Science and beliefs (was: the gods)

[Erik Hoogcarspel]

Op 28-mei-97 schreef Dominique.Thillaud:

>At 11:41 +0200 27/05/97, Mr B.Philip.Jonsson wrote:
>>
>>First: science is not value-neutral, but constitutes itself a value-system
>>and a world-view operating under a set of premises that are agreed-upon
>>rather than 'given', that may or may not be in conflict with other systems
>>of world-explanation.

but which is valid only within the scientific paradigm and not apart from
scientific research. the laws of quantummechanics don't hold in a soccergame.
may i remind you that we live in a world with many conflicting value-systems.
this started long time ago with the acceptence of the duplex ordo and had
become very prominent during the arisal of postmodernism

>I agree completely. Using Eliade's definition of a religion as
>'founding the reality' it's clear the science is today a new sort of living
>religion, with cosmogony, origin of life, of mankind, gods (Energy,
>Entropy, &c.), sacred and hermetic language (mathematics), well-developped
>magic (technology, flying, far-talking, fireballs, &c.), necromancy (old
>movies, archeology), clerics (I'm one) with studies, initiation, hierarchy
>and heretics (I'm one too) and underlying philosophy (the concept of the
>world's modelisation by scientific theories is platonician). The science is
>apostolic (a subtle form of neo-coloialism) but, perhaps, the main today's
>problems come from his lack of an eschatology!

this is called scientism. Husserl and Heidegger have proved it wrong. it's an
opinion i would expect to hear on the street, not in an intellectual
discussion
btw Eliade was also wrong in this case, reality doesn't
have to be founded, it's just there, just, no more no less. 

>I don't agree fully: translating a text is not just translating
>words, syntax and semantic but translating too the *pragmatic*. A law-text
>must be translated by a law-man. A religious text is not like a novel, it
>vehicles strong religious intentions and I prefer the translator of a
>buddhist text to be a buddhist. The exceptions are dead religions (as
>egyptian one) and too much evolued religions: are bad translated Bible by a
>protestant or Veda by an hinduist! (warning: I'm saying they are bad
>translated from philological point of view, not from translator's religious
>one). And if I recall right, muslim law prohibes the translation of Coran.

you seem to think that the pragmatics are only revealed by experience and not
by study and relection. my wife just finished a research on the meaning of
death i'm glad she didn't have to experience death in order to complete her
research and if her work is translated i hope the translators will live long
and healthy lives!
there more to it: do you have to be a dog in order to know what it's like to
be a dog? do you need to be a god in order to know what it is to be a god? are
you the hero of your own biography? IOW do i know what it is to be me because
i am myself? what is this 'knowing what it is to be like'? knowlegde is being
able to give a coherent meaningfull account of what you know, according to the
pragmatics of science and education anyway. am i able to give a coherent
account about what it is to be me, because i am myself? NO, the truth is that
i cannot explain what it is to be me, i cannot explain what is is to be human.
you cannot explain what you are. knowledge demands this ontological split,
this distance. so a law-man is not a good translator of law-texts unless s/he
is more than a law(wo)man, so that s/he can develop this distance along with
his/her expert knowledge. 

erik hoogcarspel