From: Platt Holden (pholden@sc.rr.com)
Date: Tue Apr 12 2005 - 17:13:16 BST
Arlo:
Mark:
> > I'm arguing
> > > that scientific assumptions and religious assumptions are
> > > fundamentally different kinds of assumptions, made for very different
> > > reasons.
Platt:
> > 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.
Arlo:
> 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."
Interesting analogy, but I don't think it reflects my view. What I'm
saying is orange juice and wine are drinks quaffed by both sober people
and drunks alike.
> "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".
You'll also find many scientists who believe spontaneous creation is
"indisputable." But, fundamentalist scientism and religion aside, your
description of science as a rule being more open to change is well taken.
Religious beliefs are slower to adapt to new knowledge about the lower
levels, but they too change as history since the middle ages shows.
But, I don't think whether assumptions change readily or not is the issue.
The fact remains that assumptions form the base of both science and
religious belief "systems."
> 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?
Again, your point is well taken about the difference between the two
systems and their response to DQ. But, I don't think the assumptions built
into the scientific method of ascertaining truth (measurement,
experimentation, verification, etc.) have been revised much since Kepler
and Galileo.
> 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.
I'm not arguing that science and religion are similar in either the way
they ascertain truth or in the territory they investigate. The former is
concerned with the material world, the latter with the spiritual world. To
put it another way, science can give us a chemical analysis of the paint
used in Michelangelo's decoration of the Sistine Chapel, but cannot begin
to explain the impact of the work on millions of visitors over the
centuries. I'm not knocking chemical analysis, but the paintings reveal
higher levels of understanding.
In any case, I think we agree that when it comes to morality, science has
little to say. Pirsig attempts to fill the gap with a pseudo scientific
metaphysics based on empiricism. But his assumptions, like "Quality can
create objects" are just as faith-based as "life spontaneously emerged
from non-life" and God "gave his only begotten son" in Jesus Christ. Which
"belief system" you deem as having high Quality depends, as Pirsig
explained, on your life history. Personally, I think Pirsig's metaphysics
has a lot going for it, but I'm not about to throw out as useless the
history of mankind's experience in matters moral as expressed in the
common law and the Bible.
Best,
Platt
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 : Tue Apr 12 2005 - 17:44:43 BST