tag:blogger.com,1999:blog-9661811.post4233999011022815891..comments2024-02-18T12:18:45.788-05:00Comments on Sun and Shield: Science & the Search for God, part 2Martin LaBarhttp://www.blogger.com/profile/14629053725732957599noreply@blogger.comBlogger5125tag:blogger.com,1999:blog-9661811.post-22183420202487063902010-07-17T21:09:56.712-04:002010-07-17T21:09:56.712-04:00He Lives (who is a physicist) has used the quotati...He Lives (who is a physicist) has <a href="http://helives.blogspot.com/2010/07/unreasonable-success-of-physics.html" rel="nofollow">used the quotation from Feynman</a>, and discussed it in an interesting manner. I recommend that you read his post.Martin LaBarhttps://www.blogger.com/profile/14629053725732957599noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-9661811.post-21534287854654084712010-07-07T11:02:33.833-04:002010-07-07T11:02:33.833-04:00Feynman was certainly entitled to his opinions, bu...Feynman was certainly entitled to his opinions, but I think the jury is out on such things. You can always ask a deeper "why?" that doesn't have an immediate answer and assert that it is a matter of metaphysics and not science. In any case, the scientific approachability of nature is not an a priori assumption, but one discovered only after centuries of trial and error at determining answers to questions about nature. It so happens to be shown valid throughout the history of science.<br /><br />Not to be insolent here, but show me a scientist who begins an experiment with the notion that nature will let us discover things. I would suggest that most experiments (and most human endeavors) are prefaced by the question, "Will this work?" and little else. The fact that we can use results from one experiment to predict expectations of other experiments in a wonderful thing, but certainly not one that was presumed with certainty absent evidence that it might indeed be the case. There was no shining moment when one person claimed such a thing and a whole realm of knowledge was suddenly opened to us. It took considerable effort by many people to come to the point of realization that nature is approachable analytically instead of by revelation.<br /><br />Comments about what science can't do abound. Answering those comments with "therefore god" is special pleading. Science can't disprove the toothfairy or santa claus either, yet no one considers that a valid argument for their existence. So I agree that she does not make even a weak argument for the existence of god.<br /><br />I think it's a bit disingenuous of Ferguson to make arguments about science's inability to disprove any god and then use that to make claims about a specific god. I.e. she uses examples of the Christian god throughout, but not any other.<br /><br />As for the questioning of religious preconceptions, let's be clear that in the short time during which such questioning was not punishable by death or excommunication the result is ever more divergence in religion. Witness the thousands of Christian denominations based on various interpretations stemming from one group breaking off from another denomination. The situation is quite the reverse in science, where the number of diverse hypotheses gets whittled down to converge upon only those that are best supported by the evidence.Pete DeSantonoreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-9661811.post-29001733535634064172010-07-07T07:16:36.450-04:002010-07-07T07:16:36.450-04:00Thanks again for your comment, Pete DeSanto. After...Thanks again for your comment, Pete DeSanto. After reading it again, and my response, I apologize for not responding more thoroughly.<br /><br />First, there are two kinds of preconceptions related to science. One of them is a preconception about what sort of result you will find. There was, at one time, a preconception that protein was the genetic material. And you are quite right. Perhaps the greatest strength of science is that that sort of preconception gets discarded, as discoveries are made.<br /><br />The second kind of preconception is about the very nature of things, or the scientific enterprise. The quotation from Feynman, as I read and understand it, shows an example of that. Scientists have a preconception that nature will let us discover things. There are other preconceptions of this type, the most fundamental one being that our senses are giving us reasonably accurate information about the world around us.<br /><br />Certainly, religion has its own preconceptions, and they can be dangerous in a number of ways. But religion gets questioned a lot. There are atheists in a position to do so, and competing religions that question each other. Ferguson's book, to me, in a sentence, says that science is great, but it doesn't tell us everything. It is not principally a book about religion.<br /><br />Thanks again.Martin LaBarhttps://www.blogger.com/profile/14629053725732957599noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-9661811.post-67880506407486456952010-07-06T19:03:56.492-04:002010-07-06T19:03:56.492-04:00Perhaps so, Pete DeSanto.
My own view is that her...Perhaps so, Pete DeSanto.<br /><br />My own view is that her comments about what science can't do are a welcome voice. I wouldn't characterize her as proposing a strong argument for God's existence. I would characterize her as showing, in a number of ways, that science can't disprove God's existence. I'm re-reading as I post, and will try to deal with this in due time, perhaps not satisfactorily. I have decided that it makes more sense to write about the book in the order it was written.<br /><br />As always, thank you for your comments.<br /><br />Thank you, Steve Finnell. I looked at several of your blog posts, and I have some agreement with what you say, but my wife tells me, and she is correct, that I spend too much time on this computer already.Martin LaBarhttps://www.blogger.com/profile/14629053725732957599noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-9661811.post-74083925582434130932010-07-06T09:58:38.718-04:002010-07-06T09:58:38.718-04:00After reading this chapter, I am having serious mi...After reading this chapter, I am having serious misgivings about the direction that Ferguson seems headed. She dwells a lot on what science CAN'T do, almost as if she is making the bed of ignorance in which god will rest.<br /><br />There is a lot of discussion about preconceptions and how that affects the "emergence of scientific knowledge" that seems to ignore the fact that what emerges is always due to the questioning of our preconceptions! How else to explain the move away from natural theology? We have removed the need for god to explain the how to needing god to explain the why, despite centuries of religious claims to truth. Religious preconceptions were overcome with evidence (under penalty of physical and spiritual death), why should we not expect that secular biases will also not be overcome should that be required by evidence?<br /><br />I would also like to see more contrast of science with Ferguson's religion. E.g. how does religion deal with questioning of preconceptions? How does society and culture influence and change religious belief? Most importantly, what checks are used to determine if a school of religious thought is valid?<br /><br />I fear Ferguson is digging herself a hole which will collapse in upon itself.Pete DeSantonoreply@blogger.com