[MD] Debate on Science_ReligionToday

[david buchanan]

dmb said:
...Khaled's point is simply that scientific truth is more dynamic than 
religious truth.

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

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

DM replied:
Well Mr static, dynamically things change.

Presently, dmb says:
I don't understand why, exactly, but you seem to be allergic to this point. 
First of all, the claim that science is more dynamic is not a universal 
claim about forever. In fact, the whole of idea of being dynamic is opposed 
to any such formulations. Its all about being open to change with respect to 
beliefs and it is asserted within the context of an evolutionary scheme 
where change is the rule. Traditional religion, by contrast, tends to assert 
absolute and eternal truths. It tends to resist change with respect to 
belief, even in the face of empirical pressures. This assertion doesn't 
depend on the MOQ, but it's built into the hierarchy of levels.

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

DM replied:
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.

dmb says:
I have a science fetish? I think you've confused me with Ian or Case or 
something. The kink that turns me on lately is empiricism and I've never 
been particularly enchanted with science per se. But its clear that you're 
just being defensive about religion here, as usual. Me thinks thou doth 
protest too much. Way too much.

DM said:
Is maths mainly about counting money in a very social level , or is that 
just me?

dmb says:
Are you kidding me? First of all, the practice of counting money is known as 
"accounting" or maybe "finance". But the suggestion that math is social is 
ridiculous. Money is social, but I think every person in the Western world 
knows how central math is a highly abstact intellectual activity and knows 
that it is central to the sciences. Again, the point is simply that there is 
no such thing as a contest between Japanese math and Austrialian math. Math, 
like many intellectual level pursuits, is not specific to any particular 
culture. In this sense, intellect transcends the social level. It has a 
broader scope, a wider field of application, etc..

DM said
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.

dmb says:
Yes, I know there is a difference between quantity and quality and that 
quality can't be quantified. I think everybody knows that. I'm just saying 
that this point is not relevant to the discussion to the topic or the point 
Khaled and Pirsig made about the superiority of intellect.

dmb said:
See, the thing about traditional religion is that it tends to be exclusive.

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

dmb says:
If religion were always "traditional", I wouldn't need to use that 
adjective. And I'm not saying that it is impossible for relgion to evolve. 
Quite the contrary. I'm complaining about its apparent unwillingness to do 
exactly that. But this problem isn't limited to the religious reactionary 
movements as such.

"One of the tendencies intellectually at present is a massive return to 
religion, usually in the guise of postmodernism. I think this is lamentable. 
To be honest I think its a little disgusting."  Simon Critchley

dmb continued:
...traditional religon ...tends to be exclusive. 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.

dmb says:
Just wanted to point out that you gave an "Amen" to the specific example 
whereas you had just condemned the general claim as prejudiced. That's 
incoherent, Dave. How can you agree and disagree with the very same point?

dmb said:
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 replied:
Too simplistic, but if its your style stick with it...

dmb says:
My style is too simplistic? Huh? I'm making a reference to those chapters of 
Lila that examine concrete historical examples of the social/intellectual 
conflict. There, Pirsig describes that conflict in terms of a hurricane and 
says, "That hurricane is the history of the twentieth century" (opening of 
chapter 22)

dmb said
...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 replied:
Does science provide us with better values?

dmb says:
As I understand it, the disputed claim is that intellect in general and 
science in particular is superior to social values in general and religion 
in particular. Obviously, it would be a weird confusion of categories to 
claim that physics can supply us with social level moral codes or anything 
like that. But in terms of which offers better values, with values being 
broadened MOQ-style, yes. That's the idea. Intellect is higher than the 
social level in the MOQ's hierarchy because it is defined as a superior 
level of values. It is a more evolved level of values even if the central 
flaw has been a blindness to those values as such. It is more open to change 
in the face of empirical evidence, has a broader range of application and is 
generally less exclusive than traditional values. In short, its more 
dynamic. But this is the point to which you are allergic and this 
explanation is probably just giving you a rash.

dmb said
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 replied:
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 pull the 
other one about six days and parting seas.

dmb says:
You agree that it would be a huge mistake to let theism rush in AND you 
think it can try? These equivocations are thinly disquised 
self-contradictions. Your sentences and thoughts are incoherent. And who is 
telling religion to "shut up". How would that even work?

DM said:
...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.

dmb says:
Sigh. Okay, let me see if I follow your "logic" here. Religion is a source 
of value and is far from having a positive impact. Religion has to be 
engaged and kept walking unless it dies out. If it dies out, it dies out, 
but something bad will happen if it does. I'll go along with you in saying 
I'm not going to kill it all by myself, but that's only because I think its 
already dead. And I suppose everyone would agree that its "not without its 
good qualities", even me. But other than that, your description of religion 
is just another pile of equivocation and contradiction. Contrary to your 
repeated assertions, my problem is not with any and all religious claims. 
The problem is with baseless and indefensible claims. The problem is 
clinging to beliefs which can't be justified, which have harmful 
consequences, that refuse to accept change in the face of those intellectual 
inadequacies. So you'll forgive me if I remain unconvinced by you 
intellectually sloppy defense of intellectual inadequate assertions. I mean, 
if you're point is that we can have religion without checking our brains at 
the door, why not demonstrate that with an intelligent, coherent defense of 
some intellectually respectable religious ideas. So far, your preformance on 
this topic gives the very opposite impression.

DM said:
...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? ...

dmb says:
Think of it this way. I think empirically justified beliefs are more 
valuable than ones that are accepted on the basis of tradition or authority. 
And the conflict between the social and intellectual levels, that hurricane 
of the last century, is a conflict between two opposed sets of values. So 
I'd agree that this debate is about values. I guess we disagee about what 
that means. Apparently, you think "religion has more to say about it" and I 
don't. In fact, to the extent that I can make sense of it, I think your 
position on the topic is to take sides with the religous reactionaries from 
a quasi-postmodern stance. Like I said, 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 replied:
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.

dmb says:
Sigh. Another absurd non-sequitor? I've just suggested that your position is 
regressive and reactionary and your response is to suggest I hug a 
christian? And where did the bit about death and heroics come from? Why do 
you defend religion and then deny being a Christian? Is that just more 
incoherent equivocation or are you just defending those things you don't 
believe for some reason?

I can see that you do not like this sort of scrutiny, but at least these are 
sincere objections. I suppose you think its personal by now. You think I'm 
just calling you stupid. You think words like "incoherent" and 
"contradictory" are to be taken about as seriously as words like "poo-poo 
head". But that's not what I'm saying when I use those words. Those are 
characterizations of the quality of your logic and your argument and I've 
tried to be very specific about exactly what is being criticized. I would 
hope that you would either take it seriously and make a sincere effort to 
address these criticisms or simply ignore them and say nothing at all. Do it 
right or don't do it at all. Why? Because nobody can afford to waste time 
with bullshit pissing contests.

_________________________________________________________________
MSN Shopping has everything on your holiday list. Get expert picks by style, 
age, and price. Try it! 
http://shopping.msn.com/content/shp/?ctId=8000,ptnrid=176,ptnrdata=200601&tcode=wlmtagline