The Most Important Question of our Age?

But we also have to think: 'what sort of religious dogma contradicts science'? The only examples I can think of are also examples of misunderstood religious teaching. So, the statement also reinforces the idea that religion and science operate on different levels, and that neither should encroach on the other's territory.

I'm not sure how his advice would lead to the aforementioned ethical vacuum.

And I find myself back to Buddhism. Change is the only constant, after all. Maybe it depends on what you think it is to thrive in the world.

Paul, you talk about an ethical vaccuum, but the answer to that is to apply science for scientifically concieved reasons - to the end of securing the continued existence of humankind.

...to the end of securing the continued existence of humankind...

To be blunt, I'm saying that there is nothing in reality that requires there to be a God to explain it, and no evidence whatsoever of His existence.I'm saying that, in face of science, religion exists as a sceptical doubt. It's a statement about the relative epistemological weight of religious truth claims and scientific truth claims. I mean that the existence of God is a sceptical doubt of a scientific account of reality, that nonetheless, is given undue prommenance in society.

And this is the 'legitimate authority' for the exercise of political power in the UK. But you would rather not acknowledge the problem. You say:

But that's not the problem. We use science - while ignoring scientific knowledge as a rule for the conduct of our affairs.

You go on to cite the Dalai Lama and Islam in the middle ages, but the former is a political appointee of an occupying communist-athiest state, and science in the middle ages was hardly what we'd call science, is it?

You infer I misunderstand religion, but I've studied this for years. I know what I'm talking about and you can't just dismiss this.

In 1233 the Church of Rome established the Inquisition and punished intellectuals as heretics. In 1632 they imprisoned Galileo and forced him to recant the conclusion that the earth orbits the sun. In 1859 Darwin had delayed the publication of 'Origin' twenty years for fear of the religious repercussions that continue to this day. And furthermore, for the protection of religious ideas we've got secular societies that allow people to believe whatever they like - and people do.

You're right, but who are you speaking for? You're not speaking for Christianity or Islam that both indoctrinate children with a requirement of faith in scientifically groundless, deeply emotive ideas before the age at which they're ale to think critically. You're not speaking for a Catholic Church that's taken agen condoms and refuses to budge in face of aids and overpopualtion, or of an Umma that sends out suicide bombers to blow up its religiously defined enemies - with dreams of 72 virgins waiting on them hand, foot and finger in the afterlife.

Faith is a perversion of the normal course of human reason for poltical ends - and a betrayal of who we are on the most fundamental level. We are the thinking animal - and we'd better start thinking about where we're going as a species. Science is not just a tool - but knowledge we need to adapt to, not follow down the dark path of religious insanity, but strive toward the light of science and grow.

I strongly disagree ... science and the unrelenting change it brings with it can easily overwhelm us and can easily be abused (witness the eugenics movement) ... in such a world, is a mythology/ideology that does not help us to embrace the pace of change and manage the ethical application of science worth hanging onto?

... if I am reading your paraphrasing right, he is saying to simply favor science over doctrine when the two conflict; this is in contrast to actively undertaking an effort to develop a new doctrine in order to provide for the ethical application of the science that is in conflict with an outdated doctrine ... the former approach leads to an ethical vacuum; the latter does not ...

... but I think the change referred to in Buddhist philosophy is personal change - that is, Buddhist philosophy teaches one how to change and grow (thrive) in a static world ... the implication being that in today's ever-changing world Buddhist philosophy can only uplift us half way ...

if it can be scientifically proven that the continued existence of humankind can be maximized by killing off half the world's population and consolidating the rest into a sanitized concrete-and-steel jungle where the only form of reproduction allowed is via controlled genetic engineering, is that what we should do?

mythologies and ideologies which do not help us embrace science are, at the very least, deficient. Those mythologies and ideologies which impede our ability to pursue and employ science are downright dangerous.

... and would continue to have an ethical dimension, even while applying science for scientifically concieved reasons ...

But note, you use the term maximizing - which is not at all what I suggest.

It's somehwat alarmist and ridiculous Paul, to propose consequences for which you can present no realistic scenario - and then demand that I justify such a policy.

But the problem is that religion pre-dates science, and poltical forms with economic interests built upon religious authority that pre-date science stand as obstacles because science re-interprets the legitimate ends and purposes of government. So here, where the Dalai Lama says; where religion and science conflict, go with the science, that would be in situations occuring within the context of societies with political and economic dynamics that are fundamentally religious in character. No. Society must be fundamentally scientific in character, and tolerate religion unless there is a conflict.

If there is no way to understand the doctrine other than as being opposed to science (if the doctrine is logos) then it's a bad mythos and should not be used.

That make any more sense?

... I shall be on the lookout for landmines as I negotiate your posts in future ...

I hate this - having to trample on your fond ideas in order to make my point. I've wondered at times whether it's worth it - if it's not so dis-spirting an exercise it's better that we die with our illusions intact than live without them.

But then I remember that it's not me, and not science, but religion that raised the emotional expectations of man to the sky and beyond - that promised heaven for political allegiance and gave man hell on earth.

I agree that there's something in man that yearns to connect with something beyond, to belong to something greater, some order of things that makes it all makes sense, for I recognize it in science and the continued existence of humankind. This is the way and the light, if you want to put it in those terms, in employing our reason to the sane and just purpose of securing our welfare and survival as a species.

But my argument is not about the existence, or non-existence of God. It's about the role of religion in the development of political and economic forms that now pose a serious threat to the continued existence of humankind.

But the problem is that religion pre-dates science, and poltical forms with economic interests built upon religious authority that pre-date science stand as obstacles because science re-interprets the legitimate ends and purposes of government.

For example, it won't seem so ridiculously idealistic in future to say that humankind is a single species occupying a single planetary environment - either because we'll have accepted the fact and adapted to it, or because we'll be extinct.

So here, where the Dalai Lama says; where religion and science conflict, go with the science, that would be in situations occuring within the context of societies with political and economic dynamics that are fundamentally religious in character.

No. Society must be fundamentally scientific in character, and tolerate religion unless there is a conflict.

... I think maybe our disconnect here (if there really is one) is that you regard mythos as filling the knowledge gaps that aren't (can't be?) filled by logos, whereas I regard all knowledge as having both a mythos component and a logos component ... is that an accurate assessment?

More negative stereotyping.

You're not speaking for Christianity or Islam that both indoctrinate children with a requirement of faith in scientifically groundless, deeply emotive ideas before the age at which they're ale to think critically. You're not speaking for a Catholic Church that's taken agen condoms and refuses to budge in face of aids and overpopualtion, or of an Umma that sends out suicide bombers to blow up its religiously defined enemies - with dreams of 72 virgins waiting on them hand, foot and finger in the afterlife.

When faith attempts to pervert reason, that faith is a perversion of faith tradition.

throwing around poorly considered criticisms of religion

I see mythos and logos as being different sorts of knowledge, but complimentary. For example, knowledge of the origin of life. Logos will tell us how, mythos will give it meaning and direction.

you propose consequences without a real world scenario

...there are scenarios in which saving a human life is not worth the price. I can give an example from just a couple days ago. Can that not be extrapolated to all of human life?

I agree that there's something in man that yearns to connect with something beyond, to belong to something greater, some order of things that makes it all makes sense, for I recognize it in science and the continued existence of humankind. This is the way and the light, if you want to put it in those terms, in employing our reason to the sane and just purpose of securing our welfare and survival as a species.

...why should we think that the preservation of humanity should be the highest of all priorities? It certainly isn't natural to attempt such a thing.

But on what basis? That humankind is more than just a number of human beings. But what more?

Not natural? There is no basis for comparison - no animal bar us that has had its fate in its hands.