secularsouth
Supporting a sacrilegious sanctuary, scientific society, and solace for Southern secularists.
Science, Faith, and the 800 lb gorilla
belief Richard Dawkins bestseller, "The God Delusion", is controversial. But not only in the obvious ways. I have noticed a good bit of yammering back and forth among both scientific and atheistic bloggers. The complaints range from fundamental disagreement with Dawkins premises, to distaste for his approach. A complaint that seems to be making its rounds at Scienceblogs, apparently stemming from a couple of reviews of the book, concerns Dawkins dismissive treatment of most of the philosophical justifications for theism. Having read the book, I thought this would be the perfect opportunity to throw my two cents about the book and the general argument.
The book is fairly good. It attempts to walk a line between deep philosophical and scientific concepts and popular media. In other words, Dawkins tries to write Einstein and Augustine for the American Idol fanbase. A difficult challenge at best. Superficially it could be the mental acrobatics associated with crafting a popular book on such a deep topic that explains what seems to be a dismissive attitude Dawkins takes toward traditional philosophical arguments for theism. However, if that is the reason or not, it reminds me of an 800 lb gorilla in the room that it seems only I have seen. I may be hallucinating or maybe just not social enough, but I think it's time to expose this personal primate.
I have read many arguments for and against theism. I have read amateur rants, philosophical ramblings, and historical revelations. Some are quite complex and persuasive, while others are simply ridiculous. I have reached a few conclusions from my study.
1. To understand the problem one must back up far enough mentally to find the common ground between religion and science, belief and disbelief, faith and reason.
2. Belief falls along a continuum and categories such as Christian, Theist, Agnostic, etc... are artificial.
3. There is no absolute certainty.
4. Understanding and effective consideration is often overshadowed by entertaining but functionally pointless debate.
-1. The common ground for science and religion is that they are both words that loosely describe certain perceptions of reality. If we consider the our common knowledge to be from an intuitive perception of reality, while our specific understanding and conceptual understanding based on evidence forms our scientific perception of reality, it may be more easily understood. For example, our intuitive perception tells us that rocks are hard. Science tells us that they are mostly empty space. Intuition tells us the earth is firm and still, while science tells us we are hurtling through space at thousands of miles per hour and standing on giant plates of rock that are sliding around. When a religious view is founded entirely in an Intuitive perception of reality, it by defintion has placed a barrier between itself and science. However, since most religious ideologies are broad in their beliefs, including many that are subject to evidentiary consideration, they are often susceptible to conflict with our scientific perception of reality. And make no doubt about it, the scientific perception is valued by all, even those who decry it regularly.
-2 Obviously, the more aspects of a religious concept that are based upon intuitve perception, the greater the chance that one or more will come into conflict with a scientific perception of reality as they become available to evidentiary or rational consideration, . The scientific perception of reality has historically dominated intuitive perceptions due to its accomplishments. The scientific perception has changed our world more than any form of intuitive understanding. Consider the intuitive concept that the Earth is the center of our Solar system. This concept was adopted into religious belief. Over time, this aspect of religious belief came into conflict with scientific perception. It was bitterly resisted, because by its nature, religion is truth through revelation. Revelation is a questionable, subjective source of truth, and if any part of the "truth" is shown to be false, then its proprietors understandably fear that the entire veracity of revelation as a source may be called into question. Yet, the heliocentric model of our Solar System produced through science, eventually became the standard.
Accepting that theological systems are based on intuitive perception, the number of intuitive assumptions determines the degree to which the belief system is subject to scientific conflict. The more an individual values their belief system over a scientific perception of reality, the more intuitive beliefs they can adapt within that system (and the more foolish they are). This creates a continuum of belief. Near one edge is fundamentalism. Fundamentalists value their religious beliefs far more than science. Therefore, they are able to adopt literal interpretations of the bible despite overwhelming scientific evidence. Those with a more liberal religiosity often appreciate scientific perception, but necessarily they adopt fewer intuitive beliefs about their deity. They can't claim to "know" their deity or specifics about their deity to the same degree that fundies have. The scale would move along until you reach absolute deists. As we travel along to this point, fewer and fewer intuitive assumptions are adapted as part of the belief system. The potential conflict with science has also traveled moving from direct evidential conflict at the fundamentalist end, to more indirect conflicts based on rational thought, theories, and logic. The absolute deist holds a view that is the least assailable by those who disagree. (Understanding that those who disagree have views that are just as inassailable to the deist)
-3. As the specificity of knowledge about a deity increases, its ability to withstand unintentional assault from a rational mind decreases. An omnipotent, omniscient being is short of the general philosophical definition of god. Yet it would be the most difficult to disprove. We are making no claims about the deity that have any avenue of human understanding, lacking omniscience and omnipotence ourselves. As soon as the traditional third leg is added- omnibenevolence- the logical problem of evil arises- an argument that has never been satisfactorily resolved in my opinion. We can safely say that a rational mind which appreciates a scientific perception of reality should be more atheistic (by which I mean a higher degree of doubt) toward the fundamentalist end of the scale, gradually emerging at agnostic at the opposite end.
-4. And what does all of this mean? Well...not much. And that is the point. Conflict between the secular world and the religious world are often due to the desire to have others think like we do. And the motivation for that is often the effect it has on us personally within the context of our particular perception of reality. If others share our perception, then it is more likely that our goals are similar and cooperation is more likely. A perception of reality which includes a deity is likely to affect us in the above manner only to the degree corresponding to the numbers of intuitive beliefs it maintains. A true deist may not necessarily believe in a soul or an afterlife. A true deist would likely embrace evolution and would be unlikely to become a martyr. A true deist would approach issues like abortion similar if not identical to an atheist. And the philosophical arguments in question, those mentioned by Dawkins and others, if accepted would only be arguments supporting a deism type god. The leap from a general acceptance of theism to any particular religion requires much more specificity concerning the deity and thus is much more susceptible the rational, scientific conflict which undermines its veracity.
There it is, the 800 lb gorilla. If someone presents the ontological argument for god, the correct response is...so what? Now if they want to act on that belief, it's much more difficult to defend their specific interpretation of a deity. Otherwise, they are deists and should have goals similar to atheists and agnostics. Maybe Dawkins should have just left it out. In fairness, he did state that he would be referring to the Abrahamic god specifically throughout the book. In any case, I just don't think it was critical to the book's purpose, and philosophical arguments about the existence of god, while entertaining, are rarely productive. Specific beliefs are the battlefield where the rational mind if most effective.
It's a long way around, hope you enjoyed the ride.
The Southern Fried Skeptic
The book is fairly good. It attempts to walk a line between deep philosophical and scientific concepts and popular media. In other words, Dawkins tries to write Einstein and Augustine for the American Idol fanbase. A difficult challenge at best. Superficially it could be the mental acrobatics associated with crafting a popular book on such a deep topic that explains what seems to be a dismissive attitude Dawkins takes toward traditional philosophical arguments for theism. However, if that is the reason or not, it reminds me of an 800 lb gorilla in the room that it seems only I have seen. I may be hallucinating or maybe just not social enough, but I think it's time to expose this personal primate.
I have read many arguments for and against theism. I have read amateur rants, philosophical ramblings, and historical revelations. Some are quite complex and persuasive, while others are simply ridiculous. I have reached a few conclusions from my study.
1. To understand the problem one must back up far enough mentally to find the common ground between religion and science, belief and disbelief, faith and reason.
2. Belief falls along a continuum and categories such as Christian, Theist, Agnostic, etc... are artificial.
3. There is no absolute certainty.
4. Understanding and effective consideration is often overshadowed by entertaining but functionally pointless debate.
-1. The common ground for science and religion is that they are both words that loosely describe certain perceptions of reality. If we consider the our common knowledge to be from an intuitive perception of reality, while our specific understanding and conceptual understanding based on evidence forms our scientific perception of reality, it may be more easily understood. For example, our intuitive perception tells us that rocks are hard. Science tells us that they are mostly empty space. Intuition tells us the earth is firm and still, while science tells us we are hurtling through space at thousands of miles per hour and standing on giant plates of rock that are sliding around. When a religious view is founded entirely in an Intuitive perception of reality, it by defintion has placed a barrier between itself and science. However, since most religious ideologies are broad in their beliefs, including many that are subject to evidentiary consideration, they are often susceptible to conflict with our scientific perception of reality. And make no doubt about it, the scientific perception is valued by all, even those who decry it regularly.
-2 Obviously, the more aspects of a religious concept that are based upon intuitve perception, the greater the chance that one or more will come into conflict with a scientific perception of reality as they become available to evidentiary or rational consideration, . The scientific perception of reality has historically dominated intuitive perceptions due to its accomplishments. The scientific perception has changed our world more than any form of intuitive understanding. Consider the intuitive concept that the Earth is the center of our Solar system. This concept was adopted into religious belief. Over time, this aspect of religious belief came into conflict with scientific perception. It was bitterly resisted, because by its nature, religion is truth through revelation. Revelation is a questionable, subjective source of truth, and if any part of the "truth" is shown to be false, then its proprietors understandably fear that the entire veracity of revelation as a source may be called into question. Yet, the heliocentric model of our Solar System produced through science, eventually became the standard.
Accepting that theological systems are based on intuitive perception, the number of intuitive assumptions determines the degree to which the belief system is subject to scientific conflict. The more an individual values their belief system over a scientific perception of reality, the more intuitive beliefs they can adapt within that system (and the more foolish they are). This creates a continuum of belief. Near one edge is fundamentalism. Fundamentalists value their religious beliefs far more than science. Therefore, they are able to adopt literal interpretations of the bible despite overwhelming scientific evidence. Those with a more liberal religiosity often appreciate scientific perception, but necessarily they adopt fewer intuitive beliefs about their deity. They can't claim to "know" their deity or specifics about their deity to the same degree that fundies have. The scale would move along until you reach absolute deists. As we travel along to this point, fewer and fewer intuitive assumptions are adapted as part of the belief system. The potential conflict with science has also traveled moving from direct evidential conflict at the fundamentalist end, to more indirect conflicts based on rational thought, theories, and logic. The absolute deist holds a view that is the least assailable by those who disagree. (Understanding that those who disagree have views that are just as inassailable to the deist)
-3. As the specificity of knowledge about a deity increases, its ability to withstand unintentional assault from a rational mind decreases. An omnipotent, omniscient being is short of the general philosophical definition of god. Yet it would be the most difficult to disprove. We are making no claims about the deity that have any avenue of human understanding, lacking omniscience and omnipotence ourselves. As soon as the traditional third leg is added- omnibenevolence- the logical problem of evil arises- an argument that has never been satisfactorily resolved in my opinion. We can safely say that a rational mind which appreciates a scientific perception of reality should be more atheistic (by which I mean a higher degree of doubt) toward the fundamentalist end of the scale, gradually emerging at agnostic at the opposite end.
-4. And what does all of this mean? Well...not much. And that is the point. Conflict between the secular world and the religious world are often due to the desire to have others think like we do. And the motivation for that is often the effect it has on us personally within the context of our particular perception of reality. If others share our perception, then it is more likely that our goals are similar and cooperation is more likely. A perception of reality which includes a deity is likely to affect us in the above manner only to the degree corresponding to the numbers of intuitive beliefs it maintains. A true deist may not necessarily believe in a soul or an afterlife. A true deist would likely embrace evolution and would be unlikely to become a martyr. A true deist would approach issues like abortion similar if not identical to an atheist. And the philosophical arguments in question, those mentioned by Dawkins and others, if accepted would only be arguments supporting a deism type god. The leap from a general acceptance of theism to any particular religion requires much more specificity concerning the deity and thus is much more susceptible the rational, scientific conflict which undermines its veracity.
There it is, the 800 lb gorilla. If someone presents the ontological argument for god, the correct response is...so what? Now if they want to act on that belief, it's much more difficult to defend their specific interpretation of a deity. Otherwise, they are deists and should have goals similar to atheists and agnostics. Maybe Dawkins should have just left it out. In fairness, he did state that he would be referring to the Abrahamic god specifically throughout the book. In any case, I just don't think it was critical to the book's purpose, and philosophical arguments about the existence of god, while entertaining, are rarely productive. Specific beliefs are the battlefield where the rational mind if most effective.
It's a long way around, hope you enjoyed the ride.
The Southern Fried Skeptic
No replies - reply
Profile
The Illusion of Time
Recent Visitors