Can Religious Belief be Studied Scientifically? An Interview with Daniel Dennett

[Dmstifik8ion]

Stoeger, Ellis and Kirchner's paper is a good place to start Multiverses and Cosmology: Philosophical IssuesThe extent of the paper is given in the Abstract:
Of course the atheist is free not to accept any part of this, however, is the propitious nature of the universe then not to be explained?
Garth

Who's to say a zillion zillion universes, if they exist are not all propitious to some form of life? We have certain evidence of one and 'God' needs no spokesperson or believers to confirm whether/whatever exists. Human curiosity and the benefits derived is an end in itself.

 

[Dmstifik8ion]

One of the mysterious goals of religion is to reverse the role of government from protector of the rights of the individual (to pursue their own rational self-interest and to profit from the fruits of their own intellectual and physical labors) from the unjustified ravages of their enemies, to delivering the producers of values that sustain and promote human existence into the hands of their enemies on a silver platter. The ‘faithful’ are making great strides towards accomplishing this goal in recent times.

Most people seem oblivious to the movement of the religious fundamentalists to overtake control of the government for their own unearned gain and the people wielding governmental powers follow hand-in-hand in attempts to reap their own unearned gains.

Religions primary function is to turn the evolutionary process of survival of the fittest on its head by convincing the masses that damning the best among us will somehow make things better for the worst among us and that we are all of us, especially those of us who acknowledge responsibility for our own lives, the worst.

Religion, the bastion of faith, is evidently the bastion of evil and the wolf in sheep’s clothing for science. Scientists of the world; ignore this evidence at your own peril, the peril of those you cherish and the downfall of human civilization if you continue to deliver the best that can be achieved into the hands of the worst examples of the human species.

 

[Garth]

Who's to say a zillion zillion universes, if they exist are not all propitious to some form of life?

Absolutely correct, it is possible to say that. But is the hypothesis that, these other (maybe an infinite number) of universes (all of which may or may not be be propitious for life) do exist, falsifiable?

We have certain evidence of one and 'God' needs no spokesperson or believers to confirm whether/whatever exists. Human curiosity and the benefits derived is an end in itself.

On the basis of a scientific act of observation we have evidence of the one universe that is ours.

On the basis of faith we may believe in other universes, indeed on that basis if one believes that God is infinite, and his/her creative power infinite, yet this universe proves to be finite then one would presumably conclude that there would consequently have to be an inifinte number of them. However, this multiverse would be postulated as an act of faith, not as a scientific act of verifiable observation.

Garth

 

[Garth]

One of the mysterious goals of religion is to reverse the role of government from protector of the rights of the individual (to pursue their own rational self-interest and to profit from the fruits of their own intellectual and physical labors) from the unjustified ravages of their enemies, to delivering the producers of values that sustain and promote human existence into the hands of their enemies on a silver platter. The ‘faithful’ are making great strides towards accomplishing this goal in recent times.
Most people seem oblivious to the movement of the religious fundamentalists to overtake control of the government for their own unearned gain and the people wielding governmental powers follow hand-in-hand in attempts to reap their own unearned gains.
Religions primary function is to turn the evolutionary process of survival of the fittest on its head by convincing the masses that damning the best among us will somehow make things better for the worst among us and that we are all of us, especially those of us who acknowledge responsibility for our own lives, the worst.
Religion, the bastion of faith, is evidently the bastion of evil and the wolf in sheep’s clothing for science. Scientists of the world; ignore this evidence at your own peril, the peril of those you cherish and the downfall of human civilization if you continue to deliver the best that can be achieved into the hands of the worst examples of the human species.

An example of the "straw man" polemic described in the OP link perhaps?

On Monday, it's Richard Dawkins's turn (yet again) to take up the cudgels against religious faith in a two-part Channel 4 programme, The Root of All Evil? His voice is one of the loudest in an increasingly shrill chorus of atheist humanists; something has got them badly rattled. They even turned their bitter invective on Narnia. By all means, let's have a serious debate about religious belief, one of the most complex and fascinating phenomena on the planet, but the suspicion is that it's not what this chorus wants. Behind unsubstantiated assertions, sweeping generalisations and random anecdotal evidence, there's the unmistakable whiff of panic; they fear religion is on the march again.
There's an aggrieved frustration that they've been short-changed by history; we were supposed to be all atheist rationalists by now. Secularisation was supposed to be an inextricable part of progress. Even more grating, what secularisation there has been is accompanied by the growth of weird irrationalities from crystals to ley lines. As GK Chesterton pointed out, the problem when people don't believe in God is not that they believe nothing, it is that they believe anything.
There's an underlying anxiety that atheist humanism has failed. Over the 20th century, atheist political regimes racked up an appalling (and unmatched) record for violence. Atheist humanism hasn't generated a compelling popular narrative and ethic of what it is to be human and our place in the cosmos; where religion has retreated, the gap has been filled with consumerism, football, Strictly Come Dancing and a mindless absorption in passing desires. Not knowing how to answer the big questions of life, we shelve them - we certainly don't develop the awe towards and reverence for the natural world that Dawkins would want. So the atheist humanists have been betrayed by the irrational, credulous nature of human beings; a misanthropy is increasingly evident in Dawkins's anti-religious polemic and among his many admirers.

This is the only context that can explain Dawkins's programme, a piece of intellectually lazy polemic which is not worthy of a great scientist. He uses his authority as a scientist to claim certainty where he himself knows, all too well, that there is none; for example, our sense of morality cannot simply be explained as a product of our genetic struggle for evolutionary advantage. More irritatingly, he doesn't apply to religion - the object of his repeated attacks - a fraction of the intellectual rigour or curiosity that he has applied to evolution (to deserved applause). Where is the grasp of the sociological or anthropological explanations of the centrality of religion? Sadly, there is no evolution of thought in Dawkins's position; he has been saying much the same thing about religion for a long time.

Of course there are some things you say Dmstifik8ion that I do agree with:"Religions primary function is to turn the evolutionary process of survival of the fittest on its head " Perhaps 'might is right' is not a good moral principle for a civilized society, that instead the poor and weak should have a say as well, because of the intrinsic worth of every individual.

On the other hand, I could be wrong about this; so could it be that, in fact, the principle of the survival of the fittest ought to consign those less than perfect to oblivion?

Garth

 

[Dmstifik8ion]

An example of the "straw man" polemic described in the OP link perhaps?
Of course there are some things you say Dmstifik8ion that I do agree with:"Religions primary function is to turn the evolutionary process of survival of the fittest on its head " Perhaps 'might is right' is not a good moral principle for a civilized society, that instead the poor and weak should have a say as well, because of the intrinsic worth of every individual.
On the other hand, I could be wrong about this; so could it be that, in fact, the principle of the survival of the fittest ought to consign those less than perfect to oblivion?
Garth

We are all ‘consigned’ to oblivion; it is just a matter of when and how, by whom or what. If an individual freely chooses to extend a hand to another who is teetering on the brink, this is not just acceptable but honorable provided that individual has the resources to spare without endangering the welfare of another in the process.

My position is that all people from all stations are best served (directly or indirectly) by a civilization that respects the essential rights of the responsible and free individual. If these essential rights are ignored then we are all at the mercy of reality none-the-less. When it comes to discriminating between the 'rich' and 'poor' or the 'strong' and the 'weak' reality does this job with a skill I would never attempt to duplicate or attempt to usurp.

I discriminate based on how well a person demonstrates their respect for the value of their own life in spite of how 'rich, poor, weak or strong' they might be and I consider others who do my friend and me as theirs. Those who claim that helping others is a duty (whether dictated by ‘God’ or the ‘social welfare’), are enemies of us all; 'rich, poor, weak or strong' alike. Those who insist that we were put here to save us all from the inevitable are sentencing civilization to oblivion.

For the record, I am not a ‘Republican’ nor do I rank among the wealthy.

 

[Dmstifik8ion]

Absolutely correct, it is possible to say that. But is the hypothesis that, these other (maybe an infinite number) of universes (all of which may or may not be be propitious for life) do exist, falsifiable?On the basis of a scientific act of observation we have evidence of the one universe that is ours.
On the basis of faith we may believe in other universes, indeed on that basis if one believes that God is infinite, and his/her creative power infinite, yet this universe proves to be finite then one would presumably conclude that there would consequently have to be an inifinte number of them. However, this multiverse would be postulated as an act of faith, not as a scientific act of verifiable observation.
Garth

Saying is not what makes truth true. "Who's to say", does not mean I say and indeed I did not say that any other universe exists or not. I just do not get anyone saying that any, all or none universes are "propitious" for any other reason than that they are. Propitious ness does not summon up any need for the existence of anything other than the universe which evidently is. Religionists can interject 'God' into any and every aspect of the universe and I still hear not 'HIS' voice nor see 'HIS' reason nor hath he brainwashed me with his blood? I am however beginning to feel justification for 'HIS' wrath.

I am really curious now to hear this Dawkins guy. Thanks for the tip. I've been longing for a voice of reason regarding this issue.

 

[Garth]

I am really curious now to hear this Dawkins guy. Thanks for the tip. I've been longing for a voice of reason regarding this issue.

You should, his explanation of evolution is brilliant, but as far as his polemic against religious faith and science is concerned, watch out for the 'straw men'!

You may also like to check out the atheist and 'Edge' contributor http://www.edge.org/3rd_culture/bios/rees.html and his work on the multiverse to explain Numerical coincidences and 'tuning' in cosmology.

Garth

 

[Royce]

When one looks only to the physical sciences, how can one expect to see anything but physical phenomena? When one looks only to the metaphysical or spiritual philosophies, how can one expect to see anything but the metaphysical and spiritual?

Only when we look at both with open minds and rational and logical reasoning can the truth be found. To close our minds to any part of reality is to deny reality at least in part and thus ourselves. Why close our minds and restrict our thinking and observations to any part of reality?

A true scientist philosopher remains open and objective and follows where the evidence, logic and reason lead and accepts what is found. He does not reject evidence or observations out of hand because it does not fit his mind set or paradigm.

 

[selfAdjoint]

Whose evidence?

When one looks only to the physical sciences, how can one expect to see anything but physical phenomena? When one looks only to the metaphysical or spiritual philosophies, how can one expect to see anything but the metaphysical and spiritual?
Only when we look at both with open minds and rational and logical reasoning can the truth be found. To close our minds to any part of reality is to deny reality at least in part and thus ourselves. Why close our minds and restrict our thinking and observations to any part of reality?
A true scientist philosopher remains open and objective and follows where the evidence, logic and reason lead and accepts what is found. He does not reject evidence or observations out of hand because it does not fit his mind set or paradigm.

And the scientists do precisely this. Only they demand of the evidence that it be apparent to all. Otherwise, on what basis shall we decide to accept one person's evidence, say yours or Les's or the Buddha's, and reject someone else's, say Joe Schmoe, UFO contactee, or I. M. Wikkid, amateur satanist?

 

[Royce]

And the scientists do precisely this. Only they demand of the evidence that it be apparent to all. Otherwise, on what basis shall we decide to accept one person's evidence, say yours or Les's or the Buddha's, and reject someone else's, say Joe Schmoe, UFO contactee, or I. M. Wikkid, amateur satanist?

Some scientists do this just as some religious, spiritual people look at science and philosophy.

The thing with Buddha, Les's and my evidence is that it is verifiable by everyone personally. There is no secret, no hidden agenda nor any mysticism. Thousand have done it for over 3000 years and nearly all report essentially the same phenomena. BTW Buddha never addressed religion or spirituality. His whole thing was about how to live this life on this earth. And, Les is not religious nor spiritual at all. He is more into a Universal consciousness.

While I admit, that I was biased or at least leaning toward the belief in a God it only took me a few years after learning how to meditate to experience the presence of a higher consciousness that I took to be God. This was not my intent nor purpose for meditation. It is just what happened. My experiences are consistent within themselves and consistent with those reported by many others. It is too much to ignore and dismiss out of hand because it isn't empirical nor physical evidence.

What empirical and/or physical evidence do you have of your own consciousness or that of any other consciousness?

 

[selfAdjoint]

The thing with Buddha, Les's and my evidence is that it is verifiable by everyone personally. There is no secret, no hidden agenda nor any mysticism.

And many have faithfully followed the directions with zero results, including yours truly. Of course that's "our fault"; we're "doing it wrong". Perish the thought that your belief could be in error.

 

[Dawguard]

When one looks only to the physical sciences, how can one expect to see anything but physical phenomena? When one looks only to the metaphysical or spiritual philosophies, how can one expect to see anything but the metaphysical and spiritual?
Only when we look at both with open minds and rational and logical reasoning can the truth be found. To close our minds to any part of reality is to deny reality at least in part and thus ourselves. Why close our minds and restrict our thinking and observations to any part of reality?
A true scientist philosopher remains open and objective and follows where the evidence, logic and reason lead and accepts what is found. He does not reject evidence or observations out of hand because it does not fit his mind set or paradigm.

Excelently stated Royce, it's good to see reason being used. I've never understood either why scientist so blindly cast off religion. For people who claim to use logic, most scientists seem to be very willing to abhor any notion of a god, and are very willing to paint all religious people as extremists. I'm sorry to tell you, but most religious people in the world love scientists and what they do. When was the last time you heard of a major religious organization that was opposed to scientific research simply because it didn't fit with their dogma? Didn't the Vatican recently state that evelution should be taught in schools, not intellegent design? Maybe religions are more willing to accomidate scientists then you think. The same should be said vice versa. Balance is the key for both parties, and a logical mind. To blatantly discount and vilify all religions is reprehensible, and in my blunt opinion, remarkibly stupid.

 

[selfAdjoint]

When was the last time you heard of a major religious organization that was opposed to scientific research simply because it didn't fit with their dogma?

Constantly. At the website of "Answers in Genesis", at the school boards in Kansas, Pennsylvania, and many other places where religious zealots try to prevent the teaching of evolution and modern cosmology. Plenty of religious groups in this USA of ours are dead set against any scientific investigation that contradicts a literal reading of the Bible.

A scientist follows the evidence she knows. If she has had a revelation or for some other reason is convinced that some faith is correct then she will be religious, and many scientists are. But if she has not received any message from on high then she will have no evidence for religion and will not personally promote it. This does not mean that most scientists are against religion, just that they don't favor it. Dawkins and Dennett are in a small minority among scientists.

 

[Royce]

And many have faithfully followed the directions with zero results, including yours truly. Of course that's "our fault"; we're "doing it wrong". Perish the thought that your belief could be in error.

I apologize selfAdjoint, for taking so long to respond. I have been debating with myself if it was worthwhile or not as I have said most if not all of this before.
I first became interested in Meditation and Zen in my early 20's and read as much as I could find on it. I tried to envision burning candles, mantra and counting my breaths but nothing worked for me either.
In my mid-thirties while living in S. Cal. (where else) I started listening to Roy Masters on the radio and sent for his tapes. I followed his instructions and in a few weeks was meditating and getting good results. In a few more weeks I no longer had to listen to his tapes to meditate and a few months I no longer had to use his method to reach a meditative state but simply breathed in through my nose and out through my mouth noticing my breath, the air coming in and down into my lungs and out again.
If you or anybody else is interested Roy Masters has his own website and the meditation exercise can be downloaded and copied, burned, to a CD to use on a portable CD player etc.http://www.fhu.com/" Just click on the meditation button and follow the instructions. It will take a while if you have a dial up connection as I do, but I think that it is worth it. Give it a try if your at all interested. All I can say is that it worked for me and my wife.

As far as fault is concerned, there is none. Each and everyone of us has to find the way that works for them. A number of books and articles that I read said that it was best to have a mentor teach, lead or guide you into meditation.

As I said it took me 10+ years to find a way that worked for me. Let me know how it turns out if you decide to give it a try. As I said with Roy's help it was only a matter of a few weeks before we started getting results and learning to meditate.

 

[Royce]

Dawguard,
Thank you. There are fanatics and zealots on both sides of the issue. I believe that they are, by far, the minority, but also, by far, the loudest as they have to shout loud to be noticed and to drown out the voices of reason on both sides.

 

[Garth]

SelfAdjoint, on Dawguard's point I have to agree with you, unfortunate as that may be for the cause of rational faith.

I think Dawkins et al. on the one hand, and the Literal Creationists on the other, need each other; they provide each other with the 'straw men' of easy adversaries and easy answers that are so simple to dismiss. But they are not the whole story, or in my book, not even an important part of it.

The nature of the evidence you follow is often personal in nature and therefore difficult, or even inappropiate, to tackle with the scientific method, but the subject can be thought through rationally.

There are of course many other human experiences that fall into that same catergory, falling in love or appreciating great art or music, and it is important to think rationally as well as emotionally about these as well.

But, as far as objective evidence from the world around us is concerned, the nature of that evidence is that it is a matter of interpretation. Like the optical illusion where you see first an old woman and then a young girl, two people can look at the same evidence and interpret it differently. One sees a world full of purpose and the other "a tale told by an idiot", one sees the Anthropic coincidences as the fingerprints of God and the other sees them as the product of a selection effect acting upon an ensemble of all possible universes.

Sometimes, as in the optical illusion, these two people are the same person alternating in the interpretation of faith as they struggle with the problem of existence.

However, in the popular media it is the extreme positions that get first recognised and then identified with the two sides of this matter. This does two things in my experience living in a very secular and post-Christian country Britain.

First it reinforces the idea that 'science has disproved God' and therefore we do not have to bother with religion.

But secondly it reinforces the idea that science is dehumanising, that it is all 'nuts and bolts' and has nothing to say about the higher realms of human experience, except reduce them to the machinations of the electronic web of the biological computer we call our brains. Therefore we better not bother with science.

Of two of the major British universities I have served in as chaplain, one closed the physics department and the other closed the whole science department! I felt like a scientific Jonah! But actually that is the nature of this post-modern age in which we now live.

My concern is that science and faith should overcome the false divorce hoisted on them since the nineteenth century and realize that actually with mutual respect they can benefit from each other.
“Science without religion is lame, religion without science is blind” (A.E.)

Garth

 

[wave]

When was the last time you heard of a major religious organization that was opposed to scientific research simply because it didn't fit with their dogma?

http://www.bju.edu/academics/cas/undergrad/divns/teaching/" is the part that frightens me the most!

 

[selfAdjoint]

If you or anybody else is interested Roy Masters has his own website and the meditation exercise can be downloaded and copied, burned, to a CD to use on a portable CD player etc.http://www.fhu.com/ Just click on the meditation button and follow the instructions. It will take a while if you have a dial up connection as I do, but I think that it is worth it. Give it a try if your at all interested. All I can say is that it worked for me and my wife.

I am certainly willing to give it a try. No faith, no guarantees, but an honest try. I have downloaded the introduction and excercise and when I get back from my son's birthday next week I will make time each day to do the excercise as directed. Whatever happens I will report back here after I have done that for ten days.

 

[sameandnot]

j. krishnamurti? royce? any one?

 

[Royce]

j. krishnamurti? royce? any one?

Huh? Hari Krishna? I know nothing about it/him.

 

[Royce]

I am certainly willing to give it a try. No faith, no guarantees, but an honest try. I have downloaded the introduction and excercise and when I get back from my son's birthday next week I will make time each day to do the excercise as directed. Whatever happens I will report back here after I have done that for ten days.

It doesn't take faith and there are never any guarantees.
Trying doesn't work. In fact trying gets in the way.
Just doing it and letting whatever happens, happen.
Just keep an open, receptive and accepting mind.
Roy says that praying is talking to God; meditation is listening to God.
However a belief or faith in God has nothing to do with it as Buddhist and Zen meditation is not about a god at all.

Its like chicken soup. It can't hurt and who knows, it just might help.

Good luck! It may take longer than 10 days, but it may only take a couple of days to see some results.

 

[Vast]

My concern is that science and faith should overcome the false divorce hoisted on them since the nineteenth century and realize that actually with mutual respect they can benefit from each other.
“Science without religion is lame, religion without science is blind” (A.E.)
Garth

I’m curious to know; in what way can science and religion benefit from each other? Science, I can immediately see many benefits, but religion, for the life of me I can’t see any. Obviously there must be some usefulness of religion, it’s existed for many thousands of years, but to each other, and to how they can both coexist, I am not convinced.

 

[Orefa]

I’m curious to know; in what way can science and religion benefit from each other? Science, I can immediately see many benefits, but religion, for the life of me I can’t see any. Obviously there must be some usefulness of religion, it’s existed for many thousands of years, but to each other, and to how they can both coexist, I am not convinced.

Religion can appease fears. Fear of death, fear of the unknown. If you have such fears then believing that stuff can make you sleep better. I think a whole lot of people have these fears so a whole lot of people are more comfortable believing.

Science and superstitions of all sorts can also coexist when they address different needs. A bridge engineer who is busy calculating load capacity has no particular reason to be either a theist or an atheist.

 

[Garth]

I’m curious to know; in what way can science and religion benefit from each other? Science, I can immediately see many benefits, but religion, for the life of me I can’t see any. Obviously there must be some usefulness of religion, it’s existed for many thousands of years, but to each other, and to how they can both coexist, I am not convinced.

Thinking religious belief, as opposed to the fundamentalist black-and-white mentality kind, asks questions like science. The realms in which the questions of science and faith are based are different. Some would see the two realms as being independent, separate and of no consequence to the other and others (like myself) see them as complementary, and indeed often overlapping.

The questions a rational faith seeks to answer are the questions of:
1. Origin - where did I come from?
2. Identity - who am I?
3. Purpose & Meaning - what is my life for?
4. Destiny - where am I going?
5. Morality - how am I to behave?
6. Theodicy - the problem of suffering and evil.

These questions can be answered by anybody at many different levels, they may see themselves as theists or atheists, nevertheless, the recognition that these questions are important and the difficult quest of seeking a satisfying answer for them, I would understand as a fundamentally religious instinct.

They are answered by a cultures myth life, where the word myth is used in a technical sense, not meaning 'untruth' or 'fairytale', but a story that encapsulates the deepest truth, a truth that cannot be told in a prosaic way. That is why stories are so important and powerful in our society.

The frustration of not focusing on these questions, and the denial that they are serious questions in the first place, is a serious cause of social neurosis.

Now it is fascinating to see that the popular, 'sexy', scientific subjects that attract media attention are those that attempt to answer just these questions. Such as the cosmological study of origin in the Big Bang, the place of humanity in the scheme of things, how are we like and different from the animals, particularly the great apes, what is the future of the human race/planet/universe, ethical questions that arise from medical technology.

Rather than seeing these subjects at loggerheads with traditional belief patterns I would argue for a deeper historical perspective on it all.

Garth

 

[Vast]

Thinking religious belief, as opposed to the fundamentalist black-and-white mentality kind, asks questions like science. The realms in which the questions of science and faith are based are different. Some would see the two realms as being independent, separate and of no consequence to the other and others (like myself) see them as complementary, and indeed often overlapping.

The questions a rational faith seeks to answer are the questions of:

1. Origin - where did I come from?
2. Identity - who am I?
3. Purpose & Meaning - what is my life for?
4. Destiny - where am I going?
5. Morality - how am I to behave?
6. Theodicy - the problem of suffering and evil.

These questions can be answered by anybody at many different levels, they may see themselves as theists or atheists, nevertheless, the recognition that these questions are important and the difficult quest of seeking a satisfying answer for them, I would understand as a fundamentally religious instinct.

They are answered by a cultures myth life, where the word myth is used in a technical sense, not meaning 'untruth' or 'fairytale', but a story that encapsulates the deepest truth, a truth that cannot be told in a prosaic way. That is why stories are so important and powerful in our society.
The frustration of not focusing on these questions, and the denial that they are serious questions in the first place, is a serious cause of social neurosis.

I just finished watching the second part in Dawkins series, and there was a part towards the end where morality was shown to be an altruistic characteristic inherited from generation to generation, predating religious beliefs or the birth of the modern mind.
The six questions you listed above, in this sense, can all be understood from a Darwinistic perspective. I would like to see more credit and value given than is deserved to the theory of evolution in answering these questions of origin, meaning and morality.

Now it is fascinating to see that the popular, 'sexy', scientific subjects that attract media attention are those that attempt to answer just these questions. Such as the cosmological study of origin in the Big Bang, the place of humanity in the scheme of things, how are we like and different from the animals, particularly the great apes, what is the future of the human race/planet/universe, ethical questions that arise from medical technology.

Rather than seeing these subjects at loggerheads with traditional belief patterns I would argue for a deeper historical perspective on it all.
Garth

Creation myths do indeed try to answer questions of origin’s, but from a historical point of view I would give them the same respect as say, astrology in regards to the science of astronomy. Meaning that astronomy has its roots in astrology, but those roots have all but withered away. Creation myths show us that we’ve always had a sense of wonder about the world, but that’s all they seem to answer. They’ve served their purpose, so what need to we have for them anymore?

Perhaps we haven’t fully adopted science and reason just yet?

"Religion is something left over from the infancy of our intelligence; it will fade away as we adopt reason and science as our guidelines."
—Bertrand Russell

 

[Garth]

The six questions you listed above, in this sense, can all be understood from a Darwinistic perspective. I would like to see more credit and value given than is deserved to the theory of evolution in answering these questions of origin, meaning and morality.

From the OP link to the Guardian article:

This is the only context that can explain Dawkins's programme, a piece of intellectually lazy polemic which is not worthy of a great scientist. He uses his authority as a scientist to claim certainty where he himself knows, all too well, that there is none; for example, our sense of morality cannot simply be explained as a product of our genetic struggle for evolutionary advantage. More irritatingly, he doesn't apply to religion - the object of his repeated attacks - a fraction of the intellectual rigour or curiosity that he has applied to evolution (to deserved applause). Where is the grasp of the sociological or anthropological explanations of the centrality of religion? Sadly, there is no evolution of thought in Dawkins's position; he has been saying much the same thing about religion for a long time.

Dawkins certainly makes that claim but does it stand up? Surely an evolutionary derived morality would focus on the survival of the fittest and the weakest to the wall?

Creation myths do indeed try to answer questions of origin’s, but from a historical point of view I would give them the same respect as say, astrology in regards to the science of astronomy. Meaning that astronomy has its roots in astrology, but those roots have all but withered away. Creation myths show us that we’ve always had a sense of wonder about the world, but that’s all they seem to answer. They’ve served their purpose, so what need to we have for them anymore?

So we now know the truth do we? Granted we know much more about the universe around us than the ancients, but in probing the ultimate limits of space and time, with theories about the origin of the Big Bang abound with clapping branes, eternal inflation and multiverses we are perhaps nearly as far removed from falsifiable observational science as the ancients. Do you not find it thought provoking that we are no nearer comprehending the nature of time than St. Augustine in the fifth century:

What then is time? I know well enough what it is, provided that nobody asks me; but if I am asked what it is and try to explain, I am baffled. (St. A. Confessions XI 14)

Perhaps we haven’t fully adopted science and reason just yet?
"Religion is something left over from the infancy of our intelligence; it will fade away as we adopt reason and science as our guidelines."
—Bertrand Russell

Russell was perfectly entitled to his own opinion on the matter but in making that prediction he was doing so as an act of faith not sight.

Garth

 

[Vast]

Dawkins certainly makes that claim but does it stand up? Surely an evolutionary derived morality would focus on the survival of the fittest and the weakest to the wall?

I think this is an area of evolutionary biology where you’ll find a wealth of evidence to support his claim. There is more to evolution than survival of the fittest, Kin selection for example can explain many altruistic behaviors towards close relatives. But humans are also social organisms which live in large groups, without cooperation there’s no cohesion, yet we see thousands of species living together in ordered systems, displaying cooperation and altruistic behaviors. I find Bunting’s article to be irritatingly ignorant of evolution.

So we now know the truth do we? Granted we know much more about the universe around us than the ancients, but in probing the ultimate limits of space and time, with theories about the origin of the Big Bang abound with clapping branes, eternal inflation and multiverses we are perhaps nearly as far removed from falsifiable observational science as the ancients. Do you not find it thought provoking that we are no nearer comprehending the nature of time than St. Augustine in the fifth century:
Russell was perfectly entitled to his own opinion on the matter but in making that prediction he was doing so as an act of faith not sight.
Garth

Perhaps Aristarchus may have been seen as dabbling in metaphysics when he proposed the heliocentric model more than two thousand years ago, but there is definitely a progression to scientific knowledge that allows us to do away with much of suppositious and religious beliefs. I agree there is much we don’t know, but science has this uncanny ability to close the gaps of what we don’t know.

 

[Garth]

Is there not in evolutionary theory the ability to predict anything that is observed to exist in living specimens? And therefore if anything, nothing?

The case of a possible gene for homosexuality comes to mind.
When it was first suggested it was rejected as being contrary to the principles of natural selection, and might have posited a means of falsification for the theory of eveolution.

However it was then explained that such a gene would aid survival as 'gay' uncles/aunts would help look after relatives' sibblings and therefore this gene (if it exists) would be an example of 'kin selection'. All very plausible, but how do you falsify such a hypothesis?

I am not thereby refuting the theory of evolution, just questioning the significance of its a posteriori explanation of such as altruistic behaviour. Without falsifiable predictions how do you prevent it becoming a collection of 'Just So' stories?

Garth

 

[Vast]

Is there not in evolutionary theory the ability to predict anything that is observed to exist in living specimens? And therefore if anything, nothing?

I’m not sure what you’re getting at Garth, whether as you say, the theory of evolution can predict anything that is observed, leads to it being unfalsifiable, I think is somewhat of an incorrect interpretation. We know that the theory makes many falsifiable predictions, but at the same time the theory should account for all human characteristics, I don’t see how it can be any other way. The obvious dilemma of course, one we encounter from people of religious persuasion, is that the human qualities, of altruism, morals, ethics etc, are derived from a divine source, i.e. scripture, spirituality, religion or God. The denial to accept ourselves as just another animal, albeit a more complex animal intellectually, but nonetheless, still an animal, misses the fact that we are still subjected to the same evolutionary processes as all other species.

The case of a possible gene for homosexuality comes to mind.
When it was first suggested it was rejected as being contrary to the principles of natural selection, and might have posited a means of falsification for the theory of eveolution.
However it was then explained that such a gene would aid survival as 'gay' uncles/aunts would help look after relatives' sibblings and therefore this gene (if it exists) would be an example of 'kin selection'. All very plausible, but how do you falsify such a hypothesis?
I am not thereby refuting the theory of evolution, just questioning the significance of its a posteriori explanation of such as altruistic behaviour. Without falsifiable predictions how do you prevent it becoming a collection of 'Just So' stories?
Garth

As far as a gene for homosexuality, I have no idea. There are mutations, if they prove successful then they survive, but I would start by looking elsewhere in nature, in other species to see if there are any correlations that corroborate your hypothesis.

 

[Les Sleeth]

I am certainly willing to give it a try. No faith, no guarantees, but an honest try. I have downloaded the introduction and excercise and when I get back from my son's birthday next week I will make time each day to do the excercise as directed. Whatever happens I will report back here after I have done that for ten days.

I'm impressed you will try, but I hope you are a true genius at meditation. I know it took me 20 years of practice, at that time 2 to 3 hours per day, to achieve competence; and another 12 years to acquire a degree of certainty about what the experience is. Other famous inner practitioners from the Buddha, Shah Nimatullah Wali, Joshu and Kabir to Teresa of Avila, the Baal Shem Tov, (Jesus' "missing" 17 years?), early Greek Orthodox monks, and a host of others all spent many years of devoted practice as well.

 

[selfAdjoint]

I did not claim that I would reach any particular state in 10 days. But I should know after that time if I want to continue. I do not propose to become a guru!

In any case, the viewers of this thread are entitled to some timely feedback. Be assured that I will not diss meditation just because I don't have a life-changing experience after 10 days.

 

[Garth]

The obvious dilemma of course, one we encounter from people of religious persuasion, is that the human qualities, of altruism, morals, ethics etc, are derived from a divine source, i.e. scripture, spirituality, religion or God. The denial to accept ourselves as just another animal, albeit a more complex animal intellectually, but nonetheless, still an animal, misses the fact that we are still subjected to the same evolutionary processes as all other species.

Who is denying that we are part of the animal kingdom? But a special quality of humans is that we are not the https://www.amazon.com/gp/product/0385334303/?tag=pfamazon01-20 (we have hair) but the 'Religious Ape' with a sense of spirituality and morality that goes beyond the expediency of survival.

For example, a good moral question is: "How should we treat the great apes?" - see The Great Ape Project, when we discover the apes are asking the same question about us in return then I will grant them that same quality of humaness that in the Abrahamic faiths is encapsulated in the expression "imago deo".

This image may itself be an emergent property of high intelligence but would only be possible if the universe were a moral and spiritual, as well as a physical, universe in the first place.

Garth

 

[Vast]

Spirituality is a vacuous term, it insinuates soul where there has only been shown to be mind. You have every right to call yourself a religious ape, but I am neither religious nor ape.

And I don’t think anyones asking you to grant them the same quality of humanness? It seems a little chauvinistic to expect anything of such from another species, they are not a member of our species, and so cannot possibly have all the attributes we have. Furthermore, how can you possibly assign “In the Image of God” to the human species alone? Aren’t all species emergent? Isn’t it merely a roll of the dice that a species makes it to our level of awareness and beyond? If we tried to imagine different intelligent life forms on other planets, there would surely be in many different images.

I’m sorry, but I totally disagree with you. Its one thing to say God designed the universe especially for life, but quite another to say human like cognition is Only possible if the universe is a moral and spiritual place. This seems to border on God having an active roll in the creation of different species.

 

[Les Sleeth]

My concern is that science and faith should overcome the false divorce hoisted on them since the nineteenth century and realize that actually with mutual respect they can benefit from each other.

I've enjoyed how you've argued your points fairly and backed up by evidence. We need more philosophy discussed like that around here.

I think you can see that some atheists are so because they hate religion. I've never been able to make a dent in the minds of those who automatically link religion and God. I am not trying to criticize those who find religion rewarding when I say that much of what religion is about has little to do with God experience.

Here at PF I think most of us are empiricists; that is, we require experience to "believe." I'd go so far as to say that even in the realm of faith we require some degree of experience from which to extend our faith (otherwise it's "blind faith"). I have faith in science to explain mechanics for example. It hasn't explained all of the universe's mechanics, but it's done such an admirable job with everything else mechanical that I have faith it can explain anything mechanistic that's explainable.

I chose your statement above to quote because I have in the past described that "false divorce" as an issue of epistemology. Is the way we experience physicalness/mechanics the same way we experience God (assuming for discussion sake there is one)? To experience the physical universe we peer through our senses to experience. To scientifically study things, we then process that sense data with our mentality. So the epistemology of physical/mechanical knowledge is sense-intellect dependent.

However, that is not what inner adepts have claimed is the way to know God. (I’ve been writing about this quite a bit lately, so my apologies to those who’ve read what I’m about to write.) A careful study of serious inner practitioners reveals not that they are participating in sense experience or the intellect, but have instead developed an entirely new experiential skill. In fact, as I posted to selfAdjoint in my last post, most spent much of their lives developing this skill.

That skill, rather than relying on senses and intellect, has as it’s first requirement to withdraw from the senses and intellect. This is significant, extremely so. What would most dedicated science-atheists say there is to experience if one actually could withdraw from the senses and intellect? “Nothing” is the answer I most often hear. Yet I assure you (from years of practicing it) that such is not the case. Instead there is a brightness, a vibrancy, a gentle pulsation; as one goes deeper into it, harmonies can be heard (not with the ears); deeper still and one seems to disassociate from the body and sort of “float”; deeper still and it feels like one merges with something vast and conscious. That merging phase is where I claim the most credible reports of “God” have come.

Now, is that experience just my imagination (hallucination?), or is it real? (You might check out the interview PIT2 posted here -- https://www.physicsforums.com/showthread.php?t=106775 -- where a brain researcher discusses the so-called “mystical” experience.) Have others reported the same thing? Absolutely, and for upwards of 3000 years. Unfortunately, those who study religion, atheists and believers alike, seldom look at this ancient and venerated practice.

The Buddha dedicated his life to teaching this practice (known as samadhi), and I believe Jesus did too (so there’s no misunderstanding, I belong to no religion). Claiming Jesus taught the practice (called, logically, union by monastics) raises the most controversy with people who think Jesus was a supernatural being, son of God, messiah, etc. However, if Jesus didn't teach union there is no other plausible way to explain why shortly after Jesus’ death so many solitary hermits populating the deserts around Palestine, Egypt, and Asia Minor were practicing union and calling themselves Christians. Furthermore, this practice of the “desert fathers,” as they are known, was taken into the first monasteries and kept alive there until at least the 17th century.

Returning to my point about different epistemologies, if the practice of samadhi/union requires withdrawing from the senses and intellect and then merging with something, how is that anything like the epistemology of science? Yes, they are both empirical (based on experience) but they certainly are not learned, practiced and realized the same way nor are they the same type of experience.

I realize not everyone wants to spend the time to develop the inner skills I’ve described. So if one doesn’t practice union, does that mean (relying on my explanation) if one believes in God one’s belief is unfounded? I personally don’t think that. What I’ve discovered is that my experience has deepened as my feeling ability has become more sensitive. God, in my opinion, is felt (and I don’t mean emotion), and not thought or observed by the senses.

For that reason I am convinced a great many people believe in God because they feel it. Maybe they don’t feel it as clearly as serious inner practitioners, but they are picking up on something they are willing to trust. Religion then provides structure and interpretations (right or wrong) to the feeling. Personally I don’t like religious interpretation, I prefer to pursue the experience without it.

 

[Royce]

Good post, Les.

I have one point, which you touched on but didn't express, in the form of a question.

If what we perceive with our senses, sight, touch etc. is observation, experience and empirical evidence, then can what we observe and experience with our minds also be considered empirical evidence as long as it it verifiable?

The inputs from our physical senses have to be processed and interpreted by our minds so our perceptions of these inputs too are ultimately subjective. I know that this would not be acceptable by the physical scientist, but philosophically speaking, I don't see any great difference.