[MD] Debate on Science_ReligionToday

[david buchanan]

Khaled said earlier:
Science, by its nature, never claims to be the "TRUTH".

Ian said:
What you say is true, but people mis-using science habitually forget the 
contingent aspect, particularly when they see themselves as "fighting 
against" a lesser truth like "blind" faith. It's the trap (of certainty of 
polarised opposites). Like being certain of science is somehow a lesser evil 
than certainty of faith.

dmb says:
It loks like you've re-phrased my point (that scientific truth is more 
dynamic than religious truth) and put it into the mouths of overly-certain 
abusers of science. You've converted the point into a choice between two 
kinds of evil certainty. But this point is, I think, coming from Pirsig, 
Khaled and myself. I mean, this assertion is about the MOQ's distinction 
between social and intellectual values. While it may be true that Dawkins 
and other scientists are operating on the assumptions of SOM and may be too 
certain about their views, this is also true of those they criticize. We 
can't pick a favorite based on those factors because they are so ubiquitous 
that its a rare treat to find anyone without it.

But this same conflict is addressed by the MOQ and the distinction is made 
on a different basis. In terms of the evolutionary relationship between the 
static levels, yes, being "certain" in scientific truth is better than being 
"certain" of faith-based beliefs. Would you undermine this and call it a 
"trap" in the context it was actually asserted? I mean, would you care to 
address the point if it was unpolluted and undistorted by those unscrupulous 
positivists? If it were made like this?....

DMB said previously:
...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. ...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.

_________________________________________________________________
Get free, personalized commercial-free online radio with MSN Radio powered 
by Pandora http://radio.msn.com/?icid=T002MSN03A07001