Showing posts with label Beliefs. Show all posts
Showing posts with label Beliefs. Show all posts

Friday, May 16, 2014

Critical Reflections on Why Truth Matters - Part 3 of 3

If you want to know what "this" is all about, or why it is, start with Critical Reflections on True to Life: Why Truth Matters - Part I: Cynical Myths and Critical Reflections on True to Life: Why Truth Matters - Part II: False Theories. The intro to those provide context to this final reflection for the three part series. (spoiler: it was for a University course)

For the regular readers of this, and previous reflections, thank you for reading. Hopefully you have been inspired to think further about truth, knowledge, free will, and reality.

As always, feel free to comment, argue, etc.

Part 3: Why Truth Matters

“If you tell the truth, you don't have to remember anything.” 
― Mark Twain 

As previously stated in class, truth matters because we care about people being honest with us, and all healthy relationships require trust, which requires honesty. As Lynch points out throughout the third section, truth among people in society is important to get things done and to maintain levels of trust (152). Truth is an important ingredient in achieving common goals and sharing information, and lack of truth – lies – are a violation of communication, which is damaging to society. Truth is a central aspect of many parts of life and things would be very bad if everyone lied all the time. Without truth, things would fall apart, both in society and in interpersonal relationships.

If this is not enough to convince the reader they should care about truth, Lynch presents agreeable alternative reasons, aside from simply caring about truth for its own sake. He highlights the intrinsic value of truth to self. Caring about truth in general, Lynch says, is a path towards authenticity, self-awareness, self-regard, and self-respect, and knowing the truth about what you care about is part of intellectual integrity. (35) People who care about the truth, and acknowledge what they care for it, therefore have a good sense of the degrees of self and have increased self-respect, according to Lynch. It would be nice to think most people care about self-respect, however, often times it seems the opposite.

Lynch says that caring about truth and honesty leads to authenticity and integrity, and that “our lives go better when they are lived authentically and with integrity”. (20) Additionally, caring about truth is essential in knowing ourselves and being self-aware. “What we can know – or not know - about ourselves runs the gamut”, says Lynch (121), but we can know and understand ourselves better through truth. Therefore, truth becomes a building block in self-understanding and identity construction.

Further, caring about truth leads to the knowledge of what matters to us and promotes self-reflection; a lack of which he attributes to internal traits such as laziness, lack of discipline, but also external factors such as, poverty, hunger, lack of education, cultural discouragement of reflection (Lynch, 122). Additionally, not caring about truth or what we think leads to self-deception and when “we don’t really care about what we think we care about and we live our lives with bad faith” (Lynch, 122).

People who approach truth with ambivalence experience instability. While Lynch claims that sometimes this is inevitable due to “overpowering and contradictory pressures of outer circumstances” (123), I would like to assume he means ambivalence about specific truths (i.e. religion), and not truth overall, because to not care about any and all truth just seems, to be frank, dumb.

Logically, caring about truth requires “being open-minded and tolerant of others’ opinions, being careful and sensitive to detail, being curious, and paying attention to evidence […] being willing to question assumptions, giving and asking reasons, being impartial, and being intellectually courageous” (Lynch, 129-130). The pursuit of truth also includes the willingness to admit when one is wrong, and is not a matter of consistency, but a matter of the ability to consider information and adjust beliefs accordingly. Not standing up for what you think is right is a lack of intellectual integrity, according to Lynch, but defending a view without bothering to examine it for truth is also a lack of intellectual integrity. In lack of intellectual integrity is the lack of authenticity, which indicates lack of self-control. These are all very agreeable assertions.

An important part of caring about the truth and seeking the truth, in Lynch’s eyes, is sincerity, which has “instrumental value” (153). Lynch says caring about truth, seeking truth, is risky; but caring about truth also leads to authenticity and degrees of happiness, which gives life meaning, because in not caring about truth, one lacks of self-respect, and lack of self-respect leads to unhappiness – again, very logical. As Ellen J. Langer, professor of psychology at Harvard University says, “Self-respect […] may hold the key to achieving the peace of mind we seek”, and by self-respect, she means acceptance. (Langer, 1999) As Lynch has said you cannot accept yourself if you do not know yourself, which happens in-part through caring about the truth. What Langer suggests also coincides with Lynches theory on happiness in caring about and valuing the truth, and living a “life lived well”. Happiness, while it can be allusive, becomes more attainable through truth.

You can hardly talk about truth without talking about lying. Lying involves belief, but in a different way, when “what you say is not what you believe” (Lynch, 147). Lying is just as complex as truth. According to Lynch there are many kinds of lies, from ambiguous to equivocal. According to Lynch there are justifiable lies, which are ones used to “save-face” or protect the feelings of others, or in some cases, such as in the government, used to temporarily protect national security. Some lies a “tall tails” or “yarns”, and some are outright “bullshit lies”. Lies, then, can be just as subjective as truth, but are generally intentional and meant to be misleading or deceiving and other nefarious motivations. Additionally, lies harm people, and lies breed more lies. Not very noble ends, really.

In the end chapter, Lynch dipped his toes into politics and truth, while interesting, and seemed like a personal rant about his issues with liberal democracies. What really stood out is that when discussing “the liberal” he used pronouns such as “herself”, “she” (165). I am also not so sure that I agree with Lynch when he states that “liberalism is presupposed a concept of objective truth” (167). If anything, conservatism seems more inclined to objective truth (based on religious “truth”), while liberalism is more subjective, and that is why conservatives assert that liberals “don’t believe in truth” (evidence of which can be found doing a very quick Google search). In any case, it seems that when Lynch took to the political soapbox and with him a broad brush of personal opinion, certainly detected throughout the claims in other parts of the book, also. This does not make what he says any less “true”, but for people who want to deny truthiness in his truth, it is an opening for contention.

Ultimately when it comes to choosing between the truth and a lie it is important to remember, like with anything, that you should treat others as you would have them treat you. Surely there are few people in the world who want to be lied to. At the end of the day not finding value in truth, at least for the same of it, and rejecting truth as something exists is dangerous, just as is thinking there is no such thing as free will and becoming a victim of self. Giving up on truth embraces doom, for who wants to live in a society where nobody believes in truth.

Lynch never had to convince me to care about truth, because being lied to hurts. However, he did present new ways of thinking about truth, especially in relation to truth being a potential catalyst in becoming a better happier person. Hopefully more people come to see that there is a clear value in truth, both personally and for society.


References

Langer, E. J. (1999, 11 1). Self-esteem vs Self-respect. Retrieved from Psychology Today: http://www.psychologytoday.com/articles/199911/self-esteem-vs-self-respect

Lynch, Michael P. True to Life: Why Truth Matters. Cambridge: MIT, 2005. Print.

Tuesday, May 6, 2014

Critical Reflections on Why Truth Matters - Part 2 of 3

The last (3rd) reflection paper for this book, and the class, is done (and will be posted next week).
WE'RE DONE!
As fun as it was to do all of these reflective papers, on Free Will by Sam Harris, On Being Certain: Believing You Are Right, Even When You're Not by Robert A. Burton, When Science Meets Religion: Enemies, Strangers, or Partners? by Ian G. Barbour, and finally True to Life: Why Truth Matters - it's nice to be done.

Tomorrow is our last day of classes, finals are next week. We're nearly done with all the final writing assignments. The end is here. Finally.

Next week we'll be writing our official blog post for the 2014 American Psychology Association  Mental Health Month Blog Day. It'll be the third year in a row. (2011, 2012), last year we dropped the ball on it. Not sure why.


A friend on Twitter (and a talented Canadian artist), @CanadianCheri/SelfProclaimedMuse - who we've had the honor of meeting has a beautiful entry about learning to love her bipolar life.

And finally...part 2...(Part 1 is Here)...enjoy. Or don't.

[Past essays, papers and other University related content can be found here, the essays and papers are from the last year - the other stuff is personal historical stories: http://just-call-me-frank.blogspot.com/p/university.html]

Part II: False Theories

Coming to a consensus on how truth is formed, and why truth is formed are the only ways to come close to understanding of what truth is. As Lynch says William James posits, truth is made not found (62). In the “real world” people do not put a label on what kind of truth they believe in i.e. pragmatic (classical or modern), reductive naturalist, verificationsim, etc and they don’t often consider why a truth is a truth. But why are truths made? That answer depends on the philosophical line of thinking; self-delusion, power, and/or comfort. For most people it comes down to personal truths, based on beliefs about morals and values, generally meant as a tool to guide decisions and action, rarely thought of as a thing.

In fact, in reading the various views set forth by Lynch in True to Life, truth becomes an ambiguous theory and in other visions, it becomes nonexistent. In some instances, with its lack of properties, truth simply becomes a word describing subjective abstract concepts just as words like good, evil, true, false, do. To some this renders truth unimportant and meaningless – there is no such thing as truth! (Lynch, 106) The truth in a belief can be subjective. There is no realistic or rational truth, commonly known as pragmatic truth – but there is truth and it is complex. As stated in my previous reflection paper, and by Lynch, that by thinking of the complex nature of truth, truth, “much like “courage, kindness, and love” truth becomes recognized as something that has many forms. (100)

According to Lynch, Williams James asserts, “Truth of a belief consists in the practical use it has in your life” and truth “helps us to deal, either practically or intellectually” with reality. (64)

The first idea Lynch presents is that beliefs are a tool. They help people get what they want; truth is a means, not an end. Truth may be utilitarian in that it can get you what you want, and in that, there is value to truth. By the classical pragmatism standards of truth, in the utilitarian properties, truth has cash value because truth is a way of attaining something. However, lies, or false truths, can also get people what they want, sometimes more and better things than truth can provide, such as more opportunities, a better job, or a longer lasting relationship.

If a truth is perhaps equally as utilitarian as a lie, then why does truth matter, why tell the truth at all? There may be many answers, each individual will have a reason why truth matters to them, but in order to understand why, truth must be defined and recognized.

The first “problem” for some is finding the tangibility in truth. As reductive naturalism states, truth does not take physical form or space and therefore there is no reality in truth. (Lynch, 76) Truth has no physical properties, but as Lynch says of the nature of the reductive naturalist’s views, it poses a “serious threat to truth’s value”. (77) In the very least truth can be tangible and verifiable in the sensory experience, i.e. whether or not you can see, touch, smell, hear, and/or feel it. It still does not take truth out of the field of subjectivity though.

The second problem then, to people who philosophize about truth, is that the value of truth is not verifiable or falsifiable by scientific method. Truth is not verifiable by physical properties (Lynch, 89). The idea that things, that are not things, or “non-natural property”, are not true means, to some, they have no value. (Lynch, 89) In the very moral nature of truth, there is a lack of way to verify its worth. However, according to Nietzsche, it is “power that is valuable, not truth” (Lynch, 103). It is not truth itself that is powerful, but the illusion of truth that has power. If illusion is a lie, then false truths (lies) theoretically have equal value as truth. Taking Nietzsche’s concepts, but removing his idea of illusion out of truth, truth, along with lies, attain value. That value then is not money, but power, which becomes a means to money.

Truth still remains ambiguous, particularly those based on ethics and morals, which are manifestations of emotions, feelings and attitudes, simple synapses in the brain, often with cultural bearings. While truth based on morals cannot be justified or verified, truth is still dependent on reality and therefore tangible through consequence. As John Stewart Mill says, the consequence of taking action is what makes beliefs right or wrong (Lynch, 66), in ascribing right or wrong, truth develops a property; while it may not be a physical property, it a property that can be felt (by anyone who is not a sociopath).

In the coherent belief of coherence theory truth is given another property. To counter the “perceptual illusion” (Lynch, 86) of truth, this theory states that to be a truth, the truth must cohere with other beliefs within that belief, no matter what further information is receive. In this, if you believe in x because y, but z presents something that proves y incorrect, than x is no longer a truth. Therefore, truth becomes part of a whole.

While “it is useful to believe that truth is deeply good [it] doesn’t explain why it is deeply good, or even how it can be deeply good” (Lynch, 115). The ways in which truth is good can be seen in the opposite of the truth, which is the lie. Lying requires effort that taxes your brain, costs you money, causes stress, and effects you in many other ways. (Dachis, 2012) According to Jeff Hancock, truth is an important part of being true to yourself. (Hancock, 2012) In this, the real worth, the real good of seeking truth and the value of truth itself, the real reason truth matters, is found in the maintenance of your healthy positive self, the power and the value of being true to yourself.

In reading and reflecting on this section, I have created my own working definition of truth. Truth is a valuable power that is part of a whole of beliefs, guided by goals and values, which has tangible consequences good and bad, and helps in the sustaining of the best you.

References

Dachis, A. (2012, December). What Lying Actually Does to Your Brain and Body Every Day. Retrieved from     Life Hacker: http://lifehacker.com/5968613/what-lying-actually-does-to-your-brain-and-body-every-day

Hancock, J. (2012). The Future of Lying. (J. Hancock, Performer) Winnipeg, Canada.

Lynch, Michael P. True to Life: Why Truth Matters. Cambridge: MIT, 2005. Print.



Tuesday, April 29, 2014

Critical Reflections on Why Truth Matters - Part 1 of 3

This book...is dry. It's not nearly as interesting as the other books for this class. It's the last one.
Honestly? We're running out of steam and it's hard to focus, and it's probably going to be obvious in the three reflections for this book (though next week's one, while shorter, is a lot better).

Truth...

When you put it into the hands of "professional" philosopher...well.
Holy fuck if nearly everything you put into the hands of a philosopher isn't turned to nonsense.

This class, about truth, reality and knowledge, isn't solely a philosophy class. It's a humanities class. It has been a great class. Inspiring, even. But now the professor has hit the philosophy portion. Ten years ago or so when attempting to take an intro to philosophy class, when faced with having to drop a class for personal reasons, it was the first to go. Even then it just seemed...there's really no word for it. Utterly ridiculous? Nonsense? Irrelevant? (hey, there's a whole series of blog entries about the philosophy of philosophy, if we wanted to write them)
So you can imagine the feelings now. Despite desperately wanting to understand and appreciate much of it, it has always been illusive. We could say more. But you get the point. Reading it makes the head spin...and it's so dry...one almost becomes lost, parched in a desert just reading it.

So, what follows are attempts at trying to muddle through concepts in the first section, broken down into headings like:
- Truisms about Truth
- Is the Truth Attainable?
- Is Truth Relative?
- The Truth Hurts
LOADS of concepts and differing opinions based on many, almost endless, fields of philosophy...on the topic of truth.

[Past essays, papers and other University related content can be found here, the essays and papers are from the last year - the other stuff is personal historical stories: http://just-call-me-frank.blogspot.com/p/university.html]

So...
Part I: Cynical Myths

The prospect of approaching the premise of truth, at first, seems very agreeable. Cut and dry, truth is good – all of it. To really break down truth into segments of facts and beliefs, and how they work together while being influenced by bias and perceptions, is to realize that there are many kinds of truths.

In Lynch’s first section, Cynical Myths of truth, he outlines the four “truism of truth” well enough. Starting with objective truth, in that something true is true for all people, whereby truth is something that exists whether or not anybody believes it to be so (11). He makes sure to adequately explains that believing something is true does not make that belief intrinsically true - meaning the world is not always, or necessarily, the way we believe or wish it to be. “Wishful thinking leads to believing falsehoods” (13), according the Lynch, and falsehoods are not truth.

Even mere objects themselves become subject to truth and reality through phenomenalism where objects, seen to be nonexistent without the observer, become suspect of being true. Taking the thought experiment of George Berkeley, ‘if a tree falls in the woods and nobody is near enough to hear it, does it make a noise’ and asking “if nobody is there to see it, does the tree even exist?” never mind make a sound. So many philosophies and so many different kinds of truths: physical, moral, spiritual, knowledge, cultural. Not everything has one truth, while at the same time one truth has to exist for some things, an opinion which, according to Lynch, may be viewed as a cynical myth. In acceptance of the worth and importance of truth Lynch makes sure to present his underlying rejection of negative myths associated with attainment of truth, such as the belief that there is only one truth. He also rejects the ideas that only “pure” reason can access the truth, that truth is a mystery that only some people can know, and that we should pursue the truth at all costs (20). At first the notion that we should not pursue truth at all costs was shocking, but upon further study, it seemed to me that Lynch was equating the attainment of truth with attainment of knowledge, whereby all manner of atrocities have been carried out through unethical practices. Lynch presented examples, one where Nazi scientists who, in trying to attain knowledge of the resilience of the human body in various temperatures of water before freezing to death, used Jewish prisoners from the concentration camps. This was not so much a pursuit of truth, as it was of information. It is true that humans will freeze to death in cold water. How long it takes them at different temperatures is not a truth, because with each person it will vary due to body size, weight, age, physical fortitude – information attained can be viewed as knowledge. In Lynch’s other example I also found it to be a faulty by my own beliefs of the separate natures of truth and knowledge; however, that does not mean my belief on the matter is true. Going further into the section in views towards relativism, I found that there is a case to be made for the subjective nature of some truths, as opposed to objective, but not for relativism itself. Where individual relativism is concerned, the radical reductionism involved seems at once arrogant or egotistical.

Lynch asserts that truth is fundamentally good and that the best most authentic truth is based on good evidence, and further, that beliefs not based on good evidence should be subject to criticism. The pursuit of truth is a worthy goal, and to pursue the truth requires inquiry, the ability to cast off the assertion of correctness while understanding no person can believe on demand, and so must be presented with evidence. Lynch claims that belief is not something that can be controlled, yet it can be indirectly controlled through pursuit. By changing of perceptions, open-mindedness, entertaining curiosity, and an understanding that “absolute certainty is impractically and probably impossible” (29) truth becomes a worthy quest if simply for the properties of self-improvement.

Most people want the ugly truth, according to Lynch, over beautiful illusions, even if the truth has no practical value. However, a similar claim about people not wanting the truth can also be made, particularly of religious peoples; as Friedrich Nietzsche said of faith, faith is people “not wanting to know what the truth is.” Yet many people strive for truth for the sake of truth because they understand to live under an illusion is impractical and to do so offers no value, and in truth, there are realities, while sometimes painful, that are worth the pursuit which leads to practical ends.

The most interesting assertion that Lynch made was that the mere fear or discomfort in being wrong is proof that someone has a preference for truth. However, it could be said that they have a fear of their personal truths being wrong, and are not necessarily concerned with truth itself, but rather the loss of identity structured about what they believe to be true, and not, as Lynch says a concern for their intellectual integrity, but rather reputation. Bottom line, it is right to accept truth, even if it creates uncomfortable realities.

Some truth is unattainable, but not all truth is unattainable, because as previously stated, some truths are subjective, as with much of life, truth is not black and white. However, when beliefs are created through bias and false perceptions, as Kant claimed they are, beliefs that lead to things such as sexism, racism, and stigmas surrounding disabled and mentally ill, persist. People see what fits their paradigm, and are blind by things that threaten it and by prejudices based on habits of thought, employed concepts which are modified by the structures and habits of mind. Conceptual choices based on whim, or constructed around race, gender, etc., determines what we believe but not whether those beliefs are true. (Lynch, 42)

Beliefs are often wrapped in standards of certainty because “we want certainty because we want safety […] if certainty is dead, everything is permitted” (29), if everything is permitted that there is chaos. According to Lynch, evidence and sound reason lead to certainty of truth and in not caring about truth a person is not caring about justifying their beliefs and in so their beliefs do not truly exist. Further “not having true beliefs is bad […] because pursuing truth is good” (29), but it is important to recognize when a belief is false, because having false beliefs is equally as bad as having no beliefs at all. As the commonly used phrase attributed to so many people says, “If you don’t believe [or stand] for something, you’ll fall for anything”, but that is not to say that what you stand for or believe in should not meet standards of truth. Anything presented at truth should be subject to skepticism. Important lesson in skepticism: “The most dangerous man is he who is certain, absolutely sure, that his way is the right way” (29) causing him/her to feel justified in not listening to questions or considering alternate views. The frightening awareness is that we may never be able to be absolutely certain of anything, but that doesn't mean we should stop striving to be as close to the truth as possible.

As stated earlier, I do not buy the idea of pure relativism, that “truth is in the eye of the beholder” (31) and in so personal truth is the only truth and all other truth is inaccurate, which essentially creates a personal illusion that one can never make mistakes or be wrong. Further, people who back up their relativist views with the assertion that “everybody is entitled to their own opinions”, as Lynch says, simply prevents “reasoned discussions” and is a stumbling block to the attainment of truth. Surely, everybody is entitled to their own opinion, but that does not make their opinion factual or true.

Lynch’s own objective truth that “stealing is wrong and also illegal” is the key to how I see the subjective nature in some truths, and this is probably where I use the term subjective because I reject the narcissistic quality that lies in pure relativism. For example, there is a subjective nature to right and wrong, and truth and untruth. If a parent for whatever reason has fallen on hard times and has a hungry or starving child, unable to attain resources through public services, steals some bread to feed the child, then stealing, while it remains illegal, is not wrong. Similarly, companies swindling money from customers is wrong though often not illegal by business practices. While surely there are many examples of how truth can be subjective, this appears to be a worthy illustration.

When considering whether or not politics hold sway over what we think is true, Lynch asserts that political power and systems of power produce and sustain it truth. (37) However, as an alternative view, Gandhi said to the sustaining of truth through power, “An error does not become truth by reason of multiplied propagation, nor does truth become error because nobody sees it. Truth stands, even if there be no public support. It is self-sustained.” [1] When truth takes a turn at being a political and cultural issue (40), Lynch’s “acceptable truths” in the community at the time are not so much truth as they are views and beliefs that cause people to believe something is true, and as Lynch says, are rooted in power structures which change over time.

Finally, truth hurts, but it is a good hurt.

However, Lynch made a very interesting case for why some self-deception, such as in unrealistic “positive thinking”, can be a good thing. Perhaps in this he presents the only case in which I would view untruth to be beneficial. According to Lynch, some self-deception can lead to positive self-fulfilling prophecy – for example thinking too highly of your skills or abilities so that you actively perform up to those standards. It was also interesting that he noted, that in studies, people who were depressed had a more realistic view of themselves as opposed to these practicing in self-deception (48). Pursuit of truth are cognitively and morally good (49), because truth about ones’ own psychological aspects construct the reality of personal identity (53-54), but thinking more highly of yourself, lying to yourself, somehow is beneficial…if you can believe yourself.

Belief about truth are at the base of who people are, whether or not they realize it. It might be a generalization, but I do not think most people think about truth very often. By this I mean, people are quick to point out lies, or untruths, but rarely do they inspect for the truth in the untruth. To look at all things presented in life with a bit of skepticism, whether it be towards acclaimed truths, or bald-faced lies, and to inspect them with curiosity is imaginative. In skepticism, there can be curiosity, in curiosity there is the creative. In all of this, there is the pursuit of truth. As Picasso once said, “Art is the lie that enables us to realize the truth.”

Skepticism → Curiosity → Creativity →Truth

“I must continue to bear testimony to truth even if I am forsaken by all.” 
– Mahatma Gandhi


Source:
Lynch, Michael P. True to Life: Why Truth Matters. Cambridge: MIT, 2005. Print.
Citation:
[1] Mahatma Gandhi, Young India 1924-1926 (1927), p. 1285

Tuesday, April 1, 2014

Critical Reflections on When Science Meets Religion - Part 3 of 5

This is part of a series of writings for a class. (More info from the start here: http://just-call-me-frank.blogspot.com/2014/03/critical-reflections-on-when-science.html).

You should probably start from the first chapter review in order to have some context. It's worth it. But if you're lazy, you can just read this.

Sorry there hasn't been anything really "interesting" lately, outside of studying...Netflix has stolen our soul...again.


Critical Reflection on ‘When Science Meets Religion’ by Ian G. Barbour
Chapter 4: Evolution and Continuing Creation

The assertion by Barbour in relation to evolutionary continuance, whereby “internal drives of organisms” (92) leads them to “purposive action [which] can eventually lead to physiological changes” (93) and these “novel actions may create new evolutionary possibilities” (116) directly conflicts with Biblical creationism as well as creation theory itself. The primary issue with this is in the refusal of religious institutions to recognize evolutionary theory as legitimate, in any way, is that they take “their God” and hold him wholly responsible for creation. He, who made the world “whole” or complete with a divine and predestined plan, which then renders “chance and human freedom […] ultimately illusionary” (103) then subjects humanity and all things created with it, to pain and chance at will, for unknown perverse purpose. In addition, they don’t account for the evolving of creation over time, now or in the future.

The “blind pitiless indifference” (94) of life displayed by the lack of tangible “rhymes reason or justice” in the universe at large, as expressed by Dawkins, and Dennett’s “mindless, purposeless process” (95) of the environment, speaks directly to the conflict of “intelligent design” in evolution and continuing creation. In intelligent design, there is no element of chance. For example, in the basic construction of a building the professional architect does not leave out structural beams in the plan and leave it up to chance to see what might happen. That is not intelligent, or ethically responsible.

Ideas that God intervenes in evolutionary events, so called God-gaps does not hold logically in any form when consistency is considered. Rather, the element of chance embedded in concepts of evolution free of a God echoes the reality in which “an organism of any sort is a highly integrated and dynamic pattern of interdependent events” (116), events determined by chance, by choice and by environment.

To speak again of the independence of theological and scientific theory on creation, as I have previously, and now supported by Gould, though he has been known to muddle them, religion and science are different domains, and as Toulman states, are “illegitimate mixture of languages” (101). While Gould claims that sociobiology adaptive behavior and moral ethics based from scientific perspective are illegitimate practices in the separation of science and religion, I would argue that the base instincts and ethics of humans are based, as animals, in the primitive realm of the animal kingdom. As animal behavioral science can help realize many types of animals - from elephants to lion, turtles and penguins - display characteristics of moral behavior [1] based in evolutionary instincts, such as various forms of social bonding, both long-term and short-term, and formation of communities. In this realization, it becomes apparent that independence is an incompatible relationship, because down to the very foundation religion then becomes a basic form of social control, not a true source of forming moral aptitude.

Dialogue between the two does not seem to be any more promising that does a relationship of independence, and continues to create conflict in interpretation.

In integration, there is no purpose for a God to propagate evolution of species through a design based on “a subtle interplay of chance and law” (112) in the “potentialities of nature” (102) at all, let alone continually. The creation story, the only basis of “where we come from” in religious belief, completely derails the entire concept of an evolving species of any sort. After all God created each thing and declared it “good” (Genesis 1:20-25), so what would the purpose be of “repurposing those good things”. If His design was truly intelligent, that it should not require alterations, instead intelligent design would indicate a linear direction of “sameness”. As Barbour states, when studied even “over short periods” evolutionary processes display “many directions of change, rather than a progress in one direction” (111). These directions of change indicate that there “seems to be too many blind alleys and extinct species and too much suffering and waste to attribute every event to God’s specific action” (112). Even if you attribute only some of events to God’s action, the element of chance remains, along with an impotent God. “Design is what one would expect with an intelligent and purposeful God […] the presence of chance, evil, and human freedom should lead us to modify classical ideas of omnipotence” (114). The alternative is the recognition of the “self-limitation of God” (115) and of “a distant and inactive God” (114. However, recognition should lead the rational person to question why anyone would want to develop a close personal relationship, as is God’s desired relationship with humans vis-à-vis the claims of Biblical text, with a dispassionate and cruel ruler.

To conclude, Peacocke’s idea that “God designed a system of law and chance through which higher forms of life would slowly come into being” (115) again is highly disproved by the teachings of Genesis in which God created all things whole and in “good” form. Any further interpretations outside of what the text of the Bible provides becomes even more illegitimate than the hearsay already existing in man-made text itself.

Sources and Citation:
Ian, Barbour G. When Science Meets Religion: Enemies, Strangers, or Partners. N.p.: HarperCollins, 2000. N. pag. Print.

"Bible Gateway." Bible Gateway. N.p., n.d. Web. 25 Mar. 2014. <http://www.biblegateway.com/passage/?search=Genesis+1>.

1. Ghose, Tia. "Animals Are Moral Creatures, Scientist Argues." LiveScience. TechMedia
Network, 15 Nov. 2012. Web. 25 Mar. 2014. <http://www.livescience.com/24802-animals-have-morals-book.html>

...More From This Class:
- Critical Reflections on When Science Meets Religion - Part 1 of 5 (http://just-call-me-frank.blogspot.com/2014/03/critical-reflections-on-when-science.html)
- Critical Reflections on When Science Meets Religion - Part 2 of 5 (http://just-call-me-frank.blogspot.com/2014/03/critical-reflections-on-when-science_25.html)
- On Being Certain: A Critical Reflection in Four Parts (http://just-call-me-frank.blogspot.com/2014/02/on-being-certain-critical-reflection-in.html)
- A Critical Reflection on 'Free Will' by Sam Harris (http://just-call-me-frank.blogspot.com/2014/02/a-critical-reflection-on-free-will-by.html)

Tuesday, March 25, 2014

Critical Reflections on When Science Meets Religion - Part 2 of 5

Spring break is [finally] over. Let's just say, most of us cannot wait until graduation. (after next Spring Semester *fingers crosses*) - for so many reasons. For example...a completed second degree (in the last 10 years, at least 6 of them have been spent in higher education) and the potential for higher income, more time for (recreational) reading and writing,
Not to mention, we're planning on moving west...to the edge.
Anyway, extensive winter weather, impotent culture and staying in one place for long periods has never been conducive to this wayward existence. It makes parts of the brain itchy.

While the final "grade" will not be received until tomorrow night for this...(let's be honest +s and -s are not grades by conventional standards) [update as of 3/26 : this got a "++" - an above high standards mark]...what follows is part of a series in a University class we're taking (<- click here for 1 of 5 to get context) about truth and reality. Come on. It'll be fun!)

Critical Reflection on ‘When Science Meets Religion’ by Ian G. Barbour
Chapter 3: The Implications of Quantum Physics

In the three interpretations of quantum uncertainties, Heisenberg’s theory of indeterminacy principle was more logical and attractive, particularly because it supports the concept of free will. As theoretical physics Micho Kaku says of the indeterminacy principle, it supports the notion that “no one can determine your future events given your past history. There’s always the wild card. There’s always the possibility of uncertainty in whatever we do”.  Barbour states that if we set the world back to point A, it would not necessarily end up at the previously actualized Z, because the potentiality of different events would change the course. (69) This seems like a good support for the concept of free will.

The conflict between religion and indeterminacy seems unnecessary. In a concept that supposes that everything is up to chance, there is room for “God-given” freedom, whereas in the deterministic concept, that says everything is preordained, there is no room for making your own choices and therefor no room to exercise the freedom purported by theologians. Again, even when scientific principles can get along with religious ones, religion has to argue about it. At the end, it’s just utter ridiculousness in the first place, because what some are arguing to defend is some “divine purpose” that comes down to being nothing more than creation for the sake of worship.

In the independence of science and religion, Barbour’s stance on Bohr’s Complimentary Principle models of phenomena that the concept is acceptable as long as “they refer to the same entity and are of the same logical type” (77) makes complete sense. For instance, one cannot compare a dog and a banana, though one might say that the molecules that make up the dog and the banana can be compared. On a logical level, it is hard to understand why anybody would argue for something so restraining in the scientific world. In addition, Complimentary Principle seems limited in that it insinuates that we can only choose between two things. Something can only be this or that, when in fact, it is possible for something to be this and that. Of course, if something could be both this and that, then inferred support for dialogue and integration in science and religion occurs, despite the different purposes they serve.

            The idea that something is not real until observed and/or recorded, as asserted by Wheeler in his “observer-created universe” theory, (79) while it could support a theory for a non-existent God almost appears preposterous. However, it actually brought to mind that philosophical question-turned-idiom, “If a tree falls in a forest and no one is around to hear it, does it make a sound?” , to which one might ask, if you’re not in the forest and you hear a tree fall, was it a tree that fell.

            Staune’s supposition that quantum physics “cannot” fully explain reality (83) completely ignores the potentiality of it, that it can’t explain it yet, he doesn’t even assume that the possibility is there, just that because it can’t it opens up the dialogue for the existence of God. Had countless scientists came to this same conclusion, that because one field of science could not explain the thing it was attempting to explain now…“then God”, science would be nowhere. In this dialectic approach there is no need to continue attempts of discovery.

Western religions are not compatible with the integration of science and religion; their concepts are too rigid and unyielding. While Eastern religions may be more compatible, Barbour seems to present enough evidence to imply it would not be wholly compatible. (84-85) There can be no discussion of Western religion without addressing God. The Judeo Christian concept of God is that of a being which created the universe, has the ability to intervene and manipulate its creation (even though s/he/it clearly doesn’t), and has grand design for life. If they can shed the man-invented fantasy that humans were formed in the image of “their God”, and remove that level of egotism from the notion of a “divine being”, they are then free to look to concepts in quantum physics for a more realistic structure.  The quantum atom of quantum theory, which is “inaccessible to direct observation and unimaginable in terms of everyday properties” (67) brings to mind a concept of a God (not to be confused with Higgs Boson) that is far more realistic that a single being. Acceptance of such a theory and stripping away the man-designated name and image of “God”, would be the only way in which to integrate science and Western religion. Removing the personhood and supposed aspects in the concept of God, given that all things are made up of atoms, we can acknowledge that God is not a thing, but everything, worthy of admiration, respect and discovery, not praise and obedience. In this, then, can science and religion be integrated.


Source
Ian, Barbour G. When Science Meets Religion: Enemies, Strangers, or Partners. N.p.: HarperCollins, 2000. N. pag. Print.

Citation
Michio Kaku: Quantum Physics Ends the Free Will Debate - Atheist Nexus. Perf. Michio Kaku. Michio
Kaku: Quantum Physics Ends the Free Will Debate - Atheist Nexus. BigThink.com, 24 June 2011. Web. 11 Mar. 2014. <http://www.atheistnexus.org/group/freewillanintelligentchoice/forum/topics/michio-kaku-quantum-physics>

...More From This Class: 
- Critical Reflections on When Science Meets Religion - Part 1 of 5 (http://just-call-me-frank.blogspot.com/2014/03/critical-reflections-on-when-science.html)

Wednesday, March 12, 2014

Critical Reflections on When Science Meets Religion - Part 1 of 5

There are six chapters in 'When Science Meets Religion: Enemies, Strangers, or Partners?' by Ian G. Barbour, each week the students of the class we attend are assigned reading assignments, this is the third book of four for the semester (below this entry are links to other writings from the other two). As opposed to the last book for the class (On Being Certain: Believing You Are Right Even When You're Not by Robert Burton) where the students were assigned several chapters at a time, this book is being dissected one chapter at a time per week.

The content of 'When Science Meets Religion' is heavy. For instance, the critical reflection paper handed in tonight (which will be posted in two weeks) was on The Implications of Quantum Physics in religion. To say we know nothing about Quantum Physics would be an understatement - however, we know more now that we did before. So that's something.

To provide some bases for understanding, each chapter is set out with the idea that there are four ways in which science and religion can get along - Conflict, Independence, Dialogue and Integration. Each of these has implications and levels of potential cohesiveness (or, non cohesiveness, in the case of 'Conflict', which is most of ours' pet views...so far...).
Within each of those views is a type of scientific study. For instance, chapter two is about astrology, Barbour sets astrology in each box [Conflict, Independence, Dialogue and Integration] and discusses how they can or can't work, using different examples from scientists in various fields.

The goal of the readings, the reflection papers, and the two hour class discussion each week, is to bounce ideas and theories off of each other, to broaden the approach and ways of thinking, to debate and philosophize new ideas and new thoughts. The class is based on Truth, Knowledge and Reality, after all. And how can one understand those without thinking about them on a basic (yet not so basic) level.

Since the topics are so heavy in nature, future entries will be one chapter at a time, but for today, we submit to you the first two chapters, to read, to contemplate, to comment on. Because open and respectful debate is a key to learning.

If you've even made it this far, congratulations...you're an intellectual as far as we're concerned.
If you keep reading, you just might find a dick joke embedded in one of the chapter reflections. (the instructor thought it was funny). The two papers got a +, and a ++, respectively. [That'll make sense to the people who have read other things here from this class].

Enjoy.

Critical Reflection on ‘When Science Meets Religion’ by Ian G. Barbour
Chapters 1 - Four Views of Science and Religion

According to Barbour, scientific materialism and biblical literalism “rival literal statements about the same domain” (11). Straight to the conflicts. There are so many, when there should not be any, and that is because people try to put science and religion in too much of the same domain. This will appear to be a hodge-podge of statements on various parts of chapter one, which will hopefully end in a cohesive analysis of my general opinion of what Barbour has set forth in chapter one.

Science and the Bible/Religion, in modern terms, are of different domains. It is true that at one time religion and the Bible were “the science of the age” used to explain the mysteries of the natural world, as well as serving as an alleged handbook to good behavior (more to come on that), but now we have…actual science…to explain the things of the world, and the Bible, as a historical literary work (some might say moral guidebook).

In the integration of religion and science, Barbour says the Theology of Nature states “God creates through the whole process of law and chance, not by intervening in the gaps of the process” (32). This sounds like…science. For what purpose would mankind need a creator with divine non-involvement. What then becomes the purpose of prayer in creation and maintenance by chance; and isn't “law and chance” the basic premise of scientific theory and The Big Bang, which was a chance happening involving scientific laws? The theology of nature sounds like science free of an active creator, which is to say, free of theology.

Don’t be mistaken, the Bible is a wonderful book of religion, a mesmerizing historical text and an often beautiful literary work, that is to say it is not a book of facts, or a book of scientific nature. The Bible can be studied for historical information, though given the nature of how often even historical “facts” of modern days often do not hold up against scrutiny and realism, one can be sure that the historical information within the pages of the Bible are prone to containing a clear bias and half-truths at best. The Bible provides a general snap-shot of a way of thinking among people of a particular a period of time. Books of the Bible serve as basic genealogy. Even further, books of the Bible offered a confused people explanations of weather (The Book of Job, Chapter 37), explanation of childbirth…

“As thou knowest not what is the way of the spirit, nor how the bones do grow in the womb of her that is with child: even so thou knowest not the works of God who maketh all.” Ecclesiastes 11:5 KJV

or maybe not…and even gave reason to why people from different geographical areas spoke different languages (The Tower of Bable).

The Bible, and therefore religion, also provided guides to being a good person, such as the parable of The Good Samaritan in Luke 10:25-37 KJV. What the Bible is not, is a book about tried and tested scientific hypothesis with measurable results. What instrumentalists say of science, I say of religion, that religion is a “convenient human construct” (21). People of biblical times used it as a way of understanding the world around them, but since then more sophisticated ways have been created to understand the stars, weather, reproduction and language. Therefore, as a “textbook” of actual scientific discovery, it has no grounds. As Barbour says, in the section on Conflict, preventing conflict is done by “separating science and religion to interpret then as languages that are unrelated because their functions are totally different” (19).

However, to some it is still essential as a way of getting meaning out of life, with constructed parables to illustrate and understand “good” human behavior. The bible provides a concept of evil to assist in the understanding of bad things that happen. For instance, if you are to believe that humans are just higher-developed animals, there is no “evil”, there are only people who act on their baser instincts with no remorse for their fellow beings; but if you are to believe humans are not animals, and even separate from them, then an explanation for the bad things they do must have a “villain” and “evil”…a Satan or Devil.

Strong arguments can be made over broad-stroke statements indicating the Bible is an illustration of human dignity, or that religion is good, given the atrocities carried out in history beneath the banner of ‘Religion’. In fact, at times, the Bible is full of pure contradiction, not to mention a handbook on who and how to hate. It is a book about starting wars, oppressing and mistreatment of ethnic groups (a.k.a. strangers to the land), and degrading women (as property and whores) while illustrating their untrustworthiness and “evil nature” (see: Adam and Eve, Samsun and Delilah), offering little demonstration in favor. It swings from interpretations of wealth and poverty, of war and peace. Anybody who has read the Bible knows there can be no literal interpretation not only for Science, but even as a guide on how to live, is a touch unsalable – the Bible is full of contradictions, false “science” and false “humanity” and is prone to cherry-picking to justify some of the most heinous of human indignities.

What I find most interesting in the science and religion debate is when the two overlap in theory, only then do the religious fundamentalists deny Bible “truth”. This is particularly seen in the area of climate change. If one was to analyze Revelations, and the stories in books and chapters related to it, in the Bible, it directly speaks about climate change, yet more often than not it’s the Christian (Republicans) that believe the concept of climate change to be a hoax, simply because scientific evidence supports it, despite their own guiding text hailing famine as part of the fourth seal. How do they imagine famine will fore come without the drought and floods produced by climate change? This is not to say I buy into the idea that “the end of the times” was foretold by men who lived in the desert thousands of years ago, or that climate change is even part of it. It is an interesting phenomenon that when parts of the Bible can “actually be backed up with scientific explanation” Biblical literalists/fundamentalists tend to deny the “truth” in it. Scientific Materialism, which states “scientific method is the only reliable path to knowledge” (11), is reminiscent of the knowledge of foretold by biblical apocalypse, according to some interpretations of Daniel 12:4. So, at the end of the day, it makes sense that religion fears or moves to distrust science on some level, because science is knowledge, the apple from the tree, an echo from the horn of the apocalypse.

Finally, I do not agree with the support for Independence from instrumentalism that states “scientific theories are not representative of reality by useful intellectual and practical tools” (21), as if Biblical fairytales are at all representative of reality themselves. I find the fact that anybody would consider religion and science happy bedfellows astounding. They have two different purposes: one is far more useful in gaining knowledge and an understanding of the world and people, and the other makes a mighty terrifying and seat-gripping bedtime story.

Chapter 2 - Astronomy and Creation

Three minutes before The Big Bang. Billions of years and it often comes down to arguments about those three minutes as proof of a creator by theologians, though, according to UW Astronomy professor Bruce Margon, "Only the first 10-43 seconds [now] remain obscure," 1. An inability to determine what happened in the exact moment persistently punches holes in both the theory of the Big Bang, and the theory of God. However, some may conclude that to the educated person the existence of God is less certain, because the idea of “a god” creates the desire for explaining first where God even came from, and second where s/he exited prior to creation. So much has there been a need to explain creation outside of The Big Bang that people like Christian and astronomer Hugh Ross found a need for the manifestation of an extra dimension to explain even the workings of the physical form of God as Jesus on earth. An eleventh dimension whereby the holy and divine existed, in biblical times; one more than purported by highly abstract and untestable string theory (47); which explains his ability to pass through closed doors and walking on water. Guess it beats high magic or sleight of hand trickery.

While I still, as of this chapter reflection, hold strongly that Science and Religion are destined to remain in the “conflict box” for the foreseeable future, I am not without understanding that at some point reconciliation is possible, if only they (and by they, I mean religious literalists) can embrace the two as separate functions. It is through adherence to biblical literalism in relation to Science, that conflict arises. As stated by David Kelsey, “science and religion […] address different questions, and those questions should not be confused” (50). Some might even say that the Bible does a poor job at addressing any questions. As for the “why” of things that the Bible is alleged to answer, the response usually ends at “because God”, and the “how” questions end much the same way in what is essentially a non-answer. What follows then, by me, is a full admission that Science also cannot answer the “whys”. Science can only help you understand only the how. For example, there is no “why” when someone gets cancer, there is only the how – the environmental and biological causes of it. There is no “why” to answer why a baby is born with defects, or someone dies at a young age. There is no real way to answer “why them and not someone else” on a spiritual or Scientific level. Therefore, Science can answer your questions more fully than can religion, which inevitably ends with the God answer. Independent they must stay, but on a level playing field they are not.

In terms of dialogue, more often than not, as stated before, Science and Religion get thrown back into the “conflict box”. There is hardly logical ground made between the two in conversation where there is an attempt to overlap them. For instance, Thomas Torrance’s claim for the potential of differently ordered world (through God’s creativity) contingent on God (53), and the claim that the world did not have to have the order that it did/does, either opens up possibility for more worlds - because if there is potential for different orders of things, then what holds true on earth to create and maintain life, does not have to remain true elsewhere. Essentially this does nothing but work towards disproving religious basis for “one world”, and/or at the same time disproves scientific laws which states very specific things had to happen in order for the world to come into being, because in scientific laws of nature there is only one “order of things”. If the creation of world was/is ultimately dependent on God, then could God, in his infinite creativity, not tamper with the scientific laws and re-order things whenever s/he wants? More pressing, if there was a divine creator of these laws and things, as supposed, why did he not impart the knowledge with the first theoretical bite of the sinful apple – it seems all the knowledge that the apple was supposed to impart, was very basic and for naught in the grand schemes of available infinite knowledge held by an all-knowing creator.

In the integration of Science and Religion, I become more insolent. God as a creator of all things, including science, still leaves the question of purpose hanging in the air. In the significance of humanity, Teilhard de Chardin says, “we should not measure significance by size and duration” (62). (It’s just like a man to make that claim). But is there a reason to measure significance at all? Does existence have to mean anything? And if it does, it seems more realistic that the earth was created spontaneously ex nihilo, without divine creator or purpose, than to think some mysterious being in a (potential) eleventh dimension, or “heavenly location”, created an entire world for the sole purpose of requesting that the more “intellectual” of creations worship her/him/it for the very act. That the belief of the creation of the world via God is the expression of the theories of “dependence” and “gratitude” (59) to God, as set forth by biblical text, is nothing more than a master-slave relationship. If that were true, that the whole purpose for existence was for the praise and worship of the being that created it, then that being pretty much takes narcissism to a new…dimension.
____________________________________________

Sources:
Ian, Barbour G. When Science Meets Religion: Enemies, Strangers, or Partners. N.p.: HarperCollins, 2000. N. pag. Print.

Citation:
1. Alles, David L. "Alles Introductory Biology Lectures: An Introduction to Science and Biology for Non-Majors." Lecture. Western Washington University, Bellingham. 4 Mar. 2014. Western Washington University. Web. 4 Mar. 2014. <http://fire.biol.wwu.edu/trent/alles/Cosmological_Evolution.pdf>.

...More From This Class: 

Wednesday, February 29, 2012

Respecting Religion? We Have A View On That

What better topic than religion. Really.

We've actually written about it a few times here (Religion, You Say? We Have A View On That), and addressed a series of questions that were e-mailed to us last fall (Religious Debate...or Something), our thoughts and opinions on religion.

Religious debate is indeed one of those "hot topics" people are taught not to discuss in polite company, but we're not overly polite, or subtle, and are not afraid of what people might think about what, and how, we choose to believe and live our life. Mostly because we (most of us, anyway) have found happiness in not caring if people judge us; because who do they think they are? That doesn't mean we are not without struggles that make us unhappy, but religious struggle is not one of them. The Father still has the church praying for us, of course.

Today while walking around town center, listening to our music, minding our own business (only moderately scowling at people, hard for them to see behind big sunglasses anyway) a Mormon missionary honed in on us. He crosses the busy street full of pedestrians towards us. You can always tell, they come at you with an open smile, which immediately looks suspicious.

We took out our ear buds out of our ears (meanwhile, when someone is wearing ear buds it's usually an indication they are not interested in being talked to), raised our sunglasses, and before the words, with their American accent, were out of his mouth, we knew.

Having been a missionary in our younger days we know the spiel, and it's pretty much starts out the same across denominations.

"Have you heard...", he starts.

Right away we are laughing, and we stop him. We smile and we tell him upfront that we used to be a missionary and we are not interested. As we are ready to turn away he starts asking questions.

"Do you believe in God though?" he inquires, he wants to chat.

"No, I decided to go another way, and be happy", we explain to him.

He asks what happened to make us no longer be a believer, and if we don't question why "we" are here? With a discrete explanation we gave him a satisfactory answer.

We continue our short conversation with him, he asks where in the states we are from, he replies he is from California (for those who don't know, we are an American temporarily residing in the UK). He is friendly of course, and invites us to his church, asking if we could find the answers we were looking for, if we had proof that God existed, would we follow him (God)?

We simply said "No", explaining that we don't need religion to live a happy life, that we have decided that we can live without the answers we were looking for, and we choose to resolve to the fact that bad things happen to all people, in varying amounts, and that we'd rather learn from them, find a way to turn them into a positive and try to enjoy life, rather than seek out a "creator" to give us the "answers" so that we live by his/her/their rules.

We parted ways being proud that, while we did indeed laugh and smile we did not do it in a condescending way; sometimes we don't come across the way we think we are, but his friendliness confirmed we were "doing it right" today, which is an achievement for one of us residing in the head today. We treated him with respect by explaining ourselves simply and by not making him feel like his decision to follow religion made him ignorant or any other things people like to make religious people feel.

We guess when it comes down to it, if we are greeted with respect for not being a "believer", then they should be treated with the same. People are entitled to their beliefs, it's what gets THEM through their day, and makes them feel they have a purpose. Though we do have a problem with fundamentalists, but that's another story. It's the pushing of it on others that we don't appreciate, but you can't blame them too much for trying, they think enough people haven't heard "the word", or can be happy without it.

At the end of the day who are we to step on the stones that build their support, that give them the strength to see another day?