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!philabs!cmcl2!seismo!umcp-cs!mangoe
From: mangoe@umcp-cs.UUCP (Charley Wingate)
Newsgroups: net.religion
Subject: Re: Jeff Sargent returns:  on scientism and other things
Message-ID: <821@umcp-cs.UUCP>
Date: Wed, 7-Nov-84 17:31:35 EST
Article-I.D.: umcp-cs.821
Posted: Wed Nov  7 17:31:35 1984
Date-Received: Thu, 8-Nov-84 20:19:07 EST
References: <1433@pucc-h> <237@pyuxd.UUCP>
Reply-To: mangoe@maryland.UUCP (Charley Wingate)
Organization: U of Maryland, Computer Science Dept., College Park, MD
Lines: 78

[>> = Jeff Sargent]
>> Scientism.  It seems that some people view science as a nascent god, or at
>> least as approaching omniscience, by claiming that there every phenomenon
>> in the universe either can now be, or will eventually be able to be,
>> explained *correctly* by science.

> There seems to be an urge on the part of some 1) to invent a "religion"
> called scientism which they claim that others follow, and 2) to ascribe to
> it tenets that THEY feel it should have.  I refer to the notion that people
> who don't worship or believe in the existence of a deity believe in
> "science" as a god.  It has been explained before that science and the
> scientific method are simply means of acquiring knowledge in the most
> objective fashion possible.

First, I want to disavow Jeff's nascient God statement.  Rich's views on
science can constitute religion with having a god.  Second, I do not claim
that all those who do not believe in a god are "scientismatics".  Third,
Rich's statement concerning the purpose of the scientific methood is
highly subjective.  Science is an attempt to form a model of the operation
of nature through the use of the assumption of continuity, mathematics,
and experiment; it cannot provide Truth because it HAS to proceed on the
principle that external interference does not happen as a matter of course.
Occam's razor is valid within this framework because it is not important 
that the hypothesized explanation is the True one; all it has to do is
explain the data.

Once you start looking for True explanations, this framework is no longer
useful-- unless you assume that there are no external "causes" (I don't
mean to imply causality of action, but that the activity we see takes
place within a framework which we can't see).  Once you introduce this as
a principle, you are no longer talking about science, but about religion.

> What is a miracle?  "An event that appears unexplainable by the laws of
> nature and so is held to be supernatural in origin or an act of god."
> (American Heritage Dictionary)  Let's analyze that definition carefully.
> BECAUSE an event APPEARS to be *unexplainable* by the laws of nature
> (i.e., what >humanity currently understands about the workings of the
> universe), THUS, IT IS HELD (assumed) that the event is of supernatural or
> deific origin!!!!!  How presumptive can you get!!!  Honestly, I'd never
> seen the precise definition of "miracle" before writing this paragraph,
> but it's so very interesting that it confirms what I've been saying all
> along!!  Because human beings don't understand how something happened, it
> MUST have been caused by a supernatural entity!!  ("*I* don't understand
> this, therefore God did it!!")

[ spontaneous generation example ]

I think the definition is faulty, and I will rely on The Miracle (the
ressurection) as an illustration. (Spontaneous generation is not a relevant
example, because it is was never claimed to be miraculous; it was a
mal-formed law of nature.)  The resurrection seems to clearly violate the
established laws of nature, specifically, the second law of thermodynamics,
just for starters.  Therefore, to deny it as a miracle (according to the
definition) you must either introduce a new system of laws, or claim that
he did not die.  Ordinarily, of course, we would take the second approach.
Now we have a hypothesis; how then to test it?  We can't.  It is a one-time
event.  All we can do is either say, "this has apparently never happened
before, and conflicts with our current understanding of the universe;
therefore it did not happen"; or admit that it might be a miracle.

> What I've said above applies just as much to the event referred to as the
> Resurrection as to any other unexplained event or unverified report.  Given
> what I've just described in my last paragraph, am *I* trying to explain
> away the event because I don't *want* to believe, or are *you* simply
> avoiding other explanations because you *do* want to believe?  (This, of
> course, gets back to my earlier remarks on wishful thinking and
> preconception, many of which have gone unanswered.)

You can't verify history; you can't even verify that Julius Caesar existed,
if you choose to be picky enough.  Historical evidence is weak in the
face of disbelief, and arguments about wishful thinking and preconception cut
both ways, wounding Christians and atheists alike.  We came to this argument
believing in the ressurection; you came to us denying it.

One last time: none of the essential claims of Christianity can be tested
scientifically.

Charley  Wingate      umcp-cs!mangoe