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
.
.
Moq_Discuss mailing list
Listinfo, Unsubscribing etc.
http://lists.moqtalk.org/listinfo.cgi/moq_discuss-moqtalk.org
Archives:
http://lists.moqtalk.org/pipermail/moq_discuss-moqtalk.org/
http://moq.org.uk/pipermail/moq_discuss_archive/
