Luc Ferry in his book A Brief History of Thought offers a scathing criticism of materialists and those who follow the philosopher Nietzsche's lead by saying there is no such thing as transcendence. In a nutshell, Ferry calls them hypocrites. No one lives as if there are no universal rules. No one lives as if there is no transcendence. Everyone has some sort of belief in the common good. Everyone.
Ferry is no intellectual light weight, and his criticisms go beyond just this one. I encourage folks to read this tome of Ferry's even though he does not cross into belief in God. Though he finds the Christian narrative very, very appealing, Ferry wants to work out his own salvation. This is his choice.
Yet, his argument about transcendence is very important I think. Everyone lives as if there is a transcendent reality. Everyone lives asking, "What should I do?" Everyone lives as if there is a frame of ethics which supersede individuals, cultures, and nations. C.S. Lewis did some fascinating research finding that nearly every civilized culture has some form of the Golden Rule within it. Why?
Lewis makes his case in this fashion: if there is such a thing as natural law--a higher morality, then there must be a law giver. Hence God exists. While a powerful argument, it is not absolute. Folks can argue, and they do that the discovery of such laws might be humankind's evolution and discovery of what is needed for a fully functional human society. Evolution has produced the Golden Rule; it is not given by God.
The criticism is duly noted, but this does not make the Golden Rule transcendent. In fact, it lessens the universality of the rule. For if evolution decreed that the Golden Rule is necessary for civilization now, evolution could easily lead us to disperse the Golden Rule if it gets in the way of the survival of the species or our own personal survival. After all, evolution is governed not by any transcendence which tells us what we should do, but it is governed by natural selection and genetic mutation. The Golden Rule is necessary for survival now, but what if it becomes a hindrance in the future? Evolution would say, discard it!!!
Those who believe in transcendence would not discard the rule so easily. In fact, they would continue to hold onto it despite any pressure to discard it because it is a universal law. And if Ferry is correct, even evolutionists who are convinced the Golden Rule came about by evolution would continue to hold onto it even if evolution tries to pull us away from it. (I personally believe this is already the case, for in evolution, the weakest members of any species--sans humankind--are dispatched by nature rather quickly. Only human beings care for their physically and mentally ill. Only humans disrupt the natural process in this manner--including many evolutionists.)
The question in my book is: can someone claim there is no transcendence and then act as if there is? This kind of life, in my opinion, would eventually lead to a mental break down. There is just no integrity in it. Perhaps this is why Nietzsche went insane when he saw a man beating a poor horse. Perhaps he felt compassion for this animal, and yet he had absolutely nothing to fall back upon to say why this abuse was wrong. One cannot have one's cake and eat it too.
Ferry argues in his book there is indeed transcendence although his argument and mine diverge at this point. If you would like to read his, I again encourage you to read his thoughts. Mine is a little less philosophical at this point and a little more realistic. If everyone acts as if there is transcendence and has acted as if there is transcendence, then there is transcendence. It's not scientifically air tight. It's not measurable. It just is. Kind of like love. It just is.
But how do we know that this transcendence is God? How do we know this transcendence is personal?
Well, today's blog is long enough. Perhaps tomorrow.
Showing posts with label philosophy. Show all posts
Showing posts with label philosophy. Show all posts
Wednesday, July 9, 2014
Tuesday, July 8, 2014
Is There Something Out There?
In a conversation with a congregation member this past Sunday, I invoked the name of Isaac Asimov. My congregation member and I were discussing the relationship between science and faith and how there is quite a bit of arrogance on the part of both "sides" as they promote their particular points of view.
The reality, my congregation member pointed out, is "everyone has faith in something that cannot be proved."
For those who base their thought process in science, the idea everyone bases their thought processes in faith is abhorrent! "Science is not about faith!!" they decry. And then, in the name of science, they proclaim, "There is no evidence for God." Their conclusion is logical. However, I will argue, their conclusion stems from premises which are indeed faith based. Isaac Asimov is helpful here.
Asimov, of course, was a brilliant author, biochemist and philosopher. If you read his works, you will see that he has an incredible ability to remain logically consistent as he conveys philosophical and scientific truth. His short stories weave these truths throughout and (hopefully) help the reader better to understand them. In the short story "Reason" from I, Robot, the following dialogue is found as the two human characters try to deal with a "rogue" robot:
"Then, for the love of Jupiter, we've got to do something." Donovan was half in tears. "He doesn't believe us, or the books, or his eyes."
"No," said Powell bitterly, "he's a reasoning robot--damn it. He believes only reason, and there's one trouble with that--" his voice trailed away.
"What's that?" prompted Donovan.
"You can prove anything you want by coldly logical reason--if you pick the proper postulates. We have ours and Cutie has his."
"Then let's get at those postulates in a hurry. The storm's due tomorrow."
Powell signed wearily. "That's where everything falls down. Postulates are based on assumption and adhered to by faith. Nothing in the Universe can shake them. I'm going to bed."
(If one desires to deeply understand why Asimov places this in his stories, one can study and read up on Goedel's proof.)
The scientist may decry, "I have no postulates. I have no assumptions. I base everything upon what I can see and measure."
But what assumptions are built into the statement, "I base everything upon what I can see and measure?"
Just this: you are confined to the natural world. You are confined to only the things you can see and measure. Nothing more. Using science, one cannot answer the question, "Is there anything beyond the physical universe?" Based upon a method which requires measurement, duplication, reason, logic, and observation, one cannot come up with any absolute conclusion for what may lie beyond what can be measured, duplicated, reasoned, and observed. One is limited. The only thing one can do is look at the evidence provided within the physical universe and deduce whether or not something may or may not be beyond it. One cannot arrive at any definite conclusion--at least based upon the assumptions.
If one recognizes this, then one easily sees that the statement, "God does not exist," is actually a statement of faith. It is not a statement of science. It is not a statement of fact. It is not a statement of pure reason. It is a statement based upon what one tries to deduce from looking at the evidence in the natural world and extrapolating to that which is beyond the boundaries of the natural universe.
One may ask, "Well, what is the problem with that?"
From Richard Dawkins' book, The God Delusion:
"The human brain runs first class simulation software. Our eyes don't present to our brains a faithful photograph of what is out there, or an accurate movie about what is going on in time. Our brains construct [emphasis mine] a continuously updated model: updated by coded pulses chattering along the optic nerve, but constructed nevertheless."
Think about that statement long and hard. If one's assumption is "There is nothing beyond our physical universe," then one's simulation software is set to interpret any data which comes in as supporting the assumption.
On the other hand, if one's assumption is, "There is something beyond our physical universe," then one's simulation software is set to interpret the same data as supporting this assumption.
This is why believers and non-believers can look at the exact same evidence and come up with vastly different conclusions. It has nothing to do with the quality of the evidence. The evidence might be just fine--for both!! However, it has everything to do with the assumptions governing the logic!
The cold, hard fact is that we do not know what lies beyond the bounds of our physical universe. We will actually never know. (Asimov is helpful here too, but I won't go there right now.) By a statement of faith we can either say, "There is something out there." or "There is nothing out there." Neither of these statements can be proved. They are both statements of faith. We would do well to recognize this.
It might just help to tone down the rhetoric and settle a few court battles along the way.
At least I can dream, right?
The reality, my congregation member pointed out, is "everyone has faith in something that cannot be proved."
For those who base their thought process in science, the idea everyone bases their thought processes in faith is abhorrent! "Science is not about faith!!" they decry. And then, in the name of science, they proclaim, "There is no evidence for God." Their conclusion is logical. However, I will argue, their conclusion stems from premises which are indeed faith based. Isaac Asimov is helpful here.
Asimov, of course, was a brilliant author, biochemist and philosopher. If you read his works, you will see that he has an incredible ability to remain logically consistent as he conveys philosophical and scientific truth. His short stories weave these truths throughout and (hopefully) help the reader better to understand them. In the short story "Reason" from I, Robot, the following dialogue is found as the two human characters try to deal with a "rogue" robot:
"Then, for the love of Jupiter, we've got to do something." Donovan was half in tears. "He doesn't believe us, or the books, or his eyes."
"No," said Powell bitterly, "he's a reasoning robot--damn it. He believes only reason, and there's one trouble with that--" his voice trailed away.
"What's that?" prompted Donovan.
"You can prove anything you want by coldly logical reason--if you pick the proper postulates. We have ours and Cutie has his."
"Then let's get at those postulates in a hurry. The storm's due tomorrow."
Powell signed wearily. "That's where everything falls down. Postulates are based on assumption and adhered to by faith. Nothing in the Universe can shake them. I'm going to bed."
(If one desires to deeply understand why Asimov places this in his stories, one can study and read up on Goedel's proof.)
The scientist may decry, "I have no postulates. I have no assumptions. I base everything upon what I can see and measure."
But what assumptions are built into the statement, "I base everything upon what I can see and measure?"
Just this: you are confined to the natural world. You are confined to only the things you can see and measure. Nothing more. Using science, one cannot answer the question, "Is there anything beyond the physical universe?" Based upon a method which requires measurement, duplication, reason, logic, and observation, one cannot come up with any absolute conclusion for what may lie beyond what can be measured, duplicated, reasoned, and observed. One is limited. The only thing one can do is look at the evidence provided within the physical universe and deduce whether or not something may or may not be beyond it. One cannot arrive at any definite conclusion--at least based upon the assumptions.
If one recognizes this, then one easily sees that the statement, "God does not exist," is actually a statement of faith. It is not a statement of science. It is not a statement of fact. It is not a statement of pure reason. It is a statement based upon what one tries to deduce from looking at the evidence in the natural world and extrapolating to that which is beyond the boundaries of the natural universe.
One may ask, "Well, what is the problem with that?"
From Richard Dawkins' book, The God Delusion:
"The human brain runs first class simulation software. Our eyes don't present to our brains a faithful photograph of what is out there, or an accurate movie about what is going on in time. Our brains construct [emphasis mine] a continuously updated model: updated by coded pulses chattering along the optic nerve, but constructed nevertheless."
Think about that statement long and hard. If one's assumption is "There is nothing beyond our physical universe," then one's simulation software is set to interpret any data which comes in as supporting the assumption.
On the other hand, if one's assumption is, "There is something beyond our physical universe," then one's simulation software is set to interpret the same data as supporting this assumption.
This is why believers and non-believers can look at the exact same evidence and come up with vastly different conclusions. It has nothing to do with the quality of the evidence. The evidence might be just fine--for both!! However, it has everything to do with the assumptions governing the logic!
The cold, hard fact is that we do not know what lies beyond the bounds of our physical universe. We will actually never know. (Asimov is helpful here too, but I won't go there right now.) By a statement of faith we can either say, "There is something out there." or "There is nothing out there." Neither of these statements can be proved. They are both statements of faith. We would do well to recognize this.
It might just help to tone down the rhetoric and settle a few court battles along the way.
At least I can dream, right?
Wednesday, February 19, 2014
Do We Have a Purpose?
This morning, as I was running, my thoughts turned to whether or not human beings have a purpose.
Of course, I believe we do. As a believer in God, particularly the Christian God, I believe we were created for a reason which is highlighted in the Christian worldview.
But my thoughts actually turned to several debates I have watched on Youtube; particularly those debates involving Richard Dawkins. Richard was asked questions about the purpose of human life several times, and (if I am remembering correctly) he seemingly dismisses them as absurd questions.
Many seem to be revolted at Dawkins' comments, but I think I understand them. I think.
Dawkins, as a biologist does not think in terms of purpose. Plants and animals don't have a purpose. They are, and they strive to survive. A dog does not think of itself as having a purpose. Neither does a cat, dolphin, eagle, giraffe, whale, and so on and so forth. As far as we know, no animal ever debates and wonders about why it is here. IF (a big if) we are simply another animal in a long line of animals that has ever lived on this planet, then why should we be any different? Why should we contemplate our purpose? The question is actually irrelevant and not worth asking. We are here. We evolved from other animals. We are driven to survive, and one day we will either evolve or die out. End of story. There is nothing more to contemplate.
IF, (as I said earlier) we are simply another animal.
Now, here is the rub, at least as I see it.
IF (a big if) we are simply like another animal, then what is to prevent us from acting like animals? I mean, I study nature--not as a biologist, but as a hunter. I know how animals act in nature--and even in domesticated settings. They vie for power; for food; to be the apex predator or mate. They cooperate, but only when it is in their best interest to cooperate--so that they can get something out of it.
I'm waiting...
And will remain waiting.
Philosophers have wrestled for eons trying to figure out what distinguishes us from other animals. Whenever something has seemed adequate, it is usually found lacking in some particular manner. This is why Stephen Hawking famously said, "Philosophy is dead." Philosophy hasn't been able to give us the answer.
Hawking tries from a scientific perspective. So does Dawkins. In my estimation, they leave much wanting. They fail to offer any insight as to why we should behave any differently than any other animal in the animal world.
This is one of those reasons, I believe science is incomplete. Because of its base assumptions, it cannot address these important questions.
Something more is needed.
I believe we need purpose.
Of course, I believe we do. As a believer in God, particularly the Christian God, I believe we were created for a reason which is highlighted in the Christian worldview.
But my thoughts actually turned to several debates I have watched on Youtube; particularly those debates involving Richard Dawkins. Richard was asked questions about the purpose of human life several times, and (if I am remembering correctly) he seemingly dismisses them as absurd questions.
Many seem to be revolted at Dawkins' comments, but I think I understand them. I think.
Dawkins, as a biologist does not think in terms of purpose. Plants and animals don't have a purpose. They are, and they strive to survive. A dog does not think of itself as having a purpose. Neither does a cat, dolphin, eagle, giraffe, whale, and so on and so forth. As far as we know, no animal ever debates and wonders about why it is here. IF (a big if) we are simply another animal in a long line of animals that has ever lived on this planet, then why should we be any different? Why should we contemplate our purpose? The question is actually irrelevant and not worth asking. We are here. We evolved from other animals. We are driven to survive, and one day we will either evolve or die out. End of story. There is nothing more to contemplate.
IF, (as I said earlier) we are simply another animal.
Now, here is the rub, at least as I see it.
IF (a big if) we are simply like another animal, then what is to prevent us from acting like animals? I mean, I study nature--not as a biologist, but as a hunter. I know how animals act in nature--and even in domesticated settings. They vie for power; for food; to be the apex predator or mate. They cooperate, but only when it is in their best interest to cooperate--so that they can get something out of it.
- I had two female dogs who wanted to be dominant. They fought constantly; horribly; terribly; over things my wife and I considered minor. But any "minor" pack violation would set them off. We ended up having to keep them separate for over 8 years.
- One day, while sitting in a deer blind, I heard the most God-awful sound. A hawk swooped down out of the sky and killed a quail right before my eyes. The strong killed the weak to devour it and gain strength.
- Oftentimes, the offspring of another male is killed by a dominant male looking to spread his genes. Survival of the fittest and natural selection.
- Beta males and females turn to manipulative ways to further their advancement within particular colonies of species bypassing honesty and justice for self-serving need.
- Again, observations from a deer stand: one morning I watched 11 whitetail bucks in a field. Half the time they spent eating the other half fighting for dominance.
- Nearly every animal species lives in a hierarchy. There are those at the top and those at the bottom. Those at the top live well. Those at the bottom aren't so lucky. That's just the way nature is organized for the most part.
- Polygamy is the rule in nature. Monogamy is the exception.
I'm waiting...
And will remain waiting.
Philosophers have wrestled for eons trying to figure out what distinguishes us from other animals. Whenever something has seemed adequate, it is usually found lacking in some particular manner. This is why Stephen Hawking famously said, "Philosophy is dead." Philosophy hasn't been able to give us the answer.
Hawking tries from a scientific perspective. So does Dawkins. In my estimation, they leave much wanting. They fail to offer any insight as to why we should behave any differently than any other animal in the animal world.
This is one of those reasons, I believe science is incomplete. Because of its base assumptions, it cannot address these important questions.
Something more is needed.
I believe we need purpose.
Monday, December 2, 2013
A Psychological Pillar
While traveling in Arkansas for the Thanksgiving holiday, I took my family to visit Bluff Dweller's Cavern in Noel, Missouri. I highly recommend the cavern for a family tour. It's not what I would call a spectacular cavern, but it is beautiful and very friendly on the legs and feet--a plus if you have younger children.
Among the things I found fascinating was the very last cavern room. Our guide pointed to a giant pillar which had been constructed in the middle of that room.
"That is a psychological pillar," she explained. "During the 1950's, when this cavern was designated a nuclear fallout shelter, the government wanted us to build that pillar in the middle of this room. It is not necessary. It doesn't hold anything up or bear any weight. The government folks believed people would be freaked out at the size of this room if there wasn't something in the middle seeming to hold up the ceiling."
In some ways, it is rather head shaking since the roof of that particular room had been holding up just fine for tens of thousands of years. However, there is no doubt that there are indeed people who need such psychological "pillars" in their lives--think Linus from the Peanuts comic strip.
Ideally, we mature and are able to one day come to the realization that those psychological pillars are unnecessary. We come to realize they are simply an unneeded crutch which has given us a sense of safety and security even though it doesn't hold up anything.
Some people have called religious faith such a psychological pillar.
I have come to appreciate the criticism, and if religion is a human construct, then, indeed, it is a psychological pillar.
But that is a big, if...a monumental assumption.
For those of us of a religious bent do not assume that religion is a human construct. We assume that God has brought us to believe in Him. Some neurosurgeons have even come to the conclusion that the brain is hardwired for belief in God. If the brain is indeed hardwired, then why? It would seem "evolution"--in my opinion guided evolution--has brought humankind to a place where we naturally and instinctively believe there is something beyond our physical universe. Would "evolution" produce such an unnecessary "crutch"? After all, if you study religion and how it has been practiced throughout the ages, you would see that it consumes precious time and resources which should be used for survival and reproduction--the main pillars of evolutionary theory. Surely, evolution would have naturally deselected this genetic wiring if it was unnecessary--at least in theory.
But it hasn't. It's still there. It certainly does not seem to be a human construct.
Perhaps indeed we are religiously wired to believe in God because there is a God. Perhaps religious wiring is God's way of helping us to see and understand there is a natural law of justice and right behavior so that we may better know how to deal with one another and the world around us. Perhaps our brains are wired in the manner for belief because this belief gives us a mechanism to overcome the selfish nature which resides in each and every human being. Perhaps religious belief is not a crutch but the very foundation of how we must live and move and have our being.
There are those who disagree. "A psychological pillar." "A crutch." This is religious faith for them.
However, please allow me to submit a philosophical truth or two. Philosophy is a human construct. So is science. Both of these arenas tend to see religion as a "psychological pillar" or "crutch" or "human construct." Why they don't seem to apply this truth to themselves is somewhat beyond me. So, what is good for the goose is indeed good for the gander. If these two items are human constructs, then are they psychological pillars? Are they crutches which are leaned upon to help folks cope with the reality of the world?
Of course they are. In fact, when one takes philosophy to its extreme (Nietzsche), there are no rules. There are no absolutes. There is complete relativism, and we are basically allowed to do whatever we want for there are no morals. Science leads us to the same place. Richard Dawkins even says so by concluding that at the very foundation of our species--there is no right, there is no wrong. We are simply dancing to the tune of our DNA.
These human constructs basically eradicate any foundation for morality, justice, or right behavior. They leave us absolute freedom to do whatever we want, whenever we want, especially if we can avoid anyone with more power or authority than ourselves.
In a very real way, they remove any sort of remorse or guilt for any particular behavior committed. They remove any sort of real responsibility a person may have.
So, let's put this in perspective:
Among the things I found fascinating was the very last cavern room. Our guide pointed to a giant pillar which had been constructed in the middle of that room.
"That is a psychological pillar," she explained. "During the 1950's, when this cavern was designated a nuclear fallout shelter, the government wanted us to build that pillar in the middle of this room. It is not necessary. It doesn't hold anything up or bear any weight. The government folks believed people would be freaked out at the size of this room if there wasn't something in the middle seeming to hold up the ceiling."
In some ways, it is rather head shaking since the roof of that particular room had been holding up just fine for tens of thousands of years. However, there is no doubt that there are indeed people who need such psychological "pillars" in their lives--think Linus from the Peanuts comic strip.
Ideally, we mature and are able to one day come to the realization that those psychological pillars are unnecessary. We come to realize they are simply an unneeded crutch which has given us a sense of safety and security even though it doesn't hold up anything.
Some people have called religious faith such a psychological pillar.
I have come to appreciate the criticism, and if religion is a human construct, then, indeed, it is a psychological pillar.
But that is a big, if...a monumental assumption.
For those of us of a religious bent do not assume that religion is a human construct. We assume that God has brought us to believe in Him. Some neurosurgeons have even come to the conclusion that the brain is hardwired for belief in God. If the brain is indeed hardwired, then why? It would seem "evolution"--in my opinion guided evolution--has brought humankind to a place where we naturally and instinctively believe there is something beyond our physical universe. Would "evolution" produce such an unnecessary "crutch"? After all, if you study religion and how it has been practiced throughout the ages, you would see that it consumes precious time and resources which should be used for survival and reproduction--the main pillars of evolutionary theory. Surely, evolution would have naturally deselected this genetic wiring if it was unnecessary--at least in theory.
But it hasn't. It's still there. It certainly does not seem to be a human construct.
Perhaps indeed we are religiously wired to believe in God because there is a God. Perhaps religious wiring is God's way of helping us to see and understand there is a natural law of justice and right behavior so that we may better know how to deal with one another and the world around us. Perhaps our brains are wired in the manner for belief because this belief gives us a mechanism to overcome the selfish nature which resides in each and every human being. Perhaps religious belief is not a crutch but the very foundation of how we must live and move and have our being.
There are those who disagree. "A psychological pillar." "A crutch." This is religious faith for them.
However, please allow me to submit a philosophical truth or two. Philosophy is a human construct. So is science. Both of these arenas tend to see religion as a "psychological pillar" or "crutch" or "human construct." Why they don't seem to apply this truth to themselves is somewhat beyond me. So, what is good for the goose is indeed good for the gander. If these two items are human constructs, then are they psychological pillars? Are they crutches which are leaned upon to help folks cope with the reality of the world?
Of course they are. In fact, when one takes philosophy to its extreme (Nietzsche), there are no rules. There are no absolutes. There is complete relativism, and we are basically allowed to do whatever we want for there are no morals. Science leads us to the same place. Richard Dawkins even says so by concluding that at the very foundation of our species--there is no right, there is no wrong. We are simply dancing to the tune of our DNA.
These human constructs basically eradicate any foundation for morality, justice, or right behavior. They leave us absolute freedom to do whatever we want, whenever we want, especially if we can avoid anyone with more power or authority than ourselves.
In a very real way, they remove any sort of remorse or guilt for any particular behavior committed. They remove any sort of real responsibility a person may have.
So, let's put this in perspective:
- A human construct
- Which removes any universal values
- Which allows almost complete freedom
- Which removes any sort of guilt
- Which removes any sort of foundation for responsibility
Thursday, October 3, 2013
Ignorance of the Past: Part 2
Sometimes I think we give ourselves too much credit in our "modern" world.
Sometimes I think we think that just because we are more scientifically advanced, we have new and better insight into the questions of reality, morality, etc.
Sometimes I think we are woefully ignorant of the past and believe people in previous eras were simpletons because they did not have the scientific knowledge we have today.
I think this is a massive mistake. Humankind has been wrestling with such questions for thousands of years.
Such a thing was refreshed in my mind as I watched a few youtube debates between believers and atheists regarding what happens after death. The big question of morality always comes up. Why be moral if there is no God? Why be moral if there is no eternal justice?
Nietzsche took this to its logical, philosophical conclusion and said, "No reason for morality. These things are just socially constructed. All is relative."
Some atheists agree. Some do not. Some want to say there are indeed universal morals. But the evidence for such things actually is quite slim. Sure, there seems to be, across cultures the idea of do unto others as you would have them do unto you, but there is also a universality in that the axiom is not followed.
Richard Dawkins himself adheres to the principle that this universal morality indeed is in culture and that evolution has helped us discover it. Yet, he still is willing to stand in front of thousands of people and tell them to publicly mock people of faith. Interestingly enough, I find, Dawkins doesn't appreciate being mocked himself. Apparently hypocrisy is not simply a phenomenon relegated to church going people.
But why even try if there is no life after death? Why even seek to do and be good if there is no judgment?
One could argue that one should do that which is good for the sake of it being good. But if one looks at the universe, at nature, at the reality of how living organisms interact, the only reason to be good is not for the sake of being good but for one's own self interest.
And that becomes the basic argument for most morality--my self interest or the self interest of the human species.
Yet, there is a problem in that. For would it not be in the self interest of the species to quarantine those who have any nasty communicable disease so that it would not spread? Would it not have been in the self interest of the species to eradicate the first man who contracted the AIDS virus so that no one else might have gotten it? We eradicate animals who have rabies so that they do not spread the disease. If man is no different than an animal, why not do the same? What makes human life so special that there is one set of rules in nature yet another set of rules in society?
Well, it's honestly because our morality isn't based in nature or in societal whim. Most of western morality is rooted and grounded in the Christian tradition, and that Christian tradition has dealt with the question of what the reality of life would be if there were no life after death.
St. Paul famously wrote in 1 Corinthians 15 verse 32: "If with merely human hopes I fought with wild animals at Ephesus, what would I have gained by it? If the dead are not raised, 'Let us eat and drink, for tomorrow we die.'"
If there is no life after death, let us eat and drink for tomorrow we die. If this life is all there is to live for, might as well enjoy it to the max. There is no rhyme. There is no reason. There is no purpose. All indeed is vanity as the writer of Ecclesiastes said. Might as well get as much as we can, live high on the hog, and enjoy whatever pleasure we can possibly enjoy. Nihilism. Plain and simple. It was around long before Nietzsche.
We would do well, I think, to give credence to those thinkers in the past. There really isn't much new that is under the sun.
Sometimes I think we think that just because we are more scientifically advanced, we have new and better insight into the questions of reality, morality, etc.
Sometimes I think we are woefully ignorant of the past and believe people in previous eras were simpletons because they did not have the scientific knowledge we have today.
I think this is a massive mistake. Humankind has been wrestling with such questions for thousands of years.
Such a thing was refreshed in my mind as I watched a few youtube debates between believers and atheists regarding what happens after death. The big question of morality always comes up. Why be moral if there is no God? Why be moral if there is no eternal justice?
Nietzsche took this to its logical, philosophical conclusion and said, "No reason for morality. These things are just socially constructed. All is relative."
Some atheists agree. Some do not. Some want to say there are indeed universal morals. But the evidence for such things actually is quite slim. Sure, there seems to be, across cultures the idea of do unto others as you would have them do unto you, but there is also a universality in that the axiom is not followed.
Richard Dawkins himself adheres to the principle that this universal morality indeed is in culture and that evolution has helped us discover it. Yet, he still is willing to stand in front of thousands of people and tell them to publicly mock people of faith. Interestingly enough, I find, Dawkins doesn't appreciate being mocked himself. Apparently hypocrisy is not simply a phenomenon relegated to church going people.
But why even try if there is no life after death? Why even seek to do and be good if there is no judgment?
One could argue that one should do that which is good for the sake of it being good. But if one looks at the universe, at nature, at the reality of how living organisms interact, the only reason to be good is not for the sake of being good but for one's own self interest.
And that becomes the basic argument for most morality--my self interest or the self interest of the human species.
Yet, there is a problem in that. For would it not be in the self interest of the species to quarantine those who have any nasty communicable disease so that it would not spread? Would it not have been in the self interest of the species to eradicate the first man who contracted the AIDS virus so that no one else might have gotten it? We eradicate animals who have rabies so that they do not spread the disease. If man is no different than an animal, why not do the same? What makes human life so special that there is one set of rules in nature yet another set of rules in society?
Well, it's honestly because our morality isn't based in nature or in societal whim. Most of western morality is rooted and grounded in the Christian tradition, and that Christian tradition has dealt with the question of what the reality of life would be if there were no life after death.
St. Paul famously wrote in 1 Corinthians 15 verse 32: "If with merely human hopes I fought with wild animals at Ephesus, what would I have gained by it? If the dead are not raised, 'Let us eat and drink, for tomorrow we die.'"
If there is no life after death, let us eat and drink for tomorrow we die. If this life is all there is to live for, might as well enjoy it to the max. There is no rhyme. There is no reason. There is no purpose. All indeed is vanity as the writer of Ecclesiastes said. Might as well get as much as we can, live high on the hog, and enjoy whatever pleasure we can possibly enjoy. Nihilism. Plain and simple. It was around long before Nietzsche.
We would do well, I think, to give credence to those thinkers in the past. There really isn't much new that is under the sun.
Saturday, July 13, 2013
Personal Experience, Proof of God, and Richard Dawkins
In the midst of writing my book, I came to the realization I would need to read Richard Dawkins' book The God Delusion. I had seen Dawkins debate Christian philosophers and scientists on Youtube, but I had yet to read his works. Necessity drove me to finally purchase the book.
I have managed the first quarter of the book so far, and there is much to discuss--too much to manage in a blog post. Dawkins' book actually received scathing reviews by many, and it is no surprise. What perhaps is surprising is Dawkins' apologetics in dealing with those reviews in the Kindle Edition. Basically, as I read him, he believes his critics are simply delusional--as is anyone who believes in God.
Whether or not I am delusional, along with the majority of the world's population remains to be seen. And I am currently writing a book to argue to the contrary; however, there is one item in Dawkins' book which I believe needs to be addressed: his rebuttal of the "Argument from Experience" for the existence of God.
Dawkins writes:
Many people believe in God because they believe they have seen a vision of him--or of an angel or a virgin in blue--with their own eyes. Or he speaks to them inside their heads. This argument from personal experience is the one that is most convincing to those who claim to have had one. But it is the least convincing to anyone else, and anyone knowledgeable about psychology. (Kindle Location 1397)
What makes Dawkins say such things?
The human brain runs first-class simulation software. Our eyes don't present to our brains a faithful photograph of what is out there, or an accurate movie of what is going on through time. Our brains construct a continuously updated model: updated by coded pulses chattering along the optic nerve, but constructed nevertheless. (Kindle location 1414)
...[The brain] is well capable of constructing 'visions' and 'visitations' of the utmost veridical power. To simulate a ghost or an angel or a Virgin Mary would be child's play to software of this sophistication. And the same works for hearing. (Kindle location 1431)
That is really all that needs to be said about personal 'experiences' of gods or other religious phenomena. If you've had such an experience, you may well find yourself believing firmly that it was real. But don't expect the rest of us to take your word for it, especially if we have the slightest familiarity with the brain and its powerful workings. (Kindle location 1471)
It may surprise you that I will not argue with Dawkins' commentary on the way the brain works. My own studies through Bowen Family Systems Theory confirms exactly this phenomena of the brain. In fact, it is well known that we all have a blind spot in each eye. Yet, if we close one eye, no such spot appears. Our brains fill it in!!!
Yes, indeed, our brains are capable of producing a model of reality, and they do it all the time.
But Dawkins has a problem here. A big problem which he doesn't seem to grasp. He uses this phenomena to argue against any sort of religious phenomena without admitting that his brain is running a model on the observations he too is relating to us about biology and evolution. He may try to argue that he is subjecting his observations to rigorous methodology, but it is still being processed by his own simulator in his own brain. And he certainly cannot argue that others have run the simulation and come up with the same results thereby confirming his own simulation because he admits: "Religious experiences are different only in that the people who claim them are numerous." (Kindle location 1403)
So, applying Dawkins' own argument to his works invalidates them, correct? I hardly think he would agree, yet, this is the logical conclusion.
There is more to be said; however. For Dawkins' only deals with the "simulation software's" ability to add things in. What he does not delve into--either by choice or by ignorance--is that the simulation software in our brain also OMITS things. Yes, you heard me correctly. The simulation software omits things--especially when there is a bias attached; and there is always a bias attached.
Please watch the following video as illustration:
If you are like me, you rewound it just to make sure there wasn't some sleight of hand.
Did you see that your brain omitted something important? Did you see how your simulation software omitted the obvious?
Perhaps Professor Dawkins knows this. Perhaps he does not. If he does and refused to include this important fact, I think he is guilty of major confirmation bias. Why?
Well, if one admits that one's brain simulation software omits things based upon a particular bias...
And Dawkins' particular bias is a singular hatred (believe me, that's not too strong a word) of all things religious...
Then it is not only quite possible, but quite likely his brain omits and overlooks religious experiences that may be happening in his own life. It is possible, even likely, Dawkins is missing something that is obvious to the rest of us: religious experience.
What Dawkins fails to recognize is the trustworthiness of the source. It is quite possible to dismiss religious experiences as false among those who are indeed mentally ill and unbalanced. It is quite another thing to dismiss them among people who live lives full of sanity, regularity, and normalcy (whatever that might be). Dawkins lumps them all together, and in doing so--along with omitting a very important detail in how our brains work--falls far short of offering a dismissal of religious experience as proof of God's existence.
I have managed the first quarter of the book so far, and there is much to discuss--too much to manage in a blog post. Dawkins' book actually received scathing reviews by many, and it is no surprise. What perhaps is surprising is Dawkins' apologetics in dealing with those reviews in the Kindle Edition. Basically, as I read him, he believes his critics are simply delusional--as is anyone who believes in God.
Whether or not I am delusional, along with the majority of the world's population remains to be seen. And I am currently writing a book to argue to the contrary; however, there is one item in Dawkins' book which I believe needs to be addressed: his rebuttal of the "Argument from Experience" for the existence of God.
Dawkins writes:
Many people believe in God because they believe they have seen a vision of him--or of an angel or a virgin in blue--with their own eyes. Or he speaks to them inside their heads. This argument from personal experience is the one that is most convincing to those who claim to have had one. But it is the least convincing to anyone else, and anyone knowledgeable about psychology. (Kindle Location 1397)
What makes Dawkins say such things?
The human brain runs first-class simulation software. Our eyes don't present to our brains a faithful photograph of what is out there, or an accurate movie of what is going on through time. Our brains construct a continuously updated model: updated by coded pulses chattering along the optic nerve, but constructed nevertheless. (Kindle location 1414)
...[The brain] is well capable of constructing 'visions' and 'visitations' of the utmost veridical power. To simulate a ghost or an angel or a Virgin Mary would be child's play to software of this sophistication. And the same works for hearing. (Kindle location 1431)
That is really all that needs to be said about personal 'experiences' of gods or other religious phenomena. If you've had such an experience, you may well find yourself believing firmly that it was real. But don't expect the rest of us to take your word for it, especially if we have the slightest familiarity with the brain and its powerful workings. (Kindle location 1471)
It may surprise you that I will not argue with Dawkins' commentary on the way the brain works. My own studies through Bowen Family Systems Theory confirms exactly this phenomena of the brain. In fact, it is well known that we all have a blind spot in each eye. Yet, if we close one eye, no such spot appears. Our brains fill it in!!!
Yes, indeed, our brains are capable of producing a model of reality, and they do it all the time.
But Dawkins has a problem here. A big problem which he doesn't seem to grasp. He uses this phenomena to argue against any sort of religious phenomena without admitting that his brain is running a model on the observations he too is relating to us about biology and evolution. He may try to argue that he is subjecting his observations to rigorous methodology, but it is still being processed by his own simulator in his own brain. And he certainly cannot argue that others have run the simulation and come up with the same results thereby confirming his own simulation because he admits: "Religious experiences are different only in that the people who claim them are numerous." (Kindle location 1403)
So, applying Dawkins' own argument to his works invalidates them, correct? I hardly think he would agree, yet, this is the logical conclusion.
There is more to be said; however. For Dawkins' only deals with the "simulation software's" ability to add things in. What he does not delve into--either by choice or by ignorance--is that the simulation software in our brain also OMITS things. Yes, you heard me correctly. The simulation software omits things--especially when there is a bias attached; and there is always a bias attached.
Please watch the following video as illustration:
Did you see that your brain omitted something important? Did you see how your simulation software omitted the obvious?
Perhaps Professor Dawkins knows this. Perhaps he does not. If he does and refused to include this important fact, I think he is guilty of major confirmation bias. Why?
Well, if one admits that one's brain simulation software omits things based upon a particular bias...
And Dawkins' particular bias is a singular hatred (believe me, that's not too strong a word) of all things religious...
Then it is not only quite possible, but quite likely his brain omits and overlooks religious experiences that may be happening in his own life. It is possible, even likely, Dawkins is missing something that is obvious to the rest of us: religious experience.
What Dawkins fails to recognize is the trustworthiness of the source. It is quite possible to dismiss religious experiences as false among those who are indeed mentally ill and unbalanced. It is quite another thing to dismiss them among people who live lives full of sanity, regularity, and normalcy (whatever that might be). Dawkins lumps them all together, and in doing so--along with omitting a very important detail in how our brains work--falls far short of offering a dismissal of religious experience as proof of God's existence.
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)