[MD] Debate on Science_ReligionToday

[ian glendinning]

Laird,

Absolutely.

(And I like your parenthesis after "MOQ". MoQ may not be perfect, but
it can evolve to the MoQ-like world-view / framework we need. It
already has the essential components - levels, dynamism, evolution and
an acceptance that the world is other than "objects", which get
confused by our linguistic metaphors and intellectualising.)

Ian

On 11/22/06, Laird Bedore <lmbedore at vectorstar.com> wrote:
> 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.
> >>>
> >>
>
> moq_discuss mailing list
> Listinfo, Unsubscribing etc.
> http://lists.moqtalk.org/listinfo.cgi/moq_discuss-moqtalk.org
> Archives:
> http://lists.moqtalk.org/pipermail/moq_discuss-moqtalk.org/
> http://moq.org.uk/pipermail/moq_discuss_archive/
>