Science and certainty

[Brimshack]

Badfish, you're thread has developed too many different debates for me to keep track. They're all interesting issues, but I can't keep focused with that much going on at once. So, I thought I'd spin one point off for now, and go with that.

It is commonly claimed that Creationism is better than evolution because its outlook stays the same whereas scientific theories change all the time, or that they are frequently in error. I would suggest that one of the principle advantages of science is it's ability to correct itself. Those of us who base our cosmological views largely on scientific theories are essentially incorporting a willingness to aknowledge uncertainty and error into our philosophical outlook. I regard the fixity of creationism as its principle weakness, and indeed, the feature which betrays the unscientific nature of its agenda. Sometimes, one has to admit frankly what one does not know, or to investigate the possibility that one has made a mistake. I do not see this happening in the field of creationism or in biblical literalism in general. Yes, scientific theories are incomplete and often erroneous, but I feel far more confident that scientists can and will correct their mistakes over time than biblical literalists. In other words, what you see as a weakness of scientism Badfish, I see as a strength.

 

[RufusAtticus]

I wrote the following about a month ago on another board.

Quick question:

Which detective has a higher chance of catching the real criminal: one who is willing to change his suspect when new evidence is uncovered, or one who is not?

The police have two suspects. One is a black, male teenager; the other is a white businessman. Detectives Hovind and Darwin first focus on the teenager because he is a known troublemaker. But, just as they are about to arrest him, a woman comes forward to corroborate the teenager's alibi. Det. Darwin then begins to look into the other suspect, the businessman. However, Det. Hovind refuses to change his mind because, after all, the teenager is black and women can’t be trusted. After further consideration, Det. Darwin discovers that the businessman had means and motive to commit the crime. In addition, he uncovers hard evidence that the businessman was responsible for the crime.

Now Detectives Hovind and Darwin approach their boss, Det. Miller, with their findings. Det. Darwin relates that he has evidence implicating the businessman, who had means and motive. Det. Hovind disagrees saying that the teenager must have done it. When questioned whether he has any evidence, Det. Hovind relates how black teenagers commit all crimes, as any cop with his much experience would know, and that Det. Darwin’s opinion is wrong because he didn’t go to church last week. Det. Miller isn’t impressed with Det. Hovind’s work and decides that Det. Darwin makes a better case. He informs the detectives that he will contact the district attorney’s office about indicting the businessman. Det. Hovind is upset and protests, because he is never wrong. Det. Miller reminds Det. Hovind that his work is routinely shoddy, and he is only a detective because his uncle is Deputy Mayor. (Not to mention that he got his badge from a cereal box.)

Det. Hovind is not happy about not getting his way and decides to take his “findings” strait to Assistant District Attorney Santorum before Det. Miller can file a formal report. Not knowing any better, the district attorney announces to the press that he will indict the teenager and that Det. Hovind should be commended for his excellent work. Of course, this all blows up in his face once the public learns that there is a better suspect. The African-American community is extremely outraged that Hovind’s only evidence is that the teenager is black, blacks commit all crimes, and thus the teenager is guilty. District Attorney Scott, having received the actually report, apologizes to the teenager and his family and announces that the businessman will be indicted.

After the successful conviction of the businessman, DA Scott wins reelection, Det. Miller successfully runs for Sheriff, and Det. Darwin is promoted to replace him. For acting rashly, the ADA Santorum, is placed on administrative leave to receive sensitivity training, and for usurping his superiors, Det. Hovind is bumped down to the K9 unit where he cares for the city’s beagles.

So, which method of investgation produced better results?

 

[seebs]

Originally posted by Brimshack

It is commonly claimed that Creationism is better than evolution because its outlook stays the same whereas scientific theories change all the time, or that they are frequently in error. I would suggest that one of the principle advantages of science is it's ability to correct itself. Those of us who base our cosmological views largely on scientific theories are essentially incorporting a willingness to aknowledge uncertainty and error into our philosophical outlook. I regard the fixity of creationism as its principle weakness, and indeed, the feature which betrays the unscientific nature of its agenda. Sometimes, one has to admit frankly what one does not know, or to investigate the possibility that one has made a mistake. I do not see this happening in the field of creationism or in biblical literalism in general. Yes, scientific theories are incomplete and often erroneous, but I feel far more confident that scientists can and will correct their mistakes over time than biblical literalists. In other words, what you see as a weakness of scientism Badfish, I see as a strength.

I have to agree. Committment to faith in God could be seen as a virtue. Committment to a belief about a testable matter of fact is just silly. People are way too committed to particular theories, and this causes a lot of trouble.

I'd like to point out, as a sort of recurring theme, that Christian theological beliefs have changed on many occasions. Many Christians have discarded a number of false beliefs about women. Almost all have discarded various racist beliefs that were, at the time, thought to be "rooted in Scripture". While the words on the page may not change (except when retranslated), our *interpretation* does, and this is good.

Correcting your errors is a very, very, good thing to do.

 

[Freodin]

I agree, seebs.

But in this very change lies a behaviour in many Christians that upsets me.

For they claim that there has never BEEN any change, that they had always said what everyone had discovered just now, and could proof that claim from biblical texts.

 

[seebs]

Originally posted by Freodin
I agree, seebs.

But in this very change lies a behaviour in many Christians that upsets me.

For they claim that there has never BEEN any change, that they had always said what everyone had discovered just now, and could proof that claim from biblical texts.

Seconded! It's bad theology. Forgiveness implies repentance, and repentance implies admission of wrong. You can't make a mistake, correct it, *deny* ever having made it, and expect it to be forgiven.

The case for Christian morality is hurt somewhat by the checkered past... but strengthened immeasurably when, *granting* that, you look at the bravery of the first people to fight against a social injustice... and discover that, more often than chance would suggest, they're Christians.

 

[Freodin]

Originally posted by seebs


Seconded! It's bad theology. Forgiveness implies repentance, and repentance implies admission of wrong. You can't make a mistake, correct it, *deny* ever having made it, and expect it to be forgiven.

I couldn´t have said it better!

The case for Christian morality is hurt somewhat by the checkered past... but strengthened immeasurably when, *granting* that, you look at the bravery of the first people to fight against a social injustice... and discover that, more often than chance would suggest, they're Christians.

If you allow me to say it, that only shows that you can be a decent human even if you are a Christian.

 

[seebs]

Originally posted by Freodin

If you allow me to say it, that only shows that you can be a decent human even if you are a Christian.

It goes a bit further; it shows that Christians are constantly reminded that they need to try harder. The concept of forgiveness is crucial to moral growth. Christians can come to believe that they were previously wrong more easily than almost anyone. (Good scientists have an easier time; bad scientists don't.) Where other theologies condemn the error, and most people don't have any particular moral code requiring them to admit it, Christianity says that the error is forgiven *IF* you acknowledge it and repent.

You're also forgiven for errors you never saw - but you may not be forgiven for an error you chose to ignore because it would mean admitting you were wrong.

Thus, Christians who become convinced that something is wrong are under no obligation to hide their belief simply because they may have done the wrong thing; they can turn around, repent, and start leading people towards better moral understanding. They've done so in the past, and will probably do so in the future.

 

[Brimshack]

Mmm, …some Christians seem to regard their beliefs as a source of personal challenge, but we've all met the kind for whom Christianity seems to make them untoucheable nd unreacheable. I actually think that may be an irresolvable problem for eithicists in general. Some people just seem to read any moral principles as a statement of their own superiority and an indictment of others, and they become an embarrassment to anyone who is sincerely trying to apply those morals to their own lives.

Anyway, I can see that there is much in Christianity that promotes good (including a number of valuable reform movements). There is also much that promotes evil (though I note that OT quotes play a more prominant role in much of the Christian programs which I find most objectionable). My concern is that I don't see enough grounds within Christianity to separate the one from the other. I have watched your battles over Homosexuality with interest Seebs, for example, and I am encouraged to see that one can use the Bible to argue aginst what I consider bigoty. But I am concerned that if the other side wins that validates blanket condemnations of homosexuals. To put it simply, the prospect that my ethics will be determined by a book written in several stages, beginning many thousands of years ago does not inspire confidence for me. Hence, I continue to distinguish between thoseindividuals whose Christianity I admire and thoseindividuals whose Christianity frightens me, but I am still opposed to Christianity in itself.

 

[seebs]

Originally posted by Brimshack
Mmm, …some Christians seem to regard their beliefs as a source of personal challenge, but we've all met the kind for whom Christianity seems to make them untoucheable nd unreacheable. I actually think that may be an irresolvable problem for eithicists in general. Some people just seem to read any moral principles as a statement of their own superiority and an indictment of others, and they become an embarrassment to anyone who is sincerely trying to apply those morals to their own lives.

Indeed. I think, though, that if you're planning to try to be good, Christianity gives you one of the better frameworks for actually addressing flaws in your moral system when they come up, by specifically declaring that *everyone* has these flaws, all the time.

Anyway, I can see that there is much in Christianity that promotes good (including a number of valuable reform movements). There is also much that promotes evil (though I note that OT quotes play a more prominant role in much of the Christian programs which I find most objectionable). My concern is that I don't see enough grounds within Christianity to separate the one from the other. I have watched your battles over Homosexuality with interest Seebs, for example, and I am encouraged to see that one can use the Bible to argue aginst what I consider bigoty. But I am concerned that if the other side wins that validates blanket condemnations of homosexuals. To put it simply, the prospect that my ethics will be determined by a book written in several stages, beginning many thousands of years ago does not inspire confidence for me. Hence, I continue to distinguish between thoseindividuals whose Christianity I admire and thoseindividuals whose Christianity frightens me, but I am still opposed to Christianity in itself.

Well, the best thing you could possibly do would be to join up, and help move the pendulum towards acceptance of the important core doctrines.

I see your point, but I'd point out that there's not just two sides on the issue. There's at least three positions. (PLEASE direct any debate about the issue over to the relevant thread in the General Apologetics section!)

1. Homosexuality is not sinful.
2. Homosexuality is sinful, but not a big deal.
3. Homosexuality is sinful, and a big deal.

Only the third really leads to what you (and I) would call "bigotry". The second leads to the belief that, of necessity, the church must reach out to such people, and help them, just as we would with people with any other alleged problem.

So... While I see your concern, I think it's clear that the core message of Christianity strikes to the heart of that concern. The problem is not that Christianity is dangerous; the problem is that *ANY* belief system will acquire adherents who carefully filter out anything that would require tolerance of them, because tolerance is *hard*.

Christianity is one of the few moral systems I know of in which tolerance is so consistently and unambigously advocated.

Uhm.

This has almost nothing to do with the topic, huh.

Oops. I think I'll go ahead and post it, but I suggest that, if we want to continue debating this, we debate it in another thread.

 

[AtheistArchon]

Well, the best thing you could possibly do would be to join up, and help move the pendulum towards acceptance of the important core doctrines.

- Au contraire, I'd rather recruit you to the nonbeliever side. Consider how close you are already:

1. You're already a freethinker in the strict sense of the word (whether or not you chose nonbelief is immaterial, as long as you did not let dogma make your decision for you).

2. You're already a thinker and a rationalist.

3. You profess few of the beliefs that are required by some (a majority, in some sects... like Southern Baptists for example) Christians in order to be a "true Christian" (i.e. to hold an absolutist or a literalist view of the bible, to deny evolution, to evangelize, etc).

4. You already work towards most of the same goals which nonbeliever activists work towards.

- To me, you're actually not at all a stereotypical Christian. (A compliment.)

[EDIT: Gah, and now I've jumped off topic as well. Oops.]

 

[seebs]

Originally posted by AtheistArchon

- Au contraire, I'd rather recruit you to the nonbeliever side. Consider how close you are already:

1. You're already a freethinker in the strict sense of the word (whether or not you chose nonbelief is immaterial, as long as you did not let dogma make your decision for you).

2. You're already a thinker and a rationalist.

3. You profess few of the beliefs that are required by some (a majority, in some sects... like Southern Baptists for example) Christians in order to be a "true Christian" (i.e. to hold an absolutist or a literalist view of the bible, to deny evolution, to evangelize, etc).

4. You already work towards most of the same goals which nonbeliever activists work towards.

- To me, you're actually not at all a stereotypical Christian. (A compliment.)

That's precisely why it's important that I'm one of the faithful.

First off, the goals I'm working towards are, to the best of my knowledge, God's. What goals do you think I'm working towards that aren't somehow part of Christ's teachings? Acceptance? Christ preached acceptance of the "untouchable" time and time again.

In the end, I'm here to break that stereotype, because that stereotype isn't just keeping people from seeing the good things Christians can do, it's causing some Christians to think they have to be like that.

What makes you think I don't evangelize? You've seen me evangelizing, the way I think we're supposed to; I demonstrate that Christians can be good folks to have around, and have reasonable and consistent belief systems.

Being rational is not a good reason to give up on the conclusions reason has led you to.

Frankly, I wasn't much good as an agnostic. I'm too skeptical to argue *for* atheism, either, and I wasn't happy. Also, prayer answers have shot up dramatically since I developed faith.

(And no, that's not a "reason to switch" in the sense of a bribe; it's a "reason to believe" in the sense of evidence.)

It's worth noting the relevance of this to the context of the thread: Like any good scientist, I left the question of God's existance open until new data came in. New data came in. I adapted. And yet... now it's a matter of faith, and no longer subject to the rules I use for most other beliefs, because I was able to show that it made more sense that way.

 

[AtheistArchon]

First off, the goals I'm working towards are, to the best of my knowledge, God's. What goals do you think I'm working towards that aren't somehow part of Christ's teachings? Acceptance? Christ preached acceptance of the "untouchable" time and time again.

- Just because we share humanistic values doesn't mean they are divine. Our points of view will force us to default on this question, however, since either can suffice (although mine does not require any supernatural forces, but I digress).

In the end, I'm here to break that stereotype, because that stereotype isn't just keeping people from seeing the good things Christians can do, it's causing some Christians to think they have to be like that.

- Keep up the good work, too!

What makes you think I don't evangelize? You've seen me evangelizing, the way I think we're supposed to; I demonstrate that Christians can be good folks to have around, and have reasonable and consistent belief systems.

- Leading by examle is not, IMHO, evangelizing. It might produce the effect of drawing people closer to your own beliefs, but you need not go out in search of recruits the way typically "evangelistic" sects do. Evangelists, to me, don't care about anyone else's point of view; it's their job to turn you to Christianity whether you like it or not, because God said so.

Being rational is not a good reason to give up on the conclusions reason has led you to.

- I would think that reason should lead you to a rational conclusion in the first place!

Frankly, I wasn't much good as an agnostic. I'm too skeptical to argue *for* atheism, either, and I wasn't happy. Also, prayer answers have shot up dramatically since I developed faith.

(And no, that's not a "reason to switch" in the sense of a bribe; it's a "reason to believe" in the sense of evidence.)

- But once you believe, lots of things can be interpreted as answered prayers. Oo, maybe this is a good topic for the apologetics board.

- In fact, I think I will re-start over there anyhow, we're getting off of science here anyway.

 

[Brimshack]

Okay Seebs, maybe you should stay Christian, but do you think you could try and be a little less reasonable? You are screwing up all the sterotypes, and it's much easier to argue with someone who sticks to the script. I mean seriously, you're throwing everything off here. Knock it off!

BTW: Point taken on the three positions (and I'm sure there are many shades in between these). One significant concern for me would be the tendency for people to profess mild opposition to homosexuality under approach # 2 while actually pursuing an agenda more consistent with the hatefulness of # 3.

 

[seebs]

Originally posted by Brimshack
Okay Seebs, maybe you should stay Christian, but do you think you could try and be a little less reasonable? You are screwing up all the sterotypes, and it's much easier to argue with someone who sticks to the script. I mean seriously, you're throwing everything off here. Knock it off!

This is, of course, my way of shaking the certainty of those stereotypes. The way people actually become certain depends substantially on rules that may not correspond strictly to formal logic.

(I bet you've never heard the sound of a train being *re*railed before)

 

[Brimshack]

Nice bridge back to my original topic Seebs; I hope you didn't pull any muscles. Actually, it doesn't look like I have any takers on the original debate. It was mostly shades of agreement as far as I could tell. Oh well.

 

[AV1611VET]

It is commonly claimed that Creationism is better than evolution because its outlook stays the same whereas scientific theories change all the time, or that they are frequently in error. I would suggest that one of the principle advantages of science is it's ability to correct itself.

Science can't correct itself to the point it catches up to creationism since creationism isn't science.

 

[TheBear]

Wow. You necroed a thread 16 years dead, and replied to a member who hasn't been here in over 11 years.

Bravo, AV!

 

[Steve Petersen]

Badfish, you're thread has developed too many different debates for me to keep track. They're all interesting issues, but I can't keep focused with that much going on at once. So, I thought I'd spin one point off for now, and go with that.

It is commonly claimed that Creationism is better than evolution because its outlook stays the same whereas scientific theories change all the time, or that they are frequently in error. I would suggest that one of the principle advantages of science is it's ability to correct itself. Those of us who base our cosmological views largely on scientific theories are essentially incorporting a willingness to aknowledge uncertainty and error into our philosophical outlook. I regard the fixity of creationism as its principle weakness, and indeed, the feature which betrays the unscientific nature of its agenda. Sometimes, one has to admit frankly what one does not know, or to investigate the possibility that one has made a mistake. I do not see this happening in the field of creationism or in biblical literalism in general. Yes, scientific theories are incomplete and often erroneous, but I feel far more confident that scientists can and will correct their mistakes over time than biblical literalists. In other words, what you see as a weakness of scientism Badfish, I see as a strength.

 

[pitabread]

Wow, seeing these old usernames really took me back to when I first frequented this place. Good times.

 

[yeshuaslavejeff]

I would suggest that one of the principle advantages of science is it's ability to correct itself.

Except it never comes to the knowledge of the truth , as written "constantly learning, and never coming to knowledge of the truth"....

It's ability to "correct itself" is merely making up another story to cover up the errors of the previous one, over and over again, year after year, decade after decade, century after century..... (science is as bad as false religion(s) in this sense, btw) ....