This is mostly directed to Steve G. and might be better taken off-line at some point.
Some questions about the God-Science paradigm conflict. 1) Is there a 'conflict difference', even in degree, between religion and science and Institutionalized Science and Religion? it seems to me that a lot of the conflict arises when the Institutions seek to advance absolute dogma and assert sole possession of Truth. Politicians and political factions seem to exploit this Institutional conflict, especially the "sole possessor of Truth" aspect to demonize others as idiots and fools — all to gain advantage and control but not because of any sort of deeply held conviction about whichever side they are leveraging. 2) Have you 'prototyped' or limned what an alternative paradigm might look like? What features, salient positions, essential premises, etc. would be required to satisfy your quest? 3) Are there any existing paradigms that might serve as a foundation for a desired alternative? I would consider Taoist, Vedic, and Hermetic/Alchemy traditions as potentially useful. What do they lack, from your perspective? (I would also advance the theology — not the Sunday School Institutional dogma — of Mormonism as a possible model, because it makes no distinction between knowledge and truth based on its origin.) 4) Once an alternative paradigm is formulated, how is it promulgated? How might one go about convincing the world at large to accept it? davew - .... . -..-. . -. -.. -..-. .. ... -..-. .... . .-. . FRIAM Applied Complexity Group listserv Zoom Fridays 9:30a-12p Mtn GMT-6 bit.ly/virtualfriam un/subscribe http://redfish.com/mailman/listinfo/friam_redfish.com archives: http://friam.471366.n2.nabble.com/ FRIAM-COMIC http://friam-comic.blogspot.com/
