![[cc-by-sa]](http://i.creativecommons.org/l/by-sa/3.0/88x31.png){kind=small}
I suppose you could, with some justification, accuse me of being a troll, given that my post "So I'm a Christian. Shoot me." generated an entirely predictable set of flames tearing me down for unscientific thinking, and for trying to claim that there is any kind of bias against the religious anywhere on scienceblogs. I continue my trolling here -- though, of course, trolling is not the reason I'm doing this. I'm hoping that there are actually some out there who see this as a valid intellectual exchane.
In that post, I lay a few things out which aren't even the things I thought people might really object to. Indeed, mostly nobody objected to what I wrote-- which says something about the redership around here, since a bunch of what I wrote would be offensive to many who are religious. Instead, some objected to to the very fact of me being religious with the usual "stump the deluded godist" questions. Others actually objected to something in what I wrote, not liking my grousing about the anti-religious rehtoric that's so common around scienceblogs. The view seems to be that since atheists are so persecuted in general American societ,y it's OK for them to behave like intolerant boors around here. (I should also note that I received some comments in support of what I wrote, and I thank those of you who did that.)
In that post, I make it very clear that religion is no good at explaining the processes of the natural world. Once upon a time, that was a big part of what religion was for. We want to understand, to explain, how the world works. Until ancient Greece, at least Western thought didn't even attempt to explain it without recourse to theology. In the last few hundred years, science has demonstrated tremendous power in explaining the natural world without recourse to theology-- there's just no competition. We don't need religion to explain the natural world any more, and indeed it's clear that religion does a terrible job at that, whereas science has done an impressive job, and there's no reaspon to suspect that it will stop any time soon
Given that, is there any point to religion any more? For many, the answer is no. However, to some subset of those many, they think that the answer should be no for everybody. When somebody uses language like "The God Hypothesis," there's a good chance that they are taking a narrow view of religion as merely a "science substitute." What I want to argue is that there still remains a point and a purpose to "God" even if there is no point or purpose to "God the Creator." I would say that indeed the hypothesis of "God the Creator" has not stood up to observational scrutiny, for there is a whole host of other hypotheses that have stood up an awful lot better. While we can't strictly rule out "God the Creator," the role of that creation is shrinking into an ever decreasing set of gaps-- that I full expect science will one day close. Despite the Discovery Institute's senseless rambling, there's no need to invoke any kind of God or Intelligent Designer to explain how humanity arose. We've got broad theories that get our Universe from a very early state, that produced our Sun and our Earth. I fully expect that one day we will even have scientific theories that satisfactorily address the creation of our Universe itself.
So if we don't need God to explain how we came to be, how the world or Universe came to be, or how things work, what good is God?
Let me stick to my own particular religious tradition here, because it's the one I know best. The church I used to attend in Berkeley (the UCC -- one of those denominations that has been doing commitment ceremonies for homosexuals for years) has long been on a kick of "correcting" the masculine language in a lot of the music and writing that has come down through the centuries in our religious tradition. If we're trying to get away from the patriarchical notion of God as an old man with a white beard, it's very awkward to have this core prayer starting with "Our Father, who art in heaven." So how do people usually try to "fix" it? "Our Creator, who art in heaven."
I have never liked that. The term "Father" encompasses so much more than the donation of some gametes; and, yet, we reduce the role to that by using the term Creator. What's more, it's the role that I have come to understand I think is the least important role, and indeed a role that doesn't entirely fit with our understanding of the modern world.
If you boil down the role of God into a few words, they tend to be Creator, Sustainer, Redeemer. I'm ready to throw out Creator, as I've already described. Yes, the fact that our science is currently unable to address how the Universe worked before the Planck Epoch (about 10^-43 seconds after what would be the moment of the classical Big Bang) means that we have some wiggle room to say, well, that's where God comes in; that's where he created the Universe by setting the laws of Physics and the initial conditions of the Big Bang. But that makes the same mistake made by earlier, now-discarded understandings about the role of God in our creation-- one day, science may and probably will address the early pre-Planck Epoch Universe. Moreover, it's a very distant and abstract God. Why would we feel the need to have any kind of personal relationship with something like that?
So we are left with Sustainer and Redeemer. Obviously, God does not provide physical sustenance. And, there are many out there who don't need any kind of overt religion or spirituality for emotional, moral, or other sustenance; there are quite a number of agnostics or atheists who practice no religion, even private personal religion, but who live whole and fulfilled lives. But God can provide emotional or spiritual sustenance, and indeed does for many. Call it a crutch if you must, but many people find the strength to face the challenges in their lives, and find the will to do the things that they believe should be done, via their faith in God or gods. This isn't delusion; this is how people get through their day. It is real to them. There do not need to be testable hypotheses that say that" if there is a God, then the intervention in the physical world will be detected in such and such a way" for the bolstering that many get from their religion to be very real to them.
(Re: "Redeemer," let me put that off to the post where I discuss why I myself am a Christian, specifically.)
Many scientists make the arrogant mistake of thinking that the only kind of human knowledge that exists is scientific knowledge. I see this all the time. I saw it a few times in the responses to my previous post. Consider, for example, art. Yes, there is science in understanding how materials combine to make sculptures, or how pigments combine to make colors. Yes, there is science in understanding what it is about human cognition and/or sociological predisposition that leads people to find some kind of art more pleasing than another. But the art itself-- the creation of it, the appreciation of it, and the understanding of it's meaning for what it is itself-- that is not science. That can be very creative, it can be very deep, it can require tremendous intelligence, and it can involve scholarship... but it's not science. This is what people are talking about when they talk about "other ways of knowing" besides just knowing the empirical results of scientific experiments and the additional predictions of theories supported by those experiments.
Richard Dawkins gave an interview to Salon last October in which there was this exchange (the interviewer in bold, Dawkins not):
But it seems to me the big "why" questions are, why are we here? And what is our purpose in life?
It's not a question that deserves an answer.
Well, I think most people would say those questions are central to the way we think about our lives. Those are the big existential questions, but they are also questions that go beyond science.
If you mean, what is the purpose of the existence of the universe, then I'm saying that is quite simply begging the question. If you happen to be religious, you think that's a meaningful question. But the mere fact that you can phrase it as an English sentence doesn't mean it deserves an answer. Those of us who don't believe in a god will say that is as illegitimate as the question, why are unicorns hollow? It just shouldn't be put. It's not a proper question to put. It doesn't deserve an answer.
Here, Dawkins is showing exactly that arrogant and mistaken tendency of the scientist to assume that the only valid thought is that thought susceptable to the scientific method. Sure, "what is the purpose of existence" is not a meaningful scientific question. But it is a question whose answer can and will influence how we live our lives. The question "what should I do with myself today," if thought about carefully enough, impinges upon the question "what is the purpose of my life." Since science does not provide an answer, people look elsewhere. Some look to philosophy. Some don't think about it too hard. Some deliberately and consciously create their own purpose. Some turn to religion. The point is that this is an extremely meaningful and important question; whether or not it can be answered, the attempt to answer it is absolutely crucial. And yet, Dawkins writes it off as a question that doesn't deserve an answer. This is where he, and all of those who think that religion is bad because it's no more than a failed hypothesis, are completely missing the point. This is where those who scoff at the notion of "other ways of knowing" and those who think that only scientific things are relevant to humanity are missing out on a large part of what it means to be a thinking creature.
This is the point and purpose of religion in a scientific age. Not for everybody, certainly. Not for you, perhaps. But for many, yes, it is, and for many, it does a great job at that. Yes, it does a whole lot of evil as well. However, listing religion's evil results as a means of condemnation is no more useful than listing "firearms; gunpowder; nuclear weapons; ozone depleting chemicals; global warming producing industrial processes" and a myriad of other things as a condemnation of science, technology and progress.
Given all of that-- if you are an atheist, then to you, God does not exist, because you have no need of it in your life, and because none of us have any need of it to explain how the natural world works. For somebody else, God is real because his faith gives him emotional support. Is this other person deluded? Only if he uses that faith to claim things that are wrong-- for instance, that the world is only 6,000 years old. Is he just believing in a fairy story because it's comforting to him? No. Theology is deeper than that. God does not have to be real for you for God to be real. It sounds illogical, but we're not talking science here. We are talking a layer of reality that is crucial for many, irrelevant to others, and orthogonal to the natural world except via the affects is has as a result of the actions of the faithful.
In my own view, that which we call "God" is an integral property of sentient existence. Without thinking and caring people, there would be no God. In my view, God did not create the Universe; the Universe just is, but God is something different. Have I thrown away scientific thinking in this area of my life? No-- because it was never there in the first place. Yes, you can apply the scientific method to predictions of religion, but there is more to human cognition than purely scientific thinking, as I've argued above.
Do I expect any of this to convert any atheist? Absolutely not. You're happy without religion, and more power to you. I don't want you to be converted. What I would like is for you to be able to accept the notion that there are those who are religious who may still not only be good scientists, but also aren't deluded idiots even in that aspect of our lives. I would also like for the religious to understand that atheists aren't all evil, amoral, and damned. Alas, while there are plenty of atheists (called "Neville Chamberlain" atheists around here) perfectly willing to accept those of us who aren't atheists, and while there are plenty of religious perfectly willing to accept the morality and goodness of atheists, the majority in both camps seem to be more hard-line. And I don't really expect my scribblings to convince anybody of anything. (I do expect to be flamed and generally called dishonest, deluded, magically thinking, and be attacked with a bunch of trolling straw-man attacks from the legions around here who despise the religious. The comments here are an Internet forum; people just can't hold off from that sort of thing on Internet fora.)
The one thing I really do hope I can accomplish by scribbling all of this is to let people who are uncertain or who are on the fence realize that you can fully accept all of the implications of modern scientific knowledge without having to completely throw out your religious faith. I think that is a tremendously important message, because so many people have religious faith. We don't need to ask them to throw it out, or even to make fun of them for not throwing it out, in order to accept modern science--but I do think we need as many people as possible to accept modern science. I hope I can serve as an example of somebody who accepts modern science but is able to maintain some form of religious faith.
Comments
Posted by: Mustafa Mond, FCD | March 12, 2007 8:05 PM
Posted by: Mustafa Mond, FCD | March 12, 2007 8:16 PM
Mustafa Mond, FCD -- you are rapidly cruising toiward being a banned commenter. Please try to engage in discussion rather than insult.
Posted by: Rob Knop | March 12, 2007 8:19 PM
Oh, are you gonna get hammered. I'll have to check in tomorrow morning, right now I'm headed home to enjoy "God."
Posted by: Mustafa Mond, FCD | March 12, 2007 8:21 PM
Rob -- No matter what knees may start to jerk, I think you did a lovely and thoughtful job of expressing yourself. No one has ever changed their mind as a result of being scolded.
Posted by: Julianne | March 12, 2007 8:24 PM
I think Rob makes several notable points in here that are almost certain to be ignored. This one is a good example:
We are talking a layer of reality that is crucial for many, irrelevant to others, and orthogonal to the natural world except via the affects is has as a result of the actions of the faithful.
Did anyone else notice the word 'orthogonal'? Yes, that's right, this has nothing to do with science. Applying the scientific method to a religious discussion is as useful as faith healing for cancer. Actually, the latter (when combined with proper modern medical practices) might be more useful, based on various studies. (Something about positive thinking being good for you...go figure!)
I think people like Dawkins aren't just divisive, but are a reflection of what they claim to not like. Dawkins is so certain of what he knows that it's effectively a belief system. I've never had use for hard-core atheism. I prefer to describe myself as religiously apathetic...the question has no interest for me personally, but I don't have the need to stomp on those who do value the question.
The one thing about religions (including hard-core atheism) that really bugs me is that they could all be such forces for moral good in the world, and none of them are effective in that role. Instead of worrying about what someone might or might not be doing in a private bedroom, worry about how people treat each other.
There's an awful lot of 'open-minded' folks around here who need to have a second look at their convictions. Tolerance clearly isn't part of the agenda. Personally, I don't agree with Rob about his beliefs, but bully for him for standing up for what he does believe.
Posted by: David Williamson | March 12, 2007 8:32 PM
Call it a crutch if you must, but many people find the strength to face the challenges in their lives, and find the will to do the things that they believe should be done, via their faith in God or gods. This isn't delusion; this is how people get through their day. It is real to them.
Well, if it weren't real to them, then it wouldn't be properly considered a delusion, now would it?
Also, the question "What is our purpose of life?" by its very phrasing excludes the possibility that there is no purpose in life. I think a more appropriate question would be "Is there purpose in life?", to which my personal response is a very definite, very scientific "Iunno."
Posted by: Cody | March 12, 2007 8:56 PM
Posted by: brtkrbzhnv | March 12, 2007 9:08 PM
See, it's not just the philosopher of science who's inclined to say that science builds a certain kind of knowledge according to certain ground rules -- but that this doesn't preclude there being other kinds of knowledge deserving of the name.
Also, there are plenty of questions that are quite important to some of us, where we may have beliefs we're not quite prepared to call knowledge -- at least, we don't assume our beliefs on these matters will necessarily be persuasive to others -- but where having a belief can make a real difference in our lives.
Posted by: Dr. Free-Ride | March 12, 2007 9:15 PM
I enjoy your posts and I respect your point of view. But as an atheist I am not convinced by your argument, as you rightly expected. Being useful is not the same as being true.
I agree that the interview you cited shows arrogance of Richard Dawkins and I don't agree with everything Dawkins says even though I'm an atheist. But I have to say that I find Dawkins much more consistent than someone like, say Francis Collins, when it comes to religion. I'm sure Collins is a good scientist and maybe I'm missing something as I haven't read his book. But from the articles that I read, I didn't get the impression that Collins have considered the fact that Christianity is just one of many religions that have existed in the world. In that sense, I find your view of religions more acceptable. The question still remains why you consider yourself a Christian specifically. I am looking forward to your post explaining it.
Being from a country where Christianity is not a major religion (Japan), I am as interested in the question of why you consider yourself a Christian (aside from the fact that you were born in a country where Christianity is the major religion) as in the question of why you are a believer at all. I am also a little frustrated that this kind of discussion tends to take the form of Christianity vs. Atheism (or Abrahamic religions vs. Atheism), because Christianity is a very different religion compared to Buddhism, for example.
Posted by: HI | March 12, 2007 9:21 PM
I don't think I have read anything so sad in a long time. However, I will hold off explaining why I think that until you have finished your series. I wouldn't want to go off half cocked against a straw man.
Posted by: justawriter | March 12, 2007 9:35 PM
I think Rob would probably agree with the vast majority of sciblogs readers that religion is a purely human (that doesn't mean sentient aliens elsewhere might also have religion) creation. It may or maynot be a net positive for the developement of our species. In any case while most of us (scibloggers) will say we aren't here for a pre-existing purpose, nevertheless the question of what should we be doing about the future is entirely relevant.
I think most of us want our species to advance, and for the lives of our progeny to be "better" than ours. So we could invent all kinds of agendas, for what we should be accomplishing. None of these will be derivable from first principals, but that doesn't mean they are pointless -except perhaps in the sense that the universe is likely of finite duration (or perhaps oscillates, but information is lost in the transition), means that over a long period of time no record of what we do will remain.
In any case Rob is right in the sense that this is an area "beyond" science, although we might likelt use science as part of the process of formulating an answer.
So we can have lots of purposes:
(1) Serving some personal god, who in some sense will be happier if we do the right thing.
(2) Making the lives of those around us as good as we can.
(3) Serving evolution in the sense of trying to create more "perfect" lifeforms.
(4) spreading life throughout the galaxy.
Doubtless we could come up with many more.
Choose well, and you can have a satistfying life pursuing the result.
Posted by: bigTom | March 12, 2007 9:37 PM
hmmm... interesting. Seems a bit mushy, but that's ok, a lot of things are mushy.
My main problem is again you seem to be arguing against a strawman: Dawkins was saying in his (or more generally an atheistic) worldview there is no inherent meaning of life, and actually a lot of religious people would probably agree with that (look in to christian existentialism sometime).
It's good that you are defining god for the purposes of this discussion, I find that most disagreements between reasonable theists and reasonable atheists get disrailed because neither one knows what the other is talking about. The definition is interesting, though. I would certainly agree that some people believe in something and are comforted by that belief, does that god real? Depends on what you mean by real, and then we get into a debate about ontology, something I know I would like to avoid.
Incidentally this one of the reasons I gave up on the theism I used to have: it's very hard to form a logically consistent idea of god without giving up just about every defining characteristic of god.
Posted by: MaxPolun | March 12, 2007 9:44 PM
*wonders how long it'll take for someone to mention Hitler on this thread*
Posted by: mollishka | March 12, 2007 9:55 PM
Slightly more seriously now:
First of all, Rob, you really can't be a troll on your own blog. Mustafa Mond, FCD can apparently troll here, but kind of by definition, you can't.
Is it bad that I can hear Richard Dawkins's accent pervading through that quote? The question of whether or not there is a meaning to life, and if so, what is it, is perhaps too broadly worded to appeal to the non-religious types. A more personal and practically applicable phrasing, would be, "What is the purpose of my life such that I continue living it?" While the answer to "What is the meaning of life?" could possibly answer this other question, it isn't necessarily a prerequisite.
Likewise, the existence of a god or of religion isn't at all necessary for actually addressing the kinds of questions you've raised here. So far, it seems that you are advocating spirituality, not organized religion replete with god(s) and rituals.
Huh. I think my main point ran away from me ...
Posted by: mollishka | March 12, 2007 10:07 PM
Rob,
While I disagree with your rationale for having religion, (wouldn't it be easier and better to have a comforting thing that is also real and true?), I think it took a lot of cajones to put yourself out in an environment that is pretty heavily dominated by atheists or otherwise non-belivers. It must be rather how atheists feel in the public at large! I wish the comments trended toward challenge rather than scorn because while I don't think you can have the assumption of no challenge, you should at least be getting a measure of respect for your difference of opinion.
Now how about some science!
Posted by: Greg Kucharo | March 12, 2007 10:21 PM
Thanks, Rob. I think you've done an excellent job of presenting your case. I think you are correct in your assessment of how non-fundamentalist religious faith can be compatible with science for those who seem to need religion.
Posted by: chezjake | March 12, 2007 10:37 PM
I don't blame you for James Dobson and his like - clearly his faith and yours are different circuits. And you're not giving shelter to him. As I look at our sorrowful world I just don't see much chance of everyone agreeing on a specific epistemology. For the foreseeable future we're going to have to learn to live with each other, atheists and theists. Since we share a lot of values and even many beliefs, this should not be difficult, yet...
Helps a lot to know what the thinking is. Now if we could just find the volume control and turn it down, maybe some communication could take place.
Posted by: decrepitoldfool | March 12, 2007 10:39 PM
Thanks for the comments all.
A few things:
While I disagree with your rationale for having religion, (wouldn't it be easier and better to have a comforting thing that is also real and true?)
I'll take that by "real and true" you mean materially real and true. And, yeah, for a whole lot of people, that works. Not for everybody.
Several years ago, my first year at Vanderbilt, I went to a star party. This was an unpleasant time in my department. The year before I arrived, there had been an external review that used words like "the whole is less than the sum of the parts." In responding to it, we fell on each other like a pack of starved hyenas. (Things are MUCH better now. We've hired about 1/4 or more of the faculty since then, and the department is on the whole a pleasant place.) Another junior faculty member who was a harder core amateur astronomer than I (and was also a professional astronomer) was there. We were out with our scopes, and I mentioned something about the department. He said he didn't want to talk about it. "This is my church," he said, gesturing to the wide open, beautiful, dark, empty sky. "I've come here for spiritual renewal."
Lots of people find it in lots of places.
So far, it seems that you are advocating spirituality, not organized religion replete with god(s) and rituals.
Yeah, I haven't made any arguments for organized religion at all. The arguments for those are the "community building" arguments. In Berkeley, we lived in the city, but our church was our "small town," our community of neighbors and friends who looked out for each other, cared about each other, mourned each others pains, celebrated each others joys, and so forth. Again, you don't need religion for that; I had a similar community in a local community theater I was a part of. But it does serve that purpose for many people.
Incidentally this one of the reasons I gave up on the theism I used to have: it's very hard to form a logically consistent idea of god without giving up just about every defining characteristic of god.
Yeah. And my understanding of god and my relationship to my faith is always changing. Indeed, that's not unusual; many religions like to talk about a "faith journey."
I have made some peace with the notion that god isn't always going to be completely logical.... No, I don't live my life without cognitive dissonance, and without occasional re-evaluation, and without some tension. But I value all sides of this, so it's worth the effort to figure out how to live with all of it.
I think it's rather that he doesn't want to answer a question that doesn't make any sense. "What's the purpose of x?" can be stated more explicitly as "what reason did y have for causing the existence of x?", and so, unless we state what y is, the question is meaningless.
I disagree. Those two questions are not the same question at all.
What is the purpose of a screwdriver? Well, the person who made the screwdriver was making it to sell it for profit. But, yes, the screwdriver was designed with the purpose of loosening and tightening screws in mind.
But to me, what is the purpose of a screwdriver? Just just that, but also prying up bits of superglue stuck on my desk, cleaning out my fingernails after gardening, practicing juggling, and, sometimes, hammering nails.
I can find a purpose in the screwdriver without having to worry at all about what whoever made it was thinking when they made it.
See, it's not just the philosopher of science who's inclined to say that science builds a certain kind of knowledge according to certain ground rules
If Janet's gonna start talking about this stuff, I'm way out of my league :)
Also, the question "What is our purpose of life?" by its very phrasing excludes the possibility that there is no purpose in life. I think a more appropriate question would be "Is there purpose in life?", to which my personal response is a very definite, very scientific "Iunno."
I presume "Iunno" = "Dunno".
"None" is a valid answer to the question "What is the purpose of X." I don't think the question necessarily precludes a negative answer.
Scientifically, the purpose to life seems to be to make more of itself. Life, in a sense, is a cog in a big evolutionary machine. None of that, really, is going to help you think about what career you might want to pursue. "Meaning of life" type questions might, however. If you don't think you need to think about what the purpose of life is, that's fine. Other people do.
-Rob
-Rob
Posted by: Rob Knop | March 12, 2007 10:52 PM
(Manual Trackback) And a thank you for sticking through this despite the flames. It's refreshing to see someone on Science Blogs taking a stand like this.
Posted by: Qalmlea | March 12, 2007 10:55 PM
I can't believe you just threatened to ban Mustafa Mond, FCD... He is one of the most prolific commenters not only on scienceblogs, but on other important blogs as well (panda's thumb?). I don't even know the guy, but I do know that a ban would be unwarranted he's one of the elder statesmen of comment whoring in anti-creationism and blogs ... what was so bad about pointing out the obvious?
You did redefine both God and Christian right to the line of irrecognizability. I was a hardcore catholic, and I would never have considered you a christian. In order to be a christian there are a few base things we need to accept... You don't believe in the divinity of christ, the virgin birth or the bodily ascension (I assume) so how could you possibly call yourself a christian? you're a deist ... at best. An agnostic theist at worse. You can't just redefine terms when you don't happen to like their meaning.
Anyway, I as well will go home and enjoy God, and by God I mean a delicious tuna casserole. With feta cheese.
Posted by: Federico Contreras | March 12, 2007 11:01 PM
That's what got me about many of the commenters on the previous post, too. If you think that scientific knowledge is the only kind of knowledge, how would you scientifically test whether or not murder is wrong? Science can't even begin to talk about "right" and "wrong", unless it's a meta-study, like discussing the evolution of morals and ethics.
There are many ways that you can talk about morals and ethics, but none of them can, by definition, fall under the umbrella of "science".
Actually, theology is philosophy, when you get down to it. Or, perhaps more correctly, it's a family of schools of philosophical thought.
Posted by: Pseudonym | March 12, 2007 11:11 PM
(Manual Trackback) This topic sure does get a whole lot of people talking passionately, doesn't it?
Posted by: Ed Minchau | March 12, 2007 11:14 PM
I presume "Iunno" = "Dunno".
No, "Iunno" is exactly what I wrote: a lazy contraction of "I don't know" best expressed with the assistance of a shrug.
"None" is a valid answer to the question "What is the purpose of X." I don't think the question necessarily precludes a negative answer.
John: "What flavor of ice cream would you like?"
Mary: "I would not like any ice cream."
John: "You still haven't answered my question."
John's question was phrased in a way that does not take into consideration Mary's preferences. You might think John's question does not necessarily preclude Mary's answer, but I think you at least have to admit that his question is heavily biased in favor of a chocolate-, vanilla-, whatever-flavored answer (I think a pun might have crept in there, but I can't be entirely sure).
I still think the proper phrasing should first be, "Is there purpose to our lives?" followed by, "If so, what is it?". I think too many people ask "What is the purpose of our life?" without considering the necessary "Is there purpose in life?" beforehand.
Rob, I think you might appreciate this xkcd comic: http://www.xkcd.com/c220.html
Posted by: Cody | March 12, 2007 11:32 PM
You seem to be arguing against an innate purpose: it's just a hunk of iron and plastic, but we can use it to drive screws if we want. One reasonable interpretation of what Dawkins was being asked is "what is the innate purpose of living?", that's certainly how I would interpret it in that context, and a response that the question is ill-posed seems like a legitimate response for someone who doesn't believe in gods, rather than a expression that science is all there is.
Posted by: MaxPolun | March 12, 2007 11:33 PM
If you think that scientific knowledge is the only kind of knowledge, how would you scientifically test whether or not murder is wrong? Science can't even begin to talk about "right" and "wrong"
Since when were value judgments "knowledge"?
Posted by: Cody | March 12, 2007 11:36 PM
pseudonym,
That's what got me about many of the commenters on the previous post, too. If you think that scientific knowledge is the only kind of knowledge, how would you scientifically test whether or not murder is wrong?
Science, and rational inquiry more broadly, are the only way of producing knowledge. Religion merely produces belief. Moral propositions are expressions of preferences, not objective truth. It makes no more sense to ask whether the proposition "murder is wrong" is true or false than it does to ask whether the proposition "blue is prettier than green" is true or false.
Posted by: Jason | March 12, 2007 11:40 PM
Science can't even begin to talk about "right" and "wrong"
I think it in fact does has something to say about it, at least in regards to a variety of social norms that exist regardless of human culture. Not like I'm saying science should tell us how to conduct our lives. But relativism has its limits.
Posted by: b sharp | March 12, 2007 11:46 PM
I have to disagree with the first part of your sentence. Well, maybe I actually don't "need" a god, but it would be great to have an invisible friend to protect me in this life and create a whole other universe for me to retire to. In that sense, I don't think my need is any lesser than anyone else's, and the lack thereof is definitely not the answer to why I don't think "God" exists. It just doesn't make sense to me that the universe would care about what I need or don't need. It seems arrogant to me to make that assumption.
My prediction is that if "God" is ever found to exist, it will care about humans about as much as we care about ants.
I hope you don't ban Mustafa Mond. I thought he posed some good questions on the earlier thread, and was hoping you would answer them. I have seen much ruder commentators - but it's your blog, of course.
Posted by: JimV | March 13, 2007 12:04 AM
"In my view, God did not create the Universe; the Universe just is, but God is something different."
This assumes (as you stated in your blog entry) that man will be able to explain the creation (or the "just is-ness") of the universe. I'm not sure why you feel so certain on that point. I see no reasoning offered to substaniate this claim.
"Without thinking and caring people, there would be no God. In my view, God did not create the Universe; the Universe just is, but God is something different."
...Nor do I see logic/evidence to substantiate that God is nothing more than a collective consciouness of thinking and caring individuals - instead of the being that created a wonderous universe.
The two are intertwined - until someone proves that universe was not created. A scientist positing a theory, just because they can't stand the possibility that the system wasn't closed at least once (maybe still), is as dogmatic as the people that cling to a literal biblical-creationist stance when the astrophysical and archeological evidence shows otherwise.
"Science without religion is lame. Religion without science is blind."
"God is subtle, but he is not malicious." Inscribed in Fine Hall (Library of Mathematics, Physics and Statistics, Princeton University)
--Albert Einstein
Posted by: SM | March 13, 2007 12:10 AM
Jason:
We're going to be here a while, I can tell.
Just a short note: Not entirely true. Religion (like other philosophies and belief systems) also produces action. And given a choice between good belief and good action, I'll take the good action any day.
Centuries of agnostic philosophers would disagree with you on the first half of that sentence, of that sentence, though less so on the second half. Even on the second half, though, it's a non sequitur because you made a semantic shift from "knowledge" to "objective truth". You're assuming that scientific knowledge is the only kind of knowledge, and concluding from this that the only think you can know anything about is "objective truth".
You're right in that morals are not a property of the physical world. As Rob put it:
In the absence of intelligent beings (e.g. us), there would be no morals, no ethics, no justice and no love. But it does not follow that anything you think you "know" about justice or love isn't really "knowledge".
Cody:
Since people started studying them formally, which was a very long time ago.
Posted by: Pseudonym | March 13, 2007 12:10 AM
I believe/think/feel X is wrong. I know that other people believe/think/feel X is wrong. One's a value judgment alien to the methods of science, the other is a knowledge claim which can be verified by the methods of science. If I ever say "I know murder is wrong," then feel free to call me out on my inconsistency.
What's all the fuss about?
Posted by: Cody | March 13, 2007 12:21 AM
Strong Atheist here -
Nicely and interestingly put.
The triune idea of God (Creator, Sustainer, Redeemer) is an approach I've never run into before. I don't have as much problem as you with the "Creator" aspect, but you're probably right that it tends to mess up people's thinking. Maybe leave it for the advanced course. I'm intrigued to see how you think about the Redeemer aspect (obviously the most denomination specific piece).
I agree about the supporting aspect of God in people's lives. And I wouldn't call it a crutch (except in quite particular cases, not in general). Living in the world is not simple, it's not easy and everyone finds their own way. I don't feel I should be telling someone what are the acceptable and unacceptable ways to deal with life (barring the wild outliers of course). When other people do it (from all sides) it annoys me no end. It runs counter to something I value highly, compassion.
Having always been an outsider to religion the best handle I've been able to get on it is to analogize it to art, most specifically poetry. So when I hear people talk about God I hear it not as literal statements, but as poetry attempting to describe something beyond our grasp. Literalizing religious language always leads to problems. (As an aside, this is probably why theocracies fail, but that's a separate topic.) Anyway, when hard core science types (of which I am one) question the meaningfulness of religious language it's like trying to literalize poetry. Of course it doesn't make sense. It's not meant to make sense in a literal way. But "getting" that is highly non-trivial. Took me 20+ years of thinking religion was silly and a mark of immature thought to get there.
Anyway, thanks for standing up for your beliefs and for working hard to explain them. Interesting reading.
Posted by: Barron | March 13, 2007 12:22 AM
Serious question here: What do we mean by "knowledge"? I have a bad feeling that unless we get that issue down, we're going to be talking past each other regarding what "other ways of knowing" are supposed to be.
Posted by: J. J. Ramsey | March 13, 2007 12:23 AM
pseudonym,
Religion (like other philosophies and belief systems) also produces action.
The claim was that religion is a source of knowledge. That claim is false. Religion produces only belief, not knowledge.
Even on the second half, though, it's a non sequitur because you made a semantic shift from "knowledge" to "objective truth".
No it isn't. Moral propositions are not statements of truth at all, let alone knowledge. They're merely preferences.
You're assuming that scientific knowledge is the only kind of knowledge,
No, I'm not "assuming" it, I conclude it from reason. If you believe that religion produces knowledge, give me an example of what you consider to be knowledge (and I do mean knowledge) produced by religion, and explain why you think it qualifies as knowledge rather than mere belief.
Posted by: Jason | March 13, 2007 12:40 AM
Serious question here: What do we mean by "knowledge"?
Justified true belief.
Posted by: Jason | March 13, 2007 12:41 AM
J.J. Ramsey: What we mean by "knowledge" is a topic that I doubt anyone here is qualified to give a reasonably definitive answer to. But it'd make a nice "basics" post on philosophyblogs.com.
Posted by: Pseudonym | March 13, 2007 12:42 AM
This assumes (as you stated in your blog entry) that man will be able to explain the creation (or the "just is-ness") of the universe. I'm not sure why you feel so certain on that point. I see no reasoning offered to substaniate this claim.
I'm not certain, but I *hope* we do, and in any event I think it likely that something not explained right now about the natural Universe will be explained later.
Think of how much we know about the natural world today -- and think how much of it would have been considered ineffable to people just a few centuries ago.
Science's track record is so good that I don't wouldn't bet against it eventually explaining *any* part of the natural world.
But obviously I don't *know* that.
On a more cynical day, I'm less sanguine about the possibilities. The contexts in which fundamental physics theorists use the term "effective field theories" make me sometimes suspect that we're never any closer to getting towards the fundamental laws of Physics than Kepler was with his three empirical laws about planetary orbits.... I find that all very depressing, however. I will probably write a lot more on *that* topic at some future date.
-Rob
Posted by: Rob Knop | March 13, 2007 12:47 AM
pseudonym,
J.J. Ramsey: What we mean by "knowledge" is a topic that I doubt anyone here is qualified to give a reasonably definitive answer to.
If you don't even know what you yourself mean by the word when you use it in your writing, you're just writing gibberish.
Posted by: Jason | March 13, 2007 12:49 AM
Serious question here: What do we mean by "knowledge"?
Justified true belief.
Then none of us know anything.
If you look back several of my posts, you can find my post on the scientific method. There, I have "truth" in quotes at the top as the ultimate, but perhaps unattainable, goal of science. We asymptote towards truth as we refine and improve our theories... but are we ever really there?
Given that the two must fundamental and wildly successful theories of the Universe-- General Relativity and Quantum Mechanics-- are mutually inconsistent, then everything we take to be "close to right" right now isn't strictly true.
So, by your definition, we know nothing.
Besides, Pseudonym has got it right. When we get to epistemology, Janet is probably about the only one around here who has half a clue of what she's *really* talking about. Certainly any of us who thinks that we have a hard and fast definition of what "knowledge" really is is probably kidding himself.
-Rob
Posted by: Rob Knop | March 13, 2007 12:50 AM
Rob wrote
Given that, would substituting "function" for "purpose" in the title and its other occurrences in the OP make any real difference at all in its content? Would substituting "belief in God" for "God" everywhere in the OP make any difference? On a first reading, I'd say no, but I'd be interested in Rob's answer.Posted by: RBH | March 13, 2007 12:53 AM
Doesn't knowledge require the thing that is known to be true? If a Christian says: "I know that God is real" then aren't they making both the statement that God is real and the statement that they are aware of that fact?
Posted by: Paul | March 13, 2007 12:55 AM
Rob Knop,
Then none of us know anything.
Really? So what superior alternative definition of "knowledge" do you propose, under which some of us do know something? Or do you in fact claim that none of us know anything?
Posted by: Jason | March 13, 2007 12:55 AM
Jason: And we know full well that that definition is at best highly incomplete.
One of the problems here is the Platonic notion of "truth". It makes a certain amount of sense when applied to science. Scientists, and philosophers of scientists, tend to be reliabilists; scientific knowledge is "true" because it yields lots of valid testable predictions.
But what does it mean for a philosophical statement to be "true"?
Cody makes a good point. You can think of philosophical knowledge as being more akin to mathematical theorems than theories about the physical world. If we agree on the axioms, even if only for the sake of argument, then we can explore where those axioms lead us, and that exploration produces knowledge.
But it would be wrong to call such knowledge "true" in the Platonic sense. Hard science has a fairly well-established reality check, in the form of the natural world, although even then, what constitutes a valid "scientific test" is not something that science itself can determine. That's why we also study the philosophy of science.
Posted by: Pseudonym | March 13, 2007 12:57 AM
Serious question here: What do we mean by "knowledge"?
I would say "I know it when I see it," but that seems a bit too recursive for my tastes.
I think the main issue of contention here is that some people are upset that others claim 1.) science is the only way of knowing. Then there's the implication that since science is the only way of knowing, then 2.) science is all there is to life. I'd say one is true, two is false.
Posted by: Cody | March 13, 2007 1:00 AM
Pseudonym,
Do you believe that religion produces knowledge or don't you? If you don't believe it, you agree with me that religion does not produce knowledge. If you do believe it, give me an example of knowledge that you believe religion has produced, and explain why you think it qualifies as knowledge rather than mere belief.
Posted by: Jason | March 13, 2007 1:01 AM
Jason:
If you ask a typical person what a "second" (unit of time) is, they will probably give an answer that's the informal equivalent of Navigator's Time: 1/86400 of a mean solar day. A typical person may not know what a "mean solar day" is, of course, but they'll probably have some inkling that there's a standard day-length defined somewhere.
This definition is, of course, incorrect. A second is, as most of us vaguely remember, formally defined as some multiple of the period of the radiation of the transition between the two hyperfine levels of the ground state a caesium-133 atom at a temperature of 0K in a zero magnetic field. (I forget the exact figure, but it's around 10 billion.)
But while the navigator's answer is wrong, it would be incorrect, and highly insulting, to call it "gibberish". It's close enough for most people. And, most critically, it's good enough that even a non-expert can dismiss a truly wrong answer, even without knowing what the correct technical definition is.
Posted by: Pseudonym | March 13, 2007 1:08 AM
Pseudonym,
I didn't say it's gibberish to make a claim that's wrong. I said it's gibberish for you to write about knowledge if you don't even know what you mean by the word yourself. What do you mean by it? Also, if you believe religion produces knowledge, give me an example of knowledge that you believe religion has produced, and explain why you think it qualifies as knowledge rather than mere belief.
Posted by: Jason | March 13, 2007 1:13 AM
This post and the one which spawned it were both eloquently stated and evenly tempered. Kudos for maintaining a civil tone through all the slings and arrows.
I arrived at atheism via Christianity and Wicca. That has been my journey. Within each of these communities I have met a broad spectrum of people. You'll find intolerance and closed-mindedness as well as their opposites in any group of people no matter what they espouse.
Thanks for exemplifying the positive traits of both science and religion. Nice work!
Posted by: Brian Cooksey | March 13, 2007 1:20 AM
We asymptote towards truth as we refine and improve our theories... but are we ever really there?
What is this... Zeno's Paradox, the Epistemological formation?
This is getting incredibly silly.
Posted by: Brad | March 13, 2007 1:35 AM
Jason:
That's a hard question to answer, because it depends what you mean by it.
Your apparent definition of "knowledge" says that the only knowledge is scientific knowledge. If that's true, then knowledge is not "produced" at all, but rather discovered. If that's what you mean, then obviously, religion produces no knowledge. But, then, neither does science.
If you will concede that philosophical knowledge is knowledge, then I'll give you one example. This is off the top of my head, so it may not be the best, or even a good, example.
Take the ontological "proof" of the existence of God. The argument is wrong. It's been roundly attacked by theologians since it was posed. But the best attack was from a Catholic priest (and astronomer; there's a crater on the Moon named after him) named Pierre Gassendi, who pointed out that, as we would say in modern language, existence is not a predicate.
This particular insight may not seem like much, but it was actually a key step in the development of predicate calculus.
Posted by: Pseudonym | March 13, 2007 1:39 AM
pseudonym,
That's a hard question to answer, because it depends what you mean by it.
I just told you what I mean by it: justified true belief.
If YOU mean something else by "knowledge," what do YOU mean by it?
If you DO believe that religion produces knowledge, give me an example of knowledge that you believe religion has produced, and explain why you think it qualifies as knowledge rather than mere belief.
Conversely, if you DO NOT believe that religion produces knowledge, then say so.
Posted by: Jason | March 13, 2007 1:46 AM
Jason:
And what do you mean by "true"? I have no problem with saying that the statement "murder is wrong" is true. Most people's definition of "true" allows for this. You're obviously using a definition of truth that's related to scientific testability, which works for things that fall in the realm of science, but fails everywhere else. And it doesn't match up with most peoples' definition of "true", let alone the various attempts to capture the idea that come out of philosophy.
As I took some effort to point out: If you mean that truth is exactly that which is scientifically testable and tested, then only scientific knowledge is knowledge, and hence knowledge isn't "produced" at all, but rather discovered. Which means that the question "Does religion produce knowledge?" is based on a faulty premise.
You stated that it's gibberish for me to write about "knowledge" if I don't have a precise definition of it. That is, as I also took some effort to point out, like claiming that it's gibberish to talk about units of time without knowing what the precise scientific definition of a second is.
I wish we had a real philosopher here, because I'm fighting an uphill battle. This must be what it's like for a non-biologist to go head-to-head with an IDist.
Okay, sorry, that was unfair. Jason, I apologise for comparing you with an IDist.
Posted by: Pseudonym | March 13, 2007 2:07 AM
pseudonym,
And what do you mean by "true"?
That it corresponds to reality.
If YOU mean something else by "knowledge" than "justified true belief," what do YOU mean by it?
If you DO believe that religion produces knowledge, give me an example of knowledge that you believe religion has produced, and explain why you think it qualifies as knowledge rather than mere belief.
Conversely, if you DO NOT believe that religion produces knowledge, then say so.
I think this is now the fifth time I've asked, and the fifth time you have ignored the question. I can only conclude from your persistent evasion that YOU HAVE NO IDEA WHAT YOU MEAN BY "KNOWLEDGE".
Posted by: Jason | March 13, 2007 2:13 AM
I'll leave it up to everyone else to decide whether or not I've answered the question. I believe I have, and you just chose to ignore the answer.
Posted by: Pseudonym | March 13, 2007 2:16 AM
pseudonym,
I'll leave it up to everyone else to decide whether or not I've answered the question. I believe I have, and you just chose to ignore the answer.
No you haven't. Your responses have consisted of evasion and attempts to change the subject.
State the meaning of the word "knowledge" as YOU (yes, YOU) are using the word here. If you have no idea what YOU mean by "knowledge" then say so.
Posted by: Jason | March 13, 2007 2:24 AM
Pseudonym, you have and he did. Welcome to debating with Jason.
Posted by: Decline and Fall | March 13, 2007 2:29 AM
pseudonym,
I have no problem with saying that the statement "murder is wrong" is true.
How do you know that "murder is wrong" is true? What is the justification for this assertion?
Posted by: Jason | March 13, 2007 2:29 AM
Ah, OK, now this is interesting.
First off, I don't have a precise definition of "knowledge". However, I do know that yours is incorrect, for several reasons. One is the Gettier problem. Another is that your definition of "true" does not seem to include things that most people would agree are "true", such as the proposition that murder is wrong.
The thing is, like the second, I don't need a hyper-accurate definition of knowledge, since even philosophers can't agree on what it means.
The best handle on "knowledge" that I have is that it's a prototype category. This is knowledge, and things like it are knowledge. Wittgenstein put it much better than I did, when he asked the question about what the word "game" means. When you consider card games, board games, the Olypic games, mind games, war games and so on, you'll find that there is, essentially, no set of features that all "games" have and all non-games don't have. The only way you can define "game" is by prototypes. Poker is a game, and things like poker (e.g. Contract Bridge) are also games. If you collect enough prototypes, you have your definition.
So, for example: Scientific knowledge is knowledge, and philosophical knowledge is knowledge, and common-sense is knowledge. That's not an exhaustive list, but you get the idea.
Yes, it's imprecise. So is the navigator's definition of a second.
Posted by: Pseudonym | March 13, 2007 2:39 AM
As I took some effort to point out: If you mean that truth is exactly that which is scientifically testable and tested, then only scientific knowledge is knowledge, and hence knowledge isn't "produced" at all, but rather discovered. Which means that the question "Does religion produce knowledge?" is based on a faulty premise.
Okay. If knowledge is "discovered"... then we can simply rephrase the question:
Does science help us discover knowledge?
Does religion help us discover knowledge?
Posted by: Abbie | March 13, 2007 2:53 AM
Religion is not a way of producing, discovering, creating, developing or in any other way producing knowledge. All it can produce is belief.
I think Rob Knop and Pseudonym probably now realize they've painted themselves into a corner by suggesting otherwise. That's why they refuse to define "knowledge" or provide any examples of what they consider to be knowledge produced by religion. If religion is a source of knowledge, then absurd claims such as "The Earth is only 6,000 years old" are knowledge. Neither of them wants to go on record making such a silly statement, hence all the evasion and prevarication. I wish I could say this behavior isn't typical of apologists for religion, but it's all too familiar.
Posted by: Jason | March 13, 2007 3:08 AM
It's not quite on the topic of definition of the word 'knowledge', but the hardest assignment I had in my undergraduate career was one that sounded simple. I took a philosophy class that was basically all graded on in-class participation in discussions. When attendance tailed off, the prof assigned a single paper for the whole grade. The topic? "What is proof?"
Hardest damned paper I ever wrote.
Posted by: David Williamson | March 13, 2007 3:25 AM
Re the Dawkins answer to the question about purpose, here's a sentiment I've often heard him express (although the source for this particular one is quite old).
I've always understood Dawkins' opinion to be that any 'purpose' in life is not something that is imposed externally (by 'God'), but something that comes from within - something that you should define for yourself. In that sense, to ask in general about the 'purpose of life' is meaningless - you can ask about his purpose, or my purpose, or your purpose, but each answer will be different.
Nice posts, by the way. I'm looking forward to gaining more insights from future ones.
Posted by: Chris Rowan | March 13, 2007 3:34 AM
Rob : The question "what should I do with myself today," if thought about carefully enough, impinges upon the question "what is the purpose of my life."
This is of course the crux of the matter and the source of all religions.
As I posted in your previous thread :
Religionists are longing for "higher authority" and "purpose"!
This is an emotional demand which has NOTHING to do with any epistemologically sound investigation of reality.
Out of anguish you posit a comforting but INSANE hypothesis, there is an omnipotent agent who oversee the whole universe.
(and most especially your poor little ego...)
Dawkins is not "arrogant" in dismissing the question as nonsensical.
This has been pointed out already by several commenters brtkrbzhnv, JimV, Cody, etc...
Could you please deal with this, HOW does this "question" makes sense to you if you don't ALREADY posit that there must be some purpose?
If you don't think you need to think about what the purpose of life is, that's fine. Other people do.
This is a psychological problem, may be even a psychiatric one, what if the quest for "purpose" in life happens to be ultimately maladaptive?
And, BTW, your are definitely leaning toward "bad science" :
Scientifically, the purpose to life seems to be to make more of itself.
This is a teleological approach!
Posted by: Kevembuangga | March 13, 2007 4:21 AM
My impression of this post is that you are just playing around with semantics. You define (at least implicitly) your words such that you can come to your conclusions: God is real, "other ways of knowing", etc. I guess there's nothing wrong with that; I have little basis for claiming my definitions are any better.
Under the definitions you use, I think I actually agree with you. Of course God is real to many people, no more a delusion than dreams are hallucinations. The purpose of life is a valid question in the sense of seeming significant to us. But under the definitions I'm used to, I'm an atheist. As it is, its not that you've failed to convince me of your conclusions (which of course wasn't your intent), but that you've failed to convince me that we even, in essence, disagree. Surely, we must at some point, for we claim different identity labels.
Posted by: miller | March 13, 2007 4:28 AM
I should think that if more religious people were like Rob Knop, there would hardly be any reason for people like Dawkins to speak out the way they do. Rob wrote about the practice of art as an example of "other way of knowing"; to me Rob's description of his religion appears to be a form of art, its appreciation has little to do with hard facts about it, but rather the emotional content.
Epistemology is always puzzling, but I would not characterize this "other way of knowing" as any kind of knowing at all. As loathsome these rhetorical questions are: Does a dowser really know that he can find water with his divining rod? Even when puzzled by his inability to find water in a controlled experiment, he "knows" that he has the power. Is this really any different than people "knowing" and having "personal relationships" with God? Incidentally, a lot of the content of our relationships actually do happen in our heads anyway, in the form of imaginary conversations and such, so the idea of a personal relationship with God, I suppose, isn't that far fetched.
I've no problem with people having these sorts of beliefs, whatever their reasons and whatever the psychological factors behind them. But an unfortunate fact is that many religious people use their faith in unsupportable beliefs as an excuse for all manner of misbehaviour. Deeply religious persons can be rather difficult at best, and we all know what they can be at their worst.
Regardless of what ever value religious beliefs may have in and of themselves, I think that religious people would do well (as would everyone else) to look upon themselves analytically and see how their beliefs are (or maybe) constructed, so that they wouldn't make mistakes that lead to unnecessary grief and suffering. I think that people like Rob can be an invaluable asset in facilitating a more tolerable world, as they can speak the same language as more extreme religious believers.
Posted by: Flaky | March 13, 2007 5:13 AM
I was surprised with the Dawkins quote you used for a couple of reasons. First, it wasn't half as forceful as a lot of other statements he's made regarding religion or religious believers, and second, more importantly, it was entirely true.
By "entirely true" I mean true from the vi