From: beaver.cs.washington.edu!gnosys!backbone.hsu.arknet.edu!TUMLISON
Subject: Re: Science and Spirituality
Date: Fri, 28 Aug 1992 14:58:07 GMT

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

> Original-Sender: Alan McGowen <hpindbu.cup.hp.com!alanm>
>
> But this very example (humans classified in the same family Pongidae
> as the other great apes or in a separate famility Hominidae as is
> traditional) shows that scientific "faith" *is* revisable, based on
> new knowledge. It used to be thought based on the fossil record that
> the last common ancestors of humans and pongids were Dryopithecine apes
> that lived some 15 million years ago. But genetic studies (DNA hybridization)
> have shown that humans, gorillas, and the two species of chimpanzees are
> extremely similar genetically -- about 99% similar -- and given the rate
> at which differences enter the genetic code, must have had a common
> ancestor something like 5-7 million years ago. With a common ancestor
> that recent, and such similar genomes, the view that we all belong in
> the same family has mushroomed. Had the DNA studies shown, say only a
> 75% homology, that would not have happened. Facts, observations, are
> relevant to this shifting "faith". It is a revisable faith.

OK. It is just those kinds of data that obviously would make a
scientist revise his/her view and say we are Pongids.  Thus, the
"scientific faith" is revisable, which, of course, is just part of
the definition of science in the first place.  Now, let me see if we
are really using two angles to say (almost?) the same thing.  I think
that *religion* is not testable (by definition), but that certain
beliefs, as held by certain of the faithful, can be tested.  For
example, you can't really design a test for the presence of God, but
you can design a test of various understandings of how God created
the universe.  Science could offer that the evolutionary process
makes sense (logically), that enormous amounts of data (fossil, DNA
hybridization, mitochondrial DNA, studies of ontogeny and phyletic
history, the techniques and interpretations of cladistic analysis,
etc.) support this mechanical interpretation, and, therefore, that
the notion of "speaking" the whole thing into existence in 7 24-hour
periods just doesn't make scientific sense.  Thus, science can be
used to clarify understanding.  My semantics are these: *religion*
(if it is true) cannot be revised because you can't change truth.
You can misunderstand, and that can be revised - science can be the
vehicle for changing and revising the understanding.  Still, we must
stop short of saying science has proven there is no God, or that such
a powerful deity had no hand in the orchestration of the universe.  I
think the statement about spirituality coming from the study of
nature is valid, at least to some extent, and perhaps we have
differed in our understanding of what each of us has meant in the
words passed in mail.

> > 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?
>
> Except that that phrase is taken negatively, I agree. To say that someone
> is "making a religion out of science" could be misconstrued to mean that
> science is just a matter of faith, exactly like (say) the view that the
> Earth was made in 4004 B.C. I'm emphasizing the "spiritual" or sacred
> appreciation aspect of religion over its dogmatic aspect when I suggest
> that spirituality must emerge from science in the future. In fact it is

Agreed.  Science should not be seen as just a matter of faith, and
religion should not be seen as dogmatic on some of its points
(although I think both scientists and theologians are guilty on
occasion of acting in just that manner).

> > 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 did not include that phrase casually. But let's not forget that
> we *are* able to see that evolution *doesn't* have certain kinds of
> points -- optimal engineering design requiring forethought, for example,
> is clearly *not* the point of evolution. There are far, far too many cases
> where "just good enough to survive" is very different from "best possible
> design" and evolution has produced the former, and not the latter.
> Evolution has no forethought: if God is pulling the strings of evolution,
> he appears to be doing it through Fisher's theorem, and not through some
> other visibly different means.

This is what I mean.  We can use science to clarify understanding of
the mechanistic universe, which, in my view, clarifies understanding
of certain religious beliefs.  Maybe God is using Fisher's theorem,
or other (yet to be discovered?) means.

> > 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).
>
> I wouldn't disagree. But let's not be too hasty about what counts as "native
> knowledge". Members of modern industrial societies who think that because
> of their ancestry their every belief is "native knowledge" should be viewed
> with caution, especially when it becomes increasingly obvious that much of
> their belief system is not only not pre-Columbian -- it's not even pre-Reagan.
>
I agree with the caution.  The thought of being part of nature can be
attributed to native american spirituality or to a western
environmental movement.  The consequences on the environment might be
similar, but the consequence to people (and their attitudes and
lifestyles) may differ.  Western environmentalism sees the
mechanistic role (scientifically based) of the components of
ecosystems, and notes that diversity is important but that the
society is one of abusers, taking what they want with little regard
for the future.  Native spiritual values (at least in some groups -
it probably varies somewhat) might see that as greed and point to
spiritual values that demand the continued and revered existence of
those same ecosystems.  To a scientist, it might seem silly, but to
someone who understands a spiritual responsibility to the land, it is
very real.  We must be very careful to appreciate the needs and
interests of all affected people, because, eventually, all of us are
those people.

Newsgroups: alt.native