Francis
======================original message================================
>Don Mikulecky mikulecky@jade.vcu.edu
>I'm a bit confused.....It seems that science is the major religion around.
>How does this religion qualify as a "bridge" between itself and other,
>often seemingly oposing, belief structures? Can someone explain this
>to a dedicated heretic?
I am not replying to the initial message on the BRIDGE-L religion mailing
list (which I forwarded just for curiosity), but only to Don's question
about possible "bridges" between science and religion. Some things are
still lacking in science in order to make it a full-fledged religion:
1) "religion" comes originally from the latin verb "religere" which means
"binding together". Thus a primary function of religion is to connect
different fields of experience, and different people and groups, giving
individuals the feeling that they belong to a larger whole. The
fragmentation of science in ever more disciplines and subdisciplines
illustrates the lack of such integration in the scientific approach.
2) in a more practical sense, religion entails a sense of values and
ethics, that is to say it should give answers to questions such as "What
should I do and not do?", "What should I strive for?". Needless to say, the
classical view of science puts the emphasis on it being value-free
(although contemporary critics have characterized that as a delusion).
Remark that in this most general sense, "religion" does not entail belief
in (a) supreme being(s), which is properly called "theism". Most people
would classify Buddhism and Taoism as religions, yet neither entails any
belief in God.
In that sense, PCP does try to build a bridge between "religion" and
science. PCP sets itself as a goal to better integrate different systems of
knowledge, and perhaps even different people or groups. PCP also explicitly
tries to develop a system of values and ethics on the basis of a
generalized view of Darwinian evolution. Whether this will provide a bridge
to the more traditional Christian, Muslim, etc., religions is a matter of
debate. I tend to remain rather sceptical, while Val Turchin is much more
positive, and Cliff Joslyn values an agnostic position. About the existence
of God, we tend to conclude that it is more a question of terminology than
one of substance (in the sense that neither of us would like to argue that
either God does or doesn't exist). I tend to think that Ockham's razor
should be a sufficient motivation to do things without the concept of God.
Val thinks that defining God in cybernetic terms (as a hypothetical
"highest level of control") might help us to bridge the gap with
traditional religions.
_______________________________________________________________________
Dr. Francis Heylighen Systems Researcher
PO, Free University of Brussels, Pleinlaan 2, B -1050 Brussels, Belgium
Phone: +32-2-629 25 25; Fax: +32-2-629 24 89 (**new numbers!)
Email:fheyligh@vnet3.vub.ac.be; URL: http://pespmc1.vub.ac.be/HEYL.html