On Tue, Feb 17, 2009 at 8:37 AM, Jim Davis wrote:
>
>> -----Original Message-----
>> From: denstar
>> On Sat, Feb 14, 2009 at 10:44 PM, Jim Davis wrote:
>> I'm basically picking on the usage of two words, "religion" and
>> "compromise".
>>
>> You seem to rail against the idea of a metaphysical reality, is all.
>> Claiming the two (physical and metaphysical) cannot coexist without
>> "giving up pieces of themselves", as it were.
>
> An you seem to be defining neither.
They are both pretty broad, as together, the represent "everything",
right? The seen and the un-see-able?
> What is metaphysical? How does it differ from physical?
I think one we use "physical" tools to discover, and the other we use
"mental" tools for, as it were.
They are incredibly different, and yet, flip sides of the same coin.
I posit that neither is "complete" without the other. But I love
thinking. And linking. And, um, rationalizing. =]
> My most definitions science simply doesn't allow for the metaphysical - for
> if the "metaphysical" were covered by scientific investigation then it would
> be either be a) "physical" or b) you would be compromising the definition of
> science.
I'm thinking the two "touch" at some point, but who knows. Many great
minds have looked for the bridge, perhaps even found it (to some
extent I think the dual nature of reality itself plays a role here--
the whole "what is one?" and "what is many?" / "matter/energy"
deal... basically existence itself, and the feeling that to some
extent, some things can never truly be "shared", they must be
"experienced" on the individual level. Or something like that.)
I don't believe that metaphysical investigation compromises scientific
investigation, and indeed, I keep bringing up philosophy because,
well, I dig it-- but also because it's the fore-runner to both.
Ergo, there is common ground, even if the two are at "opposing" ends
of reason (they're not, but I'm sticking with a dualistic-ish deal
here, so-- eh).
>> You're positing only niche religions can coexist with Science? Are you
>> mad? :-)
>
> ALL religion can coexist with science - there's no question about that
> since, well, they DO. ;^) I'm saying that religion (as I've defined it)
> cannot reconcile with science without compromise. There's a vast, important
> difference between these two statements.
Only if you ignore "interpretation", which I'll cover below.
> Science and religion can "get along" by (simplistically) agreeing to
> disagree. There's no shame in that.
I feel that they can be mutually enriching, although they don't have
to be, and many times aren't.
I feel that the line between the metaphysical and the physical is
blurry, I guess. I think this stems from "thinking about thinking"
and the nature of reality, etc..
Yes, let us define reality next. ;-)
> Bahá'í Faith, Buddhism, Christianity, Confucianism, Hinduism, Islam,
> Jainism, Judaism, Shinto, Sikhism, Taoism, Vodou
>
> So "Western" or not - the story is similar.
I proffer that the story is only similar if you stick to
"fundamentalist" viewpoints, and that /that/ is what *really* the
"same" about all Religions.
Surely you don't see, say Christianity as this "whole", where 90% (or
some other high percentage) of 'em see things the same? (I heard that
without the First Council of Nicaea Christianity might never have been
(sorta))
...
> To say the least - but in many senses fundamentalists are also the easiest
> to deal with: you know where you stand. You don't have to feel out the
> compromises made in an attempt to reconcile religion because there are none!
> ;^)
LOL!
>> So I'm countering your statement (and basically just saying the cup is
>> half-full) that most mainstream religions in the US cannot coexist
>> with science without compromising values, by stating that if both are
>> "interpreted" right, there is no loss for either.
>
> Isn't "interpreted" just a synonym in this case for compromise? If you need
> to "interpret" for reconciliation then how is that different?
Heh. I was kinda wondering if you'd interpret "interpreted" thataway. ;-)
No, it's not a synonym. Not exactly. Maybe a little tho, depending
on how you see rationalization.
But mainly what I'm getting at is that although we use these words
"science" and "religion"-- they are both practices, and there are many
ways to, um, practice?
How you see things is for sure key to how you practice, and while one
person may see- well, let's take life and death, for example (heh).
A person might see life and death as two totally different, and
separate things. From that standpoint, one's line of investigation is
going to follow a certain path, whereas another person might perceive
them as "one", which would send "reason" off in another direction.
Notice another nifty word: "perception", which is part of the
"interpretation" deal.
> But I would again counter that so many Christians are able to reconcile
> science because of compromises - the "figgering" you're talking about.
> There's no shame in it, but it must be done.
>
> As I recounted in the message to Maureen: is the Sun older than plant life
> on Earth? If you're a Christian and you say "Yes" then you've compromised
> the teachings of your faith.
>
> Perhaps, to your point, you've not violated it's "core" but that's
> nitpicking. I never said that the compromise had to be fundamental or
> destructive - but I still maintain that it has to happen.
Only if you have opposing ideas. :-) I would think it would be the
hard-core literalist, that would try to have a 1 to 1 correlation from
religious texts to the physical world. The literalist position is
hard to defend. Plus I think it tries to use the wrong tool for the
job. Science and Religion have evolved into their own specialized
philosophies, but they are still philosophy at heart. "Or should be"
he says, running away. ;-)p
>> So to sum it up, within your narrow definition of Religion, I'll give
>> you a "win" for "compromise". I'll also give you a "win" in the
>> "self-correction is the fundamental aspect of Science", even though
>> you never addressed my examples of "Scientists" who suffer the same
>> affliction you attribute to main-stream Religion in the US. HA! I'm
>> such a dork. I was just watching some t.v. station where the
>> religious dude was like "send us your money"... *sigh* you're right,
>> the situation is dire. We're fuxored! =]
>
> The simple answer to the scientists question is just that any particular
> scientist is not science. Anecdotal evidence is just that - anecdotal and
> not definitive.
>
> Bringing up closed minded scientists and claiming a failure of "Science" is
> just as non-productive as bringing up John Salvi and claiming a failure of
> "Christianity".
On the contrary, I'm mostly pointing out thought patterns. I'm not
failing science, I'm failing interpretation.
One person sees some data, and comes to the conclusion that
faster-than-sound travel is an impossibility, while, for whatever
reason, someone else /doesn't/ interpret the data that way, and comes
to the conclusion that-- well, that faster-than-sound might just be
possible, if you view the "data" from /this/ angle.
There is not much difference in my mind between a scientist telling
some poor kid that he cannot do something, and some religious figure
telling some kid he ("or she", he says) cannot do something.
And I guess the flip is also true... ("truth" is such an interesting
deal. I try to stay away from it. ;])
I think we're both railing against dogma for dogma's sake, "truth" be told.
I'm suggesting Religion doesn't hold a monopoly on the phenomena-- and
that if you look around, you'll see the detriment in many areas of
thought (but good and bad are, to a certain extent... relative, so,
take "detriment" with a grain of salt)
...
> But "Science", by design, works to eliminate the influence of negative
> individual traits. It's self-correcting - perhaps not quickly or
> efficiently self-correcting, but self-correcting nonetheless.
Religion has lasted this long and stayed the same? Naw. Everything
is evolving, as it were. You live, you learn, you try to find the
patterns... you mesh the patterns you know with those you don't,
sometimes replace these with those, etc.. I seriously doubt that
today's Christians and even those of 25 years ago are
Anything that's "alive" (and I feel all good religion and good science
is alive) will fit the above "evolving" definition of science. I
think that at it's root, this is *all* about "the quest for meaning".
You see, "what is knowledge?", and other such thoughts. Facts without
meaning are cold lovers, my friend.
Instead of braving that "we don't really know" world, many take
shelter in "look what we know" (forgetting that answers are just
questions in disguise -- or maybe the opposite of that, but anyways).
This is true for religious figures, this is true for scientific
figures-- my "bad science" example is by no means some "niche"
archetype! History (even stuff in the last 25 years) has shown me
that there are just as many closed-minded scientists as there are
closed-minded anything elses. It's not about "science", or
"religion", or some battle twixt the two (IMO, obviously)-- it's about
/thinking/. Interpreting. It's about "The Search".
Science, as much as I'd love to believe you, does not reflect the
austere attributes you attribute it, any more than Religion reflects
the austere attributes I'm claiming it holds. Both are "cluttered"
with, well, humanity.
For programming, "design patterns" are nothing in and of themselves.
It's all about the application. I believe the same is true of both
science and religion. They are tools, which can be used for good or
ill (and *both* have been used for *both*-- that I think is unarguable
(tho of course in Science's case it wasn't Science's fault. ;-]p))
>> Damnit Jim, I like ya man, hope I haven't burnt you out. [=
>
> Not at all.
Yay! I was concerned-- I don't mean to use tactics that are, um,
lame, when conversing like this.
> As I get older (or, more specifically, as my kids get older) I'm becoming
> vastly more pragmatic in my explorations. When I was young I did the whole
> "searching" thing... my bookshelf is chockablock with religious texts, new
> age polemics and "enlightened" works. I may not appreciate them as I once
> did but I keep them nonetheless because I fully expect my kids to take
> similar paths.
>
> But right now I'm pragmatic. I'm working against the fact that religious
> views are putting my children's secular education in jeopardy and are
> undermining the fundamental ideals of my country by eliminating basic rights
> from those I love.
I can appreciate that, but-- here's the rub-- I don't think the "root
cause" is religion. I don't think that this phenomena is an inherent
part of religion-- although I could see you seeing it that way (lord
knows enough blood and tears have been shed in the quest for meaning
(or maybe it's the quest for power that does most the damage-- guess
it's moot, since knowledge is power, right? ;-))
But it's a balancing act, as much as I hate to admit it. You need
both the flexible and inflexible-- the matter and the energy-- the
math and the meaning-- to have completeness, as (maybe) unintuitive as
it sounds.
> But in addition to the practical issues there's also an important
> distinction here: I don't need the other stuff. The metaphysical stuff, the
> religion, the "higher purpose". I won't gainsay anybody that does - each to
> his own (as long as they mind their own damn business) but I don't. The
> world - the real, natural, testable, observable world, is full of such
> wonders, such majesty and joy that all the rest of that is (no pun intended)
> immaterial.
It's not about "need" per-se (at least not in my case (tho who knows
what Nietzsche would say)), it's about "the quest" or "the search" or,
"life, the universe, and everything" (Douglas Adams freaking /nailed/
reality in his work-- jello, meet tree).
Do you ponder the un-ponderable? Like, Where do you go when you die?
What is your favorite color? Guess un-ponderable is a stretch, but,
whatev's. =]
Seriously: Science and Religion inhabit the spheres they do for good
reason, and there is nothing "built-in" to either that makes them good
or bad (if you ignore their core tenets, which are obviously both
good-- exploration and reflection on the world, and your place in the
world are- well, maybe not natural, but I like to think so. "Natural
== good" here, I guess.)
> (Not to stretch this out, but it does frustrate me to know end when people
> assume that atheists or humanists are "missing" something - that they are
> somehow less happy because of their materialist views. That's a myth that
> doesn't deserve surive.)
Heh. Unless you've got proof "god" (or whatever) doesn't exist (saying
we're the "big G" (a la Stranger in a Strange Land) doesn't count as
non-existence either)... we've been down this road before, and I've
yet to hear your answer to the purely scientific question I've posed
(let me be clear that this isn't about my religious aspect here, nor
"being happier"-- this is pure science, and has been) about
observation, the effect of observation, and the quest for knowledge
(this may be what the "impossible" (or "not likely, why bother")
thinkers are "missing"):
We shall not cease from exploration
And the end of all our exploring
Will be to arrive where we started
And know the place for the first time
-- T. S. Eliot
~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~|
Adobe® ColdFusion® 8 software 8 is the most important and dramatic release to
date
Get the Free Trial
http://ad.doubleclick.net/clk;207172674;29440083;f
Archive:
http://www.houseoffusion.com/groups/cf-community/message.cfm/messageid:288921
Subscription: http://www.houseoffusion.com/groups/cf-community/subscribe.cfm
Unsubscribe:
http://www.houseoffusion.com/cf_lists/unsubscribe.cfm?user=11502.10531.5
