(urth) S&S vs. SF in BotNS

[David Stockhoff]

On 12/23/2011 11:19 AM, Dave Lebling wrote:
> Some on the list seem to be arguing that science is useless or on a 
> par with religious belief in terms of provability.

I'm not sure anyone is actually arguing this, nor that the topic under 
discussion actually extends beyond the realm of fiction to the real 
world. I can follow the work of scientists, as I do, and still be a 
believer in God, or not, and I can trust the science for the wrong 
reasons as well as for the right ones. What is interesting is that the 
standards of proof in science can change---as indeed they should and 
must. What was proven 2 decades ago may not be proven today. So some 
degree of faith is needed to accept proof, especially to accept it 
without any doubt.

As for the distinction between scientific proof and religious faith, 
obviously I see it much the way you do and I don't see the two domains 
as in direct conflict. But I have  spoken to supposedly religious people 
(Prot fundies) who have told me the existence (and superiority to all 
others) of God was proven. They were confused, but clearly "faith in the 
unprovable" and "proof" can be *functionally* interchangeable in the 
human mind, however contradictory they plainly are. If you can't 
tolerate doubt, either source of authority will serve. That's what Lee's 
on about.