Zaptruder said:
With understanding, you correctly reason what is right and what is wrong in absolute terms. Not according to some arbitary standard. And from that you correctly derive solutions to the real problems while reinforcing what is really right.
Ok, let's just get the fact that
any notion of "wrong" or "right"-- that is,
any moral schema, religious or secular-- is capable of being indicted by relativism....let's get that out of the way to start with.
Any "standard" you can posit is arbitrary. Even the most persuasive moral arguments and ethical "systems" advanced by philosophers have been subject to relativistic critiques that have ultimately undermined the very "absolute terms" you here mention, whether it be a religious absolute (i.e., appeal to divine authority) or a secular absolute (i.e., logically derived morality, be it inductive or deductive).
The "process" that you here allude to (reasoning out right and wrong in the absence of religious dogma) is not exclusive to non-religious people. Personally, that's how I myself came to religion (more like faith- I don't go to church). I did a lot of thinking about life, and a lot of reading, from the ages of 16-21...in fact, that's pretty much all I did during those years, which probably explains why I'm still in college.
Eventually, I reached certain conclusions that I felt to be firm enough to base my life on. I noted that many, if not most, of these conclusions (I hesitate to use the term "conclusions" because it implies finality, as if I don't still examine my beliefs when necessary, which is not the case; it'll have to do, however
) pointed towards, or comported with, a religious interpretation of the world; indeed, the world-- with all its disparate phenomena--
made more sense under a religious worldview. The "lines of evidence" that I drew upon to inform my beliefs were manifold: history, psychology, philosophy, human nature (intrapersonal and sociological; i.e., anthropology), art, personal observations, comparative religion, politics, even language (its structure and purpose), among others.
During those years, I also endeavored to determine, as far as possible, the authenticity of the Bible (whether it was textually uncorrupted, the veracity of the historical details contained therein etc.), as well as that of Jesus (his character, whether he existed etc.). If I sometimes seem reticent in speaking on these topics, it's because, quite honestly,
everything that is ever mentioned I've thought about at length and either discarded as untrue (that is, that it "does not conform to the greater part of reality"; this is not necessarily a strictly "scientific" judgment, but rather is determined by the very "lines of evidence" mentioned previously), or "true" (this is always a "most likely" sort of proposition, as nothing really can be affirmed absolutely outside of scientific phenomena, and even then, only tentatively, as a single legitimate counterexample can disprove a theory; e.g., acceleration is proportional to the magnitude of the applied force and inversely proportional to mass, matter has physical extension etc.-- these can be "absolutely" affirmed, as far as it goes).
So, in a very real sense, I reasoned out "right and wrong"
prior to adopting my religious beliefs; those beliefs were adopted because they conformed to my observations and (what I'd like to believe were) rational conclusions, and
those conclusions, in turn, conformed to (and were informed by) the greater part of reality as I saw it. To be frank, I view my religious beliefs as an explanatory mechanism much like science; they serve to structure and order reality, and I've made predictions from them as well-- in each instance, those predictions have proven to be correct. Just as a scientist uses empirical data to confirm or disprove a hypothesis, so I've used data from every
other sphere of life to confirm or disprove the "truth" of my beliefs. It is obvious to everyone that
only science is testable in the causal sense-- even in psychology, apart from laboratory experiments, we're left with only correlation (the same correlative evidence that is available for so many of life's occurrences), which is a more tenuous and easily assailable relationship. Yet when the correlation coefficient (i.e., the degree of correlation) is high enough, or when there are multiple correlative inferences being made about the same phenomenon under study, the academic community generally accepts that as solid evidence. Does that constitute "proof"? No, it doesn't-- but neither does
anything outside of science (that is, outside of reproducible, controlled experiments), then.
The point being that I feel that we often have an empirical "bias" in interpreting reality; this is not to imply that non-empirical reality can be touched or measured quantitatively (qualitatively, yes), though its "effects"-- that is, how these realities play themselves out in the world--
can be measured quantitatively (sociological/psychological phenomena, the historical implications of certain memes, the effect of art and emotion on people etc.-- the effects of all of these on people
can be empirically measured, though never in a causal sense except in laboratory experiments; even there, confounding variables are much harder to identify and eliminate than in purely scientific studies, leading to less certainty). The point being, when all lines of evidence
except for science point towards certain conclusions (at least in my personal estimation), why should I listen to science to the exclusion of the rest of reality? Though there
are scientific phenomena which are anomalous and could possibly be construed as "counting towards" the existence of God--or, as the strict empiricist would say, counts "against" the
currently proffered scientific theories, but will be explained in due time-- I am
perfectly willing to concede the entire traditional empirical realm to scientists, that much of its reality can be adequately explained by their theories. As a religious person, I have absolutely no problems with admitting as much, and not just because of the commonly implied disconnect between faith and science (i.e., the notion that religion is to be taken on mere faith, not to be "proven" like science). I have no problems with admitting that because, unlike scientists (and much of our society), I feel that there are other equally valid, equally important aspects of our reality, and a great many of these support the conclusions I've reached.
There simply is no "science
uber alles" sentiment on my part, as I feel that since much of our reality
as human beings is based upon, and informed by, non-empirical phenomena, we would be remiss to not give all those other lines of evidence-- that "greater portion of reality" that I alluded to earlier-- any consideration. Even in attempting to explain non-empirical phenomena, materialism has made inroads, such as by attempting to explain emotion as electrical impulses or chemical signals-- never mind the question of
direction of causality that I've yet to see answered; indeed, I don't believe such questions
can be adequately answered, at least not with our current technology. In other words, does our ultimate, reflexive "I" register electrical impulses as emotion, or do our emotions immediately trigger a cascade of physiological reactions culminating in electrical/chemical signals? Until we can read pure thoughts, we'll be unable to answer that question, yet despite this-- despite the fact that the direction of causality cannot be satisfactorily ascertained for this and many other things-- it is often taken, mistakenly, as "evidence" for the orthodox scientific view of the world. These are encroachments by science into inherently non-scientific phenomena (that is, social or physical phenomena that either do not lend themselves to empirical measurement, or whose confounding variables are inherently inextricable-- as in the above example, which ultimately boils down to a question of mind-body dualism), yet nary a word of protest is raised, even when that protest is scientifically valid (e.g., the question of causality raised above, which cannot be resolved down to action-reaction, since the
thought-- which is either the action or the reaction in this instance-- is, at least until otherwise demonstrated, inherently unmeasurable).
Again, this is not an attempt to knock down the elaborate framework that science has constructed to explain the physical world, because like I said, it is a perfectly reasonable and valid worldview which coheres under even intense scrutiny. My point is that there is a much larger portion of our common existence which speaks to other conclusions (or at least
is more amenable to these other conclusions than pure science is), which deserves to be given
at least cursory consideration as well. In my personal estimation, all this other evidence is much more persuasive (not to mention greater in quantity).
One legitimate objection that may be raised against what I've said is this: why should a mass of what are,
at best, "correlative" or "inferential" lines of evidence (assuming one interprets them as "evidence for God's existence") take precedence over a single "causal" or "certain" line of evidence (i.e., science)? After all, if we were a jury deciding a murder case, and a wealth of circumstantial evidence pointed towards a suspect's guilt (this circumstantial evidence being analogous to the non-scientific lines of evidence discussed), and then we were shown a clear surveillance tape of the person's presence at a location far away from the crime scene at the time of the murder (this is analogous to empirical evidence; i.e., science), we would certainly be foolish to convict him. This is a very good question, and one which I've thought about at length. Unfortunately, to give a proper answer would require this post to be
much longer than it already is.
Suffice it to say that part of the answer lies in the fact that, by definition, the existence of God is not an empirically verifiable phenomenon (this
is the "faith/science" dichotomy; if God could be knocked around in a test tube or slid under a microscope, of what value would our faith be? Note that this doesn't mean that we can't have a more or less
informed faith, which is the case I've tried to make here-- there is never scientific
certainty in religious matters, however, nor was I postulating as much; if anyone thought I was, they should reread this post.
But neither does science give us "scientific certainty" in religious matters, as discussed below).
Another part of the answer concerns the very
notion of "scientific certainty", and has to do with the fact that, as has been alluded to by -jinx- and iapetus (and most recently by Doug above), science cannot absolutely "prove" anything in the positive (i.e., affirmative) sense; this is not an indictment of science, but rather just a fact that results from its methodology and scope. Since Doug stated it much more eloquently than I would, allow me to quote the relevant portion of his post:
Science has no "problem" with faith; faith doesn't EXIST in science, because there's no way for science to come to a perfect and unassailable conclusion. Science works toward conclusions, which so far seem asymptotal; it doesn't ASSERT conclusions. Even the best "conclusions" -- scientific laws -- are nothing more than the CURRENT simplification of a mountain of evidence.
....They (faith and science) aren't incompatible or in conflict; they're just MUTUALLY EXCLUSIVE
"Asymptotal" is as good a description of scientific reality as you're likely to hear. Science's ambit is-- like everything else in life-- circumscribed by a peculiar epistemology (as Doug mentioned, science is
not in and of itself an epistemology), in the sense that the knowledge gleaned from scientific inquiry must be understood in its proper context, and not taken to state something it
cannot state by its
very nature (viz., "disproof" of deity).
It is for the aforementioned reasons that I can "overlook" (too strong a word imo, but my vocabulary is limited
) the implications of science in this instance; that's because science, along with the other "lines of evidence" I've alluded to, ultimately boils down to being merely
inferential of these purported realities, either positively (e.g., God exists, as could reasonably be inferred from many things) or negatively (e.g., God doesn't exist, as could reasonably be inferred from science). This is why science-- as commonly applied to religious discussions-- is quite a different beast than the example cited earlier about the surveillance tape in the murder trial: in one case (the trial), the conclusions reached on the basis of the empirical evidence (the tape) are both inescapable (a man can't be in two places at once, which is a fact)
and directly related to the phenomena being observed (viz. the location of the man on the tape); in the other (science being advanced as a disproof of God), they are neither inescapable (as science cannot offer absolute positive "proof" of a claim even within its purview; it takes but one legitimate counterexample to destroy a theory)
nor related to the phenomena under discussion (i.e., the existence of God, which by definition cannot be empirically measured).
Yes, science, in its purest form, measures causal relationships, and is thus inherently more "certain" than correlative evidence is
relative to the phenomena under investigation (this is an important distinction), and
only regarding those phenomena being studied; where science becomes no more "certain", and no more of an "authority", than the correlative/inferential phenomena spoken of (which includes
the sum total of human existence exclusive of "that which is science"; imo, this includes a hell of a lot) is when scientists try to venture outside the confines of the discipline and into the business of positively asserting "proof", irrespective of the fact that-- as has been mentioned-- they are bound by the same epistemological constraints as any other person is when making assertions OUTSIDE of those observed scientific facts (i.e., extrapolating).
And make no mistake, when people attempt to bludgeon religious folks with the findings of science, by pointing to this-or-that phenomenon (whether it be evolution, radiological dating, whatever), they are indeed trying to assert "proof" of the non-existence of deity by invoking science. Sure, if a religious person makes a specific claim (say, "the earth is 10,000 years old"), and a person of science attempts to refute them with another specific claim (say, radiological evidence), then that is
not an example of them "trying to use science to "disprove" God-- that's merely a proper argument, as is
their right to make. What I'm speaking of is when a person of faith merely states their belief in God, and then a person who puts a lot of stock in science comes in flailing, saying "yeah, well what about A, B, and C?"; in essence, they are attempting to use said scientific evidence as "proof" against the existence of God (and, as I've mentioned, it
is "a" proof, just not the
only one-- though you'd never know it by the vehemence of many such scientific proponents).
Obviously, like I said, the weight of evidence from science stands pretty convincingly against the existence of God (or at least against certain doctrinal points of faith)....I just don't see why science is seen as the be-all, end-all "evidence" when speaking of such matters when it has been shown to be beholden to the same limitations as other evidences are, as well as ultimately (when speaking about that which is
outside its purview, such as God) being
inferential rather than causal, just like
everything else is. So why is one supposed to carry so much more weight than the other when discussing these matters? I'd use the word "bias", as in "a bias towards empiricism" (despite the fact that its adherents then venture
outside science's methodological strictures in order to make claims to absolute truth), but "bias" carries such a negative connotation, and I don't want to give the wrong impression. I just don't know what else to call it really. All I'm trying to say is that the scientific evidence, from
which one can reasonably infer the non-existence of a deity, is, when
discussing things outside its scope, of equivalent worth to all the other evidentiary lines one can bring to bear on the issue. Not more, not less.
Is our current scientific understanding a strong line of evidence
against the existence of God, inferentially? Sure. Like I said, I have no problem granting that-- and that's because I feel that there are many more lines of evidence that speak
for God's existence than against it. The difference between myself and others, I would assume, is that I do not necessarily put more stock in one than the other (science versus these other evidentiary lines), and thus have arrived at different conclusions. I also have other, more striking, "evidence" of God's existence, though I hesitate to share it here, for obvious reasons (no, I don't hear voices or anything
). My post by itself should illustrate enough of my general thoughts on these matters (though it really barely touches on most of it-- like I said, these are things I've pondered for nearly a decade now, though less intensely during the past 4-5 years).
One final note about the common supposition that intelligence and faith do not mix, or that one is inversely correlated with the other (again we have only a correlative relationship; a third or fourth variable could very well be responsible for such observations, but I digress...
). Assuming this is true (which I tend to believe would be the case due to my own experiences), allow me to attempt to give a different perspective on precisely
why that is the case. A person possessed of a greater intelligence is innately capable of taking in
more of reality, of comprehending a greater portion of life, than his less endowed counterparts are; as such, they will of necessity be more inquisitive, and able to perceive relationships between seemingly disparate phenomena and to organize them into whatever framework they feel best brings order to their existence or best conforms to their observed reality. However, as big a benefit as intelligence can be, it can also be a hindrance in certain instances-- and not just as regards faith, but with many things. An overanalytical person (which many very intelligent people tend to be by disposition; it takes a lot of work to temper that proclivity
) might, for instance, be so concerned with the rationalization for their actions that they never truly
live (that is, have fun). Or they may allow their inability to precisely philosophically define or quantify love to interfere with the normal course of their relationships.
Another such area of conflict could be faith, but not for the reasons many suppose. Rather than one being
inherently opposed to the other (i.e., by definition), they instead often stand at figurative loggerheads with one another due to the general
attendant features of each "state" (viz. the state of "being intelligent", and the state of "being a person of faith"). Intelligence often begets a skeptical mentality
in general (towards
all of life), due to the inquisitive nature and broader perceptual and critical faculties of the intelligent person. This is not a
necessary relationship, but rather a probable one-- the presence of one (intelligence) makes the development of the other (skepticism/analyticity) more likely. In contrast, "faith" (i.e., being religious) is often accompanied by a settled mind which has arrived at firm conclusions, or at least
is comfortable with the mental state of "being settled". This does
not mean that a person who adopts a particular faith no longer questions things, but rather that they no longer allow their skepticism to unduly rule their life once they've become reasonably convinced of the veracity of certain propositions (this
does not mean that they will not reexamine said propositions if confronted with new evidence, all of which is inferential as I've shown throughout this thread; rather, it means that they can control their natural skeptical
disposition,
not that they never again engage in critical examination).
To illustrate the distinction I'm trying to make, allow me to interject a personal anecdote: my entire life, I was naturally inquisitive/skeptical, always questioning every proposition or phenomenon.
Incessantly questioning. Ultimately, this culminated in my examining the deeper issues of life from age 15-16 til about age 21 or so. During that time, I asked more questions-- of myself, of the world, of claims being made by various authorities-- than I can count. Eventually, however, after much deliberation, I arrived at what I felt to be
reasonable and firm conclusions. Are they
absolutely certain? No-- as humans, we cannot know
anything with absolute certainty; if Descartes, and subsequently the solipsists, were able to call into question our very sensory perceptions, then it should be clear that, for the most rigorous and capable thinkers among us, the "standard of proof" for absolute truth is quite high indeed (this is not to imply that solipsism is a rigorous/valid philosophy, because it isn't; I hope people can see the point I'm getting at, though). But I feel that the conclusions I've reached are buttressed by an
adequate amount of reason, which I hope this post is evidence of. This is all we can hope for, as humans. Consequently, though I still do a lot of thinking and examining (even of my beliefs), it's
nothing like the amount I did during those years, which is what my natural inclination is as a person. I've learned to tame my mind. Some would argue that that's bondage, and a cruel fate-- again making the erroneous assumption that I somehow
don't think anymore, which is preposterous, really. My feeling is that unless we're to spend our lives in rapt contemplation, it behooves us to attempt to arrive at firm bases for action and belief, lest we be effectively paralyzed. I feel that I've arrived at a happy medium; compared with the level of constant skepticism and inquisitiveness that I exhibited my entire life up until several years ago, though, it's really shocking to me at times how steady and settled I am now.
Note that I'm making no value judgment here on the utility/value of skepticism-- to be certain, many people view skepticism as something to be forever embraced to the exclusion of everything else, and indeed a healthy amount of it
is a necessary and worthy trait; further, many people feel that there simply
are no firm conclusions to be reached about a world that is in constant flux. Regardless of all this, my point stands: certain states of mind/being are not conducive to the realization of one another due to their attendant features and the states that they engender in people.
I'll address some of the comments I've read (Raoul, Prime Director) while I refreshed the topic as I constructed this post a bit later, or maybe tomorrow night. I did not post this in order to debate, merely to attempt to elucidate my personal reasoning on these matters, and to try to show how faith and reason (that is, "evidence") are not mutually exclusive propositions (though faith and science
are; unless you only admit of science as "reason"/"logic", and live your life in accord with
only scientific principles, however, I fail to see how someone cannot admit of other evidentiary lines-- people who perform experiments before they fall in love, contemplate life, or enter into friendships are no fun anyway
); so if anyone is going to try to pick this apart, it will be of little use-- I'm not up for a multi-day back-and-forth quote war over the details. I've been as candid and as clear as I can be, given my time constraints. This post was
not made to attack or demean anyone's beliefs, or to assert that my beliefs are absolutely correct in any way. It was made in the interests of discussion among (presumably
) friends.
Take it as such, because I'm not about to defend any part of this-- this is just how I see things. Normally I wouldn't be averse to engaging in debate on the content of this post (as people well know
), but as is quite obvious I'm sure, I wasted a
hell of a lot of time writing this, and need to tend to some other obligations.
EDIT: Also, realize that the above is concerned with my personal beliefs regarding the existence of God
in general, not the truth of Christianity in particular (which other evidence must be brought to bear upon, and other arguments advanced for). But for myself, arriving at the conclusion that "God exists" was the first (and most important) step of my personal spiritual journey. I suppose I made this post mostly to speak to what I feel to be an undercurrent of "if one uses reason, one must conclude that religion is bunk", or "if one is intelligent, then one must discard religious belief as outmoded/untenable", which sometimes pervades such threads. I resent it, really, though seldom are explicit statements made to that effect (though sometimes there are).
