Re: ken miller weighs in on francis collins for NIH
- From: Mark Isaak <eciton@xxxxxxxxxxxxx>
- Date: Sat, 01 Aug 2009 17:49:18 -0700
On Fri, 31 Jul 2009 08:55:18 -0700, snex wrote:
On Jul 31, 10:23 am, el cid <elcidbi...@xxxxxxxxx> wrote:
On Jul 31, 10:45 am, snex <x...@xxxxxxxxxxx> wrote:
[...]
what we are claiming is that you make unreasonable exceptions when
it comes to your religious beliefs, and doing so is inherently in
conflict with science *in general.*
What I must ask, is "science in general"? It sounds vaguely religious
in nature.
science is a process for learning about how the world works. so far, it
is the only successful process for doing so.
No it isn't. Remember, science is relatively recent in history, and
people had successfully figured out some of how the world works before
then.
Here are a few ways, other than science, to learn about how the world
works:
1. Go and look. You may reply that looking is part of science, which is
true, but it is not science as such.
2. Look it up in a reference book. Simple, practical, usually reliable.
Again, it is part of science but is not all of science.
3. Ask someone. Similar to #2, but applicable in other contexts, some of
which are not easily investigable by science. For example: "What's
wrong, dear?"
4. Use your intuition. Not infallible (but then, neither is science),
but far more useful than science in certain situations, especially
situations that are complex, where you have some relevant experience, and
where there are deadlines.
5. Use your instincts. Granted, this might serve you better if you were
a Polistes wasp, but humans have instincts, too. All of us made much use
of them as infants, before we knew what science was, to learn about our
world. (Snex might be an exception.)
6. Make up stories. Okay, that is not a way to learn about the world,
but it is one of the best ways to *remember* lessons about the world.
Narrative formats are much easier to remember than lists of facts,
especially when there are a few extraordinary events (such as the
supernatural) thrown in. And snex would be most disappointed if I did
not mention it.
So science is not the only way to learn how the world works. It is not
even the most important way to learn about how the world works; I would
have to go with "go look" for that. Science is superbly effective at
discovering and providing confidence in those generalizable patterns
which are found in the world, but it genuinely sucks at some other
things.
Besides, even if science were the only way to learn how the world works,
there is a lot more to the world than learning how it works. Snex may
not care about those things, but others do. And for anyone who does, it
is inappropriate to make science into a god.
--
Mark Isaak eciton (at) earthlink (dot) net
"It is certain, from experience, that the smallest grain of natural
honesty and benevolence has more effect on men's conduct, than the most
pompous views suggested by theological theories and systems." - D. Hume
.
- Follow-Ups:
- Prev by Date: Re: Question for the Evolutionist
- Next by Date: Re: The argument of God from DNA being code
- Previous by thread: Re: Hawking & Presidential Medal of Freedom
- Next by thread: Re: ken miller weighs in on francis collins for NIH
- Index(es):
Relevant Pages
|
Loading
