[MD] Debate on Science_ReligionToday

[Laird Bedore]

Science is an intellectual religion. It is a massive framework holding 
truth and objectivity above all other ideals.

Being an intellectual religion, it's not surprising that it is slowly 
gaining ground on the (social) religions of the world. I can imagine in 
200 years time that we look back on the days of Judeo-Christianity and 
Islam in the same way we look at the Greek or Roman mythology. Hell, 
we'll probably call them mythology too.

Strange thing about science (as we've discussed before), it's shockingly 
amoral. That sounds like a statement of no consequence to some of us, 
but only because our mythos has taught us to be biased toward Truth. 
Imagine the significance of that statement to someone in a mythos where 
Good is on top. To them, science is the emptiest of religions. And 
what's a religion but a belief system? To someone holding good as 
ultimate, science is a belief system of truth, pure religion. This is 
not to say that science is _bad_... it's amazingly useful and gives us 
amazing insight into facts and objects and such. But there's no doubting 
that it's incomplete.

(my grand nostradamus-like prediction! or at least wishful thinking?)
And in time, the "missing pieces" in science will become too hard for 
"the majority" to ignore. "Why is science so amoral?" "What ever 
happened to good?" THAT is the point in time when philosophy will be 
asked sit above science - when the masses collectively search for the 
missing pieces of reality. That is the point in time when the MOQ (or a 
similarly broad metaphysics) becomes the mythos.

-Laird

ian glendinning wrote:
> Robbie, Gav, Khaled, Platt, Case
>
> I'm an atheist, and believe Dawkins misses the point. Gav is right,
> too many scientists treat SOMism as a "religion". Worship at the altar
> of objectivism and scientific method (intended to advance scientific
> knowledge by rigorous disproof).
>
> I've written my views on Dawkins many, many times.
> http://www.psybertron.org/index.php?s=dawkins
>
> Case, I agree, it's worth comparing Dawkins with what a theologian
> might say, about the more mystical MOQism bits that don't fit
> simplistic SOMism.
>
> Ian
>
> On 11/21/06, Platt Holden <pholden at davtv.com> wrote:
>   
>> Hi Robbie, All
>>
>> I read the article with a deep sense of sadness tinged with anger. Here
>> are a group of supposedly "the best and brightest" preaching the gospel
>> according to the church of scientism and claiming they have "a monopoly
>> on truth." Richard Dawkins, who wrote "The God Delusion" and a hero
>> among atheists, is no less a absolutist than the Rev. Jerry Farwell,
>> and twice as arrogant. These people have no clue about art and beauty,
>> not to mention Pirsig's assessment that:
>>
>> "The reality science explains is that 'reality' which follows
>> mechanisms and programs. That other worthless stuff which doesn't
>> follow mechanisms and programs we don't pay any attention to." (lila,
>> 11)
>>
>> That "other worthless stuff" is only what we live for!
>>
>> Best,
>> Platt
>>
>>
>>     
>>> NY Times weekly Tuesday's Science Section today had a by "George
>>> Johnson" article devoted to the Science/ Religion debate that reminds
>>> one of discussions that appear in this group periodically.
>>>
>>>   The article quoted Dr. Steve Weinberg, "the more the universe seems
>>>   comprehensible, the more it also seems pointless", then he goes
>>>   further: "Anything that we scientists can do to weaken the hold of
>>>   religion should be done and may in the end be our greatest
>>>   contribution to civilization."
>>>
>>>   Dr. Rich Dawkins (Oxford Evolutionary biologist) and conferee at the
>>>   reported on event is author of the National best seller book "The God
>>>   Delusion."
>>>
>>>   The article makes the point that when scientists periodically convert
>>>   from experimentation, problem solving, fact and evidence gathering to
>>>   the God justification for natural phenomena than their most productive
>>>   life as a creative cutting edge scientist are usually about over.
>>>
>>>   The article begins with another Steve Weinberg...Nobel Laureate,
>>>   physics quotation, "The world need to wake up from its long nightmare
>>>   of religious belief". Moreover, Dawkins believes religious education
>>>   is "brain-washing" and "Child abuse."
>>>
>>>   One speaker after another lined up to present the general message
>>>   challenging scientists to be less timid about challenging unverifiable
>>>   teachings about nature based only on scripture and belief. Science's
>>>   core being: intellectual honesty, said Sam Harris, a doctoral student
>>>   in Neuroscience and the author of "The End of Faith: Religion, Terror
>>>   and the Future of Reason" and "Letter to a Christian Nation."
>>>
>>>   Another profound moment was Nobelist, chemistry by Sir Harold Krot's:
>>>   call for  the John Templeton Foundation to give its next prize for
>>>   "progress in spiritual discoveries" to an atheist.  I myself would
>>>   wish to nominate the 14th Dalia Lama for this prize.
>>>
>>>   Does anything in this post contain information that might conflict
>>>   with our societies social immune system? If so you might try writing a
>>>   letter to the Editor of the Time's science page very soon!. An
>>>   unedited video of the reported on proceedings will be posted on the
>>>   web at tsntv.org
>>>
>>>   If this subject interests anyone they should examine the source: page
>>>   D1 of Nov. 21, 2006 of the N. Y. Times...the newspaper.
>>>       
>>