RE: What distinguishes a fantasy book from the bible?
August 5, 2011 at 10:14 pm
(This post was last modified: August 5, 2011 at 10:58 pm by Ant.)
@ edk141 : *Why* do you believe that logic and mathematics transcend time and nature? Why can we not regard each as an internally consistent human construct based on formalising rational argument or reifying counting? Why invoke some kind of Platonic ideal?
It strikes me that several posters are throwing around “logical proof” a lot re science. In fact science does not *prove* anything, but continually seeks to falsify or validate hypotheses, hypotheses which are based on empirical evidence and have empirically testable predictions, to build theories and models that provide the best explanation of reality in light of our current state of empirical knowledge. All theories and models — and scientific “laws” — are in principle tentative and may be revised or discarded in light of new empirical evidence. Hence, science only appraches “the Truth” asymptotically. However, some theories (e.g. evolution, quantum theory, gravity) are so comprehensively validated, that to regard them as untrue, to expect that they might be wholly discarded, is irrational. Note also that some old models are still valid within certain bounds. Newtonian gravitation is still an applicable model for most quotidian purposes.
Empirical evidence is not restricted to our own (imperfect) senses. We can use instruments to extend the kinds of evidence that is available to us. Thus, it is no harder for a blind person to empirically demonstrate the existence of light than it is for a sighted person to empirically demonstrate the existence of ultrasound. (However, they could never experience the *quality* of light as a sighted person can, but that is quite another matter.)
Philosophical naturalism grounds the scientific method. While Statler and others might argue that it is not logically proven, we can take it as a hypothesis; and because we are having this conversation (that is, because science works!), it is a hypothesis that has been consistently validated. Yes, it might be falsified if some supernatural hypothesis is validated, but, well, that hasn’t happened yet.
The question is, is any supernatural hypothesis coherent? The very word suggests that it is outside the purview of science, but really, that’s the point. It was coined to provide a refuge for the things supposed to be “beyond” science.
Nevertheless, if a “supernatural” entity exists and intercedes in the natural world — such intercession including any kind of communication with us — then it must have natural effects that are amenable to scientific inquiry. The fact that we see no evidence for such effects anywhere in the world or cosmos, at any time, does not falsify the hypothesis, but makes holding the hypothesis valid irrational. This applies equally to ghosts, fairies, Thor, Zeus, the Abrahamic God, Santa Claus, and so on.
Of course, if a “supernatural” entity exists but doesn’t intercede in the natural world (as in deism), that is beyond scientific inquiry, but, then, why should we care?
On a completely different topic, returning to the OP, the fact that the Bible contains a mixture of formats (poems, proverbs, biography, etc.) doesn’t disqualify it from being a fantasy book, in the same way that Ursula K. LeGuin’s _Always Coming Home_ is not not a science-fiction book.
This was my first post here. Thank you.
/@
Which kind of multiverse(s) are you thinking about here, Statler?
/@
It strikes me that several posters are throwing around “logical proof” a lot re science. In fact science does not *prove* anything, but continually seeks to falsify or validate hypotheses, hypotheses which are based on empirical evidence and have empirically testable predictions, to build theories and models that provide the best explanation of reality in light of our current state of empirical knowledge. All theories and models — and scientific “laws” — are in principle tentative and may be revised or discarded in light of new empirical evidence. Hence, science only appraches “the Truth” asymptotically. However, some theories (e.g. evolution, quantum theory, gravity) are so comprehensively validated, that to regard them as untrue, to expect that they might be wholly discarded, is irrational. Note also that some old models are still valid within certain bounds. Newtonian gravitation is still an applicable model for most quotidian purposes.
Empirical evidence is not restricted to our own (imperfect) senses. We can use instruments to extend the kinds of evidence that is available to us. Thus, it is no harder for a blind person to empirically demonstrate the existence of light than it is for a sighted person to empirically demonstrate the existence of ultrasound. (However, they could never experience the *quality* of light as a sighted person can, but that is quite another matter.)
Philosophical naturalism grounds the scientific method. While Statler and others might argue that it is not logically proven, we can take it as a hypothesis; and because we are having this conversation (that is, because science works!), it is a hypothesis that has been consistently validated. Yes, it might be falsified if some supernatural hypothesis is validated, but, well, that hasn’t happened yet.
The question is, is any supernatural hypothesis coherent? The very word suggests that it is outside the purview of science, but really, that’s the point. It was coined to provide a refuge for the things supposed to be “beyond” science.
Nevertheless, if a “supernatural” entity exists and intercedes in the natural world — such intercession including any kind of communication with us — then it must have natural effects that are amenable to scientific inquiry. The fact that we see no evidence for such effects anywhere in the world or cosmos, at any time, does not falsify the hypothesis, but makes holding the hypothesis valid irrational. This applies equally to ghosts, fairies, Thor, Zeus, the Abrahamic God, Santa Claus, and so on.
Of course, if a “supernatural” entity exists but doesn’t intercede in the natural world (as in deism), that is beyond scientific inquiry, but, then, why should we care?
On a completely different topic, returning to the OP, the fact that the Bible contains a mixture of formats (poems, proverbs, biography, etc.) doesn’t disqualify it from being a fantasy book, in the same way that Ursula K. LeGuin’s _Always Coming Home_ is not not a science-fiction book.
This was my first post here. Thank you.
/@
(August 5, 2011 at 4:39 pm)Statler Waldorf Wrote: … multi-verses exist …
Which kind of multiverse(s) are you thinking about here, Statler?
/@
