From: Mark Steven Heyman (markheyman@infoproconsulting.com)
Date: Sat Oct 09 2004 - 18:02:15 BST
Hi Scott,
On 8 Oct 2004 at 12:28, Scott Roberts wrote:
I agree that Platt is misusing the word "faith", and that pretty much
along the lines that you say. However, that does not imply that the
value of science has been denigrated.
msh says:
You're right. "Denigrated" is too harsh a word. I felt
uncomfortable using it, but was in a hurry and let it stand. Maybe
something like "diluted" or "obscured."
scott:
Meanwhile, there are some faith-based claims (such as the belief that
mind is reducible to matter) that some folk put forward as
scientific.
msh says:
We agree that neither science nor philosophy adequately explains the
mind-body relationship. I think we've also agreed that saying God
did it doesn't work either. It seems clear, however, that chemicals
can and do affect mental activity, so I'm not ready to say that
science will never find an answer to the question. But maybe it
won't. Personally, I don't have a problem with saying "I don't
know."
>msh said
> Finally, science has a history of well-defined mistakes and
> corrections. Religious faith is, by definition, not falsifiable.
> Any attempt to draw some faith-based parallel between science and
> religion is doomed to failure if not fraud.
scott said:
Religious faith has changed, however. One of its big changes is that
--always excluding religious fundamentalists -- Christians (to be
specific) acknowledge that they lost the battles against science
(Galileo, evolution), but more importantly they acknowledge that they
deserved to lose, and that religion has been improved thereby.
msh says:
Well, this is good, I think. Of more interest to me, however, is how
modern religions will and do react to current scientific challenges
to their beliefs, especially where such religions have at their
disposal some measure of political and military power.
scott said:
What I find annoying are critics of religion who have not studied it.
No modern non-fundamentalist theologian is ignorant of the value of
science, but how many critics of religion are familiar with modern
theology? Of course one can be familiar with theology and still be a
critic. But, for example in the recent Problem of Evil thread, this
argument against the existence of God was presented as if theologians
hadn't been analyzing it up, down, and sideways for millenia.
msh says:
I think I'm the one who presented the POE for discussion from both a
SOM and MOQ point of view. I was pretty familiar with theological
analysis of the problem, up to 25 years ago, when I covered the
history and argument for my Senior Thesis. I foolishly chose to
submit the paper to the one member of the Philosophy Department who
claimed to believe in God, a PH.D. from Princeton who was WAY smarter
then me. Needless to say, he cleaned my clock, writing a response
that was almost as long as the paper itself. However, at the end, he
graciously, and humorously, added the comment: "Even though your
history is selective and your argument fallacious, your conclusion is
probably not wrong."
I no doubt have forgotten a lot since then, and I'm sure new analyses
has been offered since. Who would you recommend for a current view?
Thanks,
Mark Steven Heyman (msh)
--
InfoPro Consulting - The Professional Information Processors
Custom Software Solutions for Windows, PDAs, and the Web Since 1983
Web Site: http://www.infoproconsulting.com
"Thought is only a flash between two long nights, but this flash is
everything." -- Henri Poincare'
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 : Sat Oct 09 2004 - 18:09:25 BST