From: gary tripp (gtripp@ica.net)
Date: Tue Dec 28 1999 - 18:44:23 MST
Matthew Gream wrote:
>Gary Tripp wrote:
>
>>and their faith are something of an enigma to me. In my book, religion in
>>many cases has become a most prolific source of evil while, at the same
>>time, men of science have systematically built an ordered cosmos from the
>>conceptual fabric of mathematics. Prior to hearing of the Bahai faith
>
>I would use the term 'adherence to a framework of belief and meaning'
>rather than the term 'religion'. Scientists and so called rational people
>are just as equally about to carry out forms of evil, or become very
>irrational, if _their_ form of 'ordered cosmos' is threatened. I would not
>say that this applies as a generalisation, but there are many examples to
>support the assertion.
>
Well, you raise a good point but I think that the distinction between
science and religion is one of methodology. Human beings are mythopoets
in that we build models of the world. Our modern mythopoets employ very
high standards of rigour for determining the "measure of fit" of their
models. They do this by assessing their model's predictive power via
statistical methods.
Scientists do harbour conceptual biases but these are more for guidance
in formulating candidate theories. They might express these in informal
circles or during free form discussions but the true test of a theory is
through repeated experiments that are published in peer reviewed journals.
Having said that, I do recognize that in fields such as psychology there are
occasional irrational bouts of controvesy. These issues turn on the problem
of good experimental design. In any event, I don't regard psychology as a
science. However, in all cases the central idea is that
scientists do not proclaim truths; rather, they simply produce models
along with a statistically accurate measure of their level of confidence.
I don't profess to understand much about religion but I suspect that
revelation is the method by which progress is made.
>>freedom of enquiry(?) I remember looking at the Bahai literature and
>>reading "the scientist is the true index of humanity". Thus, to play
>>the devils advocate, I say you can't make generalizations when it comes
>>to human beings.
>
>I would agree that science can be seen as a culmination, or pure form, of
>religion.
I do not agree; science is NOT religion in pure form or any other form.
>It is interesting to relate religious ideas with transhumanism.
>For instance, the idea that through genetic and cognitive enhancements,
>the human will be perfected; and then, through a collective information
>medium, the self can escape its earthly existence and live forever in an
>etherial medium: the electronic pool of unlimited possibilities, and
>creative desires, where each self can fully construct and create its own
>idea of heaven, and live within that heaven for all eternity.
>
Any talk of the possibilities latent within transhuman technology stikes a
resonant chord deep within my heart as I am enamoured of the prospects.
Imagine soaring into the atmosphere of knowledge, of travelling to the stars
and of sharing thoughts and feelings with friends in a manner not unlike a
"communion of kindred spirits". That sounds like heaven to me! All of this
will be possible through science and technology.
I want to correct a possible false impression by saying that if I may
appear to rail against religion it is only because I cheerish the
unfettered search for truth and not because I'm an ogre. I also feel that
compassion and mercy are as essential to our humanity as our mastery over
nature and ..yes.. on occasion we do find these attributes in religious
circles.
/gary
This archive was generated by hypermail 2.1.5 : Fri Nov 01 2002 - 15:06:13 MST