Re: MD MOQ and Logic/Science

From: Scott Roberts (jse885@earthlink.net)
Date: Mon Aug 23 2004 - 07:16:25 BST

  • Next message: Paul Turner: "RE: MD The individual in the MOQ"

    MSH,

    > BTW, Popper's idea of Falsification applies to every religious
    > "theory" you can think of. If the baby dies it God's will; if the
    > baby lives it's by the grace of God. One of the reasons I drifted
    > away from Catholicism at an early age.

    Well, I drifted away too, but found reasons to drift back.

    The falsifiability criterion is, of course, only applicable to religion for
    those who think religion is supposed to make sense the same way science
    does. For example, there is a web site that supposedly tests one logic, and
    accuses you of being illogical if you don't believe in the Loch Ness
    Monster, but do believe in God. You are being illogical, they say, because
    there is no physical evidence for either. This ignores that the LNM, if it
    existed, would be visible and tangible, but God is assumed to not be. So
    they are stacking the deck by assuming that only physical evidence counts.

    The main difference between science and religion is that science has to
    work for everybody, but religion works individually. That is why a
    scientific theory has to be falsifiable. A religion, on the other hand has
    to work for one person at a time. This can range widely from people who
    make inane statements like the ones you mentioned, to Zen, which says that
    meditation will lead you to be insight. Spend several years doing so, and
    you may get that insight (as Wilber points out, on average it takes about
    the same time as it takes to get a doctorate in physics.). Hence Zen is not
    falsifiable, but it is verifiable for oneself, if one is willing to put in
    the effort.

    It is very easy to see the faults in religion as practiced, but one should
    bear in mind that most all those who call themselves Christian are
    idolators or heretics of some kind or other. The doctrine of the Trinity,
    for example, pretty much boils down to "God is a triunity, and if you think
    you understand it, you have fallen into some heresy or other." Definitely
    not science, but a powerful koan.
    Of course, one can just forget about the Trinity, but I have found the same
    sort of mystery in human consciousness. The main answers to the mystery
    (idealism and materialism) are understandable, and wrong, since they
    attempt to solve the mystery by redefining one half or the other of
    consciousness phenomena out of existence.

    Anyway, I find religious thinking to be fascinating, because it's task is
    to think about the unthinkable.

    - Scott

    MOQ.ORG - http://www.moq.org
    Mail Archives:
    Aug '98 - Oct '02 - http://alt.venus.co.uk/hypermail/moq_discuss/
    Nov '02 Onward - http://www.venus.co.uk/hypermail/moq_discuss/summary.html
    MD Queries - horse@darkstar.uk.net

    To unsubscribe from moq_discuss follow the instructions at:
    http://www.moq.org/md/subscribe.html



    This archive was generated by hypermail 2.1.5 : Mon Aug 23 2004 - 07:28:05 BST