Relay-Version: version B 2.10 5/3/83; site utzoo.UUCP
Posting-Version: version B 2.10 5/3/83; site pyuxd.UUCP
Path: utzoo!watmath!clyde!burl!ulysses!gamma!pyuxww!pyuxd!rlr
From: rlr@pyuxd.UUCP (Rich Rosen)
Newsgroups: net.origins
Subject: Re: Science as Religion
Message-ID: <1239@pyuxd.UUCP>
Date: Thu, 18-Jul-85 20:04:40 EDT
Article-I.D.: pyuxd.1239
Posted: Thu Jul 18 20:04:40 1985
Date-Received: Sat, 20-Jul-85 07:47:20 EDT
References: <3158@decwrl.UUCP>
Organization: Whatever we're calling ourselves this week
Lines: 38

> Just a passing quote to comment on my statements that doing Science is a
> bottem a 'religious' task.
> 
> I am finishing an interesting book, SCIENCE AND CREATION, by Stanley L. Jaki,
> a Phd in physics and theology.  The premise of the book is that 'science' as
> we know it rose only under the Christian world-view.  A statement Whitehead,
> Oppenheimer and others have made as well.  Anyway, it is not light reading
> and seems to be well researched.  Food for thought at least.

So?

> The interesting passage is as follows:
> "Out of such dispair arose, however, a more comforting symptom as well.  It is
> the steadily growing realization that the man of science, no less than his
> counterpart in religion, lives ultimately by faith.  With the mirage of
> positivism now being unmasked, it is easier to recognize that the scientific
> enterprise rests on a conviction which presupposes far more on man's part than
> the mere juxtaposition and correlation of the data observation. The conviction
> in question is nothing short of a faith which, like religious faith, consists
> in the readiness of going beyond the immediately obvious. The step is not
> simply a glib conjecture about a deeper layer.  (a la Rosen's claims!)

and blah blah blah (to quote Paul Simon).

First off, for a REAL perspective on scientific encounters with the "real"
nature of the universe, read "Stehpen Hawking's Universe" by John Boslough,
especially the chapter on "The Anthropic Principle".

But more importantly, you religionist types keep referring to what Arndt
here calls "the mirage of positivism now unmasked".  1) When was this
"unmasking"?  2) Where did the ceremony take place?  3) What was the
logical substance of the unmasking process?  (The tough one, Ken.)
It seems that people who don't like the real world think that if you keep
re-asserting that it ain't so, if you get "important" "scholars" to do so,
it all goes away.  It ain't so, Joe.
-- 
Anything's possible, but only a few things actually happen.
					Rich Rosen    pyuxd!rlr