Relay-Version: version B 2.10 5/3/83; site utzoo.UUCP
Posting-Version: version B 2.10.2 9/18/84; site spar.UUCP
Path: utzoo!watmath!clyde!bonnie!akgua!whuxlm!harpo!decvax!decwrl!spar!ellis
From: ellis@spar.UUCP (Michael Ellis)
Newsgroups: net.philosophy,net.religion
Subject: Re: Religious Language and Science
Message-ID: <300@spar.UUCP>
Date: Fri, 7-Jun-85 23:27:41 EDT
Article-I.D.: spar.300
Posted: Fri Jun  7 23:27:41 1985
Date-Received: Mon, 10-Jun-85 06:51:53 EDT
References: <6261@umcp-cs.UUCP> <568@cybvax0.UUCP> <6319@umcp-cs.UUCP> <572@cybvax0.UUCP>
Reply-To: ellis@spar.UUCP (Michael Ellis)
Organization: Schlumberger Palo Alto Research, CA
Lines: 66
Xref: watmath net.philosophy:1890 net.religion:7074

>> There would be no need for religious language if the things could be
>> talked about directly... - Charley Wingate

>"There would be no need for jabberwocky if Wonderland could be talked
>about directly."
>..
>In other words (less sarcasm) you still retain the problem of whether
>the language conceals that its subject is nonexistent.  You still have no
>non-circular reason for assuming the things exist and that the language
>is necessary.
>..
>Specialized language is needed for specialized subjects: but unless the
>subject can be shown to exist, the language is unnecessary and should be
>discarded as obfuscatory. The scientific literature is full of discarded
> nomenclatures -- Mike Huybensz

    Unfortunately, there are MANY phenomena, whether virtual or real, for
    which useful language has evolved. 

    For instance, do subjective mental states exist?

    I cannot scientifically `prove' that I am imagining a frog right now.
    Nor can I demonstrate the reality of my own consciousness.

    Our scientific knowledge concerning the brain may progress to the point
    that such entities are shown to have no objective existence whatsoever
    -- that words like {dream, aware, hallucination, mind, thought, love..}
    have no more reality than `God' or `spirit' do to Mike Huybensz. 

    Why should that stop me from using words that describe subjective
    phenomena that are most certainly `real' to me?

    Would you would discard most of poetry, psychology, fiction, metaphysics,
    etc. and ANY KIND of emotional interaction with friends/lovers/family?
 
    Furthermore, your statement:

> but unless the subject can be shown to exist, the language is unnecessary
> and should be discarded as obfuscatory.

    ..is inimical to science itself. Apparently you've forgotten that the a
    great deal of scientific progress began as unjustified metaphysical
    speculation that was totally at variance with the best scientific
    knowledge of the day. 

    Consider the ancient study of Geometry. Do real points, lines, etc.,
    exist, at least as envisioned by geometry? It seems not. Yet until
    Descartes and Newton, classical geometry was little more than a
    metaphysical pursuit. Even now, General Relativity notwithstanding,
    we use Euclidean Geometry with great utility, even though we KNOW
    it describes things that do not really exist.

    How complex is the real world in comparison to our capability to
    understand it? Since ANYTHING we can conceive is at best an illusion
    we should, by your criterion, say nothing at all.

    I suspect that Mike's intolerance for `obfuscatory language' derives
    from the current glut of overbearing, intolerant Fundamentalism.

    Religious and Metaphysical modes of thought have huge potential value,
    especially in problems where Science IN PRINCIPLE can offer no help
    whatsoever. 

    SMASH CAUSALITY!!

-michael