Odysseus:
Definition of "science" (from Merriam-Webster online dictionary,
http://www.m-w.com ):
"knowledge or a system of knowledge covering general truths or the operation of general laws especially as obtained and tested through scientific method".
Hope that resolves it for you.
<hr>
I doubt that the Pope (John-Paul, currently) has any more authority to discuss religion than Carl Sagan. This is because religion is not a separate discipline; it's a metaphysical philosophy which concerns itself with the origins, past and future of the universe, as well as the nature of human existence. As such, it is not any different from relativistic cosmology. Scratch that; there is a difference after all. One is supported by redundant physical evidence, the other by appeal to authority.
<hr>
You are correct in observing that any systematic explanation of the universe must start with assumed truths, or axioms. It is true that science indeed contains quite a few of those. However, it *is* superior to religion. How dare I presume so??!
The axioms of science lead to verifiable predictions. In that sense,
the axioms of science are indeed verifiable. When you have a theory based on the wrong axioms, you have the theory making the wrong predictions, or being internally inconsistent, and the theory eventually gets disproved through experiment or mathematical contradiction. This is the merit of the scientific establishment: its fundamental axioms have consistently given rise to theories that successfully stand the test of experiment and mathematical scrutiny.
Therefore, the assumptions of science are *not* "founded on nothing but faith". In addition to faith, the assumptions are supported by the corpus of rigorous, robust, cross-replicated experimental knowledge -- which is far more than what I could say about any religion. It's interesting you cite quantum theory -- a scientific theory -- in your argument. Do you think any old set of assumptions, taken on faith, would result in the amazing predictive power and consistency of that theory? Do you really think sheer belief and nothing else gives rise to the empirical success of quantum mechanics??? If so, please explain the connective logic in your claim, because I surely see none!
<hr>
You are right about one thing: science, like any other systematic enterprise, seems incapable of reaching beyond the point of the universe's creation to the ultimate origin of everything. At that point, any guess is as valid as any other. However, starting with the birth of the universe, I claim science has been far more successful in describing and explaining the natural history than any religion whatsoever. So, we are not in the same boat after all. Whereas you are forced (assuming you're Christian) to somehow make peace with the Tower of Babel, I can look to evolution and sociology for an explanation of the human diversity on the planet. Whereas you have no way to conceive of even our own galaxy (never mind the billions of others) within the confines of the Bible -- I can rely on physics and astronomy to open up my horizons.
There is a fundamental difference between our stances on knowledge. I claim that empirical data must form the foundation for any theory, and that theory-driven induction is the only valid way of obtaining knowledge. You reject this position because of your doubts in, ultimately, the validity of induction as an epistemological engine. As your only alternative route to knowledge, you have available the 'truths' passed down to you by previous generations, which, by the way, had even fewer ways of obtaining knowledge than we do -- and certainly no way of accurately preserving any *valid* knowledge they might have obtained.
You are right; I am indeed claiming that the universe is causal, and that its fundamental laws are immutable at least on small timescales. If even one of these assumptions was false, then knowledge per se would be impossible to begin with -- and we wouldn't be having this discussion. Our very conscious existences testify to the fact that inductive learning is the way to go. It's the way we learn to function within the world as children; it's the way evolution shaped lifeforms to be more and more fit to their environment; it's the way scientific theories form and evolve. You can, of course, always stubbornly cling to whatever *superstition* you want -- but I think my position is by far the stronger, because it takes root in the very world within which we exist, and not in some mythos full of stone-age ideas that have clearly been demonstrated to be false.
<hr>
My position is indeed logical, contrary to yours. In case you don't believe me, here's the definition of "logic" (again, from Merriam-Webster):
"a science that deals with the principles and criteria of validity of inference and demonstration : the science of the formal principles of reasoning"
What are the 'principles and criteria of validity' that form a logical argument? Causality is certainly one. Consider, for example, the following pair of logical predicates:
<pre>
a) (1) If (A is true) then (B is true).
(2) A is true; therefore (B is true).
b) (1) If (A is true) then (B is true).
(2) B is true; therefore (A is true).
</pre>
(a) is logically valid; (b) is a fallacy. Here, (a,2) is a causal argument stemming from a theory (a,1). Causality is at the very core of logic. The inductive principle is also inherent in logic. Thus, when one says (A is true), one means that A shall be true forever from now on to the end of the argument -- precisely the type of assumption that science makes about physical laws (at least to the first approximation).
In fact, I'll claim that logical thought could never exist (as logical concepts could never be defined) -- were the universe not deterministically obeying physical laws. Therefore, logic and the concept of 'being logical' are forever tied to science, and the concept of being 'scientific'. So there you are.
<hr>
Again, even though there is no foundation for any claim that the universe wasn't created by a sentient being -- there is every reason to claim that science presents by far the best approximation to the truth of what happened since creation. Because claims of creation invariably stem from some religion, I am hereby claiming that your religion (whatever it is) is by far inferior to science when it comes to answering the age-old questions of origin, fate, and nature of things. So, I'll be staying *on* my high horse for a while, if you don't mind.
As an admitted atheist, I do not deny God in principle. However, I absolutely deny Christian God. As well as a God or Gods stemming from any religion whatsoever. I hope by now my multiple reasons for this are quite clear. And notice that narcissism or hubris do not enter into it. You demonstrate just as much hubris (if not by far more) in proclaiming that you are privy to the Truth with a capital T, and that, of all other sources, your True source is some mystical book. Narcissism? Ha! You don't think it's narcissistic to claim that humans are far above animals and are so very special because of their souls? You don't think it narcissistic to claim that the earth and, what the heck, the entire universe -- were created for our enjoyment? That we -- the barely sentient primitive worms that we are -- are some supreme and final creation above all possible others in the universe? I advise you not to get ad-hominem, because you have no idea what revelations await you if you do...
<hr>
Progress, as is relevant to this discussion, is the increasing volume, complexity, sophistication and range of modern knowledge. It indeed forms a positive growth trend, ever since the beginning of the Dark Ages (at which point, by the way, our beloved religion was responsible for stagnating the progress of knowledge for over a millennium!) If the likes of you, Odysseus, consistently had their way -- we'd still be in the Dark Ages, and would be forever doomed to remain so.
The old theories were not discarded because they were superceded by newer ones. They were discarded because either their predictions or proclamations about the natural world were proven false, or the newer theories explained everything the old ones did, and then some.
It is not the progress of the human heart that we are concerned about when we pit science and religion. It is the progress of human knowledge.
As for the heart -- I would claim that these times are indeed more gentle than times ever were. Yes, we still have wars and crime just as we always had. But at least we don't burn people at the stake, or throw dissenters into dungeons, or lop their tongues and limbs off. We'll see about the future -- perhaps the human heart can yet be tamed through knowledge.
------------------
I am; therefore I think.
[This message has been edited by Boris (edited June 16, 1999).]