Jeffrey Gosh this all sounds complicated but isn't it reasonable just to
be able to test things and if they work that's ok -nothing to do with belief
-for an old silvergold surferer anyway well known luddite
Bestos to the trying spirit
-----Original Message-----
From: Poetryetc provides a venue for a dialogue relating to poetry and
poetics [mailto:[log in to unmask]] On Behalf Of Jeffrey Payton
Sent: 12 May 2005 06:21
To: [log in to unmask]
Subject: Re: Cocooned in Dylanesque or is Albert Einstein indeed God?
Marcus,
I don't entirely disagree with you, and I'm not trying to be argumentative,
I'm just trying to understand, especially your last paragraph. Science has
it's laws, granted, but it is also about exploring different points of view,
and other explanations of phenomena, etc. and assimilating those discoveries
into its continuing basis of 'laws'. If it (science) stopped being about
trying to understand things, then it would cease to be an 'intelligent'
study, I think, even if it rules out the theories that it rejects, due to
lack of information, or some other reason. If the discoveries already made
through science were definite and incontrovertible, would there be any room
for growth? more theories? discoveries? In other words, (and here I agree
with you and 'science' as a learning and discovery system) isn't
intelligence (like science) really the thirst for knowledge, and the ability
to assimilate new discoveries into an ongoing basic 'law' of science.
So, taking your argument on board, and reapplying it, I was just saying that
'definite non-belief' without leaving any possibilities open (like we agree
that science DOES, if fact do) for any other explanation, seems, to me
anyway, as illogical as 'true belief' because there doesn't seem to be
enough information for a DEFINITE conclusion, either way. In other words, I
don't think that science, by definition, really rules anything out.
So, to ask another question, and in reference to a line in your last
paragraph, wouldn't your statement make one 'anti-intellectual' if one were
a 'true believer' in the established 'laws' of science, for instance? In
your scenario, it would, wouldn't it? Would scientists turn into scientific
Luddites? Maybe I'm just arguing semantics? Not sure...
Anyway, in the spirit of trying to figure things out, (EVERTHING out), and
as a fellow explorer,
All the best, Jeff
IGNERGLASS.COM> wrote:
Marcus Bales wrote:
> True believers are anti-intellectuals by definition. If you believe
> the Bible you cannot question freely or test honestly or conclude
> truly; instead, you must simply believe.
>
> This is not to say that one cannot believe in God, even the Christian
> God, and still be a scientist; but it means one cannot be a "true
> believer" -- that is, someone who always chooses whatever the holy
> writings or the holy people say over the evidence.
On 11 May 2005 at 15:30, Jeffrey Payton wrote:
> That would mean, then, with regard to your definition, that the
> reverse would also be true...that one cannot be a 'true non-
> believer' and be an 'intellectual' (because one would have to
> 'believe' in 'non-belief'). Right? Have you shot your own
> 'intellectual' self in the foot?
The notion that "non-belief" is just a species of "belief" is simply
wrong, in the same way that the notion that "indifference" is simply
a species of "anger" is wrong. Of course it CAN be, but it isn't
necessarily so. SOME people use indifference to express anger; SOME
people embrace non-belief religiously.
"True believers", irrespective of what they believe in, are anti-
intellectual by definition because the tenets of a true belief reject
the notion of science implicitly where the rejection is not explicit.
One cannot enjoy the freedom to explore other points of view or other
explanations of pheneomena, by declaring up front that one abjures
those freedoms together with any other point of view or explanation.
Marcus
---------------------------------
Find local movie times and trailers on Yahoo! Movies.
|