Copy Link
Add to Bookmark
Report
AIList Digest Volume 8 Issue 064
AIList Digest Thursday, 25 Aug 1988 Volume 8 : Issue 64
Religion:
The Godless assumption
Burning Bruno
Re: science, lawfulness, a (the?) god
Religion & Cognitive Science
----------------------------------------------------------------------
Date: 23 Aug 88 01:01:30 GMT
From: greg@csoft.co.nz
Reply-to: greg@cstowe.UUCP (Greg)
Subject: Re: The Godless assumption
I have edited out a large number of comments from both sides which could be
debated, but do not belong here. In fact, none of this does, but I will
correct that in my posting!
In a previous article, T. William Wells writes:
>In a previous article, IT21@SYSB.SALFORD.AC.UK writes:
>: It may
>: be that many correspondents *assume* that religion is a total falsity or
>: irrelevance,
>
> proposing not only
>that religion is practical, but that it might be `true'.
>However, the religious `true' is antithetical to any rational
>`true': religion and reason entail diametrically opposed views of
>reality: religion requires the unconstrained and unknowable as
>its base, reason requires the contrained and knowable as its
>base.
The reason basis described here is HUMAN, based on a human perception of
the universe, which is limited at best. If I successfully managed to build
an AI by any method other than running it thru a complete human simulation
(A Mind Forever Voyaging, Infocom Games), I would be surprised if it's
reasoning could be compared to a humans. Much human reasoning is based on
emotions and values that would probably be no discernable value to the
computer. Different human cultures are differ in their perception of reason.
The computer could probably only be described as inscrutable.
It would even be rather disconcerting to have the first AI proclaim it's
belief in a religion. Come to think about it, anything the first AI 'thought'
would probably have an profound effect on the human model of the universe.
For futher reading about AI's in a universe of their own, read
Gibson, William - Neuromancer, Count Zero and Burning Chrome.
They may change your perception of AI.
Disclaimer - tricked you - this is just an AI in the net anyway.
--
Greg Calkin Commercial Software N.Z. Limited,
...!uunet!vuwcomp!dsiramd!pnamd!cstowe!greg PO Box 4030 Palmerston North,
or greg@csoft.co.nz New Zealand. Phone (063)-65955
------------------------------
Date: 22 Aug 88 2212 PDT
From: John McCarthy <JMC@SAIL.Stanford.EDU>
Subject: Burning Bruno
[In reply to message sent Mon 22 Aug 1988 22:21-EDT.]
Burning Giordano Bruno presents problems for many religions that Hiroshima
doesn't present for science. Science doesn't claim that scientific
discoveries can't be used in war. There would be problems for anyone
who claimed that 1930s science would avert World War II. As far as
I know, not one person in the world made that claim. There are also
problems for people who claimed that Marxism was a science, that
countries ruled by Marxism would not commit crimes and that
the Soviet Union was ruled by Marxism. Plenty of people believed
that and denied that, for example, the millions murdered as kulaks
were murdered.
A religion that claimed that the Catholic Church was protected
from doing evil by God, that the Catholic Church was responsible
for the killing of Bruno and that killing Bruno was a crime
have problems. Many other religious people who believe that
God will prevent their leaders from certain crimes and errors
have problems every time one of them is caught.
To have problems of this kind requires a certain complex of
beliefs, but such complexes are relatively common. If certain
people were found to have committed certain crimes, it would
disconcert me a lot.
------------------------------
Date: 23 Aug 88 08:04:56 GMT
From: quintus!ok@Sun.COM (Richard A. O'Keefe)
Reply-to: quintus!ok@Sun.COM (Richard A. O'Keefe)
Subject: Re: The Godless assumption
In a previous article, lishka@uwslh.UUCP writes:
>It is true that religious beliefs have been used *as*excuses* to commit
>horrible atrocities (witch burnings, ...
This concedes too much. It is widely believed, but that doesn't make it
true. The belief in the existence and malevolence of witches was an
*empirical* belief. If you read "Malleus Maleficarum" (there is at least
one translation available in Paperback) or if you read the court transcripts
and pamphlets from the New England witchcraft trials (there's an historical
society which issued reprints in the first half of this century) you will
find few if any appeals to faith, but many appeals to evidence. Where we
disagree with the past is about what constitutes evidence (we do not, I
trust, regard torture as necessary on the grounds that evidence so produced
is the most reliable kind, but if we _did_ think that, what do _you_ think
law enforcement agencies would do?). There are any number of people today
who believe in ghosts, poltergeists, ESP, and the like, on far worse
evidence than our forbears had for believing in witches.
Either there were no few people who wished to be witches, and even believed
that they _were_ witches, or all court testimony is worthless (as Ambrose
Bierce once said, somewhat more forcefully).
Some of the other messages have reflected a similar credulous acceptance
of "pop history". The past is stranger than we imagine.
This topic really hasn't much to do with AI.
Perhaps it could be moved somewhere else?
------------------------------
Date: Tue Aug 23 10:06:36 EDT 1988
From: sas@BBN.COM
Subject: Re: science, lawfulness, a (the?) god
I think people are getting a bit confused on this one.
Religion is centered around the human soul which in many religions
can be characterized as damned, saved, pure, untested, tainted and so
on. In Western religions, which are largely guilt based, it is used
to assign human thoughts and actions a place on a good/evil or
moral/immoral scale.
Science is centered around the testable world. Various statements
about phenomena are assigned values on the true/false scale, in which
truth is determined by testing the statements predictive value, the
predictions being tested by active experiment or passive observation.
To my knowledge there is no scientific litmus test which can determine
the good or evil of a particular thought of action. Beeckman does not
make a scale to weigh one's soul against a feather. (Actually, the
popular American view of the afterlife is surprisingly
NON-judgemental)! The story of Job can even be viewed as a tract
denouncing the attempt to apply human reason to matters religious.
One might expect, given the powers ascribed to the almighty(ies), that
religious law would be more or less self enforcing. Notice the
difference between the following two sets of taboos:
- Don't eat amanitus bolitus. - Don't hit yourself with a stick.
- Don't eat human flesh. - Don't hit other people with a stick.
To keep people from eating human flesh and hitting other people with
sticks, people need some form of government, which is ruled not by
science, not by religion, but by politics.
Will a big enough fire kill a man? Will the atom bomb explode?
That's science.
Did Bruno reach Nirvana? Is Truman rotting in hell? That's religion.
Should we burn people at the stake for heresy? Should we drop the
bomb on Japan? That's politics.
Seth
P.S. I can't help adding for you movie buffs, "When a ghost and a king
meet and everyone ends up mincemeat. That's entertainment."
------------------------------
Date: Tue, 23 Aug 88 11:27:59 MDT
From: mantha@cs.utah.edu (Surya M Mantha)
Subject: Re: The Godless asumption
In a previous article, ALFONSEC@EMDCCI11.BITNET writes:
>
>burned in Hiroshima in 1945. In actual fact, neither Religion nor Science
>are discredited because of that, only people who do things can be discredited
>by them. Theories are discredited by negative evidence or by reason.
>
Not surprising!! This line of reasoning I mean. It is one that is
mostly commonly used to defend institutions that are inherently unjust
undemocratic and intolerant. The blame always lies with "people". The
institution itself ( be it "organized religion", "socialism", "state
capitalism") is beyond reproach. Afterall, it does not owe its existence
to man does it?
>M. Alfonseca
>
>(Usual disclaimer)
Surya Mantha
Department of Computer Science
University of Utah
Salt Lake City
------------------------------
Date: 24 Aug 88 10:00:44 GMT
From: mcvax!csinn!grossi@uunet.UU.NET (Thomas Grossi)
Subject: Re: The Godless asumption
In a previous article, ALFONSEC@EMDCCI11.BITNET writes:
> .... If Religion is discredited because Giordano Bruno was burnt at
> the stake in 1600, then Science is discredited because 120,000 people were
> burned in Hiroshima in 1945.
No, World Politics is discredited: the bomb was dropped for political reasons,
not scientific ones. Science provided the means, as it did (in a certain
sense) for Religion as well.
Thomas Grossi
grossi@capsogeti.fr
------------------------------
Date: 24 Aug 88 11:01:45 GMT
From: Jason Trenouth <mcvax!cs.exeter.ac.uk!jtr@uunet.UU.NET>
Subject: Re: The Godless assumption
Surely the "godless assumption" is the natural assumption of all scientific
endevour? If we begin allowing for the existance of a supernatural god, who
could interfere with our experiments, then any major difficulty might halt
progress. The scientists could reason that their god just doesn't want them to
know any more. Its extreme form is "Cartesian doubt":
I think therefore I am,
and I definitely can't try to do any research!
Some theists get around this aspect of an interfering god by positing that it
created the universe, which now runs all by itself according to some laws. In
this case we don't need to take the god into account anyway.
There is another alternative, which is to argue that there are a number of
people whose minds are effected by belief in a god, even though we assume its
nonexistence. In this case it is merely another facet of human cognition
available for study.
Ciaou - JT.
--
______________________________________________________________________________
| Jason Trenouth, | JANET: jtr@uk.ac.exeter.cs |
| Computer Science Dept, | UUCP: jtr@expya.uucp |
| Exeter University, Devon, EX4 4PT, UK. | BITNET: jtr%uk.ac.exeter.cs@ukacrl|
------------------------------
Date: Wed, 24 Aug 88 10:34 EST
From: steven horst 219-289-9067
<GKMARH%IRISHMVS.BITNET@MITVMA.MIT.EDU>
Subject: Religion & Cognitive Science
Here are two questions that came to mind while browsing through the
recent spate of submissions on "the godless question". The first
is food for thought. The second is a request for information.
FOOD FOR THOUGHT: There is a certain similarity between cognitive
science and religious cosmology in that both employ intentional
explanation to account for their respective data. (Though of
course neither intentional realism nor theism should be regarded
primarily or solely as scientific theories - both predate
scientific inquiry and have ramifications outside the sphere
of scientific investigation.) A question for those who are
disposed to accept at least Dennett's views on the need for and
utility of the "intentional stance" in psychology: If you are
prepared to ascribe intentional states and processes to explain
some events (i.e., in psychology), is there any reason to not
proceed in the same way in other areas? I'm not asking this
evangelistically -- I'm just interested in hearing some ideas
on why the kinds of considerations which may warrant intentional
realism do or do not also warrant theism. (Or, for that manner,
animism.
REQUEST FOR INFORMATION: Is anyone aware of any projects that
apply computer modeling to religious practice in studying the
phenomenology of religion?
BITNET Adress..........gkmarh@irishmvs
SURFACE MAIL...........Steven Horst
Department of Philosophy
Notre Dame, IN 46556
------------------------------
End of AIList Digest
********************
