Relay-Version: version B 2.10 5/3/83; site utzoo.UUCP
Posting-Version: version B 2.10.1 6/24/83; site umcp-cs.UUCP
Path: utzoo!linus!decvax!genrad!mit-eddie!godot!harvard!seismo!umcp-cs!mangoe
From: mangoe@umcp-cs.UUCP (Charley Wingate)
Newsgroups: net.religion
Subject: Re: Science as Religion (other objections to Wingate's article)
Message-ID: <704@umcp-cs.UUCP>
Date: Sun, 4-Nov-84 23:37:35 EST
Article-I.D.: umcp-cs.704
Posted: Sun Nov  4 23:37:35 1984
Date-Received: Tue, 6-Nov-84 07:13:12 EST
References: <369@umcp-cs.UUCP> <209@pyuxd.UUCP> <223@pyuxd.UUCP>
Reply-To: mangoe@maryland.UUCP (Charley Wingate)
Organization: U of Maryland, Computer Science Dept., College Park, MD
Lines: 51

In article <223@pyuxd.UUCP> rlr@pyuxd.UUCP (Rich Rosen) writes:

>I neglected to mention some rather serious objections I had to Wingate's
>article in my rebuttal.  Not to his points directly, but rather to the
>way he said certain things.

>> Scientism appears to claim that only its methods produce valid knowledge.

>I'm getting sick of having my ideas labelled with newly invented or re-used
>"-isms".

O.K., Rich, YOU give it a name-- which is not "science", since what you
advocate is not what I recognize as science.

>> you can't prove the religion of science that Rich Rosen espouses either

>> I would like to examine this religion of science which Rich Rosen and 
>> others advocate.

>> "those on Rich's side of the question always seem eager to
>> throw out reports of miracles.

>I have explained several times that using and understanding scientific
>method has nothing to do with a religion.  Use of scientific method implies
>a discipline involving careful objective examination of evidence in studying
>the universe.  It has nothing to do with a religion or form of worship.  No
>one prays to the scientific method.  People use it because it gets the best
>objective results.  It gets the best objective results because it takes
>into account the dnagers in accepting potentially faulty data as actual
>evidence.  Other people FAIL to use it (in the course of what they claim is
>objective study).  Why?  Perhaps because they'd rather obtain some other
>set of results that the method would have shown to be faulty.  Can anyone
>think of any other reason?

Religion is not who you pray to; Taoism has no Gods, and neither does Rich's
nameless religion.  I do not contest science when it is applied to scientific
studies; I do not accept its improper use as a bludgeon against religion.
There simply cannot be objective data for an event which took place 2000
years ago and left no particular physical evidence; neither can their be
evidence against it, other than the presupposition that it could not have
happened.  Therefore, by Rich's logic, we should draw no conclusion; 
instead, he chooses to reject the event.  I cannot see this as objectivity;
it is out and out subjective evaluation of the data.

Science and religion are concerned with different things, and I am just as
wary of those who wish to prove religion with science as I am of those who
would try to disprove religion with science.  I've studied too many
existentialists to trust science as an arbiter of religion; if you want to
use science as weapon, argue with Kierkegaard first.

Charley Wingate  umcp-cs!mangoe