From: Scott Roberts (firstname.lastname@example.org)
Date: Tue Apr 19 2005 - 04:49:08 BST
Scott, you said
The doctrine of transubstantiation does not declare
that something that science can measure has been changed. If you are going
to say that there is conflict because science cannot detect Christ in the
bread and wine, then you would have to say that art and science are in
conflict because science cannot detect the beauty of a painting.
I say, I despair ...
This is the theistic fallacy of science, a caricature, but not science
99% of things in the world can not be proven (and 100% cannot be
disproven) by scientific test methods. Science is based on doubt,
supported by plausible explanation. Not - "I can't demonstrate that by
a test - so I'll explain it by divine magic."
DMB claimed there is a conflict between religion (specifically theism) and
science. I ask for an example (excluding fundamentalists). Anthony gives
transubstantiation. I ask where they conflict. I am not saying that
transubstantiation is true (I don't hold with it). I am only pointing out
that science has nothing to say in the matter. Hence there is no conflict.
Isn't that your position as well?
Science wouldn't presume to say anything about "beauty" or aesthetics,
It could say someting about "objective" qualities of the art work and
it's processes, if asked, but the person asking would be missing the
points of both art and science.
Precisely my point. It applies to religion as well, as long as religion
doesn't claim things that science *can* say something about it. Science can
only deal with the inorganic. Art and religion deal with the moral and the
transcendent. It took a while for theism to learn this lesson, but it did
(always excluding the fundamentalists). Now it is time for the scientific
materialists and naturalists to learn the lesson.
As to the rest of this thread, I find myself returning to my plea from
a year ago that religion and global politics of war be banned from
this forum - they're far too complicated for either science or
doctrine-based causal explanations They depend primarily on whose
version of history you believe. That's in the memes.
Back to basics please.
I'd say this is about as basic as it gets. Are you suggesting that we should
not discuss anything that questions your beliefs?
- Scott R
MOQ.ORG - http://www.moq.org
Aug '98 - Oct '02 - http://alt.venus.co.uk/hypermail/moq_discuss/
Nov '02 Onward - http://www.venus.co.uk/hypermail/moq_discuss/summary.html
MD Queries - email@example.com
To unsubscribe from moq_discuss follow the instructions at:
This archive was generated by hypermail 2.1.5 : Tue Apr 19 2005 - 04:52:31 BST