From: Matt Kundert (pirsigaffliction@hotmail.com)
Date: Fri May 06 2005 - 19:59:22 BST
Hey Mark,
Mark said:
Ok, so you're saying that it's inconsistent for someone to buy the
polar-cartesian analogy and nevertheless claim that theism and science are
in conflict. I'm not so sure.
Matt:
I'm not exactly saying it would be inconsistent or a contradiction because I
don't think we would run into any clear refutation. (I think the
philosophical waters at this level far to muddy for anything like a clear
refutation.) I said originally that, if you claim that science and theism
are in conflict, you'd need to either do some rebutting of James/Pirsig or
some qualifications. Going the qualification route could get you to
fundamentalist atheism/scientism. What I'm saying is that the line of
thought that springs from James and Pirsig wouldn't end in such a
position--you'd need to head it off at the pass and curb it another
direction.
For instance, you can use the "different maps, different purposes" for the
evaluation of geometries, but I don't think you can use it for different
"metaphysical systems" without qualifying what you mean by "metaphysics."
If you mean what traditionally has gone by "metaphysics," that there's one
Metaphysical System that corresponds to Reality and it is our job to find
it, you have to be especially careful to keep such a pragmatist slogan in
check, because if you let it get out of hand it'll dissolve the very notion
of a single Metaphysical System. If you mean by metaphysics something more
like a "paradigm" or "language game" or "map for getting around the world"
you can let the slogan run free. The first instance is an example of
qualifying James and Pirsig because they want to let the slogan roam where
it wants to.
The overall reason I think qualification of James/Pirsig is needed if you
take a hard stance against religion is because I think pragmatism a
philosophical acid that eats through any Platonic, philosophical
pretensions. If you wanted to say _strongly_ that theism and science are in
conflict, you'd have to dilute some of the acid because the pragmatist
position would seem to allow the two if the purposes of the two can be
differentiated--which Sam and Scott have been arguing that modern theology
does. And with this you seem to be willing to agree. Another way to get a
strong push behind "conflict" is to say something like, "If we have science,
we don't need religion." But if we accept that science and religion are
differentiable, that they have different purposes, saying we don't need
religion just about amounts to saying you, personally, don't need religion,
but its not at all clear how this is supposed to be a motivating argument
against religion. One way to argue is to say that scientific-types are
"tougher minded" (which is the Nietzschean line), but Scott's already
commented on this non-starter. Another way is to argue that religion, and
its purposes, are best left by the wayside, that our culture as a whole
would be best without it. This, however, is a pragmatist argument through
and through, and not really an argument so much as a suggestion/prediction.
Its a difficult suggestion to get to stick and, still, its not entirely
clear why the religious should be motivated by it.
Mark said:
However, I don't see how the passage I quoted above [from ZMM about
Euclidean and Riemannian geometries] clearly refutes the idea that there may
be a conflict between theism and science. That is, in one case we are
comparing geometries or map coordinates, very similar KINDS of systems. In
the other, are we sound in saying that science and theism are sufficiently
similar for the analogy to hold? It's clear that the geometries, though
different, are internally consistent, Can the same be said for religious
systems in general?
Matt:
I think this is the wrong tact to take with the passage. The passage I was
thinking of was in Lila where Pirsig compares polar and rectagular
coordinates for maps (unfortunately, I don't have the book in front of me,
but its towards the beginning, I think the chapter he talks about the
objections of logical positivism and mysticism). This passage is obviously
rooted in the same line of thought that the ZMM passage is, but I think it
makes for a better analogy because it brings out nicely that the reason we
need maps is for making our way about the world. There are an infinite
number of maps to be made, all depending on what you want to see. Think of
the maps a political consultant would have at her disposal: popular vote
maps, electoral maps, lib v. con maps, awareness, favoribility,
likeablility, etc., etc. What determines what kinds of maps we have are how
useful they are to us. So, to my mind, it is exactly the point that science
and theism are sufficiently dissimilar in purpose that allows them to not be
in conflict. (And I think pretty much anything can be made to be internally
consistent. That doesn't neccessarily make it useful, though.)
I hope that clears up what I've been saying, since you seem to basically be
in agreement with the pragmatist line.
Matt
p.s. I don't have access to my e-mail at home, so I haven't been able to
give due attention to our other thread. Since it is a good one, and needs
good attention, I'll hopefully be able to get something done by the middle
of next week. The heads up on what I'm thinking is that there are two basic
problems in our discussion: one "political" and one "philosophical." By
"political" I mean I want to again take up the difficulty in using the
social/intellectual distinction in down to earth argumentation. And by
"philosophical" I mean I want to continue the other line that the principles
needed to hold up the distinction are unsavory. Ironically, the
"philosophical" side was inadvertantly transmutted to Sam's "The Ideology of
Capitalism" thread, a thread which suggests itself to be very political, but
as I see it, the crux of the issue is rather very philosophical.
_________________________________________________________________
Express yourself instantly with MSN Messenger! Download today - it's FREE!
http://messenger.msn.click-url.com/go/onm00200471ave/direct/01/
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 : Fri May 06 2005 - 20:11:18 BST