The Backwards way that France argues about Science and Religion

page: 1
4

log in

join

posted on Jul, 15 2014 @ 05:30 PM
link   
Is Quantum Physics a Sort of Idealism?

[...]

"In the first few years of this century, France was rocked by an aggressive controversy involving the question of the evolution of life. I am sure that you are aware of such public fights in the United States between a religious public and a school of atheist scientists who love to stir the pot.

Interestingly, the same conflicts in France are typically between an atheistic public and scientists who see more in the physical world than its visible surface has to offer. In this situation a group of scientists decided to go public with a “European manifesto.” In 2006, it was published by Le Monde, one of the large French daily papers. “Religious or metaphysical ways of thinking,” the manifesto begins, “should not, a priori, interfere in the ordinary practice of science.

However, we also consider that it is legitimate, indeed necessary, to reflect, a posteriori, on the philosophical, ethical and metaphysical implications of scientific discoveries and theories.”

[...]

Huh. That's odd. It never would have occurred to me that an atheistic populace could be schooled by a more spiritual scientific community. That's quite a different picture of the ol' religion vs science brouhaha that I have come to know and love here in the good ol' USA. Here, the picture is of a religious population arguing with an athiestic scientific community, generally speaking of course.

It would be interesting to see a panel discussion between those French scientists and our scientists, like Richard Dawkins.

edit on 986TuesdayuAmerica/ChicagoJuluTuesdayAmerica/Chicago by BlueMule because: (no reason given)




posted on Jul, 15 2014 @ 05:48 PM
link   
Don't forget the historical background.
The strength of atheism in France goes back to the politics of the nineteenth century, when loyalty to the church and loyalty to the Republic were at opposite ends of the political spectrum.



posted on Jul, 15 2014 @ 06:06 PM
link   
a reply to: BlueMule

My understanding, from the excerpt you provided, is that metaphysics and religion are welcome only at the point where scientists decide what to do with the information they uncover. The process of uncovering said information is reserved for strictly scientific methods, whereas the subsequent applications may be steered or advised from a spiritual point of view.

Which is not at all surprising.



posted on Jul, 15 2014 @ 06:10 PM
link   
a reply to: AfterInfinity

So, scientists should taking off their scientist hat and putting on their philosophers hat when talking about science and religion with the public.

I don't get the impression that our scientists do that. They seem to want to speak with the authority of science, not philosophy.

/shrug



posted on Jul, 15 2014 @ 06:31 PM
link   
Some of the greatest Philosophers in the Western world were, of course, French. Philosophy is an integral part of French thinking past and present.

List of French Philosophers

French scientists accept philosophy as part of the human mystery, part of humanity itself.

Philosophy is part of the current National Curriculum in French High Schools and degrees in Philosophy are fairly common in France.
edit on 15-7-2014 by antoinemarionette because: added text



posted on Jul, 15 2014 @ 06:42 PM
link   
a reply to: antoinemarionette

How would you describe/categorize the current philosophy among the French populace, and also of the French scientific community?

edit on 029TuesdayuAmerica/ChicagoJuluTuesdayAmerica/Chicago by BlueMule because: (no reason given)



posted on Jul, 15 2014 @ 06:44 PM
link   
a reply to: BlueMule


So, scientists should taking off their scientist hat and putting on their philosophers hat when talking about science and religion with the public.

I don't get the impression that our scientists do that. They seem to want to speak with the authority of science, not philosophy.


Well, um...they are scientists. I don't pay a dentist for spinal therapy. It's unfair to ask them to do a 180 just for the benefit of those who are uncomfortable with what science says.



posted on Jul, 15 2014 @ 06:48 PM
link   
a reply to: AfterInfinity

But what science says is a matter of interpretation, right? And interpretation is a matter of philosophy, yes?



posted on Jul, 15 2014 @ 06:51 PM
link   

originally posted by: BlueMule
a reply to: AfterInfinity

But what science says is a matter of interpretation, right? And interpretation is a matter of philosophy, yes?



Is gravity a matter of interpretation? Is the electromagnetic spectrum a matter of interpretation? Is Tylenol a matter of interpretation? Is your device a matter of interpretation?

Those who interpret choose to interpret because they don't like what they're told. Perhaps they're the same ones who "interpret" the Bible into agreeing with them, rather than the other way around.



posted on Jul, 15 2014 @ 06:57 PM
link   
a reply to: BlueMule

The French populace is politically astute, defiant and highly critical of their leaders and those in power.

I can't speak for the scientific community in France, but they have traditionally been very forthright in creating a very stable foundation for France overall, in education, pharmaceuticals, agriculture, etc.
edit on 15-7-2014 by antoinemarionette because: (no reason given)
edit on 15-7-2014 by antoinemarionette because: (no reason given)



posted on Jul, 15 2014 @ 06:58 PM
link   
a reply to: AfterInfinity

Oh, so SCIENCE is to thank for the fact that we have gravity. I see.

Tell me, which of these philosophies do you think that the presence of gravity is most likely to support?

1. Realism. This philosophy holds that the fundamental elements of reality are independent of consciousness – this is the doctrine of strong objectivity. A tree in the forest is real, even when it is not being perceived; the moon continues in its space-time orbit, even when nobody is looking; and so forth. The doctrine of strong objectivity is further augmented by another doctrine – causal determinism. There are many different subphilosophies within this basic realist view, and I will only mention two that are useful in the discussion of quantum philosophy:

2. material realism, which considers matter to be the only fundamental reality; there is only one order of reality, matter (and its extensions, energy, and fields), according to this view. All else, including consciousness, are epiphenomena and are ultimately reducible to matter. Thus materialism comes hand in hand with epiphenomenalism and reductionism. Furthermore, since the only reality is that defined by space-time, the doctrine of locality is held fundamental.

3. nonphysical realism, which permits orders of reality other than matter, although we may directly experience only the material order. Bohm’s idea of implicate and explicate order is an example of nonphysical realism.(9) Since there is more than one order of reality, locality is no longer essential; neither are epiphenomenalism and reductionism.

4. Idealism. This philosophy holds that the fundamental elements of reality must include the mind. Within this broad category I will mention two subdivisions that will be important for our discussion:

5. dualism(or pluralism), which considers mind and body to be separate worlds both having primary importance. This philosophy hardly needs further elaboration.

6. monistic idealism, which considers consciousness to be the primary reality. The world of matter is considered to be determined by consciousness as is the subtle world of mental phenomena, such as thought. Besides the material and the subtle (which together form the immanent reality or the world of appearance), idealism posits a transcendent archetypal or ideal realm as the “source” of the lower immanent worlds of appearance of the material and the subtle. However, monistic idealism is fundamentally a monistic philosophy; any subdivisions such as the three orders above are in consciousness – thus, ultimately, consciousness is the only reality.

edit on 041TuesdayuAmerica/ChicagoJuluTuesdayAmerica/Chicago by BlueMule because: (no reason given)



posted on Jul, 15 2014 @ 07:03 PM
link   
a reply to: BlueMule

Oh, look, using metaphysics to debunk science. That's never been tried before.

In the words of Admiral Akbar:



Waste of time. See ya.
edit on 15-7-2014 by AfterInfinity because: (no reason given)



posted on Jul, 15 2014 @ 07:10 PM
link   

originally posted by: AfterInfinity
a reply to: BlueMule

Oh, look, using metaphysics to debunk science. That's never been tried before.


Debunk science? Only science can do that. Metaphysics is what you do when you interpret science. Science doesn't interpret itself. For example, many people interpret science as supportive of materialism. But it's just as easy if not easier to interpret it as supportive of idealism.

edit on 050TuesdayuAmerica/ChicagoJuluTuesdayAmerica/Chicago by BlueMule because: (no reason given)



posted on Jul, 15 2014 @ 07:33 PM
link   
a reply to: BlueMule

Oh that's really neat, and it makes perfect sense to me. My take on what they are saying is that as far as “Religious or metaphysical ways of thinking,” are concerned, neither should have any influence on the direction that scientific research goes in, but also that those ways of thinking are legitimate when it comes to the critical analysis of what science has produced.

Very cool, thanks for sharing.



ETA: On another read through I realize that they also seem to be inferring that not only scientists should go after the product of science with a "religious or metaphysical" lens, but that everyone might benefit from having a go at it.

That's even more cool. I swear: I'm moving to France.

edit on 15-7-2014 by Bybyots because: . : .



posted on Jul, 15 2014 @ 07:51 PM
link   
a reply to: Bybyots

What an excellent summary of that statement.

You have really understood the depth of their meaning.

Awesome.





new topics

top topics



 
4

log in

join