From: beaver.cs.washington.edu!gnosys!backbone.hsu.arknet.edu!TUMLISON
Subject: Science and Spirituality
Date: Thu, 27 Aug 1992 19:22:06 GMT

Original-Sender: backbone.hsu.arknet.edu!TUMLISON

> Alan McGowen <hpindbu.cup.hp.com!alanm> writes:
>
>  Renn Tumlison writes:
>
> > Who set up two categories (natural vs. supernatural) in which
> > to divide observable realities?  This really is a non-argument.  We
> > can call all observable events natural, eventually explainable
> > through scientific inquiry, and still not have validly addressed the
> > question of a spiritual basis.
> >
>
> A question. Does "spiritual" have to imply "supernatural"? The "natural"
> is anything that can happen in the universe (whether we understand it
> or not). If you believe, as I do, that spirituality emerges from nature
> (as conciousness does -- spirituality in my view is sacred conciousness),
> then it is not "supernatural".

This was my point here: you *don't* have to say something is
supernatural for it to still have some spiritual basis.

> > I think it comes down to the lack of appreciation western society has
> > for the inter-relationships of all things.  Science (not just
> > evolution) is essentially a religion.
>
> Science is a world-view. To be a religion it first has to get clear about
> its values, a duty it has shirked so far. This is why the intellectual west

This may come down to personal semantics.  People vary appreciably
in their conceptions of *exactly* what makes a set of views religion.
My intention was to note that science (or perhaps science as
practiced by many people) has many characters in common with
religions.  I think this could be an interesting interchange to
develop thinking about specific definitions, but I doubt that this
thread is germane to the purpose of this list, so, as our moderators
have requested recently for this topic, I'll leave it here.

> > significant results, we have failed to disprove the hypothesis, and
> > we then *accept* the alternative hypothesis.  Acceptance depends on
> > having *faith* that assumptions, data, design, and statistics have
> > shown something to be valid that really is - i.e., science in based
> > on faith, the essence of religion.
>
> Not quite -- this "faith" is no more than the induction which any organism
> performs when it makes a move based on filtered sensory input. You might
> as well say that a monkey's leap is a leap of faith. It's stretching the
> idea too far, I think. Action with less than perfect information can be
> thought of as a calculated risk. It's when you delude yourself into thinking
> it is really certainty that it becomes faith.

Again, we may be toying with semantics.  I agree somewhat, and add
that religion as practiced by some groups seems to be a form of
calculated risk.  I also know of some theses that have been rejected
by some professors because the data and results did not fit the
professor's beliefs (hypotheses? faith?).  The distinction between
scientific beliefs and protocol and religious ones may not be as
great at the differences in protocol and primary tenets between some
religions.  Perhaps as an example:  Humans are classified in the
family Hominidae by science, although some scientists point out that
the criteria for doing so are invalid (we should really be in the
family Pongidae with great apes).  This is where the dualism
appears - we, as humans, feel that we are special as set apart from
other animals.  Generally, scientists that feel we should be Pongids
don't have strong "religious" beliefs and those calling us Hominids
do.  That is almost like choosing which belief system (religion) to
uphold.  Note, I am speaking in generalities, which begin to
dissolve once specifics are superimposed on the structure.

> I'm not sure that faith is the essence of religion in any case. I
see no
> reason why there couldn't be a testable, provisiional religion, a fusion of
> scientific cosmology and investigation with sacred conciousness, a respect for
> the fact that the universe contains unknowns.

According to the definitions usually presented in intro biology
textbooks, religion is based on the non-testable.  Therefore, to
develop a testable, provisional religion, is (if I interpret your
statement correctly) to make a religion out of science.  Precisely my
point?

> > sometimes, then, our inadequacy that makes us incorrectly or
> > unrealistically interpret things.  As a case in point, random events
> > are considered to be chaotic (unpredictable).  Yet, the new
> > mathematics of chaos and "random walks" is beginning to perceive
> > of randomness as being *ordered*.  Could the Great Spirit just be
> > smarter than we are?
> >
>
> Actually, it was just that chaotic aspect of speciation which I had
> in mind when I wrote that "the history of life doesn't suggest", etc.
> No species has a high a priori probability of developing: the point of
> chaos is that the tiniest perturbations are amplified enormously, like the
> butterfly's wingbeat and the storm 6 months latter. Every species is the result
> of a long chain of speciation events, most or all of which were low probability
> occurences in tiny populations. A difference of location of an individual
> or two, and they are eaten by a predator, and no new species -- no new
> phyletic line, none of its descendent species. Stephan Gould has written
> extremely well about this in his latest book on the Burgess Shale.
> Mathematical models of coevolution are also often chaotic.
>
> So, when I said that *we* weren't the point of the whole thing, it is
> only because *no* one species is ever the point of the whole thing. If
> it has a point which is visible to us, it is probably diversity -- at
> least that increases with geological time.

I agree from our point of view.  All I mean to suggest is that, if
there really is a deity out there pulling the stings, is would be
rather pompous of us to think that we could understand the design, in
other words, it might be *our* limitations.  It is like a father
telling his son not to do something that the father knows is
dangerous, but the reason is one which the son cannot understand.
Just because the son does not yet understand, does not mean his
father does not orchestrate his son's safety.  Eventually (through
science, or experiencial learning, so to speak) the son begins to
fathom the father's plan.  I play off of the last line of your
statement "If it has a point WHICH IS VISIBLE TO US. . ." : the
question I make is whether it has a point *not* visible to us.

I believe you have made good points, and made some inroads to the
though of these threads.  I also think we really share some similar
views.  Obviously, there are differing thoughts as well.  My bottom
line, and that which pertains to this list, is that western science
could learn a lot by listening to the native knowledge (perceived as
scientific or otherwise).

Renn Tumlison

Newsgroups: alt.native