Relay-Version: version B 2.10 5/3/83; site utzoo.UUCP
Posting-Version: version B 2.10.2 9/18/84; site cybvax0.UUCP
Path: utzoo!linus!philabs!cmcl2!seismo!harvard!godot!mit-eddie!cybvax0!mrh
From: mrh@cybvax0.UUCP (Mike Huybensz)
Newsgroups: net.religion
Subject: Re: Science as Religion (other objections to Wingate's article)
Message-ID: <209@cybvax0.UUCP>
Date: Mon, 5-Nov-84 15:38:17 EST
Article-I.D.: cybvax0.209
Posted: Mon Nov  5 15:38:17 1984
Date-Received: Thu, 8-Nov-84 19:44:55 EST
References: <369@umcp-cs.UUCP> <209@pyuxd.UUCP> <223@pyuxd.UUCP> <704@umcp-cs.UUCP>
Organization: Cybermation, Inc., Cambridge, MA
Lines: 40

[Charley Wingate]
> 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.

Charlie, your first sentence only demonstrates that Rich may have a religion
with no gods.  It does not demonstrate that Rich has a religion.  To do that,
you will have to construct a definition of religion.  If that definition
includes science, then it is proper to use science in arguments against
other religions.  Your acceptance is besides the point.  There are numerous
religions which have tenets contradicted by science.  What do you propose
should be done about it?

> 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.

If you've really read Bertrand Russell lately, Charlie, you should remember
that something can be rejected as unlikely, rather than on absolute logical
proof.  There are objective heuristics for guessing relative likelyhood such
as Occam's Razor.

> 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.

Science and religion have historically battled for their respective territories.
Where they are concerned with different things it is only because one has
been able to prevent the other from encroaching or has eliminated the other.
One need only look at creationism and sociobiology for examples of recent and
continuing conflicts.  Science will not be the arbiter of religion, but it will
continue to claim more territory as more is learned.
-- 

Mike Huybensz				...mit-eddie!cybvax0!mrh