Splendid thread! (And I don't mean that in any Two Cities, Dickensian sense.)
Personally, I find great harmony between(+among) science(s)+religion(s). In my
esteem, science(s) and religion(s) share essential similarities in their
both/all being modes of human thought. I find affinity in M.
Moore's(+Einsten's+Rilke's+a lot of people's) idea of translatability of
ideas/matters/energies, although I take some exception to some extensions
thereof. In science(s), we often attempt to describe existence(s) using
methods/techniques/instruments to detect, describe and - often - quantify
energies of objects...
[[riff on objects]] The idea of objectivity concerns me (apparently
paradoxical reflexivity intended). Personally, I think it's impossible to
observe something without the observer exerting influence on the observed - the
linking of all things, eh? (And that pesky thread again!) Relatively
recently, I had a sort of Archimedes/Edison/ah-ha! moment myself when listening
to J.J.N.L.Y.T. Gyatsothe - the current (ohms and all) Dalai Lama - discuss the
interface(s) of science and religion; what struck me was his comparison of
meditation techniques and the scientific method - which J. Shevtsov introduced
in excerpting E.O. Wilson: this D. Lama talked about how some meditation
practices are every bit as methodical and rationally thought-out as aspects of
scientific inquiry; he talked about how those meditative approaches had been
developed, refined and passed down by generations of practitioners who were
able to come to some inter-subjective ( - that's a particular phrase that !
sticks with me - ) way to describe the specific methods they used to achieve
certain and equally specific mental/spiritual/extant states, and then to
describe what those states were like with similar accord. As, J.J. Roper
notes, these people thought a lot about these approaches and modes, with an
almost scientific attention. In such framing, I see no evidence for
irresolvable discord among ideas of rationality, empiricism, mysticism,
intuition, emotion, poetry and so on; rather, I see incorporation and synthesis
of human capacity. I see a nuanced beauty. (We'll get to truth.) I think
hooking monks up to fMRI machines may provide a different means of describing
what they could tell you in their own particular idioms, and without all the
electric and petrochemical infrastructure. [[return from riff]]
And, personally (I'm going to stop with that adverb since it's inherent in my
expressions), I don't find science(s) to be bound, except in how we choose to
apply what we call science - it's a matter of applied interpretation, in my
esteem. I think questions of divinity and unifying aspects of the universe
(maybe multi-verse?) can be investigated/accessed with as much methodology,
logic and deliberateness (see above and also Aquinas, T. 'round about 1270-ish)
as questions of physical sciences. I think ideas and emotions are just as
observable as insects. "I will show you fear in a handful of dust."
I'd also like to touch on something that M. Moore brought up: do we really
want to know? Or, modified: can we really know? Surely not by logic alone...
I've (thankfully) never taken classes on logic but from what I've read of
infinite regress (e.g., evidence for our evidence), axiomatic assumptions,
Agrippa and Gödel, I gather that logic is problematic, and like its cousin,
mathematics, is shot through with unreason and paradox and conundrum (nod to
D.F. Wallace, RIP). Proposition Q: Proposition Q is not provable. Truth:
Truths are only provable when true. As D. Pursell notes, truth is tricky to
define, especially with our inherently abstract, ambiguous
language/representational/number systems (nods to D. Pursell + W. Tyson + D.F.
Wallace here + all intellectual predecessors who led to them) - water is not
the word water. Language can impede and facilitate communication, depending on
who's in the audience. We always seem to start with the ifs given. I like the
id!
ea of only opining on what one could explain to one's mother, yet that assumes
one wants to talk to her, or can find her. {{Uh-oh, now I'm thinking about my
thoughts... oy indeed!}}
I also think (believe, opine, tra la la) it's unfair to paint religion(s) as
the only human endeavor plagued by dogmatism and imperialistic-oriented
evangelism (and any number of other -isms). I think science, journalism,
politics and any human activity can be manipulated by power-hungry, overzealous
authoritarian interests who profit from suppressing questioning and independent
thought. I think one big benefit of what we call science relates to the
peer-review/inter-subjective process of debate, culling, further study and
tentative agreement... I think religion(s) are just as capable of harboring
lunatic rogues and science(s) - that doesn't condemn either entire enterprise,
if they are in fact so separate. For example, I've read and discussed a lot of
religions and I think the principle of reciprocal interpersonal ethics (some
would gild this and use words like "unto" and "do" - note that it can be
rendered very scientific-sounding by throwing in a few quadra-/penta-syll!
abic adjectives with balanced consonant-to-vowel ratios preceded by "the
principle of") stands as an example of an idea that has been broadly vetted
across time and cultures and accepted in a variety of religious
ellipses/circles. (Ahh, but what of child sacrifice? you say?! Nay? Or Yea?
Maybe a fuzzy-setted, conditional kind of Maybe-Nay?)
And I think much of this discussion has too conveniently divorced the spread of
Science (as such) from colonialism and religious proselytizing... there's
suspicious spatiotemporal correlation there too, methinks. Empires of
empiricism? B./W. Silvert touched on the idea of power structure. (I think)
When anyone presents and idea that threatens current power structures,
opposition will arise - the rationality of which depends on perspective. One
example cited by J. Crants: when astrophysicists suggest (based on years of
meticulous research which maybe helped those astrophysicists to feed themselves
and their families) the universe is much older than some religious leader
purports, and said religious leader's reputation, position and ability to feed
herhimself (nod to W. Tyson) and/or family is put in jeopardy by having herhis
authority and thus position of influence questioned... resistance seems a
natural response, but this resistance may eventually give way to acceptanc!
e and paradigm change over time and with sufficient multiple-party
debate/discussion and/or self-reflection... blah blah blah. I have seen
similar scenarios arise within academic scientific circles when a new
theory/study calls into question a previous theory or entire body of work that
may jeopardize some untenured professorship. Extend this to corporate
interests disputing climate science. Extend this to disputing the disputed
science... Selfishly folded proteins aside; selfish selves create much rub.
I'd also argue with the idea that religion(s) - monotheistic or not - and
science(s) strive purely to provide certainty, comfort and enlightenment. I
think aspects of human nature do yearn for certainty and explanation, which -
in part - lead to development of myth, religion and science - but I think equal
aspects of human nature yearn for disorder, improvisation and the sheer
excitement of unpredictability... I think our religio-mythic empirical toolbox
provides us with means to express all parts of our desirous spectra. I find as
much satisfaction in coming to new questions that arise while attempting to
answer previous ones and in find that there are things I still don't understand
(or overstand?), mysteries to be explored (oh no! that colonial impulse!), as
in arriving at - what could be termed - an answer. I am reminded of kōans -
questions to which there are endless answers. (To me,) The question Why?
implies wonderment.
Some final fragmented and fractious thoughts that I want to express because I
read them, disagreed and feel the need to replace them with alternatives. (1)
I don't think efficiency is the end-all be-all goal of evolution/selection and
I take issue with conflation of efficiency and fitness, at least without
specifically qualifying a circumstance. What of enjoyment? If efficiency, in
what terms? For whom? Why do we defecate then? (another 1) I don't think
people alive today have any better/deeper understanding of the world than any
of our ancestors of contemporary detrivores do, just different. It's always
been an information age, just less electronic maybe. It's a nice ego boost to
think of one's self as evolutional acme, but there are plenty examples of
unintended consequences of Slothrop's Progress (as such) that I'd wager many
people would put on, or toward, the uh-oh edge of things: increased cancer
rates; oil spills; explosions of asthma and autisms... which d!
irection are such steps? And who's the accountant? I think Paula Abdul had a
song about this, riffed from V. Lenin maybe? Are more humans better? In some
ways, we may need to unknow existing orders?
Long-windedly,
Brian Challfant
-ologist
-----Original Message-----
From: Ecological Society of America: grants, jobs, news
[mailto:ecolo...@listserv.umd.edu] On Behalf Of James J. Roper
Sent: Thursday, May 20, 2010 4:46 PM
To: ECOLOG-L@LISTSERV.UMD.EDU
Subject: Re: [ECOLOG-L] Science and Religion Dogmatic conflict?
To reify the idea of a god and call it nature offers no explanation of
anything. To say that there are other ways of knowing, rather than logic is a
trivial observation that things are sometimes discovered through insight - and
that insight normally comes about because the highly trained individual was
thinking a lot about it, but the answer didn't really pop out at them until
left to "digest." Additional ways of "knowing" all will have to be tested
logically.
It is easy to make up questions for which there are no answers. That does not
make the question interesting. Moral questions are about how we get along, and
they can indeed be informed by logic as well as emotion. Finally, asking a why
question implies that the question is sensible and an answer exists. I would
propose that we may have no reason to think either.
Cheers,
Jim
On Thu, May 20, 2010 at 15:33, Warren W. Aney <a...@coho.net> wrote:
> Why is there something rather than nothing?
> And why is some of this something aware of itself?
> And why is this self aware of the something?
> And why does it ask these questions?
>
> Are these questions best addressed by science or by religion? Or do
> they represent some of the areas where science and religion interface
> and interconnect?
>
> Warren W. Aney
> Senior Wildlife Ecologist
> Tigard, Oregon
>
> -----Original Message-----
> From: Ecological Society of America: grants, jobs, news
> [mailto:ecolo...@listserv.umd.edu] On Behalf Of James Crants
> Sent: Wednesday, 19 May, 2010 07:37
> To: ECOLOG-L@LISTSERV.UMD.EDU
> Subject: Re: [ECOLOG-L] Science and Religion Dogmatic conflict?
>
> I, too, appreciate Jane's contribution to this conversation. We can
> only speculate on the origins of religion, since religion originated
> long before written language, or even cave art (if neanderthal and
> modern human religion have a common origin; though I will agree with
> William Silvert that religion
> probably didn't come about because any gods revealed their existence to our
> ancestors).
>
> However, science can say something about what goes on in the brain
> when people have religious experiences, and perhaps it can say
> something about why some people seem to need religion while others
> couldn't be religious if they wanted to. It can tell us how similar
> the experience of meditation is to the experience of prayer, or
> getting mentally absorbed in an anthill, or drawing, or playing an
> instrument, or driving a car, and so on. Based on a biological
> understanding of religious experience, plus the archeological
> evidence, we can form models of how religion originated and evolved in
> modern humans, and how it is relevant to modern life.
>
> I do think the "naturalist's trance" is basically the same as a
> religious experience. I don't know of any hard evidence bearing on
> that, but the experience is similar to those I've had from meditation,
> intense prayer, playing music, painting pictures, and running much
> further than a mile or so. Such experiences say nothing at all about
> whether there is such a thing as divinity, but I think they have a lot
> to do with the origins of humanity's belief in divinity.
>
> Jim Crants
>
> On Tue, May 18, 2010 at 8:55 PM, Wayne Tyson <landr...@cox.net> wrote:
>
> > Ah-HA!
> >
> > I think she's GOT IT! By Jove, I think she's got it! The rain in
> > Spain .
> .
> > .
> >
> > Eureka! Peak experiences!
> >
> > As in all art, the concentration of the intellect somehow gets
> "processed"
> > by our inner resources, and "breaks through" back into the conscious
> after
> a
> > period of gestation and there is a birth of insight. Burning bushes
> > and other hallucinations aside, just about all scientific discovery
> > is thus produced.
> >
> > WT
> >
> >
> > ----- Original Message ----- From: "Jane Shevtsov"
> > <jane....@gmail.com>
> >
> > To: <ECOLOG-L@LISTSERV.UMD.EDU>
> > Sent: Monday, May 17, 2010 7:48 PM
> >
> > Subject: Re: [ECOLOG-L] Science and Religion Dogmatic conflict?
> >
> >
> > I think it's a mistake to reduce religion to
> >> anthropomorphism/explanations and morality/politics. There is a
> >> crucial third element -- the human capacity for spiritual
> >> (meditative, oceanic, transcendent, pick your favorite adjective)
> >> experiences. These experiences are now being studied by
> >> psychologists and neuroscientists (look up "neurotheology") and are
> >> often connected to experiences in nature.
> >>
> >> My hypothesis about the origins of such experiences is partially
> >> inspired by a passage from E.O. Wilson's book _Biophilia_. "In a
> >> twist my mind came free and I was aware of the hard workings of the
> >> natural world beyond the periphery of ordinary attention, where
> >> passions lose their meaning and history is in another dimension,
> >> without people, and great events pass without record or judgment. I
> >> was a transient of no consequence in this familiar yet deeply alien
> >> world that I had come to love. The uncounted products of evolution
> >> were gathered there for purposes having nothing to do with me;
> >> their long Cenozoic history was enciphered into a genetic code I
> >> could not understand. The effect was strangely calming. Breathing
> >> and heartbeat diminished, concentration intensified. It seemed to
> >> me that something extraordinary in the forest was very close to
> >> where I stood, moving to the surface and discovery. ... I willed
> >> animals to materialize and they came erratically into view."
> >>
> >> What does this passage, which describes an experience I suspect
> >> most members of this list have had, most resemble? It sounds a lot
> >> like how practitioners of some types of meditation describe their
> >> experience. But what is this "naturalist's trance" good for, other
> >> than science? Hunting, gathering and looking out for predators!
> >> Maybe, just maybe, this was our ancestors' normal state of
> >> consciousness and maybe various religious and spiritual practices
> >> arose as a way of recapturing this state as, for biological and
> >> social reasons, our minds changed.
> >>
> >> This is, of course, a guess, but what do you folks think?
> >>
> >> Jane Shevtsov
> >>
> >>
> >>
> >>
>
------------------------------
James J. Roper, Ph.D. Ecology, Evolution and Population Dynamics of
Terrestrial Vertebrates
------------------------------
Caixa Postal 19034
81531-990 Curitiba, Paraná, Brasil
------------------------------
E-mail: jjro...@gmail.com
Telefone: 55 41 36730409
Celular: 55 41 98182559
Skype-in (USA):+1 706 5501064
Skype-in (Brazil):+55 41 39415715
------------------------------
Ecology and Conservation at the UFPR <http://www.bio.ufpr.br/ecologia/>
Home Page <http://jjroper.googlespages.com>
Ars Artium Consulting <http://arsartium.googlespages.com>
In Google Earth, copy and paste -> 25 31'18.14" S, 49 05'32.98" W
------------------------------
