Relay-Version: version B 2.10 5/3/83; site utzoo.UUCP
Posting-Version: version B 2.10 5/3/83; site pyuxd.UUCP
Path: utzoo!watmath!clyde!burl!ulysses!gamma!pyuxww!pyuxd!rlr
From: rlr@pyuxd.UUCP (Rich Rosen)
Newsgroups: net.religion
Subject: Re: Jeff Sargent returns:  on scientism and other things
Message-ID: <260@pyuxd.UUCP>
Date: Sun, 11-Nov-84 22:47:10 EST
Article-I.D.: pyuxd.260
Posted: Sun Nov 11 22:47:10 1984
Date-Received: Tue, 13-Nov-84 08:20:31 EST
References: <1433@pucc-h> <237@pyuxd.UUCP> <821@umcp-cs.UUCP>
Organization: Bell Communications Research, Piscataway N.J.
Lines: 69

>> It has been explained before that science and the
>> scientific method are simply means of acquiring knowledge in the most
>> objective fashion possible.  [ROSEN]

> 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.
>  [WINGATE]

First, I'll use a Larry Bickford technique to answer the first sentence in
the above paragraph:	Balderdash and poppycock!

(Let's see if we hear more complaints than were made against Mr. Bickford
response by pithy phrase.  Fact is, it IS balderdash and poppycock.)
Next, I'll ask again:  what is "external" interference?  What is meant by
"external"?  External to what?  Is that like the term "supernatural"?
(Implying "beyond the natural", but really meaning "beyond that which we
currently understand.)

>> 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 ]  (Apparently Mr. Wingate simply didn't
>>         feel like including it, for whatever reason.)

> 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.) 

Ah, I see.  Only if you claim something to be a "miracle", a "divine act",
only THEN does it "count".  The definition is far from faulty:  it hits the
nail right on the head.

> 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.

Thus, all we have to do is to ASSUME the veracity of the unverified sources
called the gospels (advertising for a religion can hardly be considered
objective fact, unless you assume in advance...), and all these violations
of physical laws can be ASSUMED to have occurred.  You have no proof that
any of these things actually occurred, or that they were fraudulently
executed.  I hope that when someone comes along with an equally shoddy proof
that god does NOT exist, that you will all jump on the bandwagon because you
gave IT the same level of objective evaluation that you gave to your current
belief system.  You won't, of course, if the basis of your beliefs is
presumption of their truthfulness in advance.
-- 
AT THE TONE PLEASE LEAVE YOUR NAME AND NET ADDRESS. THANK YOU.
						Rich Rosen    pyuxd!rlr