lishka@uwslh.UUCP (Fish-Guts) (08/23/88)
To: comp-ai-digest@rutgers.edu Path: uwvax!uwslh!lishka From: Fish-Guts <uwslh!lishka@spool.cs.wisc.edu> Newsgroups: comp.ai.digest Subject: Re: The Godless assumption Date: Mon, 22 Aug 88 14:32 EDT References: <19880820041348.2.NICK@HOWARD-JOHNSONS.LCS.MIT.EDU> Reply-To: Fish-Guts <uwslh!lishka@spool.cs.wisc.edu> Organization: U of Wisconsin-Madison, State Hygiene Lab Lines: 85 In a previous article, Marvin Minsky writes: >Date: Sat, 13 Aug 88 01:47 EDT >From: Marvin Minsky <MINSKY@AI.AI.MIT.EDU> >Subject: The Godless assumption >To: AILIST@AI.AI.MIT.EDU, MINSKY@AI.AI.MIT.EDU > > >Andrew Basden warns us > >> Why should 'religious' not also be 'practical'? Many people - >> especially ordinary people, not AI researchers - would claim their >> 'religion' is immensely 'practical'. I suggest the two things are not >> opposed. It may be that many correspondents *assume* that religion is >> a total falsity or irrelevance, but this assumption has not been >> proved correct, and many people find strong empirical evidence >> otherwise. > >Yes, enough to justify what those who "knew" that they were right did >to Bruno, Galileo, Joan, and countless other such victims. There is >no question that people's beliefs have practical consequences; or did >you mean to assert that, in your philosophical opinion, they simply >may have been perfectly correct? I find the above statement by Mr. Minsky to be out of line. It is true that religious beliefs have been used *as*excuses* to commit horrible attrocities (witch burnings, the Crusades, Mr. Minsky's examples above, etc.), but I believe that "science" has been used *as*an*excuse* in the same way (the Nazi's horrible experiments on Jewish people, for instance). Furthermore, both science and religion can be used as excuses for killing and attrocities in the future. Personally, I think that "science" is but a set of beliefs also. One can reject science as readily as on can reject religions. I also propose that for some people a given religion (Christianity, Judaism, Buddhism, Hinduism, African religions, personal religions, Pagan religions, or whatever else) describes their world better than Science; for them religion is a more appropriate (and *practical*) set of beliefs than science is. For many people (myself included), religion and science both provide "appropriate" ways of describing the universe around them. >I hope this won't lead to an endless discussion but, since we have an >expert here on religious belief, I wonder, Andrew, if you could >briefly explain something I never grasped: namely, even if you were >convinced that God wanted you to burn Bruno, why that would lead you >to think that that makes it OK? I propose an alternative question: if you were convinced that, in order to "better mankind" (in the name of science and scientific curiosity), one would need to experiment on and kill countless numbers of animals, would that reason make it OK? How much farther does the same arguemnt need to be taken in order to justify maiming and killing of human beings for experiments? Be really careful when you begin to generalize. Many religions advocate killing and sacrifices, and many do not. There exists a religion where the final goal is to *stop* killing as many creatures as possible (according to an Eastern religion class I took taught by David Knipe, himself a student of Eliade). Science and religion can both be used as excuses for killing, and they can both provide reasons to prevent it. ----- A final note: I see no reason why religion and science cannot coexist together in one's personal beliefs (they do in mine). I see no reason why science should deny the "practicality" of religions, or vice versa. Although some religious sects (esp. Christianity, Judaism, and Catholicism) sometimes clash with science on issues such as evolution vs. creationism, other religions (such as some sects of Buddhism) accept outside beliefs (e.g. science), which has aided in the spread of those religions into various cultures. -Chris [p.s. if anyone feels that this does not belong in comp.ai.digest, I am perfectly willing to discuss this via email.]-- Christopher Lishka ...!{rutgers|ucbvax|...}!uwvax!uwslh!lishka Wisconsin State Lab of Hygiene lishka%uwslh.uucp@cs.wisc.edu Immunology Section (608)262-1617 lishka@uwslh.uucp ---- "...Just because someone is shy and gets straight A's does not mean they won't put wads of gum in your arm pits." - Lynda Barry, "Ernie Pook's Commeek: Gum of Mystery"
greg@csoft.co.nz (08/25/88)
Date: Mon, 22 Aug 88 21:01 EDT To: comp-ai-digest@uunet.UU.NET Responding-System: cstowe.csoft.co.nz From: greg@csoft.co.nz Path: cstowe!greg From: Greg <greg@cstowe.csoft.co.nz> Newsgroups: comp.ai.digest Subject: Re: The Godless assumption Summary: Reason and Religion to Humans Date: Mon, 22 Aug 88 21:01 EDT References: <19880820041405.5.NICK@HOWARD-JOHNSONS.LCS.MIT.EDU> Reply-To: Greg <greg@cstowe.UUCP> Distribution: world Organization: Commercial Software Ltd., Palm Nth, New Zealand Lines: 42 I have edited out a large number of comments from both sides which could be debated, but do not belong here. In fact, none of this does, but I will correct that in my posting! In a previous article, T. William Wells writes: >In a previous article, IT21@SYSB.SALFORD.AC.UK writes: >: It may >: be that many correspondents *assume* that religion is a total falsity or >: irrelevance, > > proposing not only >that religion is practical, but that it might be `true'. >However, the religious `true' is antithetical to any rational >`true': religion and reason entail diametrically opposed views of >reality: religion requires the unconstrained and unknowable as >its base, reason requires the contrained and knowable as its >base. The reason basis described here is HUMAN, based on a human perception of the universe, which is limited at best. If I successfully managed to build an AI by any method other than running it thru a complete human simulation (A Mind Forever Voyaging, Infocom Games), I would be surprised if it's reasoning could be compared to a humans. Much human reasoning is based on emotions and values that would probably be no discernable value to the computer. Different human cultures are differ in their perception of reason. The computer could probably only be described as inscrutable. It would even be rather disconcerting to have the first AI proclaim it's belief in a religion. Come to think about it, anything the first AI 'thought' would probably have an profound effect on the human model of the universe. For futher reading about AI's in a universe of their own, read Gibson, William - Neuromancer, Count Zero and Burning Chrome. They may change your perception of AI. Disclaimer - tricked you - this is just an AI in the net anyway. -- Greg Calkin Commercial Software N.Z. Limited, ...!uunet!vuwcomp!dsiramd!pnamd!cstowe!greg PO Box 4030 Palmerston North, or greg@csoft.co.nz New Zealand. Phone (063)-65955
ok@quintus.UUCP (Richard A. O'Keefe) (08/25/88)
To: Path: quintus!ok From: Richard A. O'Keefe <quintus!ok@Sun.COM> Newsgroups: comp.ai.digest Subject: Re: The Godless assumption Date: Tue, 23 Aug 88 04:04 EDT References: <19880823022420.7.NICK@HOWARD-JOHNSONS.LCS.MIT.EDU> Sender: quintus!news@Sun.COM Reply-To: Richard A. O'Keefe <quintus!ok@Sun.COM> Organization: Quintus Computer Systems, Inc. Lines: 27 In a previous article, lishka@uwslh.UUCP writes: >It is true that religious beliefs have been used *as*excuses* to commit >horrible atrocities (witch burnings, ... This concedes too much. It is widely believed, but that doesn't make it true. The belief in the existence and malevolence of witches was an *empirical* belief. If you read "Malleus Maleficarum" (there is at least one translation available in Paperback) or if you read the court transcripts and pamphlets from the New England witchcraft trials (there's an historical society which issued reprints in the first half of this century) you will find few if any appeals to faith, but many appeals to evidence. Where we disagree with the past is about what constitutes evidence (we do not, I trust, regard torture as necessary on the grounds that evidence so produced is the most reliable kind, but if we _did_ think that, what do _you_ think law enforcement agencies would do?). There are any number of people today who believe in ghosts, poltergeists, ESP, and the like, on far worse evidence than our forbears had for believing in witches. Either there were no few people who wished to be witches, and even believed that they _were_ witches, or all court testimony is worthless (as Ambrose Bierce once said, somewhat more forcefully). Some of the other messages have reflected a similar credulous acceptance of "pop history". The past is stranger than we imagine. This topic really hasn't much to do with AI. Perhaps it could be moved somewhere else?
jtr@cs.exeter.ac.UK (Jason Trenouth) (08/25/88)
To: comp-ai-digest@ukc.ac.uk Path: expya!jtr From: Jason Trenouth <mcvax!cs.exeter.ac.uk!jtr@uunet.UU.NET> Newsgroups: comp.ai.digest Subject: Re: The Godless assumption Date: Wed, 24 Aug 88 07:01 EDT References: <19880812193740.4.NICK@HOWARD-JOHNSONS.LCS.MIT.EDU> Sender: mcvax!cs.exeter.ac.uk!news@uunet.UU.NET Distribution: local Organization: Computer Science, Exeter University, UK. Lines: 25 In-Reply-To: IT21@SYSB.SALFORD.AC.UK's message of 12 Aug 88 19:37:00 GMT Posting-Front-End: GNU Emacs 18.41.3 of Thu Jan 7 1988 on exsc (berkeley-unix) Surely the "godless assumption" is the natural assumption of all scientific endevour? If we begin allowing for the existance of a supernatural god, who could interfere with our experiments, then any major difficulty might halt progress. The scientists could reason that their god just doesn't want them to know any more. Its extreme form is "Cartesian doubt": I think therefore I am, and I definitely can't try to do any research! Some theists get around this aspect of an interfering god by positing that it created the universe, which now runs all by itself according to some laws. In this case we don't need to take the god into account anyway. There is another alternative, which is to argue that there are a number of people whose minds are effected by belief in a god, even though we assume its nonexistence. In this case it is merely another facet of human cognition available for study. Ciaou - JT. -- ______________________________________________________________________________ | Jason Trenouth, | JANET: jtr@uk.ac.exeter.cs | | Computer Science Dept, | UUCP: jtr@expya.uucp | | Exeter University, Devon, EX4 4PT, UK. | BITNET: jtr%uk.ac.exeter.cs@ukacrl|
ALFONSEC@EMDCCI11.BITNET (08/26/88)
Date: Thu, 25 Aug 88 09:23:43 HOE To: AILIST@ai.ai.mit.edu From: ALFONSEC%EMDCCI11.BITNET@CUNYVM.CUNY.EDU Comment: CROSSNET mail via SMTP@INTERBIT Date: 25 August 1988, 09:22:40 HOE Sec: Security Classification U/I/C From: ALFONSEC@EMDCCI11 To: AILIST@AI.AI.MIT.EDU at EDU Subject: The Godless Assumption Ref: AIList Digest Volume 8 : Issue 64. In a previous article, John McCarthy says: > Burning Giordano Bruno presents problems for many religions that Hiroshima > doesn't present for science. Science doesn't claim that scientific > discoveries can't be used in war. Isaac Asimov (in "The sin of the scientist") contends that Science knew sin when the first product was developed that could be used ONLY in war. If I recall correctly, this product was mustard-gas (used in WWI). > A religion that claimed that the Catholic Church was protected > from doing evil by God, that the Catholic Church was responsible > for the killing of Bruno and that killing Bruno was a crime > have problems. The Catholic Church never claimed that its members (whatever their hyerarchy level) were protected from doing evil. The "infallibility of the pope" has nothing to do with that. It affects not deeds, but sayings, and only very special ones (only twice in the last 150 years). In a previous article, sas@BBN.COM says: > To my knowledge there is no scientific litmus test which can determine > the good or evil of a particular thought of action. True. From premises in the indicative mode ("this is so") you can never deduce a conclusion in the imperative ("you shall do so"). You need at least a premise in the imperative (i.e. a moral axiom). In a previous article, Surya M Mantha says: >In a previous article, ALFONSEC@EMDCCI11.BITNET writes: >> >>burned in Hiroshima in 1945. In actual fact, neither Religion nor Science >>are discredited because of that, only people who do things can be discredited >>by them. Theories are discredited by negative evidence or by reason. >> > Not surprising!! This line of reasoning I mean. It is one that is >mostly commonly used to defend institutions that are inherently unjust >undemocratic and intolerant. The blame always lies with "people". The >institution itself ( be it "organized religion", "socialism", "state >capitalism") is beyond reproach. Afterall, it does not owe its existence >to man does it? I was not defending institutions. Religion and Science are not institutions. A Church or a University are. Institutions are made out of people. If people can be blamed, obviously the institutions can, too. I was not even attacking people. Who am I to pass judgment on people who lived at a place, a time, an environment, and who had a background very different from mine? Finally, in a previous article, Thomas Grossi says: >In a previous article, ALFONSEC@EMDCCI11.BITNET writes: >> .... If Religion is discredited because Giordano Bruno was burnt at >> the stake in 1600, then Science is discredited because 120,000 people were >> burned in Hiroshima in 1945. >No, World Politics is discredited: the bomb was dropped for political reasons, >not scientific ones. Science provided the means, as it did (in a certain >sense) for Religion as well. Agreed. But it was also World Politics that was discredited when Bruno was burnt. There was a lots of politics involved in that. M. Alfonseca (Usual disclaimer)
liz@grian.UUCP (Liz Allen-Mitchell) (09/06/88)
To: elroy!ames!comp-ai-digest@ames.arc.nasa.gov cc: liz@ames.arc.nasa.gov Subject: Re: The Godless Assumption Date: Sat, 3 Sep 88 18:16 EDT From: Liz Allen-Mitchell <elroy!grian!liz@ames.arc.nasa.gov> Where are we starting with this? Too many folks seem to be starting with science and saying that God can't exist because of whatever or that God does exist because the world is orderly or whatever. But I don't think too many people actually start there. Science can't prove or disprove the existence of God (as at least one person *did* point out). Where do *I* start? Where many people start -- I believe there is a God. A lot of people start with the opposite assumption -- that there is not a God. So, how does either assumption effect how we do science? For me, my belief in God goes a little further than just an assumption that there is a supernatural being out there somewhere. I believe some very particular things about God. I don't, for example, believe that God is whimsical and changes the results of my experiments just to confuse or mislead me. I believe that God created the universe and that He did so in an orderly way -- in a way that allows us to reason about everything from whether or not the sun will rise tomorrow to whether or not my connectionist network is going to settle down with reasonable results. I do believe that God does "interfere" in the natural world from time to time, but that is more the exception than the rule (I could go into more detail here, but I think it is getting rather far off the digest's subject). But, because I believe that God made the world in an orderly way and that He does want us to learn about His creation, I can do science believing that I will learn not only about the world but also about God. For me believing in God enhances doing science. Others may believe in a God, but not believe in one who is orderly. They may well have problems doing science, as some have pointed out. Many do not believe in God at all. They may well believe the world is orderly but others, who are probably not scientists, may *not* believe in an orderly world. I don't think that a belief that there is no God can lead one to assume that the world is a place that we can understand in a scientific way. I can see how one who *is* doing science can expect it to be fruitful because it has been in the past, but if you have never been exposed to science, you may be difficult to convince that science is not a rather hopeless pursuit. You may believe that while some things (like the sun rising) are predictable, other things (like the wind blowing) are totally random events. I assume that since we are all scientists (or at least trying to be!), that we do believe in an orderly universe. Believing that there is a God no more precludes that than believing that there is no God. Re Bill Wells' article about revealed knowledge: He seems to be assuming that anyone believing in revealed knowledge must hold all revealed knowledge absolutely. This is not necessarily so. I think all of us hold some knowledge absolutely (eg that the world is orderly). For those of us who believe that some knowledge is revealed by God, the knowledge we hold absolutely includes some revealed knowledge. But does that mean we hold all revealed knowledge that way? No. One can believe in God, believe that He is perfect and believe that He speaks to you and yet believe that not everything you think He has told you is absolutely true. Some do come to this conclusion, but they are basing this on the (false) assumption that they always hear God perfectly. Let me give you an example and then explain how I handle this. If you run an experiment twice and get results that contradict previous results, how do you handle it? Do you decide that the world must not be orderly after all? Maybe you do on a cynical day, but most likely, you decide you made a mistake somewhere. That's how I handle revealed knowledge. If it contradicts some other beliefs I have or if some later evidence contradicts the revealed knowledge, I don't stop believing in God or in an orderly world. I try to figure out where I made a mistake -- and I do allow for the possibility that I simply made up my "revealed knowledge". From a scientist *and* a Christian... -- - Liz Allen-Mitchell liz@grian.cps.altadena.ca.us ames!elroy!grian!liz "God is light; in him there is no darkness at all." -- 1 John 1:5b