Re: Snoke's response

From: Jim Armstrong <>
Date: Sat Aug 13 2005 - 17:59:00 EDT

Well, OK. Science is clearly not the only way to truth, so much so as to
not require any proof for most. Understanding some profound truth about
another person may certainly come through processes other than science.

Some, but certainly not most, claim that science is the only way to
knowledge and truth. Most would think otherwise. Science is certainly
useful for certain kinds of understanding, but the very discipline of
science, in seeking to understand the validity and limitations of the
enquiry, has found and declared that limits exist to what may be known
through its tools. That does not, of course, invalidate what can be know
by this means.

Sscientism (science is the only way to truth) is a very polar position.
Most folks do not live at the poles. They are intrinsically arid,
hostile places and not very supportive of life.

I'm not sure you are implying this, but science is not devoid of ethics,
philosophy or history, though the reverse can certainly be true.

Finally, "proof" really gets down to "sufficiently persuasive". What
constitutes "sufficient" clearly differs a good bit from person to person.


janice matchett wrote:

> At 02:57 PM 8/13/2005, Jim Armstrong wrote:
>> This is no slam dunk. One consideration is that our brains are
>> bicameral, having two separate but communicating physical parts that
>> cooperate to yield a higher composite functionality. Isn't it
>> possible that what is sensed on one side might be monitored by the
>> other in such a way as to know whether this is an internal or
>> externally-stimulated event? JimA
> ### Yeah, that's one consideration.
> Any comment on the other point that's actually quite aa bit more
> important? ie: the point being made under this statement:
> "But there's another point that's actually quite a bit more
> important. ..."
> Janice
>> janice matchett wrote:
>>> At 12:18 PM 8/13/2005, Gregory Arago wrote:
>>>> ... Likewise, if human beings are simply 'natural beings,' then
>>>> everything we say, think, feel or do can be measured, observed,
>>>> heard, tasted or experimented upon as if we are 'only natural' and
>>>> thus limited to a naturalistic paradigm. Somewhere in the equation
>>>> doesn't the non-theism or anti-theism of biological science, or
>>>> even simply of Darwinian evolution, have to be called to account?
>>>> ....."
>>> ### Have you heard about this "experiment", yet?
>>> "...... science has after a fashion demonstrated the soul.
>>> It doesn't have a tremendous amount of evidence there but this is an
>>> interesting thing to ponder. When the brains of some people are
>>> opened they can touch the brain with electrodes to stimulate
>>> different memories and the like.
>>> This is why some people have argued that memories are merely a
>>> chemical kind of response and don't have any relationship to a self,
>>> a separate soul, a person other than the brain.
>>> But when scientists have stimulated part of the brain and the
>>> patient is conscious, the patient can actually tell whether a memory
>>> is being stimulated by the scientist or whether the memory is being
>>> brought forward out of their own consciousness.
>>> They say, "Hey, you did that. I didn't."
>>> This makes a very powerful point. "You stimulated that memory, I
>>> didn't." Who's the "I?"
>>> The "I" was the person inside there, the "I" is the soul.
>>> So there's a distinction between a chemical response that produces a
>>> memory and a volitional response that produces a memory. So it is
>>> not entirely true that there is not scientific evidence for the
>>> existence of the soul because there is some.
>>> But there's another point that's actually quite a bit more important.
>>> That's the fundamental point of whether science is the only road to
>>> truth. And there are actually three different ways to refute that.
>>> And it's very straight forward.
>>> You can almost sum them up under one concept.
>>> The idea is that if science is the only way to truth then science
>>> itself is self-refuting because science is built on a series of
>>> truths that cannot be demonstrated by science but must be in place
>>> even for science to be valid.
>>> For example, is orderliness in the universe an illusion or is that
>>> real?
>>> Is the external world knowable at all?
>>> Are the intellect and the five senses reliable tools to examine the
>>> world?
>>> Are values like "be objective" or "report data honestly" appropriate
>>> in the scientific endeavor?
>>> Is nature basically uniform?
>>> Do numbers in truth exist?
>>> Do the laws of logic apply to reality?
>>> All of these things are non-scientific questions but they relate to
>>> the issue of truth that must necessarily be in place for science
>>> even to be practiced.
>>> So the point I'm making is that if you hold the belief that science
>>> is the only thing that is a measure of truth, then science is in hot
>>> water because science can't justify itself.
>>> Science is not the sole arbiter of truth.
>>> Ethics is another source of truthful information.
>>> Philosophy is another source of truthful information.
>>> History...Do you know that even mathematics is not scientific? Math
>>> is used in science, it underlies science, but you cannot prove math
>>> scientifically.
>>> So the point is this, its an empty claim by Dr. Sagan that the soul
>>> can't exist because no scientific evidence has been produced to
>>> support the idea that there is a soul.
>>> There can be other kinds of evidence that are not merely scientific
>>> yet be very valid. ......." ~ Gregory Koukl
Received on Sat Aug 13 18:00:24 2005

This archive was generated by hypermail 2.1.8 : Sat Aug 13 2005 - 18:00:25 EDT