Newsgroups: talk.philosophy.misc,comp.ai.philosophy,alt.consciousness
Path: cantaloupe.srv.cs.cmu.edu!das-news2.harvard.edu!fas-news.harvard.edu!newspump.wustl.edu!gumby!newsxfer.itd.umich.edu!gatech!swrinde!cs.utexas.edu!utnut!utgpu!pindor
From: pindor@gpu.utcc.utoronto.ca (Andrzej Pindor)
Subject: Re: Randomness is a human concept (was Re: Time is a human concept)
Message-ID: <CzHBEJ.Dn4@gpu.utcc.utoronto.ca>
Organization: UTCC Public Access
References: <39urtt$jqj@golem.wcc.govt.nz> <3a82ve$e84@news.acns.nwu.edu> <CzDKJD.FH4@gpu.utcc.utoronto.ca> <3ahkta$8o7@manuel.anu.edu.au>
Date: Fri, 18 Nov 1994 19:56:42 GMT
Lines: 40

In article <3ahkta$8o7@manuel.anu.edu.au>,
Andrew Christy <christy@rschp2.anu.edu.au> wrote:
>In article <CzDKJD.FH4@gpu.utcc.utoronto.ca> pindor@gpu.utcc.utoronto.ca (Andrzej Pindor) writes:
>>>
>>Let me comment on this difference in methods of science and religion.
>>Science tries to understand how the universe works by applying reason (logic)
>>to empirical data, i.e. it is a logical structure built upon such data.
>>Religion accepts 'illumination' (internally generated truths with no empirical
>>support) and does not shy away from inconsistencies, which believers are asked
>>to live with.
>>
>So, Andrzej, try to explain this:
>
>1. As a scientist, I can sometimes have a very hard time trying to fit many
> of my new
>observations into a coherent logical framework without a flash of
>'illumination'.
>
But do you then take the "illumination" for granted as it is, or are you
trying to verify it by checking if it can be fitted into into "a coherent 
logical framework"? If it does not fit, you presumebly reject it as false,
right? Or do you stick with it regardless?

>2. As a spiritual being, I use logic when trying to understand why I can
>embrace or empathise with some 'religious' beliefs or behaviours but am
>repelled by others.
>
And do you always succeede without a recourse to some basic tenets which are 
not verifiable? Of course, in mathematics one also starts with axioms, which
are not varifiable, but any set of axioms, as long as it is consistent, is
considered as good as another, even if they lead to vastly different conclu-
sions (say Euclidan or Riemann geometry). This is not usually the case for
religious axioms.

Andrzej
-- 
Andrzej Pindor                        The foolish reject what they see and 
University of Toronto                 not what they think; the wise reject
Instructional and Research Computing  what they think and not what they see.
pindor@gpu.utcc.utoronto.ca                           Huang Po
