[Buddha-l] science #3

[Dan Lusthaus]

Bob,

> The ground of all science and scientific laws and principles is that an
> incomprehensible being using incomprehensible laws for incomprehensible
> purposes made it that way.

Please reread my previous description of Islamic (and Jewish) science as its
self-understanding was articulated throughout the middle ages -- and in some
Islamic quarters still today, especially their foundational axioms (in #2).
God's miracle is precisely that there are logical, rational orderly
principles in the universe, which, with our intelligence, we can discern and
learn from and about. In other words, that two molecules of hydrogen
combined with one molecule of oxygen yields water is not simply a "natural
fact" in the secular sense of the term, but a revelation about the nature of
the mind and activities of the creator. God is intellect (not capricious).
The more one can think these natural laws, the more one moves (in the
Aristotelean terms they used) from Passive Intellect to Active Intellect.
The mind of God is Active Intellect (and sometimes even more). Humans rarely
attain Active Intellect -- those who do are called Prophets (this was both
an Islamic and Jewish theory of the time) since they can see the logical and
necessary progression of things. Recognizing rational, logical principles is
the route to that. Logic, science, i.e., clear, logical thinking is,
according to Ibn Rushd (Averroes), Ibn Sina (Avicenna), Rambam (Maimonides),
and the other "big boys" of that age, as close as any of us get to
understanding the mind of God.

The obfuscation principle you cite may apply to Christian scientists (though
I suspect even some of them would argue against that), but it has nothing
whatsover to do with how medieval Islamic and Jewish scientists thought
about science, the world, natural laws, or God.

If, for instance, God is a necessary being (in the premodern philosophical
sense, meaning there is nothing accidental or even contingent about his
nature or actions, but everything must follow logical necessity), then God
is incapable of doing anything irrational or arbitrary. If something about
God (or nature) seems "incomprehensible" to anyone, it is only that they
have not yet discerned the necessary laws at play. The solution is not to
worship mysteries and incoherence, but to do science more rigorously.

I realize this conception of science and religion is NOT something most of
you are used to, but at least please think about it before firing aimlessly
from the hip.

best,
Dan