NetNews Usenet Archive 1992 #31/NN_1992_31.iso/spool/rec/org/mensa/8988

Text File | 1992-12-29 | 4.6 KB | 90 lines

Newsgroups: rec.org.mensa
Path: sparky!uunet!enterpoop.mit.edu!world!kkirksey
From: [e-mail] (Ken B Kirksey)
Subject: Re: Atheism and Intelligence
Message-ID: <[e-mail]>
Organization: The World Public Access UNIX, Brookline, MA
References: <[e-mail]> <[e-mail]> <[e-mail]>
Date: Wed, 30 Dec 1992 04:02:19 GMT
Lines: 79

In article <[e-mail]> [e-mail] (gilbert.m.stewart) writes:
>In article <[e-mail]> [e-mail] (Ken B Kirksey) writes:
>>In article <[e-mail]> [e-mail] (Thomas Grant Edwards) writes:
>>>In article <[e-mail]> [e-mail] (Steve J. Quest) writes:
>>>>        I stand on my own in this world, but do require the
>>>>support of other fellow humans- not deities.  I am an atheist, and
>>>>I am in a great minority.
>>>
>>>I'd like to add that there is nothing wrong with developing
>>>a sense of spirituality while remaining an atheist.  I enjoy
>>>Wiccan circles, catholic masses, technopagan rituals, etc.
>>>I know the spirituality I experience is metaphorical and
>>>not part of the reality which science reveals.
>[....]
>>>I realize now that like the illusion of love, the illusion of
>>>spirituality is a key part of our humanity, and I revel in it,
>>>but continue to keep touch with reality.
>>
>>If by "reality" you mean the world as revealed by our senses and studied
>>by science you might want to go back and read Plato and Spinoza.
>
>You might want to post explicitly what you appear to find
>contradictory in his post and how you interpret their writings.
>
Gladly.  Firstly, I did not claim to find anything contradictory in
his post, so there is no answer to that question.

Second, as to Spinoza and Plato.  Their concept of knowledge was similar.
They both distrusted "sensual" knowledge, that is, knowledge obtained by
our senses.  Their contention was that our senses were imperfect, and
any knowledge obtained by them was "filtered" and/or "diluted" from its
pure form.  And, since everyone's sensory organs (eyes, ears, etc.) are
different to one degree or another, our sensory perceptions are different.
Scientific knowledge is based on observation, i.e. data apprehended by
our senses.  I beleive that a good dose of Plato or Spinoza is good
for putting science and scientific knowledge in perspective.

Then you must consider the fact that science, by definition, is limited
to nature.  It cannot say anything about anything residing outside of
nature.  Some claim that nature is all there is, and that if science cannot
apprehend something, then is simply cannont and will not exists.  Sort
of the "if it ain't science, it ain't so." approach.   For anyone taking
this approach, I'd suggest reading Peter Medawar's _The Limits of Science_.
Medewar was certainly not religious, but acknowledged science's inability
to answer certain questions, most notably those dealing with first and
last things.

I look at it like this:  science's realm is a closed sphere, and science
resides inside the sphere.  Science can discover and explain everything
inside the sphere, but beyond the boundary, it knows naught.  The sphere
is large, but it does not extend all the way to the beginning of time,
nor all the way to the end (e.g. Medawar's first and last things).
Science is useless in PROVING something happened in the past, since the
scientific method is, by definition, here and now observation and
replication.  Likewise, science cannot see to the end of time and PROVE what
will happen there.

This is not to say that science cannot provide a multitude of very useful
tools for investigating the past and future, but that is all it can do.  We can
but use the tools science gives us and then speculate on the data they return.
Any statement made about what happend very far in the past (to the
beginning of time) or will happen very far in the future (to the end of
time) is no more than a guess.  It may well be a very educated, well thought
out, and well documented guess, but it is still only a guess.


Oops! I seem to have wound up on my "Limitations of Science" soapbox.  I'll
step down now and return you to our regularly scheduled program - already
in progress. :-)

                          Ken



--
+----------------------------+------------------------------------------------+
| Ken Kirksey                | "A man cannot be too careful in his choice     |
| [e-mail]     |  of enemies."                                  |
| The World, Brookline, MA   |                - Oscar Wilde                   |