(urth) S&S vs. SF in BotNS

[David Stockhoff]

On 12/23/2011 12:48 PM, Marc Aramini wrote:
>
> --- On Fri, 12/23/11, David Stockhoff<dstockhoff at verizon.net>  wrote:
>
>> From: David Stockhoff<dstockhoff at verizon.net>
>> Subject: Re: (urth) S&S vs. SF in BotNS
>> To: "The Urth Mailing List"<urth at lists.urth.net>
>> Date: Friday, December 23, 2011, 8:35 AM
>> 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.
>>
> And I, at times a scientist, (biochemistry degree but not a practicing scientist now), a narcissist, and a Catholic, have no problem with OBJECTIVE ABSOLUTES.  I am that most awful of creatures: one who believes the evidence of his senses, and when those senses encounter a mirror, see a being so profoundly perfect that an eternal all powerful unlimited God must have existed to have made something like this.
>
> The ancient Greek mathematician Eratosthenes who predicted the size of the spherical earth and the distance to the sun based on shadows in a well was using what he could to come to correct conclusions when thousands of years of incorrect thought would follow him.  But he was using scientific practice and his approximations were GOOD.  There is a bottom to get to, and reproducibility is key.  Thus I, who believe God set everything in motion but allowed the freedom of that creation, would never deny evolution, when on a small scale with simple organisms it can be reproduced in a lab.  So I believe in the inifinite wisdom of man to get to the bottom of things completely accurately and in the absolute power of God to never be limited by words on a page.

Man! What a piece of work.

(Hamlet, Act II, Sc. 2)