[MD] Debate on Science_ReligionToday

[ian glendinning]

BTW people may be interested,

There is a whole debate going on on richarddawkins.org
on the subject of

"I'm and atheist but ... "

Ian

On 11/22/06, ian glendinning <psybertron at gmail.com> wrote:
> 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/
> >
>