RE: Science vs. Theology

From: Don Perrett <donperrett@genesisproclaimed.org>
Date: Wed Apr 13 2005 - 23:32:41 EDT

Dave,
While I would agree on certain issues, what one would call a truth is
actually an opinion. But if I told you the sun was the sun. Would you say
this was my opinion. The only thing that could be debated the use of the
word or the language being used. One cannot debate whether there in
fact/truth there is a sun or not. To do so, would mean that nothing could
be proven. Even science relies on instruments to measure things. If the
reason for measuring something is to find out how or why it behaves a
certain way, this is acceptable. And with time and sufficiently acceptable
proof, one then can call the theory truth. If one is trying to measure
something which can be detected by natural means (senses) then you can no
longer rely on the instrument itself than the thing being measured. How do
you know that anything actually exists. Must all things be measures and
analyzed before determining its true existence, or are there things which
can be easily determined (just by looking) to be true? If so, then you have
just agreed with my original point.

Don P

-----Original Message-----
From: D. F. Siemens, Jr. [mailto:dfsiemensjr@juno.com]
Sent: Wednesday, April 13, 2005 3:57 PM
To: donperrett@genesisproclaimed.org
Cc: bdffoster@charter.net; asa@calvin.edu
Subject: Re: Science vs. Theology

On Wed, 13 Apr 2005 00:05:42 -0400 "Don Perrett"
<donperrett@genesisproclaimed.org> writes:
> Hi Brent,
  A truth by very definition is actual and
> real, and
> thus needs no proof. The concept of science is to understand the
> means,
> process and sometimes purpose of a truth.

Don,
I have no idea where you got the notion that truth needs no proof,
especially when your next sentence indicates that you are speaking of
truths. As a logician, I have proved no end of logical or necessary
truths and, as a philosopher, defended some intuitive truths. Even /ipse
dixit/ is a kind of proof, though usually problematic. We take direct
experience as fundamental, but even there we have to show--usually by
implicit assumption--that the experience is not the result of
hallucination or optical illusion or, as with seeing stars, something
quite other than sensation. Without some sort of proof, what is left
approximates the well-known "I'm right, and if you don't think I'm right,
just ask me and I'll tell you how right I am."

I think again of Peirce's comment that everyone will agree that human
beings are fallible, but always make exception of themselves in THIS
instance.
Dave
Received on Wed Apr 13 23:35:13 2005

This archive was generated by hypermail 2.1.8 : Wed Apr 13 2005 - 23:35:15 EDT