04-25-2005, 02:34 PM
Some first thoughts on Satya's first question and Jochems reply.
Satya asks
<!--QuoteBegin-->QUOTE<!--QuoteEBegin-->Professor Balu has said in the past (if I understood properly) that science, as we know it, could not have arisen without religion. I have no basis to quarrel with this assertion, but it has always surprised me how religion (in which a ready made explanation of the entire Cosmos is self-contained) could possibly spur the production of - or give rise to - any new knowledge about the Universe. (If God
created the Universe in Seven Days, and we all know that because he revealed that truth to us, why should we be at all interested in how, say a galaxy was formed?) Yet, it seems obvious, that Western science has done exactly that at a rapid clip.
My question is - does anybody else perceive such a paradox? If not, why not? If so, do you have any thoughts on how to reconcile said paradox?
<!--QuoteEnd--><!--QuoteEEnd-->
to which Jochem's reply is:
<!--QuoteBegin-->QUOTE<!--QuoteEBegin-->With regard to you first question I have to say I do not see the paradox. What religion does is promote a certain attitude, it molds one's experience of the world, it makes the world into something explanatorily intelligible. Of course, a particular religion offers a particular account of the cosmos, and one could accept that to be the end to it- why question what has been answered beforehand? But one's knowledge of Gods intentions is always limited. We are but human, our knowledge is necessarily perspectival (being part and parcel of the cosmos), tentative, and hypothetical. Therefore, God's total and ultimate truth (i.e. an EI account of everything that ever
was, is and shall be) is unattainable for humans. In the best case (a part of) this truth is revealed, but in most of the cases one is destined to search for Gods intentions, in both the scripture (being the word of God) an in the world (being His creation and thus an expression of His intentions). Therefore, when it comes to the
divine truth, we are stuck at the level of interpretation. Hence, the offshoot of heresies, the phenomenon of excommunication, etc.
<!--QuoteEnd--><!--QuoteEEnd-->
While this could be said to briefly answer the question it goes on to assume some sort of fundamental unattainability having to do with the nature of the human mind itself. To that I would reply that rather than say that science is the product of the "human mind" I think it is more accurate to say that the <i>content of science</i> is the product of the "scientific mind". The scientific mind operates on the basis of identifying and representing measurable objects and making associations (concepts) between them leading to further representations, and so on. Why should the limitations of the scientific mind be assumed to be a limitation of the human mind in general?
Regards,
Sandeep.
Satya asks
<!--QuoteBegin-->QUOTE<!--QuoteEBegin-->Professor Balu has said in the past (if I understood properly) that science, as we know it, could not have arisen without religion. I have no basis to quarrel with this assertion, but it has always surprised me how religion (in which a ready made explanation of the entire Cosmos is self-contained) could possibly spur the production of - or give rise to - any new knowledge about the Universe. (If God
created the Universe in Seven Days, and we all know that because he revealed that truth to us, why should we be at all interested in how, say a galaxy was formed?) Yet, it seems obvious, that Western science has done exactly that at a rapid clip.
My question is - does anybody else perceive such a paradox? If not, why not? If so, do you have any thoughts on how to reconcile said paradox?
<!--QuoteEnd--><!--QuoteEEnd-->
to which Jochem's reply is:
<!--QuoteBegin-->QUOTE<!--QuoteEBegin-->With regard to you first question I have to say I do not see the paradox. What religion does is promote a certain attitude, it molds one's experience of the world, it makes the world into something explanatorily intelligible. Of course, a particular religion offers a particular account of the cosmos, and one could accept that to be the end to it- why question what has been answered beforehand? But one's knowledge of Gods intentions is always limited. We are but human, our knowledge is necessarily perspectival (being part and parcel of the cosmos), tentative, and hypothetical. Therefore, God's total and ultimate truth (i.e. an EI account of everything that ever
was, is and shall be) is unattainable for humans. In the best case (a part of) this truth is revealed, but in most of the cases one is destined to search for Gods intentions, in both the scripture (being the word of God) an in the world (being His creation and thus an expression of His intentions). Therefore, when it comes to the
divine truth, we are stuck at the level of interpretation. Hence, the offshoot of heresies, the phenomenon of excommunication, etc.
<!--QuoteEnd--><!--QuoteEEnd-->
While this could be said to briefly answer the question it goes on to assume some sort of fundamental unattainability having to do with the nature of the human mind itself. To that I would reply that rather than say that science is the product of the "human mind" I think it is more accurate to say that the <i>content of science</i> is the product of the "scientific mind". The scientific mind operates on the basis of identifying and representing measurable objects and making associations (concepts) between them leading to further representations, and so on. Why should the limitations of the scientific mind be assumed to be a limitation of the human mind in general?
Regards,
Sandeep.