Well said, Mohammed. Sent from my Verizon 4G LTE Phone (505) 670-9918 On Jan 12, 2015 7:52 AM, "Mohammed El-Beltagy" <[email protected]> wrote:
> There is a common thread running through this discussion it that to my > mind seems quite problematic. It has to do with imposing a restriction on > any given religion to be "in concordance" with science to be "valid" and > not to be regarded as some fantasy or myth. Here any religion is reified to > its particular version of Genesis, where the poetry and symbolism are > brushed aside for literal or atavistic reading of that story. Such > "reading" is hence held up to our scientific yardstick (or modern values) > to see if it measures up. > > One might as well be questioning the "validity" of Shakespeare's Hamlet by > investigating if it matches up to what we now know of Danish history. > > It is clear to me that the literal and/or anachronistic > readings/interpretations of any holy text often reflects, the all too > human, fears and prejudices of the reader/interpretor at a given point in > time. Often that results in litany of blunders and disasters...somewhat > understatedly. > > However, I posit that one can see a given religion as a mean of reaching > out to gain a grasp on reality in a holistic sense, or a very right brained > sense. Like one observe a flower as total experience and not its component > feature, colors or cellular structure. Such holistic grasp and resultant > passion may often accelerate our understanding of the natural world in the > left brain or analytic sense. This case is very clear in ancient Egypt > where that religious passion gave rise to amazing advances in mathematics, > geometry, astronomy,..etc. The same can be said many religious traditions. > > The conflict arises when a given "reading" is clearly at odds with our > scientific understanding. In that case the "authorities" in any given > religion will do anything in their might to dismiss such new inconvenient > discoveries. This will hold on to their ossified readings, rather than > inject new life in what was once beautiful, poetic, and inspiring. > > > > On Fri, Jan 9, 2015 at 7:37 PM, Steve Smith <[email protected]> wrote: > >> Tory/Marcus/Glen - >> >> Good to hear your "voice" T, after a hiatus... (and that of Vladymir as >> well, also AWOL for some time?) >> >> I think this discussion or even conflict is an important one, and tends >> to get argued on superficial grounds. This discussion, as it unfolds, >> promises to be a little deeper. >> >> I have to support Tory's implications about belief, faith, and delusion. >> We tend to dismiss another's beliefs, no matter *what* they arise from or >> are grounded in as "delusion" if we don't share those beliefs (or perhaps >> just nuances of them). The three Ibrahamic religions, the several >> variants of Catholicism, the *many* variants of Protestantism are a good >> example of this splitting of hairs, whilst other religious or philosophical >> views would dismiss the entire concept of paternalistic creator out of >> hand, offering up yet another cosmology, code of conduct, etc. as "the one >> true way", then again factionating into the bigendians and little endians >> of Johnathon Swift's parody. >> >> I am sympathetic with the view of the scientific method (repeatability) >> that Marcus presents, yet I fear it aggravates the issue in some ways, as >> it admits wholeheartedly that all theories are contingent and through >> experience, but also by the structure of the system, we realize that every >> "objective truth" found by science is contingent on new evidence and new >> theoretical structurings. I learned decades ago to not allow myself to >> think of Scientific Truths as absolute... wonderfully predictive in many >> contexts... powerfully supportive of engineering... but not the route to >> absolute Truth (if there even be such a thing?). >> >> Our Faith in the scientific method, scientific thinking or the collective >> scientific institutions of the world is a form of Faith as well. And as >> Glen points out, there are some judgements of the collective scientific >> institutions which can be a bit hollow upon close inspection and those are >> the ones which often gather the most virulent advocates. I would suggest >> that all emergent phenomena fall into this category, with Darwinian >> Selection a most common example (Global phenomena such as >> emergence/divergence of species attributed to the local survival/selection >> pressures of the individual). Non Scientists who have strong Belief in >> Science perhaps do the worst damage... it is quite fashionable among the >> non-scientific intelligentsia to support Scientific Theories as if they >> were Truth. Evolution being a strong example. Anthropogenic Climate >> Change is perhaps becoming another. There is a lot of Scientific Evidence >> growing to support the latter and it is (in the past 10-20 years) >> fashionable to Believe in it, but it is far from a Scientific Certainty >> such as Classical Mechanics, Thermodynamics, Relativity. >> >> This *is* where *I* happen to put my Faith, what little I have... in the >> methods of Science and in Scientific Thinking as well, and I find it >> extremely difficult to put any similar Faith in another system... maybe >> most particularly those which attempt to adopt the tropes and trappings of >> Science. The suite of New Age ideas that arose (mostly) in the 1980s but >> often based in much older systems such as Astrology and Occultism were >> acutely difficult for me, as they suggest various forms of causality and >> imply "proof" by a (psuedo) scientific method. >> >> While *I* cannot embrace any of the Theistic spiritual systems (religions >> by another name) literaly, I *do* find many of the more whimsical (my term) >> and colorful traditions such as the pantheons of >> egyptian/mesopotamian/hindu/greek/roman/norse and the animism of many >> aboriginal cultures extremely compelling, NOT to understand the physical >> world and it's idiosyncratic behaviour, but to understand the human world >> and *our* ideosyncracies whilst embedded *in* the physical world. Such >> systems do not provide any "answers" for me as such, but do often provide >> useful and interesting perspective. >> >> I cannot help but think that for those who are entirely wedded to a >> singular religious system are drawn by the same features that I am... only >> they mistake weak correlation for strong causation. I am suspicious of the >> exclusionary nature of many religions especially one for which the highest >> sin is Shirk or belief in False Gods, or those which name it's adherents to >> be the "chosen people".... but *that* is a different issue than Belief, >> Faith, Truth methinks... >> >> - Steve >> >> >> On 01/08/2015 10:47 PM, Marcus G. Daniels wrote: >>> >>>> Victoria writes: >>>> >>>> "So any belief other than one's own is a delusion?" >>>> >>>> Subjective experience must run counter to objective evidence to get >>>> this label. A belief that can be represented by a set of features, >>>> understandable by independent observers in a repeatable way is not a >>>> delusion. If someone wants to bind a name like Seraphim to such a set of >>>> features, they may, provided the other observers agree that name is not >>>> confused with other useful names. But if no features are described in >>>> detail, there is no way to tabulate evidence or cross-check the >>>> tabulations. Faith creates names for things, and constraints amongst >>>> things which either can't be grounded in evidence or must endure being >>>> mistaken. One way to endure is by recruiting more people to have affinity >>>> for those ungrounded names and constraints. >>>> >>> >>> Well, Tory makes a good point, though, about the ability of our methods >>> (scientific or not) to establish any sort of objectivity. Sure, faith (and >>> it's kin) is one of the most egregious and specious of the pseudo-objective >>> centroids, gathering lots of people who talk about faith as if it's a real >>> thing, but never being able to actually describe what it means, what it >>> does, how it works, etc. >>> >>> But there are plenty of other concepts, even in science, that are guilty >>> ... not just as guilty, perhaps, but guilty still. I tend to think >>> evolutionary selection is one of them. All of us who believe in it can >>> describe what we think happens and, each of us has an onion-like >>> description. Our outer layers all agree fairly well (much like the >>> faithful). But as you peel each onion, the inner layers can look different >>> from one selection believer to another. Worse yet, amongst the lay >>> population who _say_ they believe in evolution, their onion is really more >>> of a hollow spheroid, with a flimsy outer layer alone. >>> >>> And one way for believers in selection to endure is to recruit more >>> people by giving them hollow spheroids to play with. >>> >>> >> >> ============================================================ >> FRIAM Applied Complexity Group listserv >> Meets Fridays 9a-11:30 at cafe at St. John's College >> to unsubscribe http://redfish.com/mailman/listinfo/friam_redfish.com >> > > > ============================================================ > FRIAM Applied Complexity Group listserv > Meets Fridays 9a-11:30 at cafe at St. John's College > to unsubscribe http://redfish.com/mailman/listinfo/friam_redfish.com >
============================================================ FRIAM Applied Complexity Group listserv Meets Fridays 9a-11:30 at cafe at St. John's College to unsubscribe http://redfish.com/mailman/listinfo/friam_redfish.com
