From: Arlo J. Bensinger (ajb102@psu.edu)
Date: Mon Apr 11 2005 - 13:59:15 BST
Platt, Mark,
> I'm arguing
> > that scientific assumptions and religious assumptions are
> > fundamentally different kinds of assumptions, made for very different
> > reasons.
>
> And I am arguing the assumptions are of the same kind made for the same
> reasons, i.e., to attain truth, goodness and beauty in our lives.
I think the conflation of "scientific" faith and "religious" faith is unfair,
and perhaps a purposely distortive. Maybe all human cognition rests upon
"assumptions" we make about the world, but to say the two are equal or
synonomous is like saying that "since orange juice and wine are both beverages,
anyone who drinks either is a drunkard."
"Evidence" need not be restricted to "physicality", but the key is to look at
the possibility of revision built into the system, as Mark argues. "Science" is
designed to adapt. Einstein came along, and our understandings have improved.
Kant, Pirsig, Hume, Wittgenstein... like 'em or hate 'em, they effected change
in the dialogue. In short, as Mark has been arguing, "assumptions" adapt and
change. In "religion" the goal is quite different. It is, in fact, designed to
oppose revision. The "assumptions" become redefined as "unassailable truth",
and dialogue is prevented. Indeed, I don't think you'll find many in the flock
willing to call their belief that, say, Moses parted the sea an "assumption".
You will find many who call it "undisputable fact".
Both "science" and "religion" are, of course, static manifestations, and as such
are entrenched (as all static patterns are). But "science" is, as evidenced by
its change over even the past decade, much more reactive to DQ. When was the
last time "religion" was significantly revised its assumptions?
In short, both may "make assumptions", but the nature, purpose and extent of
these assumptions are significantly different. You can argue, Platt, that their
are gaps in science, as Pirsig does, and that the presentation of science as
fixed truth rather than inquiry (which does occur) is problematic. But I don't
think you can argue that because there are assumptive foundations in each,
"science" and "religion" are uncritically similar.
Arlo
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 Apr 11 2005 - 14:20:01 BST