[MD] Debate on Science_ReligionToday

[David M]

Hi DMB

> Presently, dmb says:
> I don't understand why, exactly, but you seem to be allergic to this
> point.

DM: I had no idea disagreeing was a medical condition.

> 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.

DM: Guess what not all religion is traditional. As you say 'tends'
so lets bash its bad stuff and champion its good stuff.

 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.

DM: And as anyone who can read the history of science knows science is a bit
crap with empiricial evidence too, cos its an institution too.

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

DM: All forms of fundamentalism are questionable, I say attack the disease
not the patient, science and religion can both lose touch with experience.

> 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: Fair comment, I am bored with this subject but have been trying
to help others with their prejudices, if only they would stop putting
them on display and joining threads like this one.

>
> 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".

DM: I was talking about origins.

 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.

DM: Some scientists want to kick the maths out as overly dominant.

 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: Do some research DMB or is it Plato? -of course there are sub-cultures
in maths.
Your point about scope is interesting, can you develop it with examples?

>
> 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.

DM: You've changed the subject, it was not couched as intellect vs
religion

>
> 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.

DM: That's all the concessions I am asking for.

>
> "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

DM: I choose Critchley for you as I saw him as lying between your
view and mine, obviously you will like this stuff, yet Critchley
also recognises the value of post-modernism, whilst attacking
its excesses.


>
> 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: I certainly see science as challenging religion and it may
either react badly or well to this challenge. I think much of traditional
religion
falls away if you are intellectual about it and read some history and
science, but not all of it, and what is left will lead you to the sort of
questions
about science that the MOQ addresses.

>
> 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?


DM: Cos the particular example works but stretching it to a universal does
not for me. And I am trying to shift your views just a bit not present a
thesis.


>
> 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)


DM: I am pretty sure that a history using just two key concepts is
simplified history,
you merely refer to Pirsig, what's your point? Obviously Pirsig simplifies
history
in his short book.

>
> 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.

DM: If you had to choose then yes, but won't we need to keep
evolving all these patterns as a whole?

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.

DM: But we gotta deal with the SOM in science too, and this is
repressing the role of values in science and due to science's authority
is society too

It is a more evolved level of values even if the central
> flaw has been a blindness to those values as such.

DM: Yes isn't this a massive problem? Of course,despite its
other big problems,one religion does not have, as values are
in your face with religion

 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.

DM: Many people seem alienated from science to me

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.

DM:  Actually I hope we are getting some where.

>
> 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: This is an odd and very unlikely fear you have. I think religion tends
to
fear a very misleading notion of what science is and says, and science
fails to open up debates about values. I'll send you something to read.

> 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: I am trying to open up some space for religion to be discussed without
dropping
science to do so, is that too illogical for you? It can come into the debate
but
I would ask it to face up to science not to stick its head in the ground
and try to deny its challenges.


>
> 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.

DM: No I see nothing bad, I just suspect it won't die, it is still a big
beast,
I hope it willchange a great deal, if it dies fine, anything valuable in it
would reemerge in a new form and possibly entirely unreligious, e.g.
humanism could be said to contain aspects of religion in a non-religious
way.


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.

DM: I ask for little more, so I think we have made progress with your
apparent prejudices.

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.

DM: Have I defended any assertions of religion? I think not, I am
more careful than you, you're the back tracker. But hey, that's a good
thing when you've talked rubbish previously.

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: I agree this would be hard, my point is that it is possible, I recommend
Don
Cuppitt as a religious intellectual of the highest order, of course the
funny thing is
it is hard to separate him from atheist, but that's hardly surprising as the
hot
thinking is about Nothing.

>
> 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.

DM: But where did these come from,of course, people experienced things
differently
in the past. Perhaps we need to understand past experiences to know how we
got to where
we are. You like to exclude, I say lets undertsand in a new way and include.

> 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.

DM: That's right, I say it has something to say and object to you thinking
it
has nothing to say, that's all.

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: I think we progress in a spiral so you always go over the same ground
but trying to move up, so you can never entirely drop away from the past,
even the reactionary has something to add, and you need to bring out
their better side. As you said above their are valuable aspects to religion
such as fellowship and charity, and wonder, we should hope to keep
these aspects and stop frightening the religious that they have to give
the whole package up if they accept science.


>
> 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?

DM: Sorry, if the fact that I am not one upsets you.

Is that just more
> incoherent equivocation or are you just defending those things you don't
> believe for some reason?

DM: It is just that I see some good in it. I think you have conceded that so
I think you need to stop being inconsistent and reflect this fact in your
expressed views from now on. Give religion all the grief you like
but make it specific about the bad stuff and even drop it the odd
support for the good stuff. Otherwise you're only gonna make the
religious more frightened and dangerous. I am really with you,
my joy is in intellectual pursuits but there is something religious
about my fervour I would admit.

>
> 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
>
> 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/
>