X-Envelope-to: CSG-L@vmd.cso.uiuc.edu
X-VMS-To: @CSG
MIME-version: 1.0
Content-transfer-encoding: 7BIT
Newsgroups: bit.listserv.csg-l
Date:         Sat, 12 Dec 1992 19:18:39 -0700
From:         "William T. Powers" <POWERS_W%FLC@VAXF.COLORADO.EDU>
Subject:      Re: Sciligion; gang of 3 to 5

[From Bill Powers (921212.1400)]

Greg Williams (921212)

RE: Science and religion

There are two sides to religion. One of them, the good side,
consists of the attempt to adopt and live out principles that
make civilization possible. As most people never think about such
things except in the context of a religion, one wonders what the
world would be like without such formalized social systems of
belief.

The bad side shows up because people have different religions. If
those living under principles of love and tolerance could
actually live up to those principles, all would be well. But
aside from the fact that not all religions preach universal
brotherhood, it doesn't seem possible for people to live up to
their religious principles when those principles disagree with
someone else's.

The basic reason, I think, is the assumption of supernatural
origin of the religious principles. When you believe that you are
in receipt of the word of God, directly or through an authorized
dealer, there can be no tolerance for deviations. The word of God
is absolute. This means that if a different group claims to have
heard a different word, or a different interpretation of words,
the other group must simply be wrong. Every religious group must
feel this way about every other group, no matter what they say.
Very quickly this comes down to the choice of converting the
other group to the true belief ("saving" them), isolating from
the other group, or eliminating the other group.

Each group, of course, must resist all attempts by the other
group to evangelize, because succumbing would be going against
the word of God. The loop gain, with respect to adhering to the
word of the Infinite, must be infinite. This means that even
minor differences of doctrine can lead to maximum conflict.

All that saves us from continuous violent confrontation between
religions is that very few people are actually as religious as
they think they are, or claim to be.
---------------------------------------------------------------
John Gabriel (921212 12:44CST) --

Maybe that principle should be "Thinking the unthinkable so we
don't have to try to do the undoable."

So far, as near as I can tell, thinking the unthinkable usually
seems to result in doing the unthinkable. We just keep redefining
what is unthinkable. Burning living people to death was once
quite thinkable, then became unthinkable, and then became
thinkable again. Anything you can imagine is a potential
reference signal.
I have to confess that you guys are way over my head. The one
sentence that stood out for me was

>That is to say, the mathematics has degrees of freedom which
>are lost once you go [to] a physical system of any kind.

This is a nice way of putting my objections to an
overmathematicized approach to anything. Mathematics deals with
abstract relations, which usually means that mathematical systems
apply to a great many worlds that do not actually exist.

And it's not only the degrees of freedom that collapse when you
try to apply a mathematical system to physical systems. Very
often the premises collapse, too. What if the brain's operation
does not consist of a large set of ordinary differential
equations? What if the ECSs of the brain are not a multitude of
tiny independent systems, but a much coarser organization with
systems designed for special purposes? No doubt, everything you
say about systems that are composed of multitudes of tiny systems
each acting like an ODE can be proven to be true, but that is
irrelevant if the real system isn't made that way. It seems to me
that the first order of business would be to find out what kind
of system we are actually dealing with.

This is all undoubtedly old stuff to you. But whenever I
encounter a mathematical system that's far beyond me, I try to
salvage some self-respect by wondering if it's really necessary.
---------------------------------------------------------------
Best to all,

Bill P.
Comments: Gated by NETNEWS@AUVM.AMERICAN.EDU