williams@kirk.DEC (John Williams 223-3402) (05/15/85)
> Mike Writes: > You seem to use `continuity' as your ultimate criterion > for validity. In this, you appear to be at variance with the > vast majority of modern scientific opinion. > Rick Writes: > Can you prove to anybody that you were not created > yesterday at 12:01 along with the rest of the universe, fossil > records, your so-called "memories" and everything else? That > would be a pretty powerful creation wouldn't it! Looks like No > instant of time Requires a Predecessor so one is forced to > choose "creator" or "no creator" before beginning any > examination of where we are at the moment. Limits of Proof, Proof of Limits OH! I seem to be under scrutiny. Well, let's see, what can I say for myself. First of all, I am not trying to prove anything here. I am confined within the system I am describing, and therefore have no absolute proof that things are the way I am able to demonstrate. What I am using is logical probability, which initially appears to be a contradiction, that is, logic is normally associated with certainties, that is, interactions of symbols that have a probability equal to one. The first thing I construct for myself is a list of possibilities. This list may or may not be complete, I will leave that up to the reader to decide. I will decide which one has higher probability, and preferably much higher, because the choices are mutually exclusive. First day: There is a strong possibility that the universe was created on this first day. The is no evidence of anything existing beforehand. ( for the sake of illustration, I am suffering from amnesia ) Second day: Hmmm . . . Another day. Was this created along with all the evidence, thereby creating the illusion that yesterday actually existed, or was it created yesterday, as I previously thought, or think I thought. Third day: Now I have three days in contention. I really can't decide, so I assign each equal probability. 29 years: It seems that the probability for any particular day being the starting point of the universe is becoming exceedingly small. So small, in fact, that the probability for the universe being created on any particular day is all but negligible. Not only that, but the probability for the universe having existed before any particular day is growing increasingly large, and, in fact, grows larger with each passing day. Now, for a major step. I now state that the probability of the universe having existed prior to any arbitrary day ( or moment, if you wish to spice up the odds a little ) approaches certainty without limit. The same concept can be applied for scale, that is, the probability for any particular length of the smallest unit in the universe. The probability for a unit of measurement having a smaller unit of measurement approaches certainty without limit. What I essentially represent is the idea that science is a religion. It contains the independence of personality that is necessary to make accurate conclusions. Not only that, but of all the religions that could be developed, the only religions that you would find to be identical, even though developed independently, whether on this planet or not, would be science. Given that various religions have a probability of being true, the probability for any arbitrary religion approaches zero as you start to add alternatives that are mutually exclusive. Science has the unique characteristic of duplicity, that is, the ability to derive the laws of nature regardless of position within the universe. I should also state that science is independent of opinion. It functions on the laws of probability, which are in essence not natural laws, but laws governing the way one is able to perceive the universe in limited detail, or resolution. The metaphysical observations in eastern religion are more aligned with the analysis of analysis. Opposite poles, universal harmony, etc. are means of analyzing what we observe. They should be considered as more of a methodology than as a description. Granted, the whole concept of philosophy is based on methodology, but a methodology for attaining what? Knowledge? Wisdom? Unfortunately, you find that most religions base spiritual wisdom with scriptural knowledge. But! The truth is not in those books, the truth is out *there*. I will openly admit that I have been influenced by eastern philosophy and religion, yet there is much that still needs to be examined. OR, as Sir Isaac Newton once said, " If I could see any further, it is only because I stand on the shoulders of giants. " All these things I present to you are considerations, and it would be ridiculous for anyone to take anything I say at face value. It seems ridiculous to me that religions do not communicate with one another. They derive truth from dusty books, and adhere, as they must in order to make it through the ranks, to scripture, as if the universe were made of words. It seems to me that religion does contain methodology that is valuable to the social entity, mankind, but unless one is allowed to dominate, the conflict is inevitable. What they should be doing is communicating with each other. What they choose to do is to recruit the ignorant. This perpetuates the competition for resources on a much larger scale, which will ultimately result in war. It is a well established fact that most western religions predict an end to the world and humanity. ( Revelations ) I consider this to be meditation on genocide. I also consider isolationary tactics harmful to a world where we must learn to communicate. I consider eastern religion to be the most meaningful, except when they falsely explain psychological phenomenon, however, they must accept the fact that religious books are not that much unlike any other books. Books are where truth is documented, truth in the sense of what appears to the author to be true, and not where truth can be derived. Probably the hardest thing that we will have to do to ensure our continued survival as a race, is to transpose the natural laws into humane artificial ones that can be applied on a small individual scale. It is only through a benevolent autonomy that mankind can evolve gracefully, and mankind *will* evolve. It is necessary to apply pressure to religious leaders to resolve some form of intermediate unified religion, for it is true that most would rather own a lake than share an ocean. ( Western Philosophy on property ) It is the same illusion of property that leads to revolution. It would be interesting to note how quickly the churches would threaten excommunication if some forum for debate were established for religions. I've seen philosophical debates on television, it would be interesting if the same type of thing went on for religion. The arguments would probably get very heated as each participant would exercise authority from GOD. GOD always has been a good source of authority. John Williams < There is a black hole in your theory >
tos@psc70.UUCP (Dr.Schlesinger) (06/12/85)
Some of the assumptions in this (Williams) article are simply
untrue on their very face. Various leading groups of each of the
world's great faiths have for decades carried on ecumenical
discussions and forums. They have invited the leaders of other faiths
to some of their great conclaves and and congresses (and the
invitations have most often been accepted). At all the major schools
of theology various forms of discussion of the relationship with other
faiths is carried on.
It is probably true that the quality and depth of that
interfaith, ecumenical discourse still leaves much to be desired...
but after all "religion" simply means "belief" -- we're talking about
beliefs which in some cases are extremely divergent, in some cases
rest on clashes of group interests (Muslims vs. Christians during
Crusades, Muslims vs. Hindus in India; Christians vs. everyone else
during height of colonialist expansion of Europeans, and so on), and
in any case always reflect very different life experiences of large
groups of people.