9. November 2009 by Samldanach.

Edit 2:  I’m putting too many notes at the top of this entry.  This was originally supposed to go up Friday.  As you can tell, it didn’t.  Basically, I couldn’t wrestle it around to the shape I wanted.  I’m still unhappy with it, but part of NaNoWriMo is to just get the word count out there.  Allow yourself to write crap.  Oh, look, here it is!

Edit 1:  Huh.  I got about half this entry written on the ride in this morning.  Then saw Chuck Wendig link to this piece.  A fascinating read, there.  Several bits to think on and chew over.

Is science a religion?

This awkward semantic debate fills numerous comment threads out on the internet.  The modern atheist, putting his trust in things that Science! and Technology! and Education! teach him does not seem that different from the modern evangelical Christian, putting his trust in the Bible.  At least, not at first glance.  Neither adherent has actually gone and discovered the various truths they are arguing about.  They have simply heard about them, from sources that seem reputable, and the truth has the ring of veracity.

With this argument, Christians dismiss the atheist argument as simply being a different faith.  Both are equally valid (though, naturally, the Word of God should trump any peer-reviewed journal, as God is above all peers).  So, you go believe what you want to believe, but you can’t tell me that what I’m believing is wrong.

This argument frustrates the atheist to no end.  After all, science is science, it’s not some mumbo jumbo that was supposedly said by some sky ghost to a possibly insane hack who was inhaling who knows what from a burning bush on a mountain in a desert.  Science is all about the purity of thought, the rigor of carefully testing all hypotheses.  Belief has nothing to do with it.  It is about facts, and evidence, and logic.

Or is it?

Read the rest of this entry »

Posted in Religion, Essays | No Comments »

22. September 2009 by Samldanach.

Disclaimer: I identify as a mystic humanist; I believe there is no divinity in this world, but that magic and the supernatural do exist. Despite my atheism, I consider myself a deeply religious and spiritual person. I was raised Episcopalian, my father is now a priest, and my mother is a deacon. As such, the church is no strange place to me. It simply did not fill my needs.

Faith. It is a loaded word. And too often loaded with ammunition to hurt and kill. One might think that it is at the center of most religious debates, but it is not. Instead, it is used as a blind to dismiss entire points of view. From the fundamentalists, it is, “If you had faith, you would know why what you say is wrong.” From the skeptics, it is, “You fall back on faith, and refuse to think.” Both are right, and yet the conversation never seems to progress any further.

In any argument, as any rhetorician would tell you, you need to start by agreeing on your terms. If I say “red” and you hear “angry,” we are never going to get anywhere. What this essay is going to attempt to do is present some useful definitions. If all goes according to plan, we will end with a useful definition of faith, which may help us get past conversation road blocks like those above.

Let’s start with some basics. “Fact” and “opinion” are tossed around quite a bit in these discussions, and often erroneously. A “fact” is any statement that has a truth value. Note that this value does not need to be true. “I am 171 years old” is a fact. It just happens to be a false one. An “opinion” is a statement that does not have a truth value. “She is pretty” is an opinion, and no one can say it is false or wrong. (It may be at odds with the common definition, but it is not wrong.)

There are a couple qualifications here. “She is pretty” could actually be considered a fact, if we could all agree on an objective definition. Establishing such definitions is often a useful step in discourse, as it allows us to move from the non-starter of a collection of opinions to something that can have reason and logic applied to it. Additionally, the statement “I think she is pretty” is a fact. It is either true that you hold that opinion, or it is not. Plato, particularly through the voice of Socrates, used these facts quite a bit to lead his opponents into traps of their own making.

Before we go further, let us take a step back. What is “truth,” after all? Mathematically, a “true” statement is one that can be derived from known axioms through the application of proper logic. (If you think that is a solid definition, I invite you to read Godel and Hofstadter.) Scientists tend to view “truth” as being “consistent with all observed phenomena.” Personally, I find this definition to be useful in a lab, but rather restrictive for our purposes. I think that in discussing “truth” in a religious context, one cannot simply dismiss the argument from authority or truth spontaneously gained through an immanent experience. To do so is to dismiss nearly all of religion a priori. Unfortunately, simply declaring a statement to be true if it agrees with a given set of teachings is no more useful. That will grant the larger argument to whichever teachings we select with no more discussion allowed. Instead, let us define a statement to be “true” if it neither contains nor implies a logical contradiction, and is useful to understanding this shared construct we call “reality.”

Now, in addition to facts and opinions, there are a number of other types of statements. A “hypothesis” is simply a fact whose truth value is not yet known. A “theory” is a fact whose truth value is assumed to be true because it has been thoroughly tested without finding any contradictions. A “belief,” on the other hand, is a fact whose truth value is assumed to be true because it is useful to do so. It still should be able to avoid any contradictions if it is to be considered a “correct” belief. However, as most beliefs are statements about matters that are well beyond our current ability to test, it is generally only important that a belief system be internally consistent.

Now, the astute reader may have noticed one significant difference between the definitions of “theory” and “belief.” Namely, that theories rely on objective criteria in their definition (assuming we can agree on a common sense of “thoroughly tested”). The presence or absence of a contradiction is rarely a matter of opinion (though it may be a matter of debate). A “belief,” though, relies on the purely subjective notion of “useful.” Is it useful to believe in reincarnation? Some would see the use, and others would not. It is from this that the endless variety of religions ultimately springs. And with it an endless variety of religious arguments.

Now we are ready to establish another dichotomy, that of science versus religion. “Science,” per se, is not even the right word to use here. Science is the process of rigorously testing a hypothesis to produce a theory. However, it is also useful in this context to bastardize the poor word to stand for the current body of theories, data, and hypotheses that we “know” (another loaded word for another time). This includes such theories as evolution and relativity, and the ever-growing load of pure information we are able to gather, compile, and analyze. Note that beliefs do not enter here. Science rejects beliefs, simply because they are not practically testable.

“Religion” is a body of beliefs, and of common definitions to turn certain opinions into facts. A simple example of the latter is the notion of “good” (and its counterpart, “evil”). Really, “good” is an entirely subjective matter. No deed can be truthfully called “good.” However, there are a number of deeds that we can largely agree are good. Religion adopts, and then extends, that agreement to define a factual notion of objective “good.” Where there are differences in these definitions and in the beliefs (as discussed above), we see religious disagreements and even schisms. However, religion does not test its beliefs in the same manner that science does (though the Jews may disagree). The merit of a belief is based almost entirely on how much it helps its adherents in one way or another, so long as it does not undermine other beliefs.

Does this make science superior to religion? After all, it would seem to lead to fewer disagreements as it always has independent phenomena and pure mathematics to fall back on. Very few actual scientists would tell you that they live a life free of disagreement, though. Read a number of scientific papers, and you will see sharp camps forming around differing interpretations. And, indeed, some of the most significant papers today are involved with phenomena that cannot be directly observed. From quantum physics to economics to neuroscience, the topics at hand deal with forces that we can only see in terms of inputs and outputs, and not actual action. This does not make statements about these things into beliefs, though. They are simply hypotheses that are still in the process of becoming accepted as theories.

In a remarkably similar process, religious thought evolves (if the fundamentalists will forgive the term). However, rather than starting with the observable world as their axioms, they typically start with either a holy book or more nebulous body of myths. One of the primary differences is that this starting point not only determines what is, but what should be. Such sticky subjects as morals, lifestyles, and tribalism are introduced into the debate (subjects that science is only now trying to actually explain). But, aside from that, the parallels are remarkable. Religious scholars look at the “known” (read: commonly accepted) truths. A particular dilemma is posed. Logic is applied to determine what the proper solution to the dilemma would be. If the decision adds something material to the religion, it is incorporated as a belief. If a given belief gains acceptance of sufficient depth and breadth, it becomes formalized as dogma. A statement of truth that has withstood rigorous testing, and is rarely questioned without a powerful reason? Sounds suspiciously like a theory to me.

Ah, but I asked a question above without answering it, didn’t I? Is science superior to religion? Well, science certainly has the firmer grounding. You have far fewer axioms that have little or no support. That gives it the illusion of being closer to the ultimate truth. However, that ultimate truth is about far more than how these crude lumps of matter bump into each other. That is where religion takes the lead. By declaring a starting point at a higher order of knowledge, it is able to produce truths that are much more useful (hearken back to the definition of belief). But, it will always suffer from the fatal flaw that humans, notoriously error-prone, first guessed at the primal truths that the whole house is built on.

It is also worth taking a moment here to address another frequent criticism of the religious: They will frequently hold to ludicrous positions, which are obviously self-contradictory. Leaving aside the tricky inclusion of words such as “ludicrous” and “obviously” which too often pepper these discussions, there is a kernel of truth here. Some people will believe anything, and parrot patently silly statements to “support” their beliefs. However, these beliefs may be false, just the same as any hypothesis my be. And, these chronically uncritical believers are little different from similarly uncritical thinkers who fall for pseudo-science such as phrenology or modern diet programs. Dismissing any claims simply because the loudest proponents use poor techniques for defending them shows remarkably poor critical thinking of your own.

Now we come full circle to the tricky term that we began with: Faith. Faith is, quite simply, the belief that the truths you have accepted are actually true. While that seems terribly trite and obvious, let us pull the definition apart a bit. What is a “truth?” It is a fact that we accept to be correct. This can be a theory, such as evolution; it can be dogma, such as the existence of God. Our truths are the skeleton about which we construct our understanding of the world. Any statement about our truths, taken as a whole, therefore has deep ramifications on everything we think or do. In this case, we are asserting that the truths are true. That is, that they are internally consistent, and are useful to understanding the world around us. So, now we can say that our skeleton is a good one.

But we do more than simply say it. We believe it. We state that our truths are true as a fact which is, itself, true. With the closing of that loop, we create a system whereby our thoughts take on a power that can change the very nature of reality itself. Any statement that we can successfully incorporate into that framework becomes true. Doing so is no trivial feat, though. The statement must either be rigorously tested by us to the point that we no longer question it, or it must come to us already vested with truth from an authority that we similarly do not question.

What does this mean for our stalled conversations? Unfortunately, it is no beacon of light to pierce the obstacles. Rather, it should afford us an ability to understand what the other side is saying in a somewhat less arbitrary and inflammatory context. When the faithful appear to be refusing to think, it is because yielding the point is as easy for them as yielding the point that they think at all. To them, something like the existence of the Abrahamic God is as self-evident as the existence of music or laughter, and any further explanation is as unnecessary and self-referential. When the skeptics appear to be denying “obvious” truths, the faithful need to understand that, not only are those points not obvious for the skeptic, they may not even actually be true! (Again, refer back to the arbitrary and subjective nature of “usefulness.”)

When engaging in religious discussions, faith is always the elephant in the room. It defines the context that each participant is using. While many of the people on the same “side” may have contexts that significantly overlap, no two people enjoy exactly the same faith. By recognizing this inescapable disconnect, all of the participants can, theoretically, find ways to navigate around their own faiths. They may also, just possibly, find a way to use the discussion to test and hone their own beliefs.

Posted in Religion, Essays | 2 Comments »

30. January 2009 by Samldanach.

I just finished reading A. J. Jacobs’ excellent book The Year of Living Biblically. It is a memoir of his experiences trying to live as closely to the laws and rules of the Bible as possible. (This is the same author who wrote The Know-it-all, in which he read the entire Encyclopedia Brittanica from A to Z, also a fabulous book.) I highly recommend the book to, well, pretty much everyone. It is funny, and thoughtful. It is fair and open-minded without waffling all over the place and agreeing with anyone and everyone. It also has some intriguing insights, both from the author himself and from the experts he consults.

Naturally, this has me thinking about my second-favorite topic, religion. Read the rest of this entry »

Posted in Religion, Essays | 2 Comments »