From: Cliff Stabbert (cps46@earthlink.net)
Date: Mon Aug 05 2002 - 17:07:25 MDT
Monday, August 5, 2002, 6:08:54 AM, Samantha Atkins wrote:
<snip are-we-gods-yet q&a>
SA> However, I think a lot better mileage can be had by showing
SA> religious persons that all the things that the religions promise
SA> can be acheived (where not total nonsense) ***only*** by science,
SA> technology and sufficient human will and vision. If this was
SA> shown a visceral enough level the old dogma and promise after
SA> you die competitors should lose adherents by the church-full.
[I'll leave aside the question of why you consider it important to 'win
over' the religious except to question whether by now, most adherents
to western religions don't already consider "good" inventions divinely
inspired.]
I've highlighted the word "only" in the above to point out that I
disagree. To show that something is possible /only/ by method X
requires showing it is impossible by any other method, which cannot be
done.
Some theories and philosophies are immune to all attack: you cannot
disprove solipsism, nor can you disprove that the universe and all
our memories were created by a giant invisible green turtle three
seconds ago.
However, if you omit "only" in the above, i.e. if you can demonstrate
positive results, those religious folks who would be inclined against
any effort towards SI may be otherwise persuaded. Whether they
reconcile that with their beliefs is a separate issue.
The whole Science vs. Religion Deathmatch thing applies pretty
narrowly these days, and AFAICT mainly within the big monotheistic
ones.
-- Cliff
This archive was generated by hypermail 2.1.5 : Wed Jul 17 2013 - 04:00:40 MDT