🚀 go-pugleaf

In my note "Religion vs science: two questions, with answers" I
dissected the supposed conflict into two topics, the first of which
(anthropics) has an obvious & well-explored connection with physics,
whereas the second (the psychology of faith) has only a tenuous one.
It is curious that on this newsgroup, the first topic excited no
interest at all, whereas the second spun out a long, ragged thread,
petering out in a discussion of what "the FAQ" (a person or
institution whose acquaintance I have not yet made) ought to do about
it.

Cameron R Bass at least takes enough notice of the first question to
harumph at it:

> >(1) Is the preponderance of scientific evidence at present against the
> >existence of an intelligent Creator?  Ans.: Yes, but it is not
> >overwhelming, and some of the arguments (e.g. the argument from scale)
> >do not look as impressive as they did 50 years ago.
>       Ans:  No.  Science cannot make arguments on the existence or
>       nonexistence of nonscientific concepts.   

Whether the universe had an intelligent creator is just as much a
scientific question as whether a plate of cookies had an intelligent
creator.  The difference, aside from scale, is that the answer is
probably no.  Some people to whom that is unpalatable have taken pains
to sophisticate the question so that it can't be answered, but they
don't fool me.

Now let me pick a couple of plums out of the Christmas pie that you
people have made of the second question.  Once again Mr Bass:

> >(2) Is there an inherent conflict between science as a human activity
> >and faith as a human need?  Ans.: Yes, because science entails respect
> >for evidence, and faith means contempt for evidence.  A person in whom
> >they coexist must either be embattled or have worked out an internal
> >truce with well-defended boundaries.
>      Observation: Faith does not mean 'contempt for evidence'.  Evidence
>      is irrelevant, but that does not imply contempt.   Do you have
>      contempt for my opinion on whether you should water your houseplants
>      tomorrow, or is it just irrelevant?

To say that something is irrelevant, in my book, is to show contempt
for it.  I use the word in its literal, neutral sense, not the debased
sense in which it is a euphemism for "hate".  True faith involves
*serenity* in the face of unpleasant evidence, comparable to the
serenity Mr Bass imagines I might feel in the face of his advice about
houseplants.

And Douglas Craigen:

>   Your definition reminds me of an old joke.  A Sunday school teacher asks 
> what "faith" means, and one child answers "its when you believe something 
> even though you know it isn't true".  (At this point everyone, except you, 
> laughs because of the subtle misconception the child has picked up.)

"Everyone, except you, laughs" is an unlovely & implausible fantasy.
I laughed at the joke, in part, because I thought the child had
expressed an unsubtle truth.  That is the *humor* in the joke: it
describes a habit of mind (call it doublethink) that everyone will
recognize.  The *wit* in it is the oxymoron.  And the *malice* in it
(which, as we know from Freud, is the real engine of funniness) is the
breathtaking rudeness of its being made in a Sunday school.  If one
tries to imagine that in real life, one immediately arrives at a
further characterization of faith, based on the usual origin of
contempt for evidence:

*Faith is belief with the threat of a beating behind it.*

I will post no more on this question, which I agree is impertinent to
sci.physics.  Is there a newsgroup on anthropics, tho?

Merry Christmas,

-- 
        Joe Fineman             jcf@world.std.com
        239 Clinton Road        (617) 731-9190
        Brookline, MA 02146