This will be a brief presentation of the other point of view regarding Freyguy's attack on God and believers in his new post "Physics>Theology". But first, I must advise that I will continue to post about the "stinkulus bill", the largest, least read, least transparent, least bipartisan major bill ever passed.
My opposing view to Freyguy's post will not be nearly as long. My view, as a believer, is not based in any amazement over a talking snake (as Freyguy alludes). I am amazed, though, that people who believe that an exploding rock randomly created the complexities of all life, rely on the unbelievability of a talking snake to prove there is no God.
The basic tenets of my beliefs are that faith is more powerful than knowledge, and that faith is better vested in a majesty greater than man. It is about the search for purpose superseding the quest for proof. I've mentioned a number of times to him (I suppose that's redundant, as fathers always repeat themselves) that, although I have no proof there is God, I have a lifetime of evidence that man just can't be the highest form of being.
This is no plea for ignorance. I often bemoan the fact that so many times people make important decisions without seeking knowledge about the subject, or disregard past experience as relevant. Human endeavors should be pursued with the most knowledge one can gain, as well as an understanding of past performance to guide the probability of future outcomes.
Rather, I argue that greater knowledge inspires greater awe of elements that shape the universe...and those that shape man, instead of being shaped by man. They encompass hope, compassion, and love, as well as life itself. And those "inalienable rights" that were understood so late by man, were always endowed by God. The fundamental problem most non-believers have is in trying to shape God in man's image, instead of believing that God's image is in each one of us, but beyond our attempts at personification (or proof)...and perhaps in being too proud of their intellectual abilities to point out that a snake couldn't talk.
The Old Man
So here I am, a secular humanist for longer than FreyGuy has been a Frey, but I have to side with The Old Man.
ReplyDeleteLet’s start with the Bible. Sorry Freyguy, but Adam and Eve knew they were naked not from a serpent (which may or may not have appreciated that Eve was naked – it was a male serpent, right?), but because the original dynamic duo ate a fruit (perhaps an apple, but probably not) from the Tree of Knowledge.
But as The Old Man points out, it’s not about talking snakes. (Technically it was a serpent which is a more general category that includes dragons.) That is irrelevant unless you are arguing that every word in the Bible is the word of God and further that God was unaware of literary devices such as allegory.
Likewise if positions that some religious leaders espoused (and still do) seem preposterous, so does bleeding the bad humors from the body of a sick person to allow proper healing to take place (a popular practice at the time that the lightning rod was invented) or dividing all things into their base elements: earth, water, air and fire. Scientist could be just as mistaken, sometimes tragically so, as religious blowhards. Recall that Aristotle, who was revered though at least the Middle Ages, got just about everything wrong and may have retarded developments in science as much as the Catholic Church.
Science and religion are two different ways to search for truth. Religion doesn’t express scientific truth, but it is almost certain that much of what we think of as scientific truth today will seem quaint if not silly to the next generation. The search is unending and important; there is nothing inherent science or religion that should limit the other.
Some religious leaders believe they know exactly what God wants. I think that is foolish. Some people believe that a belief in God limits the mind. I think that is foolish too.
http://imgs.xkcd.com/comics/beliefs.jpg
ReplyDelete"Religion doesn’t express scientific truth, but it is almost certain that much of what we think of as scientific truth today will seem quaint if not silly to the next generation. The search is unending and important; there is nothing inherent science or religion that should limit the other."
ReplyDeleteWhile this statement may very well be true, the problem comes with the fact that science is still looking for the truth and is willing to admit, even if takes quite a while, that it was wrong in the past. In the future new evidence, research, and information could contradict what seem like sound theories today. This is not a problem or a flaw of science, but rather its greatest strength. The scientific method is the perpetual search for the truth and continually testing what we think is the truth especially when new information comes out that may disprove what we think we know.
The problem with religion is that it does not do this as much. It is static. There may be new interpretations, but it very much the same as it was thousands of years ago. The people practicing the religion are much different, but the dogma is much the same. Religions may be just as wrong as science, but they are far more content to stay that way.
Fred,
ReplyDeleteOkay, so technically it was a magical fruit--not the serpent directly--which caused Adam and his former rib to realize they were naked. But isn't that sort of splitting hairs? Either way, my point was the story is an ancient myth which has been superseded by careful scientific observations.
You say religion is 'not about talking snakes'. I agree, but let's face it: most religions require their followers to accept *something* which seems preposterous--whether it's a talking snake, a virgin giving birth, resurrection of the dead, etc. Otherwise, it wouldn't require an 'act of faith' to believe, and we might call it a philosophical or historical or scientific belief, rather than a religious belief.
Do you really think 'religion' (distinct from philosophy), as practiced, is a search for truth? The only searching I have observed in the context of churches and Bible study groups has been confined to the wiggle room allowed within the standard, traditional dogma. In general, for example, a Christian isn't *really* supposed to doubt Jesus Christ died for our sins and rose again. Part of the purpose of going to church, singing songs, and listening to sermons is to reinforce faith in this belief, not carefully review the evidence for it. But if we were simply searching for the truth, we wouldn't be asked to believe anything without evidence.
The Old Man mentions hope, compassion, and love. These are noble things...but do we really have to embrace any particular religion to talk about these things? Can't we appreciate hope, compassion, and love, and extract the best lessons on these topics from the Bible without believing the miraculous stuff, just as we do when we read the Odyssey or Hamlet?
Having been ‘absent without leave’ from this blog for a while, I’ll admit to being vaguely out of touch, but the latest topic of God (capital ‘G’) vs physics (small ‘p’) compels me to rejoin the fray.
ReplyDeleteI’ll offer a slightly different perspective for all to contemplate. Namely, that ‘religion’, offers the basis of a moral code which man alone struggles to replicate. Please note that I’ve placed ‘religion’ in quotation marks, for there are many kinds of religion, and not all of them have, singularly, to do with the Deity.
For those ‘religions’ whose authority derives from a Deity, the basic premise, as the OLD MAN has observed, is that the existence of something greater than man sets forth a code of belief, and, concomitantly, of conduct, which would not exist without ‘HIS’ presence. It recognizes, therefore, that man’s imperfect nature is better elevated by a belief in a set of abiding principles which transcend those which he can concoct on his own. In the absence thereof, man is naturally inclined to worship his own forms of paganism, such as Hollywood (unbridled narcissism) or the Democratic party (unrivaled stupidity). Albert Einstein (http://www.spaceandmotion.com/albert-einstein-god-religion-theology.htm), likely the greatest physicist of the 20th century, and an admitted atheist, has hundreds of quotations on the juxtaposition of science and religion, but perhaps the most sanguine, which recognizes the weaknesses of each, is best expressed by:
Science without religion is lame, religion without science is blind. (Albert Einstein, 1941)
There are also ‘religions’ which do not worship a Deity, but, nonetheless, have an accepted code of conduct which resolutely governs their members’ behavior. Two, immediately, come to mind:
The first is the Marine Corps, whose motto, ‘Semper Fidelis’ conveys the conduct to which all who belong will adhere.
The second is the United States Military Academy (USMA) universally known as West Point, whose thirteen word motto, “A cadet will not lie, cheat, or steal, nor tolerate anyone who does”, governs all human conduct, whether during their military tenure, or in civilian life thereafter. I have managed more than a few such individuals, but one in particular stands out. He was a graduate of both the Academy and a Baker Scholar at Harvard Business School. He was honor bound to “tell the truth, the whole truth and nothing but” regardless of circumstance. He was a natural leader of men and precisely the person you’d want in the foxhole next to you. I can state unequivocally that his moral principles were shaped by his USMA experience, and not those imbued by his matriculation at HBS.
As regards West Point’s Code of Conduct, it was instituted by Five Star General of the Army, Douglas MacArthur, the Academy’s Commandant in 1913. If, perchance, you’d like to listen to the second greatest speech in U.S. history (behind Lincoln’s immortal Gettysburg Address) given by MacArthur from memory at age 82 to the Corps of Cadets at West Point, please go to:
http://www.americanrhetoric.com/speeches/douglasmacarthurthayeraward.html.
I submit that if you are not moved by these most eloquent of words, then you indeed have neither a sound moral character, nor a soul on which it is based. And, yes, in this respect I am being intentionally judgmental, which is currently anathema at our institutions of “higher learning”.
It is instructive to note the institutions that I have not mentioned above. No colleges or universities, no law or business schools, and no components of government, either administrative, judicial or legislative.
As to the lattermost, I only offer the following examples of limitless incompetence:
• Nancy Pelosi (D-CA)
• Barbara Boxer (D-CA)
• Dianne Feinstein (D-CA)
• Harry Reid (D-NV)
• Henry Waxman (D-CA)
• Hilary Clinton (D-NY)
• Bill Clinton (D-AK)
• Maxine Waters (D-CA)
• John Conyers (D-MI)
• Chris Dodd (D-CT)
• Barney Frank (D-MA)
• Ted Kennedy (D-MA)
• Charles (“Chuck U”) Schumer (D-NY)
I’d simply ask you to reflect on how many ‘D’s and ‘CA’s there are among this list and whether you’d like to surrender your choices and freedoms to a group so severely compromised in both intellect and imagination.
INRE John's Post...
ReplyDeleteI am, once again, impressed by the command of the language and perspicacity of a man with such modest educational training( at Dartmouth).
I suppose I'd note but two things:
ReplyDelete1. Tuck School is routinely ranked above HBS in the quality of graduate MBA curricula.
2. Dartmouth's endowment, the largest per capita among prestigious halls of academe, lost considerably less in the current economic crisis than did Harvard.
I guess class tells when the pressure is applied.
"Vox Clamantis in Deserto!"
John,
ReplyDeleteYou talked about your general support for 'religions' but you did not explain your own religion, and why you believe it. Out of curiosity, do you consider yourself religious? If so, which religion do you believe in, and what non-human, perfect method have you discovered that allows you to know it is correct?
I agree that humans are imperfect. We are close cousins of the chimpanzee, and let's face it, sometimes it shows. It is precisely BECAUSE humans are imperfect that I am astonished you and the Old Man are willing to accept that your own human convictions, and human-made religions, carry the stamp of Ultimate Authority. Sorry, but I don't believe that emperor is wearing any clothes. In case you hadn't noticed, religions are created by those same primates whose authority you and the Old Man claim to reject. I do not know about you, but so far God has not seen fit to contact me personally and inform me which of our human-made religions is correct. Nor have I received a transmission from Heaven to assure me that any of the thoughts and convictions in my own head are correct. And frankly, I am profoundly skeptical of the countless two-legged animals who will look me in the eye and claim they have received such an assurance, through Divine means of communication that are not available to me. Take one look at the history of such claims--the richness of contradictions casts doubt on them all.
So, what are we to do? I think we should do what scientists do: make careful observations; then make simplifying assumptions, look for general (you might say "transcendent") principles and rigorously question, test, and refine our conclusions. Fundamentally, I think this is the basic operating procedure you and the Old Man are using to arrive at all of your moral conclusions, whether you realize it or not (and whether you do it well or not!) It is all you CAN do, unless you have access to Divine Truth by means that are inaccessible to me--an unlikely possibility, given your admiration of the Republican party.
I agree with you that there is a transcendent moral framework, and that some principles fit this framework while others do not. I agree with you that there are things worth believing in, and struggling for, and powerful words worth reading (like MacArthur and Einstein). You may think that being an atheist makes me an unfeeling robot, but I actually have enough RAM to compute at least some emotions.
What I am saying is that you do not need to appeal to non-existent assurances from the Almighty to justify elementary moral rules-of-thumb, like honesty is good, etc. It is an observable fact that Nature has imbued we humans with certain universal characteristics which transcend our individual selves; that we have common interests and we have to share a planet together. Elementary logic, and plenty of experience, leads to the conclusion that we will flourish more if we try to be honest, etc. And unless Nature has been cruel to you, and created you with the brain of a psychopath (a possibility I am willing to consider--again, given your admiration of the Republican party), you probably want to flourish and want flourishing in your family, neighbors--even strangers. (Contrary to what the Old Man has said, volumes have been written documenting how social animals like us evolve empathy and altruism, without need of miraculous explanations.)
You might argue that God is at work behind Nature. Perhaps; I'm only saying that Nature is sufficient. As the mathematician and astronomer Laplace said to Napoleon, when he asked where God fit into his model of the Solar system: "Sire, it works without that assumption."
Of course even if we agree on basic principles (like honesty), I concede all of our moral work is still ahead of us. It remains to address more complex issues (gender equality? legitimate uses of violence? human rights?) in a consistent way. These issues could be difficult, even intractable to our intellect. That would suck, but nothing is solved by fatwa. Nothing is solved by choosing to embrace everything in some pre-packaged belief system, or as Mark Twain would say, "believing what you know ain't so". And I'm glad, because then there would be little left to discover.
-Freyguy
I agree we are without any need to posit the existence of a deity or deities to explain nature, although support for the Republican Party by intelligent people in this day and age does indeed have the appearance of divine meddling by a dysfunctional god.
ReplyDeleteBy the way, not all religions are concerned with ethics. According to Jared Diamond, tribal peoples living in New Guinea do not believe their ethics are derived from their deities. And ethics seem to be at most incidental to some of the better known Eastern religions, such as Taoism and Zen.
Moreover, altruism and reciprocity have been observed in chimpanzees and, perhaps, bonobo. That leads me to believe there could be some genetic basis for those behaviors in humans. If so, then what need have we of saying our ethics depend on god or religion?
I think the god hypothesis is interesting, but frivolous. It is unnecessary to explain any aspect of nature, including the origin of our ethics.
Personally, I'd rather not take orders from "Him." If I'm going to listen to a silent voice from space, it will be a "Her."
ReplyDelete