Faith
October 30th 2006 14:58
This is a post swap with Brenton. Rules of the game are that I write one post for his blog, Tales from the Other Side, and he writes one -- anything he likes -- for mine.
Spirituality isn't about what you know; it's about what you don't. Somehow this never got through to me until earlier this year. I was at my bookshop (mine as in the one I work at, not a manager or any such… *Sigh*) and the number of people coming was one an hour, if that. So, I took the opportunity to dip my nose into the book Secrets and Lies, by David Southall. This book examined a number of modern myths and conspiracies.
What surprised me were the number of uncertainties regarding science; there are tiny holes in everything, from the idea that we only have five senses, to the theories of evolution, the big bang, and relativity. It occurred to me that so called sceptics are just like the people they claim to despise. They revel in the foolish way Christians/Muslims/Buddhists/Whatevers, will rush to defend their beliefs, no matter how powerful the evidence against them is, and yet, if you dare to question their precious science, they become just like it. Sceptics, as we understand them, aren't sceptical at all – they just follow a different belief system.
The reading of this book was a real eye opener, as I'd never really (recently anyhow) properly considered just how little we knew about the world. There's a presumption that there are explanations for what we don't know, and as long as there is something we don't know there will be a need for faith. Faith that there's something after death, or at the bottom of the ocean, or that my cousin will remember my birthday, or that I will make it to the end of the day, safe and happy, just like every other day.
***
Spirituality isn't about what you know; it's about what you don't. Somehow this never got through to me until earlier this year. I was at my bookshop (mine as in the one I work at, not a manager or any such… *Sigh*) and the number of people coming was one an hour, if that. So, I took the opportunity to dip my nose into the book Secrets and Lies, by David Southall. This book examined a number of modern myths and conspiracies.
What surprised me were the number of uncertainties regarding science; there are tiny holes in everything, from the idea that we only have five senses, to the theories of evolution, the big bang, and relativity. It occurred to me that so called sceptics are just like the people they claim to despise. They revel in the foolish way Christians/Muslims/Buddhists/Whatevers, will rush to defend their beliefs, no matter how powerful the evidence against them is, and yet, if you dare to question their precious science, they become just like it. Sceptics, as we understand them, aren't sceptical at all – they just follow a different belief system.
The reading of this book was a real eye opener, as I'd never really (recently anyhow) properly considered just how little we knew about the world. There's a presumption that there are explanations for what we don't know, and as long as there is something we don't know there will be a need for faith. Faith that there's something after death, or at the bottom of the ocean, or that my cousin will remember my birthday, or that I will make it to the end of the day, safe and happy, just like every other day.
| 169 |
| Vote |
Add To: 
subscribe to this blog
Comment by Damo
Interesting world we live in.
Comment by Sisi
Comment by Adrian
Philosophy Blog
But do we need faith anyway, as Brenton suggests? And why do we need it? Do dogs and cats need faith? What happens if we are without explanations or cannot obtain perfect certainty? What's wrong with "I don't know"?
I do not know the answer. But I think that when I get out of bed in the morning, and assume the floor at a certain height, the belief is embodied and automatic; it is not something for which certainty or doubt arise at all; and it's therefore not something for which one needs faith.
Comment by historylass
The Written Word
History Lass
Comment by Adrian
Philosophy Blog
For any theory out there, including string theory, quantum mechanics, relativity, and evolution, there are proposed alternatives. So the story goes: for any set of data, there are infinitely many hypotheses you can give to fit it.
How do you decide what to teach people, and what not to teach them? What sorts of theories count as "science", and which are "just theories"?
Well, the obvious criteria are that a theory only deserves to be taught if it reflects the work that mainstream scientists are doing, and the conclusions that the majority operates by.
Another criterion is the degree to which a theory is "well-established". It's my impression that the majority of ID theorists don't believe ID theory should be taught in schools -- on the basis that the theory is too embryo.
To put this another way, it's true that all of science is just theories, and always open to revision. But there are different types of theories. Some are more productive than others, some more parsimonious, some more testable or tested than others, some more developed, and so forth.
What do you reckon? What criteria would you use to select between all the available theories? And do you believe ID theory meets these criteria?
Comment by historylass
The Written Word
History Lass
I think that maybe if a significant proportion of the population believe that a certain theory is the correct theory, then that theory should at least be taught in schools as an alternative view. I also think that schools should tell students where things are just theories. So often theories are just presented and the student is not allowed to argue or debate any of it. I would like to see that changed and have students engaging in debate about the different theories.
I do realize that this still begs the question - what criteria do we use to determine the theories that are presented. And I still don't know. I'll probably be thinking about it for the rest of the day now.
Comment by Adrian
Philosophy Blog
"The Flying Spaghetti Monster is the deity of a parody religion founded in 2005 by physics graduate Bobby Henderson to protest the decision by the Kansas State Board of Education to require the teaching of intelligent design as an alternative to biological evolution. In an open letter on his website, Henderson professes belief in a supernatural Creator that resembles spaghetti and meatballs called the Flying Spaghetti Monster, and calls for Pastafarianism to be taught in science classrooms"
Re the majority of the population having the right to choose, I think this is a good, though worrying argument. Expressed in a different way, it's the right of the people to self-determination, or the absolute sovereignty of the people.
After all, no one wants a theocracy of scientists.
I guess where I find it worrying is that, of course, the people could be mistaken, or the majority could want to do something that is morally atrocious. So perhaps some sort of checks should be built in against the potential tyranny of the mob.
Comment by Damo
If science is so bad why are there so many religious people in the trade and religion is so bad why are their so many scientist in that trade?
What some are calling science is often scientism: a fundamentalist version of rationism that uses the name of science to push some extreme views. eg: Science shows that the law of the jungle is natural; science is the salvation of mankind; science show us that we don't need morality just ethics etc.
The problem is that we are to assume that all truths can be determined by science. If science is meant to be a rational explaination of event then how could it ever explain irrational but important truths?
Comment by Always Eighteen
Always Eighteen
I want to read this book! I also want to read a Brief History of Time...
Comment by historylass
The Written Word
History Lass
Of course, it is very difficult to determine whether a theory does have any substance if we refuse to see how it matches against certain criteria.
What I really believe in regards to scientific/religious theories is that there can be no right way of determining what should be taught and what shouldn't. I think any criteria we use will have problems. You are right in that if we use the criteria of there being public support, then public support might be for something completely unethical. If we use the criteria of having the backing of the majority of scientists, then this also poses problems. Scientists are not alway right. Many of the scientific theories that we consider right today were at one time laughed at by other scientists.
Comment by Adrian
Philosophy Blog
Dear Damo, I think where your comments very quickly go is towards questioning what counts as science and what doesn't (does psychology count as science? does economics? maths? logic?).
The two most provocative claims you make (both of which partly depend on one's definition of science) are: (1) that there is an important distinction between ethics and morality that science cannot grasp; and (2) that there are irrational truths that science cannot arrive at.
These are both large discussions. But... In reply to the first, I'd be curious what distinction you draw. How are you using the words "ethics" and "morality"? In reply to the second, what is an example of an irrational truth? (That I like this painting? That murder is bad? That things can both be and not be at the same time?)
Dear Always Eighteen whose name I've temporarily forgotten (was it "Dale"? "Dane"? Sorry), I reckon all of science is made of intangible theories, and none of science is made of intangible theories. Just depends what you mean by intangible. It's all supposed to be grounded in observational claims somewhere along the line, but, certainly, it's all open to question.
Today's science will not be tomorrow's science; I think if you pick a scientist off the street, they will accept this, because this history of one theory superseding another characterizes all branches of science. I remember attending a lecture by some physics laureate, and he was giving crude guesstimates of how long quantum would be a dominant theory.
Dear historylass, the kneejerk response I think people would give is that it's for practitioners to tell us what they practise. It's for doctors to say how best to train doctors, scientists to say what scientists believe and how best to train scientists. It may be the sovereign democratic right of the populace to intervene and say "No, no, no, there are many theories of how this disease is caused in addition to the mainstream view, and you should be teaching all of them", but I'm inclined to think it a right that shouldn't be exercised.
There is certainly a lot of grey in what makes a theory a "good" and therefore teachable theory. But I don't know that there's as much grey in the question of whether a theory is the dominant view or is generally held in the scientific community -- and shouldn't that be the main criterion?
About ID theory in particular... I really know very little about it, but my vague impressions of it make me skeptical it meets the criterion of good standing within the scientific community. There have been prominent discussions about it, but, let me just arbitrarily claim (I think this is true -- you can pressure me into finding data to back this up, if you like), that if you did a survey of what theories biological scientists are working under, you'd find hundreds of thousands of evolutionists of various types, but a couple of dozen ID theorists. Statistically speaking, it's not a genuine rival to evolution. (And, in fact, for ID theory generally it's by and large compatible with evolution; and for some ID theories in particular, it's completely compatible.)
But what is it anyway?
Isn't it either the study of the conditions under which we attribute intelligence (why do we say "created" when we look at Stonehene, but "random" when we look at gravel?); or some sort of claim about gaps in the fossil record and therefore miraculous intervention; or some sort of claim about "irreducible complexity", "fine-tuning", and non-randomness?
How do you understand the matter?
Comment by Brenton
Dr Spin
Tales From The Other Side
Blip Blog
Gadget Museum
Basically I don't have alot to say on the matter. MAin thing would be, keping an open mind is all we can rationally do, when there is so much we can't know.
Comment by Damo
In response to you response to my comments(Now my mouth hurts after saying that)
I have always been asking people what is science? I could write on for days with answers I get but instead I'll give one that seem most accurate. Science is what scientists do. The method is: Observation, Theory and Comparison. However that is not the total answer.
When it come to distinguishing between ethics and morality I can only state that Morality cannot exist with out Ethics but Ethics can exist with out Morals. It's a Ven diagram I keep in my head. Sometimes people use the words as if they are interchangeable but I won't get too semantic about it. It is a subject that would take up this whole page to argue out.
As for irrational truths I have many. Even without a leap of faith most people do believe in some irrational truths.
Love has no rational basis but people are will to die for it. The quality of mercy to an enemy has no logic but many people believe that it is crucial. Non Violence being described as requiring greater courage than violence was considered insane by the British until it crushed their hold on India. Are their times when suffering pain is important? Some people say yes. Are their causes worth sacrificing to achieve? What is freedom but another unprovable notion or is a truth?
Are we as individual humans important enough to have all the hairs on or head counted or are we just another mistake in a doomed universe? All the rational scientific testing will not yield the answers but people hold them to be true.
Comment by Adrian
Philosophy Blog
Re ethics vs morality, I'm going to write a quick post on this in reply.
Re irrational truths that science cannot grasp...
Okay, science is geared towards telling us what there is; it can't, without more assumptions, tell us what we should do.
I'm inclined to believe (though this would take a lot more argument to back up) that it could tell us that people believe in love, that love exists between two people, that people believe in freedom, etc. And an impossible perfect science, that could take into account the entire complexity of facts, could presumably also tell you whether a course of action (like non-violent protest) would be efficacious or not.
But even a perfect science, without more assumptions, couldn't tell you that you should love, or should believe in freedom.
Moreover, there is a god or there isn't; there is a fact of the matter. And if "science" deals only with the material, then science cannot tell you. There are therefore some truths that science cannot grasp, if you believe that the physical is not the whole of what exists.
So I'd agree with you that much. I guess I'd disagree, though, with labelling things like love and freedom "truths", and with the claim that your examples are irrational.
As to the first, I think that only propositions count as true or false. So I'd argue that love, freedom, etc are either things in the world (like trees) and therefore neither true nor false; or they are ideals, and therefore neither nor false either.
As to whether it is rational to believe in them, I don't see why it isn't. I don't see why it's irrational to want to die for someone, or to give mercy to an enemy, etc.
Firstly, what does "rational" mean? Let's just say it means "best choice among available options" or "having a reason for something"...
Secondly, you can give neat evolutionary explanations for all of the basics of human morality (kinship obligations, including love, limitations on sexual behaviour, and reciprocity, including mercy for an enemy). So from a species-survival point of view, these things represent the best choice.
Thirdly, from a personal point of view, what's rational depends upon your purpose and on your hierarchy of values. And I don't see why setting duties to loved ones at the top of your chain of values is irrational.
I think most of your examples fall into the same category. Things that it is perfectly rational to want to do given certain assumptions and value hierarchies.
And I don't think belief in god is irrational either. There might still be reasons to believe in him/her/it/them (see, eg, my post on Quine), even without the experimentation to back it up.
One more thought.
There are plenty of irrational things that people do that they shouldn't do, right? So, though I don't think any of your examples are irrational, it worries me that you seem to be suggesting that what is believed in irrationally is right.
Comment by Damo
In a choice between head ruling the heart or heart ruling the head I tend to pick the head most times. Using a method like Observation, Theory and Comparison can solve huge problems and it is totally rational. Yet there is this other part of me that would rather just use my gut feeling to solve the same issue.
I do however believe in the saying that 'a little silliness now and then is valued in the wisest men.' It is completely irrational but I would never encourage anyone to take an ideology based upon Emotionalism. That to me seems a tad self destructive.
Comment by Anonymous
Comment by Adrian
Philosophy Blog
Personally, I think no one ever chooses to believe in anything. It's particularly evident in moral matters: you can find an argument perfectly convincing, and yet, irrationally, not act according to it -- and therefore show that here's a sense in which you don't really believe it. Verbally accepting that something is true doesn't by itself you motivation.
Dear Mr Dawkins,
There's a lot that could be said in response to your comment. Here's three things.
1. I've always thought there's something inherently suspicious about "faith". For me, it's too close to "blind trust".
2. What do you mean by "religion"? Is it just the God hypothesis. Or is it all the other baggage that a priest will preach to you ("Thou shalt not murder", etc). If the latter, then arguably a lot of it touches on empirical matters, or amounts to good advice. And this is partly because of the nature of religion -- over time, the belief set becomes embroidered with all sorts of traditional knowledge, some of it good, and some of it bad.
3. What counts as "evidence"? Arguments for the existence of deity still are something of a thorn in atheism's side -- they haven't completely been ruled out of court. And even if one decides against them, there still remains the task of moving from agnosticism to atheism.
I personally don't find any of the pro-God arguments convincing, but, if you're curious, do a search for "arguments for deity" and "Plantiga", "Craig Lane", and "Swinburne". These guys sort of dress up old arguments in new garb, in a forms that aren't easy to simply dismiss.
Then there's the old Pascal's wager, which I think arguably has merit to it. And then there's a simple "transcendental" argument, where you claim some sort of intuitive grounds -- "God is as real to me as anything else in the world". Someone who doesn't share the intuitions can easily scoff at the thought, but scoffing doesn't amount to a counterargument.
Comment by Damo
Personal thoughts are something that you have chosen for yourself?
You show faith is an argument that cannot be tested.
Just like the rest of humanity.
Comment by Anonymous
Good design involves simplicity.
The complexity of living organisms is a testament to their bad design.
Carl Looper
Comment by Nonymous
Philosophy Blog
You might have in mind something like the human eye (an oft-cited example), or "vestigial" bits like the appendix.
I'm not a fan of any existence-of-God intelligent design arguments, but I imagine that someone who is would reply:
1. That these really are simple. Some people do claim (I don't know how dodgily) that the eye and the appendix are functional; and frankly I don't know how the matter could be decided scientifically; or, more importantly, it could be replied
2. That an existence-of-God intelligent design argument doesn't require that everything works in the best possible way, or even efficiently (after all, God might simply be a bad designer). You only need the presence of design (however bad the design is) at a single step (not at every step).
But a more indirect response to your comment might be that the idea of "intelligence" needn't necessitate consciousness. For instance, could we ever attribute intelligence to a computer; and, if so, might we attribute it to other things also -- like a corporation, a government, a society, an ecosystem, a planet, or evoution itself, or the universe?
Someone who took this sort of position might be able to claim that there is "intelligence" in the "design" of lifeforms -- but presumably this position would also be a far cry from an existence of God argument...