NetNews Usenet Archive 1992 #27/NN_1992_27.iso/spool/sci/physics/19033

Internet Message Format | 1992-11-17 | 5.2 KB

Path: sparky!uunet!charon.amdahl.com!pacbell.com!sgiblab!spool.mu.edu!agate!stanford.edu!rutgers!concert!uvaarpa!murdoch!kelvin.seas.Virginia.EDU!crb7q
From: [e-mail] (Cameron Randale Bass)
Newsgroups: sci.physics
Subject: Re: Religion & Physics Don't Mix
Message-ID: <[e-mail]>
Date: 17 Nov 92 03:24:37 GMT
References: <[e-mail]> <[e-mail]>
Sender: [e-mail]
Organization: University of Virginia
Lines: 92

In article <[e-mail]> [e-mail] (Emmanuel Gustin) writes:
>[e-mail] (Cameron Randale Bass) writes:
>
>: >More important: Science can't accept religion as a part of its structure -
>: >nor superstition of prejudice.  But religion has to accept logic and
>: >science, and many religious people have no trouble with that - what the
>: >pope tried to show when he apologized for the Galilei trial. Theology is
>: >based on faith but is not a purely mystical affair. As G.K. Chesterton
>: >made father Brown say when caught fake priest: attacking Logic is bad
>: >theology. People can't (at least not forever) believe in something that is
>: >clearly not true. Thus mixing religion into science is *impossible*, but
>: >mixing science into religion is an *inevitability*.
>:
>:      Religion has to accept nothing.  Do you honestly think that the
>:      Jains base their belief in reincarnation on *logic*?  There is no
>:      logic that explains basic facts of existence that must be
>:      assumed.
>
>You miss the point. The 'basic facts of existence' are an essential part
>of religion, indeed. Science cannot prove or contradict them, and should
>not in any way adapt itself to religion. But science has consequences for
>the world we live in, arises new moral problems, creates new points of
>view, and destroys old certainties. And religion has to adapt itself to
>that. Religious people may believe things where science has no part in,
>but they are living on this world.

     You miss the point.  Science is not about everything that is 'true'
     in this world.  It involves a very restricted subset of all of
     the possible 'realities' in this 'world'.  Now while I believe that
     all scientists should obey certain tenets of morality and ethics,
     that is a belief that is completely independent of science.

     As for creating moral problems, moral issues are outside of science.
     Science doesn't create moral problems *within* science.
     How could they be otherwise, since there seems to be no way to
     assign scientific 'value' to morality.  Moral problems come in
     the context of societies, and must be solved within that context.

     As far as 'living in this world' goes, have you ever 'seen' a molecule?
     How about a quark?   How about a magnetic field?  Do you even
     have personal knowledge that the universe is more than
     thirty or fourty years old?

     There are any number of religions that could claim that large
     elements of what you consider 'reality' are illusory.  Outside of
     science, you'd be hard-pressed to defend your 'reality' as any
     different from theirs.  Maybe you are living in *their* reality and all
     of our physical laws are simply illusions.

>:      Also, 'clearly not true' is in the eye of the beholder.
>
>But that is what science is about: gathering knowledge the truth whereof
>is NOT in the eye of the beholder, but accepted by everybody.

     Ohno.  Back to 'science is truth' again.

     Since I liked Ben Weiner's words on this topic I'll leave that
     aspect of it alone.  I will only point out that 'clearly not
     true' is not restricted to science, and does not necessarily
     have a scientific answer.

>:
>: >Yes, I know there are lots of people who refuse to mix some science in
>: >their religion - creationists and others. But don't blame religion for
>: >this; it's bad science AND bad theology. It is true that religion is
>:
>:      It is perfectly consistent theology.  It is *not* science.
>
>Depends on your definition of theology. If you define it as a kind of
>madness, you're right.

     Madness?  Show me that the universe was not created ex nihilo
     4 seconds ago, with the genesis of my response created in my brain.
     Show me how that can be inconsistent, madness or not.

     Madness is also in the eye of the beholder.  One civilization spent
     at least 40 years piling huge blocks atop one another in the largest
     manmade rockpile on the planet simply to produce a place to bury a
     king.  A group of tribes spent untold millenia guarding a small box of
     religious artifacts, often at the expense of large numbers of their
     people, their homes and their lives.  This is sheer madness, but
     these efforts provided cohesion in their societies.  Also, if they
     hadn't done such stuff, how much would we know of them?

     It is inappropriate to judge theology by the rules of science.

                                dale bass
--
C. R. Bass                                          [e-mail]
Department of Mechanical,
     Aerospace and Nuclear Engineering
University of Virginia                              [phone]