Newsgroups: sci.physics,alt.sci.physics.new-theories,alt.consciousness,sci.skeptic,sci.cognitive,comp.ai,sci.edu
Path: cantaloupe.srv.cs.cmu.edu!das-news2.harvard.edu!news2.near.net!news.mathworks.com!uunet!in1.uu.net!boulder!news.coop.net!news.den.mmc.com!news2!pogo.den.mmc.com!virdy
From: virdy@pogo.den.mmc.com (Mahipal Singh Virdy)
Subject: Re: New Physics Curriculum
Message-ID: <1995Mar23.170849.24049@news2.den.mmc.com>
Sender: news@news2.den.mmc.com (News Admin)
Nntp-Posting-Host: pogo.den.mmc.com
Organization: Martin Marietta Astronautics
References: <3j3ck3$27r@ixnews2.ix.netcom.com> <3k7vct$uuu@nntp.stanford.edu> <11728@eagle.ukc.ac.uk> <3kndoj$6gm@nntp.stanford.edu>
Date: Thu, 23 Mar 1995 17:08:49 GMT
Lines: 102
Xref: glinda.oz.cs.cmu.edu sci.physics:114796 sci.skeptic:107808 sci.cognitive:6949 comp.ai:28407 sci.edu:8065

In article <3kndoj$6gm@nntp.stanford.edu>,
Adam Heath Clark <rubble@leland.Stanford.EDU> wrote:
>dmp1 (D.M.Procida@ukc.ac.uk) wrote:
>: In article <3k7vct$uuu@nntp.stanford.edu>,
>: Adam Heath Clark <rubble@leland.Stanford.EDU> wrote:
>
>: >               My  only point was incredulity that a prize given for
>: >reconciling physics and theology would be taken seriously by any
>: >respectable scientists.  Science is based on empirical evidence, with
>: >repeatability, good methodology, and lots of scepticism as cornerstones,
>: >and inherent in it is the recognition that what 'sounds' right or 
>: >'feels' right or what we want to be right has *nothing* (zip, zilch, zero)
>: >to do with what is actually right.  
>
[nice discussion sniped...]
>
>And yes, scientists are human, and science is a human enterprise.  The
>direction that science 'looks' is determined by human wants and needs,
>and to some extent human emotions can interfere with science by 
>suppressing investigation, or pushing an inferior theory.  But these 
>are not part of, and in fact detract from, science itself.
>

That's precisely why Science is NOT strictly a human enterprise. The
Earth and the Galaxies don't require the presence of humans in order for
them to evolve. We being humans, impose our image upon science much like
shaping Gods in our images. Science goes beyond what humans think or
enterprise.

>: You continue:
>
>: >                                   Theology is basically a bunch of
>: >stories passed down from our ancestors, who very clearly had much less
>: >knowledge of what was going on around them (and inside them) than we
>: >do, which claims to be *TRUTH*, is filled with things that people want
>: >to believe but for which there is no evidence, and which has been in
>: >almost constant battle with scientific thought for millenia.  Now, does
>: >this sound like prize that someone dedicated to scientific thought
>: >would covet?  It sounds more like a prize designed to make religion
>: >look respectable.
>
Excellent point. But.. religion will survive even at the expense of
buying the credibility of scientific thought. THe only real danger I see
is that religious predispositions will demand a tarnishing of the
objective scientific Nature. And "Science"="Nature"="Physics"="..." goes
on regardless of what any set of living humans think or do. 

>I think you'd have a hard time getting too many people to agree with the
>hidden-God idea.  AFAIK, most people believe in angels, miracles, personal

what means AFAIK?

>Basically, religion operates off the authority of texts and personal
>experiences of believers.  Science considers both those to be
>thoroughly inadequate as sources of evidence.  Thus I don't see how
>science and religion can even coexist peacefully, much less be integrated.
>--
>- - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - -
>Adam Clark                           One of these days, I'm going
>rubble@leland.stanford.edu           to cut you into little pieces...
>- - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - -

They HAVE to coexist. It's not in the realm of either science or
religion to stop people from thinking freely. After burning Brunno (?)
at the stake, for his belief in the Copernican Planetary System, one has
to be a bit paranoid about what they admit they think. But that is
ancient history, much like Nazism. Sigh.

When people start fearing what they themselves think, because it goes
against a Sci. or Rel. or Political INSTITUTION, then FRuCKing SHIT!!

They HAVE to coexist. Freedom of thought and its expression is a higher
ideal than any axiom of either Sci or Rel. (Well... sort of 8-)...)

Previously within this thread:
>
>Man creates meaning from meaninglessness.  The universe has no
>intrinsic meaning.  Wherever did you get that idea?
>
>Rodney

This is not fair. If there is no meaning to be had out of something,
then there's no meaning to create. Meaning comes from repeated
observations of (scientific) events. The rising and falling of the Sun
means something. The fact that it happens repeatedly speaks of a
meaningful pattern. One can schedule one's time by it, etc.

Though the Universe may have no intrinsic meaning, it is unwise to
assume that it has NO intrinsic meaning. This form of rhetoric is the
diametric extreme of saying that Creationism Science is "Science". For
it is not in the strictest sense of science by observation and
experiment. 

If all the books I ever read, movies I ever watched, ... were truly and
objectively MEANINGLESS, then I would not acknowledge that something
meant something to me. I would hate to think every life, or the sum
cummulative life experience of Humankind, was without Meaning.  

Mahipal,
|meforce> changes <me>.


