On Sun, 12 Jun 2005, joanna wrote:
> One of the things that can alleviate poverty is science, and one of the
> things that science depends on is mathematics, and two of the basic concepts
> that a complex mathematics depends on is zero and infinity. Neither zero nor
> infinity are things that one can point to: a lot of energy devoted to
> thinking about impractical stuff like "nothing" and "infinity" had to be
> expended in order to make these concepts seamlessly merge into the universe
> of finite things we can point to. In some ages the finite is dignified by
> being merged with the infinite (late middle ages); in other ages we are at
> pains to find excuses for concepts like the infinite (modern times). At any
> time, man must make some kind of peace with these two realms because he is
> sensitive to both. This peace cannot be made through experiment because there
> is no such thing as an experiment without a prior metaphysics. Every
> expriment assumes and infers how we cut up reality, which are the important
> variables, and which are the unimportant. Sience seeks to carve at the
> joints; but where the joints are exactly is not something that can be
> determined scientifically. Where the joints are depends on how things hang
> together; how things are tied together: res ligio (things tied) --->
> religion.
This is a pretty circuitous (and tortured) argument. Being religious is not a precondition for conceptualizing infinity and limits (unless, of course, you define religion a priori as such!). In short, you do not need to be religious to learn math or apply math to solve social problems, so I don't follow your argument.
> "The question of God/Religion/Metaphysics" includes a ton of questions: for
> example, "What is the good?" "Is it possible to be good without also being
> free?" "Is there such thing as evil?" "Can we step out of our own
> conditioning?" "Is there intelligence without language?" "Is happiness
> nothing other than the satisfaction of material needs?" "What is the
> relationship between the finite and the infinite?" "What is the relationship
> between the one and the many?" "What is the relationship between life and
> death?" "What is consciousness?" These are all very, very important
> questions. The fact that these questions exist does not necessarily mean that
> they must also have answers. Let's say most of them are koans.
I agree with Wittgenstein that all these deep philosophical questions are fundamentally misguided. Just asking them--let alone trying to answer them!--is a waste of time.
> And, since, it is not possible to prove that there is no God, the question of
> how man may find God (of how he may perceive reality without the veil of
> conditioning) is both a religious and a scientific question. It's religious
> because it asks whether we may, as finite, particular beings, be able to
> perceive something that transcends the particular. It's scientific because it
> asks how we may be sure, or rather, what it is that might serve for certainty
> in this particular situation. It's scientific because it wants to
> _investigate_ the possibility of an unconditioned realm.
According to any plausible definition of science, the question of God is in fact not a scientific one. I'm not being a dogmatic (rabid?) atheist here; the problem is that there are no accepted scientific methods to determine how "man may find God" or if "God exists" or if "God likes to play bingo". Theological speculation is outside the circle of what science can study, at the present time. (Science can neither support nor undermine my belief in God.)
Miles