Reply to this resurrected message:
> I am resending a post I sent to PRNCYB in July 1993, because it seems
> relevant to the present discussion about religion. To answer Don's question
> that triggered this debate: in PCP Web, both science and religion ("God")
> are situated at the same level, under the "Metaphysics" node. I am not sure
> that is the optimal arrangement, but it does make some sense.
>
> 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.
>
This is all very nice for "religion" in some ideal sense. When I was a
new Marine lietenant in 1958, Jacksonville, NC, had thirteen Baptist
Churches ALL of which were splits from one original one. They sure didn't
seem that anxious to belong to a whole, UNLESS, it was the fragment
they happened to be in. Moreover, they were sure all the other
Baptists were wrong, let alone other Christions. Then the non-Christians?
We do this in science too. Look at the proliferation of journals,
organizations (PCP?), etc. Look at the granting system and its
good old boy networks. Am I that far off, or are we simply protecting
our own "church" because it is so special and correct to us?
> 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.
Yes, these are the traditional ways to try to make our mode of operation
look different. But is it really? Way back in the sixties, it was
pretty widely accepted that the value free and "end of ideology"
positions were really ideaologies in disguise. How do you fit Karl Popper's
ideas into all this? He thinks (as I understand him) that we can not
escape value judgements and personal bias. Our attempts to do so simply
plaay havoc with our integrety. Now, as we consider cybernetics, or
what ever it is we are supposed to be doing here, isn't there some
operational value in seeing if we can break free from these self
deceptions? The lay writings about the "complexity revolution"
suggest that reductionist science was unwittingly serving a quest for
power and control. They go on to posit that complexity research may be
telling us that the best we can hope for is "understanding" To me this is
NOT a limitation, but a liberation? It is what we pretended we were
doing all along. What will it cost? Less "fat" from those who sponsored
us because they thought we'd help them get power. In this sense we
have the oportunity to move from being the dominant religion to what
we so often profess to be. (see we even traffic in sermons).
Maybe this clarifies my concerns a bit. Don Mikulecky