Wednesday, July 19, 2006

Philosophy

I've been thinking a lot lately about an intrinsic hurdle in sociopolitical ideology that it seems can never be surmounted: religion's place in our lives. I am not a religious person. I do feel, however, that people should be free to worship whatever they want in any way they see fit, as long as it does not harm others. This is generally the basis of all the decisions I make in life; if what you do doesn't negatively affect anyone, I don't care.

Recently I have debated with a few devout Christians on matters such as gay marriage. It is frustrating for me because the Christian argument at some point always becomes cyclical. It always gets to "god says [blank]," which is fine if you're a Christian and you're referring to the Christian god. But speaking personally, I don't believe in god at all, so that [blank] has absolutely no authority for me. I imagine this is frustrating for anyone who is [fill in the religion that's not Christianity], or simply non-religious.

I believe in facts that can be proven through the scientific method. Facts don't give us all the answers to the universe by any means, but they give us a foundation with which to coexist (e.g. this desk is "hard" and "brown" and made of "wood"). I feel that humans MUST use facts, as limiting as they can be, to deal with each other in times of strife. If someone tells me I can't do [action] because of [non-factual reason], I'm going to get upset. This is the problem with all religious arguments in the end. "Because god says so" is not a factual argument.

The religious argument, at its core, requires the other side to convert. The factual argument, at its core, needs dogmatists to stretch their dogma. Neither is ever acceptable to the other side. This delta between fact and faith becomes palpable and often deadly in law and politics. It has been the source of countless wars and unimaginable acts throughout human history. It also affects myriad smaller arguments in American life, such as public display of the ten commandments, school prayer, gay rights, etc. How can this delta be crossed, or at least shrunk? It's obviously not easy. My view is already apparent. I feel we must use facts, despite their limitations, as the basis of our interactions. Most people won't argue with facts, they only argue that the facts should be ignored - but that is a different problem.

If every person on Earth were to willfully and sincerely convert to [fill in the religion], we would come closer to world peace than we've ever been. But compare the likelihood of that happening against all religions letting their dogma slide just a little from time to time, using fact and equity as the guiding principals. I like our chances better there.

I’ve heard the line of reasoning that people need a strict, black and white code of conduct by which to govern their lives; a moral compass that never waivers, so to speak. I don’t necessarily disagree with that assertion, but I give humankind more credit. I think people instinctively know what’s really right and wrong. We call these instincts “empathy” and “love” and “selflessness.” Instead of ending an argument at “god says [blank],” we could consider “what if I were in this situation?” Also, different religions have vastly different “moral compasses” and trying to get all those aligned brings us back to the start of the conundrum.

Again, I strongly believe that people have the right to practice any religion in any way they see fit if no harm is caused (and we do know when harm is caused). Faith is a necessary and powerful part of human existence, but it is frequently misapplied. The overwhelming power of faith can be harnessed away from dogma and moved toward empathy; it is possible. Some of us have already taken the first step.

10 Comments:

Blogger DM said...

It is. But I definitely dont interpret that as being a bad thing; it gives people a sense of meaning- because meaning is difficult to find. It gives them a sense of comfort and eases their mind. And lord knows it is addictive. The only thing I wouldnt say about religion being the opiate of the masses, is that it doesnt always mess you up. Surely, it can, but it depends on if you can handle it or not and understand it for what it is.

11:13 PM  
Anonymous Anonymous said...

smorg

I definitely recommend Madeleine Albright's book, The Mighty and the Almighty, for a suprisingly articulate and personal view of these issues. Religion cuts many ways in world affairs, and having a better understanding of those dynamics from one who has been there, is far more interesting than I would have thought when I started reading it.

11:33 AM  
Blogger Jack Mercer said...

Great post, Smorg!

I will be back to discuss.

-Jack

12:07 PM  
Blogger Writing Left said...

This is a great posting. When people cite to the Bible, they are not having a rational discussion with you. To say that one is against gay marriage or abortion or some other political topic because the Bible says so is nothing more than a cop out and a crutch for failing to really think about the issue and establish one's own opinion regarding it.

3:42 PM  
Blogger Jack Mercer said...

Hi WL!

Just to get the discussion going, why do you think murder is wrong? Where does right and wrong come from? Is there any such thing as wrong? If so, who determines it?

:)

Looking forward to your comments!

-Jack

6:51 PM  
Blogger Smorgasbord said...

I don't want to answer for Writing Left, but I'd like to offer my own opinion:

I believe people almost always know "right" from "wrong" on issues where they should. It's simply built into us. It is perfectly fine, in my view, to use religion as a moral compass, but when people start telling me I can't masturbate because I'm spilling god's seed, then we've fallen off the cliff. This is where common sense, logic, and, most importantly in my opinion, empathy, come into play. People are smart enough and have sophisticated enough emotions that they can reason what right and wrong are. We don't need an ancient text to dictate it to us, necessarily. Using empathy, one can reason that murder is wrong because no one wants to be murdered. Using empathy, one can reason that being gay hurts no one, so it's not wrong to be gay. This is what separates us from animals. We can use our big brains to supercharge our emotions and reason between "right" and "wrong." We can make our own decisions. We even came up with a word for people who can't empathize: sociopaths. We tend to medicate or lock up those people.

4:51 PM  
Blogger Jack Mercer said...

Hi Smorg,

I remember this discussion way back in philosophy class. If we look at things completely from an atheistic viewpoint, then what is the scientific basis of right or wrong, moral or immoral? What is its chemical composition in the brain, is there any different synaptic functions taking place during cognition of such? Smorg, science has abandoned this field to philosophy and religion simply because it cannot understand it.

My response to WL was that he/she was making a bit of a stretch when inserting "rational" into the topic.

I wrote the following response to a friend who was struggling with these concepts:

**warning, it is long and drawn out in true, old-Jack fashion**

...

You made the point that "religion can't stand up against logic". I believe I understand your underlying reasoning; however, in context of your argument it is fundamentally flawed.

1. Logic cannot usurp jurisdiction where assumptions are made. This moves one's argument into the realm of neutrosophs. In your example you take an assumption that is non-verifiable and attempt to apply a dissimilar (verifiable) model to it. Religion, which is faith based cannot be scientifically verified because it is not subject to rules of verifiable logic. Therefore, one cannot use logic as a measure of concepts like faith. Logic CAN be applied internally when assumptions are drawn within the concept. For example: if one says: faith is inputed (given) of God, then all logical models must follow that within the assumption--understanding that these models must always be kept within the context of faith. This would prohibit one from making any productive argument in the creation vs. evolution debate. They both could be correct within their assumptions; however, logical arguments cannot be drawn between the two. This is somewhat like comparing the characteristics of a ford truck to a banana split.

2. Logic is static and not causative: your comment about "standing up AGAINST logic" is against those very rules of logic. Logic, as a measure, can only establish not cause. For instance, according to universal law of negative, one can say there is a God, and it would be logic's domain to measure. If logic does not have an instrument available to it to measure such assertions then they remain true until proven false. This is the establishment of a baseline whereby logic can either verify or annul, but can never cause. The final argument within this subset is that science or logic cannot forbid because they cannot cause.

3. Science has no jurisdiction in incorporeal concepts: science can only measure what is physically observed. There are many things even in the physical world that science has not yet developed a valid instrument for measurement. For example: human thought cannot be measured (brainwaves can, but they cannot be interpretted into thoughts). Those things that cannot be measured become the judicature of other disciplines such as philosophy and theology. Therefore you cannot apply the rules of science or logic to something they cannot measure. Because science has no jurisdiction within the study of God, then it has no basis for debate. This also applies to concepts like evolution, where theory and presupposition is the norm. Theory is not science.

4. Scientific method and measurement: "Things that can be proven and tested". William, this is an important concept to understand in its purist sense. Only things within current physical dimensions can be measured. (See above). There is no such thing as historical fact--only historical perception. Nothing in history can be verified scientifically as science's only control group is in the present. This means that historical theories can be established, but they are never validated within the historical context, only within the present control group. However, it is short sighted and somewhat dull-witted for one to discount the entirety of historical record just because it cannot be verified scientifically. Again, in the case of God, the only way to scientifically invalidate him would be for one to observe every space in the universe at the same time--and this would also assume one knew what one was looking for inside that space, and...we won't even bother to bring up concepts such as null space, the 13 possible dimensions, etc.

Summary:

Saying there is no God because it is AGAINST logic is fundamentally flawed. Science or logic has no ability to measure such concepts as faith or such constructs as the ephemeral. Logic can only work within the framework of its own context and cannot cross-reference two unlike concepts. Your last argument of ["And don't even try to tell me that there are scientists that believe in God and creation, -Let's have them prove or even try to test God!"], is an illogical set because the two disciplines are mutually exclusive of the other. You cannot prove what you have the inability to measure, nor can prove inexistant that which cannot be measured. (i.e.: neutrinos)

Now that was basically what WL needed to be aware of. In terms of your post, Smorg, I think you bring out good points. People have often gone to the Bible or a religious source to justify many things. In history, the Roman Catholic Church used the Bible and their own cannon to justify the extermination of millions of ana-Bapists and pagans. Many Muslims use their Koran to justify killing innocents. Many people do this in order to support what they believe. But just as quickly people will use their own personal philosophies or ideologies to do the same. For example, you personally appeal to some moral authority that indicates to you that abortion is ok. Now for me to disregard your arguments for legalized abortion based on my understanding of your pre-conceived bias would short change both of us in engaging in meaningful discussion.

Now anyone can use rationale (theirs) to argue a position. If I wanted to I could approach homosexuality this way:

-Homosexuality is approximately 5% of the population. Using science a 5% subset is considered an immaterial sample. Therefore we would conclude scientifically that homosexuality is aberant/deviant/abnormal behavior and should be viewed as such.

-What would be the scientific purpose of homosexuality? If we use the Darwinian model, we would see that most species would seek out and kill any of its kind engaging in such behavior, because it would become a threat to the survival of the species. Sex by all species is a means of procreation and anything counter to that would be "unscientific".

The arguments could go on with one trying to rationalize their bias, etc. but you get the drift.

You do make a good point that most Christians either ignore or don't realize. The Bible says:

"1Corinthians 2:14 But the natural man receiveth not the things of the Spirit of God: for they are foolishness unto him: neither can he know [them], because they are spiritually discerned."

This indicates that someone who is not spiritually inclined cannot understand many of the things that are spiritually understood in the Bible, and to try to communicate these ideas and concepts to someone who is not a follower of such is a waste of time.

Good article, good conclusions and good content. We could spend years discussing this very topic but neither of us have the time!

Take care,

-Jack

9:28 AM  
Blogger Smorgasbord said...

So, it seems we both agree that the human race would be a heck of a lot better off if we approached all manner of law making in a strictly non-theistic way. God and things we can't measure don't really have anything to do with law, so laws shouldn't have anything to do with those things. Done and done. Now we just need to convince the rest of the world.

1:59 PM  
Blogger Jack Mercer said...

As a theist I would have to agree. Legislating morality is a dangerous slope and contrary to Democracy. It is anti-Capitalistic and anti-freedom.

Smorg, if you have the time, a good person to research who had a good perspective on this Roger Williams--America's "First" Baptist:

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Roger_Williams_(theologian)

-Jack

9:09 AM  
Blogger DM said...

Heeeence, my agnosticism.

I have been looking for a quote like that Corinthians quote.

10:30 AM  

Post a Comment

<< Home