theophilus

Depending on how you define scientists and what you mean by talking to them, I guess I have.

More to the point, I assume Bertrand Russell had a pretty good idea of what he was talking about. As I said, the rain sample was crude and simplistic, but the point is sound.

In actual practice, it would work something more like this.
Astronomers are trying to determine if a certain event occurred somewhere in the universe's distant past. They "know" that if this event took place, it would have left evidence of a certain kind, e.g., a "red shift." They train their telescopes in the direction where they think this event occurred and look for the "evidence." Finding the red shift (or whatever) they conclude that the event did in fact take place.

Of course, this is all logical nonsense. In order to even have a probability of being true they would have to know at the outset that:
1. The evidence could only have been produced by their event.
2. That their event always produced such evidence.
3. That there are not other factors at work of which they are not aware.

I am always amused when there are announcements that scientists have "discovered" an new astronomic body. Upon reading the details, it is clear that they have discovered nothing. They have observed certain phenomenon which they associate with the behavior (they assume) of planets, etc., and conclude that it is the result of such a planet.

theophilus

Then that "straman" is named Carl Sagan. Sagan, probably the best known scientist of the last quarter of the 20th century was in the habit of making distinctly absolute statemtns:"The Cosmos is all that has ever been and all that ever will be."

Scientists present themselves and their method as the sole discoverers of and custodians of truth. Creationism is not "science" because it is not conform to their naturalistic/materialistic assumptions about the nature of reality.

theophilus

Well, I hope you'll read this since I am answering it.

I don't "suppose" anything about God. I only know what he has chosen to reveal about himself in the bible. I know he is logical because his creation, including human intellect, reflects his character.
His revelation is also a validation of our ability to know and understand (limited) ourselves and our existence.

Mageth

Of course, this is all logical nonsense. In order to even have a probability of being true

Now you're getting it! Science deals more with "probabilities" of truth than pure or absolute Truth.

they would have to know at the outset that:
1. The evidence could only have been produced by their event.

Very strong evidence is required for science to reach that conclusion.

2. That their event always produced such evidence.

Repeatability of an experiment is one of the foundation stones of the scientific method. If it's not repeatable, it's not scientifically accepted.

3. That there are not other factors at work of which they are not aware.

Alternative hypotheses and additional evidence are always possible in science. Scientists strive to come up with new evidence to support (or contradict) hypotheses and/or form a new hypotheses (or, alternatively, adjust an existing hypothesis) to better explain the evidence.

I am always amused when there are announcements that scientists have "discovered" an new astronomic body. Upon reading the details, it is clear that they have discovered nothing. They have observed certain phenomenon which they associate with the behavior (they assume) of planets, etc., and conclude that it is the result of such a planet.

That's what you get for obtaining your scientific knowledge from popular sources. Virtually any scientist would understand that the conclusions are proposed interpretations or hypotheses that fit the data, and that more evidence, or a better hypothesis, may come along.

The above criticisms of Science I see as strengths of the Scientific method. Adjusting hypotheses and theories to fit new evidence, and/or coming up with new or improved hypotheses and theories to better explain the universe, is a strength, not a weakness, of the Scientific method.

theophilus

It is not. That's why I always try to say God and his word. Without revelation, knowledge would be impossible.

Basic knowledge of God is possible through his creation (General Revelation), i.e., his power and diety, but particular knowlege of him and his creation is only possible through his word (Special Revelation).

Philosoft

I heard you the first time. What I'm asking is why is this so? Why is "knowledge without revelation" a contradiction?
And all perfectly consistent with your theology, I'm sure. Now, how do you get from here to "knowledge without revelation" is a contradiction?

theophilus

Here's the problem and why you'll never improve the situation by qualifing termonology. In order to make a meaningful statement about anything, any "fact" you must know that fact exhaustively and you must know every other fact exhaustively because facts do now exist by themselves.

In science (I should always qualify "naturalistic/materialistic science, but that is annoying), you'd have to know all the properties of matter, motion, etc. and all the possible interactions of those things in relationship to each other throughout space and time including absolute knowledge of the observer.

Such knowledge is clearly impossible. Therefore science can make no meaningful statements about the nature of things. Honest statements would have to be so qualified that they would be worthless.

"We think we observed X which appears to have resulted in Y. However, it is impossible to draw any conclusions about any relationship between these two phenomenon or whether they even happened."

This is why science must presuppose that what the bible says about God and his creation is true, even while denying it.

theophilus

I'm sorry, I don't recall saying "knowledge without revelation is a contradiction." I have said (and you'll need to read my posts for an explanation) that knowledge is impossible without revelation. Whitout some authoritative statements about the nature of reality, which can clearly not come through mere observation, no knowledge is possible.

Yet, people do have knowledge. HOw is that possible? It is because they operate on a Christian worldview even while denying it.

I hope that's a sufficient answer.

Mageth

Then that "straman" is named Carl Sagan. Sagan, probably the best known scientist of the last quarter of the 20th century was in the habit of making distinctly absolute statemtns:"The Cosmos is all that has ever been and all that ever will be."

To be correct, the quote is "The Cosmos is all that is or ever was or ever will be."

And it's still a strawman. Are we talking about Sagan or the scientific method here?

Sagan is in this case making a philosophicalstatement, not a scientific claim. I assume the statement is based upon his understanding of science and perhaps other factors. In any case, he was not speaking for Science in general. Further, Sagan was more respectful of religion than many other scientists.

Further, if the cosmos is defined to include every imaginable entity, then the statement is trivially true. Not to mention a tautology: "everything there is is everything there is."

Some other philosophical statements Sagan made:

"I believe that the extraordinary should be pursued.
But extraordinary claims require extraordinary evidence."

"Absence of evidence is not evidence of absence" (this seems to contradict the qoute you mentioned).

"It is far better to grasp the Universe as it really is than to persist in delusion, however satisfying and reassuring." (I like this one. If you're a fan of Sagan's, perhaps you should take it to heart. Of course, it could be read to cut both ways.)

"Science is a way of thinking much more than it is a body of knowledge."

Scientists present themselves and their method as the sole discoverers of and custodians of truth.

A generalization, and obviously not true for all scientists

Creationism is not "science" because it is not conform to their naturalistic/materialistic assumptions about the nature of reality.

Creationism is not science simply because it does not conform to the scientific method. Science can only deal with reality by definition.

theophilus

Interesting that you would see these as "strengths" when, if consistently followed to it's logical conclusion, it woudl mean that science can never claim to "know" anything. Not just that it doesn't know things perfectly but, because of the inherently speculative nature of it's explainations, it can never and will never arrive at any knowledge at all.

That is, of course, unless it begins with assumptoins about the nature of reality which it cannot possibly know apart from an authoritative communication from some outside the system.