Relay-Version: version B 2.10 5/3/83; site utzoo.UUCP
Posting-Version: version B 2.10.2 9/5/84; site ssc-vax.UUCP
Path: utzoo!watmath!clyde!burl!ulysses!mhuxr!mhuxt!houxm!vax135!cornell!uw-beaver!ssc-vax!savage
From: savage@ssc-vax.UUCP (Lowell Savage)
Newsgroups: net.philosophy
Subject: Re: Penses
Message-ID: <734@ssc-vax.UUCP>
Date: Mon, 13-May-85 17:32:26 EDT
Article-I.D.: ssc-vax.734
Posted: Mon May 13 17:32:26 1985
Date-Received: Thu, 16-May-85 03:04:46 EDT
References: <1655@decwrl.UUCP> <45200003@hpfcms.UUCP>
Organization: Boeing Aerospace Co., Seattle, WA
Lines: 35

> >It seems to me that the fundamental differences between "religious" 
> >and "scientific" theories is that religious theories attempt to deal with 
> >"private" experiences (people's inner relationships to the universe), 
> >whereas scientific theories attempt to deal with "public" experiences
> >("external" sense perceptions).  If this hunch is correct, it may explain why 
> >religious and scientific theories are often in bitter conflict.
> 
> Being a Christian, I thought I'd contribute my point of view on this.
> 
> How can there help but be bitter conflicts?  Scientific theories such as
> these (remember, they're just hypotheses) directly oppose what we as
> Christians read to be true in the Word of God - the Bible.

I think I'll make a stab at clarifying the difference between religion and
science.  Religion is the study of God (or gods or lack of same) while
science assumes that a supernatural being does not exist (or at least no
longer "interferes" with the activity that takes place in the universe).
Thus, from a scientific point of view, the only way to prove the existence
of a God would be to observe inconsistencies in nature that are impossible
to explain without negating that basic premise (i.e., assume that a super-
natural being does exist).  The trouble with this is that scientists are
more likely to assume that an explanation exists but that they just aren't
"smart" enough to figure it out yet.  Remember, this is what has led to
many of the great scientific theories which in turn have led to even greater
discoveries.  So, for science to work, it MUST "act" atheistically, even
if its practitioners are theists.  The upshot of all this is that any
"scientific" evaluation of religious claims is pure E.S. (Elephant
you-know-what) since science assumes that nothing exists outside of "nature"
to begin with.

Flame me--please!  I like to see people shovel manure!

				There's more than one way to be savage.

				Lowell Savage