RE: MD On Faith

From: Scott Roberts (jse885@earthlink.net)
Date: Tue Oct 05 2004 - 23:35:14 BST

  • Next message: Scott Roberts: "RE: MD On Faith"

    Chuck,

    Scientism is coherent. What it is not is adequate. With scientism as a
    metaphysics, we cannot know anything about anything other than the
    inorganic.

    - Scott

    > [Original Message]
    > From: Chuck Roghair <ctr@pacificpartssales.com>
    > To: <moq_discuss@moq.org>
    > Date: 10/5/2004 3:16:38 PM
    > Subject: RE: MD On Faith
    >
    > "Scientism" is still a hell of a lot more coherent than anything any
    > religion has ever had to offer.
    >
    > -----Original Message-----
    > From: owner-moq_discuss@venus.co.uk [mailto:owner-moq_discuss@venus.co.uk]
    > On Behalf Of Scott Roberts
    > Sent: Tuesday, October 05, 2004 10:27 AM
    > To: moq_discuss@moq.org
    > Subject: Re: MD On Faith
    >
    > Platt,
    >
    > Replace "Science asks us" with "Scientism asks us" and I would agree. It
    is
    > an important distinction to keep in mind.
    >
    > - Scott
    >
    >
    > > [Original Message]
    > > From: Platt Holden <pholden@sc.rr.com>
    >
    > > Science asks us to "just believe" in the following irrational canons of
    > > faith:
    > >
    > > -- Faith in empirical verification as the standard of truth (although
    > that
    > > assertion of truth can't be verified empirically.)
    > >
    > > -- Faith in the creative power of chance (although science depends on
    the
    > > repeatable and predictable to prove its theories.)
    > >
    > > -- Faith in a purposeless cosmos (although every living creature
    exhibits
    > > goal-oriented behavior.
    > >
    > > -- Faith in an amoral universe (although scientists say it's immoral to
    > > falsify data.)
    > >
    > > -- Faith in beauty as a sign of a valid scientific theory (although no
    > > scientific instrument can identify, measure or unravel the mystery of
    > > beauty.)
    > >
    > > You can have faith in science, in God, in the MOQ, or your neighbors
    > cat.
    > > It really makes little difference because no matter how you slice it,
    > > existence remains an impenetrable mystery.
    > >
    > > Best,
    > > Platt
    > >
    > >
    > >
    > >
    > >
    > > MOQ.ORG - http://www.moq.org
    > > Mail Archives:
    > > Aug '98 - Oct '02 - http://alt.venus.co.uk/hypermail/moq_discuss/
    > > Nov '02 Onward -
    > http://www.venus.co.uk/hypermail/moq_discuss/summary.html
    > > MD Queries - horse@darkstar.uk.net
    > >
    > > To unsubscribe from moq_discuss follow the instructions at:
    > > http://www.moq.org/md/subscribe.html
    >
    >
    >
    >
    > MOQ.ORG - http://www.moq.org
    > Mail Archives:
    > Aug '98 - Oct '02 - http://alt.venus.co.uk/hypermail/moq_discuss/
    > Nov '02 Onward -
    http://www.venus.co.uk/hypermail/moq_discuss/summary.html
    > MD Queries - horse@darkstar.uk.net
    >
    > To unsubscribe from moq_discuss follow the instructions at:
    > http://www.moq.org/md/subscribe.html
    >
    >
    >
    >
    >
    > MOQ.ORG - http://www.moq.org
    > Mail Archives:
    > Aug '98 - Oct '02 - http://alt.venus.co.uk/hypermail/moq_discuss/
    > Nov '02 Onward -
    http://www.venus.co.uk/hypermail/moq_discuss/summary.html
    > MD Queries - horse@darkstar.uk.net
    >
    > To unsubscribe from moq_discuss follow the instructions at:
    > http://www.moq.org/md/subscribe.html

    MOQ.ORG - http://www.moq.org
    Mail Archives:
    Aug '98 - Oct '02 - http://alt.venus.co.uk/hypermail/moq_discuss/
    Nov '02 Onward - http://www.venus.co.uk/hypermail/moq_discuss/summary.html
    MD Queries - horse@darkstar.uk.net

    To unsubscribe from moq_discuss follow the instructions at:
    http://www.moq.org/md/subscribe.html

    This archive was generated by hypermail 2.1.5 : Tue Oct 05 2004 - 23:38:14 BST