One of the primary elements of good science is to be challenged. Challenge is a welcome, necessary and learning component of all science. Change and new discoveries are expected by any good scientist. And, theoretical and practical sciences are the most self-correcting of all human intellectual disciplines. All of which helps to keep science alive and relevant.Too many non-scientists use those components, however, as a wedge or a club to make us think that science is unstable, unreliable, does not “know everything” and that science cannot reach proven conclusions because waiting around the corner is another change.
The notion or implication that science is constantly changing and therefore there is no such thing as little or no established science simply isn’t true. That is usually an assertion by people with opinions or beliefs who have a poor understanding of science.
One of the troubling more recent developments in science progress is retrograde by believers. Whenever believers or religions insert themselves into the disciplines of “the intellectual and practical activity encompassing the systematic study of the structure and behavior of the physical and natural world through observation and experiment,” good science will surely suffer. Why? Because believing is a debasement and contamination of the natural sciences. Science is depended on the research, development and organization of knowledge, not faith.
Nevertheless, Albert Einstein caved to the believers the year before his death in 1955 in Princeton, New Jersey. Einstein was never funded by atheists or nonbelievers, and, in many respects, in the society of believers that Einstein lived and taught in, he could never be entirely true to himself because he understood that he was dependent on American financing. In those days, the United States was a “Christian” country, no questions asked.
So in 1954 Einstein wrote the essay, Science and Religion, where he says “Science without religion is lame, religion without science is blind.” That statement is often quoted by believers who assert that there is an association between science and faith. In a sense, Einstein, in order to help preserve his life’s work, gave them what they wanted – a paragraph or so to make an association between faith and science to protect his legacy. 
Had Einstein lived in this generation where there is a growing population and social acceptance of agnostics, atheists and nonbelievers, he may not have had the need to be as sensitive to the power and undue influence that the Christian religions exerted on the American academic institutions and social behaviors of his time.
Beliefs are personal, multifarious and extremely individualized, even in the context of their accepted dogma. At no time should religion or believers think that they can count science among their precepts. Science “can give no solace to the faithful” and vice-versa.
Thus, it is necessary and intended that a “wall of separation” between science and beliefs must always exist between the two.
Vidda Crochetta, Brattleboro
Reprint:
Brattleboro Reformer
POSTED: 09/16/2016
Editor of the Reformer:
http://www.reformer.com/letterstotheeditor/ci_30366987/letter-science-challenges-are-welcome
Did Einstein "cave in"?
Albert Einstein accepted a position at the Princeton Institute for Advance Study in 1933. Purhaps there is some basis for the statement that Einstein “caved in to believers” in 1954 so as to secure funding: but the Give No Solace op/ed simply makes that assertion without presenting evidence.
Einstein dismissed the idea of a personal God. In discussing the relationship between science and religion, Enstein wrote:
For the scientific method can teach us nothing else beyond how facts are related to, and conditioned by, each other. The aspiration toward such objective knowledge belongs to the highest of which man is capabIe, and you will certainly not suspect me of wishing to belittle the achievements and the heroic efforts of man in this sphere. Yet it is equally clear that knowledge of what is, does not open the door directly to what should be.
Of course religionists (and for that matter, anti-religionists) may try to put their own, self-serving spin on Einstein’s opinions; but as intelligent readers we can evaluate his work on its own merits.
We can evaluate his work on its own merits
Agreed.
Also, there are examples of prominent scientists taking inspiration from their science for their religion, and from their religion for their science. I personally find it more interesting to read their thoughts on this topic, than reading authors who sound like the are screeching to me, such as Harris, and Dawkins, who claim that what these scientists are doing, is impossible.
That's true for all of our every vertebra mammalian cousins
It doesn’t matter who is using the brain: a scientist, a layman, a believer, Paul Broca, or a plain, good old healthy thinker,…They are all still using the brain.
This comment tries to insinuate that brains are connected to spiritually or some mysterious universal consciousness, or religion, or a hotbed of believers.
Hence, the alleged ability to communicate out of the body, more specifically, their brain, to receive some kind of religious or spiritual “inspiration” from near or far.
There is no reason to ‘assume’ that. The brain does no such thing. People who think like that are squarely in the Anthropocene Era.
There’s nothing wrong with the human brain doing it all, whilst enclosed inside of a human cranium, that, for all intents and purposes ain’t going anywhere.
BTW, this is true for all of our every vertebra mammalian cousins who has a cranium, brain, brain-stem, and spinal column (that should be all of them, I think.) Outside of the homo sapiens, there is a world of millions of our sentient cousins who are largely ignored in favor of the self-centered animals we can human.
The most important part of this discussion
People who don’t write op-eds may not be familiar with the writing style, and placement on emphasis, versus pure footnoted “evidence” to present their case to public readers.
Neither is my opinion piece the least concerned with “God.” This article is about the retrograde relationship between science and faith, as my dash title suggests: Give No Solace to the “Faithful.”
Whatever Einstein’s personal sense of any particular “God” was, in relation to my article, it has no place.
The most important part of this discussion is, as I said, Einstein did not have benefit of being in a society where nonbelievers safely enjoyed equal room to disengage from religion where the hotbed of beliefs lay and make their own way in the world.
I can only surmise what his mind would have dwelled on and even less so put words in his mouth as to his place in an open, accepted rational, logical-ruled species…versus one that is consumed with emotions, the fear, ignorance and superstitions. But what Einstein did have in his favor was a greater connection to rational thinking-than most people in his era of life. That is not to say that Einstein’s own spiritual beliefs should be a guiding factor for people who are constantly seeking the truth.
The dissembling the great Einstein wrote in Science and Religion almost certainly was an eleventh-hour attempt to conceal his truest thoughts about the utterly belief-consumed dangerous society around him. It was written in the last year of his life when even the strongest minds might be pressured into doubting the fact that they are merely stark examples of being an isolated, individual unit – who are born alone and die alone.
By largely keeping silent most of his famous life, he kept out of harm’s way so as to pursue what meant the most to him – the advancement of science.
“To raise new questions, new possibilities, to regard old problems from a new angle, requires creative imagination and marks real advance in science.” ~Albert Einstien
Max Planck had this to say
“As a man who has devoted his whole life to the most clearheaded science, to the study of matter, I can tell you as a result of my research about the atoms this much: There is no matter as such! All matter originates and exists only by virtue of a force which brings the particles of an atom to vibration and holds this most minute solar system of the atom together. . . . We must assume behind this force the existence of a conscious and intelligent Mind. This Mind is the matrix of all matter.”
—Das Wesen der Materie (The Nature of Matter), a 1944 speech in Florence, Italy. Source: Archiv zur Geschichte der Max‑Planck‑Gesellschaft, Abt. Va, Rep. 11 Planck, Nr. 1797
Another lost puppet of religion
From a lecture in 1937, Planck also said, “Both Religion and science require a belief in God. For believers, God is in the beginning, and for physicists He is at the end of all considerations… To the former He is the foundation, to the latter, the crown of the edifice of every generalized world view.”
Planck was essentially a lifelong religious, god-fearing Christian, unlike Einstein’s ‘cultural” Jew.
So when he says, in the quote you provided, “We must assume behind this force the existence of a conscious and intelligent Mind. This Mind is the matrix of all matter,” one can see the same anthropocentric, supercilious presumptuous mindset that too many believers possess in this ghastly Anthropocene era modern “man” is living in.
There may indeed be other minds in this universe, but the assumption, as Planck says, “We must assume behind this force the existence of a conscious mind…” only makes a presumptuous “ass” out of you (but not me). As I say, we must assume nothing.
In other words, this otherwise brilliant scientist was ill-bred to become, in the end, merely another lost puppet of religion.
The god of the gaps. Even
The god of the gaps.
Even the greatest minds can fall victim to the argument from ignorance, which is essentially what Planck did above. For all he contributed and figured out, when he came upon the boundary of his knowledge he throws his hands up and invokes “god”. Until recently, a fairly common occurrence. Unfortunately still not entirely absent, but becoming much reduced as the pace of discovery quickens with technology.
These days folks have generally learned to say “I don’t know”. Well, competent scientists anyway…
Below a video from Dr. Neil Degrasse Tyson, 30 minutes or so, very worthwhile, can be played just audio without missing much.
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=1te01rfEF0g
Oh, and just to throw a bomb
Oh, and just to throw a bomb into the room.
Religion and science are incompatible, mutually exclusive and for one to hold beliefs in both requires cognitive dissonance and compartmentalization.
There is no argument for religion, any religion, that isn’t laden with unsupported assertions, presuppositions or just outright logical fallacies and self-contradictions.
Religions are failed sciences. At every turn they lose ground to the secular and the scientific. I doubt anyone can come up with an example of where a religion offered a correct answer to a question previously answered by science. (In other words, an example where religion proved science wrong rather than the multitude of questions where it has been the reverse).
Citing great minds who made important contributions lends no credibility to the argument, as an argument from ignorance from Max Planck is no better than an argument from ignorance from the doomsday prophet on the street corner…
A fallacy is a fallacy, regardless of who says it.
Defuser
Science is unbeatable, if the game is empirical. But is life in all its forms an exercise of calculation, verification, repetition? My experience says it isn’t. A person on their deathbed does not ask after their blood pressure. There are indefinable aspects, idiosyncrasies of personality, the imagery of dreams, timescales of infant and elder, elusive muses, the intoxicating scents of the forest. This noetic side of life can be poetic as well as enumerative. Religion has been part of that side of things. All For the Worse? Watch the playground, listen to Coltrane, catch the dawn set on glassy seas…There are energies and intelligences contained in myth, in parable, in humor, and these vital forms elude the centrifuge, bell jar, electron microscope.
It seems arrogant and absolutist to say: “I doubt anyone can come up with an example of where a religion offered a correct answer to a question previously answered by science. (In other words, an example where religion proved science wrong rather than the multitude of questions where it has been the reverse).” There have been thousands of cultures that have contributed to the human experience. Many of them were highly syncretic, successful, harmonious, and guided by worldviews which had nature based observation filtered through story and analog…i.e ‘religion’. Some of those vestiges still play out in our day to day. I do not ascribe to or lean on religious views myself for equilibrium, but that’s irrelevant. Science is newer, and has its boons. Yet I can still see value which the numinous has offered towards that which constitutes human consciousness.
re: defuser
You are defining empirical too narrowly.
Consciousness is a function of an organ, much of what you reference is simply a brain state or sensory data interpreted by our consciousness.
Do you think that however many years from now as we map the brain as thoroughly as we are now working to map our DNA that we will not be able to empirically determine the physiological nature of everything you just listed?
Given sufficiently advanced technology, everything that you listed could be synthetically duplicated so as to be indistinguishable from the “real” thing.
Emotions are chemicals and our brains performing their functions. That doesn’t make them anything “less”. However, it does mean they aren’t necessarily any “more”.
Story and analog does not equate to religion. Story and analog without primitive superstitions is just history.
I don’t know what point you are trying to make about historic cultures contributing. Sure, but was it the natural or the supernatural that they were contributing with? Right, thus, empirical or at least within the realm of logic and reason.
Spinoza's Defuser
I read Spinoza’s observations with enthusiasm, particularly his thoughts about what someone on their death bed might find important.
That struck a chord with me, because I have been thinking about that all evening.
These thoughts were triggered by reading Vidda’s observation that in our latter years, “even the strongest minds might be pressured into doubting the fact that they are merely stark examples of being an isolated, individual unit – who are born alone and die alone.”
That set me off to recall my own experience 12 1/2 years ago when I was in an ICU bed, looking like roadkill that was bloated from lying the sun for 5 hours, and not expected to make it through the night.
Although I was in a coma, apparently insensate, my own mind was active and I knew full well that death was imminent. I think that I had a realistic experience of what death can feel like, because as my breathing became more and more of a struggle, I came to a moment where was sure that I could not hold on for more than another minute and a half. In my delusional world, I thought that I was a political prisoner, that my torturers had decided to kill me, and it was beyond my power to stop them.
I made a decision, that even though death was imminent and it would be easier just to give up now, I would struggle for that next breath, even if I could only hold on for an extra minute. Then, I lost awareness and faded into oblivion
More than killing me, my “captors” (I thought) wanted me to accept that I did not deserve to live, so asserting my will to live as long as possible, would be my way to defeat them. Although I would not be able to be a father to my then 13 year old son as he grew up, it would be important that his dad had kept his self-respect, and died with integrity.
This evening, as I reflected on that important event in my life, it was clear to me that, at the time, I did not at all feel like, “an isolated, individual unit [who was]… born alone and [would] die alone.” I did not feel isolated, I felt connected by fatherhood to my son and to my family. My experience was not of being frightened and alone: Perhaps the story I told myself about being in a battle, elevated the experience.
Perhaps Vidda is right that we are born alone and die alone as isolated individuals and I was fooling myself. Thinking about that, the expression comes to mind: “Where ignorance is bliss, ’tis folly to be wise.”[Thomas Gray]
The word “Religion” comes from Latin, religare, which means, “to bind.” For me, that means bringing together what daily life (or extroardinary challenges) has torn asunder.
Scoff if you like, but I feel grateful for all the people who prayed for me when I was in trouble. I am grateful for the Rabbi, the Protestant minister, and the Catholic priest, who came by to encourage my wife, and to pray for us. I am grateful to the Buddhist monk, who gave wise counsel. And I am grateful for the dedicated nurses, physicians, and other staff, not only for their skillful minstrations, but for endlessly pouring out their love.
And I am not ashamed that religious music — From Gospel, to Hebrew Cantors, to Bach, to Native American ceremonial chants, etc — gives me solace. Praying to my “imaginary” Friend helps me sort things out. My “imaginary” angels help restore my equalibrium.
I do not agree that we are are isolated individuals, born alone and destined to die alone. But even if that is true, then we each make a choice whether to accept that miserable reality, or if we would rather feel better by living in the illusion that we live in a world of love and connection with other people.
PS, Einstein loved Spinoza!
We have evolved as social
We have evolved as social animals. I see no incompatibility between your experience and empiricism.
I disagree with the idea that we are isolated individuals born alone and die alone.
That love is an emotion and thus a brain-state doesn’t make it any less potent or important. It just means it doesn’t have a supernatural component.
I would point out that you were treated by evidence-based medicine. Had you relied merely on the prayers of a clergy of whatever denomination, your odds of survival would have been precisely equal to the odds of recovering on your own.
Faith healers never seem to treat amputees…
Giving it some thought
Do not want you to think that I am ignoring your comments. I am very interested in your view on whether you can get an “ought” from an “is,” as well as your thoughts on prayer and evidence-based science. I just need some time to give these matters serious consideration and sort things out a bit.
P.S. While it is beyond doubt that I would be dead without modern, medical technology, it is also the case that my life-threatening crisis was largely triggered iatrogenically. In this case, had I gone straight to a homeopath and avoided MDs altogether, much harm might very well have been avoided.
The implications of “evidence-based” theory, complicated by every day, real-world muddles, should make for an interesting discussion later on.
You can't get an "ought" from an "is."
Physics can provide knowledge useful for building weapons of mass destructions, or for designing plows and irrigation systems to feed people. Science does not tell us whether we should produce swords, or plowshares.
Einstein enunciated that bit of conventional wisdom when he wrote:
“Yet it is equally clear that knowledge of what is, does not open the door directly to what should be.”
Right and wrong can seem obvious… but not always. For example, is it ever right to sacrifice one innocent person if it will save the lives of 1,000 innocent people? Can ethics be entirely determined by science? It does not seem so, but perhaps prisoner’s dilemma and game theory can be extrapolated to cover all moral choices?
I am interested in other people’s thoughts.
You are making the moral
You are making the moral argument.
You *can* get an ought from a was, is, could be.
Read Sam Harris, “The Moral Landscape”
Through experience (trial and error, really) we build an increasingly complex and accurate map of the morality of possible choices in a given situation.
Those choices, when considered in terms of their effect on the wellbeing of conscious beings, can be objectively determined to be a net benefit or a net detriment to that wellbeing using empirical facts.
Therefore, ethics, morality, etc. are all within the reach of science and reasoning.
So, for example for your 1/1000 ratio, we can say that 1 death is preferable to 1,000 deaths. Therefore sacrificing one person is clearly more beneficial than losing 1,000 people. However, that must be weighed against the problem that would arise wherein we would then live in a society where an individual could be randomly forced by outside forces/individuals to give up their life. That would be detrimental to overall wellbeing as we need to consider not only the number of lives in play but the quality of life of those lives.
In weighing these two competing factors we generally side in favor of personal agency and liberty and while we celebrate and laud those who choose to sacrifice themselves for the benefit of a larger number of people (or any other people, really) we have determined that X number of lives saved is secondary to the right of people to not be forced to die for others benefit.
Now change the setting to a military one where an officer orders a private to do something that may well get them killed but is necessary to ensure the survival of X number of other troops or civilians. Now in that context we do give the officer the right to make that determination. Again we find ourselves falling back to “consent” wherein we currently have a volunteer military in this country rather than a draft or mandatory service.
Reasoned, rational arguments based on empirical data can be made for all sides of this but there *ARE* right and wrong answers as they can be objectively determined to be a net benefit or net detriment to overall wellbeing.
Those possible choices with the greatest net benefit to wellbeing can be considered the moral pinnacle, and those with the greatest detriment can be called evil, if one wants to be dramatic.
A TED talk with Sam Harris on
A TED talk with Sam Harris on this. Its a short summary, longer videos are avaialble for those who wouldn’t be interested in the book.
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=Hj9oB4zpHww
In my experience
Not all people who are ‘religious’ are fundamentalists. Some religious people even say that claiming to ‘know’ something based upon religious belief is the opposite of religious belief. Some atheists are extremely fundamentalist in their assertions. By fundamentalist I mean that those who disagree with them are wrong simply because they disagree with them – them who hold the truth.
I grew up with religion as a search for how to live in the world. Religion is the search not the answer. In my adolescence religion was tied up with the civil rights movement, the anti-war movement and the beginnings of the environmental movement. Liberal religion was not about being ‘right’ or about ‘knowing’. Rather it is about my relationship to others, my responsibilities in the world and how to make decisions. Religion will be around as long as people struggle against forces greater themselves, including illness, the death of loved ones, pain and injustice.
I admire Martin Luther King’s comment about the universe ‘bending’ toward justice. His is the voice of someone who has felt the pain of injustice in the world and yet does not walk away. It is a voice of humility, not certainty. It is so easy to make fun of religion’s excesses and absurdities. I am not sure that any of us really know what Albert Einstein meant by saying that science without religion is ‘lame’. Maybe he meant that nuclear weapons in the hands of moral midgets might be a bad idea. He also said that “ships are always safe at shore, but that is not what they are made for.” The courage to venture forth in science, religion, public service, the arts – or whatever – is laudable and makes life worth living.
Andy
I personally find Harris both shrill and very unpersuasive
The problem, as better writers than I have written, is that the proposition of the feasibility of ethics without resorting to absolutes falls apart like the cliched house of cards with the successive battering of the question, “why.”
For example “Those possible choices with the greatest net benefit to wellbeing can be considered the moral pinnacle, and those with the greatest detriment can be called evil, if one wants to be dramatic.”
Why is decreasing the net suffering a worthy goal?
I certainly agree it is, but why is it so ?
Furthermore, I don’t agree that it is the only goal, especially when socities have chosen to deal out suffering to minorities to avoid large net inconvenience to the majority. Self interest makes such nice sounding words as net, which sound mathematical, fraught with injustice.
The concept of supposed “net benefit” trumping all other considerations, is what underpins human sacrifice and Christianity, and I suspect that Ursula K. Leguin was pointing her barbs at Christianity when she wrote this story, Those Who Walk Away From Omelas. http://engl210-deykute.wikispaces.umb.edu/file/view/omelas.pdf
This story is one that helped me walk away from Christianity.
Physics is what brought me back to a non-Christian God.
“Physics brought me back to a non-Christian God??”
lol!! Did it really?
Ah, so, you started with a non-Christian god, then became a Christian for an unspecified amount of time, to only work your way back, via the laws of physics, mind you, to be taken “back to a non-Christian God.”
I really have to laugh out loud for this one.
Well that's a choice
People tend to choose to laugh at opinions that they don’t agree with, or don’t understand.
Laughing out loud of course, is a form of mockery. It’s also not compassionate, especially if you are positive that you are correct about something, and the other person is completely wrong.
Finally, its not engaging. By that I mean, why would I spend energy on a conversation who is laughing. Communication about such things are hard enough with friends. With rude strangers, it is not worth the effort. Life is short.
Rather, apropos, I'd say
“People tend to choose to laugh at opinions that they don’t agree with, or don’t understand.”
What? People generally do not laugh at something they don’t understand. They certainly can laugh when they don’t agree with someone.
That’s right, as a form of mockery, but more from a pathetic sense. I have no intentions of being “compassionate” about anyone’s religions or belief systems. Neither do I find I need to be particularly engaging. And, I certainly don’t think it’s rude, rather, apropos, I’d say.
I'll address your
I’ll address your misunderstanding of secular morality when I have more time, but you *really* need to explain how physics brought you back to a god, because I suspect you have a lot of misconceptions about physics that likely need to be addressed.
Einstein weighs in...
Since this started with a quote from Einstein, here is one from 1934, drawn from a short essay, “The Religious Spirit of Science”.
“But the scientist is possessed by the sense of universal causation. The future, to him [sic], is every whit as necessary and determined as the past. There is nothing divine about morality; it is purely a human affair. His religious feeling takes the form of a rapturous amazement at the harmony of natural law, which reveals an intelligence of such superiority that, compared with it, all the systematic thinking and acting of human beings is an utterly insignificant reflection. This feeling is the guiding principle of his life and work, in so far as he succeeds in keeping himself from the shackles of selfish desire. It is beyond question closely akin to that which has possessed the religious geniuses of all ages.”
In an earlier essay from 1930, “Religion and Science” Einstein talks about religions historically starting with a basis in fear, then moving toward a focus on morality, and now moving toward what he terms ‘cosmic religious feeling’ – awe and humility when pondering the universe. I think he was working on these issues long before he was concerned with funding at Princeton.
He sure as hell wasn’t a qualified arbiter on religion and faith
Wait a second! I wrote this article. It did not start “with a quote from Einstein.”
If anything, when I did bring Einstein into it, it was not meant to be in a favorable, flattering light.
He may have been a pinnacle of science, but he sure as hell wasn’t a qualified arbiter on religion and faith.
If anything, my point was he would have been better off to stick with the former and leave the latter to people of these later generations who have a greater open society to dare speak the unmentionable back in his day – nonbelief. His society certainly did not enjoy that conversation, whereas, today, nonbelief is not only an open topic, but its acceptance is growing significantly.
Tenatively, I would say this doesn't sound like a conversation
A public conversation on this topic would be great.
But it sounds more like a public lecture.
So, I am little wary of engaging.
The ancient Greeks had an ideal, the debate amongst friends. The idea being, that people treated each other politely, and as equals and as a starting point, their goal was to understand each other, not to win an argument in any definitive way.
Another starting point, was to assume that one did not necessarily have the whole truth, and to assume that one could be making an error, and could learn at the least, from listening to a person with a different viewpoint, why that viewpoint made sense to another person. The viewpoints could be examined for logic, or lack thereof, and challenging questions asked, but not with the sole aim of lecturing others. Lecturers rarely listen, and in debates tend to be too charged with winning to be worthy conversationalists.
I find conversations with strangers and with friends, delicious and nurturing. I find debates amongst acquaintances and strangers tiring, as in, they exhaust me. And I don’t think debates actually benefit anyone, and certainly not society, and especially not american society, which is starved for actual discourse, conversations without winners.
If you want to comment
This is an open source, open ended, author generated site. If you want to comment, comment. But I dislike anyone thinking they have the higher ground in terms of what to say and how to say it.
This ain’t the ancient Greeks.
Well spoken, Rolf.
You are truly setting a standard for compassion, and respectful discussion.
Setting a standard?
Aw, gee, SK-B, I guess that places him right up there alongside of your loftier standards.
Truth be told
I have written things that I wish I could erase, in moments of anger, and indignation, and what I like to hope were moments of stupidity.
I apologize for coming on a
Rolf, I apologize for coming on a bit strong there, with so many crackpots frequenting this site I came out swinging a bit too hard considering you don’t rank among their number.
For me, coming from a martial background, its the concept of “Match for mutual benefit” wherein you spar and give it all you’ve got, but the goal is to challenge the other and be challenged yourself in order to improve rather than to just show dominance.
An important difference between my martial analogy and your greek one is that in mine, there is still a winner. Someone who is more “right”.
I’m ok with that because when it comes to questions like “Is there a god?” there are very definitely right and wrong answers. There cannot be both god and not-god. Thats not true for all topics, such as “What is an effective way to get to goal X?” where there may be multiple equally correct answers.
So, I am genuinely curious how you reached that conclusion and I disagree with you that debates with strangers don’t benefit society.
Please know that I can respect you as an equal in terms of you being another person, but that doesn’t mean that we need to regard each other’s expertise and knowledge base as equal. I may be totally wrong, but I suspect my understanding of physics exceeds yours, just as you likely exceed me in another area(s) where it would be appropriate for me to show some deference to your demonstrated expertise.
So, if you are basing such an important set of beliefs around your interpretation of physics, and that interpretation is based on on errors or misunderstanding, then wouldn’t be it valuable and important to correct those errors?
Its also possible that I’m flat wrong, which I would be eager to discover and you could be the one to show it.
I came on strong because frequently when I hear such statements as “Science led me to believe in god” what follows is usually a giant argument from ignorance and strawman where they seriously misunderstood the subject matter.
When physics specifically is mentioned its often something about the big bang and “something from nothing” which is usually based on a complete misunderstanding of the big bang theory (which is common, most people don’t understand what the big bang model actually says, its very misrepresented in the media).
So, you obviously don’t have to accept but if you are willing to be a bit uncomfortable in having your beliefs challenged and willing to challenge mine in return, I’d like to have the conversation and I will attempt to tone it down 😉
right and wrong answers
I like your post “…when it comes to questions like ‘Is there a god?’ there are very definitely right and wrong answers. There cannot be both god and not-god.” On the other hand there are questions which may have a right answer that is totally beyond the scope of human intelligence to determine.
E. F. Schumacher – of “Small Is Beautiful” fame – talks about two types of problems. Convergent problems are those where the evidence narrows down the possible answers until the solution is apparent. Examples abound in car mechanics, plumbing, agriculture, etc. Why does the engine use so much oil? Why is there water in the basement? Why are the eggplants so small this year?
Divergent problems are the kind where the more we discuss and investigate the more variations of solutions arise. Schumacher uses the example, “What is the best way to educate a child?” There will be countless proposed answers and many disagreements.
I think questions of religion are an extreme form of a divergent problem. Religion is many things to many people. Some see religion as a valuable human construct inseparable from human culture. Some obviously don’t. Some see religion as involving supernatural forces. Some do not. Religion is strictly a question of morality to some folks. Is god an unknowable mystery or a being with a personal set of relationships with human individuals?
I personally think that subject can only be handled with healthy doses of respect, humility and even humor. I do not expect the ‘truth’ to be determined any time soon.
Religion is a by definition a
Religion is a by definition a convergent question/claim.
If you remove convergent questions/claims from religion you are essentially left with a value system and at that point the label of “religion” becomes inappropriate as you are now talking about culture, value systems, way of life, philosophy, worldview, etc…
For example, take secular humanism. Is that a religion? I would argue not. Confucianism? Slightly less clear, but a similar question. How about being vegan? If you do so because you think god told you so, then I’d say yes. If you do so because you think its healthier (it isn’t) or that it is in line with your values about treatment of animals, etc. Then it is not a religion.
What makes it a religion vs. a value system *IS* the convergent questions/claims that it uses to justify itself.
Is there a god(s) and does that god(s)have X, Y and Z attributes are convergent questions.
That we have so many religions all claiming to be the right path is more an inevitable effect of making unfalsifiable and unsupportable claims rather than the question of “which” religion being a divergent one.
I’d also argue that we have a pretty good handle on what is rationally justifiable when it comes to religious beliefs. We’re just really failing on the education part… Religious beliefs have evolved to be quite stubborn to remove. Indoctrination is extremely difficult to overcome. Generally speaking people prefer what is comfortable rather than what is true. Under that context deconversion is nearly impossible.
"Don't conflate disdain with anger"
It is, indeed, an interesting development to read a toned down, apologetic even, eschmitt.
When any commenter writes that a “subject can only be handled with healthy doses of respect, humility and even humor” or, “Laughing out loud of course, is a form of mockery. It’s also not compassionate, especially if you are positive that you are correct about something, and the other person is completely wrong…., that people treated each other politely, and as equals and as a starting point, their goal was to understand each other, not to win an argument in any definitive way” — it makes me wonder why it is that ridiculous notions should not be treated with mockery or distain. Who really should set discussion parameters to establish a discussion etiquette checklist?
In another article related to conspiracy theorists, eschmitt wrote: “I am not at all pissed off. I simply entertained myself by mocking ridiculous nonsense, and those posts that contained something other than conspiracy theorist nonsense, I took the time to address them without mockery. Don’t conflate disdain with anger. I hope never to be impatient with earnest ignorance. I am however quite impatient with willful ignorance or those who I consider to be so far detached from reality that rather than attempting to bring them back it is best to attempt to contain the damage and stop them from spreading the stupid to others. Ridiculous ideas and arguments should be mocked. Not every statement is worthy of the same consideration, and while people should be granted a minimum of respect as a default until they give a reason to revoke it, ideas should not be given such latitude and must stand or fall on their merits.”
Raw materials
I read this story and it struck me as being about Modernism. Instead of the mops I envisioned a work table where iPhones were being assembled. Those who were fleeing, or moving on, were taking their chances going to ‘anywhere but here’.
Faith and Foolishness: When Religious Beliefs Become Dangerous
Full text: http://http://www.scientificamerican.com/article/faith-and-foolishness/
“I don’t know which is more dangerous, that religious beliefs force some people to choose between knowledge and myth or that pointing out how religion can purvey ignorance is taboo. To do so risks being branded as intolerant of religion.
Aside from the distinction between questioning beliefs and beheading or bombing people, the “radical atheists” in question rarely condemn individuals but rather actions and ideas that deserve to be challenged.
When I questioned how he reconciled his own reasonable views about science with the sometimes absurd and unjust activities of the Church—from false claims about condoms and AIDS in Africa to pedophilia among the clergy—I was denounced by one speaker after another for my intolerance.
Religious leaders need to be held accountable for their ideas…Keeping religion immune from criticism is both unwarranted and dangerous. Unless we are willing to expose religious irrationality whenever it arises, we will encourage irrational public policy and promote ignorance over education for our children.”
~ Lawrence M. Krauss, a physicist and science commentator, is Foundation Professor and director of the Origins Initiative at Arizona State University (www.krauss.faculty.asu.edu).
Accountability and mythology
I would rise in outrage, too, if someone told me I was not allowed to point out the hypocrisy and ignorance found in religion – or anywhere else. But I cannot go along with the idea that all religion is ignorance anymore than I can go along with all atheists are immoral or unfit for political life. Not all religions or denominations have irrational beliefs about human sexuality. Not all religions protect their leaders from prosecution for criminal behavior.
I am opposed to fundamentalism – religious or not. Fundamentalism is one group claiming literal truth and then using power and intolerance to oppress, exclude and abuse others.
Myth and symbol are powerful parts of ancient teachings. They hold insights for many people about life, justice, love and suffering. Belonging to a church does not make you intolerant. Intolerance make you intolerant.
The Christian church certainly has many crimes to answer for. It is also a refuge for many people dedicated to serving others in time of need. I think that myth is a form of knowledge – not when take literally, but when taken as an insight into reality. Many forms of folklore contain myths that overlap with religious teachings. Jean Cocteau, the French filmmaker, said “I’ve always preferred mythology to history. History is truth that becomes an illusion. Mythology is an illusion that becomes reality.”
Taking irrationality out of human culture is not going to happen. What matters is how we actually treat one another.
Is it irrational to believe in something that cannot be proven?
The question that I pose here and in other articles and comments is whether or not belief dependency is irrational, in and of itself? Is it irrational to believe in something that can never be proven and tested with rigorous scientific peer review? Within the standards of science, it would be irrational for scientists to embrace something that can never be proven.
Parts of ancient teachings that hold “insights for many people about life, justice, love and suffering” work well within the context of individual and subjective awareness. Taken as the whole where a society is affected teaching ancient thoughts, for better or worse, is questionable, at best.
I agree with your idea that “myth is a form of knowledge – not when taken literally, but when taken as an insight into reality.” In that sense, a person can internalize that form of “knowledge “to enhance their personal understanding of things. That is, as you know, not the same as believing in something that cannot be proven.
With some added thought, I’m sure you would change your thinking that all “History is truth that becomes an illusion; Mythology is an illusion that becomes reality.” That kind of potent generality cannot stand under closer examination.
You may be right that “Taking irrationality out of human culture is not going to happen.” But I personally cannot agree with the summation that “What matters is how we actually treat one another.” That is too simplistic to apply to across-the-board human behavior.
"Is it irrational to believe
“Is it irrational to believe in something that cannot be proven?”
Yes.
The Perils of Blind Science
I have heard it said that people like this author have an exceedingly difficult time after death. Because they refuse to study spiritual truths, which often involves subjective experiences, meta-rational thinking, they are lost in a void and refuse all offers of assistance.
In my own experience I have found that people with this kind of a belief system often act in grandiose and self aggrandizing ways out of a fear of death. It’s as if they believe that creating some sort of a legacy will preserve a piece of them while the rest dissolves into nothingness.
There are many ways to acquire knowledge and wisdom, the Western scientific method is only one.
I would love to know how
I would love to know how information about how people react *after* they die has filtered back to you.
I’d also love to know how you think you know that our consciousness persists in any way or form after the death/destruction of the brain.
And the answer to those questions is likely why the scientific method is the best method for investigating the world.
Generally speaking whenever anyone makes a statement like “science isn’t the only way…” they are about to or unleash a torrent of bullshit (or have already done so).
Despite science's impeccable
Despite science’s impeccable credentials it has improved our understanding of the world while at the same time improving our ability to destroy, control, punish, cheat (thanks VW), pillage, over-consume, oppress… and on and on. While this may not be SCIENCE in some kind of platonic ideal but rather science as used by greedy, ignorant and violent humans, we are still left with the problem of who we are, how do we live, what is our responsibility towards others, and what is our relationship to the earth? And while those questions may not have empirical answers they still get asked every day in actual people’s lives. And if this a “torrent of bullshit” to you, I would say that bullshit is excellent fertilizer. This is a good conversation about issues that matter.
I suppose if we could just make a neat separation of all things irrational and all things purely scientific maybe we could eliminate all the dangerous stuff and keep all the good stuff. My observation of our world over my lifetime says that we won’t be able to perform such a neat operation. Human culture is a mix of story and history, fact and myth, hope and fear, love and hate, knowledge and dreams. Music, art and theater are based in irrational belief that we can express truths and emotions with symbols, tones and imagination. Perhaps that is dangerously close to the irrational beliefs of religions… but they do overlap. To be continued, I suppose.
No civilization has ever survived long without war
We can enumerate and witness science’s ability to destroy.
Yet, all told, nothing, absolutely nothing, can beat-out death and destruction on the destroy meter that has been perpetuated on humanity by spirituality and its subsets of belief, gods and religions.
The irony isn’t lost that it is the religious people and their countries who use and abuse science for war.
No civilization in human history has ever survived long without war. We know territoriality can be a cause for war, but it is too often underpinned by religious people and other believers.
The religious bloodletting in the name of god has never stopped running…
Bullshit meter
In referring to me this way in your comment (Will Stomp on September 20), it shows that your “bullshit” meter is swinging wildly.
You also, as a supposed meta-rational thinker, merely leaves you in a “me”, self-referential life, that you have little to learn and even less to teach.
The snarky reference you make to my alleged “fear of death” shows that you are a stranger to me. If you knew me you’d know that my thinking on death goes like this:
Fear of the “way” you die is actually normal. Fear of death (being dead versus dying) is irrational. Why fear something that exists within no known context and therefore is unknown?
Despair in this world
Whatever comes in the next world: The difficulty is likely in this world for the “non-belief dependent” individual who has no doubt about “the fact” that each of us, “are merely stark examples of being an isolated, individual unit – who are born alone and die alone.”
I am nonbelief aware
By beginning your statement “Whatever comes in the next world” you make an unproven assertion that there is, if fact, “next world” after death.
I am nonbelief aware:
As when I posed the question, “Is it irrational to believe in something that cannot be proven?”
I agree with eschmitt when he answered “Yes.”
Of course, based on your bullshit detailed storyboard “memory” when you were comatose, I already know you are irrational. I’m not really being mean, it’s just I saw transparently contrived memory you wrote in an earlier comment above.
Oh...?
You are really that rigid that you do not get irony?
And I am “irrational” for recalling an experience when I was near death and delusional?
No dramatic irony in your reported storyline
So you wish to claim a literary technique? I saw no dramatic irony in your reported statement.
What you claimed was not just “near death and delusional.” I carefully read it, you claim to be in a coma. You wrote specifically: “Although I was in a coma, apparently insensate, my own mind was active and I knew full well that death was imminent”
You not only said you were in a coma but your were “insensate. You were also unconscious.” Those are salient points I called your attention to.
I know something about near death experiences, but what you wrote so explicitly from memory does not ring possible or true. In that sense, yes, I think you are irrational for posting a bogus storyline.
Among other reasons, of course… 🙂
I will take that as a compliment
Either you are numb as a hake…or just playing dumb.
The irony was my reference to the next world. As for the story about my hospital experience, it is true to the best of my recollection. This is at least the second time that I have disclosed personal experiences, which you proclaimed to be “bogus,” false accounts. You say that you are not being mean, but calling an honest person a liar is the nasty act of a sick-minded individual.
My expertise as a writer has been non-fiction. The skill of fiction writing has mostly eluded me. So although I am unworthy of your compliment, thank you anyway for crediting me with imaginative writing.
For anyone who is interested, here is a link to the story of my hospital experience: Dartmouth Vacation
A lot of people have viewed this posting
A lot of people have viewed this posting. Any number of them could have read your “hospital experience” within the context of your entire comment.
I don’t consider myself to be the only one who read your comatose experiences as literal, not some kind of “ironic literary device” that would indicate “The irony was my reference to the next world,” not now, and not in your Dartmouth vacation link.
You do a good job with your bullshit meter, and that’s not a compliment.
If the main topic with you is your irrationally, then some of our readers might have picked up on your last sentence, “Praying to my “imaginary” Friend helps me sort things out. My “imaginary” angels help restore my equalibrium.”
Any rational person doesn’t have to read further to know that you are truly, in my words, “belief-dependent.” And, that ain’t good.
Took leave of your senses?
Impossible, after reading your latest screed, to take seriously your claim of “rationality.” Is your brain really that addled, or are you intentionally confusing things?
The “next world” irony (which was clear from the context) was to Will Stomp’s statement, “I have heard it said that people like this author have an exceedingly difficult time after death.” I never implied in any way, as you now claim, that in writing about my personal experiences I had made things up, as “some kind of ‘ironic literary device.’”
I think you can do better than that, and should if you want your writing to remain relevant.
Not addled or confused
When I had originally replied to your comment of Sept 18th, titled – Submitted by SK-B on September 18, 2016 – 10:19am. # Spinoza’s Defuser, I entered that comment, also on Sept 18, shortly after eschmitt’s comment of the same date, titled – Submitted by eschmitt on September 18, 2016 – 10:49am. # We have evolved as social
My comment of the 18th is now gone.
When my comment was removed the back thread point of reference you refer to is gone. And, your comments were shifted up by two days to the 20th that would make our readers think it was Will Stomp you (or I) were referring to. It was not that way.
I agree it seemed like a personal attack, but more so it was my opinion about the “belief” you expressed. The idea of confusing things is from your end, not mine.
What?
“And, your comments were shifted up by two days to the 20th that would make our readers think it was Will Stomp you (or I) were referring to. It was not that way.”
How, do you suppose, I was able to change the date of my comment? The date and time appears automatically when you hit “save.”
Get off of my back
Hey K-Brooks, if you have something salient to add to my article – The Separation of Science and Belief – “Give No Solace to the Faithful” By Vidda | Fri, September 16 2016 – do so!
Otherwise, get off of my goddamn back.
And, if anyone deletes this comment, I’ll login and add this comment again.
Is everyone within a 300 mile radius of iBrattleboro clear about that?
Deleting comments???
How does anyone other than the moderator delete a comment?
Hyperlink
When you login each comment has a reply or flag as offensive blue hyperlink.
"And, your comments were shifted up by two days ..."
“And, your comments were shifted up by two days to the 20th that would make our readers think it was Will Stomp you (or I) were referring to. It was not that way.” [according to Vidda]
So, however unlikely, it is logically possible that an offensive comment that you wrote could have been eliminated, but is it a rational belief that the date of a comment could have been changed?
Do you honestly think that Chris or Lise would collaborate in a scheme to deceive readers?
How tiresome you are getting.
How tiresome you are getting. No I don’t think Chris or Lise collaborated on a scheme. You’re an idi*t. Perhaps you should move on?
(If this gets deleted I’ll put back in.)
Put up or shut up, Vidda!
Give us some reason to respect your bizarre claim that the date of a comment was changed after it had been posted, or lose any shred of credibility.
I'll give you a dollar if you
I’ll give you a dollar if you go away. “Put up or shut up” is just too childish. iBrattleboro is not a game of thrones.
Funny...
I got that expression [“Put of or shut up”] from you! Childish? OK, if the foo shits, Vidda, wear it.
Rather than acknowledge having made a mistake, you are sticking with your paranoid statement that someone changed the date of a comment, and your convoluted explanation of how that was a scheme to discredit you. So, the system is rigged! You sound like Trump, only without the money.
Thank you for such a salient demonstration of non-belief-dependent “rationality.”
Coffee, anyone?
No, no one changed the date, you just entered your subseqent comment under a comment later in thread knowing that the comment you refer had been deleted.
I coined suopu? Ha,ha…
Don’t you have anything better to do?
Yawn. Coffee, anyone?
A failed mystery writer
Vidda’s paranoid ideations as a pathetic “cloak & dagger” scenario. All of a sudden Vidda say: “no one changed the date”… now it is Vidda’s story that has changed 🙂
That’s it for me. Keep the dollar.
Discerning Readers on iBrattleboro
“That’s it for me”
You promise?
I think the readers are discerning people. Whatever they think of me and my writing I’m not convinced you are an arbiter for many of them for what or how well I write. Without benefit of hearing from them it leaves a bad taste in my mouth to be the object of your obsession.
Like the innate divisive nature of human opinions, the issue of the separation of science and belief will continue.
Personally, I can never take anyone seriously who believes in angels. I never will.
Flagging as offensive
I just flagged your comment as offensive (as an experiment). Nothing changed except “flag as offensive” changed to “flag as non-offensive” which I will now do.
Vidda, this skb person is
Vidda, this skb person is apparrently obessed you. It’s kind cute teenish to follw this thread. But I hope it doesn’t interfere with people reading your article and the other comments.
The truth is your articles on here are really worth reading. Ive know you seince the 2012 campaign but I havent read all of the ones on here hope read more thanks
I'm glad you like them.
I’m glad you like them. Thanks!