From: Olga Bourlin (fauxever@sprynet.com)
Date: Mon Oct 08 2001 - 22:17:33 MDT
From: "Samantha Atkins" <samantha@objectent.com>
> "Robert J. Bradbury" wrote:
> >
> > While I normally grant almost all posters to the extropian list
> > a huge grain of salt, I must state that IMO the article by David
> > Selbourne was entirely useless.
> >
> > It was nothing more than a rundown of a position based on opinions
> > unsubstantiated by facts.
> >
> > Islam, Catholicism, Hinduism, Buddism, etc. are faiths based
> > on the "blind" belief of one reality over another. Since they
> > are cannot be subjected to scientific debate, they are useless
> > from an extropian perspective.
>
> Is that a blind belief? Scientific validation is not the only
> way to come to what one considers valid ...
There is, of course, subjective validation (as in anecdotal evidence), but
scientific validation is consistenly the "best" evidence.
>... and crucially important.
Certainly subjective validation may be crucially important (yet that won't
make a particular belief more "true," but rather more "preferred" by
someone).
> Many spiritual systems do not require blind faith but consist of
> a series of exercises and practices possibly leading to a
> validation of a way of being in the world that is seen as of
> great value. Some of these sorts of practices exist within all
> of the major religions and outside of them as well. But I am
> sure you are aware of this also. So why speak as if religion is
> just about "blind belief"?
Even stone sober 20/20 belief is not as good as science, because science is
BEYOND belief. And that, IMHO, makes science a more serious pursuit for
those interested in critical thinking, rationality, and succinctness. (The
habit of scientific critical thinking may be an acquired taste for some, but
once acquired ...yummmmmm.)
Olga
This archive was generated by hypermail 2.1.5 : Sat Nov 02 2002 - 08:11:16 MST