[MD] Debate on Science_ReligionToday

[Khaled Alkotob]

DMB, David, Case and others

I have been out of town for the holiday, now I am back.

In a way it was nice to have been left out of this debate, it gives me
the opportunity to step out, read the discussion and go back in.

Matt, to answer your question as to why people keep wasting time on this?
Let's see, Sudan, Ireland, Lebanon, the Balkans, Iraq and so on.

I guess it boils down to the "truth" and who has a monopoly on it.

Pirsig's journey was about Quality, and in a way that is universal. 
Truth on the other hand, or better yet Religious Truth (RT) has been the
cause for more blood shed than any other causes.

A few weeks ago there was a local lecture entitled "Jesus in the Koran".
Some of the attendees were there with their own agenda to set the speaker
on the right path. That got me wondering why such zealotry?
Then it dawned on me. Certain religions set themselves as being the
absolute RT. It's like an inflated balloon, the smallest pin prick and
it's gone.
When the evangelical Christians say "this is the way, the only way and
the right way", they are setting themselves for a fierce battle. To admit
to the fact that any other religion out there might also lead to
salvation, is to destroy their doctrine, it's their way or the highway.
That goes the same for the Muslim Religion, by saying that the Koran came
down by fax, and it's "The Word of the Almighty himself", it leaves no
room whatsoever to bend and change with the times. It's that balloon
again, one little prick and it goes.

Meanwhile, the faithful can't seem to think for themselves. remember this
is based on blind faith, so they go down the path of destruction Kipling
each other. 


Khaled


[Khaled earlier]
Science, by its nature, never claims to be the "TRUTH". 

[David M]
> SOM lurks here, there are no numbers in the world, so maybe you 
> would do  better to refer to facts that exist in the world, yet we only

> recognise  experience here rather than abstractions, so how many cows
can you 
> see? 
> Depends where you're standing. Is 'equals' such a great concept? 
> ...Does one cow ever equal another one? Every cow is different on my
farm. 
> 'Equals' only  ever works when you reduce the full range of quality
experience to 
> quantities.


[DMB]:
> Huh? I think "equals" works perfectly well when one is adding 
> numbers, as Khaled was, and I fail to see the relevance of cows.
Khaled's point is 
> simply that scientific truth is more dynamic than religious truth 
> This is a  point Pirsig has also made and its a point DM always seems
to miss. 
> This is  why empirically based beliefs are superior to faith based
beliefs, 
> the  latter being too static rather than stable. 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. I don't think SOM lurks here at all. 
> 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.

[Khaled]
Universality is the point I was trying to make. Just as the periodic
table holds true everywhere, and to a degree, Quality holds true
everywhere, one wishes that God hold true everywhere.


[DMB]
> See, the thing about traditional religion is that it 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 ethnocentrism and nationalism and religious
conflict.
> 
> 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. 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.


[DMB]
> 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. This 
> interpretation misses the same point. 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. 
> 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. In this way Pirsig attacks the assumptions of SOM, but this
is 
> not an attack on empiricism or intellect per se. The idea here is to
address 
> the  flaw, not to kill the intellect or re-assert religion.

[Khaled]
I understood the term "church" here as institution


[DMB] 
> 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.
> 
> 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.