I was very glad to see Ron's reply. This is a fascinating dialogue, =
of the sort I have not had in quite a while.=20
I split this into three somewhat disconnected parts, for =
manageability. All quotes are from Ron, except for a few quotes =
that were originally mine.
Ron wrote:
> I'm saying
> "these facts and lines of reasoning Ernie uses to explain why it
> seems 'obvious' to him that Christianity is true seem to me to =
suffer
> from such and such flaws of logical continuity".=20
Well put, and I hope to be able to reply in the same spirit! I will =
however minimize the quotations, sacrificing continuity for =
(relative) brevity:
I wrote:
>Last I checked, I =20
>thought I was the only card-carrying hard PhD-scientist on FoRK
You wrote:
> I'm not sure I like/agree with the tone above.
Yeah, on reflection I don't like it either. I think I meant =
something a bit more whimsical than that came across. I was perhaps =
also somewhat sensitized by having people who -really- don't =
understand science making those sorts of "science is incompatible =
with God" arguments. Which isn't the case on FoRK, for the most =
part. The PhD bit was more to verify my credentials, rather =
denigrate anyone elses. My main point, which should surface later, =
is that many of my biases are hard-core physics biases, not =
necessarily traditional religious ones. =20
However (not that it matters) I do stand by my implication that =
computer science is not hard science (as Hal Abelson of MIT EECS =
said, "anything which uses science as part of its name isn't - =
political science, creation science, computer science.") If you =
allow, I would define three kinds of science:
- hard, or empirical sciences, which depend on repeatability (e.g. =
physics)
- soft, or historical sciences, which depend on observation (e.g. =
history)
- abstract, or constructive sciences, which depend on logic (e.g. =
math & CS)
I find a fundamental distinction between things like physics, which =
attempt to understand the world, vs. things like math which try to =
define a world. As a math major friend of mine likes to say, "To a =
mathematician, the real world is a special case, and a not very =
interesting one at that." Not that people can't be skilled in =
both, but as disciplines they have very different values and =
standards of truth.
[My comments on trusting God and Him coming through for me as an =
example of 'good' faith]
>But to take your 3rd case, what is the 'detection apparatus' for
>the cause-effect of 'you serve Him' and 'He comes through for
>you'. How do you know that it was He that came through, and not
>something else? You may believe it, which is your right. But
>apparently there isn't the same general acceptance for this
>causality as there is for physical phenomena. And this, I think,
>is largely to do with repeatability
Well, this is more an issue of objectivity/subjectivity vs. =
repeatability. I would argue this is more akin to perception =
experiments in cognitive science (which I actually would break =
Abelson's rule and classify as an empirical science, albeit a =
pre-paradigmatic one). The experiments can be repeated, but are =
subject to large amounts of noise due to reliance on imperfect =
experimental subjects and ill-defined measures with varying =
consistency in following the rules.
I would argue that some of these claims are actually susceptible to =
historical or statistical evaluation, like the studies on prayer =
affecting healing. What impact does conversion to Christianity (or =
Buddhism or Islam or atheism) have on a culture's economic, =
artistic, or moral capacity? This should not be that difficult to =
do, if one could decide on figures of merit. Has anyone ever done =
that?
>There are just too many cases of good people getting screwed, and
>bad people living well, for me to accept a pattern of 'service to
>Deity' leading to 'He comes through for you'. Explain 6 million
>Holocaust victims that way, or famines or plagues or child =
abductions
>or ....
Well, the founding figure of Christianity, according to our belief =
system, was the most perfect figure in history suffered the most =
inhumane punishment imaginable (including both physical and =
spiritual consequences). So obviously the "be a nice person and =
nothing bad will ever happen to you" theology is as incompatible =
with Christianity as it is with your observations. =20
The actual question of why a good God allows evil in the world is a =
big question worthy of a more involved discussion [at some other =
time], but please don't think I am preaching such a simplistic =
answer. The Bible, in the book of Job, makes the explicit point =
that some of the best people suffer the most, and simultaneously =
claims God is all-good and all-powerful. I'm not saying this is an =
answer, just pointing out that the Bible does not understate the =
magnitude of the question.
Someone more knowledgeable than I (Wayne? :) could easily start a =
separate thread on theodicy - the problem of evil - so I'll leave =
that open for now.
--NeXT-Mail-873780081-1
Content-Type: text/enriched; charset=us-ascii
Content-Transfer-Encoding: quoted-printable
I was very glad to see Ron's reply. This is a fascinating dialogue, =
of the sort I have not had in quite a while.=20
I split this into three somewhat disconnected parts, for =
manageability. All quotes are from Ron, except for a few quotes =
that were originally mine.
Ron wrote:
> I'm saying
> "these facts and lines of reasoning Ernie uses to explain why it
> seems 'obvious' to him that Christianity is true seem to me to =
suffer
> from such and such flaws of logical continuity".=20
Well put, and I hope to be able to reply in the same spirit! I will =
however minimize the quotations, sacrificing continuity for =
(relative) brevity:
I wrote:
<smaller>>Last I checked, I =20
>thought I was the only card-carrying hard PhD-scientist on FoRK
</smaller>You wrote:
<smaller>> I'm not sure I like/agree with the tone above.
Yeah, on reflection I don't like it either. I think I meant =
something a bit more whimsical than that came across. I was perhaps =
also somewhat sensitized by having people who -really- don't =
understand science making those sorts of "science is incompatible =
with God" arguments. Which isn't the case on FoRK, for the most =
part. The PhD bit was more to verify my credentials, rather =
denigrate anyone elses. My main point, which should surface later, =
is that many of my biases are hard-core physics biases, not =
necessarily traditional religious ones. =20
However (not that it matters) I do stand by my implication that =
computer science is not hard science (as Hal Abelson of MIT EECS =
said, "anything which uses science as part of its name isn't - =
political science, creation science, computer science.") If you =
allow, I would define three kinds of science:
- hard, or empirical sciences, which depend on repeatability (e.g. =
physics)
- soft, or historical sciences, which depend on observation (e.g. =
history)
- abstract, or constructive sciences, which depend on logic (e.g. =
math & CS)
I find a fundamental distinction between things like physics, which =
attempt to understand the world, vs. things like math which try to =
define a world. As a math major friend of mine likes to say, "To a =
mathematician, the real world is a special case, and a not very =
interesting one at that." Not that people can't be skilled in =
both, but as disciplines they have very different values and =
standards of truth.
[My comments on trusting God and Him coming through for me as an =
example of 'good' faith]
>But to take your 3rd case, what is the 'detection apparatus' for
>the cause-effect of 'you serve Him' and 'He comes through for
>you'. How do you know that it was He that came through, and not
>something else? You may believe it, which is your right. But
>apparently there isn't the same general acceptance for this
>causality as there is for physical phenomena. And this, I think,
>is largely to do with repeatability
Well, this is more an issue of objectivity/subjectivity vs. =
repeatability. I would argue this is more akin to perception =
experiments in cognitive science (which I actually would break =
Abelson's rule and classify as an empirical science, albeit a =
pre-paradigmatic one). The experiments can be repeated, but are =
subject to large amounts of noise due to reliance on imperfect =
experimental subjects and ill-defined measures with varying =
consistency in following the rules.
I would argue that some of these claims are actually susceptible to =
historical or statistical evaluation, like the studies on prayer =
affecting healing. What impact does conversion to Christianity (or =
Buddhism or Islam or atheism) have on a culture's economic, =
artistic, or moral capacity? This should not be that difficult to =
do, if one could decide on figures of merit. Has anyone ever done =
that?
>There are just too many cases of good people getting screwed, and
>bad people living well, for me to accept a pattern of 'service to
>Deity' leading to 'He comes through for you'. Explain 6 million
>Holocaust victims that way, or famines or plagues or child =
abductions
>or ....
Well, the founding figure of Christianity, according to our belief =
system, was the most perfect figure in history suffered the most =
inhumane punishment imaginable (including both physical and =
spiritual consequences). So obviously the "be a nice person and =
nothing bad will ever happen to you" theology is as incompatible =
with Christianity as it is with your observations. =20
The actual question of why a good God allows evil in the world is a =
big question worthy of a more involved discussion [at some other =
time], but please don't think I am preaching such a simplistic =
answer. The Bible, in the book of Job, makes the explicit point =
that some of the best people suffer the most, and simultaneously =
claims God is all-good and all-powerful. I'm not saying this is an =
answer, just pointing out that the Bible does not understate the =
magnitude of the question.
Someone more knowledgeable than I (Wayne? :) could easily start a =
separate thread on theodicy - the problem of evil - so I'll leave =
that open for now.
</smaller>
--NeXT-Mail-873780081-1--