> > So, do you also adhere to Kuhn's Eurocentrism and ignore the
> > non-Hellenistic influence of other cultures on the history of
> > science? I'll remind you that the reason the cradles of
> > science--specifically the Middle East--fell behind is because
> > of one thing: religion.
> RAY: the part that I embrace is paradigm shifts through
> empirical falsification--the data driven part.
Except for one thing: Maybe paradigms as you and Kuhn describe aren't nearly as entrenched as believed. Science is constantly revising its theories as new evidence is discovered. We only hear about the most stubborn: geocentrism, plate tectonics, climate change, Clovis First.
> RAY: Caltech's motto is "The truth shall make you free."
> Do you honestly think that they are making a philosophical
Yes. Freedom is also a philosophical concept.
> > I do not view God as a Creator of any kind. The logical
> > failures of such a position are just too much.
> RAY; As a scientist, I agree. As a Christian, I strongly
And your faith is stronger than your common sense. No offense, Ray, but you'd have a really hard time in a hard science. Not that there aren't people in those sciences that aren't spiritual or religious; there are. But they don't wear it on their sleeves. It's kind of hard to disbelieve evolution when you see it happening in front of your eyes every day. Or that the rings of Saturn have a natural explanation that can be accounted for by the laws of physics.
Think Spinoza and that more or less encapsulates what I believe. I don't distinguish between God and the natural world. God doesn't have intelligence, or personality (much less being a narcissistic egomaniac as he is in the OT), or intent, plans, or purposes for us, and there's no way he could love or hate anyone.
> RAY: that's essentially "intelligent design." I don't like
> that as much, but I can accept it to some extent.
No, it's not "intelligent design" in any sense. There is no intelligent force driving it at all. It's simply that our universe obeys the laws of physics as dictated by this particular universe (assuming other universes exist). We exist in it because we evolved to its conditions.
> RAY; The concept of Creator and Intelligent Design are things
> that I sense spiritually--not things that I could even begin to
> test with data.
That's the problem. It can't be tested. That's not the reason I reject it, though. And I do allow for the possibility that I could be wrong--I never could make the leap into pure atheism, so I sit comfortably on the altar of agnosticism. Could there be a creator? Sure. The probability for or against never reaches zero, after all. I just don't see why there HAS to be one.
> So, I sort of both agree and disagree--I am a Gemini, you know.
There's a scary thought. LOL So am I. :O: