do wish he
would quit that, the straw is playing havoc with my allergies.
Ah-Choo!) This is not all that surprising, I guess, in that STM agrees
with NS's main thesis. STM has made it abundantly plain that he
doesn't like fundamentalists. NS has made it equally plain that he
is not one.

"The bitter dispute about whether NS was talking about Christianity or
all religions was nit-picking. Oh, I agree, if I were an editor of the
piece, I would probably tell him to change the title (as he said he
considered doing) and make it clear that he was talking about
Christianity and not anything else. But come on, people, wasn't this
obvious? Well it was to me.

"And the dicotomy of Christianity vs Eastern religions was just
sloppiness on his part -- someone had posted something claiming that he
as talking about Western science and Judeo-Christianity, and he
countered by discussing Eastern religions. I wish people would actually
read the posts to which they are responding. (OK, so he left out Islam,
were you _really_ offended?)

"The part in NS's original essay about the woman being raped was overly
strong imagery for what was otherwise intended as a scholarly toned
article. Sort of hitting below the belt, and unnecessary to the
argument. (Or maybe this is just me. I don't react well to rape, and
that sentence made the rest of the article hard for me to read.)
Nonetheless, STM does not seem to understand that religion does provide
comfort to those to whom bad things have happened. Different religions
in different ways, but it is not only in the ways that STM ridiculed.
(But even that way -- by believing it is God's will, and part of a
bigger plan does provide comfort to someone who believes that that
bigger plan is good. Obviously this does not provide comfort to someone
who doesn't believe in God, such as STM, however.) (And further: a lot
of rape victims do feel guilt. Telling them it is not their fault is a
good thing.)

"(OK, a degression: There are parts of the Bible (Chronicles) which say
that people to whom bad things happen must have done something wrong to
deserve it. There are other parts (Job, Ecclesiastes (sp?)) which say,
it ain't that way. I would be interested in hearing what the people
here think of this question. I don't really feel like I can talk about
it, I haven't done my homework.)

"STM seems to have a lot of arguments against the fundamentalists -- or
literalists as he calls them. But what is surprising is that he extends
these arguments to all Christians by saying "Well, if you can't
believe all of the bible, how do you know what parts to believe?" And
thus dismisses _all_ of the bible, using the exact same argument
that the literalists use!

"STM also likes to come up with the standard theological puzzles that
people have been trying for millenia to solve. Since there are no easy
simple solutions, he dismisses the whole of religion.  Well, if
theology has a lot of unsolved problems, that doesn't make it any worse
(or better) than science!

"Another thing STM likes to do is accuse the "Church" of atrocities in
the past. To extend this to the present organized churches is not
acceptable to our society's notions of justice, however. The sins of
the father are not visited upon the sons. Hold people (and
organizations) responsible for their own actions, but it is not just to
hold all Christians now responsible for the Inquisition or the
Crusades. Any more than it is just to hold scientists responsible for
Dr. Mengele's concentration camp experiments.

"One place where I would quibble with STM's science-religion essay is
the idea that God can be active in a non-scientifically provable way.
That is, by doing things that can be explained by natural processes.
Like providing personal revelations -- that otherwise could be
explained as delusion (especially if you are not the one experiencing
them.) There are people who have proof that God exists. It is just not
proof that they can use to convince a skeptic, it is personal proof.
(This, I hasten to point out, is not science. That doesn't mean it is
not valid, however.)

"The only possible scientific disproof of the existence of God is
Occam's razor -- and that is a very dull knife when it is dealing with
the fundamental axioms of science. Oh, science can prove that large
miracles that would be observed by many people, and run contrary to
physical laws as we know them, aren't happening.  But that is a far cry
from proving that God doesn't exist. Actually, you end up going around
in circles. There is no way to prove that (any particular) God exists
either, scientifically, unless you limit God, and make God not
omnipotent. And then you just have one more natural law, or one more
intelligent being.

"If arbitrary things were happening due to miraculous intervention by an
omnipotent being, science would simple come up with a sophistication of
chaos theory to explain them. Or quantify them, to the extent that they
can be quantified.

"In other words, if a scientist were to see someone walking on water,
and were able to reproduce this (i.e., ask the person to do it again)
and/or record it, it would have a profound effect on sciencific
theories.  But because science is a process of describing the universe
-- by axiom without resorting to omnipotent beings -- it would either
succeed in doing so (by modifying the theories) or fail, and leave it
as one more unanswered question. It would not be a proof of the
existence of God.

"Let's see -- several people have invoked freedom of speech. Of course
everyone here has freedom of speech. Just be polite about it, OK?
You don't have to, that is, nobody is forcing you, but do it anyway.

"Are Christians being persecuted in today's society? (As long as I am
up on this soapbox, I might as well go whole hog.) I don't think so.
When they were being tossed to the lions, then they were persecuted.
When the iconoclasts were killing the iconodules, then they were
persecuted. And when the Byzantine emperor changed, and the iconodules
were killing the iconoclasts, then they were being persecuted. The
heretics persecuted by the Inquisition (after all, most of the heretics
_were_ Christians, by today's definitions.) The Jews under the Nazis.
The Armenians under the Turks. Whatever is going on in former
Yugoslavia.

"But when someone puts up a poster next to yours making fun of it, that
is not persecution. At best it is a free exchange in the marketplace of
ideas. At worst it is bad manners. (Although not as bad as tearing your
poster down.) But it is not persecution.

"Likewise when someone disagrees with one of your posts on usenet,
that's not persecution.

"Now maybe thirty or forty years ago in most parts of the English
speaking world a Christian could talk about his/her views, and few
people would challenge their basic assumptions. Maybe that is no longer
true. But don't be so quick to claim that as persecution.  You do,
after all, want to be taken seriously if real persecution starts to
happen.

"Well," The Space Cadet says, "I've been up on this soapbox way too
long. I haven't had time lately to post much, so I have responded to
several threads all at once. (I don't have time now, either, but
somehow I got started, and I have a real good reason to procrastinate
:-)." He climbs down.

"If anyone wants to respond to anything I have said, I really would
welcome it, and I do expect to learn something. But please, remember
where you are, and use a soapbox. I'll leave it here for you."

He pulls out a large number of small brass coins. "Here, Mike, get STM,
and Nightstalker, and anyone else I may have offended what they want.
There's probably a long list."

--The Space Cadet
Durham, England
[e-mail]

"