mangoe@umcp-cs.UUCP (Charley Wingate) (11/29/84)
In article <241@cybvax0.UUCP> mrh@cybvax0.UUCP (Mike Huybensz) writes: >I suppose that the idea is to look beneath the surface of human religions to >find what they hold in common, and to suppose that to be "true". This could >(in the long run) produce a very catholic and adaptive theology that would >allow for cultural differences. > >However, I don't think that the religious approach is the correct way to >deal with the task of seeking commonality of religion. For example, I can >point to their assumption of a single universal god as one of the >prejudices that they haven't given up. > >Instead, I endorse science (sociology, anthropology, sociobiology, etc.) as >the route to understanding. (And for that matter, why shouldn't religions >be designed scientifically, rather than by cabal and political pressures?) >Science is the methodology that best allows casting off of prejudices of >tradition, and has a long history of doing so. Science applied as a universal system of knoledge (which it is not) has a bad history of prejudice against the supernatural. When you start from the position that you will accept no supernatural causes, is it any wonder that you end up endorsing atheism or agnosticism? >I can just imagine bahais happily chorusing "Oh yes, science is true too." >That's the oldest political trick in the book. Put your seal of approval on >something you can't fight, and then try to regulate it. Occam's razor? >"Oh, science doesn't work for religion. It's separate." they'll say. Well, yes indeed, it doesn't work unless you disallow irreproducible actions. The claim that "we don't need God to explain the day-to-day working of the universe", if true, still doesn't imply "there is no God." If God does some action to the universe only once ever, there is no way to determine this. You can always explain it away with a purely physical explanation, and unless you want to guarantee rejecting God, you can't simply opt for the purely physical. Charley Wingate umcp-cs!mangoe
mrh@cybvax0.UUCP (Mike Huybensz) (11/30/84)
In article <1420@umcp-cs.UUCP> mangoe@maryland.UUCP (Charley Wingate) writes: > Science applied as a universal system of knoledge (which it is not) has a > bad history of prejudice against the supernatural. When you start from the > position that you will accept no supernatural causes, is it any wonder that > you end up endorsing atheism or agnosticism? (Hey, no fair! I prefaced my comments with a "flame on"! Well, if you want be rational about it, I'm game.) All human endeavors suffer from prejudices. But I think science has a much better record on overcoming prejudice than religions do. In order to know about a supernatural cause, you must have a supernatural effect. A great many phenomina once considered supernatural have been scientifically investigated and found real, from meteors to zombis. If you show a supernatural effect, someone will be happy to investigate it. Prejudice against supernatural causes is real and justified because they so frequently are displaced by natural cause explanations. > The claim that "we don't need God to explain the day-to-day working of the > universe", if true, still doesn't imply "there is no God." If God does some > action to the universe only once ever, there is no way to determine this. > You can always explain it away with a purely physical explanation, and > unless you want to guarantee rejecting God, you can't simply opt for the > purely physical. You make a fine case for agnosticism instead of atheism here. Which, as an agnostic, I agree with. I'm willing to believe in anything physical and demonstrable. I don't believe or disbelieve in hypothetical supernatural beings on principle. (However, I specifically disbelieve in a large number of theologies, which is another story and based on different criteria.) Another problem with the idea of the "supernatural" is that it is a garbage-bin category. Whatever gets rejected or yet to be categorize by other classifications is thrown into this mish-mosh category. Essentially, the supernatural is the same as the "God of the cracks". It used to be that almost the whole world's functioning was supposedly due to god. But then, along came science and god's role was less than was previously thought. Until now, when god seems to do nothing except what science hasn't yet explained, what science has let slip through the cracks. (You can add logic, mathematics, philosophy, and a few other sources of natural explanations to the term "science" in this argument.) The same is true of the term "supernatural". It is a remanent of its former self. Both god and the supernatural are being whittled down to that which is unknowable, unprovable, undemonstrable, without effect, and thus unimportant. Unimportant because the questions are undecidable and there are no known results. Thus agnosticism. -- Mike Huybensz ...decvax!genrad!mit-eddie!cybvax0!mrh
mangoe@umcp-cs.UUCP (Charley Wingate) (12/01/84)
In article <249@cybvax0.UUCP> mrh@cybvax0.UUCP (Mike Huybensz) writes: [In reply to me] >(Hey, no fair! I prefaced my comments with a "flame on"! Well, if you want > be rational about it, I'm game.) >All human endeavors suffer from prejudices. But I think science has a much >better record on overcoming prejudice than religions do. Maybe I'm exceptionally dense, but I don't understand how you counter a prejudice with another prejudice. Unless, of course, you want to claim that science is the True prejudice, as Rich does. Then you have science, the True Faith. > A great >many phenomina once considered supernatural have been scientifically >investigated and found real, from meteors to zombis. If you show a >supernatural effect, someone will be happy to investigate it. Prejudice >against supernatural causes is real and justified because they so frequently >are displaced by natural cause explanations. Why do I have to keep exlaining the difference between the ressurection and things like meteors????????? [Enter patient mode] Meteors, zombies, spontaneous generation, et al., are phenomena which repeat themselves and are readily amenable to scientific observation. Supernatural explanations of these are malformed natural law, not claims of miracles. The ressurection is (supposedly) not to be repeated, not available for observation. [Enter exasperated mode] There's no way in heaven or hell that I am going to accept an analogy between meteors and the Resurrection. >You make a fine case for agnosticism instead of atheism here. Which, as an >agnostic, I agree with. I'm willing to believe in anything physical and >demonstrable. I don't believe or disbelieve in hypothetical supernatural >beings on principle. (However, I specifically disbelieve in a large number >of theologies, which is another story and based on different criteria.) >Another problem with the idea of the "supernatural" is that it is a >garbage-bin category. Whatever gets rejected or yet to be categorize >by other classifications is thrown into this mish-mosh category. Essentially, >the supernatural is the same as the "God of the cracks". It used to be that >almost the whole world's functioning was supposedly due to god. But then, >along came science and god's role was less than was previously thought. >Until now, when god seems to do nothing except what science hasn't yet >explained, what science has let slip through the cracks. (You can add logic, >mathematics, philosophy, and a few other sources of natural explanations >to the term "science" in this argument.) The same is true of the term >"supernatural". It is a remanent of its former self. Both god and the >supernatural are being whittled down to that which is unknowable, >unprovable, undemonstrable, without effect, and thus unimportant. >Unimportant because the questions are undecidable and there are no known >results. Thus agnosticism. Well, we all know that Christians generally accept that the source of the regular behavior of the universe is God. We derive this from our knowledge of God, not vice versa. I don't see anything wrong with the "God of the Cracks", because it's quite obviously an illusion. A God would HAVE to appear this way, proportional to how often he tore away natural law to reveal himself. Natural law, even if it is provided by God, must serve to conceal Him. It is as if God has erected a wall, on which he has painted the universe, and what we see of him is thus where he has left cracks. [Attention heresy hounds: I realize this sounds very Buddhist, but I don't want to take time here to recast this in Christian terms.] The truth in "God of the Cracks" is the cracks; there is no reason to expect glimpses of God to look like natural law. Charley Wingate umcp-cs!mangoe