Re: vortex-digest Digest V2005 #166

[John Robertson]

As I said, "I find Jed's method of argumentation interesting, even 
effective, but in many cases inherently contradictory." Case in point: 
He baldly states that "Robertson is putting words in my mouth. He 
should debate with what I actually said, not with what he thinks I 
think." Hmmm. Nice to know that Jed knows what I think:

"I also find many aspects of Japanese and Chinese religious 
distasteful, or horrifying, and I expect Robertson would, too;" and 
later "I expect Robertson would find them kind of creepy."

Does Jed really know me well enough to "expect" me to find certain 
beliefs distasteful, horrifying or creepy? I have spent more time in 
the third world than he has. I might be many things -- even religious 
-- but I don't view myself as naive. The word that comes to mind is 
patronizing.

I want to make this simple point: While the CENTER of religion and the 
CENTER of science are geographically separate, it is impossible to find 
any clear division between them. Jed professes to be knowledgeable 
about the human condition, but I find it astonishing that he does not 
recognize that both are a part of the human condition -- and 
inseparably so. They always have been and always will be. Astronomical 
prediction is nothing if it is not a manifestation of science; placing 
flowers on graves is nothing if it is not a religious ritual and 
practice, both of which have been a part of the human condition from 
the beginning, as archeology teaches us. I personally despise any 
philosophy that bifurcates the world into two camps: proletariat versus 
bourgeoisie, Aryans versus non-Aryans, extreme feminists versus men, 
Islamists versus infidels (or any religious fundamentalists versus 
anyone else). The most extreme examples of man's inhumanity to man are 
squarely a product of this sort of bifurcation. If it is immoral to 
kill wantonly and selfishly, then the paradigm of bifurcation is 
immoral, since it has killed millions upon millions. It really does 
matter what people believe, because people are given to act on their 
beliefs. Pertinent to this discussion, I also despise the unnecessary 
polarization between science and religion, partly because it is 
logically  unnecessary, but mostly because it can be hurtful -- on both 
sides. The only reason I took exception to Jed's unnecessary attack on 
religion is because quite frankly it is logically unnecessary, 
divisive, and at worst hurtful; hurtful because he is exceptionally 
articulate.

Finally, I disagree with Jed's disagreement. When I said "The strength 
of science and religion is ambiguity and uncertainty, given the 
interface of our humble neocortex with the vast reality of the universe 
of which we are part," I meant it. While logic (the stuff and science) 
and intuition (the stuff of religion) are different, they work together 
in both science and religion. Intuition is absolutely critical -- 
indispensable -- to the scientific process, as C.S. Peirce (some say 
the greatest mind produced on American soil -- yes smarter than me and 
even Jed): "Underlying all such principles there is a fundamental and 
primary abduction [Peirce's word for hypothesis], a hypothesis which we 
must embrace at the outset,however destitute of evidentiary support it 
may be. That hypothesis is that the facts in hand admit of 
rationalization, and of rationalization by us. That we must hope they 
do, for the same reason that a general who has to capture a position or 
see his country ruined, must go on the hypothesis that there is some 
way in which he can and shall capture it. We must be animated by that 
hope concerning the problem we have in hand,whether we extend it to a 
general postulate covering all facts,or not. Now, that the matter of no 
new truth can come from induction or from deduction, we have seen. It 
can only come from abduction; and abduction is, after all, nothing but 
guessing. We are therefore bound to hope that, although the possible 
explanations of our facts may be strictly innumerable, yet our mind 
will be able, in some finite number of guesses, to guess the sole true 
explanation of them." On the other hand, it would be silly to say that 
religion is without logic. One need only read anthropologists like Levi 
Strauss, Edmund Leech, and a myriad others to appreciate the beauty of 
the systems of logic the underly religious belief and behavior.

In short: It is reductionism at its worst to draw a line between 
scientific and religious practice. One emphasizes logic and the other 
intuition, but neither is possible without the other. The interaction 
of our cortex with the so-called lower brain as we interpret the 
incredible universe of which we are a part would have it no other way.