[MD] Empiricism for dummies

[MarshaV]

Greetings Mel,

I didn't state that religion and science are equivalent or 
interchangeable, I merely stated them as two hypothetical choices and 
my preference.

Did you actually read the book???  Call me stupid if you like, but I 
thought the book presented many _solid_ examples and arguments of why 
Judaism, Christianity and Islam, with their dogma and accoutrements, 
should be flushed.

Besides I am awaiting the return of the Great Handkerchief.


Marsha







At 12:24 PM 1/23/2009, you wrote:

>
>Marsha / Ian,
>
>Good morning.
>
>Marsha:
> >
> > Busy day and impossible subject.  I do not own the book (The God
> > Delusion), only the cds, so it would be impossible for me to debate
> > examples.  As an instrument to uproot the concept of God, I think it
> > excellent.  I cannot say every example and argument is perfect, but
> > overall the book is very successful.  Further, if before me the path
> > split, with the continuation to my left leading to God and religion,
> > and the continuation to my right leading towards Science, and I were
> > forced to choose one, I would choose the right-leading path towards
> > Science. As of Wednesday, though, I've decided to use the
> > non-affirming negative.  For me, God does not exist, and God does not
> > not exist.  Poof.   Sigh.    What next?
> >
><snip>
>
>mel:
>God Delusion was a successful book in that it sold lots.
>(Ironically, booksellers thank God for that.) But as anything
>other than a best seller the book fails.
>
>For centuries the arguments for and against the existence
>of God, proofs in the philosophical sense, have been put
>forth.  Many are elegant and marvels of sustained creative
>energy.  All of these proofs, so far, have a loose thread that
>other equally fine minds find and unravel.
>
>Dawkins appears to know none of these proofs and in his
>book commits so many logical fallacies, appeals to authority,
>and so much sloppy thinking that even a sympathetic reading
>by someone familiar with these prior proofs would show that
>he was either unaware of them, too lazy to do his homework,
>or just has no aptitude for well structured systematic thought.
>If the atheist position depended on him for its defense, then
>he has set it back a thousand years.
>
>To me, however, the biggest problem is none of these, but
>something else entirely.  You (Marsha) alluded to it in your use
>of a "split path," the formula of choice between Science on the
>one hand and Religion on the other.  Science and religion are
>not interchangeable choices.  They don't DO the same things.
>Any choice between them that implies mutual exclusivity is a
>false choice, a failed opposition, a fallacious dichotomy.
>
>Some wag, somewhere, stated that Science and Religion
>both explain man's place in the universe.  I am sure the
>persons assembled, when that was uttered, laughed
>uproariously at the clever pun, the genius level equivocation
>of the final 2/5's of that sentence.  Some likely coughed on
>their cigar smoke and their cognac.  After their tears were dried
>they went on with their conversation, but the damage was done.
>
>Folks outside the library that night, who later heard  the quote,
>came to use it, and believed it.  The insight into the pun is that
>the words 'explain man's place in the universe'  really mean
>very little, but they sound reasonable and can become effective
>placeholders for two very different activities.
>
>Science seeks to explore and describe the way the world
>(the universe) works and find the common patterns that
>underlie what we see. (Reductio/Constructio ad infinitum)
>
>Religion is a little more problematic.  The word describes
>more than one thing and it is easier to treat it monolithically
>and dismiss it or embrace it than to understand it.
>
>In one sense religions tend to have a tradition-of-the-spirit
>that aims to a transcendent state of unity with what
>practitioners believe lies beyond the mere, conventional
>physical.  It conditions the person to behave differently in
>life and towards others.    (maybe  'enlightened')
>
>In an inferior sense, religions tend to have a social component
>that seeks, among things, to limit and control behavior through
>taboo, prohibition, and by peer-pressure towards an end, usually
>formulated as 'salvation.'
>
>When the social component is properly directed as a buttress
>to the tradition of the spirit, then the result can be laudable and
>the saint is born.  However, when the social component becomes
>a grinding millwork that crushes other social structures, works
>against the intellectual, and seizes primacy against freedom of
>choice, and dictates biological control beyond the surrounding
>social constructs, then it is 'run-amok'.
>
>So, religion seeks to save man from his place in the universe,
>spiritually, put him in his place in ranks beneath the choirs of
>angels and under the throne, socially.  (at least for Christians)
>
>But religion doesn't really give a damn about the physical
>universe, so they're not interchangeable choices.
>
>or the shorter version.
>
>You can argue whether Manchester United
>or the New York Yankees are the better team.
>But DUDE, they're not in the same sport.
>
>or the clear choice.
>
>You can argue whether the toilet plunger
>or the ladle is the superior tool, but if you
>bring the soup tureen to the dinner table with
>a toilet plunger in it, I'm going out for pizza.
>
>The 'tool' that is science and the tool that is
>religion do different things.
>
>The rant C'est finis.
>
>Thanks for letting me play on "What's my Lie"
>
>
>thanks--mel
>
>p.s.  no doubt some have already noted that I avoid the
>whole God portion of the argument.  I did pay attention
>in philosophy and science classes to the little insights
>that one cannot prove non-existence (All is true of a null
>set.) and one can't prove existence in the physical of the
>immeasurable.  (One doesn't prove a hypothesis.)

.
.
Science does not know its debt to imagination.  ~Ralph Waldo Emerson
.
.