Re: MD Access to Quality

From: Scott Roberts (
Date: Tue Apr 19 2005 - 04:49:08 BST

  • Next message: Erin: "Re: MD Access to Quality"


    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.

    Ian said:
    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?

    Ian said:
    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.

    Ian said:
    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 -
    Mail Archives:
    Aug '98 - Oct '02 -
    Nov '02 Onward -
    MD Queries -

    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