John, You can't win... if you've truly lurked here as long as you say you have then you should know this by now. Jed has to send the last message to every thread... 8^)
-j -----Original Message----- From: John Robertson [mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED] Sent: Wednesday, April 06, 2005 3:34 PM To: [email protected] Subject: Re: vortex-digest Digest V2005 #166 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. -- No virus found in this incoming message. Checked by AVG Anti-Virus. Version: 7.0.308 / Virus Database: 266.9.3 - Release Date: 05/04/05
