“You just let the machines get on with the adding up and we’ll take care of the eternal verities, thank you very much.” ~MAJIKTHISE, The Hitch-Hiker’s Guide to the Galaxy
First published July 11 2009, reproofed/edited 2013-08-24 0122 PM
This started as an exchange on YouTube. He posted a message attacking my cosmology, making the common accusation that I’m a god of the gaps proponent. (The idea that because we don’t know every last little thing therefor X religion is correct.)
The neoatheists, and indeed some natural atheists appear to lack the brain structure to process the nature of my position, this is not an insult or a weakness, please read to the end before you get all pissy with me. 🙂
To me it is exactly like how some of the faithful are simply immune to reason and evidence.
I wasn’t going to post this having had the debate already publicly over a period of about a month (http://underlore.com/deism-v-atheism-how-and-why/) with a man whom I consider to be more intelligent and more well read than myself. Thus the effort seems redundant, since either you will agree or you won’t.
But there is another advantage. I can give those who share my beliefs but lack my skill at articulation, a cheat sheet as it were.
And so I answer.
I took that message down because I was using my business account instead of my personal account. I think in the US it would be harmful to my business if Google searches revealed my personal attitudes toward religion.
When I signed back in as myself and re-read what you posted I realized I had made a mistake anyway, I misunderstood your position. You are correct, you did not fill the gap.
That being said, I’m not sure that the question you ask about the speed of light cannot be answered by science. I am also not sure that there is any point to focusing on such questions other than to attempt to reduce (in a very small way) the realm of science. What is your motive? One can create a multitude of questions pertaining to the properties of “things” like, “why are rocks hard?”
If you wish to engage, please use (email withheld)
thanks, S
To which I responded… (Text may be edited from what was originally sent, but not much.)
—
My purpose is simple. It’s the same purpose many have. The search for truth. Not merely the accumulation of facts, or the ability to predict events, though those are part of truth, but the whole truth, at least as close as my limited brain can contain.
To me the point of life is in large part the effort to increase the mind’s parity with reality. In addition of course to the twin axioms of fighting death and suffering.
I do not think the questions diminish science in a ‘small’ way, though I don’t see a point in announcing that. Indeed my view is logically inescapable as it demands ultimately that science abandon the use of the word “why” in favor of more carefully constructed “how” questions.
You nailed it when you asked “why are rocks hard” and then classed that sort of question. The fact is the only way science can ever answer any “why” question is by changing the meaning of it to an approximation of “how.” That is the essence of science’s limitation. Those areas which are not opinion, and yet not objective. Put simply, meaning and purpose.
Why is purpose. How is process. There is no objective measure of purpose. And there is a significant difference between purpose and function. How a clock works is not why we have clocks.
The speed of light for example may very well be a function of some other facet of reality, but I assure you as you dig eventually you’ll hit axiomatic bedrock. (Quantum weirdness abounds.) http://www.stanford.edu/dept/HPS/writingscience/Ferris.htm
Science can only ask “how does this work” and can only answer in relation to other answers. The reference of a clock is another clock. By definition it cannot originate beyond the creative guessing of an unknown observation of previously existing reality. It can follow lines of reason, sometimes combine and synthesize them, but it cannot originate them.
Religion however can, because it is not bound by observation, I need not see cause to imagine effect, though the brain itself may. Religion and philosphy potentially provides insight into the creation and enforcement of the reality that science seeks to descriibe and predict. This is necessary to complete understanding, and allowing science to claim the capacity to answer ALL forms of question is corrosive to learning because it creates a misconception of what science is, and a perversion of what religion is supposed to do.
To be able to understand our existence we must be able to ask both How and Why. Neither is superior to the other generally, though each excel in different contexts. Mutually exclusive contexts often. Religion won’t grow an arm back and science can’t cure existential terror.
“Science without religion is lame, religion without science is blind.” – Albert Einstein
Do you see what he meant now?
It is no more correct to say god exists as a personal being than is it to say science can tell if an electron is evil. They need to be kept in their corners, as with church and state. Or disaster will eventually result.
Some mental illness takes on a religious form, but not all religion is mental illness. (Though I will admit the vast majority of it is, when it isn’t simply mistaken and intellectually lazy.)
—
Weeks went by at this point.
Brandon,
I almost completely blew off this message because I have heard this rhetoric before.
This sort of comment is very common. It is used as an insurance policy. It is a means of nullifying any potential win I may have, indeed, he steps up this loss prevention bet hedging later.
By saying he’s heard it before, before he even hears my response, he’s in effect implying that even if he can’t beat me himself, the reason whatever it is, will not be because I am right. Because if I was right then others would not have been able to answer my “rhetoric.” He’s saying “though I may not have an answer for you, one is out there, thus you’re already beaten the only question is can it be done again.”
Also it betrays a complete closedness, that I’m going to talk about a bit more later. He’s already decided that he’s heard my arguments and seen them refuted before. So he’s not even really reading my response he’s just looking for argument points. Talking because he feels compelled to talk. He knows to not reply is to behaviorally admit something distressing but he’s not consciously aware of what it is.
This is extremely ironic as later he goes on to accuse me of closed mindedness.
I think you are looking for a gap.
So I went from not filling the gap to looking for a gap. Clever. I would say I’ve found a gap, but saying finding a gap equates to making a god of the gaps argument is deceptive to say the least. It’s like the jump from saying Hitler was a good public speaker to saying I admire Hitler’s ideology. It doesn’t work that way. The gaps argument is not noting the existence of a gap, it’s implying that because the gap exists it must be filled with X specific and unsupported by the evidence, thing.
If you are serious about challenging yourself, don’t waste your time on me.
Here is a more advanced insurance policy. Here he makes my response to him, if any at all, an admission of weakness. This is cheap. It’s like saying “by reading this sentence you agree to pay me 10$.” He’s trying to put me in a similar position I put him in, where I’m to feel that by talking, I’ve somehow lost, because as I said he knows that he’s already lost and it merely proving it by talking.
Go to http://scienceblogs.com/pharyngula/ and ply your skill.
Well for the record I am about finding the truth, as I explained above. I am not going to speak to Pharyngula who is a famous anti-religious blogger, equivalent to Bill O’Reilly. There is a difference between being willing to challenge yourself and accepting any no matter how pointless or counter productive like Marty McFly being led around by being called chicken.
The whole purpose of his page is humiliation and satire. Not rational debate. It would be like debating gay rights on a Fred Phelps forum. A strong proponent is not always a rational one.
It is possible to have a closed mind that was 99% right when it was closed, and like I said even if I did get headway he will gloss over it or simply make fun, that’s the point of his character. He is an expert at humorous diversion.
While there do not complain about the insults, put on your thick skin and really pay attention.
Even he seems to realize this with yet another insurance policy. I’m supposed to just ignore incivility abuse and Ad Hominem. The response I would get on pharyngula’s blog is basically a verbal beating, the truncheon in lieu of reason. I’m not going to dig through a mountain of tripe for nuggets of wisdom.
I said to him: If you can find points Pharyngula’s made that you consider salient, then paste them. Truth has no copyright. Make them your own. I suspect you can do so without name calling and grandstanding, which he cannot.
If you are sincerely interested in the truth and not just looking for a gap for your version of god, you will find it.
So again if I don’t find it it’s because I’ve failed, not because he is wrong.
I and others greatly admire people who are capable of changing their minds in the face of reality.
I was a strong atheist for decades. And I still am if you define god as having any trait other than existence and enforcement of the physical constants. For all practical purposes I am still a strong atheist, except for my recognition of the limits of reality and my belief that those limits create an irrefutable logical demand for an outside, effect/existence. The hidden variable from The Hidden Variable interpretation of quantum mechanics, that which literally twists reality to make it conform to it’s rules confounding logic in the process because it supersedes logic.
I came from where he is suggesting I advance to. For me it would be a step back. Burt because I am in advance of him my position is difficult to understand.
I did it, others have done it, you can do it.
To him I say: Perhaps you’ll do it again. I certainly can. But that is academic at this point, the possibility on this topic for me is precisely as remote as gravity reversing itself. My position is based on the axiomatic facts of our observable reality. Specifically the existence of axioms generally. So unless you can dissolve the concept of an axiom, I’m not going to be changing my mind.
Am I closed minded for saying that nothing can talk me out of believing that 1+1=2? OR am I simply certain of a reality?
You are obviously an intelligent person and I don’t understand your need for something more than the natural.
Thank you, I think it is obvious you are intelligent as well. This is not about our personal hangups, again you make a disclaimer, that if I persist in my position I am neurotic. So again I suggest a third option.
It’s not my need. It’s reality’s. I could just as easily ask you why you need matter to attract itself. Do you have greed issues? You would say no, it’s just how it is, yay for gravitation. And you would be right.
If am wrong and you really aren’t looking for a gap, then you should be able to muster more than “search for truth” when you describe your objective.
Agreed.
Your true intent hinges on one simple question: Do you believe in the supernatural?
Well that depends on how you define nature. If by nature you mean all of existence. Then of course no. By definition the word supernatural means not in nature, and if nature is everything that exists anywhere under any circumstances then the question becomes “Do you believe in things that don’t exist?”
However, if you define nature as our observable reality, and only that. No other levels of existence, no parallel universes, etc. Then of course yes. I think there is clearly an underlying (or overlaying) system. Glimpses of this system and the logical requirement for it/them manifests in many ways. Now I’m no quantum mechanist so I’ll admit complete ignorance, but I have read some popular science on the subject of 11 dimension ideas.
My belief is somewhat like those ideas. It is logically demanded but totally unobservable. We can’t get there from here but that does not mean ‘there’ does not exist. Indeed the fact that we can’t get there is part of what I’m talking about.
By being aware of the fact that here exists, and the fact that there is a barrier, I know that ‘there’ must exist. Though I can not tell you a single aspect of it’s nature. For all I know there’s a void, or a picnic, or solid rock.
If you made it this far, I addressed your email.
I’m glad we’ve gotten past the tiresome insecurity rituals. My intent is not to humiliate you or win. I am using you for content generation. And conceptual sharpening. And public service.
Can you sincerely not think of a “why” question that is answered by science?
Of course not, why is always a subjective.
You can say “approximation of how” all you want, it is just quibbling over semantics.
That’s like saying higher math is just quibbling over numerics. Semantics are how we express thought. If you don’t like me being specific don’t ask subtle or vague questions. Precision of word is precision of thought. That english is inherently flawed is a social issue not a scientific one.
I contend that applying “why” to physical constants is a meaningless exercise.
Why is about purposes, meanings, and qualia. Like I said about the electron. You chose to undermine the existence of evil. Well ok, let me put it another way. Is there a test to determine if an electron is my favorite one? Of course not. There is no objective criteria.
And science by its nature can only answer in an objective fashion. And since reality is composed of both objective and subjective questions, then by definition science cannot answer all questions.
This does not mean that questions which science can not answer are “meaningless.” It just means they are different. I am not a creature of objectivity. Indeed *I* is the essence of subjectivity. To dismiss it from your world view because your belief system can’t parse it as an objective phenomenon is basically insane and cheating.
You are either capable of understanding that or you are not. If you are not this is not a weakness on your part any more than my being unable to sense heat like pit viper is. I am not making a qualitative judgment I am simply suggesting that some people can’t, by dint of their neurological construction, grasp this concept.
It’s like being able to visualize a hypercube. Or imagine a new color. Even the mind has limits, and those limits are different among individuals.
Here is Einstein’s “religion.” He was not talking about some belief that completed his world view. He explicitly states that he uses science to reveal. Your quote is from 1941. In his later years he was disgusted by the attempted subversion of his words by religious factions. Here he sets the record straight:
“It was, of course, a lie what you read about my religious convictions, a lie which is being systematically repeated. I do not believe in a personal God and I have never denied this but have expressed it clearly. If something is in me which can be called religious then it is the unbounded admiration for the structure of the world so far as our science can reveal it.” (Albert Einstein, 1954) From Albert Einstein: The Human Side, edited by Helen Dukas and Banesh Hoffman, Princeton University Press
Note his qualifier, “personal God,” the man was a deist and so am I. What was annoying Einstein was the false dilemma often applied to his words. “See he believes in a god therefor he believes in my God.”
Besides, the quote was not some sort of argument from authority, it was just meant to express a concept. If you choose to believe that Einstein was a strong atheist, that’s cool with me. It really has no bearing one way or the other.
The “electron is evil” comment presupposes there is such a thing as evil. Do you believe in evil?
As explained above I was just grabbing a subjective at random for exemplary purposes. It is not germane. For the record though I am a moral relativist. There are no specific actions which are universally evil. Unless you define an action via its consequences.
Example: The only act which is universally evil is one which causes a net increase in pain coupled with a net loss of life. It’s all about pleasure and life. We can dig into that later if you’d like.
The idea of “non-overlapping magisteria” is a thoroughly refuted accommodationist viewpoint.
If that’s what my viewpoint actually is then I disagree. If it is not then the statement becomes irrelevant. I find the angst implied by “accommodationist” amusing. As if cooperation is weakness. I could easily say that science itself is an “accommodationist” idea because it utterly bends to the will of reality. Do you ascribe such obvious personality traits to other non-living things? Your response is as absurd as me saying “If science were a real man it wouldn’t bow to anything, including evidence!” Heh.
Your statement in which this sentence appeared indicates a leaning in that direction, IMHO.
Well I hope I’ve removed any significant ambiguity.
Religion trespasses on science. When it no longer does so, it will no longer resemble what is thought of today as religion.
Agreed. But religion is not part and parcel with its consequences. Just as phrenology is not science. Science too trespasses on religion. You’re doing it now by basically saying science can explain anything and that which science can’t explain doesn’t exist or is trivial. If I set you on fire subjectivity would quickly come to matter to you a great deal. Science wouldn’t care, it would just measure the temperature differential between you and the room and the decibels of your screaming. 🙂 Ethics on the other hand can be systematized but they can’t be made into a science because the axioms on which ethics are based are subjective in nature. IE pleasure is good pain is bad. Science could answer questions like which way of government is most productive and longest lasting but it can’t answer what way of life is best because that’s a subjective question. You could apply a scientific method to the question and feed it subjectively derived premises and get a useful answer, but that’s my point. Science in order to be complete must be given a subjective component from outside and that’s what philosophy and religion and subjective experience do. That’s again what he meant when he said science without religion is lame. With out an arbitrary direction or someone to ask questions and have a goal science is immobile.
My brother in law is in love with (it seems to me) the idea of religion. He recognizes that religion as it exists (and is practiced by the majority) is shallow. He also concedes that it has been, and continues to be, complicit in countless atrocities throughout history.
I do not know your brother so this is pure speculation, but I suspect that is because he can separate the actions of those inspired by religion from the ideological concept of religion. Religion is like emotion. It’s ethical value stems from what we do with it.
If I say the Mona Lisa inspired me to kill brunettes would that make the Mona Lisa evil? I suspect it’s a bit like that.
Somehow, he is still reverential of it, as are many people. He spends a lot of time searching for a place where he can keep his love alive. He wants his belief to just be intellectually superior and justifiable through his abstract mental contortions. I think that he is simply narcissistic. He cannot accept the insignificance of his own existence.
You may be right, but again, I don’t know the man. However I think your appraisal of yourself as insignificant is dishonest. I could put you in a dozen situations where you would demonstrate your own believe of significance, its just that you recognize that what makes you special is outside the realm of science and since your science (like a religion which demands no other gods) demands that you claim all things outside science to be trivial, you logically know that you must include yourself, and so you do rather than admit that science is fundamentally incomplete because it’s a tool without a hand.
A few questions:
re: “Some mental illness takes on a religious from, but not all religion is mental illness.” That is an interesting sentence. Why not “Some religion is mental illness and some is not.” Which one(s) is/are not?
Because that’s like saying some science is mental illness and some is not. If it were mental illness it wouldn’t be science. The same applies to religion. Saying god told you to kill your son is not religion, that’s schizophrenia. Saying god wanted your son to die because he did despite all ethical efforts to save him, is religion. It’s about perspective and interfacing your qualitative experience with the quantitative world.
Are you a theologian, by chance?
No.
Do you think there is a purpose to our existence?
Regards,
-S
Of course, but I do not think of my answer as objective or valid beyond anyone but me.
I look forward to your rely.