From: Sam Norton (elizaphanian@kohath.wanadoo.co.uk)
Date: Tue Apr 12 2005 - 19:27:06 BST
Hi Arlo,
I wanted to pick on one element from what you said in the 'access to
quality' thread.
> "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?
I think it is a false claim to say that religion is 'designed to oppose
revision'. It's just that the barrier for change is set much higher (for
reasons that we'll be exploring in this thread), in other words, the level
of emotional investment in a particular set of beliefs is much higher. I
would say that the main reason why science changes more rapidly than
religion is that noone cares all that much if the universe is in fact 10
billion years old rather than 9 billion (for example).
But the real question is whether there are any possibilities for change
within a religion (eg Christianity) or whether change is ruled out as such.
I think it's pretty clear that change is not ruled out as such. The biggest
recent example would be Vatican 2, which ushered in a huge number of changes
in the Catholic church (the number of examples from Protestant churches is
much greater). The threshold needed for a change to be accepted is high, but
it does exist.
So, for example, if the christian community came to believe that Jesus was
not the Son of God, there is a mechanism in place for promulgating that
decision - exactly the same mechanism that drew up the doctrine in the first
place. What stops something like that happening isn't - I would say - mostly
down to repression etc, as it is quite easy to leave the church, it's
because the Christian community still thinks that it's true, ie it's the
highest quality explanation that they know of. (or, it's the best looking
picture hanging in the gallery)
I sometimes think there is this assumption that the non-religious position
is of higher quality than the religious one, and therefore any resistance to
change must be due to malign motives like a repressal of free thought or
some such. In other words, the idea that a religious perspective _might_ be
high quality is discounted. I don't believe that that is a true description
of reality. Not least because I used to believe it myself and then started
to study the matter in more depth.... :o)
Regards
Sam
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 - 19:53:31 BST