"Scientism" is an irrational belief that only that which can be observed and measured through the technique of "Scientific Method" is real, and everything else is unreal. It has become a popular epithet among creationists, who have latched on to the term and use it as a prejorative, designed to cast doubt indiscriminately on conclusions drawn by the scientific method - and "scientistic" is a term designating those who have confidence in said conclusions.
I performed a google search on the words "scientistic evolution" and found this web site, self-proclaimed as the "only site on the web devoted exclusively to intellectual conservatism". (Apparently it's "intellectually conservative" to attack a distorted and over-simplified view of science and rationality, and to dismiss hundreds of years of valid, rational, scientific progress as mere "scientism". I offer the link merely as an example of anti-science rhetoric that is readily available and gaining widespread acceptance today.)
Can no one see the difference between science and scientism? Scientism is an irrational belief in the conclusions of science. Those who study the methods of science, understand that science is based on rationality, and therefore (provisionally) accept the conclusions of science as being the best possible ones are not scientistic, because we are being completely and utterly rational. People who do not understand the rules of good reasoning, including the rational basis for science, and who accept scientific conclusions on the basis of faith, these are the scientistic ones.
Creationists want to portray scientists, philosophers, and all others who understand and accept good principles of scientific reasoning as being scientistic materialists. They do this in order to present science and religion as being on equal footing, both matters of "blind faith". Nothing could be further from the truth.
It is completely rational to believe and understand that there are limits to what science can tell us, while accepting the perfectly valid and reasonable conclusions that science has to offer.
That's my opinion, briefly stated. What's yours?
For Love of Tender Recondity
- snaars
- Cognoscension, MY, United States
- If it can be spoken, then it is not the true snaars. Snaars should not be mistaken for his mortal alter-ego, snaars. This earthly manifestation of snaars - or snaarsissistic prophet, if you will - is a rather unambitious thirtysomething recent college graduate with a bachelor's degree in philosophy and a minor in religious studies. A devoted husband, and father of three beautiful snaars daughters, Snaars blogs about his life, his times, his family, favorite song lyrics, nonsense, wisdom, atheism, metaphysics, science, rationality, and the snaars. Snaars likes to remove old words from the back of the cupboard, polish them up, and display them in fresh ways. Feel free to expand the horizons of discourse, because snaars has ever-unplumbed depths of mutifacetedness. And humility. (If only the world knew the perplexity of my condition, for Snaars could be so easily consumed by vanity!)
La lettre d'écarlate de l'athéisme, snaarsassiste
TCPS
UCS
Iraq war web sites
Cost of the War in Iraq
(JavaScript Error)
34 comments:
You're making a valid distinction. I imagine it's similar to the distinction between "creationists" and people who believe in creation. (I'm in the latter category.)
And now a word or two from a theistic perspective. First, people don't understand that science is entirely unscientific where God is concerned. Science rules God out of account on a priori grounds.
Science traces the relationship between cause and effect. To do so, they begin by assuming that God does not intervene in the cosmos, which would introduce a variable that science cannot accommodate. So the assumption is, God is not a factor.
Some scientists then claim that they've shown God doesn't exist. I find that mindset more than a little arrogant. And unscientific, since there is no way to apply the scientific method to the question of God's existence.
Second, I sympathize with creationists in their concern about public education. School children are immersed in a particular account of the world that excludes any acknowledgement of God. Somehow that is supposed to be a "neutral" approach to education, because it doesn't promote any particular religion. But of course it isn't neutral at all. It inculcates, implicitly, an atheistic worldview.
I don't have a solution to that problem. I understand why the state must be a secular institution and I support that arrangement. I'm just pointing out, secular does not equal neutral.
In sum, science is perceived as being objective about God and neutral in its effects on religion. In fact, it is neither of those things. So the distinction between science and scientism is not as clean as one might suppose — there's some overlap between the categories.
I knew I could count on you to comment, Q! ;) I believe you and Mary P are the only regular visitors. :(
I hope that you realize that to say that science is unscientific is a bit contradictory. If your point is that scientists go too far in their conclusions where God is concerned, then I wholeheatedly agree. I am surprised by the very unscientific conclusions that scientists reach sometimes.
I too sympathize with creationists, but not for the reasons that I think you do. I believe that creationism is damaging, and creationists are construing science to be something that it is not - and as a result, many people are not equipped to think critically about important subjects.
I realize I am being a bit vague here. Perhaps I will comment again with more specific examples. But the evolution/creation controversy is forefront in my mind as a prime example.
I notice that your comment makes a transition from science and scientism to politics, and what should be taught in school. I am not surprised or displeased, since this is a very live social issue, and it relates closely to what the post was about.
It is arrogant for scientists to claim that they have disproven the existence of God, if by "disproven" they mean that they know with absolute certainty that God doesn't exist. But, many of the claims of religion have been shown to be false. Geocentrism, a Noachian flood, etc. - I'm sure you know the list goes on and on. So, much of the impact of science on religion is legitimate.
From what I have made out from our previous conversations, yours is one of the most respectable theistic positions out there .... Still complete nonsense, but tolerable nonetheless. [Tongue firmly in cheek for that last bit!]
To say that science is unscientific is a bit contradictory. If your point is that scientists go too far in their conclusions where God is concerned, then I wholeheatedly agree.
Yes, that's all I meant to say.
Creationists are construing science to be something that it is not.
True, but my point is that many atheists and agnostics construe science to be something that it's not, too.
Many of the claims of religion have been shown to be false.
I agree, and it would be better if religion could learn to accept it and adapt when it is shown to be in error.
Actually, I think many religious people are quite able to absorb the findings of science. One thing I consistently forget is that American culture is so different than Canadian culture.
You have a lot of fundamentalists in the USA pushing an overtly political agenda. Fundamentals are simply not a significant element of Canadian society. So the religion that I know is much less dogmatic than the rabid American version. Canadians, like Americans, continue to profess a faith in God. But Canadians do not view science and religion as adversaries.
btw, I'm not sure the Noachian flood has been disproven. Yes, if it is understood literally as a world-wide phenomenon. But perhaps not on a more limited scale — a natural catastrophe blown up to mythical proportions, if you will. Not that the story has much meaning to me.
Finally, let me reassure you that I intend to continue blogging. I am discouraged to see the number of visitors to Simply Put fall month after month. But I know I brought part of it on myself by starting a second blog, which has eaten up a lot of my energy. That isn't the only factor, mind you. But it's a factor I can own as my responsibility.
I've developed a new blog: Toward Jerusalem. I plan to unveil it on the weekend. It will replace both of my existing blogs, which means I will no longer maintain a separation between my theological posts and my social commentary.
I doubt it will improve my numbers; certainly not in the short term. But theology continues to be my first love, and I've decided to take on a teaching role. I want to develop a "library" of theological resources for Christians to draw on — which will be a long-term project.
I still intend to comment on social issues as they catch my attention. So I hope secular readers, like yourself, will continue to visit. But I am steadily losing my secular readers anyway, so I'm prepared to take the risk.
I certainly intend to continue visiting your blog to make a nuisance of myself at every opportunity.
I would never dream of holding you back. Everyone needs a change of pace now and then. I will definitely continue to lurk around at your new site. I probably won't comment as much.
Since I got my degree and am no longer in a classroom, it's difficult for me to find stimulating intellectual conversation, or even read a book! Blogging is an important outlet for me. Writing helps me work through issues. My one frustration is that I can't do it more, or with more consistent quality, as you have done. I look forward to a time when my life settles into a more consistent routine so that I can do that.
I have enjoyed our interactions. Drop in anytime, friend.
i still read.. just don't post much...
i don't do a lot of things much anymore... i work a lot... god does that suck...
........
.....
right about the whole science vs religion thing... i took a class about this... i came to this conclusion...
religion is healthy and helpful when it doesn't demand unhealthy beliefs about societies and individuals... and guess what? Science is also healthy and helpful when it does the exact same thing...
in a society like ours, i see three pillars supporting our progression. Science, Religion, and Art. These three pillars must be respected and understood for the good of humanity as a whole. Science must be allowed to assist and flourish so we better understand the world around us and even ourselves, and religion must be allowed to give us beliefs that are larger then what we see (i am using religion in this fashion as lumping in mythology, habitual manifestations, belief in greater things then yourself, and even television), where as art must be allowed to link and evaluate all fields around it.
the exact interaction may not be thoroughly explained here, and my interpretation of religion may be objectionable, but in the end i think people are generally happy when they derive self-worth out of something bigger and better then simply the amount of products they produce or the genes they pass on.
Of course i'm not saying science can't manufacture other answers, i'm simply saying as of my understanding, science doesn't answer the question of "why should you not kill yourself when you wake up in the morning?" It just doesn't seem to be a question that science could tackle. On the otherhand i sorely disagree with those who believe morality falls in this catagory.
I'm a staunch supporter of the notion that you can arrive at moral truthes through thought and rationality.
....
i'm sooooooo freaking tired. just got home.
I got a blog Mike about how i've been changing that i have yet to post............. hope you read it when i get done. I'll still read yours even if i'm silent.
Arglor: that's a fascinating view. We should discuss it sometime.
Man, when "sometime" comes around, we're not going to know what to do with it!
I agree that moral truths don't provide a reason to get up in the morning:
"Why should I get up rather than kill myself today?"
"You have a duty: killing is morally wrong. If you kill yourself, you will be doing a moral wrong!"
"But, why shouldn't I do something morally wrong?"
"Er ...."
[sound of crickets chirping]
In order to be bound by a moral truth, we need a reason. Moral truths are less binding than, say, the truth of gravity. It seems like I can choose to behave according to moral truths, or not.
I had a conversation recently with my parents, who are devoutly theistic. Knowing that I have "converted" to atheism, they were very concerned about my emotional health. We had a deep discussion and I informed them of some of my beliefs. My dad announced that he felt I was spiritually healthy.
"Atheists aren't spiritual," I objected.
"Of course you are," said my dad. "You see yourself in relation to the world. You appreciate the interconnectedness of things, and people. You see yourself as part of a dynamic whole. That's what spirituality is!"
So, I guess that's what we are. Spiritual atheists. We're not that much different from religious people. The biggest difference may be in our understanding of where moral truths come from, or rather, how they exist.
I look forward to reading your new blog entry.
• Arglor:
in a society like ours, i see three pillars supporting our progression. Science, Religion, and Art. … as of my understanding, science doesn't answer the question of "why should you not kill yourself when you wake up in the morning?" … On the otherhand i sorely disagree with those who believe morality falls in this catagory.
Very interesting perspective. It makes sense to understand religion very broadly. People have "faith" in whatever it is that they rely on to get them along day by day, and whatever makes life meaningful for them is, in effect, a god around which they orient their lives. For some folks, a favourite TV show fits into that paradigm (however pathetic that may be).
As a theist, I must add that some kinds of faith are better than others. And you would probably agree. For example, orienting your life around your next hit of heroin is probably not such a good religion.
But that opens up a whole realm of discussion over what's a relatively good religion and what's a relatively bad one.
• Snaars:
Your comments about "spiritual atheism" is interesting. People in our society generally approve of the label, spiritual — even those folks who actively despise "organized religion".
But spiritual is a very nebulous concept. Your Dad's definition makes sense, to a point. But do you believe there's such a thing as a spiritual realm? Is it possible not to believe that, and yet to be spiritual?
do you believe there's such a thing as a spiritual realm? Is it possible not to believe that, and yet to be spiritual?
Usually, "spritual" connotates supernatural forces - such as God - and I don't believe in those. I take "spiritual realm" to be some sort of place removed from this universe, where supernatural forces kind of hang out until they're ready to intervene or act out in this universe. I don't believe in such a realm.
I do believe that intangible things exist, after a fashion. My dad's definition of spirituality is that it is an awareness of one's place in the world and the interrelatedness of things, or relationships between things. Relationships exist, but they're certainly not physical objects. So, I stand in contradiction to the stereotypical atheist who doesn't believe in what he can't see or touch. It's all a matter of ontology and semantics, I suppose.
"So, I stand in contradiction to the stereotypical atheist who doesn't believe in what he can't see or touch"
it's just plain stupid to disbelieve anything that you can't see & touch - that is scientism taken to extremes - fundemental scientism if you will & fundemental anything is just dogma, and therefore ethically, morrally & scientifically wrong!
thanks for the explanation of scientism btw, now I know what I'm being accused of on those creationist blogs I frequent:-) I didn't realise there were people who so missed the point of science as to be unscientific about it:-)
I agree with Q that God has to be removed from any scientific experiements. We will never proove/disproove his existance with science, because there is no frame of reference that can be used. I also agree about the difference between creationists and those that believe in creation. Good example. I keep trying to tell my creationists that "belief" in evolution does not require atheism, but I guess i'm not the best person to say it:-)
Snaars:
My definition of the spiritual realm is broad. I think in terms of two categories of existence: a material form and an immaterial form. If a thing truly exists, but not in a material form, I would label it "spiritual". Whether that realm includes life forms (gods, angels, demons) is a separate question. We could be talking about inanimate objects.
I begin from the premise that God must have some kind of substance, even though it's an immaterial substance. Therefore other beings or objects might also exist, being made of the same substance.
I'm not sure that relationships fit into that definition of "spiritual". I think relationship is an abstraction, a general label for something we experience in the specific here in the material realm. No relationship is exactly like any other, but all relationships have certain characteristics in common: hence the abstraction, "relationships".
The interconnectedness of all things is something different. There may be a literal connection or unity between things, but a spiritual one instead of a material one. For example, God's substance may penetrate all things simultaneously: God is thus the being in whom the universe coheres.
How does all this relate to numbers and values (love, justice, etc.)? I don't exactly know. I'd be interested in your thoughts on it — perhaps fodder for your next post.
Q said: I begin from the premise that God must have some kind of substance, even though it's an immaterial substance.
How exactly is it possible to have an "immaterial substance"?
What exactly do you mean by that...? Do you have an example other than God?
I'm glad I picked a good topic this time - it's nice to get so many comments.
Mrs. A: Yes, we know that SCIENCE can't disprove God's existence. Nor can science disprove the existence of leprechauns, or the mysterious and mighty snaarsiosity that pervades this blog. We need only stipulate that leprechauns and snaarsiosity are fleeting, capricious - detectable only by spiritual means.
Do you sense the snaarsiosity? You don't? Poor thing, you're uninitiated.
(Apologies to Q and any other theists that read this - I can't resist poking fun. I hope you're not overly offended by my snaarsissism.)
I keep trying to tell my creationists that "belief" in evolution does not require atheism
Most theists do believe in evolution, but creationists are in a class of their own, aren't they?
Q: Ontology, that branch of metaphysics which seeks to categorize what sorts of fundamentally distinct entities compose the universe, is an area of philosophy that I can discuss only in a casual way. There are several good theories in philosophy, all highly developed and technical, and I am not competent to judge between them. But, I am aware of some of the issues that motivate these theories, and I enjoy talking about them insofar as I am able. I'd like to take a closer look at your ideas:
I think in terms of two categories of existence: a material form and an immaterial form.
Let's start by defining a few terms. To categorize, by definition, is to separate things into groups that share common features, or characteristics. In philosophy, we call these common features "properties".
You broadly categorize everything into two groups: material and non-material. Not a bad start. It doesn't seem like anything can be both material and immaterial, so for every thing that exists, it must be one or the other. When philosophers divide the totality of being into two broad categories, we call it "dualism". Various forms of dualism have been proposed in the history of philosophy.
I begin from the premise that God must have some kind of substance, even though it's an immaterial substance.
Cyberkitten's question here is a good one: how do you explain an immaterial substance? Can immaterial substances causally interact with material substances? If so, then how can you call them immaterial? If not, then how can we know anything about immaterial substances? Of what use is the prior distinction between material and immaterial?
[Cyberkitten: kudos to you!]
Therefore other beings or objects might also exist, being made of the same substance.
If other beings besides God can be in this immaterial realm, then why couldn't there be more than one god?
I'm not sure that relationships fit into that definition of "spiritual". I think relationship is an abstraction, a general label for something we experience in the specific here in the material realm.
Are you introducing a third category of being here? The reason I ask is that a relationship doesn't seem to be a material thing. It doesn't have mass or volume or any other property associated with material things.
A relationship is a kind of complex relation. In my understanding, a relation is a property. The property called identity is the relation a thing has to itself. Relations between non-identical things are multiplace properties (or, in more technical language, n-ary properties, where n is an integer indicating an order of complexity).
Relations and relationships don't seem to be material. But you don't seem to accept them as being immaterial, choosing instead to call them abstractions. The distinction you make between abstractions and immaterial things is not very clear to me. I would have thought that abstractions would be a sub-class of immaterial things. Then again, I'm not clear on what an "abstraction" is, for you, although I think you mean what I have in mind when I use the word "property".
The interconnectedness of all things is something different. There may be a literal connection or unity between things, but a spiritual one instead of a material one. For example, God's substance may penetrate all things simultaneously: God is thus the being in whom the universe coheres.
We moved far away from my dad's definition of spirituality when we started talking about a spiritual realm. My appreciation of the interconnectedness of things is not helped by the consideration of such a realm. Instead, I am confused when I contemplate it! First you said that God could be made up of spiritual substance that existed in the spiritual realm, which is distinct from the material realm. Now you are saying that the entire universe coheres in God's spiritual substance. There seems to be no distinction between material substance and immaterial substance, anymore.
Please don't be offended that I am being critical of your ideas - metaphysics is HARD! I doubt that I could do much better.
How does all this relate to numbers and values (love, justice, etc.)? I don't exactly know. I'd be interested in your thoughts on it — perhaps fodder for your next post.
I'm sure you have in mind our previous conversation in which I brought up abstract objects. I don't know if I'm up to tackling these issues (I didn't seem to do a great job before), but who knows - maybe one day soon I'll be inspired.
I admit, I have only the vaguest notions about the subjects I've introduced here. Although I study theology, it's mostly a strictly biblical theology.
The subjects we're talking about here aren't defined anywhere in the Bible. Jesus does say, "God is Spirit" (John 4:24). But there's no explanation of what is meant by that assertion — it's presumed that we already know what it means.
To me, it means that God has a real but non-material substance.
From science, I would offer two analogies. (1) The existence of parallel universes, which may inhabit the same space simultaneously. I don't know how this is supposed to work in practice. But if it's possible for two physical universes to inhabit the same space, surely it is possible for physical beings and non-physical beings to occupy the same space simultaneously.
(2) Dark matter: "hypothetical particles of unknown composition that do not emit or reflect enough electromagnetic radiation to be detected directly, but whose presence can be inferred from gravitational effects on visible matter. … Only about 4% of the total mass in the universe (as inferred from gravitational effects) can be seen directly. About 22% is thought to be composed of dark matter. The remaining 74% is thought to consist of dark energy, an even stranger component, distributed diffusely in space, that probably cannot be thought of as ordinary particles." (Wikipedia).
Am I saying that spirit = dark matter and/or dark energy? No. But I am reminding everybody that it's a big world out there, and there are many things that we know nothing about. Spirit may be inconceivable to those who lack imagination, but that doesn't prove it isn't there.
Can immaterial substances causally interact with material substances? If so, then how can you call them immaterial?
Yes, spiritual substances can cause effects in the physical realm. Spiritual substances are more like energy than matter. I don't understand why there's a philosophical problem with this — you'd have to prove to me that it's a problem.
If other beings besides God can be in this immaterial realm, then why couldn't there be more than one god?
There could be. Arguably, there are.
Relations and relationships don't seem to be material. But you don't seem to accept them as being immaterial, choosing instead to call them abstractions. The distinction you make between abstractions and immaterial things is not very clear to me.
I tried to give enough information to indicate what I meant, but it would only be enough information if you were already familiar with the concept.
"Mother" is a good example. I have one; you have one; everybody is born with one. In a literal sense, "Mother" is the woman who gestated you in her womb. But the word is also an abstraction. It connotes someone who is nurturing and giving, wise and patient, ferocious in defending her brood, etc. Which mother, exactly, are we talking about? None of them; all of them. That's what an abstraction is. It doesn't refer to any specific mother, but rather an ideal of what mothers are supposed to be.
As far as I can make out, you're speaking of relationships in just that sense. A relationship is quite concrete, if you're talking about a specific one (e.g. Snaars and Mrs. Snaars have a relationship in the material world). Or you can talk about relationships in the abstract, just like you can talk about Mother in the abstract. Abstraction does not equal spiritual — it's a mental construct and has no real existence of either sort.
Q said: Spiritual substances are more like energy than matter. I don't understand why there's a philosophical problem with this — you'd have to prove to me that it's a problem.
If spiritual substances are real in the same sense that energy is real - then why haven't we detected it scientificaly during the last hundred years?
I think that the philosophical problem resides on a lack of any clear definition of what is meant by a 'non-material substance' and how exactly something that is non-material supposedly interacts with something that is material.
BTW - Your two examples of Dark Matter & Parallel universes are both highly theoretical and very controversal and are generally used to try and explain things that are ATM inexplicable. Both ideas could very easily be wrong and neither has, as yet IIRC, any direct evidence to support their existence.
My relationship to Mrs. Snaars a concrete, material thing? I'll have to tell her to find it and keep it safe in the cupboard.
I don't mean to be argumentative when I raise objections. Other theories have had to address these issues - and because of rigorous scrutiny, peer review, and refinement, there are several philosophical theories that have done a good job of answering those objections. I'm just letting you know of some of the issues you would need to address in order for your ideas to be taken seriously in the world of philosophy.
I don't mind that you start on the assumption that god exists - although that assumption is a big one that would have to be justified at some point, even if you can't do it now.
I also don't mind that you want to talk about immaterial objects. I think our miscommunication about them is a result of the fact that I see several distinct classes of them where you put them all together in a way that allows you to draw conclusions that I can't.
What bothers me more than the specifics of your theory, is that it isn't informative. It doesn't help us to understand anything that we didn't understand before. Immaterial substance, as presented in your theory, serves no purpose except as a medium for God's existence, which is assumed from the start. There doesn't seem to be any way to test your hypothesis, since immaterial substance only impinges on the real world when God desires it.
In contrast, dark matter, alternate universes, black holes, quarks, and absolute zero are theoretical entities that have been introduced in order to explain some observations that didn't fit into our understanding before. And because they explain the data so well, we have some reason to believe that they are real.
If God exists, we should be led to him by the evidence.
snaars said: If God exists, we should be led to him by the evidence.
My very thought! As far as I am aware there *is* no evidence, hence my atheistic stance. The way I'm 'wired' means that I am very reluctant to accept anything on faith - without a very good reason to do so (contradictory I know).
Cyberkitten: I don't think what you said is contradictory at all. We all have a kind of faith in something. I think what we have in common is an aversion to blind faith, or faith without any kind of reason at all behind it, which results in all kinds of evil.
snaars said: I think what we have in common is an aversion to blind faith.
Indeed. I mean, how does a person do that? I suppose I can 'get' the idea of believing something without what I would consider to be evidence - but I really can't understand how people can believe something *despite* the evidence...
Didn't Thomas Aquinas say something like "I believe *because* it is impossible" when someone asked him about his faith...? I mean... HUH?
Cyberkitten: Can you imagine a world where everyone believes all sorts of impossible things? Really taxes the imagination, doesn't it? Er, well, not really - sounds too much like the world we actually live in!
I think Aquinas argued that faith and reason were incompatible because reason compels belief, and compelled faith is not genuine faith. Or some such drivel. maybe that was someone else, like Augustine. I always get their names mixed up.
• Snaars:
My relationship to Mrs. Snaars a concrete, material thing? I'll have to tell her to find it and keep it safe in the cupboard.
It would be better if you attempted to think through what I've said, instead of mocking me.
A relationship is what? Holding hands, talking and listening, I'll shop for the groceries while you vaccuum and dust, deciding where to live, dividing up the household income, supporting one another in caring for the children … etc. etc. etc.
A relationship consists of concrete actions. Beyond that, we can think of "relationships" as a mental construct. But they have no real existence except in the things that we do for and with one another.
I'm just letting you know of some of the issues you would need to address in order for your ideas to be taken seriously in the world of philosophy.
I don't care whether my ideas are taken seriously in the world of philosophy.
Immaterial substance, as presented in your theory, serves no purpose except as a medium for God's existence, which is assumed from the start.
Let's take a couple steps back. You described yourself as a spiritual atheist. I asked, can you be spiritual if you don't believe in a spiritual realm? Then we began working on a definition of the terms spirit and spiritual.
How did this discussion turn into me being on the defensive, having to prove God's existence to the satisfaction of ignorant sceptics (meaning Cyberkitten) and philosophers?
Q, Let me say that I'm sorry if I've offended you or hurt you in any way. The comment about putting a relationship in a cupboard was a little bit mocking, I'll admit, but I meant no disrespect. It was meant to be humorous - a light-hearted ribbing. It was bad judgement on my part.
I'm sorry you feel that I'm dismissing your ideas out-of-hand. Sometimes I forget how difficult it is to have one's fundamental understanding of reality criticised and found wanting. Perhaps you feel like you walked into an ambush! It's happened to me so many times, I suppose I'm inured to it. Now, it's just an exercise for me. I didn't think you would take it personally, but I should have taken more care to assure that you wouldn't.
In retrospect, my exchange with Cyberkitten may have been a bit thoughtless. I don't know if it will make a difference to you, but for my part, none of that was aimed at you. The comments about blind faith, believing the impossible, and the rest - I didn't have you in mind.
Belief in God is the norm. There are lots of people, like you and my dad - who have a well-considered and reasonable faith. There are others who never stop to queestion whether their beliefs are true - they believe whatever is convenient, or whatever they were taught as children.
The conclusions philosophers reach often go against common sense. What seems perfectly reasonable to you and gets you through the day may not hold up under intense scrutiny - but that's true of all of us, in some area or other of our thinking, and it doesn't mean that our ideas are very far removed from the truth.
It's easy for someone like me to stand in the sidelines and criticise. It's not so easy to be the subject of criticism when you are out in the field, playing as best as you can.
I hope Cyberkitten has a sense of humor. Your conduct has always been exemplary. I've never seen you resort to name-calling before.
I respect your thoughtfulness, your compassion, and your intellectual integrity. We don't have to agree on everything. At least, that's how I feel and I hope you feel the same.
Hey, this is a role-reversal, isn't it? I remember getting bent out of shape some time ago, when we were discussing something along similar lines. Perhaps we should just not talk about metaphysical issues anymore.
I woke up this morning still troubled that I've offended you.
I have one more thing to add to the apology I posted yesterday. I don't know if it will help repair the damage I've done, but I have to try.
Philosophy is - mostly, if not completely - about the testing of ideas. It can be thought of as a tradition that goes back thousands of years, in which intellectuals argue about the relative merits of different ways of thinking about world.
When philosophers get together, they argue. It can be extremely frustrating for someone who has an emotional investment in an idea, and who starts to feel like it's being nit-picked to death.
Everyone has favorite ideas. Philosophers practice emotional detatchment, but I don't think anyone ever achieves complete success. And, I'm not sure it would be healthy to do so.
More importantly, an argument against an idea is not necessarily fatal to the idea. The history of philosophy, and science, which I think of as philosophy's bigger, younger brother, is replete with examples of right ideas that were vehemently attacked at first, but which came to be accepted as common sense a few generations later.
Just because I object to things that I think are inconsistencies in your ideas - that doesn't mean that your ideas are wrong! Maybe the inconsistencies are only apparent and not real, or maybe a very slight adjustment could make them go away. Your last comment helped me understand what you think a relationship is, and it went a long way toward answering an objection I raised.
That is what philosophy is all about - the sharing and investigation of ideas, the search for deeper understanding, and the truth.
Ideas tend to improve the more they're questioned. I find that it actually helps me realise what I meant when people ask pointed questions. It even gets me to change my ideas, especially when I realise I haven't thought them through properly.
Weak ideas do tend to get pinned to a wall though. It's "idea eat idea" out there... which should lead to an evolution of good (or at least better) ideas through survival of the fittest... at least that's the theory...
Is it true that the idea that "survives" is the "good" idea?
I know this is going into ethics but i'm just thinking of what cyberkitten through out there. It is meme theory if i remember correctly. The idea that through some kind of natural selection, ideas refine and become better then what they were before. But does that make it the better and more accurate idea?
I don't agree at all. We have to look at the entities propogating the ideas themselves. Humanity and human societies are intrinsically tied to the survival of ideas. If the Nazi nation would have had an advantage over us in the war their "idea" of "anti-semitism" would have survived and propogated itself.
Oh hell i always go for Nazis because they are a good solid evil. Right now let's point the gun elsewhere. Right now America is propogating the idea of democracy across the world. Democracy seems to be surviving also. Is democracy in the American style the best idea?
..... ? There are a lot of arguments contrary to the american style of democracy/representative government, one of which dates back to Plato. I'm just saying that ethically speaking, (adopting Utilitarian view of ethics and merging it a bit with an understanding of human rights) Democracy performs a lot of evil in the world, and allows for a lot of evil to be performed.
It is always difficult mixing ethics and evolution together. Evolution (of ideas and even of species as a whole) only works for survival, not for ethical or beneficial conceptions.
Dictatorship is the most adaptable form of government. Very little turn around time regarding decisions that are made, ergo the government can change to suit the needs of the government's survival, yet this is certainly not the best idea of government.
ok i'm done rambling. Glad to know that i can rest easy knowing that one day Snaars and Q will have come up with a new religion i can believe in. All the religions i've seen have been found wanting.
Arglor said: It is always difficult mixing ethics and evolution together. Evolution (of ideas and even of species as a whole) only works for survival, not for ethical or beneficial conceptions.
Well said! I couldn't agree with you more. If what you said were not true, then we should believe that all the extinct species died out because they were evil! Then it would seem that we should kill off all the species we can, to get rid of all the evil species and make the world a better place. Making the world a better place is morally good, so we would be ensuring our own survival by doing so!
Yeah right.
On the other hand, is the survival of ideas really analogous to the survival of species? Hmmm ... maybe we haven't developed the analogy strongly enough.
I'm just writing as I'm thinking at this point, so I could be way off.
We shouldn't look just at the ideas themselves, but at the environments that produce them. Probably, some environments are more conducive to truth and moral goodness than others.
Ideally, academia should be such an environment. Certain religious contexts, too, probably encourage moral goodness. Looking at history, both contexts have been known to fail.
In environments/contexts where ideas are not tested for truth and goodness, then characteristics other than truth and goodness may determine their survival. This might be what CK had in mind with the comment about questioning ideas.
Maybe, instead of encouraging people to be morally good, we should cultivate an environment in which morally good ideas are likely to survive ...
I don't know ... sounds good, but smacks of determinism. And, reading over what I just wrote, I'm sure it's not a new idea at all. Ah, well ... perhaps I will start a revolution tomorrow.
• Snaars:
Perhaps you feel like you walked into an ambush!
I'm glad you thought to say that. I was mulling it over and realized that that is precisely why I was so offended. God's existence (or non-existence) was not the subject of this thread. But suddenly the thread veered off in that direction — as if you saw an opportunity to take a few shots at my beliefs and couldn't help yourself.
Frankly, I'm not interested in that discussion. There's plenty of it in the blogosphere, and its the same tired series of assertions and counter-assertions over and over again, ad infinitum. It isn't edifying to anybody, so why go there?
So I wish we had stuck more closely to the subject you tossed out for discussion — whether it's possible to be a spiritual atheist, and what precisely that might mean.
Please understand my profound lack of enthusiasm to continue to engage you in discussion if there's an ever-present danger that we'll veer off into God-does-not-exist territory. It has taken me several days to muster up the willingness to return to the blog to see how you responded. And I seriously hestitated to do so today.
There's another aspect of this conflict to address, but I'll e-mail you about it privately.
Q: thanks for coming back. The more I read over the thread, the more guilty I feel.
We were thinking about the conversation differently, that's obvious to me now. I was inconsiderate.
You may find this hard to believe, but when you made the metaphysical claim/hypothesis about a spiritual realm, I actually had no intention of getting into the existence-of-God debate. I was just excited about getting to talk metaphysics! And you even asked me about my understanding of numbers and values - I took that to be an invitation to discuss it further.
The problem is, once you start debating metaphysics, dualism, and the problems with spiritual substance, the conversation can easily flow into the question of God's existence.
I guess we were thinking about the conversation differently. In retrospect, I can see how you felt like we jumped on you - because we did!
And my flippant comments about religion could not have made the atmosphere any less comfortable.
My conduct was inappropriate. Thanks for setting me straight.
Snaars:
So far, I haven't been very gracious about accepting your apology. Not half as gracious as you're being in offering the apology, repeatedly and unreservedly!
Thanks for being so diligent about setting things right. When Mary P. read your apology, she said she can see why Michelle loves you so much!
Anyway, all is forgiven.
• Arglor:
It seems clear from history that the best ideas don't always survive. Classical Greek philosophy was forgotten and later revived. And what about the Dark Ages? There was more truth and wisdom before the Dark Ages than during them.
I also think (Snaars and I were discussing this the other day) that even a very good idea often has a concomitant destructive side. I'm all for individual rights and freedoms, for example. But didn't we also lose something when we shifted from a communal mindset to an individualistic mindset? I certainly think we did.
In other words, it isn't possible for the good ideas to rise to the surface without bringing some unwelcome baggage along with them. And that sets the stage for a reaction against the whole basket of ideas, which will result in some gains and some losses.
Evolutionary theory has given us false confidence that the passing of the generations always results in progress. But it isn't that simple, even in biology — otherwise we wouldn't have all those nasty extinction episodes. How many times in history has evolution taken a big step back?
Q said: Evolutionary theory has given us false confidence that the passing of the generations always results in progress. But it isn't that simple, even in biology — otherwise we wouldn't have all those nasty extinction episodes. How many times in history has evolution taken a big step back?
It's quite a common misunderstanding that evolution is progressive in the way I think you mean. Evolution is about adaptation to a particular environment - not any kind of progress. Evolution is itself directionless, it isn't 'going anywhere' - which makes the idea of evolution "going backwards" rather meaningless.
The idea of progress is an interesting one though. Clearly things like scientific knowledge & technology progress (in that they improve) but do societies progress in the same way, do political or economic systems progress? It's arguable they do... but from who's persepective.
Getting back to the evolution of ideas... some 'bad/wrong' ideas have lasted for centuries before being overturned, such as the 'divine right of kings' for example. Others didn't last that long - like Marxism. I'm sure that there are many bad ideas about today that will last many generations into the future but, hopefully, they will fall into disuse too.
WOW. Maybe i gave the wrong impression. It seems that everyone is of the belief that I believe "right" beliefs evolve overtime. This is very far from the truth. I know for a fact this is incorrect, and i thought that my response stated as such.
I think the crux of this problem is that people fail to understand that the only way ideas survive (or at least spread and multiply) is through a medium. There are no rules or limitations of an ethical nature on the medium itself. So if the medium consists of humans who are predominantly white and have very little contact with any other kinds of humans, then the ideas that survive are going to be those that are beneficial to the majority. I.E. White superiority etc.
This is my personal problem with Plato's theory of forms. It is great and wonderful to believe that there exists this world in which ideas are pure, but to then say that humanity can truely understand that world is to say that humanity can somehow circumvent their human perception.
When i see a chair, my idea of the chair is simply my perception of that chair. It is not in fact the idea of the chair itself. Sure over time i can build a database of all the "chair"s that i run across, but i can never be conclusive in saying that i know the true idea of chair.
Although i can say, I have a pragmatic idea of chairness, and this is what assists me in common discourse with my fellow philosophers who ponder over the nature of the chair.
Oh chair, how i miss you. You still do not exist to me.
Arglor:
No misunderstanding here. A miscommunication, obviously: I was intending to express agreement with you, in your objection to Cyberkitten's observation. But I didn't make that explicit.
I like your point about ideas being communicated through a medium. This is precisely the problem with scripture, as liberals (including me) see it.
I believe that the first disciples had a profound experience of God, who was, in some extraordinary way, manifested in Jesus Christ. But their perception of it, and their communication of it via the medium of human language, were necessarily partial and imperfect.
Hence there's no such thing as an inerrant scripture, even if Jesus Christ brought a true revelation of God.
(And please, don't jump all over me, everybody. I know I have only made assertions, without offering any support for them whatsoever. I'm just exploring the idea Arglor introduced as it touches upon my personal faith. And I think it's legitimate to do so — it's one of the reasons I read this blog.)
Arglor said: the only way ideas survive (or at least spread and multiply) is through a medium
No misunderstanding here (I think). I was merely thinking that, if "goodness" is a trait of some ideas and not others, than an environment that favors goodness would be desirable to cultivate.
I didn't think you meant there was inherent progress in evolution.
Q said: Evolutionary theory has given us false confidence that the passing of the generations always results in progress.
In context, I understood this statement to deal with the perception many people have of evolution, not the reality.
CK: You have my agreement that evolution is directionless. That being said, evolution CAN be progressive or regressive, if one applies a criterium. Experiments show that biological evolution tends toward greater complexity. Sometimes, though, an organism might lose complexity. A species of fish that evolves to live in caves might lose its eyesight. In these instances, it might be okay to say that evolution has stepped backward, especially if one is speaking informally.
WHEW! I need a break. This thread is getting too long. I need to do a little post exploring the problem of universals - if I can find my notes! It ought to be great fun for all, if we can agree to wear protective gear and fight clean.
A species of fish that evolves to live in caves might lose its eyesight. In these instances, it might be okay to say that evolution has stepped backward, especially if one is speaking informally.
Yes, that's a good illustration of how I was speaking.
I've read only a little Dawkins, but enough to know that evolution is not directed toward an end. (Not teletic, a theologian would say.) Formally, there is no such thing as forward or backward to the evolutionary process.
But think of it from the perspective of the dinosaurs. Evolution took a big step backward when, having produced them, it turned around and wiped them out!
Q said: But think of it from the perspective of the dinosaurs. Evolution took a big step backward when, having produced them, it turned around and wiped them out!
Huh? What 'backward step'? .. and didn't a big rock falling from the sky basically finish them off...? As a mammal I'm very pleased that it happened. Big rocks falling from the sky allowed us to get where we are today..
Post a Comment