A few points:

"From: Museum discussion list [mailto:[log in to unmask]] On
Behalf Of Nina Stoyan-Rosenzweig

... But the bottom line is that the entire structure of their
discipline,
the way that science addresses problem solving means that it is entirely
different from religions.  Science addresses how- religion addresses
why."


So are you saying, Nina, that a scientist couldn't tell me WHY I'm
hungry, and a Judea-Christian couldn't say HOW the world came to be?
(We'll leave the ultimate truth of either answer outside this
conversation.) It sounds a bit like you're speaking more narrowly about
relating ethics/morality to religion and/or science. Religion doesn't
have a monopoly on ethics. If you're a strict scientist, following no
religion, then you're ethics have to be based on something. Most folks
base their ethics on how they perceive reality. Most scientists base
their view of reality on science, so why can't science answer why?
Again, perhaps science cannot yet satisfactorily answer some "why"
questions, but that doesn't mean it can't. Why shouldn't I kill someone,
because as a scientist I know that I am one of many organisms that exist
in a social context, upon which our survival depends. It's not in my
interest to kill another human (or most other things for that matter).
That's an ethical solution based on what I can observe and test in the
natural world. It answers "why."

I'll agree with you that science and religions have a very different
PROCESS for how they answer some fundamental questions, but I'll differ
with you on whether they are trying to answer the same questions. Why do
we care about how the universe began--about the Big Bang? Isn't it at
least partially because we're simply curious about where we came from?
Aren't religious creation myths trying to answer the same question, for
really the same reason (if one among many reasons)? And the Big Bang
theory tells us HOW the universe came about; don't religions do the same
thing. Maybe I'm just not getting your point?


From Nina: "...People can turn to a variety of means of speculating
about the meaning of scientific discoveries, they can explore the sense
of wonder that the universe and its laws arouses in their heart and
soul.  But when they do so they are moving into an entirely different
realm of human endeavor.  They are going from science to religion."


I find your second to last sentence from the quote a bit paradoxical. If
you believe in science, shouldn't it be capable of explaining everything
(even if we aren't capable of following the science ourselves... yet)?
How can you have the natural (scientific) world on one hand and the
emotional/spiritual world on the other? It's all the same world/reality
isn't it? Unless you do have a religious belief that humans are
something other than part of the natural world, everything about us is a
part of that natural world, including our thoughts, our emotions, and
our "spirits," if such a thing exists (I don't buy it, but a lot of
folks do, and it's a nice idea). Therefore, all should be explainable by
science. We just can't do it yet. It seems like if you try to separate
our reality into two realms as you're wanting to do, you're on as shaky
ground as the ID'ers (just in different ways and on different topics).


And on to the next:

" From: Museum discussion list [mailto:[log in to unmask]] On
Behalf Of Mark Janzen
... Science is simply a logical exploration of what is..."


Another way of saying "what is" is "reality." Add any title you want in
the place of "science, and you have a nicely precise definition of
Metaphysics (going back to an earlier thought of mine). Sorry this was a
perfect situation to use someone else's thought to make my own point. 


From Mark: "... It [science] provides understanding and utility within
the physical world, but it completely ignores anything that can not be
understood through testing and observation."


I'll tie in my last line of thought with this thought of yours, Mark. If
you're basing your perception of reality on a process that simply
ignores what it can't (currently) test and observe, isn't that a poor
system for explaining your reality? Again, like Nina, you seem to imply
that there are two worlds we're experiencing simultaneously. The one we
can test and observe and some other world we cannot. Don't you think
there are a lot of things we cannot currently test and/or observe, but
of which we're aware? Do you really think science should just ignore
those phenomena? Again, I have more faith that science is capable of
explaining everything; it's just a matter of us learning enough that we
can do the test and observation you propose.

If science isn't the complete tool for understanding reality that I
think it is, then isn't it as ultimately useless as religious myths? At
least as far as enabling humans to fully explore and understand their
reality? And what is the point really of science, what's its "telos"? I
understand that the scientific process itself is neutral to an ultimate
end, but would that process exist if we didn't have a goal in mind? Are
scientists just doing they're thing because the process is there so they
had best follow it? Or are they doing it because they are searching for
something? Kinda like religions are searching for something. Difference
is the neutral process of testing on one hand (science) and some process
of divinely gifted knowledge on the other (religion).


What do you think?

tim

=========================================================
Important Subscriber Information:

The Museum-L FAQ file is located at http://www.finalchapter.com/museum-l-faq/ . You may obtain detailed information about the listserv commands by sending a one line e-mail message to [log in to unmask] . The body of the message should read "help" (without the quotes).

If you decide to leave Museum-L, please send a one line e-mail message to [log in to unmask] . The body of the message should read "Signoff Museum-L" (without the quotes).