|
Hubris
Jan 29, 2005 16:53:53 GMT -5
Post by Electron on Jan 29, 2005 16:53:53 GMT -5
I must confess to being more than a little intimidated on joining these debates, but I've been searching for guidance from those that understand what it is that worries me -
Basically what I've come to learn about our world and its place in the cosmos over during 50 wonderful years of life seems very much at odds with the beliefs of nearly every organise religions. Here goes:
1) How can anyone be so egocentric as to think that there could be a god (who is capable of constructing an entire universe) that would be so concerned with human affairs...
I can see how we are just another lifeform evolved from a long line of creatures before us. There doesn't seem to be anything particularly special about my bodyplan when I compare it to my pet cat for example, and I can recognise parts of me in creatures from past epochs.
The creationists will insist that we are special having been placed here by god, but assume they are wrong and we really are a product of three thousand million years of intricate evolution (as I'm in no doubt about) - then we really don't deserve such a special place in anyones eyes.
2) I often think of the vast landscapes of the other planets and moons in our solar system - and of countless other systems beyond our own - in our galaxy and in other distant galaxies. I will assume nobody is going to deny the existance of an effectively infinite number of potential refuges for life. So if we really were the object of creation then what is all the other stuff out there for?
|
|
|
Hubris
Jan 30, 2005 5:28:40 GMT -5
Post by Satori on Jan 30, 2005 5:28:40 GMT -5
I must confess to being more than a little intimidated on joining these debates, but I've been searching for guidance from those that understand what it is that worries me - Hi and welcome. Don't be worried - when it comes to matters of faith there is no right and wrong. What you believe is equally as valid as what anyone else believes. Even matters relating to the historical background of religions are open to debate because one man's historical fact is often another man's load of tosh. Good point, but Christians may argue that God created us to be special and unique ('in His own image') and therefore takes an interest in our affairs. Personally, I'm not sure on the God front. His existence isn't all that important to my religion and, I feel, if He did exist, it would be in a pantheistic manner. I certainly have no 'belief' in the God portrayed by the Abrahamic religions. But that's just my opinion and whatever view you form is fine. Possibly, but even non-Creationist Christians might still believe that we are are 'special'. God may, after all, have chosen evolution as His method of creating us. The Creationist view isn't central to Christian belief. It tends to come about either when Christian sects employ their own strict interpretation of Genesis, or simply to try and dismiss science, which some sects find threatening to their faith. I've met many Christians who are quite happy with evolution. I don't think it's 'infinite' as such, but in such a large cosmos even a tiny probability is a big number (if you see what I mean). I can see your point. Why bother to create all this stuff if it isn't going to be used? Practice maybe
|
|
|
Hubris
Jan 30, 2005 6:55:18 GMT -5
Post by Electron on Jan 30, 2005 6:55:18 GMT -5
OK, I'd like to concentrate on that statement now... If faith wins out over evidence based reasoning then as you point out it's neccesarily a hit-and-miss method for determining truth.
Evil Knievel had faith in his ability to jump across a canyon while simple Newtonian Mechanics new otherwise. If I ask a person of a random faith what they beieve I will get random answers. If I ask them what 2+2 equals I deserve to get the same answer regardless of religious persuation.
I fail to see how such a stark contrast could be ignored when contemplating the age old science vs religion debate. It shows a clear distinction here between religious belief and the sort of belief that scientists have in their developing model of the way the universe works.
Although you point out that not all christians are creationists, the argument with science is quite typical of the silliness in other areas: Creationists are so attached to their dogma that they fail to respond to the simple but powerful explanation offered by evolution. It worries me greatly that anyone presented with the notion of natural selection could reject it in favour of the hand of a supernatural designer.
I'm disgusted that in the interests of "political correctness" scientists are prevented from dismissing other forms of "revealed truth" by observations that fully deserve to be classed as "obvious".
At the heart of my agitaion is the realisation that arbitrary beliefs polarise communities into defensive/aggressive formations from which arise a serious amount of global conflict.
|
|
|
Hubris
Jan 30, 2005 15:48:46 GMT -5
Post by Satori on Jan 30, 2005 15:48:46 GMT -5
OK, I'd like to concentrate on that statement now... If faith wins out over evidence based reasoning then as you point out it's neccesarily a hit-and-miss method for determining truth. But who said anything about faith having to be about truth? Granted, you'll get lots of small-minded religious sects claiming that theirs is the 'one true way', but there are also those that believe that each faith is just a particular path to some common, greater truth. It's like telling someone how to get from Heresville to Theresville - there could be many answers, perhaps none of which are strictly right or wrong. If faith is meant to be about absolute truth, we'd have to accept that either one faith has it right and the rest are wrong (always a possibility I suppose) or that none of them have it right. I agree with you on that, but I believe evolution still has some holes in it. However, I think science - to its credit - accepts that and is prepared to modify and adapt its theories with time. Sadly, religion rarely seems to to show the same flexibility. But this does raise the question of whether or not science is ever 'absolute truth' either. At one time Newtonian physics was touted as being the way that the universe worked and - at the start of the 20th century - science was even declared as 'complete'. Then along came relativity and quantum mechanics and changed the whole scene. Science is just a 'truth of the time'. However, as I said above, science's willingness to change does it credit in this respect. Agreed, but it's still a small minority of trouble-makers who taint the reputation of a lot of peaceful religious people.
|
|
|
Hubris
Jan 30, 2005 20:03:02 GMT -5
Post by bobarian on Jan 30, 2005 20:03:02 GMT -5
Electron -
I'm very impressed with your analysis so far. It is very refreshing to hear someone really be able to see through some "surface" intrepretations and go to the meat of the subject. It would be very useful to do that more on this board. I commend you.
I think that much of your problems are based on questionable assumptions which you yourself question (and thus this accounts for the intellectual problems you face, which I entirely agree with.) I will simply move to define these terms so that many of these contradictions are no longer valid, and we can discuss these questions without running into barriers that don't really exist.
#1 Organized religion - all religion is an organized system of beliefs that attempt to explain the supernatural. Organized religion is merely when people who agree on religious matters agree to pursue them in practice as well as in faith. There is nothing intrinsically wrong with either provided they actually know the truth.
#2 Creationism - this view does not necessarily conflict with evolution. All evolution explains is the origins of species, or speciation. Creationism is concerned with larger questions of the origin of everything. As Satori said, there are some problems with evolution but it is not a central issue to creationism b/c creationism deals with questions that are far larger.
#3 Science - science is merely the attempt to explain the natural world and natural phenomena through observation and (in some form usually) experimentation. Thus, it is concerned primarily with natural causes and natural explanations for natural causes. Thus it cannot directly answer supernatural questions because they do not deal with natural causes. There are Naturalists who say that everything has a natural cause but I think that takes a leap of faith in my opinion considering how hard it is to deconstruct everything into atoms and energy. Life is more than that. Anyway, science merely enhances our understanding of the physical world - it does not necessarily help nor inhibit our understanding of the metaphysical world.
#4 - the Deistic God - your question about God being unconcerned with mankind (or have any reason to) is entirely correct. Absolutely. And if you listen carefully to Christian theology (I may mention the work of John Piper among others) you will find this thread. The answer is that God exalts Himself in His love, so by loving those who are so low and so poor He exalts His own love and so exalts Himself. It is for His own glory that He deals with such a low race...
I hope you have more questions. My IM is bobthesmart if you ever want to IM me.
Peace in Christ.
-Bob
|
|
|
Hubris
Jan 31, 2005 4:52:55 GMT -5
Post by Electron on Jan 31, 2005 4:52:55 GMT -5
But this does raise the question of whether or not science is ever 'absolute truth' either. At one time Newtonian physics was touted as being the way that the universe worked and - at the start of the 20th century - science was even declared as 'complete'. Then along came relativity and quantum mechanics and changed the whole scene. Science is just a 'truth of the time'. However, as I said above, science's willingness to change does it credit in this respect. It's not even as bad as all that! - Newtonian mechanics is a highly accurate system for describing and predicting interactions between objects greater in size than single atoms, at speeds less than the velocity of light - i.e. those things that Newton could observe in his day. Quanum mechanics and Relativity are refinements to Newtons work (to account for interations at the sub-atomic and light-speed ends of the scale), not complete replacements - so, for example, when NASA planned a grand trip around the solar system for the Voyager spacecraft in 1977, they applied the exact same methods of calculation first described by a man born in 1642, and no more. Please note the importance of this point: Scientific truth zero's in on the answers through a process of succesive refinments. Granted some are large-scale re-writes, but Newton arrived at the perfect description for objects at a particualr (but very practical) scale. We will be using his work forever more - if we're still around in a trillion years, his equations will still describe tragejtories with accuracy you could still bet your life on. This is why I'm so baffeld when people look to religion to find things like reassurance and constancy, when there is something far more absolute already available in the realm of science. - However if you mistakenly believe that Science is just a 'truth of the time', then yes, it may seem an arbitrary choice. But once you see the power and constancy of a correctly derived law of physics, there is no contest. This is what Einstein was looking for when he said that he wanted to know the mind of god. Can you understand how this might frustrate someone such as myself who sees a stark contrast between two approaches in the search for truth - one persued by science and the other by religion?
|
|
|
Hubris
Jan 31, 2005 7:08:44 GMT -5
Post by Satori on Jan 31, 2005 7:08:44 GMT -5
It's not even as bad as all that! - Newtonian mechanics is a highly accurate system for describing and predicting interactions between objects greater in size than single atoms, at speeds less than the velocity of light - i.e. those things that Newton could observe in his day. Yes, it's a good approximation but it is, essentially, wrong. Well I would have to disagree there. The concept of variable time, the constant speed of light and the 'geometric' implications of General Relativity are significant enough in my opinion to classify relativity as more than a 'refinement' to physics. Likewise with quantum mechanics - the whole idea that physics is not as deterministic as was once thought is a major change. Granted this sort of physics is not the sort of thing that affects us on a day-to-day basis, but we only operate in a very restricted spacial/velocity scope. Most of the universe operates outside of that scope so I think both relativity and quantum mechanics are changes to the 'core truths' of physics. Yes, because we're only talking in terms of billions of miles and Newtonian physics is a very good approximation. What I'm getting at is that it is, at the deepest level, wrong. Yes it does 'zero in' on things, but it's often via more than mere 'refinements'. Sometimes entire philosophical standpoints have to change and those constitute 'major' changes in my opinion. I still hold that science is only a truth as far as we know at the moment. However, one of the great things about science is that it's willing to adapt to these changes and move forward (particularly now that the church can't persecute it for doing so anymore). Well people look to religion for lots of things - science isn't always enough. It doesn't matter whether it should be enough or not; if it isn't enough for them then people will look elsewhere. Personally I think that assuming science is anything other than a 'truth of our time' is dangerous and not dissimilar to religious dogmatism. If we hadn't been prepared to consider changes to those 'truths' we'd probably still believe in a flat Earth at the centre of the universe with the stars being pinpricks in some celestial sphere. I can, but many would believe that there are different layers of 'truth' or that there is some 'absolute truth' that goes beyong science - maybe in the form of a God or whatever. Personally, I have no axe to grind with science, but it gives us no direction about how to live our life on a day-to-day basis.
|
|
|
Hubris
Jan 31, 2005 9:23:31 GMT -5
Post by Electron on Jan 31, 2005 9:23:31 GMT -5
Well at least we got some way into this before the semantics crept in: The fact that you can point to the truth as revealed by science as being potentially flawed does not put it on anything like the same footing as the sort of truths that come about through divine revelation.
Your statement "it is at the deepest level, wrong" makes it sound entirely wrong and untrustworthy which it is not. It runs the risk of inviting people like Evil Knieval to jump the canyon because he has faith that he can do it while Newton knows he can't.
If we can get past this point with your acceptance that science of a high enough standard is capable of revelaing objective truths such as 2+2=4 then I would suggest that there is a definite case for preffering its methods over divine revelation.
Your reference to science giving no guidance as to how to live day to day is far from true. The branch of mathematics called Game Theory formalises such matters - the classic do unto others as you would have done to yourself (or please leave this bathroom the way you would wish to find it) can be proven to be a successful strategy. I often use this to conduct my own behaviour. There are many other classes of interaction which can be moddeled equally well - such as conflict resolution.
The really annoying thing for me is that many of these solutions could be arrived at empirically with simple cycles of "modification guided by experimentation" - e.g. the way early musical instruments were designed. No computer modelling, just trial and error. The problem with religious dogma is that it keeps the loop open by maintaing an adherence to ancient writings. Thus any problems have little chance to be ironed out and the people of the world are doomed to re-live the consequences generation upon generation.
|
|
|
Hubris
Jan 31, 2005 13:13:37 GMT -5
Post by Satori on Jan 31, 2005 13:13:37 GMT -5
Well at least we got some way into this before the semantics crept in: The fact that you can point to the truth as revealed by science as being potentially flawed does not put it on anything like the same footing as the sort of truths that come about through divine revelation. No, I never said it did. Science progresses by testing new theories via physical experimentation. When those experiments fail or new theories present themselves, science is prepared to adjust accordingly. 'Divine revelation' doesn't progress this way (if it even progresses at all). Newtonian physics is wrong and untrustworthy though. If, for example, our studies into the origins of the universe were based on Newtonian physics, they'd be wrong by today's standards. As science progresses the problems with Newtonian physics will become ever more apparent too. It's like looking at a bowl full of sweets and guessing how many are in there. That may be good enough for some purposes but the answer itself might in fact be wrong. No it doesn't. I'm not denying the success of Newtonian physics. It's an excellent approximation - certainly good enough to foil Evil Knieval - and it works well for most terrestrial (and some extraterrestrial) purposes. It is just not, at the deepest level, correct. Well I certainly prefer science's methods to those of so-called 'divine revelation', so you'll get no argument from me on that point. You'd need to talk someone else to get a proper counter-argument on that. Okay, I'll rephrase my statement then. Science doesn't provide a good enough day-to-day living code for a large number of people. Many prefer to get their 'code for living' from something outside of science. And at a deeper level still many people need faith for other reasons, such as to counter their own mortality, which is an abhorent concept to a lot of people. I quite agree on that point and have said as much on these forums before.
|
|
jtoro
New Member
Posts: 15
|
Hubris
Mar 14, 2005 15:52:24 GMT -5
Post by jtoro on Mar 14, 2005 15:52:24 GMT -5
Electron, Try not to feel anxious; it is my belief that any free-thinking and open-minded person is going to entertain complex, indecisive, and skeptical thoughts about the universe in which we habitat. Religions who claim to know the nature of the world do so dogmatically; if they don't admit doubt, they are wearing blinders. As to the question of hubris. Being a student of philosophy, I have grappled with this issue myself. Most of the world's greatest thinkers (Aristotle, Plato, Aquinas, Kant, and Homer) have all held anthropocentric viewpoints about our purpose in the universe. While niether I nor they can not answer your question on the existence of extraterrestrial life, I do feel an answer to your second question can be provided. Philosophers, pschyologists and the like all agree that it is the ability to reason which differentiates us from animals. Reason to calculate the effects of a given act, reason to perceive of how someone will react to information, and reason to even decipher what is right or wrong. The theorists say that it is only thru our ability to reason that we gain moral responsibility. After all, if we could not entertain rational thought, how could we be held culpable for seemingly iniquities? So, it follows that our dogs, cats, and hamsters don't have a moral responsibility. To elabvorate on my particular views, I think it is this moral responsibility that was the source of religions among humanity. As humans, we feel this need to have an omnipresent arbiter- a divine arbiter- to threaten us if we breach our "moral law." Perhaps this tendancy is due to our desire for security, protection, order, or even to explain the unexplainable. Whatever is the origin of human religion, don't feel tentative because your particular views aren't congruent with those that are mainstream. Two Roads Diverged In a Yellow Wood . . .
|
|
|
Hubris
Mar 14, 2005 17:43:43 GMT -5
Post by Areopagite on Mar 14, 2005 17:43:43 GMT -5
How does Aquinas have an anthropocentric view?
|
|
|
Hubris
Mar 14, 2005 19:53:35 GMT -5
Post by bobarian on Mar 14, 2005 19:53:35 GMT -5
True.
So where did the moral law come from? (Humans can't "invent" a transcendent moral law - that contradicts the term transcendence. If there is a morality which dictates our reason (which I certainly do believe), then that morality would have to be extra-rational - or a priori. And thus the only one who could have created it (or provide for its existence) would be God.
|
|
|
Hubris
Mar 14, 2005 21:37:30 GMT -5
Post by Shiggy on Mar 14, 2005 21:37:30 GMT -5
True. So where did the moral law come from? (Humans can't "invent" a transcendent moral law - that contradicts the term transcendence. If there is a morality which dictates our reason (which I certainly do believe), then that morality would have to be extra-rational - or a priori. And thus the only one who could have created it (or provide for its existence) would be God. Your argument assumes that there IS a transcendent moral law - a very large assumption. All this argument is saying is that "if there is a transcendent moral law, it must have been created by God" (it could also be genetically unique to the human race through evolution, however; an explanation not requiring God at all). I believe we've had this debate elsewhere, and there is no good reason, imo, to believe in a transcendent moral law. It is just you enforcing your own moral views, which hold relative truth for you, onto others as if it were universal or objective.
|
|
|
Hubris
Mar 15, 2005 4:20:10 GMT -5
Post by Satori on Mar 15, 2005 4:20:10 GMT -5
We have had the moral law debate elsewhere (at length!) and certainly established a few different views about where our morals come from.
I think that a lot of religions are anthropocentric though, in that they place us (i.e. Man) at the centre of things. We are often supposedly 'chosen' as God's special project.
That could be seen as anthropocentric or, at least, egotistic. However, one could ask what use a religion would be to us if it wasn't anthropocentric. We wouldn't perhaps be interested in a religion that took care of, say, the best interests of trout.
|
|
|
Hubris
Mar 15, 2005 4:26:34 GMT -5
Post by Shiggy on Mar 15, 2005 4:26:34 GMT -5
"...All hail the mighty trout God..." lol.
|
|