science = determinism?

kenneth Collins kpaulc at earthlink.net
Sat Nov 27 05:54:36 EST 1999


Tim Dixon wrote:

> On Wed, 24 Nov 1999 08:15:19 -0800, Will Dwinnell
> <predictor at compuserve.com> wrote:
>
> >Frank Buckler wrote:
> >"All science have to make the asumtion thats its object is
> >deterministic. If e.g. psychology does not, it leave the scientific path
> >and enters religion."
> >
> >I (Will Dwinnell) wrote:
> >"Science is the study of reality.  If reality is found to contain some
> >random component, then shouldn't the above assumption be labeled dogma
> >and the insistence on that assumption be 'religious'?"
> >
> >Frank Buckler responded:
> >"Science tries to explain reality. The word "explain" contain the
> >assumtion that there are some kind of determinism. The expierence of
> >random, das not mean that there is no determinism. It only says that we
> >can not explain it (till now)."
> >
> >My point is that this belief that there is no randomness in reality is
> >an assumption.
> >
>
> It is also an assumption that reality doesn't include a religious or
> spiritual component.

detirminism doesn't exclude God, it does just the opposite. if God is to be
able to control anything then the Universe must be deterministic, else
there'd be something in it that God couldn't control.

all there has to be are many degrees of freedom, as in deterministic chaos,
so many that things seem 'unpredictable', except to God.

ken

>  I find it curious that athiests complain about
> scripture because it presumes the existence of God, and then presume
> the lack of existence on the grounds that proof is not available one
> way or the other.
>
> Great scientists throughout history (from Aristotle to Keplar and
> Newton) had generally assumed that the world includes a spiritual,
> non-physical component and that no study of reality is complete
> without at least considering that possibility.








More information about the Neur-sci mailing list