Patrick Elliott <sel### [at] npgcablecom> wrote:
> clipka wrote:
> > If a scientist claims that *everything* is (or will eventually become)
> > explicable by science and anyone not acknowledging this is mislead by
> > superstition, then he's just as fundamentalist as a christian claiming that
> > *everything* is explained in the Bible and anyone not acknowledging this is
> > mislead by Satan, or a conspirationist claiming that *everything* is the work
> > of The Powers That Be and anyone not acknowledging this is mislead by the very
> > same.
>
> Hmm. How about... Nothing so far has **ever** been, **actually**
> explained by the supernatural, which is to say, asserting, "Well,
> something had to be, so why not Pixies?", is not an "explanation", its a
> refusal to either look for an answer, or admit you don't know one.

And that - I'm sorry to say - is *rubbish*.

"It was the Pixies" is, as such, just as good as an explanation as "it was the
electric discharge of blah whatever".

The *true* quality of the explanation is not in what faith it is based upon, but
in how useful it is to base decisions and actions thereupon. If the Pixies
explanation leads me to act the same as the Electric Discharge explanation,
then there's no difference in quality among those two whatsoever.

The fact that sciencentific explanations seem to be better suited in today's
times to guide to good decisions and actions should not lead us to frown upon
anyone who based - or even still base - their decisions and action on Pixie
explanations. There's even evidence that our faith in science has been leading
us into wrong directions, and that for instance we missed some points "natural
religions" seem to be more proficient at (and have been so for thousands of
years).

Actually, scientific explanaitions seem to be particularly *bad* at giving
guidance for action, because they're perfectly detached from any moral aspects.
At best it can lead me to try to achieve what *I* think is best, even if those
thoughts happen to be total rubbish.


> This doesn't mean that, asked a direct question of, "Well,
> what is the answer then.", its not going to be, "I don't know."
>
> This differs from religions.

No, this is not the difference between science and religion - it is instead the
difference between fundamentalism and... well, non-fundamentalism.

Ask any non-fundamentalist christian a tricky question about their faith, and
they'll possibly respond with "I don't know" as well.

Post a reply to this message