Re: Science and Religion

[Ayten Aydin <***>]

Judith,
A few comments on Science and Religion (reading all is beyond me, time-wise.
I pick up here and there. I hope they are not completely out of track) and
your father's spiritual connection for that matter. Based on what you've
been telling us so far about him/his views, I would like to place him in a
category of
meta-science&meta-religion. At that level science and religion unite and the
person within that level is called gnostic (quasi-mystic, if not ascetic),
neither atheist nor religious. I wonder if my perception looks pertinent and
fits to your father's case?
Ayten

----- Original Message -----
From: "Judith Rosen" <***>
To: <***>
Sent: Monday, March 29, 2004 1:32 AM
Subject: Re: Science and Religion


> 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
>