I'd like to address a number of points raised in this interesting thread:
1. People seem to assume that all early humans were religious and/or
superstitious and only much later developed the rational and logical process
that led to science as we know it. Maybe early humans (with their larger
brains) were logical, sceptical empiricists as they set about discovering
how to use the vastly complicated resources of their environments. Maybe
only rationalists could learn how to control fire, discover which plants
contain medicines, etc., but their discoveries were hijacked by a parasitic
priesthood who sought to control all knowledge and technology for its own
power and enrichment.
2. Similarly, whatever accounts for the capacity of the human brain to
supply experiences that are perceived as "spiritual" or "transcendent," this
capacity has been hijacked by priesthoods, often working in close
cooperation with conquering armies. Priesthoods try to lay claim to, and
take credit for, aspects of human experience that are the natural birthright
of all of us.
3. Several posts distinguish between mono- and polytheistic religions, and
I submit that this is a false distinction. The religions that claim to be
monotheistic really believe in many gods but assign them names like "evil
spirit," "demon," "Satan," "angel," "Mary," "prophet," etc. The roles
filled by these mythological entities are the same roles played by analogous
members of the pantheons of those religions usually called polytheistic. On
the other hand, there is no reason to assume that the various so-called gods
of allegedly polytheistic religions are necessarily perceived in the minds
of the believers as distinct entities; rather, they can just be seen as
various manifestations of the universal divine.
4. What does it mean to say "All energy has electrical charge?" This seems
like nonsense of the first water. Why do people let statements like that go
unchallenged?
Martin M. Meiss
2010/5/21 Chalfant, Brian <bchalf...@state.pa.us>
> Splendid thread! (And I don't mean that in any Two Cities, Dickensian
> sense.) Personally, I find great harmony between(+among)
> science(s)+religion(s). In my esteem, science(s) and religion(s) share
> essential similarities in their both/all being modes of human thought. I
> find affinity in M. Moore's(+Einsten's+Rilke's+a lot of people's) idea of
> translatability of ideas/matters/energies, although I take some exception to
> some extensions thereof. In science(s), we often attempt to describe
> existence(s) using methods/techniques/instruments to detect, describe and -
> often - quantify energies of objects...
>
> [[riff on objects]] The idea of objectivity concerns me (apparently
> paradoxical reflexivity intended). Personally, I think it's impossible to
> observe something without the observer exerting influence on the observed -
> the linking of all things, eh? (And that pesky thread again!) Relatively
> recently, I had a sort of Archimedes/Edison/ah-ha! moment myself when
> listening to J.J.N.L.Y.T. Gyatsothe - the current (ohms and all) Dalai Lama
> - discuss the interface(s) of science and religion; what struck me was his
> comparison of meditation techniques and the scientific method - which J.
> Shevtsov introduced in excerpting E.O. Wilson: this D. Lama talked about
> how some meditation practices are every bit as methodical and rationally
> thought-out as aspects of scientific inquiry; he talked about how those
> meditative approaches had been developed, refined and passed down by
> generations of practitioners who were able to come to some inter-subjective
> ( - that's a particular phrase that !
> sticks with me - ) way to describe the specific methods they used to
> achieve certain and equally specific mental/spiritual/extant states, and
> then to describe what those states were like with similar accord. As, J.J.
> Roper notes, these people thought a lot about these approaches and modes,
> with an almost scientific attention. In such framing, I see no evidence for
> irresolvable discord among ideas of rationality, empiricism, mysticism,
> intuition, emotion, poetry and so on; rather, I see incorporation and
> synthesis of human capacity. I see a nuanced beauty. (We'll get to truth.)
> I think hooking monks up to fMRI machines may provide a different means of
> describing what they could tell you in their own particular idioms, and
> without all the electric and petrochemical infrastructure. [[return from
> riff]]
>
> And, personally (I'm going to stop with that adverb since it's inherent in
> my expressions), I don't find science(s) to be bound, except in how we
> choose to apply what we call science - it's a matter of applied
> interpretation, in my esteem. I think questions of divinity and unifying
> aspects of the universe (maybe multi-verse?) can be investigated/accessed
> with as much methodology, logic and deliberateness (see above and also
> Aquinas, T. 'round about 1270-ish) as questions of physical sciences. I
> think ideas and emotions are just as observable as insects. "I will show
> you fear in a handful of dust."
>
> I'd also like to touch on something that M. Moore brought up: do we really
> want to know? Or, modified: can we really know? Surely not by logic
> alone... I've (thankfully) never taken classes on logic but from what I've
> read of infinite regress (e.g., evidence for our evidence), axiomatic
> assumptions, Agrippa and Gödel, I gather that logic is problematic, and like
> its cousin, mathematics, is shot through with unreason and paradox and
> conundrum (nod to D.F. Wallace, RIP). Proposition Q: Proposition Q is not
> provable. Truth: Truths are only provable when true. As D. Pursell notes,
> truth is tricky to define, especially with our inherently abstract,
> ambiguous language/representational/number systems (nods to D. Pursell + W.
> Tyson + D.F. Wallace here + all intellectual predecessors who led to them) -
> water is not the word water. Language can impede and facilitate
> communication, depending on who's in the audience. We always seem to start
> with the ifs given. I like the id!
> ea of only opining on what one could explain to one's mother, yet that
> assumes one wants to talk to her, or can find her. {{Uh-oh, now I'm
> thinking about my thoughts... oy indeed!}}
>
> I also think (believe, opine, tra la la) it's unfair to paint religion(s)
> as the only human endeavor plagued by dogmatism and imperialistic-oriented
> evangelism (and any number of other -isms). I think science, journalism,
> politics and any human activity can be manipulated by power-hungry,
> overzealous authoritarian interests who profit from suppressing questioning
> and independent thought. I think one big benefit of what we call science
> relates to the peer-review/inter-subjective process of debate, culling,
> further study and tentative agreement... I think religion(s) are just as
> capable of harboring lunatic rogues and science(s) - that doesn't condemn
> either entire enterprise, if they are in fact so separate. For example,
> I've read and discussed a lot of religions and I think the principle of
> reciprocal interpersonal ethics (some would gild this and use words like
> "unto" and "do" - note that it can be rendered very scientific-sounding by
> throwing in a few quadra-/penta-syll!
> abic adjectives with balanced consonant-to-vowel ratios preceded by "the
> principle of") stands as an example of an idea that has been broadly vetted
> across time and cultures and accepted in a variety of religious
> ellipses/circles. (Ahh, but what of child sacrifice? you say?! Nay? Or
> Yea? Maybe a fuzzy-setted, conditional kind of Maybe-Nay?)
>
> And I think much of this discussion has too conveniently divorced the
> spread of Science (as such) from colonialism and religious proselytizing...
> there's suspicious spatiotemporal correlation there too, methinks. Empires
> of empiricism? B./W. Silvert touched on the idea of power structure. (I
> think) When anyone presents and idea that threatens current power
> structures, opposition will arise - the rationality of which depends on
> perspective. One example cited by J. Crants: when astrophysicists suggest
> (based on years of meticulous research which maybe helped those
> astrophysicists to feed themselves and their families) the universe is much
> older than some religious leader purports, and said religious leader's
> reputation, position and ability to feed herhimself (nod to W. Tyson) and/or
> family is put in jeopardy by having herhis authority and thus position of
> influence questioned... resistance seems a natural response, but this
> resistance may eventually give way to acceptanc!
> e and paradigm change over time and with sufficient multiple-party
> debate/discussion and/or self-reflection... blah blah blah. I have seen
> similar scenarios arise within academic scientific circles when a new
> theory/study calls into question a previous theory or entire body of work
> that may jeopardize some untenured professorship. Extend this to corporate
> interests disputing climate science. Extend this to disputing the disputed
> science... Selfishly folded proteins aside; selfish selves create much rub.
>
> I'd also argue with the idea that religion(s) - monotheistic or not - and
> science(s) strive purely to provide certainty, comfort and enlightenment. I
> think aspects of human nature do yearn for certainty and explanation, which
> - in part - lead to development of myth, religion and science - but I think
> equal aspects of human nature yearn for disorder, improvisation and the
> sheer excitement of unpredictability... I think our religio-mythic empirical
> toolbox provides us with means to express all parts of our desirous spectra.
> I find as much satisfaction in coming to new questions that arise while
> attempting to answer previous ones and in find that there are things I still
> don't understand (or overstand?), mysteries to be explored (oh no! that
> colonial impulse!), as in arriving at - what could be termed - an answer. I
> am reminded of kōans - questions to which there are endless answers. (To
> me,) The question Why? implies wonderment.
>
> Some final fragmented and fractious thoughts that I want to express because
> I read them, disagreed and feel the need to replace them with alternatives.
> (1) I don't think efficiency is the end-all be-all goal of
> evolution/selection and I take issue with conflation of efficiency and
> fitness, at least without specifically qualifying a circumstance. What of
> enjoyment? If efficiency, in what terms? For whom? Why do we defecate
> then? (another 1) I don't think people alive today have any better/deeper
> understanding of the world than any of our ancestors of contemporary
> detrivores do, just different. It's always been an information age, just
> less electronic maybe. It's a nice ego boost to think of one's self as
> evolutional acme, but there are plenty examples of unintended consequences
> of Slothrop's Progress (as such) that I'd wager many people would put on, or
> toward, the uh-oh edge of things: increased cancer rates; oil spills;
> explosions of asthma and autisms... which d!
> irection are such steps? And who's the accountant? I think Paula Abdul
> had a song about this, riffed from V. Lenin maybe? Are more humans better?
> In some ways, we may need to unknow existing orders?
>
>
> Long-windedly,
>
> Brian Challfant
> -ologist
>
> -----Original Message-----
> From: Ecological Society of America: grants, jobs, news [mailto:
> ecolo...@listserv.umd.edu] On Behalf Of James J. Roper
> Sent: Thursday, May 20, 2010 4:46 PM
> To: ECOLOG-L@LISTSERV.UMD.EDU
> Subject: Re: [ECOLOG-L] Science and Religion Dogmatic conflict?
>
>
> To reify the idea of a god and call it nature offers no explanation of
> anything. To say that there are other ways of knowing, rather than logic is
> a trivial observation that things are sometimes discovered through insight -
> and that insight normally comes about because the highly trained individual
> was thinking a lot about it, but the answer didn't really pop out at them
> until left to "digest." Additional ways of "knowing" all will have to be
> tested logically.
>
> It is easy to make up questions for which there are no answers. That does
> not make the question interesting. Moral questions are about how we get
> along, and they can indeed be informed by logic as well as emotion.
> Finally, asking a why question implies that the question is sensible and an
> answer exists. I would propose that we may have no reason to think either.
>
> Cheers,
>
> Jim
>
> On Thu, May 20, 2010 at 15:33, Warren W. Aney <a...@coho.net> wrote:
>
> > Why is there something rather than nothing?
> > And why is some of this something aware of itself?
> > And why is this self aware of the something?
> > And why does it ask these questions?
> >
> > Are these questions best addressed by science or by religion? Or do
> > they represent some of the areas where science and religion interface
> > and interconnect?
> >
> > Warren W. Aney
> > Senior Wildlife Ecologist
> > Tigard, Oregon
> >
> > -----Original Message-----
> > From: Ecological Society of America: grants, jobs, news
> > [mailto:ecolo...@listserv.umd.edu] On Behalf Of James Crants
> > Sent: Wednesday, 19 May, 2010 07:37
> > To: ECOLOG-L@LISTSERV.UMD.EDU
> > Subject: Re: [ECOLOG-L] Science and Religion Dogmatic conflict?
> >
> > I, too, appreciate Jane's contribution to this conversation. We can
> > only speculate on the origins of religion, since religion originated
> > long before written language, or even cave art (if neanderthal and
> > modern human religion have a common origin; though I will agree with
> > William Silvert that religion
> > probably didn't come about because any gods revealed their existence to
> our
> > ancestors).
> >
> > However, science can say something about what goes on in the brain
> > when people have religious experiences, and perhaps it can say
> > something about why some people seem to need religion while others
> > couldn't be religious if they wanted to. It can tell us how similar
> > the experience of meditation is to the experience of prayer, or
> > getting mentally absorbed in an anthill, or drawing, or playing an
> > instrument, or driving a car, and so on. Based on a biological
> > understanding of religious experience, plus the archeological
> > evidence, we can form models of how religion originated and evolved in
> > modern humans, and how it is relevant to modern life.
> >
> > I do think the "naturalist's trance" is basically the same as a
> > religious experience. I don't know of any hard evidence bearing on
> > that, but the experience is similar to those I've had from meditation,
> > intense prayer, playing music, painting pictures, and running much
> > further than a mile or so. Such experiences say nothing at all about
> > whether there is such a thing as divinity, but I think they have a lot
> > to do with the origins of humanity's belief in divinity.
> >
> > Jim Crants
> >
> > On Tue, May 18, 2010 at 8:55 PM, Wayne Tyson <landr...@cox.net> wrote:
> >
> > > Ah-HA!
> > >
> > > I think she's GOT IT! By Jove, I think she's got it! The rain in
> > > Spain .
> > .
> > > .
> > >
> > > Eureka! Peak experiences!
> > >
> > > As in all art, the concentration of the intellect somehow gets
> > "processed"
> > > by our inner resources, and "breaks through" back into the conscious
> > after
> > a
> > > period of gestation and there is a birth of insight. Burning bushes
> > > and other hallucinations aside, just about all scientific discovery
> > > is thus produced.
> > >
> > > WT
> > >
> > >
> > > ----- Original Message ----- From: "Jane Shevtsov"
> > > <jane....@gmail.com>
> > >
> > > To: <ECOLOG-L@LISTSERV.UMD.EDU>
> > > Sent: Monday, May 17, 2010 7:48 PM
> > >
> > > Subject: Re: [ECOLOG-L] Science and Religion Dogmatic conflict?
> > >
> > >
> > > I think it's a mistake to reduce religion to
> > >> anthropomorphism/explanations and morality/politics. There is a
> > >> crucial third element -- the human capacity for spiritual
> > >> (meditative, oceanic, transcendent, pick your favorite adjective)
> > >> experiences. These experiences are now being studied by
> > >> psychologists and neuroscientists (look up "neurotheology") and are
> > >> often connected to experiences in nature.
> > >>
> > >> My hypothesis about the origins of such experiences is partially
> > >> inspired by a passage from E.O. Wilson's book _Biophilia_. "In a
> > >> twist my mind came free and I was aware of the hard workings of the
> > >> natural world beyond the periphery of ordinary attention, where
> > >> passions lose their meaning and history is in another dimension,
> > >> without people, and great events pass without record or judgment. I
> > >> was a transient of no consequence in this familiar yet deeply alien
> > >> world that I had come to love. The uncounted products of evolution
> > >> were gathered there for purposes having nothing to do with me;
> > >> their long Cenozoic history was enciphered into a genetic code I
> > >> could not understand. The effect was strangely calming. Breathing
> > >> and heartbeat diminished, concentration intensified. It seemed to
> > >> me that something extraordinary in the forest was very close to
> > >> where I stood, moving to the surface and discovery. ... I willed
> > >> animals to materialize and they came erratically into view."
> > >>
> > >> What does this passage, which describes an experience I suspect
> > >> most members of this list have had, most resemble? It sounds a lot
> > >> like how practitioners of some types of meditation describe their
> > >> experience. But what is this "naturalist's trance" good for, other
> > >> than science? Hunting, gathering and looking out for predators!
> > >> Maybe, just maybe, this was our ancestors' normal state of
> > >> consciousness and maybe various religious and spiritual practices
> > >> arose as a way of recapturing this state as, for biological and
> > >> social reasons, our minds changed.
> > >>
> > >> This is, of course, a guess, but what do you folks think?
> > >>
> > >> Jane Shevtsov
> > >>
> > >>
> > >>
> > >>
> >
> ------------------------------
> James J. Roper, Ph.D. Ecology, Evolution and Population Dynamics of
> Terrestrial Vertebrates
> ------------------------------
> Caixa Postal 19034
> 81531-990 Curitiba, Paraná, Brasil
> ------------------------------
> E-mail: jjro...@gmail.com
> Telefone: 55 41 36730409
> Celular: 55 41 98182559
> Skype-in (USA):+1 706 5501064
> Skype-in (Brazil):+55 41 39415715
> ------------------------------
> Ecology and Conservation at the UFPR <http://www.bio.ufpr.br/ecologia/>
> Home Page <http://jjroper.googlespages.com>
> Ars Artium Consulting <http://arsartium.googlespages.com>
> In Google Earth, copy and paste -> 25 31'18.14" S, 49 05'32.98" W
> ------------------------------
>
