[MD] Debate on Science_ReligionToday

[David M]

> dmb says:
> Huh? I think "equals" works perfectly well when one is adding numbers,

DM: I look, I smell, I listen, I fail to experience any numbers? As real
assubject and objects eh?


 as
> Khaled was, and I fail to see the relevance of cows.

DM: I can count cows but I have 2 cows not two abstract nothings.

 Khaled's point is
> simply that scientific truth is more dynamic than religious truth

DM: At what place and time? forever? universally? Sure thing Plato!

This is a
> point Pirsig has also made and its a point DM always seems to miss.

DM: Well Mr static, dynamically things change.

This is
> why empirically based beliefs are superior to faith based beliefs, the
> latter being too static rather than stable.

DM: If only you dropped your faith, I have no religious faith, your science
fetish is however clear. I love science but in a less inadequate way.

As I see it, Khaled was using
> the math equation to show how such intellectual patterns do not depend on
> any particular social level contexts for their validity, to show their
> "universal" accessibility.

DM: Is maths mainly about counting money in a very social level , or is that 
just me?
Other than that don't you see a gap between quality and quantity? Quantity 
is great
for measuring SQ but lets keep it in its place.

I don't think SOM lurks here at all.

DM: Well some of us are brighter than others.

Basically, I
> think Khaled is quite right on this point and that DM's reply is 
> incoherent
> and misses this point entirely. Besides, everybody knows that cows can't 
> do
> math.

DM: WHo could argue with that, moo, moo


>
> See, the thing about traditional religion is that it tends to be 
> exclusive.

DM: Is religion always traditional? I thought all SQ could give way to DQ?
Or are you prejudiced?


> You know, kill all the infidels and all that. In the West, Christian
> missionaries and colonialism and genocide have tended to be of a single
> fabric. Science as such is not the great peace-maker, but if we broaden 
> the
> notion so that this is framed in terms of social level traditions vs.
> intellectual principles its not too hard to see the calming effect that
> could be gained by a reduction of enthnocentrism and nationalism and
> religious conflict.

DM: Amen to that.

>
> The conflict between social traditions and intellectual values, as we all
> know, is described as the central historical conflict in the West's recent
> history.

DM: Too simplistic, but if its your style stick with it...

The 20th century, with all its horrors, was animated by this
> conflict and it still is. This conflict is between nations and within
> nations. Hell, its between and within families. See, its not just about 
> how
> we justify our beliefs or the quality of those beliefs, it is also very 
> much
> about the consequences of those beliefs.

DM: Does science provide us with better values?


>
> In ZAMM there is a lot of talk about the "church of reason" and there are
> some MOQers who want to read this as saying that science and religion are 
> on
> the same footing, that they are equally faith-based beliefs.

DM: the rise of science no doubt made us look with greater
openness and questioning at experience, this challenged religion,
it may yet respond, what there is in religion that fails this challenge
should rightly die

This
> interpretation misses the same point.

DM: I love the way you make up interpretations that I don't agree with
and argue with yourself and always win,well done!

There's no doubt that Pirsig sees
> scientific objectivity as flawed, as amoral and seeks to remedy that
> problem, but I think its a huge mistake to let theism rush in here.

DM: I agree, but it can try,  it may fail, it may not, but we have no
right to simply tell it to shut up, otherwise it would be fair of me to tell
you to shut up, we should tell it to grow up and live with science
and pullthe other one about six days and parting seas

The idea
> of describing intellect in terms of the church of reason is to make the 
> same
> point that Quine did, that "objects" are every bit as theoretical as the
> gods.

DM: You're getting it.

In this way Pirsig attacks the assumptions of SOM, but this is not an
> attack on empricism or intellect per se. The idea here is to address the
> flaw, not to kill the intellect or re-assert religion.

DM: to me religion is not just god talk, there is sin, forgiveness, grace,
hope, morality, responsibility, community, it a source if value,not
the only one,and far from always positive in its impact, but there
it is, it has to be engaged to change it, if it dies outit dies out,
if it doesn't we better try to keep it talking, you know what happens
otherwise. I know its a chore but you ain't gonna kill it all by yourself,
and it is not without its good qualities, but you may have missed those
in your particular life


>
> See, Pirsig sees the continuing conflict of the last century as an
> evolutionary struggle wherein the success of intellect is at stake. There 
> is
> a very real possibility that social level values will win and our culture
> will slip back to the social level. I think the conflict between science 
> and
> religion has to be understood in these terms and that it would be a 
> tragedy
> of epic proportions if the evolutionary advances were not protected from
> such degeneration

DM: Well you only get the intellectual level if the social can support it,
you want to understand the relationship between science and religion
in simplistic terms that's your choice. Let's get honest, the battle that is
going on is about values, religion has more to say about it than science
does, and most people have values, few can set them in an intellectual
context, is science going to help you much with finding values to
put up against religious values? Should we not be talking about
pluralism, peace, freedom, community, individuality instead? What I would 
say
is that religious thought and values must be subject to critical challenge.
Saying religious values should not be discussed in our political debates
means we fail to discuss values at all. Is that a good MOQ approach?
If we want to discuss values and stop walking forward blindfolded
we will have to discuss all values including those we disagree with.
It would be great to rule certain values out of court but this is a pipe
dream DMB (don't think I don't sympathise with your frustration).

.
>
> And I think its a small tragedy that some MOQers don't seem to understand
> what's at stake here and don't seem to understand that they're, in effect,
> defending evolutionary regression.
>

DM: You seem to think death is the answer, or a Heroic fight, I recommend 
change,
and discussion, go on hug a Christian, and that don't mean me cos I ain't 
one


its been fun
David M