[Buddha-l] science #3

[Dan Lusthaus]

Stefan,

You only address half my point -- the intention or motivation. The second half is the telos, namely the reason to do science is to uncover and try to understand the mind of the creator. That the "truths" of science have their resonance in Islamic, Jewish, Buddhist, etc., forms of "revelation" (to echo the Islamic model and discourse) is not in spite of their religious associations, but precisely because Allah (or whatever name given to Al-Haqq) has revealed itself to everyone, and is the universal truth accessible to all, even atheists. Natural law, denuded of that frame, is hubris and dangerous, they would argue. Whether one feels the need for that framing of science or not is not the issue. It simply indicates that "Islamic science" is not an oxymoron -- unless one wants to patronizingly explain to everyone who disagrees with that characterization that they are deluded. If so, that's just another form of parochial missionaryism, and a type of scientism, i.e., making "secular science" the root metaphor of which the other types of "science" are deluded facimiles. The debate would then turn on which science is deluded, the religionists arguing that secular science is misguided science because it prohibits itself precisely from those aspects of its subject that make it universal (while claiming universal validity), while the secularists argue that the religionists go beyond the evidence. That impasse leaves both alternatives as oxymorons or untenabilities.

It is precisely the lack of such epistemological grounding in the secular sciences that prompted Husserl to write his last major work, _The Crisis of European Sciences_.

One can take the attitude which most 20th c. scientists took toward their work, i.e., a kind of pragmatism that said it's good enough if it seems to work for now, whether or not we can articulate solid grounding principles or not. We can then shift our attention to methods, rather than grounds, as many scientists have also done. But, whether addressed or not, that does eventually lead to a crisis -- such as the obvious lack of philosophical ability that contemporary scientists -- evolutionists, physicists -- demonstrate when challenged by Rightwing Christians employing epistemological challenges to their discipline. The best the scientists usually muster in their defense are arguments from authority ("the consensus of scientists we consider legitimate today agree that..."). They are in crisis.

Dan Lusthaus
  ----- Original Message ----- 
  From: Stefan Detrez 
  To: Buddhist discussion forum 
  Sent: Friday, January 13, 2006 6:42 AM
  Subject: Re: [Buddha-l] science #3


  Maybe the perspective from which 'a' science is done is religiously or ideologically inspired, but when the conclusions of some research are comprehensible beyond any religious or ideological perspectives, then it becomes an oxymoron to speak of Muslim, Christian of Wiccan science. 
  Intentions (to explain or try to prove the validity of a theological notion in scientific terms) can be separated from method in this context, so the findings of Muslim astrologers also serve for non-Muslims. Scientific language is, in this respect, to be demythologized to lay bare the basic notions by which reality is explained. Once this demythologisation is done, it will be clear that humans share a standard paradigm to explain 'the workings' of the world which goes beyond religion/ideology. 

  Stefan

-------------- next part --------------
An HTML attachment was scrubbed...
URL: http://mailman.swcp.com/mailman/private/buddha-l/attachments/20060113/7d1408b1/attachment.htm