Interesting article in the Telegraph today it talks about a plan that the Anglican church has to instruct its clergy to "take on" the gnu atheists, saying "Britain is under threat from Atheists" and that the church is being "pushed" from the town square by Dawkins and Hitchens.
Well I don't know how true this report is but if so then wow, don't they realise this is exactly what us gnu atheists want? In our minds religion thrives in dark shady corners, the more obfuscated the better so by all means bring it out into the light lets all have a good look at it, chew it over, debate the evidence for it, the truth of it and it's relevance in our time; at the end of the day that's all we're trying to do anyway. I bet most rationalists and secularists reading this are now thrilled that the theological "big guns" are to be wheeled out to blast us with their irrefutable logic and powers of persuasion, (hint) some fresh new arguments or a scintilla of evidence for anything would be good.
A couple of random thoughts sprang into my mind when I read this article,
- Why are these Atheists "new", haven't these guys ever read Epicurus, Shaw, Russell or Paine?
- In what way are Atheists a threat to Britain, don't they really mean a threat to their own organisation?
- How come a retired scientist and an polemicist dying of cancer are able to rattle the entire edifice of the church, is that really all it takes, a couple of books and a WEB site?
- If someone is disciplined for breaking a work practice then they are not being disciplined for practising their faith, come on guys, it's not complicated!
- If you prevent someone being (irrationally) intolerant towards a section of your community then is that intolerance? If it is then we're all screwed.
- I can't think of a society where secularism or indeed atheism is a "social problem" unless perhaps you have a vested ($$) interest in religion, now, how about where religion is a social problem, hum that didn't take long.. (pot-kettle-black?)
69 comments:
It's more than a bit arrogant to say it's anything special for any church to consider the 'atheist challenge' - especially considering their institutionalised role in establishing orthodox standards.
Which suggests you reject the historical evidence of the development of state polity as a relevant component of religious debate.
So I'd be very interested if you could avoid skirting around the issue of formalism and address it in a direct manner.
I'd like to press you on the way you pay lip-service to reliance on evidence and scientific method, yet habitually step beyond the framework this provides to reach axiomatic and politically-charged conclusions.
Your tendency to define your opponents terms for them, or generalise from extreme cases are the most worrying aspects. Perhaps you could start with these.
OP, Generally I find my opponents define themselves, day in, day out, just as they have in this document, it's hard to avoid, and there is no need to invent it, in fact it's mostly stranger than fiction.
I'm simply pointing out what I think are the fallacies in this article, something religious leaning minds such as yours seem to reject as an "extremist" position, I find that reactionary, ridiculous and slightly sinister, maybe that's just me.
Maybe you could point out what you think are the fallacies in what I have actually said rather than attacking a monolithic caricature you seem to have of Atheists like me, so don't sit on the fence,
- Is Atheism a threat to Britain?
- Is the church weakened by Dawkins at al?
- Is Secularism a social problem?
- Why does the church need to confront Atheists?
- What arguments should they use?
I'd be interested in your views on what this post is actually about.
"Generally I find my opponents define themselves"
"religious leaning minds such as yours"
these two statements represent a complete contradiction in terms and provide a perfect demonstration of my critique - caricature, my elbow!
Perhaps you can provide more than an assertion for the latter one.
I hope you'll get around to answering my question, and in the meantime here are my answers.
1) it depends.
2) unlikely.
3) secularism is a description of a type of social relationship. if it is problematic then that highlights imbalances within the relationship.
4) the spiritual role of the official church is to confront theological heterodoxy. individuals are free to choose whether to ascribe to the authorised version or challenge it.
5) whichever the correct arguments prove to be will pave the way for their advocates to assume leadership of the offical body (whether that means reform or replacement).
I find it your presumption astounding.
Frankly you seem to be missing the whole historical development of the modern political economy and the structures of state.
You are also clearly confused between the meanings of 'fallacy' and 'bias' (which really is quite amusing, if a bit of a headscratcher).
Not contradictory OP, merely looking at the evidence; you already told me ages ago that you have Catholic sympathies (or "leanings") because of your family and your whole demeanour (with some exceptions) is one of taking the side of "faith" seemingly indifferent to the consequences of it. I don't in any way mean this to be a derogatory label, I am a realist I realise there are many smarter people in this world than me who hold these beliefs, I just believe a naturalistic reason is more likely than a supernatural one and am more interested in truth than tradition.
I think you are attacking a caricature because you aren't providing examples of what you assert. For example, where I make claims or express opinions there is always evidence supporting it, sure, you may disagree with the interpretation or accuse me of not having a complete picture but not imply that I'm making stuff up.
This whole "nothing is knowable" philosophical position is simply not a defence; it contradicts itself, interesting in a "brain fart" kind of way but not particularly useful in our material world IMO.
Thanks for your answers BTW, I genuinely find them interesting; in some ways they help me understand where you're coming from; I’m fascinated that you think Atheism might be a threat to Britain, I don’t even see it as a cohesive movement, it’s certainly a threat to religions, as I believe this document proves, if the leaders of the Church didn’t think it was this document wouldn’t exist and they’d still be arguing about gay Bishops.
You mention that I confuse fallacy with bias, you are probably right at some level, we all have bias don’t we and at the lowest level our Biology ensures survival bias. However I don't believe what I'm saying here is simply bias. In point of fact, I'm simply asking rational questions derived from this Church document, these questions may imply a point of view but there are no conclusions or axioms, the words in the document are clear enough.
"Atheism/Secularism is a threat to the Britain" is a politically-charged conclusion is it not? Where is the Churches evidence for it? Has Britain ever been fully secular before? are there any other countries in the world where secularism is a social problem?
By obfuscating statements like this and trying to conflate them with history and tradition (as if that's relevant!) you are (in my mind at least) simply confirming your own bias, i.e. that the Church should not be questioned or criticised, you seem to prefer censorship, you seem to want to cling onto the mystery, “there are more things in heaven and earth etc.” I agree but I don’t jump straight to the conclusion that therefore religion has any more insight into them or right to dictate unfalsifiable dogma to the rest of us, regardless that it did in the past.
No, Steve, I didn't.
I said I thought I was able to offer a more balanced view of religion because I had confronted the actuality, rather than the percieved reality commonly mistaken for it.
So I am not indifferent to the 'consequences of faith', as you claim, rather I think this statement suggests the complete reverse, namely that you are indifferent to the 'consequences of faithlessness', to use your language and method of reasoning.
Perhaps you have a more forgiving wife than many, let's just hope you don't model yourself on Don Draper.
In the Kantian world a consequentialist view of morality is completely unacceptable - where would we be without any rules? Even philosophic anarchy is framed by a ruleset!
I also find it hilarious that you devolve your arguments to assumed axiomatic labels (eg natural-supernatural, truth-tradition) yet consider this consistent with an anti-dogma position. Is there absolutely no space for these labels to touch or intersect?
Onto atheism.
You're comments consider atheism simultaneously a belief system and a social movement - and one which is completely benign. Yet, to your mind it is also not cohesive. In which case it is neither systematic, a movement, nor without the potential for serious negative impact on society (think: 'social-cohesion').
On this point I recommend you read Cardinal Newman's sensitive and powerful contribution on the challenge of secularism where he concludes by taking a position against what he called 'liberal relativism' (so you clearly have much in common with the pro-religionists). It's over a century old, but is still the dominant text of the post-imperial era.
I fully agree with your intervention in this area as I see it continuing as the dominant question for the next decade (I addressed this here, though it's a bit slapdash in parts: http://notyetoutofthewoods.blogspot.com/2010/09/doing-god-debate.html - you may be interested that I chart what I hope you'll see as an equally anti-theist and anti-atheist position).
If I may say it's quite tragic that someone such as yourself who expends such a large amount of time and effort in such a narrow field manages to skim so superficial across the surface of it. The intellectual rewards are there to be had if you approach the heart of the matter.
So, before you mention Dawkins again, please consider Newman's contributions - his insights remain truly penetrating, whether you fully agree or not.
I also have to take strong exception with your conflation of history with tradition.
This is highly relevant since the traditions taught as history are necessarily subjective and are never the full picture.
Despite the British model of retaining an official state church, it is in practise one of arguable the most secular nations in the world (alongside the USA, which happens to be one with the highest religiosity).
Is secularism a problem? Everywhere where it carries assumptions of bias towards or against any particular viewpoint (with the one, single exception of ant-secularism) it is, yes. Given your assumption of a secular bias towards atheism, it is therefore a problem with you.
And, yes, I agree I am completely biased - in favour of balance, specifically not against any valid position. Which makes me a supporter of secularism, and an opponent of both state-sponsored religion and what is called 'secular' atheism (really state-sponsored irreligion).
The suggestion that I support censorship is patently ridiculous coming from a fellow self-publishing blogger, and I simply don't understand your desire to create artificial divisions simply to suit your jaundiced political prejudices.
If you wish not to obfuscate, then why is it that you continue to pretend your sweeping generalisations against all religion are not exactly that.
I'd be happy to ignore you if I didn't think you could do much better than that and live up to your own standards, so I hope you will look at what you write in response to see whether it actually is a true reflection of your thoughts.
Ok, so you say you're not an apologist, your words suggest you have those leanings to me but fine, I'm merely trying to understand your position, I apologise if I misrepresented you.
You seem indifferent to the consequences in the sense that you never (or hardly ever) acknowledge them and invariably offer up a counter positive as if we are engaged in some kind of cosmic "score carding", again suggesting belief in a supernatural oversight. Example of religiously (or supernaturally) inspired harm, suffering or lunacy I offer here you would dismiss as "extreme", that's simply not true, is it?
Not sure I “get” the Don Draper remark, I really hate that show, anyway my Wife is very forgiving up to a point of course and luckily I don't test the boundaries too often for her to stick around ;)
I find it astounding that you automatically assume Atheism means advocating no morality or no social cohesion, such an old, tired and well debunked argument; you assume morality must come from a "rule-maker" why this is necessarily the case.
The point is that there is no evidence that these labels intersect, please give some evidence otherwise your hilarity is simply reflected. Is religious faith not a belief in the supernatural by definition? Or, are you alluding to these invisible forces again, all the things we don't know and can't see? I take the view that things that can be asserted with no evidence can be dismissed with none just as easily, you clearly disagree but even if these unknown intersections exist so what, they clearly have no impact on our reality.
re. Atheism, v. interesting, I agree on some points but think you missed the mark on others. I don't think it's a social movement, I think there may well be a pro-science/rationality movement going on which tends to intersect largely with Atheism by definition since Gods are not falsifiable, but not necessarily. Religious commentators like to blur the distinction as it suits their particular argument or they simply don't understand what science actually is, often trying to equate atheism with religion, which is obviously ridiculous.
I find it quite upsetting that you would choose to use a word like "tragic", you don't know what my goals are for this material, have you not considered that it might purely be for my own education? And yet you are arrogant enough to dismiss it. However that said I find it interesting that you seem unable to provide anything to unequivocally refute anything of substance we argue about? Appeals to tradition, authority and mystery seem to be what it mostly boils down to. You allude to this body of mysterious enlightenment that's supposed to exist somewhere, "the heart of the matter", but remain singularly unable to provide any reference or material from it that is at all consequential or hasn't been long refuted, a case of the emperor’s new clothes perhaps, or maybe you actually believe it exists?
Interesting that you mention Newman, I visited his school a couple of months ago, my son was playing rugby there, interesting place, beautiful setting. Coincidentally I read some of his letters while I was there, my superficial impression was that he was certainly an intellectual, shame he was hampered by the dogmas of his chosen faith and the times he lived in considering his personal circumstances. Shame he didn't live in more enlightened times.
I didn't realise there was a second part to your post OP, apologies if this seems disjointed.
I'm not trying to conflate history and tradition, I'm saying they are not relevant to the truth/validity claims of religion and therefore any need to mandate them.
You are saying that absence of belief is a belief "state sponsored irreligion", that is ridiculous, by that logic we have an "anti-fairyist" government?
A secular government protects religious freedoms BY being completely irreligious and by removing religious bias from state mandated activities, like education and law making.
re. censorship, "self censorship" perhaps, balance is fine, so is pointing out the bleeding obvious without fearing the Emperors sensibilities.
You may want to "read" sweeping generalisations because that's easy to dismiss, but sorry OP, that's not what I write is it (unless it's tongue in cheek). I (generally) highlight religiously inspired infringements into human well-being and explore the reasons for them and what I feel about that, that's not generalisation it's the opposite. The only real generalisation I make is when I criticise "faith", which is a critical component of all supernaturally inspired thought and activity although clearly has different manifestations.
OK, may I ask why you only consider our own national traditions of religion?
The classical and pre-classical period offers a range of religious models which fully comply with modern belief designations.
As a gross simplification of western systems, we might say state church is the Roman tradition, atheism the Jewish tradition and celebrity the Greek tradition.
As you are a follower of the academic demi-god Dawkins, I'd expect your saturdays to be the day you dedicate to your Greek religious culture. Sport in the morning, then theatre (TV or cinema) in the evening.
One might also say your atheism construes itself by confining yourself indoors after sundown on fridays to spend time with your family and study scripture (eat pizza and blog).
Clearly you're not a devout adherent to any one tradition!
That's a bit flippant, but not wholly inaccurate.
Secularism is the modern answer to balance all religious practices favouring none above the other - it is decidedly not irreligious.
Secularism acknowledges the roots, but does not insist upon cultivating the same fruit. You can choose to play footie on a wednesday if you wish!
We might have our olympics, but playing games is playing games first and foremost - the gods of olympus are only there in spirit, not in practise.
I really suggest reading Newman.
When he wrote contemporaneously with Marx debate was fractious and was gradually developing into a polarised party structure leaving the masses less connected with service providers (the state was assuming this role from the church at the time).
Newman presents an interesting contrast with hegelian dialectics which does not need to end in massive confrontation to allow progress.
It's the same thing here in our two-sided discussion - as we each take the floor to assume the more acceptable moderate position we end up sounding like we're denouncing the other in more and more extreme terms.
History shows how religious institutions are a construct of political expediency and then developed into the departments of state we now have. To deny that history is to ignore the implications for our future. And commit wholesale vanadlism on our institutions risks doing much damage to not only our own society, but also those of our international partners.
Religion has it's uses, so don't fear it or deny it, and definitely don't underestimate it.
I guess to the religious hammer, everything looks like a nail;
Anything that wishes to suppress our rational faculties, Popes, Kings or Psychopaths should be feared, and that's a good lesson from history.
I'm not arrogant or patronising enough to take the line that religion is to be preferentially accommodated because its "useful" or "good" for the masses, but behind closed doors dismiss it as something for the intellectuals to sneer at; or that by calling something "political" or "traditional" somehow that makes it worthwhile, I'm interested in if it's true or not, so far nothing but static.
'enough'???
If you want truth you must define and calibrate your parameters for it, and then what you'll get will provide a measure for your methodology and instruments.
In other words you're looking for narrow answers to ontological questions.
But no method can do more than approach holistic truth, so it forces us to reexamine our hypthesis.
The paradox is that truth is not subject to preference, so however you define it there will always remain other aspects of existence which are not explained by this approach.
Whether or not a person percieves this gap as a real thing, the ability to conceive of it creates additional context for intellectual growth, spiritual growth etc. and the point at which we start fighting the limits of potential knowledge is also the point at which we stop ourselves from reaching that greater potential.
To argue about 'truth' in science and religion is perverse on many levels - nobody has a monopoly on truth, and nobody should be so blithe to assume theirs provides complete answers.
I mean, as a project it is doomed from the outset to attemmpt to give an accurate overview of the outside when it's impossible to escape the inside!
Here's an example - do you remember the first time you saw a picture of the earth from space?
Maybe you don't remember the occasion, but the image is indelibly imprinted on your brain for certain.
Some anthropologist recorded the reactions of an isolated tribe when he showed this to them for the first time - they understood immediately what it was, but they couldn't quite explain how they knew!
OP, this seems like the crux of it; your argument boils down to "science claims to know everything, we can't know everything therefore (insert the supernatural entity of your choice) might exist" - a specious argument IMO.
No one is saying that science can know everything, I certainly never have, and probably never will; however that doesn't automatically mean that religion or whatever the woo woo of the day is can fill the gaps in axiomatic fashion (which you clearly disapprove of, this is a contradiction is it not?).
I'd hate to live in a world where nothing unknown is deemed worth bothering about, throwing our hands up and proclaiming ah well we can't know x or y therefore we just spend our short lives arguing over book reviews, bus stops and negotiating about which solipsistic delusions are least disastrous for our children; depressing and pointless would be how I would view such a life.
The superstitious life is a contradictory life, a self obsessed life. If we can't know anything then we can't know for sure that we can't know anything, face it, some philosophical threads are just worthless. Until we have a fully formed theory of mind the question is pointless, the correct answer is we don't know.
As for being a doomed endeavour, maybe, most endeavours are, but since you claim that we can never know anything how can you tell? ;)
No, that's not my argument.
You are right that I think axiomatic arguments are helpful in dramatising dry intellectual debates, but are completely irrelevant to real life. So I wonder why you insist confusion over this distinction represents a contradiction.
Axioms, such as scientific proof and religious knowledge, are equally necessary dual tools for helping us learn how to transcend our conception of fixed earthly realities in order to improve the world around us - like a knife and a fork for eating.
So to discount the use of either is both dangerous and self-defeating.
The simplest example is that of the A-bomb (though for balance the holocaust provides a balancing counterpoint).
Science was tasked with developing a weapon to save humanity from the terror of tyrrany, but created something so awfully powerful that it itself tyrranises the world to this day.
Sciencists acceded to the dictates of their paymaster, and in many cases were complicit in it. In so-doing they became the devil they slayed.
The moral code of religious faith offered an analysis both to encourage and to prevent the headlong rush to destruction, each with the intention of establishing order.
It simply is not borne out by the facts that all religion or all science is either good or evil.
The truth is somewhere inbetween - that both sciencists and the faithful face political choices in their daily experience and this makes them subject to influence and flawed - and all the more interesting for it!
The undeniable truth is that we are all human, and we are therefore all political: to live is to choose.
Like I've said a number of times, any productive debate must have minimum three distinct positions, so our two-way is conspiring against us.
Similarly, the model for teaching morality has several different stages.
You seem to be promoting the 'good is good is good, and bad is bad is bad' model, rather than the intermediate alternative that 'good can become bad and bad can become good', and you're obvs doing it for more than effect.
Meanwhile I'm trying to explain that there is a higher possibility that both are equally true and it is up to the individual to judge which is more applicable in any instance.
If you enjoy medeival literature this is what is at the heart of Dante's 'Divine Comedy'.
It's a headfuck, but it's an eternal joke which seems to make more people cry than laugh!
Let's put it another way - would you prefer Stephen Hawking, David Cameron or Rowan Williams to propose budget provision and service reforms?
Humans are first and foremost political animals, so it must be logical that the political method provides the best route to finding the biggest truths of all - not least because it offers the only way to reconcile otherwise irreconcilible opposites.
Whoa! I can’t go for that, now you’re simplifying too far, saying that a) science has theories and b) religion has theories therefore a=b is plainly false, like saying the theory of transubstantiation is equal to the theory of evolution, both are transformative after all, no, you need to look a little deeper than syntax and poetry to make scientific claims about the universe.
Science works. It works because it has explanatory and predictive power. Of course religious apologists would dearly love to muddy the water around that because it enhances their arguments to be associated with science (Christian Scientists, Scientologists, and Vatican Astronomers etc.) but you really shouldn't fall for that old bait and switch trick.
Another analogy, the Hubble telescope see's star constellations, my gypsy grandmother sees star constellations, therefore astronomy and astrology are equally true, this is just plain old gullibility born from ignorance or wish thinking, astrology explains nothing and predicts nothing, even though that’s its prime purpose, it doesn’t work! Cosmologists predicted that gravity bends light; years later we observe it with Hubble, it works.
You make religion sound so innocuous, just a bunch of poor goat herds trying to make sense of the world, this is a false picture, then you go on to say that religion is essentially politics, invented to control people, I’m much more in tune with that view so which is it?
Saying that science is bad is like saying that Ayres rock is bad, it’s meaningless, science is a process by which things can be known, not a life style choice. You might argue that some scientists are bad people and you’d get no argument from me there. The A Bomb was commissioned, funded and dropped by the Christian president of a Christian nation; politically it was a huge success, it worked, ergo science works. The Portuguese Jesuits, among others, tried to convert the Japanese to Christianity for centuries and failed, so I’m not sure where that leaves your point.
Re. you’re online mini-poll, David Cameron, why, experience and resources of course. Who would you like to remove your appendix, Rowan Williams or Josef Mengele? (Tasteless I know but he’s the only infamous surgeon I could think of) so why should I listen to the Pope lecturing me about the physical properties of crackers?
Steve, you started out by talking about secularism.
From what you've said you're clearly not a supporter of secularism, you're anti-clerical.
Arguing that science has a unique and exclusive perspective on the truth of reality and existence is simply to invert your own arguments.
If you wish to apply double standards in logic you won't get very far, even where you twist facts to suit your end.
Your repeat the piece of atheist propaganda that "The A Bomb was commissioned, funded and dropped by the Christian president of a Christian nation", yet he was also the strongest defender of secular values in the most secular state on the planet.
So you're happy to defend secularism where it appears to promote irreligion, but you're happy to attack it where it appears to be even-handed.
I wonder why you find it so difficult that many people (such as that President) are capable of reconciling their faith in science with their personal religious knowledges.
This, it seems to me, exposes your flat conception of notions of equality. What about Rawls' difference principle and the implications this has for our understanding of society and social values?
It is simply inaccurate to generalise that 'science works' to conclude that religion doesn't. It doesn't cohere with the method you ascribe with.
Science and religion have different purposes, different means, different methods and commonly different manners.
Where they overlap in areas of new investigation it causes controversy as the vested interests on each side get defensive and territorial, yet only a deeper understanding of what and how each offers valid complementary contributions in combination will provide the answers we all seek.
You trumpet evolution as evidence of science's repudiation of religion - maybe you should read a biography of the man who wrote it and his beliefs... the answers are a bit more complex and interesting than you might initially consider.
The analogy between astronomy and astrology is a useful example, similarly alchemy and chemistry. Of course they do not equate according to contemporary standards, as one would not expect any historical forebear to - did your grandfather have access to the internet? So by that logic he was useless despite raising your parent without whom you wouldn't be here!
Scientists who hope to supass yesterdays' science do not forget it... Newton had a saying about that.
Well, you certainly mashed up everything I said to promote your own view point, let me point out a few errors.
Interesting definition of "secular", i.e. that you can't be against any of the things you tolerate, that's rubbish, and not what I said.
I didn't say that science's perspective was unique or exclusive, I said it works.
Was the WW2 US President not Christian then? You seem to be confusing propaganda with fact, you wanted to use the atomic bomb as anti-science propaganda (used in its correct sense) I’m merely pointing out that you can’t do that without cherry picking, if you blame science for it you have to blame Christianity for it too (among other things)
I'm not attacking secularism, that's something you just invented based on a false premise i.e. that secularism means that you cannot stand against something you tolerate.
I didn't conclude that religion doesn't work, it clearly does for some people; it simply isn’t very good at describing reality like science is.
So now you know the “purpose” of science and religion now, an arrogant claim which I haven't seen any evidence for so far. My view is that Science has replaced religion as a way of describing the universe and our place in it, since religious claims in this area are now mostly debunked; religion has (with the exception of a few) retreated to a territory concerned with the guardianship of our morality and all things that are not knowable, that's nice for religion but equally fallacious IMO, you only have to look at Catholic dogma to see the problems there.
I have read Darwin’s own works and biographies of him extensively thanks, the fact that he was a Christian (until his later years) is utterly immaterial to your point since everyone in his day was; blasphemy was still a crime then. Perhaps you should read him then you might understand why science is a better way to understand reality than “faith”. The teleological argument was the last serious philosophical argument for a purposeful, interfering God; Darwin proved this to be false, that’s why evolution is so significant in this argument and why so many religions have such a problem with it.
You don't seem to "get" science OP, unlike religion the scientific method discards what it finds to be wrong according to evidence, it doesn't cling onto it because of vested interest or sentimentality, nor does it shy from labelling it "wrong". Unlike religion there is no need for science to redefine concepts like reality or truth in order to accommodate blatant nonsense, incremental learning is built into the method.
You insinuate that I would say our ancestors were “useless” because they didn’t have access to modern scientific knowledge, how stupid. What I can say with certainty is that they made decisions and assumptions based upon “faith” or wish-thinking that were wrong. Like smoking cigarettes doesn’t harm you for example, that particular myth killed my Grandfather.
I don't agree.
Firstly it isn't just my definition of 'secular' that it means official impartiality.
Secondly, it's not consistent to take an active stand against something you can tolerably stand.
Thirdly, it's interesting to counterpoint your defence of Darwin, with your attack on Roosevelt. If one's religious faith can be fairly discounted as a cultural norm, then the other also should.
Forthly, to call arrogant the claim that religion and science have different purposes is to know what their specific purposes are is spurious.
Fifthly, the claims that 1) "Science has replaced religion" is contradicted by the facts of their mutual continuance, and 2) "as a way of describing the universe and our place in it" confuses the single generic requirement for description with the particular subjective applications of description.
Sixthly, to suggest science doesn't have it's own vested interests or cling to them and that scientists are incapable of sentiment is sadly disproved by your own example, and examples.
The fact remains that science and religion develop side-by-side.
The truth is that where and when they both share the same philosophic underpinning they support each other and where they don't it raises questions about either side.
One of my favorite contemporary scientists, Jocelyn Bell-Burnell (who discovered pulsars), is worth listening to on the point.
She argued that the greatest risk to science is in the belief that science offers the answer to everything. She said "when you think you've discovered what you're looking for, you stop searching."
So really, science vs religion is a false debate.
It could be better characterised as a conflict between ideals and institutions, or purist principles and pragmatic applications.
And if the intellectual debate is allowed to polarise into opposite camps then society suffers.
Or do the ends justify the means?
I think it's worth bringing the National Secular Society's understanding of secularism to this table.
http://www.secularism.org.uk/whatissecularism.html
"Secularism is a belief in equality in politics, education and law, regardless of religious belief"
Jefferson's rejection of state compulsion is the key factor.
Secularism is therefore the modern meaning of freedom of conscience.
Your conflation of secularism with atheism accords with notable pro-religionists, such as Tony Blair, who have attempted to reverse separation of church and state by using faith as a pillar of the policy process - albeit that you are coming at it with different assumptions.
Your absolute rejection of religion infers you don't support freedom of conscience, and consequently that you do support a thought police.
In other words you wish to impose non-belief as the state religion - 1984 as utopia, not distopia!
Not only is that incoherent and illogical reasoning, but it would overturn the Bill of Rights and the Acts of Settlement which brought peace to this country without which it would recreate the constitutional position which exists in the coutries around the world which are prosecuting anti-secular crusades.
It is also noticable that you don't recognise individuals in your description, nor the wide diversity of individual thought. For you it is clear that there is only one thing or the other.
Your attacks on me as an 'apologist' are completely misfounded, and I feel entirely justified in strongly criticising your debating position.
If you wish to propound an idea, then at least you should make a fair attempt to find out what it is.
So this is your opportunity to show you aren't arguing your case out of an emotional attachment to your belief in non-belief.
I'm happy to continue this if you wish to challenge the content of anything I've written, but I'd appreciate it if you'd care to address the challenges I've put to you too - there is scope here to make progress, so please don't waste it.
Hi OP, I'd be delighted to continue this thread, I still think you're building straw men of what I'm actually saying; apologies for the choppy responses, v. busy with other mind bending stuff currently, will respond more fully later.
I think it would very much help if you didn't reach for inappropriate and inapplicable terms.
Your use of 'secularism' is similar to your use of 'straw man' here in that they are prime examples where you demonstrate you don't know what you're talking about.
Unless you can clarify your position with reference to the points I've made then this conversation is already over.
OP, I admit it compared to the Emperor I am obviously a heathen. I prefer simple cotton clothes and clearly don't have the proper respect and understanding of imaginary fabrics.
I had some more time; and have been thinking about your questions,
1.I don't agree that taking a pro-reason position and being a supporter of secularism are in any way contradictory; you do love trying to put people in boxes. I can support secularism and be anti-anything except secularism and be entirely consistent; I know plenty of secular theists for example, they certainly aren't "impartial" to religion, so taking the position of the state rather than the individual as you seem to have done misrepresents the point in a strawman’ish way IMO.
2.It’s perfectly reasonable to take an active stand against things you tolerate; you are simply ignoring the time dimension in your assertion.
3.Re. Darwin, I agree, but my point is that science is not a cultural norm as you would try to suggest it is by using the old anti-science canard of blaming science for the atomic bomb, it’s a method for discovering how things work, your statement is akin to blaming Newton for ballistic missiles, it’s meaningless, perhaps this demonstrates your ignorance of what science actually is.
4.Well it sounded arrogant in my head, claiming to know the purpose of religion seems to me to contradict the point you make about it not being possible to know everything, either you know what it is or you don’t if you don’t then you can’t make the assertion that the purpose of science is different, a logical fallacy.
5.Why split my sentence? This is a complete straw man (and thanks I do know what that means); obviously science and religion coexist, to quote Homer Simpson, DUH! But splitting up the sentence to make that point is spurious (did they teach you that at politics school ;)
6.Sure, scientists and the people that pay for it have vested interests but science does not. You really should be more careful when you conflate scientists (i.e. people that do science) and science itself.
I don’t know any scientists that believe that, so, although it’s a valid point it’s not something that I see as a problem because it’s not a widely held view, I certainly don’t think that. Religion on the other hand does claim to know everything, the answer is “God did it”; nice and simple which is I suppose it’s attraction, it doesn’t satisfy me though.
Science v religion is not a false debate if you constrain your discourse to thinking about describing the universe and our place in it; if you were to say that science and religion conflict on subjects like morality then you are on firmer ground, although I think science has something to offer there too
Just re-reading what I said there, you may think I'm suggesting that religion has something to say on morality, I don't think it does. Someone devoted to reflection and a study of human well-being does have valid things to say on morality and often these things go hand in hand with religion.
You are a disciple (to use your definition of that word) of Newman, he certainly was a scholar of humanity and had many sensible things to say on that, but as a result of contemplation and a lifetime of study, nothing to do with the Catholic religion directly.
Steve, you seem to be struggling under a lack of clarity.
For what it's worth I am a supporter of agnostic secular critical reasoning.
I am arguing you are making an unsound defence of scientific method and reason in the face of religious challenges and in so-doing are undermining the side of the argument you are attempting to promote.
I am not arguing the relative merits of either science or religion. In fact I am remaining decidedly agnostic and secular on the point.
Now let me answer your responses.
1) irrelevant
2) inconsistent
3) double-standard
4) still spurious
5) you don't address the point (if you knew what a straw man is you wouldn't use it here, and if you knew what spurious meant you wouldn't use it here)
6) this is the crucial flaw in your position.
leaving all but 6) aside, I think it's worth examining the distinctions between scientists, 'science' and scientific method.
You seem to hold to a dogmatic assertion of 'science' and its' correctness, and that this represents a perfect ideal which not even its' best practitioners can attain.
I look at this from the opposite perspective that 'science' is the construct of its' practitioners and therefore that whatever it is held up as will reflect all their own flaws and limitations.
In other words science may provide verifiable and predictable answers, and scientific method may be the only reliable means for proving and disproving facts as we attempt to reach greater knowledge, but the answers we reach are entirely dependant on the questions asked.
Science cannot provide every answer because we have not yet asked every question - indeed, we cannot ask every question as every one raises a thousand more.
At the very heart of the matter it comes down to our individual views on the nature of existence - and this is the question we must ask ourselves.
Is the universe finite and knowable or infinite and unknowable?
For my own part I like to think finite and infinite actually boil down to the same thing - just as in the quantum field waves and particles are the same thing!
It also represents a stark moral judgement that verifiability and predictability are the only values worth considering, especially considering the physical world is one dominated by force - not reason!
If verifiability was all that counted we might be able to say the holocaust happened, but we wouldn't have a Geneva Convention to explain why it was wrong so we'd have no grounds to prevent a recurrence.
But if verifiability is adjudged useful for the ability to predict, then why, knowing what was coming, did the victorious powers fail to prevent the needless destruction in the first place?
The only logical answers are either that science is insufficient or that science is insufficient alone. I tend towards thinking both answers are true.
I also think there's a real irony here that you (representing science) have taken the ideological view while I (representing philosophy) have taken the pragmatic standpoint (which is a sort of cosmic joke).
You seem intent on defeating all opponents, while I'm trying to reconcile differences.
I wonder, why do you only recognise these positions as incompatible?
If I can suggest - is it because you don't see any difference between knowledge and wisdom? And in your striving for facts you've also made a basic assumption that this will eventually amount to the sum of truth?
By means of distraction, there was a long time ago a question I was asked about the nature of knowledge which got me thinking, and I'd like to put it to you:
Do you know what you know, or do you know more than you think you do?
Undoubtedly I know more than I think I do; but that’s because knowledge is always provisional and needs to be refined based on evidence as yet undiscovered, IMO knowledge is just an expression of probability of truth. Of course, in the real world we don’t say we’re 98.85% sure of something, we just abbreviate and say we think something is true, or not. Different people set the bar for truth in different places for different things, usually based on vested interest; on balance however if we gauge it by the evidence we end up with a better assessment than if not.
OP, it doesn’t feel unclear to me, and as yet I haven’t heard anything in terms of a concrete rebuttal to discourage me from this line, quite the opposite in fact. Sure, I know that some of your attacks are “devils-advocate” in spirit and I thank you for that, but just saying something is “not a straw man” without any explanation, analogy or example is not persuasive for me, it comes across as a baseless dismissal.
I don’t want to get into dictionary fascism because it’s demeaning; language is not a precise method of communication as we both know well. BUT, you are arguing against something that is obviously indefensible, however, it’s an argument I’m NOT making! If you don’t call that a “straw-man” then fine, I do! Regardless of how we each label it, it’s still a dubious position.
To be more specific about this, your assessment that I have a dogmatic assertion of “correctness” is simply not the case, I have never said any such thing its pure invention on your part. Perhaps this is a perception based on a lack of experience of real science, certainly a common tack that religious apologists use when faced with the obvious success of science. It’s the classic, i.e. “ah ha, but science doesn’t know everything” line, so what! No respectable scientist would ever say otherwise and my only assertions are that science is more successful at describing the universe and our place in it than religion, and that the fact that we may well not be able to know everything has no bearing on the truth claims of religion, i.e. it doesn’t make them more likely to be true or any more worthy of merit or respect, perhaps you would be kind enough to point out why you think that position is wrong or misguided?
Since you accuse me of being unclear, let me summarise what my feelings are on this topic so far, for clarity sake,
- Science is a more successful method/system at describing the universe and our place in it than religion was or indeed any other system for “knowing things” so far envisaged.
- Science has discredited the majority of past religious claims regarding the nature of reality and our place in the universe. (For example, Turtles all the way down, age of the Earth, Cosmology, Human origins etc. etc.)
- Science may not ever know everything but this does not mean that religion knows any more nor that religious ideas are any more or less worthy of respect.
- “Science” is not a way to live or a social norm; it’s merely a method for understanding the universe, which works.
- Science can be directed at good and bad projects, so can religion, and this simply means that there are good people and bad people. However religion is different in some key respects i.e. it’s (usually) based on mandates from holy books (written by people) which cannot be changed in the light of new contradictory evidence. (for example, Islam and Women or Catholics and contraception)
- People determine morality, not science or religion, which is why it changes. A lot of this is innate from our Biology, but science and contemplative study can inform this process positively.
- I can be both a supporter of a secular system of government AND anti-religion, this is an entirely consistent and reasonable position.
- I don’t care what people believe in their own minds and homes. As long as they obey the law and don’t force their beliefs onto me or my children.
- Any idea may be criticized; ideas that have no evidence may be dismissed with none.
- Science and religion are incompatible because science MUST by definition base its findings on evidence, if data contradicts a theory then the theory must change; Religion is the opposite, the “theory” (these terms are not equivalent) is more important than data that contradicts it, there are many examples of this, i.e. heliocentricity or creationism to quote trivial cases.
I like the knowledge-wisdom tack you are taking, I'll answer your questions in a separate post.
I like where you’re going with the knowledge and wisdom tack, it’s interesting, perhaps you could define the difference as you see it for me. If “verifiability” isn’t the best measure of “truth” then what else is? Are you suggesting that baseless opinion, feelings, wish thinking or self interest are equally good ways of determining what is true? (As opposed to people wanting them to be)
I don’t understand your holocaust point, it sounds like you are saying that reason is faulty because it didn’t predict the holocaust? What did the motivation for the holocaust have to do with science? On the other hand if we think about what it had to do with religion, particularly blood libel superstitions, "Christ killers" and pogroms against Jews in Europe then I think you will find a much richer vein. We could use science to justify action against such things very easily indeed; if we had a quantitative way to measure human suffering then we could simply not do anything that increased this metric. The motivation for the Geneva convention is simply a sociological one, again using science and reason, we conclude that we have evolved to be a social species, our brains have been selected for this and we are compelled by that to take a path that makes it less likely such a horrific event could ever happen to us or our ancestors. I don’t need to invoke gods, ghosts or angels to explain this?
cont..
So, what about knowledge and Wisdom?
I would say that there is a set of things that we know (with reasonable certainty), this is scientific knowledge call it (a) even this is provisional but has a high probability of being true because of explanatory and predictive powers. Then there is a set of things we don’t know call it (b), and there's a third set of things we don’t know we don’t know, and don’t know we do know call it (c)
Now, some (usually superstitious people) like to make stuff up to explain the questions in (b) this is an evolutionary imperative and probably also a property of our consciousness; sometimes these things even superficially agree with observation which adds to their adoption, but are invariably aligned to the self interest of the group making the stuff up and the historical/political setting. Religion hijacks the biological imperative here, why did the volcano destroy my village, why did everyone die of the plague, why are Islam and Christianity so obsessed with the objectification of Women and homosexuality (i.e. because that was a major concern of the desert societies that made these systems up!) Occasionally religion intersects with something in set (a), seldom in the field of describing the universe but more often in the field of describing human well-being, but this is as a result of human reason and contemplation and nothing to do with Deities, Prophets or ghosts, Jesus made no well-being revelations that hadn’t already been made long before by the Greeks, the Chinese or other Eastern philosophies for example, Christianity is just a re-packaging exercise in that regard.
Occasionally something in set (c) is illuminated by discovery; genetics as evidence for evolution is an example of this, science simply takes this in its stride (science is more often than not the illuminator anyway) relevant theories are altered to take the new data into account and everything moves forwards (no bloodshed required). Religion on the other hand typically faces a schism at this point, moderate practitioners take it on board and add another layer of “made up stuff” to accommodate the new data, like Catholics who changed their minds to say that evolution is true but is a “God” guided process and others like evangelistic Protestants who simply ignore the evidence and continue with their dogma of creationism. I don’t have much argument with the former group, I find it surprising that their beliefs are so plastic and would question what the value of relics like the Bible are if they can be dismissed so easily but that’s fine it’s their club not mine. The other group is simply wrong; compromise is not possible, once you cross the Rubicon which is supporting unlikely but unfalsifiable things over to deliberately denying undeniable evidence then you are setting out your stall to be scrutinised and ridiculed IMO.
So, where does "Wisdom" live, which set is it in? My only guess is that wisdom is something originally in set b which over time moves into set a, I would prefer to call that coincidence or empirical analysis.
Wisdom was that if you chewed the bark of a willow tree it cured headaches, as it turns out willow trees contain salicylic acid, so a good outcome for wisdom. Wisdom was that bad air caused cholera, turns out that it is nothing to do with air, a bad outcome for wisdom. In both cases it took the scientific method and reason to find the true answer.
PPS in the how much do you know question I meant I know less that I think I know, not more (I think that's what you meant?)
The 'how much do I know?' question is a trick question - the correct answer is that nobody knows how much they know, as the truth could be more or less than they think.
But getting back to the issue of straw men and the difference between science and religion.
You have made a false assumption in claiming they are necessarily oppositional, since different regions and different schools within each religion represent different tendencies.
So not only is it contrary to the the facts that all religions propound the same method, but it is also untrue that each religion does.
So it is a 'straw man' to present religion as a singular entity opposed by science.
And consequently it is a separate 'straw man' to propose all religious practitioners necessarily support the same methodology which you claim refuted by scientific method.
Regarding your question about what else is a valid argument other than 'verification', you overlook your own answer to this.
'Justification' is accepted as the second string to the bow, but while mentioning this you don't acknowledge it as relevant.
Quantification of suffering would indeed be a good measure on which to base an assessment, but until a single universal standard is found this will remain subjective and therefore an impossibility.
It's like trying to ask if one murderer is more evil than another - was Harold Shipman worse than Myra Hindley?
One person might say killing 200 is worse than killing 5 or 6, but another might say torture-killing is worse than robbery-murder.
In the end there are multiple factors which must be taken into account and balanced against each other.
And this is the same principle which stands behind a fair analysis and critique of what we mean by truth in general and in any specific case.
I also cannot emphasise strongly enough my disagreement with your statement that 'there are good people and bad people'.
This promote the view that people are amoral machines without any control over our own choices. It is the denial of free will.
I can understand that you may make a judgement with hindsight based upon the actions of the person involved, but that is sloppy thinking.
It is the actions which are good or bad, and it is part of the human condition that we are all capable of either or both.
While it may be reassuring (and politically expedient, and socially useful) to distance yourself from that which you disapprove, but this belies the paradoxical nature of existence: we are all capable of doing what we don't intend and regretting it, and we are all capable of changing ourselves to become better or worse.
It is wholly complacent to point the finger at others without recognising 'there but by the grace of God go I', and it is potentially very dangerous to try to remove any alternative means we have for influencing decisions in a positive manner (even where this makes a negative outcome more likely).
So, you can choose to promote a fixed worldview, or a dynamic worldview.
You seem to be opposing one form of fixed view in order to promote an alternate fixed view.
I think that standpoint falls into the same traps as you are criticising.
I'd much rather retain historical vestiges and allow them to evolve with societal understanding for the positive benefits that they can bring rather than place artificial limitations on growth and lose what we don't yet know we've got.
And that requires each of us to reunderstand the facts we are faced with in a wider context so we can learn to use them for our greater benefit.
Put simply, 'right and wrong' and 'better or worse' are two different questions which function in different ways. We need both.
Finally, I'd like to ask, what is your purpose in supporting such a line of argument?
Is it to help bolster your self-esteem by affirming your personal choices, or is it for some wider social purpose with some practical benefit?
If the latter, then it's also worth asking if your manner of going about it is actually the most effective way you could find.
If it's possible to ignore your anti-theism for a moment as confusion about the range of religious options available, I've been trying to think which religious denomination you most closely conform with.
Someone like Joseph Preistley (who was a strident materialist and first discovered oxygen) seems pretty close to your position, so have you considered Unitarianism?
OP, sorry for the radio silence, been busy at work and you've kindly provided a lot of opinion here to consider, anyway, to kind of go in chronological order:
- I agree (shock horror ;) to present all religion as a uniform block is a straw man of sorts (more by omission than design), so you are right about that. I realise this and in my defence what I mean by "religion" are the main ones, I'm using a shorthand since there are so many to choose from and its not practical to list the relevant ones every time I use the word. What it would be more accurate for me to say (i.e. which more closely represents my opinion) is that "faith" is antithetical to science, and "faith" is an essential component of main religions namely, Christianity, Islam, Judaism, Hinduism etc.
You mention justification as a way to knowledge, but I feel this is another of your "sky hook" answers it has no foundation because justification always has an underlying basis, i.e. could be underpinned by reason, self interest or ignorance etc. or a combination of things. So I don't think justification represents a path to true knowledge because it can always be broken down further.
So far I'm still only left with reason as a way of knowing things that's reliable, all the other candidates can certainly be coincidently good but generally don't stand up to scrutiny.
In terms of morality I don't think you'd get any argument from me WRT to the fuzzy and relative nature of it and it’s clear that simple herd mentality plays a big part, but I think you are making a huge leap to equate current morality with "truth" in the sense that I am using that word. In many ways I am not arguing about moral conclusions I’m arguing with the method some people use. The really big moral questions that are impacted by religion actually pivot on clear scientific questions, for example do humans have a soul or not, are the words in the Koran actually the words (ergo instructions) of the creator of the universe, is the world 6000 years old or 4 billion years old, did we evolve or are we special - these are questions that the majority of people in this world use as justification for their opinions and politics on subjects as broad as climate change, through turf-wars to abortion. Again you would get no argument from me that these justifications are also mixed with other things (like self interest) but ideas based on faith are one of the pillars that support some pretty ugly ideas.
The statement about good and bad people is certainly an approximation, I’d agree with you on that, but simply saying that people do good and bad things misses an important element of it IMO. Sure, the terms good and bad are relative but I think that given a set of historical good and bad actions we’d probably agree which was which and yes, this is a perspective tainted by hindsight and the current moral zeitgeist which we are influenced by, but you are missing my point in favour of focusing on the semantics, the point is about what method we use to justify those positions and my desire to expose one of the least reliable methods, i.e. pretending to know things that cannot be known, i.e. “faith” or religion (accepting my previous caveat on what that means)
You ask what I am trying to achieve, to be honest I don’t entirely know, some of it is about practicing arguments, some of it is a genuine feeling of exasperation at the stupidity (as I see it) of peoples, policies and beliefs and how they impact, directly or indirectly people’s lives. At the bottom of it I have a genuine desire to improve things, but this is risking sounding like a Miss World acceptance speech, and I’m not naive enough to think that is either easy or even easily definable.
On your last question, funny enough I have actually thought about that yes Unitarianism (such that I know about it) would seem like a good choice, some elements of Quakerism I like, some elements of Buddhism I like, I struggle to find anything I like in either Islam or Christianity (other than the bleeding obvious things like being nice to one another – which aren’t original anyway).
The bottom line for me is that I am *unable* to believe; an analogy would be, it’s not a question of choosing the right flavour of lollipop to get my sugar fix. I have come to the realisation over the years that I'm actually allergic to sugar itself.
How about you?
Well this is where there is scope for plenty of disagreement.
The fuzzy and relative nature of things, as you describe it, does provide that.
I agree that faith is a basis of religion, but faith is also a basis of knowledge. We depend on the reliability of ascertations and data which are usually beyond our own capabilities to question and often beyond our capacity to understand.
Like you say, science is an approximation.
Admittedly the best we have, but if you are serious about the search for truth and wish to remain consistent in criticising religion as a rough guess then it is unavoidable to address science's own limitations.
And this is where the difference opens up between dinner party chatter and the real policy-making which impacts upon the lives of people.
In making blanket attacks on religion in this way you are in danger of overstepping the edge of the cliff to find yourself in territory which gives way under your feet.
By all fair definitions science retains the characteristics of a religion, the one difference being that while all religions claim a method of disovering truth, 'science' claims to be the only one with a reliable method.
And this is why justification is so important as the second supporting spoke of reason.
All religions claim varying forms of justification, but these can each be criticised to varying degrees. Justification, you see, is measurable according to absolute standards of validity, relevance and soundness and this compensates for any areas where science fails to provide sufficient and sufficiently verifiable answers.
So religion is valid - because it can be relevant or sound.
You are actually proposing a difference between traditional and religion and modern religion (science) to claim that traditional religion is invalid because it lacks science's soundness.
But and therefore it would be a far more powerful statement to say 'science' and 'religion' are not opposed, but are merely different and therefore have different applications.
In fairness to you, your argument is not wrong, only that you misconstrue it.
It would be more correct to say traditional religion is valid in some ways because it is relevant, but modern religion (science) is valid in different ways because it is sound.
This allows for the peaceful separation of church from state by defining their constructive roles. One for emotional support, the other for government policy.
Conversely the claim that they are necessarily opposed moves beyond separation of church and state to support destruction and of church and replacement of it with a more modern version (ie science).
This is perhaps too subtle for many who labour under their own insecurities and desire rigid guidance in place clear thinking.
To argue with such clear moral certainty that one is right and one is wrong leads you into questions about your own ethical standards and definitions, since such methodology clearly contradicts the conclusion it is used to draw.
Certain facts might well imply a conclusion, by it is only by sticking to the most reliable method that you can actually draw a reliable conclusion.
And that means the assertion of the conclusion prior to the demonstration of method should always rightly be dismissed.
Dawkins & Co are prime criminals in this regard - what he says is not supported by his means of saying it, with the paradoxic consequence that he is held up as a prophet of the scientific cult by a cohort of almost religious followers.
But in reality his actions are whipping up a lynch mob to hunt down lynch mobs!
Well, regarding specific practices themself, it's worth saying Unitarianism is Christian, so you may like to do some more reading.
Unfortunately I'm too philosophical to ascribe to any single practice - I'm not a believer, I'm a knower!
All religions seem to have interesting points to make and are capable of positive contributions. So I habitually tend to draw my own distinctions rather than simply point to any scriptural basis.
As it happens I occasionally go through phases when I enjoy attending different religious ceremonies - partly for entertainment's sake, partly for education's sake, but mainly to prove that if you don't take them as the core of the religion they can be enjoyable on their own terms (specifically I'd include dedicated ceremonies such as weddings and funerals in this bracket).
What's interesting for me is how each individual place of worship is the physical emodiment of intellectual controversies caused by political processes each of which gave rise to traumatic historical events (eg Unitarians represent continuity with the 4th century Arian controversy, Anglicans represent the 16th century reformation, Roman Catholicism is the 1st Century imperial revolution etc).
Those communities are all determined not to forget their histories as the means not to repeat the same mistakes, so getting to know what each congregation represents provides a living insight into those controversies and the solutions which resolved on a more settled, peaceful and productive society.
I fully accept that history is too huge for anyone to completely consume the knowledge these institutions are the repository for and this makes it difficult to fully appreciate everything they stand for, but that's no reason to support abolitionism.
It's only when you start to dissociate the institutions from their social environment that they can be perceived to be out of touch with real life, but such decontextualisation is disenfranchising and massively damaging.
In many ways we're heavily insulated by the trappings of middle-class modern life and it's easy to get complacent, but this obscures the horrific truth of many sadly still common occurences.
Yes, I can certainly agree that disagreement is a constant in this field; as for knowledge being based on faith, I don’t think that’s accurate. If you mean “science” when you say knowledge then you’re using the word “faith” in a way that is not consistent with what actually happens in real life (and I’m not talking about the perception of mad scientists created in Hollywood!). Clearly there are two uses of the word “faith”, one is based on ignorance or wish-thinking and the other a firm foundation of evidence, clearly the latter is provisional (up to a point) and could be wrong or incomplete but what we are talking about here is probability and if someone thinks that wish thinking trumps evidence and lives out their life that way then they are what is known in medical parlance as “delusional”; this is not a mental condition that Dawkins invented either. I might say I have “faith” that my wife loves me, but it’s based on evidence and reason, she lives with me and irons my pants for example, this is evidence! That’s completely different from having religious faith in things unseen and inaccessible to reason.
I don’t know any scientists that would see science as in any way similar to religion, in fact most would say that it’s opposite in almost every way. In addition I am very skeptical of non-scientists trying to define what “science” is when that definition flies in the face of what the actual practitioners do and say.
Your claim that religion is valid because sometimes it gets something right sounds daft to me; we already have a word for that it’s called “coincidence”; honestly, what value is something that is no more than institutionalised guess work? I think you miss the actual value of religion, that of human solidarity, it has nothing to do with science, if faith could be reasoned with there would be no need for it to exist, and that’s why the two things are in opposition, regardless of any political expediency in pretending that isn’t the case.
I completely understand your thrust in terms of accommodation, believe me, running a company is one big exercise in compromise and I live and breathe that mantra every single day! My problem is that when it comes to state sponsored superstition it hasn’t worked has it? We’ve had 500 years (since the enlightenment) of apologetics and yet we still live in country with a state religion and a global landscape that is getting more religious and less rational as time goes on (the peak of which you could say was Bush and 9/11), sectarian conflict is increasing and our society is ever more dumbed down; this is not great progress when one considers that the majority of people here are not even religious and science is the only thing that keeps us from lives significantly more uncomfortable.
As for Dawkins, his name came up at a party the other week (not via me) but someone was moaning about him calling him an “extremist”, I had to laugh, when questioned it turns out she couldn’t quote a single “extreme” thing he’d ever said nor had she read any of his work – I find this typical among his detractors. Dawkins has galvanised millions of people from apathy simply by writing a book that does nothing more than state the bleeding obvious, pretty unlikely for a socially awkward, geeky retired Oxford professor, it’s a shame our politicians seem unable to achieve similar results bearing in mind the resources they have. As for lynch mobs, I would say that lynch mobs thrive on ignorance and regardless of what you think of him and his ilk, ignorance is not the message they’re pushing.
Steve,
please can you stop putting words into my mouth and tell me how is messianic devotion to 'science' any different to messianic devotion to 'religion'?
As far as I can see messianic devotion is the same whatever it is to.
But while I'm on a roll of citing sources of scientists who have retained a perspective on what science is and don't get carried away with claims of omniscience, maybe I can point you in the direction of the Francis Bacon. I'd be worried if you didn't know who he was.
He proposed that there are two truths which create a universal balance. The first is of the world of nature/god and the second is of the world as created by humanity/religion.
Bacon argued that because humans communicate together this enables us to change the natural order (by interchanging the terms of reference), but also that this power must be properly understood to ensure it works to the benefit rather than the detriment.
His 'natural philosophy' developed into the modern sciences we know now, while his 'human philosophy' redefined religion to force them to evolve into their modern forms as we see them today.
So it is principle to discover how you respond to his challenge that it is not a matter of one or other, but a matter of both or none.
To this point you've singularly failed to address this argument which I've repeatedly raised.
Bacon remains the preeminent figure in this debate so it's very strange that you haven't yet mentioned him at all, despite the ample opportunity and my regular hints.
And since you support evidence-based reasoning this time please can you cite some verifiable sources rather than resorting to politicised rhetoric about what some other person at said wrong over a glass of wine.
You clearly know what it is you oppose, but why is it that you so struggle to describe the intellectual system you claim to support?
I'd like you to acknowledge that scientific method depends upon assumptions which it then goes about attempting to verify, but science itself cannot justify these unless through posterior logic - which is naturally fallacious.
Where do you get your hypotheses from?
In logical terms science suffers from the problem of eternal regress and reduction, which no pure scientist has resolved, can resolve or will resolve. In more concrete terms this is 'what caused the big bang?'
Which means we are forced to return to the source and origin, the grandfather of modern science, Bacon.
OP, I’m not trying to put words into your mouth, but your assertions about science seem to me to be talking about the PowerPoint version of science and not reality or even history for the last half century.
You ask why is it different, in a word evidence, it’s not complicated; science is based on evidence and religion is not, because of this it works much better. This is one difference, there are many others, for example science is universal whereas religion isn’t, even single religions are not universal, e.g. how many hundreds of flavours of Christianity are there. Science is open and inclusive, religion is closed and exclusive, science changes by refinement religion by schism and so on.
So how many differences do I need to point out before you accept that science and religion are not the same or even superficially similar? Isn’t it obvious that people gravitate toward science because it works, there is demand for it i.e. it makes them money and it’s intellectually satisfying, why you insist on trying to claim these are the same reasons others cling to religion is baffling to me when those reasons are so obviously different, for example tradition, authority and tribalism (to name but a few). In any case science merely overlaps with religion in a social setting; it informs opinion bottom-up unlike religion which tends to dictate it top-down. I can be a homosexual and a scientist easily, but I can't be a homosexual and a Southern Baptist (to make that work I'd need to create a new version of my religion) This is the difference you need to address IMO.
Again, you accuse me of claiming that science is omniscient, I claim no such thing, as I have previously said at length; “words in your mouth”, come off it, kettle pot black? I have no particular argument with Bacon, and yes I am familiar with some of his work, he was a reasonable scientist for his day, but you can’t use confirmation bias to prove anything. Bacon was a believer (as was Newton), possibly even a Christian, and he was a scientist, but in 1600 this was not unusual or significant, a lot of what he said has been discredited by philosophers and scientists since, his biggest problem was the teleological argument; we have a solution for that now. So what is his legacy for religion? How does anything Bacon said about religion impact Wahhabi Islam or James Dobson today? (i.e. it doesn’t) Bacon said “truth requires evidence from the real world”, personally I have difficulty squaring that with creationism.
You see OP, this is a problem you need to address, science is a universal, there’s no such thing as Islamic chemistry. This philosophical argument about posterior logic is simply that i.e. a philosophical brain fart as yet shown to be of little or no utility; in the real world science works and (for better or worse) we progress as a result of using it. This is not a childish infatuation this is just a statement of fact, I accept all the arguments regarding ethics and safety, we always need a balance between risk and gain, sometimes people get that wrong.
I’m really surprised you raise the infinite regress question; the regress is broken simply by saying “we don’t know” something religions seem unable to do, the true regress is saying “God did it”, i.e. who created God?
If one thing is clear it is your bafflement.
You say you don't put words into my mouth and now you say I'm making assertions.
Then you say science is universal, and you say religions aren't. Then you say I accuse you of making claims of omniscience for science without foundation.
You say people gravitate towards science because science works, then you you say there are hundreds of flavours of Christianity which you say makes religion closed and exclusive.
You say science works, yet you do not explain why science works.
Science works because it is consistent. It obeys rules of logic.
You do not.
You are making an anti-scientific argument in favour of science!
The conclusion suggested by your line of reasoning is at odds with the one you state you support!
I contend that you don't know your own mind.
Failing to address Bacon's argument by asserting it is of little utility simply shows your failure to recognise it implies how it should be applied.
If science is relevant, as you claim, and the philosphical position of modern science does offer a valid critique of religion, as you try to claim, then the scientific method as laid out by Bacon must be applied to human society as well as to the natural world, which is not what you try to claim.
That science works does not have any bearing on how or if religion works. If it does then you must explain how this is so.
So it is perverse in the extreme for you to say Bacon's method allows for the rejection of religion, but the application of his method prevents the rejection of religion.
Such an illogical line of reasoning fundamentally misundertands what science represents and completely fails to live up to the challenge.
Using terminology like 'brain fart' is a perfect demonstration of your level of thought.
What is clear is that you have a politicised view of science and a politicised view of religion.
If you wish to be taken seriously as a supporter of scientific method then you must explain how you reconcile your inconsistencies.
If you cannot rationalise the claims of religion then you cannot know what science is.
So far all the evidence points you you being a devotee of the cult of pseudo-science, and you've not done anything to diminish that conclusion.
After wrting that last one I read my first comment again. I stand by it.
Maybe I could ask you to consider the original point about formalist techniques again (you've managed to avoid doing that so far).
Is it not just as incumbent upon religious authorities to considered atheist perspectives as it is for scientific authorities to dismantle junk science?
Or, I mean, if junk science supports the same conclusion as the real science why wouldn't any sensible person want to use all weapons at their disposal to help fight the battle of ideas?
Is the journey less important than the destination?
You seem to be arguing the traditional stalinist line that that 'the ends justify the means', which provides an interesting contrast with your preference for 'verification'.
If you actually felt verifiability was essential and supported causal reasoning, wouldn't you instead be arguing that 'the ends are determined by the means'?
And wouldn't that force you to adjust everything you've said?
Oh, and you may also want to try again on the regress question. Your answer is subject to an issue of definitions.
Yes my bafflement in what you say is real, as I sense is yours with me on this.
Allow me to attempt to justify my viewpoint. When you say “messianic devotion to science” is the same as “messianic devotion to religion” I read that your assumption and therefore assertion (because you’ve offered no evidence so far) is that my attraction to a rational approach to life is the same as other people’s faith based approach to life. I showed (with examples) why this is not the case, the two things are different, and yet you seem to be ignoring those examples, not addressing them and wondering off onto other topics that I assume you think drive home your point unfortunately I don't feel enlightened, all I see is deviation.
I stand by what I said, science is universal, again, I repeat the example, Islamic chemistry is the same as Christian chemistry, or English chemistry the same as German chemistry if you prefer, but the point is it is universally the same in method and application. Religion on the other hand is not the same, Eastern Catholicism is not the same as Roman Catholicism and so on, and there have been thousands of religions if not tens of thousands. This is evidence that religion is fundamentally different from science, a point which for some reason you seem unwilling to accept despite the evidence I’m giving you. Consistency is not the reason science works, I contend you know a lot less about science than you think you do, despite your random injections of 17th century historical scientific figures and philosophical arm waving. Lots of things are consistent, at the local scale religion is consistent but it fails to describe our universe in any useful way other than in pursuit of its own interests, consistency has to be underpinned by something else and that is evidence.
I say science works and I clearly said it works because it’s based on evidence, so actually I am offering an explanation, contrary to your assertion that I am not. Sure, it’s not the only reason but it’s the main one, just read some of what Bacon actually said about science rather than his other less compelling meanderings on society and religion.
Science is open in the sense that anyone can do it (in a free society) regardless of what else they believe in other aspects of their lives, religion is closed because that is not the case, as per my example, again a difference.
Failure to address Bacon’s argument is simply a response to the fact that it is not relevant IMO; just because he lived in the 17 century doesn’t mean he’s some sociological guru, why should anyone be constrained by something Francis Bacon said on sociology any more than something Guy Fawkes said on chemistry? Nothing from science need be applied to society, why should it? However some would argue (and I would be one) that nothing from religion need be applied to society either; it just so happens that traditionally it has, and therefore frames the argument. On the other hand science is the best way we have of understanding how things work, including society, so it makes a lot more sense to me that we do apply its ideas to the things that engage us.
You haven’t shown me to be inconsistent, nor that I am being challenged; sure I use the term “brain fart” in a flippant way, it accurately and I hope humorously reflects what I think about the particular point you make on the problem of induction, I’m with Popper on that and see nothing in what you say or life experience generally so far that would make me change my mind. In other words induction makes good deductive sense to me as it has to the millions of scientists since Bacon, aeroplanes still fly regardless that Bernoulli's principal might not be 100% correct.
No, I'm not baffled in the slightest by what you say. I'm clear you're confused.
Let me simplify our positions for clarity.
You think science is good and religion is bad. I think there is good science and bad science and good religion and bad religion.
You say science is the only way to the truth. I say there are many routes to similar conclusions, but it's only where good practise converges that truth is found.
You argue science shows how things work and anything else is useless. I say we also need to know why things work so we can continue to grow our knowledge.
You want to get rid of religion. I think that is a futile and dangerous pursuit.
You argue scientific principles need not be applied to society. I advocate better evidence-based policy-making.
You argue religious principles need not be applied to society. I advocate better ethical standards in policy-making.
You say aeroplanes still fly regardless that Bernoulli's principal might not be 100% correct. I say that doesn't stop passengers praying for a safe landing.
OP, thank you for summarising, I may certainly be confused about some things, but I’m pretty sure I’m not on this topic, anyway, let me suggest my own summary in the same style you have here as I think you made your thoughts really clear.
-Completely agree; science is the best way we have to understand the universe and therefore generally a useful thing; religion is useful for some people but less good for humanity; I totally agree that both can be used by people for good or bad, uniquely though religion can directly motivate people to be bad.
-Nope, science is not the only way to the truth, just the best way, we also have coincidence, trial & error and instinct to name some other methods and your definition of “truth” is not the same as mine.
-No, wrong, I don’t say everything else is useless; we survived long before science was invented so that would be a stupid thing to say. You think “why” questions can actually be answered, I say “why” questions are just man-made and transient (not pointless though). “How” questions are much more important because they help us formulate this generations’ set of “why” questions, next generation of course the “why” questions will be different because we will have answered more of “how” questions with science.
-I don’t want to get rid of religion in the sense that I would ban it, however it is true to say I wouldn't mourn if did disappear; but what I really want is religion to have the power and influence it deserves and no more. As I have said many times on this blog I believe there is an evolutionary imperative for religion in our species, it is very unlikely it could be eradicated.
-Agree, more evidence = good, more authority, tradition and revelation = bad.
-Agree, but I would say religion has nothing to do with ethics other than as an historical bed-fellow that claims to have some special relationship with morality but in reality does not.
-It’s true they still pray; there are more and more of us these days though that don’t just go to the same places our parents did on holiday and hope for the best.
It's good that we can have some common ground, but I still think you need to show some more movement in your position.
You say 'why' questions come from 'how' questions, but I'd like to know where those 'how' questions come from themself if not from 'why' questions?
They don't just come from thin air!
You also need to provide a more detailed answer if your claim that science is immune from being used for ill should be considered reliable, especially considering that is demonstrably false.
Religion is not unique by any means in the capacity to be twisted for political purpose and I go further than extreme scepticism against similar claims of exceptionalism when they are made.
Science, maths, art, sport, comedy etc have all been used as means to propagate destruction, and science both more and more effectively than most.
Or are you suggesting for example that chemistry never played any part in bomb-making and that use of weaponry is morally neutral?
I'd be amused to hear on what grounds you rationalise violence as a verifiable good!
Additionally, you say religion and ethics are merely historical bedfellows, so I'd like to know, how do you hope to establish an ethical orthodoxy whilst undermining the religious institutions precisely for defining themselves by their performance of this role?
I'm sure you wouldn't argue it's just coincidence that your spouse is also your bedfellow and that you're just ships that pass in the night!
Let me try you again.
There's a famous line from Seneca which goes "for the common classes religion is obviously true, for the thinking classes religion is obviously false, for the ruling classes religion is useful."
From this statement we can clearly understand that our debating positions are defined by the social class we identify with.
From my point of view I'd like to know 1)why is 'truth' important, 2)how can objective truth be arrived at, and 3)why would anyone think it at any point likely that something useful would ever be deliberately abandoned?
The answers which I gave above were:
1)Truth is important only when it is useful in practical terms.
2)Objective truth is arrived at only where justifable and verifiable means of proof correspond.
3)Religion won't be abandoned any time soon - but, and as other means for doing similar jobs are developed, religion will refine ways of performing those core communal and spiritual functions it best serves.
I'd very much like to know how you answer these, though if I can offer the standard atheist responses, they'd be:
1)truth is important for it's own sake
2)truth is an defined absolute and can't be deconstructed
3)religion is being abandoned
However these positions allow easy criticisms and can be refuted simply.
1)truth is not a matter of opinion, and therefore verification of factual status is actually a manifestation of applied relevance: if something is true is is useful.
2)absolute proof is only available in the theoretical fields of pure logic and mathematics: either existence itself requires a basic act of faith or it becomes impossible to show anything at all is true.
3)religion is still here: it has been goign out of fashion since time immemorial.
The second point interests me most because our answers reflect how we define the essence of life itself.
Absolute reason eliminates humanity through its uncompromising logic as any statement of selfhood and self-identity (ie of free will) becomes meaningless in a purely materialistic universe.
Human evolution was only enabled by the initial ability to imbue objects with symbolic values and create complex new systems of representational meaning, so your capacity to develop personal relationships and even feel a connection with your own name is evidence that there is something beyond the here and now.
For a similar example jokes depend upon shared cultural reference points which have recognisable characteristics - if you can laugh, you acknowledge your communal faith in what is being referred to.
I accept there is something idealistic about the desire to rid the world of 'evil', but as I've indicated several times this is a value judgement and cannot be supported by scientific method alone - however much you attempt to assert this proposition as fact values remain contigent and contestable.
So pinpointing religion and religious faith as the unique cause of all evil (which is what Dawkins argument amounts to and you repeat) not only misunderstands what they are, but it creates a logically unsustainable rationale for the conclusion that they should be either disestablished or abandoned.
And the consequence of supporting a weak and unsustainable position is that not only does it alienate potential friends, so when it crumbles it has the effect of doubly-strengthening opponents.
Logically therefore Dawkins made a strategic error in attempting to make an original contribution in this area - he gambled, and all gamblers eventually lose.
There are sustainable cases to be made for the removal of religion from the official sphere or tempering the influence of it in government (using arguments originally developed by St Augustine, interestingly), but Dawkins simply isn't interested in anything except shining his own star.
I also find it you make unfair and unbalanced comparisons as a matter of course.
For example you say science works, it makes people money and it is intellectually satisfying.
Well, is making money necessarily a good thing? Is greed good, as top money-makers are prone to say?
And what is intellectually satisfying without also being spiritually satisfying? Surely the satisfaction comes from the resolved harmony which the two together combine to make!
Your friend who called Dawkins an extremist was only technically incorrect - he is a polemicist, which in some books is decidedly worse.
Temporally Dawkins is lucky he lives during a period of amazing scientific advance, but as time is passing the same old truths are incorporating the new facts he first utilized and he is being shown to have less and less original to contribute. Which may explain why he is becoming more trenchant in order to leave his mark before his career comes to a close.
Genetics, for example, is now being shown not to be the unique determinant in individual lives - though this does not mean it isn't a useful science, it does fail to move the philosophic debate anywhere.
Hi OP, Yes I think we probably agree on a lot of things, but to me you seem as equally as intransigent as you claim I am on this one particular topic.
“Why” questions require a purposeful agent (for example a human brain) so they don’t exist without one, “how” questions don’t need a brain to exist they have always existed from the instant of inflation to now and are probably being created as a natural result of the evolution of the universe, Humans just discover them. So yes they do come from thin air or if you’re being a purist about it, we don’t actually know where they come from originally but it’s likely they were created from something our current standard model would consider to be quantum fluctuations in a vacuum.
I don’t claim science is immune from being used for ill, you’re not reading what I’m saying, let me remind you what I actually said.
“I totally agree that both (science & religion) can be used by people for good or bad”
Again you are talking about science like it’s a purposeful agent; you can’t seem to get the anthropomorphic model of how the universe works out of your head. Science is a METHOD for discovering how things work, nothing more. People use it to achieve ends which are driven by their own meaning and purpose, to say “science is responsible for x” is simply passing the buck!
I don’t rationalise violence as good generally although I think it can be in some circumstances. Why do you think I continually ridicule and criticise irrational violent acts if I actually believed it was morally neutral?
Religion has hijacked ethics in the same way that it attempts to hijack education; it makes perfect sense, a superb strategy to ensure that it becomes embedded. However, just because religion has in the past taken this role (for itself) doesn’t mean that it always has to be that way or that is the best way to determine ethics. Are you closed minded to the alternatives OP?
Re. My spouse, yes absolutely it’s a coincidence, it’s a coincidence that I exist and that she exists, it is also a coincidence that we are together, that doesn’t diminish it one iota in my mind.
A question for you, do you expect (or desire) divine intervention in your relationships OP? If the outcome were to some mutual liking, would you not settle for blind chance?
Steve,
I think you're confusing institutions and the inspiration which motivated their founding and this leads to you making inaccurate statements.
I don't see how religion hijacked education, when bible teaching is the way literacy spread to the masses.
Nor do I see how religion hijacked ethics since religious institutions are responsible for spreading appreciation of ethical behaviour through the teaching of Biblical morality and that this is why literacy was capable of popularisation.
y'know science doesn't preach love for one's neighbour or offer hope to the underdog, science posits a simple equation of forces. As a vision of justice 'might is right' doesn't carry mass appeal.
Look at the film industry - Hollywood promotes a classically biblical morality yet nobody claims Hollywood is unpopular!
You also seem to overlook how religion has been persecuted throughout history and has endured the greatest trials as individuals took solace from it and rediscovered the core of their beings (eg did the holocaust reinforce Judaism or weaken it?).
However I'm glad you are finally willing to acknowledge science and religion are mutually complementary and not necessarily oppposed, as you initially insisted - that's a remarkable turnaround!
But I'd like to examine your answer to the difference between how and why questions a little more.
You say scientific 'how' questions derrive from basic existence, but 'why' questions are predicated on a human agent being there to ask them.
So why don't you ask 'why'?
It suggests religion is a statement both of human society, and is in fact also a requirement for it.
If we consider religious scriptures as (biased, recieved, unreliable, but still the best and earliest we have) documentary evidence of the development of human civilisation rather than for the whole physical universe they make much more sense (ie the garden of eden relates the first communal farm; of the beginnings of society rather than of life itself - which also fits more closely with secondary sources), but we also start to understand how shared consciousness is shaped to be used and abused for different effect as definitions are distinguished and manipulated for higher or lower political purposes - which is which is a constant question.
This is highly relevant when anti-clericists attack 'religion' from a 'science' prespective.
The anti-clerical mood is based upon opposition to perceptions of the political mindset of the clerical heirarchy and is indicative that the establishment has become separated from wider population.
In such instances the 'truth' of their promoted message becomes increasingly difficult to reconcile with the everyday 'truth' which ordinary people experience around us.
These interpreted subjective and political truths on both sides actually have little to do with balanced and rational objective truth or truths, so in one strong sense taking up the fight on either side only feeds the enemy's lust for conquest and sense of vindication at every one of their opponents failures.
In other words it is both an expression of political concsciousness and an active religious choice to seek reforms to state authority, but on grounds of unshakable principle not as a reaction to one's own failure to live up to an ideal.
Elsewhere you've claimed you are 'open' to alternative arguments, but this seems to be little more than paying lip service to good advice.
I'd like to put it to you that it is possible to make more of a difference by working from the inside to lower the drawbridges rather than shouting from the outside to tear down the walls.
And to get there is the only true test.
Hi OP,
I’m not sure “confused” would be the adjective I’d have chosen, cynical certainly, generalising possibly; anyway I think you may have a few glaring holes of your own.
Firstly, you seem to be suggesting that Christianity precipitated mass education? Christians may have helped to spread education in this country but Chinese, Greeks, Egyptians, Romans etc. were all educating each other long before Christianity came along, the point being that Christian clergy simply recognised the potential of an existing concept. Secondly do you think that the universal desire on the part of all mainstream religions to “run” education is purely altruistic? That none of them are smart enough to have yet realised the potential for indoctrination and control? I prefer a more realistic perspective.
On the subject of spreading ethical values, your problem with this hypothesis is which ones? Now if you’d said religions spread their own parochial view of morality, usually by force, then I’d agree with you, but you need to consider the problem of what came before. Without religion to spread ethics as you suggest it has, how could we have possibly survived as a species for 2 million years before it came along? My view fits the facts, yours doesn’t, and morality evolves. City based societies need different social mechanisms than hunter gatherer societies, religion simply hijack the current zeitgeist at particular points in history (i.e. the dawn of agriculture in the fertile crescent or 7th century tribal Arabia) and claim it for their own, attempting to make it universal and forcing it on everyone else, usually at the point of a sword.
I don’t claim that science offers a clear answer for this however science can successfully arbitrate as it does in the law, and science does help to explain where our morality comes from (the answer is not Christianity!)
Nope, I don’t say that religion and science are complementary; I stand by my assertion that they conflict at their very core because of the notion of blind faith, anything complementary is purely political expediency or coincidental. However, that’s not to say that religious people haven’t cherry picked what they like from the products of science throughout history if it benefits them of course or even financed a few projects, like medieval popes and cathedral builders for example. To support your argument you need to show how science benefits from superstition in ways that are not simply coincidental, when you do that you might see a turnaround. Until then, I maintain that to assert this you cannot understand what science really is or religion or both or possibly don’t feel the differences are relevant.
Re. “why” questions, the reason is that I don’t feel “why” questions in an abstract sense are valuable, sure I may ask “why” in a specific situation i.e. why someone has the motivation to do something but asking something like why is planet Earth habitable is a pointless question IMO (as opposed to how has planet Earth come to be habitable)
Religion does have a historical element to it, this is obvious and unequivocal but irrelevant to this conversation; human sacrifice and cannibalism have a historical element to them too but you would agree, not a great model to base your society on. Why do you not feel able to apply the same critical thinking to superstition & religion? And why would it be undesirable to have that dialogue in the open rather than behind closed doors where the advantage lies firmly in the hands of the incumbent.
PS. I do understand your drawbridge analogy, of course I do, but the way I see it is that first step in any addict’s recovery is an admission there may be a problem and even after 500 years of enlightenment we’re not even at that point yet in all but a handful of Western societies, quite the opposite.
Well,
I didn't mention Christians in the spread of mass education only that religions did and I used bible teaching as an example.
It's funny how you extrapolate from the example to falsely conclude a narrow conclusion.
But you keep moving your goalposts to fit your theory. Bugger the facts, eh!
If you'd like me to mention chinese, greek or egyptian or roman cultures we might also mention the taoist creed, the olympian gods, the pantheon legends or the egyptian gods as vehicles for spreading educational messages and a moral code within their own context.
I've just reread my Illiad, and it's impossible to escape the sense that Homeric oral story-telling was the greek 'bible'. It presents a fascinating statement of greek moral values.
Christianity however coincided with the written and printed word so the principle source medium of communication technology was the various versions of the bible (err, 'bible' does just mean 'book' as in the common book of classical knowledge, historically it took this name because it was composed as a collection of loose-leaved pages rather than from scrolls, and this technology made it by far the most accessible and affordable work).
But in no case is it possible to separate education from the motives of those who undertake it: what people do is self-evidently coloured by what we consciously attempt to do.
You argue religions are unique in recognising the capacity for indoctrination within education, but in truth this possibility exists irrespective of who does it.
Our current state education system certainly also indoctrinates current state ideology, and neither is it wholly altruistic. Providing qualifications for tax-paying jobs is 100% economic self-interest - despite incorporating some mutual self-interest you don't wonder why so many people are unhappy with the slave labour non-jobs this creates?
That the species survived for millions of years without establishing a systematic ethical code is irrelevant when placed alongside the civilisational advances which systematisation enables.
Global society shows massive and continuous improvement in the volume of people alive, average lifespan and quality of living over the same period you describe, so survival or not is another false axiom. It is more sensible and interesting to ask what the fundamental differences are which enabled those positive advances.
As modern 'science' only exists since c1600 are you conceding all advances before then?
Does religion really 'hijack the zeitgeist'? I think that's a hugely loaded phrase overlaid with nothing but misdirected bias.
I'd be interested to see you defend that assertion. Firstly because it proposes a logical impossibility as the collective spirit (err, zeitgeist) creates religion and therefore embodies and reflects it. Secondly because it would not achieve popularity if it weren't representative and thirdly because it wouldn't survive the test of popularity if it weren't compatible.
This is because religion is an expression of collective social experience (which returns to the original point I made about formal vs informal society which you've yet to address).
Religious developments are not separable from history, nor from the motivations for communal advance, so it's a massive leap to infer as a rule that historical advances didn't require or were held back by religions rather than the opposite or anywhere in between.
Notorious examples such as Galileo may initally seem to vindicate your assumptions, but their fame comes from the fact that these were the exceptions - not the rule - and the fact that the existence of exceptions forced changes to the rules - not their abolition.
So to make that claim on this basis is superficial.
By contrast regular time-keeping is vital to functioning economies, but without people to reliably ring the bells in the tower how would this ever have been introduced? And would you wish to silence every church bell in the country just because you have a wristwatch now?
In other words you are presuming to speculate on retrospective hypotheticals and in-doing so you seem to wish to reverse-engineer history simply in an effort to generally contradict systematised belief without acknowledging the additional consequences of your proposals - now that is both perverse and an exercise in futility.
So I don't think you've properly thought through what you're saying.
It is also completely inaccurate that religious converts were or are made under duress 'usually at the point of a sword'.
Not that this never happened, although simple population numbers dispute the general claim, while you're starting from a false pretext that the alternative was, is or ever could've been no societal vision.
The same happens today, for example in Aghanistan. Taliban forces don't win supporters at the point of a gun, but because those who show support see they gain as a result (farming opium provides higher incomes than wheat, and if you've got 20 family members to feed that's what you're mainly concerned with). The challenge for the west is in presenting the argument that there is more to gain over the longer term by subscribing to a more ethical lifestyle than the repressive form permitted under that system - opium farming for heroin isn't sustainable practice over the long term, as productivity losses mount up.
The same is the case in developed areas of the world.
If you wish to claim science explains where morality comes from and this obviates the need for religion you could start by attempting to show where the roles of religion and science are and are not distinct, expaining whether these are actually in conflict where they may overlap and then by explaining how and if any conflict can be resolved constructively, and if not, why not.
So far you've not done any of this.
You are presenting a case of science or religion, while I'm saying this is wholly subordinate to the real concern that is civilisation vs uncivilisation.
I surmise you are attempting to correlate 'science' with the civilisation side of the real debate and in order to do this you require yourself to correlate 'religion' with uncivilisation, but this is something which you've patently failed to do by the standards of the very same scientific methodology which you claim to ascribe to.
Frankly Steve, your argument is shoddy to say the least.
Your methodology is inconsistent and incoherent, your facts are inaccurate where they exist and your reasoning doesn't follow.
So if I was to base my judgement on your claims I'd probably wish to destroy all science, but I'm only convinced to conclude you are prejuduced in your view and need to reevaluate your stance.
You could start by standing up for your belief in scientific methodology and showing you do actually know what a systematic method is.
So I'll stand by my earlier comment that your line of argument is tragic - all you've done here is confirm my assessment.
I’m always encouraged when you resort to huffing and puffing OP, it suggests to me that I’m on the right track; let me attempt to deal with the factual objections of your post and tack around the other stuff.
WRT attempting to spin the Galileo story as a positive for the “rule makers”, my only complaint is that your conclusion doesn’t account for the fact that that it took 400 years for the Catholic Church to even admit they might be wrong. Are you really saying that 400 years is ok by you as a timeframe in which to expect a political change for something with overwhelming evidence for it; you are clearly a more patient man than me!
WRT your Galileo point, off the top of my head, here is a brief list of some of the major scientific endeavours that religion & superstition has and continues to obstruct,
Cosmology, Astronomy – Copernicus, Galileo, Bruno et al.
Geology – Natural phenomenon, age of the earth, plate tectonics
Biology – Evolution, speciation, diversity, species distribution, human origins
Medicine – Vaccinations, transplants, pharmacology, birth control, stem cell research, anaesthetics, blood transfusions
Genetics – Most of it (genetics being more recent of course)
Sociology & education – Human sexuality, assisted suicide, scopes trial, Dover trial, humane treatment of animals, creationism
The list goes on; in fact it is hard to find a single scientific advance that hasn’t been objected to by some religious authority or other, I’m sure there must be some?
And you claim that Galileo is an exception?
No religious converts at the point of a sword? Yeah right, tell that to the Aztecs; BTW I’m using “point of a sword” as a metaphor meaning unreasonable pressure, violent, political or economic. It wouldn’t be hard to compile a list with references and granted that would not represent the only method of conversion (indoctrination being by far the biggest) but would you accept it as evidence? My sense is you would not.
WRT the Taliban, you claim it’s all about agriculture? So, I assume when they dynamited the Bamiyan Buddha’s they were just making room for more poppy fields were they? Or perhaps when they denied young girls any education it was to spare them labour in the fields? I prefer to go with what the UN said about them in 2006, I quote,
“The Taliban May No Longer Control Afghanistan, but Their Persecution of Religious Minorities Will Forever Remain a Stain on Global History”
“Shoddy” arguments OP?
I’m perfectly happy to admit my thoughts and reasoning here is sometimes sporadic and hastily formed, this isn’t an academic exercise it’s an opinionated blog; but then again as you have shown in this response, you don’t really seem to have much of a methodology I feel inclined to emulate either. As you said in an earlier post we need some third party commentary to wind both our necks back in on this ;)
Steve,
huffing and puffing? my arse, that's you sonny.
if you can show me one single scientific paper which isn't questioned in some form by another scientist then your complaint against religion that "it is hard to find a single scientific advance that hasn’t been objected to by some religious authority or other" might be worth the energy you expended on it.
The simple fact is that you observe double standards.
Science depends on critical reasoning (and, err... peer review?), so your rejection of criticism of science by religious institutions proves you don't know what science is.
Your willingness to make unsupported statements backs up this claim.
The list you draw up is a shoddy excuse for a logical argument - I'll bet you've never even read the actual criticisms made against each case you highlight, which is why you can't account for any further detail.
It's not just that you disagree with the positions on each point after considering their validity, but you reject them outright as you assume these contributions are irrelevant.
So you certainly don't do yourself any favours by refusing to engage with the weigh of emminent scholarship which religious leadership represent in forming those positions.
However it is your willingness to make sweeping statements and automatically dismiss this learning which shows you don't know what religion is either.
Your attempt to present an intellectual argument when you don't know squat about what you're talking about gives some hilarious results. I understand they can be categorised under 'fallacy from ignorance'.
I've tried to take you seriously and I shall try one more time.
Religion is not one, not all religions are alike, and they certainly aren't equal.
You seemed to accept this point earlier, but have since changed your mind without explanation.
Because, to select the tenet of one to mount a legitimate objection does not justify a general objection to all. Even a succession of reasonable objections (which you don't make) does not constitute a general objection.
If yours were reliable scientific method and it were applied to the work of any scientific laboratory then there would be no more science left at all, just as you hope there would be no more religion: for you one accidentally contaminated test batch and the whole edifice of the scientific establishment is fatally undermined.
Just for your reference scientific method is hypothesis->test->conclusion not conclusion->example->self-congratulation.
In it's most simple terms, Steve, you've contradicted yourself and made self-defeating claims.
And therefore whatever conclusion you reach is unreliable.
I've wasted enough of my time with you. You are a parody. If you are a model for your beliefs I'm decidedly uninspired by your actions and can not trust your opinions.
Aside from that I find you repetitive, derivitive and lacking in wit: you don't have anything new or original to say and you can't say it in an interesting way - in other words what you are defending kills all thought processes.
Best of luck with it.
Don't worry about checking your flip-chart for humanists to find the suitable prescribed response, it'd only confirm your inability to think for yourself.
And a final word, for all your obsessive fascination with revealed knowledge it may help you to discover what this is. The book of revelations is an awesome and massively influential piece of literary history, the primary example of modern western artistic method.
I think you'd gain plenty of enlightenment and insight by sitting down to read it. You may even have a Eureka moment!
And I'll finish by reiterating science vs religion is a false dichotomy.
OP, I’m happy that you to criticise me, but please read past the first sentence before you resort to ranting against your own imaginings.
Scientists don’t usually tie you to a pole and light a fire when they disagree with the math. Your analogy is spurious and reeks of desperation; are you seriously suggesting that you think fine tuning our understanding of the catalytic reactions in the Krebs cycle by debating the evidence is equivalent to burning someone to death because they won’t agree that a bread wafer is the actual body of an invisible man-god?
Yes I have read these stories, some in detail, many of them are on-going today, many I have commented on here, in detail, for example evolution. Just because you haven’t heard of them and I don’t cut and paste thousands of words every time, like some pathetic dictionary troll, you claim a lack of detail, so please don’t distract attention from your own ignorance by appealing to a lack of rigour on my part. You made a simple binary statement “Galileo is an exception to the rule that superstition obstructs science”, that’s bollocks he isn’t, there are many other examples and I have indicated what some of them are. So rather than childishly attacking me why don’t you tackle something I actually listed, for example why don’t you explain why the anti-vaccination society formed by religious leaders 2 years after Jenner first published wasn’t inspired by the idea that illness is a punishment from God and humans shouldn’t interfere.
You don’t practice what you preach OP, you live in a modern society built by people using science usually in the teeth of opposition from religion, your very lifespan is extended twofold by the knowledge that science has delivered, and yet you only begrudgingly acknowledge its success and efficacy and instead appeal to an imaginary world of monsters, ghosts and spirits because some guy in the middle ages made some interesting observations on human behaviour, is this really the crux of your argument?
You are the one who isn’t listening, you are arguing with yourself, you haven’t even slightly addressed the examples or questions in my previous posts and yet you accuse me of not presenting any, it’s laughable, like a petulant child you are sticking your fingers in your ears and shouting la la la against a tide of opinion.
As for the tired, threadbare straw men that you insist on trotting out for one more go around the ring (no wonder I’m repetitive when you keep on throwing the same old crap at me!) YES I UNDERSTAND THAT RELIGION IS NOT UNIFORM, BUT FAITH WITHOUT EVIDENCE IS! And as I’ve said to you many times faith underpins the authority of religion, without it religion wouldn’t exist; science is a better way of knowing the truth about how our universe works including how humans work.
I have had a few great tips on philosophy from you so I thank you for that, as for the rest of it, I agree you aren’t really getting anywhere, for me, your position seems to offer nothing but an accommodation of absurdity and maintenance of the status quo, and that truly is a boring and depressing philosophy to me!
You are tired of me? So be it, I’m sure you have much more important things to do. Just so you know I would be delighted to buy you a pint should we ever meet in person, despite your frustrations with me on the science-religion issue, we have many other common interests at heart.
Let me apologise for being angry at your opinions, however this is not just a conversation without consequences - there are real, practical and verifiable effects.
And these are both horrible and current.
Making religion subordinate to the other branches of state does lead to violent persecutions against those of any or a particular religious faith precisely because their religion is seen as a potential platform and well-spring of opposition and resistance.
It happened five millenia ago, it happened four millenia ago, it happened three millenia ago, it happened two millenia ago, it happened this millenia.
it has happened in every century of the modern period, and it has happened in every decade of the past century around the world.
you may be technically correct in general when you state that the scientists who work in laboratories are good solid bourgeois professionals who don't tend to be the stock of hardened demogoguery in normal circumstances, but that was the case when Idi Amin's racist military regime subordinated religion and race to science and commerce, for example.
It was also the case when the Khmer Rouge took charge in Cambodia. It has also been widely reported that Arab dictators such as Gadaffi feared the potential of religion to present popular resistance to their rule and used this as the pretext to torture and murder members of the public without charge or trial (and Gaddaffi can be vehemently anti-religion since he correlates it Islamic fundamentalist terrorism - the position of Islam in Libya is definitely subordinate to the military).
What I'm describing is not what we in our western democratic liberal and capitalist cultural environment would consider normal circumstances, so it must be emphasised that those who rise to similar positions under opposing conditions do tend to be the ringleaders as their technical knowledge, wherewithal and political interests combine to build an unbending sense of zealotry.
How people behave is a matter of conditions - where you say fact, I say factor.
However the prime example of the constitutional shift from secularism (equality between the branches/estates of the nation) to subordination of one or more in the interests of government is Ivan the Terrible. Another very good example would be Nero.
Their reputation across time should alert you to the seriousness of the nature of the changes under discussion.
In English history the Tudor monarchs were especially notorious for burning heretics and murdering and torturing those they claimed were under the influence of superstition, magic and popery - even today prejudice on grounds of creed does still lead to cases of violence and bullying in schools, and up until the 1960's and 70's mistreatment of Catholics was widespread. So you can see how this has had a lasting effect for over 400 years in our own backyard.
So obviously you want to revert from the extant definition of secularism just as the malignant effects of the last major power shift within the British state are being eradicated - what a short memory you have!
Much as it is clear there are gaps in your history it is also clear this leads you to misunderstand the threat to public security which seemingly minor constitutional changes can result in.
This is a massive gap in your political learning, and it is one which obviously stems from your lack of any religious background.
Whatever you think 'the truth' may be, upsetting constitutional equilibrium invariably does result in massive suffering and loss of life.
It is the habit of tyrants who think they know better but can't really care less.
Frankly I am shocked and outraged that you enthusiastically promote a reunderstanding of the meaning of secularism without any awareness of how or why it developed in the way and to the stage it did. I hope you'll forgive me this, as you may start to be able to understand why I take strong exception in this area.
Your insulting and unkind tone towards the object of your ignorance does you a major disservice - I feel you've missed the note of caution and your opinion is the result of an overreaction.
I also find your complaint that religion is an "appeal to an imaginary world of monsters, ghosts and spirits" hilarious considering this is precisely the same description used to characterise the quantum particles being searched for at CERN!
And I fully dispute your claim that I'm not listening to your side of the argument.
I've disagreed many times over with your repetitive claim that 'faith underpins the authority of religion', but you seem not to have heard me say on any occasion that the detailed factual basis of what one person means when they describe their conception of the universe and everything in it is absolutely irrelevant beside how these descriptions are treated has an undeniable impact on the type of society you live in.
You seem to be making the case for momentary universal truth (an academic vision), while I'm making the case for eternal earthly truth (a social vision) - so clearly there's potential for dishord in the way we talk about the same things.
I don't wish to undermine the validity of your point that the social contribution of science is important, but I can't stress enough that the same must also be said for religion.
I've said it before and I'll say it again, if you don't have freedom of conscience you don't have freedom: if I'm not allowed to think white when you say black (and vice versa) then eventually it will lead to blows, as this conversation would otherwise have proven if it were done over one too many pints in a pub.
You are wholly incorrect if you think I don't appreciate and value science does for me, but you are also wholly incorrect if you don't appreciate and value what religion does for you.
Neither is impinged by our belief or appreciation, but given a wide-enough movement it could easily, although how and how much is not easily predictable or controllable.
You think the current constitutional balance is absurd, I think it is a massive improvement on centuries past.
We agree that it really doesn't matter what you or I only think is true, rather that what matters is what is true, whether or not either one of us can see it - non-verification is not non-existence.
The problem with this, however, is that experience tends to constrain the knowledge horizon.
Given what I can watch on my TV I think we should all take a deep breath.
I should add that the constitutional rule of persecution applies to whichever public estate is subordinated - it's not just religion and religious groups.
And I'll make a point that the British constitution is strangely unique in that the existence of an active ceremonial Monarch as commander-in-chief of the armed forces, supreme governor of the national church, head of state etc prevents any development of a destabilising heirachy of values and interests.
This isn't to say there is no instability and the current constitutional settlement can't be improved, but that we are in a position where we should afford to be less radical and hasty in making them.
So if I’m reading this right, all you are really saying is that we had despots in the past and those regimes tend to attack things that might oppose them with any efficacy? I can't find anything to disagree with but again I'm confused about why this particular historical truism is relevant to the debate about religion, science and secularism?
You advocate a slower reduction in the political influence of religion than I do; reading between the lines you may even be saying that some influence is actually a good thing and we should keep it. Each to their own as I’m sure we would both say, but my problem with your reply is that you can't then go on to use the fact there have been despots in the past as evidence that religion is an essential influence; why?, because there are many successful secular democracies that exist today that *aren't* totalitarian states. These examples undermine any hard and fast linkage to such an extent that it makes this line of reasoning just seem like an appeal to tradition and nothing more. The other big problem with this argument is that often those totalitarian societies were religious in character, so if secularism leads to tyranny and religion leads to tyranny then it's all a moot point isn't it?
What would make your argument stand up better would be if you attempted to explain why modern secular states like the USA and France and Finland among many others, all equally successful and democratic as the UK, and having lived in all those examples, I would add equally civilised, have not gone the same way as Uganda, Tudor Britain or Nero’s Rome?
I wasn’t aware that they were looking for monsters, ghosts and spirits at CERN, I’m sure there are a few governmental departments that would review their funding if they knew that; perhaps you could do an expose on your blog? ;)
You aren’t making a case for truth, you’re making a case for delusion, you’re advocating that people can be satisfied with non-truths, placated with bogus claims about reality that make them feel better, and I wouldn’t argue with that at all, many people are perfectly happy with this state, just don't expect me to be. I would make a case that there is actually more wonder in reality itself and our quest to understand it than any burning bush or sacred cow could ever provide. You may well disagree, in fact it’s clear you do, and you may well argue that a truth that amounts to nothing more than a delusion is just as true to the person that thinks it as the laws of gravity are to science, this is also true BUT don’t then expect me to respect that “truth” and especially don’t expect me to be compliant when such things become engrained in our constitution, tradition or not.
If religion has done so much for me then why can’t you provide a single example of what that might be that isn’t derivative or debatable? If it’s all so obvious then why can’t you be explicit about it, could it be that it isn’t obvious?, could it be that this perspective is all just one big game of Calvin ball?
Absurd would not be the word I would use for our constitutional balance, something that is absurd would not have a rational foundation, our constitutional balance has an absolutely rational foundation and that is the preservation of vested interests like the Monarchy and the Church, you may well argue that those things have some benefit and I may argue they do not, but simply arguing that we should keep them because they were much worse in the past is about the worst argument I’ve ever heard for anything, sounds more like a case of Stockholm syndrome to me.
Yes our constitution is unique; I’d prefer to describe it as the new statesman did today, “The only semi-theocratic state in the Western world” and thanks to the outmanoeuvring of Mr Clegg again recently it looks like it’s going to remain that way for a while yet.
The problem of a non-secular society is not in any particular part of the society, but that and where one part gains a dominant position.
Your choice of example tends to be those where the more religious influence rises, so I wonder why my counterexamples don't encourage you to draw a wider and more objective rule based on these additional facts.
This is because constitutional dominance creates a pressure to maintain that power even where the natural equilibrium seeks to reassert itself, and as a result creates a motivation to use the power of authority to diminish the others.
It does not matter which estate has a greater predisposition to build themself into a dominant role as the potential exists within all for agents to work for those ends.
I am arguing that advocates of 'science' as equally susceptible to this disease as those of any other group, and that it is in nobody's long-term interest.
That religions have used and been used in the interests of power does not reduce their validity, it only confirms it.
I suppose I have to provide an analogy to explain this political concept.
WW2 is always a perfect example for this.
The Allies won a 'total' victory over the Axis powers.
Germany capitulated. But Germany still exists, in a political and cultural sens; there are still German people and German is still spoken by tens of millions as their mother tongue, there is a vibrant German cultural industry and many matters of importance to Germans are decided autonomously by Germans themselves.
So what was this 'capitulation' when it is arguable Germany is now more powerful than ever before?
They hardly lost out.
No, in the real world all opponents whether Britain and Germany, or Science and Religion, must find a way of accomodating the other. Where they can't it causes conflict which plays out in destructive ways, but where they do everyone wins.
Enemies are never defeated until emnity is put aside and a working relationship is made.
So how do science and religion reach accomodation with each other?
I've tried to answer this before, but it's probably a bit too easy to grasp.
Science and religion are different. They do things differently because they try to do different things.
In the same way Britain and Germany are different places where things happen differently because the inhabitants try to do different things.
Difference does not infer inequality, so it must be asked why the 'atheist challenge' is to instill conformity of belief.
Additionally, there is also the problem that there exists a point at which agnosticism and atheism must disentangle themselves from nihilism.
Non-belief (agnosticism) and belief in no deity (atheism) are too close to belief in nothing (nihilism), and they are often and easily confused.
For me this point presents by far the most interesting challenge.
For criticism of religion to remain valid it can be either argued that religion is belief (and is therefore unreliable) OR that what it believes in is untrue.
It cannot logically be both - to complain that it is unreliable and untrue suggests the debater rejects it on the basis it might be correct - which is highly perverse!
If the belief however is reliably untrue or true yet unreliable then this allows us to reconsider how we previously understood it and the religion which defends that faith retains the validity which is placed under question.
Consequently the critic must then establish more detailed appraisals of the specific religious institutions and divide them into 'good religions' and 'bad religions' (and possibly any which are 'worse').
Those which are good clearly must have a claim on their side of the truth, as their host community will see the practical and spiritual benefit of their continued presence and the historicity of the source claims of that religion will also meet the highest standards available (though this inevitable passes through political filters for interpretation, which should be accounted for).
So, in summation, for criticism of religious faith to be accurate in doing so it acknowleges and thereby bolsters the validity of that belief and so if where and when science attacks religion on this basis science undermines itself and the advocate of diminishing religion loses credibility.
And this produces the logical conclusion that religion and science necessitate each other.
Therefore it is not a choice of one or other, but of both or neither.
It might not be what you ulitmately dream of, but less polemical language is likely to produce less resistance to practical changes.
And as far as ensuring a secular society is able to maintain progress in a positive direction and society isn't subordinated to the whim of religious (or otherwise inspired) fervour it is already well-established in case law that the freedom of conscience enshrined as the fundament of the national bill of rights does not confer exceptions from the rule of law: the right to belief what you want does not give the right to act on that belief.
This is important because a hierarchy of rights precludes legal anarchy and maintains an ordered society.
Faith is not diminished, but it is prevented from preceding fact as a justifiable cause.
And in turn this has the effect of distinguishing and sidelining those religions which are not 'good' because they have no practical effect. Those religions which survive survive on the basis of fact (try reading the lives of the saints someday).
You may be irritated by the slowness of progress, but I'm glad that progress is prevented from going into reverse.
Look at it this way, would you be happy if a bunch of things which made you happy were lost overnight?
Nobody ever thinks disaster will happen to them... until it does.
So it is probably wise to offer caution.
Just because I've never been burgled it doesn't mean I should forget to lock my door when I go out. The lock may seem useless, and it may cause irritation when I lose my keys, but it does provide an undeniable level of security as standard.
For one, one of the churches near where I live is constantly preaching about the vice of greed - maybe we would've avoided the credit crunch if people had taken more heed about the spiralling risks of rising property prices. They certainly think so.
And finally, I'll offer here the secondary caution that it is important to distinguish between those religions which base their faith on certain facts (which you may dispute) and the concept of faith itself.
Human psychology depends on various forms of symbolic language to be able to make sense of a sometimes purplexing world, and at it's basic level this is what religion does.
Whether or not you wish for the continuance of the established religions, the reality of symbolic 'spirituality' is undeniable.
Cultural and linguistic shorthand transfers the traditional model of successful signage in proliferating forms.
If you've got children look at the posters they have on their walls. Whether it's Lionel Messi or Lady Gaga - these are living gods.
The habits of daily life also follow the format of ancient ceremony, just as physical architecture replicates the eternal patterns of human existence.
As British society sees falling congregation numbers at some traditional churches we can see it is being not only replaced but also supplanted by the cult of celebrity.
The desire for idols hasn't gone away - in fact it may be increasing - and this is definitely having an effect.
When you have Pete Doherty crooning in the Polish Club on London Road, doesn't this legitimise and encourage debauchery outside the After Dark Club on London Street where his records are sometimes played, since he is repreentative of this milleu?
Ultimately people will always believe what they want, whether or not it suits them.
Religion is a form of cultural expression, so whether it is harmful or helpful depends on how and how well the mass of individuals engage with it at an personal level.
I'd argue that generations of schools have been misserved by institutionally ideological policies where real and accurate information has been removed from the curriculum for various purposes.
And it seems clear that this is still true as far as religious education is concerned (RE was removed from the English Baccalaureate recently). What your quote from the New Statesman says only reinforces my opinion that ideological reasoning is both unsound and damaging ('semi-theological' - that's a joke, right?).
This shift in emphasis means knowing the whys and wherefores is increasing in importance as more people concentrate on the hows and whats.
I'm just less concerned with providing the answers to these questions than that there are sufficient people who can ask them.
If questions aren't asked from every possile and contrasting angle then how is it possible to honestly claim you've arrived anywhere near 'truth'?
Post a Comment