Re: Science and Religion

[Judith Rosen <***>]

John M, James, Tim, and assembled,

This is becoming such a multi-directional discussion that if it ramifies
much further, I'll have to write individual epistles, with names in the
subject line to identify them!

John M wrote:
> thanks for your reply. You wrote:
> >"... I have inherited that belief.<
> Just a caveat, beliefs or as Jamie and I use it freely: memes are not
> genetic stuff - however disposition to form according connectivity
> may be such. Every mind makes its own brain-connectivity and the
> environmental impact may be instrumental.

I know. You're right, of course. I was exercising a rare right (on this
list) namely; "poetic license". I can only use that defense when talking
about my own thoughts and ideas! (With my father's stuff, I feel a need to
be almost anal about maintaining the integrity of HIS thoughts and ideas.)
You are equally perceptive in the following:

> I doubt whether your father was an atheist, who needs a god to deny.
> His nature-complexity is above that.

He wasn't an atheist, but he wasn't the slightest bit religious. I asked him
if he believed in God and he said "No, but I don't disbelieve either. I just
don't know enough to form an opinion."

The "pre-animate" quote is mine, using Jame's terminology. My dictionary has
several definitions for inanimate and animate. Soul is among them. But so is
"life" Most religions argue that only humans have souls and the world of
animals (same root) does not. Animation is making drawings seem "alive"
rather than "seem to possess souls". But basically, I agree with your
assessment. Perhaps my father would have used an Aristotelian word, or
something from another language that suggested a better mix of concepts. He
was multi-lingual. I'm uni-lingual with a smattering of ability in a few of
his other languages.

To James: One correction: this isn't "my" list, it's Tim's. I just
volunteered to join the cheerleader squad if he would start one. It's his
time, his money, his talent with computers... Believe me, he deserves all
the credit.  Having said that, I want to tell you that I so appreciated your
post for its honesty and for how "real" you are when you express yourself. I
still have trouble with some of your terminology-- John M.'s too, but I'm
getting better at it (either that or I'm getting better at deluding myself?)
(The sayings: "Practice makes perfect." and "If at first you don't succeed,
try, try again." both just jumped into my head.)( Sorry if that was an
"over-share"!)

The stuff on Godel's Incompleteness Theorem: Tim's post says all the stuff I
would probably have said and I agree with the points he made-- they were
very much my father's beliefs. But there's more. What Godel did was to show
mathematically (irrefutably) that context is too important in studying
anything to dispense with it... Not if you want to understand the whole of
your area of interest. My father then applied Godel's theorem to biology to
hopefully persuade doubters that context is a perfectly rigorous concept in
both mathematics AND in science. The Cartesian "objectivity" thing is a tool
in science or medicine; it has its uses and its place, but to apply it to
everything is like applying the first part of the bulk of the commandments
to all of life (as in; "Thou Shalt NOT.") An artificial constraint like the
objectivity one makes it impossible to really do science, in my father's
view.

Judith