Relay-Version: version B 2.10 5/3/83; site utzoo.UUCP
Posting-Version: version B 2.10.1 6/24/83; site decwrl.UUCP
Path: utzoo!watmath!clyde!burl!ulysses!allegra!bellcore!decvax!ucbvax!decwrl!dec-rhea!dec-lymph!arndt
From: arndt@lymph.DEC
Newsgroups: net.origins
Subject: Religious/Scientific Theories
Message-ID: <1433@decwrl.UUCP>
Date: Mon, 1-Apr-85 14:34:50 EST
Article-I.D.: decwrl.1433
Posted: Mon Apr  1 14:34:50 1985
Date-Received: Wed, 3-Apr-85 02:23:55 EST
Sender: daemon@decwrl.UUCP
Organization: DEC Engineering Network
Lines: 72


Could someone please explain (Ethan??) the difference between a 
"Religious theory" and a "Scientific theory"????

In my view ALL theories, indeed ALL knowledge is based upon presuppositions/
axioms/assumptions that are basically 'religious/mystical' in nature.

Absolute knowledge, certainty, objectivity, concrete proof, etc. are constructs
or 'models' of what we call 'reality'.

Sort of "objectivity is a figment of our imaginations".

I see only more or less 'evidence' for one theory over another - religious or
scientific!  

I believe that this stance in line with modern 'scientific' understanding as
shown by the quotes that I have sent in to the net from time to time.  I see
here from SOME of the contributors a complete lack of understanding of science
when they speak against religious belief - just the way many religious people
show a complete lack of understanding of religion and science!

Remember Jastrow saying the scientists climbing up the mountain of knowledge
and finding the theologians there already?  That's the kind of thing I mean.
Now Jastrow is NOT a Christian, remember.  He's a scientist saying the same
thing I am about the way one goes about picking one's assumptions to build a
world-view.  I've quoted other non-Christian scientists as well on this topic.
Even Lew Mamel,Jr. quoted F-------- about using 'models' in science.

Take a sentence like this recently posted in net.religion by 'Lord Firth'
(don't you just love the guy?  Like to meet him.)

    "There are similar ways to verify the validity of subjective experience
     when they involve reality and concrete proof.  Otherwise there is only
     your subjective reality."

He speaks as if his knowledge of philosophy and science stopped at the year
1700.  I mean, I've found interesting things in some of what he has posted
but this is very unclear - or clear that he doesn't understand modern thought.

How does one define and example 'reality'.  What IS 'concrete proof'.  Surely
these things ARE constructs of the human mind used as 'models' to explain the
world we perceive!

So many of the otherwise find minds here on the net parrot the cant that we
can 'prove' this or that thing and by that they mean there is no other 
possibility of explanation that is legitimate or fitting to reason.  They
don't seem to understand that what we are doing is CHOOSING our models
and testing them against our perceptions of whatever 'reality' is.  To
limit 'reality' to only the physical world IS an assumption that it is not
NECESSARY to make.  Only one that CAN be so chosen.  

Let me just close with another comment by Jastrow.  At a conference debate
revolving around the question as to the likelihood of intelligent 
extraterrestrial life in the galaxy (Jastrow says yes) the moderator, 
Dr. Frank Tipler reports that Jastrow leaned over to him and said, "Are you
aware that this is essentially a religious controversy on both sides?"
(correction - Tipler wasn't the moderator, he was on the panel)

I see too many people here who know nothing of the basis for science.
They can do the math, but don't know WHAT it is that they are doing!
What's the problem???  Had bad experiences with religion as children?
Had stupid teachers?  Never took any liberal arts courses or ones taught
by the gym teacher?  They act like know-it-all graduate assistants.  The
larger minds in science don't hold to their Time-Life views.  Of course 
they are repulsed by some of the religious views put forward.  So am I.
But again, it seems to me ALL knowledge is based on 'religious' assumptions
and the range of evidence for which little probability of doubt exists is
so small so as to hardly exist!

Keep chargin'

Ken Arndt