SV: Science and Religion

[From Bjorn Simonsen (2007.02.18,01:10 EUST)]

[From Bruce Nevin (2007.02.17 13:09 EST)]

It is possible for people to control contradictory belief-disbelief
systems. What we are asking is how this is possible, not whether it is

Pardon me if anybody find my argumentation jarring.

Let me confine myself to talk about _Religious_ belief-disbelief systems.
One example for controlling a belief system is when one intercede for
someone else.
I don't understand how it is possible to control that belief system. I can
exemplify the reference as "I wish to intercede for someone". I cannot
exemplify the disturbance. And when the disturbance is zero I find myself
"near" imagination mode.

Consider the analogy of the case where you investigate two hypotheses as
alternative explanations for observed phenomena. In that case, a program
or methodology of investigation (itself controlled from system concepts
about science) sustains the ability to entertain contradictory views.

Yes, this is OK. I accept belief-disbelief systems as a basis for knowledge
about the real, real world. It is part of science.

This is an analogy at a lower level of the hierarchy. In some way, a
person controls principles of science by concurrently controlling
conceptual systems that contradict one another.

Yes, OK.

Now, what is wrong with contradiction between two conceptual systems?
Some control system controls contradiction at zero.

I don't think there is anything wrong with contradiction between two
_scientific_ conceptual systems.

It can also be the case that the two conceptual systems control lower
perceptions in different circumstances, or are used to control
higher-level perceptions that have little or no connection with one
another. This can be problematic if another control system controls for
a consistent philosophy across all of experience. But such a control
system may be patient or impatient.

Yes, I think I understand what you say.

So it is with religion and science.

You presupposed that we can control religious control systems. My problem is
that I can't understand how.
The religious concepts like God and eternity and Trinity don't exist in the
real, real world. When you intercede for someone else, your actions are the
words that are brought about (feedback effect). This is the only variable in
the input quantity. Or am I wrong?

Because religious objects don't exist in the real real word, they are named
symbols. We can't refer to the sources for many religious stories, therefore
they are named myths. We can't explain many religious ceremonies, therefore
we call them rites.
Symbols, myths should find their place as the cause of disturbance. But
nobody has ever seen or heard them. They are replaced with rites. This is
something religious people say themselves.
Do we talk at cross purposes?


Jeg bruker gratisversjonen av SPAMfighter for privatbrukere.
Den har fjernet 120 s�ppelpostmeldinger til n�.
Betalende brukere har ikke denne meldingen i e-postene sine.
F� tak i SPAMfighter gratis her: