Author
|
Topic: RE: virus: religion versus science - the attempt of a synthesis. (Read 895 times) |
|
DrSebby
Archon
Gender: 
Posts: 456
Reputation: 8.07
Rate DrSebby
...Oh, you smell of lambs!
     
  
|
 |
RE: virus: religion versus science - the attempt of a synthesis.
« on: 2004-10-20 20:54:41 » |
 |
...my generalized response to the religion question is as follows:
...if you consider one religion, you must consider all religions.
...if you consider all religions, you must consider that many/most
contradict all the others
...all religions are based on faith, therefore, w/o rules for devising them,
the # of possible religions is infinite.
...if the number of possible religions is both infinite and entirely faith
dependant, then it is impossible due to the time constraints of a lifetime
to consider any of them as being true or false...or indeed to consider them
at all.
...therefore, atheists should never be expected to have to defend or explain
their position. to do so in the face of an infinite number of contradicting
beliefs entirely lacking of evidence is not just futile, it is stupid.
drsebby.
----Original Message Follows----
From: "Gorogh" <gorogh@pallowrun.de>
Reply-To: virus@lucifer.com
To: <virus@lucifer.com>
Subject: virus: religion versus science - the attempt of a synthesis.
Date: Wed, 20 Oct 2004 17:55:10 +0200
... to deduce a new, better thesis to discuss.
The difference between (objects of) religious belief and (objects of)
scientific belief is non-existent in an objective, categorical sense. My
proposed solution as to how to judge the difference between religion and
faith – apart from the correct but (as I just said) epistemologically
refutable proposition of the objects of religious belief being unfalsifiable
etc. – is as follows, devised to suppress the principally (not practically,
as most of us will agree) correct response that “science is just another
form of faith”.
The difference is not categorical but dimensional, a spectrum supposedly
ranging from [passive belief/acceptance] to [active questioning/doubt]. I
shall call this spectrum “inquisitiveness” (tendency to be inquisitive).
Inquisitiveness differs not only interindividually, but also
intraindividually – by this I mean, that a person can be, in regard to a
particular topic (of any solution (narrow or general), probably correlated
with the amount of knowledge about the topic), very inquisitive – e.g., in
regard to “faith in the correctness of mass media broadcasting” (“This guy
writes nothing but bullshit!!” “Even the news are fake (by the
Illuminati)!”). In regard to “faith in the bible”, a person might, AT THE
SAME TIME, have a very low inquisitiveness (“whatever is written, it’s the
word of God, we cannot doubt it”). Or vice versa; the examples are
arbitrary.
Intraindividuality also refers to stability in time, i.e. e.g., if I am
sceptical about the bible today, I might not be so tomorrow and accept it
whole-heartedly the day after.
Inquisitiveness encompasses the realm of self-criticism, that is, the
ability to question one’s own opinions, experiences, insights etc.
Self-criticism is a ability on a meta-level. The more self-critical a person
is, that is, the stronger his or her (meta-)inquisitiveness, the more that
person will doubt his or her own experience. Probable (inverse) correlations
with self-confidence are not explicitly proposed but not denied either.
Furthermore, this tendency obviously is dependent on capacity. The better a
person is able to integrate information to abstract units, and the more
units a person can keep present in his or her working memory at the same
time, the “deeper” questions the person can ask. Persons with a low capacity
do not “get as far” (I am conscious of the implications; btw, this is not
arrogant, I am trying to be descriptive).
„To non-believe“ would become „rather questioning than believing/doubting
than accepting”, “to believe” would become “rather believing than
questioning/rather accepting than doubting” – nota bene, always in regard to
the topics discussed.
In an average „believer”/“non-believer”-discussion, which topics are these?
Basically, the topics are drawn from the whole spectrum covered by
philosophy: Metaphysics, cosmology, ontology, ethics et cetera.
[I am explicitly excluding epistemology, because imho, it would eventually
lead to nihilism, and we should only run the danger of conjuring it if we
disagree that we CAN have insight into reality. The above attempted
synthesis probably even tries to cut loose the “inquisitiveness” from
epistemology and draw it unto a more behavioural basis. We (I am referring
to “believers” and “non-believers”) are not left with many alternatives, if
we want to have meaningful conversation. Granted, to question
inquisitiveness is impossible without subscribing to it, it is thus a
circular, but imho plausible and pragmatic explanatory model.]
My argument is, that religions give answers in regard to all of these topics
which CAN be further questioned/doubted, while the scientific method
declares questioning to its cardinal virtue and will celebrate it ad
aeternitas. My argument is, that faith ALWAYS falls short of explanation,
ALWAYS judges prematurely.
[Why I would welcome the death of religion – thus, the question of my
opinion’s pragmatic implications – I will discuss at another time, just so
much: IF we want to lead a life as I deem it good, THEN we must communicate;
THE LESS prejudice exist on either side, THE BETTER communication will work;
premature judgement EQUALS prejudice; all in all: religious faith hinders
communication]
Metaphysics/cosmology: Religion: en to archä ho logos, In the beginning was
the word and that means God etc. Amen.
Metaphysics/cosmology: Science: We do not know what was there in the
beginning, but we have certain clues... matter/energy apparently cannot
become more or less... thus, it must have been there all the time... the
universe seems to expand... hmmm, well, we have the hypothesis that etc.
Ontology: Science: Hmm… we have many species that have died out... this
birch-butterfly’s (what the hell I don’t know the English word...) black
mutant’s relative reproductive success correlates with the blackening of
these birches due to soot emitted by these factories... how come?...
evolution, natural selection and such, yes, a good idea for the present...
and apart from evolution, what about abiogenesis?... well, no idea...
coincidence? we don’t know, but we’re working at it...
Ontology: Religion: God created the world in six days. Amen.
Ethics: Religion: We should behave in this way because thus it is written
here in the bible. Amen.
Ethics: Science: We don’t make any normative statements. Make up your own
ethics – we cannot force you to, but from our viewpoint: Take care to make
it as consensual and provisional as our theories are.
So far – thanks for reading, I probably wouldn’t have!
:-D
Any opinions on this?
Björn
---
To unsubscribe from the Virus list go to
<http://www.lucifer.com/cgi-bin/virus-l>
_________________________________________________________________
Don't just search. Find. Check out the new MSN Search!
http://search.msn.com/
---
To unsubscribe from the Virus list go to <http://www.lucifer.com/cgi-bin/virus-l>
|
"courage and shuffle the cards..."
|
|
|
hell-kite
Initiate
Gender:
Posts: 73
Reputation: 5.03
Rate hell-kite
feed me!
|
|
Re: virus: religion versus science - the attempt of a synthesis.
« Reply #1 on: 2004-10-21 03:28:16 » |
|
Good Morning!
Dr. Sebby, your comment makes perfect sense to me and always made it.
Somehow, for my logical positivist's broken heart (thanks for that one,
Len), the
<snip>...therefore, atheists should never be expected to have to defend or
explain
their position. to do so in the face of an infinite number of contradicting
beliefs entirely lacking of evidence is not just futile, it is
stupid.</snip>
seems to compel me to answer, though.
I do not - of course not, says dissonance theory - believe that it is futile
or stupid to try to individually contradict people we believe to be wrong. I
do not believe it is futile or stupid to individually communicate with
people. Even if there were billions of believers out there (are there?!
argh!!), both intellectually but also pragmatically I would try to think
about arguments (well, in the state of mind I've been in for the past few
weeks, that is) to REACH them, arguments they will listen to.
Your argument makes sense to me, but most of "them" will not agree to that -
most likely, they won't agree with me either, but how much more likely is it
you change your opinion in the face of contrary but obviously hand-made
arguments that refer to specific problems, instead of killer-arguments that
don't seem to do you any individual justice at all?
In talking with fellow non-believers, I might use that kind of argument, or
even as polemics to arouse a certain response in the people who actually
read it. But recently, I had to come up with a different kind of heuristic
for devising arguments.
Am I making any sense? Besides, does the original post make any sense?
Apologetic,
Björn
---
To unsubscribe from the Virus list go to <http://www.lucifer.com/cgi-bin/virus-l>
|
Othello. Thou dost conspire against thy friend, Iago,
If thou but think'st him wrong'd, and mak'st his ear
A stranger to thy thoughts.
|
|
|
hell-kite
Initiate
Gender:
Posts: 73
Reputation: 5.03
Rate hell-kite
feed me!
|
|
Re: virus: religion versus science - the attempt of a synthesis.
« Reply #2 on: 2004-10-21 04:09:52 » |
|
Second Reply to Dr. Sebby.
Besides - will I cause a terrible outcry with that? -, science is based on
faith, too.
Before you stone me, note that even science does have its axioms,
that-which-it-cannot-transcend. We have to make certain epistemological
presuppositions in order to give our perceptions any validity at all, and
this IS a matter of faith.
What I imply with the starting post of this thread, it is a quantitatively
different kind of faith, it goes back to
that-which-you-cannot-transcend-TRULY, while religion stops short before
reaching this point. But there is no qualitative difference, both are on the
same spectrum. We HAVE to realise this.
Still, I believe it to be CONVENIENT and VALID to propose a qualitative
difference, since religion and science are SO FAR APART. But this is
arbitrary. It is an artificial dichotomy. Where is the cut-off? At 50%
inquisitiveness? Or some other figure? Your choice.
Now go ahead - let the man who's free from sin...
Björn
---
To unsubscribe from the Virus list go to <http://www.lucifer.com/cgi-bin/virus-l>
|
Othello. Thou dost conspire against thy friend, Iago,
If thou but think'st him wrong'd, and mak'st his ear
A stranger to thy thoughts.
|
|
|
rhinoceros
Archon
Gender:
Posts: 1318
Reputation: 8.06
Rate rhinoceros
My point is ...
|
|
Re: virus: religion versus science - the attempt of a synthesis.
« Reply #3 on: 2004-10-21 05:32:49 » |
|
[Dr Sebby]
<snip>
> ...if the number of possible religions is both infinite and entirely
> faith dependant, then it is impossible due to the time constraints of a
> lifetime to consider any of them as being true or false...or indeed to
> consider them at all.
> ...therefore, atheists should never be expected to have to defend or
> explain their position. to do so in the face of an infinite number of
> contradicting beliefs entirely lacking of evidence is not just futile,
> it is stupid.
<end snip>
[rhinoceros]
It seems to me that for the very same reason it is more practical for
atheists to explain their position than try to refute the countless
intangible religious positions.
Also, if we see religion as spackling paste (Eliezer's term) which is
there to "make whole" a person's (or a whole communities') understanding
of the word by filling in the gaps with manageable bullshit, it is up to
the atheist to replace that spackling paste with testable stuff. Nobody
likes to be left with gaping holes in their view of the world, and
science has been replacing this spackling paste for centuries, at least
since Galileo.
In another recent thread, the question came up of how rationality is to
be promoted. The tragedy of rationality is that it is often costly: The
tools of science (such as higher maths and understanding what an
experiment in a particle accelerator really means) may need years of
education, and popular accounts are less than the real thing. Even so,
with education, we are proceeding towards a better common understanding
of the world.
---
To unsubscribe from the Virus list go to <http://www.lucifer.com/cgi-bin/virus-l>
|
|
|
|
|
rhinoceros
Archon
Gender:
Posts: 1318
Reputation: 8.06
Rate rhinoceros
My point is ...
|
|
Re: virus: religion versus science - the attempt of a synthesis.
« Reply #4 on: 2004-10-21 06:55:22 » |
|
[Gorogh]
> Before you stone me, note that even science does have its axioms,
> that-which-it-cannot-transcend. We have to make certain epistemological
> presuppositions in order to give our perceptions any validity at all, and
> this IS a matter of faith.
[rhinoceros]
In science, axioms come and go. Immediate perception is only affected by
our physical and technological limitations and by the categorizations we
tend to do; indirect perception can be affected by the current theories
and models to a higher degree, but the main epistemological
presupposition is none else than consistency in predictions.
---
To unsubscribe from the Virus list go to <http://www.lucifer.com/cgi-bin/virus-l>
|
|
|
|
|
simul
Adept
Gender:
Posts: 614
Reputation: 7.53
Rate simul
I am a lama.
|
|
Re: virus: religion versus science - the attempt of a synthesis.
« Reply #5 on: 2004-10-24 14:55:50 » |
|
I agree, there is a component of faith in all generative philisophical thesis - even science. It's really a matter of what future do you want to create, not a matter of what is “correct”. Being someone who has prospered from studying and implementing tools of science, I am a natural proponent. Others have prospered under different core philosophies.
IMHO, science is the “deepest” faith. It is a faith in the true God, the God that is, by definition, the Universe itself, the God that “speaks” to us, insomuch as our perceptions are able to read “his” influences. If you define God in this way, you can re-read any Biblical text in the light of a scientific worldview.
“God speaks to me” translates to “My brain has interpreted some perceivable event as proviting insight into the nature and workings of the Universe”
I wonder if this is how the Bible got started. Someone sat down and thought about science, realized that the only master entity was the Universe itself and wrote about it.
Then someone came along and converted the “scare qoutes” to all-caps....
And it was all downhill from there...
-----Original Message-----
From: "Gorogh" <gorogh@pallowrun.de>
Date: Thu, 21 Oct 2004 10:09:52
To:<virus@lucifer.com>
Subject: Re: virus: religion versus science - the attempt of a synthesis.
Second Reply to Dr. Sebby.
Besides - will I cause a terrible outcry with that? -, science is based on
faith, too.
Before you stone me, note that even science does have its axioms,
that-which-it-cannot-transcend. We have to make certain epistemological
presuppositions in order to give our perceptions any validity at all, and
this IS a matter of faith.
What I imply with the starting post of this thread, it is a quantitatively
different kind of faith, it goes back to
that-which-you-cannot-transcend-TRULY, while religion stops short before
reaching this point. But there is no qualitative difference, both are on the
same spectrum. We HAVE to realise this.
Still, I believe it to be CONVENIENT and VALID to propose a qualitative
difference, since religion and science are SO FAR APART. But this is
arbitrary. It is an artificial dichotomy. Where is the cut-off? At 50%
inquisitiveness? Or some other figure? Your choice.
Now go ahead - let the man who's free from sin...
Björn
---
To unsubscribe from the Virus list go to <http://www.lucifer.com/cgi-bin/virus-l>
---
To unsubscribe from the Virus list go to <http://www.lucifer.com/cgi-bin/virus-l>
|
First, read Bruce Sterling's "Distraction", and then read http://electionmethods.org.
|
|
|
|
Logged
