Op-Ed: Church on Sundays
To break the impression that clan404.com is now solely a, poorly written movie review, database I thought it time to add some content with depth.
A recent news article over at the BBC, here: http://news.bbc.co.uk/1/hi/magazine/6517807.stm
Got me thinking on the subject of religion, faith, God et al.
I’ve recently read professor Dawkin’s excellent book ‘The God delusion’ and all this has had me thinking pretty durn hard about the true nature of the world we live in.
Religion bashing is easy, with a bit of historical comparison, sourcing and textual analysis one can pick apart any of the worlds major faiths by discrediting its literature. Biblical studies over the Renaissance period yielded the science we know as religious study today. And the arguments against the worlds strongest religions remain as strong today as when Darwin first begged God’s forgiveness for having to ‘tell the truth’ in the theory of evolution.
However, as the BBC article highlights, most of us are satisfied with very little intellectual inquiry, despite possesing the faculties to do so. We assume vague, half truths defning ourselves as ‘Christian’ or ‘Agnostic’ (In the West at least) and turn to a dimly remembered version of school-time Christianity when the going gets rough. Whilst any one religion does not have all the answers any longer and none of the major texts can (IMHO) stand up to intense scrutiny, that does not mean that belief in God is redundant or illogical.
If we define religion as beliefs supported by a set of practices then to some, science is a religion unto itself. The belief is the quest for universal truth which is suported by the practice of rigourous logic and scientific inquiry. True, scientists dont simply explain away the unknown with ‘Magic Man in the sky did it’ but neither do they have all the answers. The irk for most scientists or, dare I say, rationalists, as I see it is the blind acceptance by the religious masses that if there’s no current answer it doesnt warrant study because ‘God did it’. This is true most of the time, indeed Dawkin’s refers to it as the ‘God of the gaps’ theory in his book. Where there is no science as yet, God exists, when science shines its light into a gap, belief simply fills another one, and so on.
However there are a group of people beyond the agnostic and the scientific, they are the deists. They believe in God, but don’t necessarily feel that they have any special place in God’s existance, being merely another form of life, albeit one cognicent enough to marvel at creation.
Of course this theory has its detractors too, on the religious side comes the argument ‘If God exists and gifted the capacity for independant thought surely it is divine will that we search, find and subsequently praise.’ And the scientific: ‘Accepting the existence of God with little or no evidenc eother than the lack of explanation for certain phenomena is no more logical than ascribing all life to a giant teapot spinning in the sky over Pluto’.
Both arguments have their weaknesses, first the religious argument that if God exists we must naturally create a religion and follow/serve is somewhat self aggrandising. Whoever said mankind was so special? If that’s true how do we differentiate between competing religions? Which is truly inspired by God? Who’s miracles are bigger? The answer is clouded in ‘we cannot know the mind of God’ answers. Which sadly are circular and axiomatic. For everythnig we cant explain ‘God did it’ and for everythnig we dont understand but do know ‘Dont ask’. Logic is not the enemy of religion, but it isn’t even treated on equal terms in this argument.
Second, science. It is a myth that science jumps form fact to well established fact. It doesn’t. Many areas of subjects now taken for granted (Ironically like the vague recollection of religion we all carry) are not factual, just hypothetical. Some Darwinists will crow that evolution is a ‘proven fact’. Just because something is observable and repeatable in current circumstances does not make it a fact. There could be many reasons or exceptions to our rule, indeed there are many gaps in the evolutionary chain as we know it, just in general, our rule works most of the time. Second, Big Bang theory. Creationists have a problem with this one as it means the universe didnt start with God saying ‘Be’. Sure the universe may not have been made in 7 days, but who said God didnt kick off the bang? Second we enter the circular realm of ‘what came first’ what created the bang etc. Again we have plenty of circumstantial evidence that backs up the idea of an expanding universe, but in an example of where science continues to contradict, an older-modern (If such an oxymoron can be used) view was that the universe would expand and contract, there are now studies indicating it will expand forever. Again, no answers.
We are, to borrow from Fight Club, the middle children of history. No longer obediant to religion through ignorance to the world, but not illuminated enough by Science to drop our ideas of divinity. In short, we’ve got problems.
All comments welcome, peace.
April 3rd, 2007 at 6:36 pm
“It is a myth that science jumps form fact to well established fact. ”
Two things come to mind on your science bit. One, the idea that science should spring from fact to fact is a bit off base in the first place, because it sort of implies an objective truth - that there is a set of facts about the universe that can be conclusively established. What often science aims to do is tell what is observable from a certain point of view. Newton’s laws of motion are dead on, make excellent predictions, until you look at them from a different perspective - the very small. The fact they break down doesn’t make them any less useful OR less accurate, they just necessitate specifying how you are observing things. Obi Wan stylee.
This leads in to my second point, the terms “hypothesis” and “theory”. These often give the impression of being vague words, words that convey significant doubt and undercertainty, but that really undervalues them. Almost any machine, mechanical, chemical or biological, that humans make is predicated on a theory - often a theory descibed by a concrete mathmatical model that precisely tells you how to run a nuclear reactor, or create a medicinal drug. You don’t prove theories, in the most part, you disprove them. In fact, the better a theory is, the easier it should be to disprove it! That doesn’t mean, however, that it necessarily _can_ be disproven.
This whole debate would go better if Karl Popper was part of every RE class in the country methinks. Also if Fight Club were part of every RE class in the country.
April 3rd, 2007 at 8:34 pm
I agree with your idea on Science not -having- to spring from fact to fact, for the most part. Indeed by definition it cannot, theories must be postulated before anything can be tested so at some point a theroum must exist.
However what then is the point of setting Science in opposition to Religion if it’s simply ‘explainign things from a given point of view’? Thereby Religion and science are compatible and can cohabit quite nicely as they never have to bother with the nuisance of disagreeing with one another.
I would also argue that the example you’ve given on Newton’s laws is a good one that helps enforce the point I made when saying:
“…There could be many reasons or exceptions to our rule…just in general, our rule works most of the time…”
Additionally I would say that this illustarates another point I had missed. Atomic science is one game, just as sub atomic science is another. Pythagorus and quadratic equations so to speak. Related, but not equivalent schools of scientific thought.
I agree on the word use terms, the irony of course is that the connotations of the words ‘hypothesis’ and ‘theory’ are of something weak and testable as a result of science promoting that model of thought.
As long as we speak in equivalences there is no problem, there are no ‘facts’ in Relgiion either, just plenty of theories.
April 3rd, 2007 at 9:51 pm
I see what you’re saying, but just because two theories work from different points of view doesn’t mean they’re equally good, or equally valid. If a theory can’t be disproved, it’s not a theory, and if one theory is more complicated or more difficult to disprove than another then, ceterus parabus, it’s a worse theory. The issue with most religous ideas is that there is no testible condition, because if there were it wouldn’t be a matter of faith, it would be one of experimentation.
Rupert Sheldrake is the don of blending the two. He comes up with truly new age-yideas (like the morphogenic field), which are stated in a scientific manner, good for firing the imagination at least.
April 3rd, 2007 at 9:52 pm
Also, talking about different fields is a good point. Maths has plenty of proveable stuff in it, but we’re mostly talking about natural sciences here I figure.
Someone should post about, like, Q3, or something at some point