My comments in response to yours are in brackets, with dashes separting sentences to help with ease of reading. Thanks .
Tom your too intellectual for me, to contend with. I do have some questions for you. I will start with I am not a religious person yet I find it hard not to believe in a higher power, god if you will.
[[[[Thanks Matt, I’d like to think I’m focusing on building relationships around compassion, not atheism, per se, even though for me, at this point in my life, I honestly think that theology can detract from compassion, and lead some of us to seek to justify some of the most extreme forms of cruelty thru our rigid adherence to religious dogma.——–
Most people aren’t atheist like me, nor are they vegan or ‘queer’ (bisexual), nor do they think our democracy is becoming an oligarchy. ——-So, I try to relate to a variety of people, as a pedicab driver and as a blogger, not just though who readily agree with me. ——– As for people who believe in a higher power, Karen Armstrong writes about religion in a way that is rigorous in terms of the humanities and the phyiscal and social sciences. ——She is a proponent of interfaith alliances and started the organization charterforcompassion.org. ]]]]]
Even if it is just an energy field. I do want to know why the science community as a whole would not be thought of in the same light as a religion. [[[[[[My own guess about the difference would be that science is a part of rationalism, whereby we use logical reasoning to process evidence. ———-Science, at its best, seems less prone to excessive certainty than religion. ———What scientist claims that her or his theories are the immutable and infallible truth ? ———-Via religion, people claim to be in tune with a source of omniscience and immutability. ——-Thereby religious thinking, when compared to scientific thinking, tends to be less open-minded and less accepting of change as new information becomes available. ———— How many people torture and kill each other over disputes about the correct interpretation of a scientific theory? ——–By contrast, consider how many people were killed and tortured by the Catholic Church over the centuries. ——-Consider the Islamic fundamentalists around now who oppress women and otherwise violate human rights. ———–I don’t have much power, but if I did I wouldn’t try to stop people from being religious. That itself would be a violation of human rights. ——– But I do think religion, especially organized religion, often leads to people being intolerant of others and seeking to justify oppression. ———Organized religion involves hierarchy and doctrines built around leading interpretations of foundational writings, such as the Bible or the Quran. ——As such, it’s prone to the abuse of power, which in turn, can lead to atrocities. That, of course, can happen in secular contexts too. ———-But religion seems to invovle an intensity of certainty, whereby people believe they are right no matter what. That, in my opinion, can detract from the human capacity for empathy and compassion. ——– So, while people have killed for nationalism or other secular reasons, religion can make conflicts even more severe in terms of disruptions to our empathy and compassion. ]]]
It has brought just as much if not more destruction to the planet as religions.
[[[[[That’s interesting you bring that up, Matt. A case can be made that the ecological damage that has occurred over that past 100 years has resulted from our technological prowess, without which there would be far fewer human beings and much less consumption of resources per human being. ———You’ll find this line of reasoning among anarcho-primitivists such as the writers Derrick Jensen and John Zerzan, and folk involved with deep ecology. ————- Also along the lines of what you wrote, Matt, you might look at the assessments of ecological impact that various ecologists come up with, technology is a factor. If I recall it’s Impact = population + affluence+technology. See http://www.sustainablescale.org/ConceptualFramework/UnderstandingScale/MeasuringScale/TheIPATEquation.aspx
———–The I= PAT forumula is useful for lifestyle changes and for pushing for political changes aimed at making societies more ecologically sane. The Catholic Church opposes some of that, regarding contraception in developing nations, saying it promotes sinfulness, when, in my opinion, it would actually promote the human rights of women, reduce suffering from HIV and other STDs, help manage over-population, and help with the economic development of those countries. —————–But as for the anarcho-primitivist call for saving the ecosystem by ‘bringing down civilization (See End Game by Derrick Jensen), there’s a problem with that line of reasoning. ——–Technological prowess is one among many results of the evolution of the human brain, that is, the neocortex which gives rise to the mental faculties that distinguish humans from many, if not most of the other creatures in the animal kingdom. ———- Other behaviors derived from the neo-cortex are the invention of systems of symbols such as written and spoken language and mathematics with which we to put use our capacity for abstract reasoning. —– Those who say they are ‘anti-civ’ (anti-civilization) in my humble are,in the final analysis, anti-human. —–I say that because technology, and usage of systems of symbols and other features of civilization result from the functioning of our neocortex. ——–We wouldn’t be human without it. So, the solution is using our neo-cortex in ways that put us in greater harmony with each other and with the rest of life on Earth. ——–We should find ways to use our ingenuity that don’t involve being ingenious about how to more efficiently torture and kill each other during wars. We should find ways to use our ingenuity other than using high technology to spy on or enslave or otherwise oppress millions of people or billions of nonhuman animals (factory farming and factory fishing) whose bodies we use for food, drink, materials, and other purposes. ———– So, if there is a way to survive and thrive our ecological crises, it will involve further refining our usage of our neocortex, that is, further developing our capacity to reason, whereby we apply logic to weigh evidence so as to better understand reality. ——–And as for people saying that using our minds involves a lot more than being rational, I agree. ——Our mental faculties are as much about using our intuition as they are about using reason. But there is a difference between using our non-rational faculties, on the one hand, and, on the other hand, being irrational. ——– Our non-rational faculties invovle our instincts and our emotions and intuitions which help us to survive and thrive long-term and on a daily basis. But, by contrast, irrationality involves us investing ourselves cognitively and emotionally into unsubstantiated claims about the nature of reality. ———I don’t mean to be close minded or disrespectful toward those who are religious, but to me religion involves irrationality, as defined earlier in this sentence. ]]]]]
Mostly because what comes out of it gets put into the hands of the same people that could or would control religions. [[[[[What you say here, Matt, reminds me of how ‘science’ has a bad name among people working on human rights, animal rights, and ecology. ——-They mentally associate ‘science’ with high-tech companies who have lucrative contracts with the military, or high tech companies making a fortune on GMO’s or getting more of the world’s farmers in-debt and dependent on genetically modified seeds, and pesticides and fertilizers that damage human health, and may be killing off bees. ——–A way to remedy the greedy abuse of science would be to invest public funds into research. That way, scientists are less beholden to big corporations that sometimes impede academic freedom as well as steer research into short-sighted projects. ——-But many ordinary folk in the US believe in the propaganda that says everything should be privatized and that all government taxation and public spending is wasterful. (See Nobel Economist Joe Stiglitz : The Cost of Inequality.) —— So, yeah, ‘science’ understandably has a bad name in many people’s minds, who think of bombs, GMO food, inadequately tested pharmaceutals, and the raping of the environment when they hear the word ‘science.’ ———But it doesn’t have to be that way, especially if increased public funding of science reduces the influence of short-term focused projects that reflect corporate greed. ——- But it’s not limited to that. By ‘science’ I’m talking about a broad range of ways in which human beings make the best use of our brains for the task of grasping reality. ——- If morality is a matter of doing as little harm to others as possible and causing as much benefit to others as possible as we go about meeting our needs, having empathy and compassion is not enough. ———–We also need knowledge of how the world works, socially and physically, in order to effectuate our good intentions. ——Good intentions without know-how is not very useful. Know-how (as you rightly suggest) without good intentions can and has been very destructive to human life and to other life forms on the planet. ———- I would suggest that part of the reason for the destructiveness of some applications of ‘science’ is that our civilization separates scientific reasoning from moral reasoning due to the idea that religion is the foundation of morality; and due to the fact that religion not only involves our non-rational faculties, but also involves being irrational. —– That is, religion becomes irrational when we invest ourselves emotionally and cognitively into unsubstantiated claims about the nature of reality.——— If we base morality on empathy and compassion (which are universal values for all humanity) , and move away from basing it on religious dogma (which divides people within and among the many cultures on Earth), we, as species, can maybe make moral progress. ——–But an additional part of doing that involves using the humanities and the physical and social sciences to figure out how to further cultivate empathy and compassion, as well as figure out the probable consequences of human behavior, so as to do a better job at minimizing suffering and maximizing well-being for conscious life forms on Earth. ]]]]]
Behavioral sciences suggest that we behave much like any other herd on the planet. So when people study this it is often used against the very people that it intends to help. Not too much different then any religions. [[[[[You’re right, in that a lot of the knowledge from scientifc research is used to manipulate or exploit humans and other animals, whether it’s using psychology in advertising or using it for psychological warfare, and so on. ———Knowledge about physics can be used for weapons that have the potential of ending all human life, or that knowledge can be used to discover an energy source that doesn’t pollute our air and water and doesn’t exacerbate climate change, or lead us to kill and maime tens or hundreds of thousands of men, women, and children to gain better access to the oil under their rotting corpses. ——As for ‘science,’ I suggest more knowledge is the solution, not less knowledge. As such, morality should be based on an honest and open-minded pursuit of truth, subject to support or refuation according to evidence. ——–That’s a contrast to religion which in many cases emphasizes belief over the pursuit of truth. ——Some religions also involve the idea that truth is something that is revealed by way of our beliefs, in that we believe first and then God reveals the truth to us. ——–That approach might be the result of humans seeking to use our non-rational faculties. But I’d suggest we can use our non-rational faculties (intuition) without investing ourselves emotionally into believing in extraordinary claims (virgin births, heaven, hell, someone dying for our sins, karma –as in Hinduism, and so on). ——— With a ‘science of morality’ (or a ‘moral science’ as at least hinted at by John Stuart Mill in the 1800s) , maybe scientific endeavors will be more in tune with making the world a better place. ———-We can study not only the motion of planets or the activities of electrons or photons, but also study how empathy and compassion develop and use our knowledge of the world to figure out how best to put our compassion and empathy into practice. ———That process involves the humanities, and the social and physical sciences. The humanities would, in this context, include studying religious texts just as we’d study other foundational writings, except that we wouldn’t detract from our pursuit of the truth by close-mindedly believing that the writings in question are the infallible and unchanging expressions of a god or gods. In light, I occasionally read the Bible and the Qur’an. ]]]]]
I know we have a lot of theories about how things work but there is always some wild card aspect to it, like health or medical fields just not having explanations besides miracles for some cases, the mysterious parts of quantum physics, or just the problem with math not always fitting as perfectly as science/mathmeticians suggest. Albert Einstein thought this. So as a critical thinker just because science as a somewhat testable aspect to it if science suggests a infinite universe with infinite possibilities, which is in a constant cycle of change how can we really no for sure when and if we are truly right?
[[[ I don’t think the absence of apparent explanation is proof miracles. If you don’t believe in leaps of faith as it pertains to science, one would think you definitely wouldn’t want to take a leap of faith via something even more immune to evidence, such as religion. ——But, sure, Matt, as you describe it here we can, at least in theory, never be 100 percent sure of anything. ——There you go 🙂 You stated my case for me, as it pertains to theolog 🙂 With religion, people often emphasize faith. ‘Faith’ is not only ‘confidence’ but is a higher degree of certainty. ——–Religious fundamentalism involves the problem of excessive certainty. Religious fundamentalists believe that the Qur’an or the Bible is the literal, infallable and unchanging truth. ——Not only that, they believe that their religion is correct and that others are false. It’s close-minded. We can find close-mindedness in secular contexts, but rarely to the extremes evident among religious fundamentalists. —–As for your point about scientific research involving wild cards, I’ve a couple of responses. —— One is that thru the centuries of scientific inquiry there is an overall patten of coherent progress, even though in many or all fields there are controversies. ——-It’s not true when some people say that scientific knowledge is so choatic, and changing from one week to the nexst, that no one, scientist or layperson, really knows much about anything.——- For example, much of the popular confusion in the fields of health and medicine results not from chaotic scientific findings, but from news organizations that publish to an audience of millions their hastily drawn, and distorted interpretations of scientific studies. ——–Despite the wild cards, there is some degree of progress for a coherent sense of what is true as it pertains to physics, chemistry, psychology and other disciplines. ——One of the main ways that we have at least a working defintion for what is scientifically true is that if various theories were false, most, if not all of the technology based on those theories would not work. ——That include high tech weapons, high tech surgical procedures, space travel, the internet, cell phones, and so and so on. —–But even if scientic knowledge were as chaotic as some say, that still is in line with the scientific approach of not believing in something until there are multiple duplications of proof. ——Whether the wild cards are as much of an issue as you say, Matt, either way that supports a scientific approach to what we can say we know and don’t know. —–By contrast, religion involves people having a lot less evidence or no evidence about their beliefs and yet having a higher degree of certainty about their beliefs. ——One person with whom I’ve been corresponding, defended this by saying that his belief in and of itself is evidence. He actually wrote in an email, “belief is evidence.” Outside of religion, few of us would accept the approach of believing first and then expecting the evidence to emerge as a result of our belief. ——-Imagine a judge ruling over a serious trial who, without any evidence, makes up his mind about the guilt of the defendant. —And imagine that the judge then looks for evidence to support his preconceived belief. —-Imagine if a scientist did that. How about a husband who firmly concludes his wife is cheating on him, and then looks for the evidence afterwards to confirm his conclusion. —–We don’t accept that approach to seeking truth in any other aspect of the human experience except with religion. Why ? ——– To me, emphasizing belief over the pursuit of truth is a form of close-mindedness that prevents humans from having a more accurate grasp of reality. ——-With a more accurate grasp of reality, we can better realize the importance of empathy and compassion, and use our knowledge of the world to put that empathy and compassion into practice. ——-Science, unlike religion, involves being more honest about the necessity of revision or even complete abandonment of theories or what was once thought of as facts. Neither Einstein nor any of his admirers ever claimed his theories were infallible and forever immune to revision. ]]]]]
Also the ocean floor and how it works could change tomorrow, how do we think the dinosaurs died? Many speculations but what do we really know? [[[[[ Sure, our understanding of the ocean floor could change as new evidence emerges. But the existing trends in physics and chemistry indicate our understanding of the ocean floor is not likely to change so drastically as to invalidate all of the previous scientific research.—Like you say, there are wild cards, but the phenomena of the ocean floor (for example hydrology or bacteria) are driven by principles of physics, which are generally, if not entirely, constant at least on Earth, if not throughout the universe. ——So, despite the wild cards, it’s possible for humans to make at least some degree of sense of how the Earth and the universe and the creatures therein operate.——You’re not the first person to present the claim that scientific knowledge is so disorderly as to make it no less irrational than religion and forms of superstition. ——It might be a common response to this sort of critique of theology. —- But that aside, Matt, I think I see the point your making, in that neither you nor I or the vast majority of people have actually gathered the evidence about the ocean floors or the dinosaurs; nor have the vast majority of us used logical reasoning to weigh that evidence. —– But if you take that degree of skepticism and apply it to your daily life, you’d mentally paralyze yourself. ——-You wouldn’t be able to make decisions with any degree of sophistication, as it pertains to who or what to vote for; what stocks to invest in; which types of food to eat; how to build your pedicab busines; and so on. ——What comes to mind is a term that Erich Fromm and other thinkers have used: ‘rational faith.’ —–It’s a type of faith that results from having weighed the evidence or from having considered the secondary results of that evidence.——- For example, you don’t know the plane you’re on won’t crash. But you can have a rational faith that it probably won’t, in light of the evidence of millions of flights over the years that haven’t crashed among the hundreds or few thousand that have. ——The evidence of technology is applicable to this discussion. Whether it’s cell phones, solar panels, heart transplants, genetic therapy, space travel, or automechanics, we have at least a ‘working sense of the truth’ that seems, in my opinion, to be superior to, for example, religious claims that God drowned most of humanity because they were wicked, or that Mary conceived a child without having sex with another human. ——-No doubt, our ‘working sense of the truth’ can be inaccurate, even though it meets most of our current standards for truth. ——For example, Newtonian Physics for centuries seemed to be proven to be true by way of its applications to technology. —–But in the 20th Century, via space travel, problems with Newtonian Physics became apparent. Similarly, maybe at some point, Einstein’s physics will show its flaws, even though, for many, if not all of its current applications our ‘working sense of what we know’ indicates his theories are true.—–But Einstein’s physics didn’t invalidate Newtonian Physics to the point of completely changing human understanding of gravity. The two theories are both part of an overall pattern in human knowledge of the universe that is in many ways coherent. ——The development of scientific knowledge thru out human history shows a generally coherent pattern of accumulated knowledge, instead of a chaotic re-writing of the rules or a random starting over from scratch, as you seem to hint at, Matt.——-By contrast, can we do more than hope that the conflicting religions of the world somehow find a way to combine into some sort of global spirituality that is based on the universal ethic of compassion and that doesn’t clash with science and modernity? —— Science is a part of rationalism, and religion is a form of superstition. When we compare rationalism with superstition, the latter seems inferior. ——-For example, thru science, we ‘know’ (or don’t we ?) that the Bubonic Plague invovled bacteria, not, as superstition at the time had it, a curse from the Jews. ——Also, thru science, we ‘know’ that schizophrenia involves problems with brain chemistry, not demonic possession. Thru science, we ‘know’ that differences in air temperatures, not God’s wrath is what causes violent storms.—–Or am I being presumptuous ?
Just because we believe we know doesn’t give us any control over it.
[[[I’d say humans, thru our collective understanding of nature, have gained some control, but the ecological destructiveness of modern society seems to indicate our self-defeating lack of long-term vision.—— Maybe humanity will become more wise and not continue to pat ourselves on the back for our cleverness.—— By the way, this reminds me that when I talk with folk about not being religious, the subject often turns to the collective folly of humans. ——It’s as if people think that because I don’t believe in God I then necessarily worship human beings. Actually, people have said to me, “Oh, so you think you’re God?” (No, that would mean there is a God 🙂 ——-But all this actually seems reasonable and shouldn’t surprise me. , given how secular humanism is widely viewed as the only alternative to theology. —— But maybe our ecological crises will influence humans to create a type of spirituality that is not theological while also not a form of secular humanism. ——I’d suggest a moral system or a type of ‘spirituality’ based on our undeniable connection to nature, and framed in ways compatible with rationalism (humanities and the physical and social sciences), while including full usage of our non-rational faculties (without being irrational). —–Secular humanism and theology seem two sides of the same coin of our collective and distorted sense of our species’ place in nature. ——I chose the word ‘distorted’ instead of ‘exaggerated’ because I can’t rule out that our species is very important, at least while we still exist and seem to have an extraordinary degree of impact on the other life forms on Earth, for better or worse. ]]]]
The dinosaurs didn’t have the combustible engine to blame.[[[[[I’m not sure what you mean, Matt. Maybe you’re saying we shouldn’t think we’re better than the dinosaurs because, afterall, they didn’t destroy entire ecosystems, as humans currently risk doing. ]]]]]] That was a great scientific discovery though. Just some random thoughts. [[[[[[You’re thoughts might seem less random to you the more you form the habit of making philosophical or spiritual matters part of your daily life. I realize not everyone is interested in that. For me, it’s mostly a matter of trying to cope with life since I was about 13 by writing. Lately I’ve been reading more of what others have to say, via social media, books, articles, and so on. I hope to talk with you and Augustina in the desert. ]]]]]]
Leave a Reply