From: Scott Roberts (jse885@localnet.com)
Date: Thu Apr 28 2005 - 05:43:38 BST
Mark,
A couple of remarks:
msh:
I'd say scientists assume matter is the primary reality (over
consciousness) because there is lots of evidence to suggest it, while
there is nothing but inconsistent anecdotal evidence to suggest
otherwise. This does not preclude the possibility that evidence
supporting the primacy of consciousness will one day become
available. When and if that day comes, scientific theories will
change accordingly, just as they have through several such paradigm
shifts in the past.
Scott:
What is your "lots of evidence"? I'm not aware of any scientific evidence
that can distinguish between the following two hypotheses:
A. Consciousness is a product of spatio-temporal activity.
B. Consciousness produces the spatio-temporal framework.
though quantum non-locality and uncertainty at the Planck limit suggest (B),
and a consideration of consciousness' ability to be aware of something
continuing in time, requires (B), as I see it.
msh says:
Isn't it possible that we are unwilling to suspend our analytical
faculties and make a leap of faith, just because yet another theistic
belief system promises us psychic rewards. We are not afraid to live
in a world where we're far from having all the answers, and , in
fact, consider such a world dramatically more dynamic and interesting
than your suggested alternative.
Scott:
I look on this as the "religion is for wimps" argument, with the corollary
that secularism is for the macho -- so aptly expressed by Dennett in his
title "Darwin's Dangerous Idea". You gotta be tough to be a Darwinist.
Anyway, the argument is bogus. From my own experience, when I moved from a
secular stance to a religious one, my life got more difficult (having spent
my life in an intellectual, secular environment, suddenly I was alien). If
you understand what religion actually requires of its adherents (admittedly,
almost all, including me, do not measure up -- and awareness of that is
something one must constantly deal with), it is anything but comforting. The
atheist believes that all responsibility ends with death. The Buddhist
believes that responsibility to get off the wheel of life and death is
*your* responsibility, and that responsibility never goes away until you do
(and if you're Mahayana, the responsibility lasts until everyone gets off).
On Christianity, you might consider what is behind Andrew Greeley's
statement: "It is not that Christianity has been tried and found wanting. It
is that Christianity is *hard*." Religion does not provide "all the
answers". It just changes the questions. And I consider my current world
much more dynamic and interesting than my old one.
Of course, I realize that it is comforting for the secularist to believe
otherwise (sorry, couldn't resist :-).
In any case, for me it was not a choice: stay secular or get religious.
Reason demanded the latter, as being the more coherent and more adequate
hypothesis.
- 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 : Thu Apr 28 2005 - 08:31:49 BST