Re: canRe: Moderatorial Note

Gareth McCaughan wrote:
Eric Potts wrote:

[initially quoting Shakespeare:]
"..... Love is not love
Which alters when it alteration finds."

Now that is an assertion, in poetic language.
...
I think it's more a definition than an assertion.
It defines what love is not, but not what it is - though I suppose one
could dispute that too! :-)

Sure, it's only a partial definition. But what it's doing
is much more defining how the writer chooses to use the
word "love" than stating any fact about the world.

I don't wish to quibble over the difference between an assertion and a definition. Either way, it is a strongly expressed statement about life which is not testable by scientific method.

At which point I think it appropriate to insert your "definition" of broadly scientific:
> This might be a good point to clarify that when I say
> things like "the scientific method (very broadly understood)"
> I really do mean *very* broadly. Evidence, rationality,
> allowance for human fallibility, and being quantitative
> where possible are pretty much the core of it. The
> paraphernalia of science-not-so-broadly-understood --
> controlled experiments, peer review, independent
> replication, high-powered mathematics, and so on --
> are "just" particularly effective ways of applying that
> core. Very, very effective, where they're applicable.
> But they become inapplicable much more quickly than
> the core does.

That is interesting because my impression is that other atheists here seem to be talking about scientific method in the "not-so-broadly-understood" definition, and on the whole it is to that kind of approach that I have been replying. Perhaps I have misunderstood.

That said, let's look at your broader picture of science:
> Evidence, rationality,
> allowance for human fallibility, and being quantitative
> where possible are pretty much the core of it."

I presume that if one were to omit "quantitative" from that list, one might no longer be talking about science, though even there you seem to regard it desirable but not essential. But, without "quantitative" I would have little problem with that list as a means of, not exactly epistemology, but of arriving at one's viewpoint. I would not be inclined to call it "broadly scientific" thoughWe would no doubt have different ideas about how one measured evidence, though. I don't object to "quantitative" as such, where possible, as you say, but I don't think it is a measure that can often be applied to matters of faith.


(Again, in this next section, I am rearranging your post a wee bit, in the interest of making my response clearer.)

The scientific method may indeed be an excellent way at getting at
truth - that is at that kind of truth which scientific method is good
at getting at!!!

But might there not be other kinds of truth that are not so gettable at?

I'm not sure which of two things you mean by "kind of truth".
(Maybe both.)

1. "When we say a statement is true we may mean any number
of different things. Science -- broadly understood -- may
as you say be the best way we have of discovering what's
true in the mundane, superficial sense of correspondence
with the objectively, or at least intersubjectively,
observable world; but there are other ways to use the word
'truth' and for some of those science, however broadly you
understand it, is of little use."

> If you mean #1: I suppose I agree that one can use "true"
> and "truth" in all sorts of ways, but I think they divide
> into those for which I think the terminology is ill-chosen
> and those for which I think science-very-broadly-understood
> is still the best approach. (There's probably some overlap.)


I suggest this is just a terminological problem. You are saying that things approached scientifically may be classified as true (or false, of course) but that things approached otherwise need some other epithet.

There is validity in your point, but we also have to deal with actual usage. I say that I believe the message of Jesus is "true"; but I am not thereby saying that it necessarily meets the tests of science but that, rather as with the Shakespeare poetry above, this is a statement (opinion?)about how the world is and on which I am prepared to base my life. It therefore becomes true *for me*. It might also be true objectively - and I might believe it to be so - but that is not likely to be scientifically testable.


2. "Some kinds of statement can readily be assessed by
broadly-scientific means: those that make clearly defined,
readily-testable assertions about observable things. But
not all statements are like that, and for ones that aren't
the best ways of getting at their truth or untruth might
have nothing to do with science, however broadly understood."


If you mean #2: yes, for sure there are statements whose
truth we might care about and which are far from being the
sort science-broadly-understood finds most convenient.
But if you want to claim that some *other* approach is
better -- well, I'd like some justification for that.
(Of course you needn't offer any if you don't care whether
I'm convinced.)

I don't really expect to convince you. I would be satisfied with mutual understanding. :-) And with, I suppose, a recognition by atheists generally that theists are not being stupid or unreasonable or, worse, brainwashed/manipulated, even if our use of reason leads us to different conclusions from those you arrive at.

To pick up your point: if a statement can be assessed by broadly (or narrowly) scientific means, then it does indeed make sense to use such means. If a statement is such that it is "far from being the
sort science-broadly-understood finds most convenient" then we seem to have two possibilities:
- find a way to make it more convenient for it to be broadly-science assessed; or and if that doesn't prove possible:
- determine some other method of assessment.

Much would depend on what "convenience" means in this context.


1. You can say (or, more likely, avoid saying) that the "core"
is just whatever shows no signs of being shown clearly to be
wrong. The problems with this are (a) that you can never have
much confidence that something will stay in the "core" and
(b) that it seems awfully close to moving the goalposts.

Awfully close perhaps, but I doubt that a cigar will be awarded.

You appear to have omitted the paragraph in which you explain
why this is too far off to merit a cigar.

I think that the following paragraph was intended to expand my reason for being parsimonious (!!!) with cigars:
As for confidence, do I not keep saying that faith statements are
always provisional? I believe one can have confidence enough for
living, but an open mind is always an essential.

You followed that up by saying:
Yes, you do keep saying it. It would be interesting to know
(though of course I have no business asking) how much your
belief in those statements actually fluctuates in response
to new evidence? It seems to me that a stably provisional
belief requires either very consistently balanced evidence
(which would be quite a coincidence) or indifference to the
evidence.

You mean that you would find suspicious a claim for such stable provisionality?

The question for me is what new evidence I am being asked to take account of. I have reached my present position in the course of 66 years of life, at least 50 of which can be claimed to have seen serious intellectual activity! My views have changed over those years - I had a Marxist stage and a Fundy stage, plus what I suppose must be called a generally materialistic and otherwise apathetic stage! But in the course of all this I venture to believe that I have sought to assess the range of evidence. "New" evidence generally today appears to me to be just a revised version of older evidence. Thus I have indeed reached a stage of fairly stable provisionality.

Yet I still would wish to believe that I have enough integrity to be prepared to review my position again if any really different evidence were to emerge. I canot say what such evidence would need to be - that would presume a major paradigm shift, I think, not just in myself but in human understanding generally.

In terms of detail, my views do keep shifting, and will probably continue to do so - my approach to and assessment of particular biblical teachings etc for example; but not enough to cause a wholesale abandonment of faith as such.


2. You can say that anything checkable -- anything about which
our beliefs *could* be responsive to evidence -- is ipso facto
not in the "core". The problem with this is that it means that
your belief is divorced from reality, and (I think, though I'm
sure you'd disagree) that it makes acting on your beliefs
irrational.
I don't think I would be quite so sweeping about anything
checkable. And yet.....are there not core scientific beliefs or
assumptions, but which are checkable and which might yet prove to be
wrong? We are already having to consider seriously the possibility
that there may be circumstances in which the laws of physics -
hitherto thought to be universal - may not apply.

I may have been clumsy there. I am disagreeing with the idea that anything checkable must thereby not be a core belief. Thus, the laws of physics are checkable, but they are still part of the scientific core, are they not.

I am also trying to recognise that even ideas so cherished that they are part of the core may eyt be found to be either in error or, at least, not quite as applicable as we once thought. Thus, unless I have it completely wrong - which is very possible - do not the questions arising from theories about origins of the universe raise the possibility that, in some conditions, th laws of physics do not apply? So that "universal" laws may not be universal after all?

In short, I am not wanting to go so far as to claim that all core beliefs *must* ipso facto be uncheckable. They may be so, but I would not wish to be dogmatic about it. Nor would I wish to determine in advance what kind of checks might be made on such beliefs.


And: enough with the stupid "fundamentalism" and "totalitarianism"
stuff already, OK? Real totalitarians put you in prison when
you say things they disagree with. Real fundamentalists have
an unalterable body of dogma. Those are -- hmm, how shall I
put it? -- at the "core" of what those terms mean. The likes
of Peter Ashby do not behave in either way.
Ah, you mean he doesn't ridicule those who believe dfferently from him?
Fundamentalism and totalitarianism are not necessarily defined by
their actions but by their attitudes.

Ridiculing those who disagree with you does not constitute
fundamentalism or totalitarianism. Are you using those words
with any actual meaning, or merely as boo-words?

It seems to me that at least some of the atheists here, probably including Peter, do have an unalterable body of dogma, namely that only those things which are scientifically testable have meaning, so that any statement a theist makes is mocked or rejected unless it can be subject to double blind testing. That is scientific fundamentalism. I don't think that term applies to you, but it does apply to some posters here - especially the ones who appear to think that all they need to do with religion is mock it (or their mistaken stereotypes of it) rather than make any serious attempt to understand what believers actually say. That is very like the Christian fundamentalism that says that *any* attempt to assess the Bible from a literary/historical standpoint is wrong because, well, the Bible is the Bible; while science is science!


To the basic question: I would not exclude the possibility, though I
think it extremely unlikely. The simple fact that religious belief has
survived the growth of science, over centuries in the West at least,
and that it survives not just among the ignorant, that is evidence
surely that clashes which occur prove to be apparent rather than real,
short-lived rather than lasting. It just takes time for attitudes to
adjust.

I don't think it's very much evidence of that. Astrology has
survived the growth of science too, but I don't think there's
much doubt that science and astrology are fundamentally opposed.

The difference, surely, is that astrology claims to deal with the very objects that are the subject of scientific study and claims a behaviour of observable and testable objects that simply does not fit the facts. Religion is about God, some of whose claimed effects might be observable but who is in Godself not so observable.


> I agree that the fact that the rise of science hasn't completely
destroyed religion, and that religion survives to some extent
even among scientists, puts some limits on how severe any
conflict between them can be.

Good.

I would tend to agree that the rise of science is one factor in the apparent (and I do mean "apparent") decline in religion. But my guess is that technology has been a more important player, in that it has made possible the individualisation of society that is a key contributor to the weakness of communities, religious and other. Technology is obviously closely related to science, but it is far less interested in grand theories. That is, the decline in organised religion is as much down to social changes, which scientific knowledge has made possible, than to any ideas about the universe arising from science.


Finally, in the hope that others will see this too: I shall have very
little opportunity to be in group for the next week. Apologies to any
who might be looking for a response from me. I will try to catch up
later.

Understood. I've been pretty much absent for the last week
too, though in my case mostly by choice in an attempt to
(1) leave more space in my life for other activities and
(2) leave more space in uk.r.c for the Christians. :-)


Yes, well I too sometimes go quiet. because of the pressure of other things which may be more urgent (but, surely, not more important!) than uk.r.c!

And i'm just delighting in the receipt this morning of tickets for a very special holiday which will (sob! sob!) take me out of the group for most of April. I retire this summer (age clickety-click) and my wife and I are indulging in a pre-retirement holiday: three nights in New York City, flying business class and with tickets booked for a Broadway show (Phantom) and a concert at Carnegie Hall (Atlanta Symphony Orchestra); followed by a 16 night cruise on the Queen Mary 2, from New York to Barbados and back, and then across the Atlantic to Southampton! Da dah! How will I ever manage without you all? :-)



--


Revd. Eric Potts

"Go in peace, in the power of the Spirit
to live and work to God's praise and glory."
.