Relay-Version: version B 2.10 5/3/83; site utzoo.UUCP Posting-Version: version B 2.10.1 6/24/83; site umcp-cs.UUCP Path: utzoo!linus!philabs!cmcl2!seismo!umcp-cs!mangoe From: mangoe@umcp-cs.UUCP (Charley Wingate) Newsgroups: net.religion Subject: Science as Religion Message-ID: <369@umcp-cs.UUCP> Date: Tue, 16-Oct-84 21:42:24 EDT Article-I.D.: umcp-cs.369 Posted: Tue Oct 16 21:42:24 1984 Date-Received: Thu, 18-Oct-84 06:42:19 EDT Distribution: na Organization: U of Maryland, Computer Science Dept., College Park, MD Lines: 55 I would like to examine this religion of science which Rich Rosen and others advocate. Since Rich seems to think that my arguments are predicated upon the tenets of christianity, I will, when I have to appeal to a religion at all, to buddhist and possibly to Taoist tenets. Science is a method of arriving at empirical truths (i.e., principles about the universe which appear to be true, based upon experience). In this form, it has no conflict with religion, although some Buddhists might claim that since the world is illusion, there is no point to trying to find out the properties of that illusion. To claim that scientific methods, however, are the only valid means of acquiring knowledge is, however, to elevate it to a religion, and a shaky one at that. For lack of a better word, I will use scientism to refer to this forma of science. Scientism appears to claim that only its methods produce valid knowledge. In this case, we will have to jettison all of history, since historical knowledge is not subject to any form of scientific verification. Attempts to apply science to history must in fact consist of presupposing the validity of current theory and then interpreting the evidence on that basis. Obviously this means that we must reject the Buddha's revelation under the Bo tree as being illusory and not valid. Since it is easy to conceive that a deity exists that is too complex or not structured to permit it to be understood in the terms of scientific theory, scientism should advise us to be agnostics; I find it interesting that in fact, scientism is profoundly antitheistic. I am also intrigued by the constant emphasis on objective evidence. Objectivity in the examination of evidence is not in fact and either/or thing. There are differing levels of objectivity. On a subject such as miracles, where the proponents of scientism have a stake in proving that there are none, I would not for a moment consider them to be objective observers; somewhere along the line, there is always a subjective evaluation of "good data" versus "bad data', and those on Rich's side of the question always seem eager to throw out reports of miracles. Scientism can lay no claim to any sort of ethical or moral suasion. If you throw out anything that is not material, you throw away moral authority. The response to a statement of ethical responsibility should either be "Oh, that's just your opinion" or "Oh, really?" since it's all subjective anyway. Well, that's about all for now. PLEASE do not mail me huge tracts of this article back to me; extensive quoting hasn't prevented anyone from trying to put words in my mouth. Charley Wingate UUCP: {seismo,allegra,brl-bmd}!umcp-cs!mangoe CSNet: mangoe@umcp-cs ARPA: mangoe@maryland "My wings are like a shield of steel."