On Thu, 14 Mar 2002, Richard Ellam wrote:

> I'd like to keep this discussion going a little longer if you don't mind.

Fine.  Sorry about the delay in replying.  I had to concentrate on
finishing my science week lecture for the local museum.

> Here are some thoughts on your thoughts:
> >
> > <snip>
> >> Science on the other hand makes testable statements about its subject
> >> matter.
> >
> > So does theology and religion.
> Could you give us an example of an objectively testable theological or
> religious statement, and a brief explanation of the methodology which should
> be used to test it?

I can't easily as I'm not a theologian.  But the fact that theology can
exist as a subject at all shows that it has rules for debate and deciding
between competing ideas.  Those rules may not be the same as in science,
and the basic paradigm-which-is-not-to-be-questioned is certainly
different, but if one couldn't decide between theological ideas/statements
then theology would have no internal coherence.

> Scientists assume a real objective
> > physical world exists and can be invesitigated with certain criteria and
> > within certain limits. Theologians believe a god exists and can be
> > investigated with certain criteria and within certain limits.  The
> > criteria nad limits are different, but the structure is remarkably
> > similar.
> Surely not! The thing about a scientific investigation is that it should
> produce the same results if done by any compenent investigator using the
> appropriate apparatus and techniques. I do not see how a theological
> invetigation which is necessarily a metaphysical speculation can possibly
> share these characteristics with a scientific investigation.

Because as I have said there are rules of engagement in both subjects.  If
one evaluates the evidence using the rules of the game then one comes to
a certain conclusion, or reaches a point where the evidence is
inconclusive.  Although theology may have more unresolved debates than
science that does not mean that theology is just speculation.

> > <snip>
>
> Yes,  I suppose these criteria stem from a metaphysical foundation, which is
> the requirement that successive scientific theories, or paradigms in
> Khun-speak are more generally applicable.  This provides a rational test
> between competing paradigms - if A works everywhere that B works, and also
> works in some circumstances where B does not, then surely A is a more
> general paradigm than B?
>
> If on the other hand Paradigms B and C both explain some things adequately,
> but C works sometimes when B fails and vice-versa how do we make a rational
> choice between B and C?

I think this may more often be the case in theology then science, but in
both subjects subjective choices are then made.  I have just completed a
grant application to look at the data behind two competing theories of
human evolution.  The proponents of the two theories are quite certain
that their theory is correct, but there is no final consensus.
Individuals have made choices even though my view is that the state of
affairs is the problem of the rational choice you describe.


On Thu, 14 Mar 2002, Ian Russell quoted someone else:

> >Rather the difference is fundamentally this: a physicist can abandon
all
> >the central beliefs of current physics and still remain a physicist. A
> >priest cannot abandon certain central beliefs without giving up the
> >vocation. Commitment is a virtue in religion - and a sin in science."

I disagree.  There is still a shared set of fundamental metaphysical
beliefs about the existence of the physical world, and our capability to
investigate it, which cannot be given up by a physicist.  Some of these
beliefs have been challenged from outside physics, and responded to, eg.
the Sokal affair http://physics.nyu.edu/faculty/sokal/ .  A priest has a
different set of fundamental beliefs, which may be challenged from outside
his/her religion, and responded to.

As things have gone quiet now it's probably time to shut up about his
particular topic.

Andrew

 =========================================================================
 Dr. Andrew Millard                              [log in to unmask]
 Department of Archaeology, University of Durham,   Tel: +44 191 374 4757
 South Road, Durham. DH1 3LE. United Kingdom.       Fax: +44 191 374 3619
                     http://www.dur.ac.uk/a.r.millard/
 =========================================================================

**********************************************************************

1. To suspend yourself from the list, whilst on leave, for example,
send an email to [log in to unmask] with the following message:

set psci-com nomail

2. To resume email from the list, send the following message:

set psci-com mail

3. To leave psci-com, send an email to [log in to unmask] with the message:

leave psci-com

4. Further information about the psci-com discussion list, including list archive,
can be found at the list web site: http://www.jiscmail.ac.uk/lists/psci-com.html

5. The psci-com gateway to internet resources on science communication and science
and society can be found at http://psci-com.org.uk
**********************************************************************