Newsgroups: comp.ai.philosophy
Path: cantaloupe.srv.cs.cmu.edu!das-news.harvard.edu!news2.near.net!MathWorks.Com!europa.eng.gtefsd.com!howland.reston.ans.net!cs.utexas.edu!utnut!utgpu!pindor
From: pindor@gpu.utcc.utoronto.ca (Andrzej Pindor)
Subject: Re: Is there a spiritual force etc.?
Message-ID: <Cw6uHM.Gyv@gpu.utcc.utoronto.ca>
Organization: UTCC Public Access
References: <SOSUSER.2.2E731869@sos.net> <1994Sep13.120437.5515@datcon.co.uk> < <burt.779605036@aupair.cs.athabascau.ca>
Date: Thu, 15 Sep 1994 20:34:33 GMT
Lines: 106

In article <burt.779605036@aupair.cs.athabascau.ca>,
Burt Voorhees <burt@aupair.cs.athabascau.ca> wrote:
>>In article <1994Sep14.084938.6638@datcon.co.uk>,
>>Eddie Edwards <ee@datcon.co.uk> wrote:
>>.........
>>>
>>>In order to build theories, you need to have axioms.  A scientist may claim
>>>that his axioms are based on large-scale empirical evidence - in fact, so may
>>>a Christian (in fact, they do).
>>>
>>>For instance, every scientist I have met holds the implicit belief in the
>>>consistency of the universe, specifically the temporal invariance of the laws
>>>of physics in one region of space.  You can argue, quite rightly, that if you
>>>didn't keep to this assumption then science would get nowhere - but that does
>>>not change the fact that it *is* an assumption.  If you put your hand on your
>>>heart and said 'Tomorrow, force will be proportional to acceleration' you wil
>l
>>>be making a statement of faith.
>>>
>>You will hopefully agree that the consequences of axioms used by scientist
>>are for all to see (eg. the workstation you are using just now). These
>>axioms are, so to say, born out by the fact that with their help scientists
>>have been able to make a lot of progress in dealing with 'reality'. Now, if
>>you could give an example of useful practical consequences of religious
>>axioms, you would have a point in putting them on equal footing. However,
>>I am afraid that whatever you come up with will have no comparison to
>>the consequences of scientific axioms.
>
>Of course, if one takes the axioms of science,
>which are based on the idea of repeatable experiments
>where the variables can be controlled, then one is
>just not going to see any validity in the ideas of
>religion, which are generally related to unique
>and particular non-repeatable events.
>
What I was objecting to Eddie Edwards putting axioms of science on equal
footing with axioms of religion. You seem to agree that they have different
purposes.

>If you want to see the practical consequences of
>religion, at one level look at the cultural impact
>of religious writers; e.g., Dante.
>
>More generally, ask another question: what are the
>implications of atheism?  That is, if one totally
>accepts the non-existence of any divinity, or anything
>beyond the usual every day, then where does one get
>ones source of ultimate authority for judgemeht?
>One can respond that the source for judgements is
>human reason, always realizing that reason is only
>as good as its initial assumptions.  But doesn't that
>lead to an infinite regress?  Somewhere along the line
>one has to stop with a set of axioms.  Of course, as
>a good scientist, one is willing to change these axioms
>in light of new experience...
>
You are using the word "consequences of axioms" (of science or religion)
in a different sense, since you talk about different category of consequences.
I agree that there is a problem with a moral code for atheists, although
I am not sure it is insurmountable. On other hand, authority based on
a fear of repraisals may not be to everyone's liking.

>But, if one denys..., I don't want to say the divine, or
>God, that would leave out Buddhists..., if one denys
>the existence of something beyond the ordinary and mundane
>reality then I would say that this denial can only be
>effectively accomplished at the expense of erecting a
>barrier between oneself and that beyond, and that barrier
                                  ^^^^^^
You are assuming here that such a "beyond" exists. If it does not, what
barrier are we talking about? I am not saying that it does not exist, but
then again, is a belief that it does rational?

>will take the form of a belief (it could even be a belief
>in "God").  By my definition, this is idoletry.
>
I agree that rejecting the "beyond" is a belief, just as accepting it is.

>One could then look at the different forms this belief
>could take; e.g., fanatic fundamentalism; belief in the
>primacy of the civic virtues; belief in the supremecy
>of ones onw ego...  But it is always a barrier.
>
>As for religion, again, a quote from the 12-th century
>sufi Attar (paraphrased, I've lost the source of the quote)
>"Religion, as the word is used, both by the theologians
>and by there opponents, is not what it is thought to be.
>Rather, religion is a vehicle.  In its customs, rites,
>and moral teachings it is meant to have a certain uplifting
>effect on certain communities at certain times.  Because of
>difficulties in maintaining the science of man, religion
>was choosen as the vehicle for human development.  This
>fact has always been overlooked by the shallow, for whom
>the vehicle has become the idol."
>
I would perhaps agree with sufi Attar if I only knew by whom was the religion
"..meant to have a certain uplifting effect..." and by whom "..religion was
chosen as a vehicle...". Does sufi Attar explain this?
>bv

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
