Re: Science and Religion

[Ayten Aydin <***>]

John M
I agree that 'religion' is a tricky word to use loosely. It is usually
interpreted, especially in the west, as the teachings of the church and the
like. That sort of religion I would call 'organized religion'. I usually
talk about 'one's spirituality' not to be misunderstood. We all have
spirituality of our own (even some may also identify himself/herself with an
organized religion) which has no name or belonging to a specific group or
teaching.
Ayten

----- Original Message -----
From: "John M" <***>
To: <***>
Sent: Monday, March 29, 2004 7:11 PM
Subject: Re: Science and Religion


> Aydin,
> your identification seems right (at least as applied to my own case, I
have
> no way to check RR's (inner) feelings, an orthodox Jewish background is
> hard to overcome since it looks 'logical' to a thinking mind) - except for
> the danger that your word "religion" may refer to the organized churches
> and their techings. In the essay I mentioned I use 'religion' and
'science'
> as names for something usually thought of differently in common usage.
>
> John Mikes
>
> ----- Original Message -----
> From: "Ayten Aydin" <***>
> To: <***>
> Sent: Monday, March 29, 2004 1:22 AM
> Subject: Re: Science and Religion
>
>
> > 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
> > >
>