On Wed, Mar 19, 2014 at 6:39 PM, Robert Hansen <email@example.com> wrote:
> On Mar 19, 2014, at 8:52 PM, Joe Niederberger <firstname.lastname@example.org> > wrote: > > > I quoted Leibniz (translated), I didn't write about him. What he said in > his own words contradicts your imaginary history of ideas. Get a clue. > > I don't have a clue. Please explain how this demolishes my distinctions. > > Bob Hansen >
I'll butt in to suggest in what way JN feels he is showing BH's vocabulary to be scrambled eggs, by his citing / quoting Leibniz.
BH has advanced a definition of "religious" that it means "faith in unproved beliefs".
JN is showing that Leibniz, holding just such beliefs (religious / unproved) came by that faith to espouse what we would call the scientific world view: that nature follows exceptionless rules and/or principles.
The Davies article was making the point that the scientific world view is not obvious. We might live in a more capricious world. What got us to science was our faith, for which evidence needed to be amassed, in some set of exceptionless principles that might be over the course of time discovered by the human mind.
So how can we distinguish between the faith that commits us to science (thinking of Catholics doing astronomy in their state-of-the-art observatory, or Teilhard de Chardin, the evolutionist Jesuit) and the faith that commits us to non-scientific thinking ala Kierkegaard? Both seem to derive equally from faith.
BH's reply is that whereas "religious belief" is completely unjustified, the kind of faith that leads to scientific discovery and perhaps new synthetic judgments a priori, by pure reason, is not "belief" at all, but "mental feelings" and "mental feelings" are distinct from "beliefs".
According to BH's terminology, if we have some phony baloney belief that turns out to be crazy, that was by definition "a religious belief" or a "belief in general".
"Mental feelings" on the other hand, lead to scientific discovery and rational constructs.
So, per BH's terminology, if you want to be on the side of science, make sure your feelings are really mental and not of the belief type, as the latter feelings just lead to phony baloney religion, whereas truly *mental* feelings reveal scientific truth, of the kind Leibniz possibly uncovered -- other than his believing in a god part).