Relay-Version: version B 2.10 5/3/83; site utzoo.UUCP Posting-Version: version B 2.10 5/3/83; site pyuxd.UUCP Path: utzoo!linus!decvax!bellcore!allegra!ulysses!gamma!pyuxww!pyuxd!rlr From: rlr@pyuxd.UUCP (Rich Rosen) Newsgroups: net.religion,net.flame Subject: Re: A Conversation With Sir John Eccles (tired of Rosen!) Message-ID: <345@pyuxd.UUCP> Date: Mon, 31-Dec-84 11:35:52 EST Article-I.D.: pyuxd.345 Posted: Mon Dec 31 11:35:52 1984 Date-Received: Tue, 1-Jan-85 06:19:24 EST References: <79@decwrl.UUCP> Organization: Bell Communications Research, Piscataway N.J. Lines: 101 Of course, he's tired. He's tired of having to answer my points about the flaws in his "logic" (quotes most necessary), thus he avoids doing so. > Sir John Eccles is a Nobel laureate in medicine and physiology and a pioneer > in brain research. A neurobiologist, he has taught at universities in > Great Britain, Australia and the U.S. (Should I bother to say "thus, he's right, of course", as Ken assumes, or is that "understood"? This man makes Lewis seem objective.) > "We need to discredit the belief held by many scientists that science will > ultimately deliever the final truth about everything. REASON: because believing that rational analysis and scientific method are THE means to acquire true truth (not truth based on standards and ethic, as Arndt would suppose) would INVALIDATE irrational superstitions and nonsensical belief systems, and we (whoever "we" is) can't afford that, can "we"? > "Unfortunately, many scientists and interpreters of science don't understand > the limits of the discipline. They claim much more than they should. They > argue that someday science will explain values, beauty, love, friendship, > aesthetics and literary quality. They say: 'All of these will eventually be > explicable in terms of brain performance. We only have to know more about the > brain.' That view is nothing more than a superstitution that confuses both > the public and many scientists. Loaded rhetoric of the shoddiest kind. I don't recall anyone among the body of learned scientists (to use terms acceptable to Ken) who has ever cared to make such a claim. Eccles, of course, manipulates the reader into thinking "What? Scientists say THAT? That's horrible! It interferes with my preconceived notions about values, truth, beauty, etc., thus it MUST be wrong! What a clever man this is. No wonder he won a Nobel Prize!" > "Science also cannot explain the existence of each of us as a unique self, > nor can it answer such fundamental questions as: Who am I? Why am I here? > How did I come to be at a certain place and time? What happens after death? > These are all mysteries that are beyond science." Thus, religion, which provides pre-fab ASSUMED answers to these questions that are PLEASING to the wishful thinking human mind who NEEDS/WANTS to have a pre-defined purpose (rather than defining his/her own), NEEDS/WANTS to "know" that there will be life after death, NEEDS/WANTS to have a "reason" for existing, for "being at a certain place and time (i.e., a reason determined by an overseeing deity and not one owing itself to simple physical processes), thus, RELIGION holds the key. The key to an imaginary door. > "Science has gone too far in breaking down man's belief in his spiritual > greatness and has given him the belief that he is merely an insignificant > animal who has arisen by chance and necessity on an insignificant planet > lost in the great cosmic immensity. TRANSLATION: Despite evidence that shows that man is "merely" an "insignificant" animal (remember, these are Eccles' words!!), this man, quite anthropocentrically, wants (needs?) to believe that he is "more". I don't find anything "mere" or "insignificant" in my existence, I don't find anything "mere" and "insignificant" about existence of any animals or life forms. This is not enough, however, for the anthropocentric religionist. He/she wants MORE!!! So he/she devises (or adheres to) a belief system (unsubstantiated, of course) that elevates him/her to a higher level---God is great, he created us to rule this planet, which is HIS shining star (??) in the universe, thus we are also great, more than those insignificant mere animals! > But that does not mean that religion and science are necessarily at odds. > Max Planck, the great physicst, was a practicing Catholic. Albert Einstein > believed in a God of the cosmos. Werner Heisenberg also held religious views, > though he was not a man who practiced religion. I, myself, am a practicing > Christian. And Hitler and Stalin, of course, didn't believe in God. Thus good people all believe in god, and evil ones don't. Therefore god MUST exist, and he must be good. That sums it all up. Can we go home now? > To hold views such as mine about the mystery of existence, you don't have to > be a religious person. The great philosopher of science Sir Karl Popper, > with whom I have written a book on this subject, holds similar beliefs - > and he describes himself as an agnostic. Both of us recognize the great > wonder of existence. We believe in both a material world and a > mental-spiritual world." > (Taken from U.S.News & World Report, recent issue.) A scientific approach lends itself much more to the "wonders of existence" than a wishful thinking religious approach, which already has answers that its followers believe that they "know" to be true. The reason for this is because scientific approaches ensure that we find the real reasons behind the workings of the things we wonder about, the things we are awestruck by, rather than the wishful thinking hypotheses of those who would like the reasons to be of a certain form. > Gee, could there be somethin' to it???? Didn't I just show otherwise? That's why I love freedom of speech: it allows buffoons like Arndt who have nothing to say (else why would they have to quote other people's words rather than their own?) to say what they will, and in turn allows others to show how swiss-cheezy their thinking really is. By the way, Ken, if you posted or mailed any articles in response to my recent submissions (including the scholarly article I quoted), please remail to me. We haven't gotten news for two weeks owing to non-support. -- Anything's possible, but only a few things actually happen. Rich Rosen pyuxd!rlr