As you're probably aware, the old guard of the conservative evangelical movement has lashed out against the new guard over the subject of global warming. James Dobson, Gary Bauer, and Tony Perkins -- has America ever puked up a more loathsome triumvirate? -- are trying to pressure the National Association of Evangelicals to fire its vice president for governmental affairs Rev. Richard Cizik, who's done more than anyone else to raise the profile of global warming among evangelicals. To his credit, NAE president Rev. Leith Anderson told them to bug off.
One of the most prominent figures in the new guard is Rev. Jim Wallis. He has a couple of strongly worded responses to the pressure on HuffPo, here and here. The second one gets at what is most baffling to me about the whole thing:
But I want to focus on the following very clear statement from Dobson's letter:More importantly, we have observed that Cizik and others are using the global warming controversy to shift the emphasis away from the great moral issues of our time, notably the sanctity of human life, the integrity of marriage and the teaching of sexual abstinence and morality to our children.That is indeed the key criticism, and the foundation for the real debate. Is the fact that 30,000 children will die globally today, and everyday, from needless hunger and disease a great moral issue for evangelical Christians? How about the reality of 3 billion of God's children living on less than $2 per day? And isn't the still-widespread and needless poverty in our own country, the richest nation in the world, a moral scandal? What about pandemics like HIV/AIDS that wipe out whole generations and countries, or the sex trafficking of massive numbers of women and children? Should genocide in Darfur be a moral issue for Christians? And what about disastrous wars like Iraq? And then there is, of course, the issue that got Dobson and his allies so agitated. If the scientific consensus is right -- climate change is real, is caused substantially by human activity, and could result in hundreds of thousands of deaths -- then isn't that also a great moral issue? Could global warming actually be alarming evidence of human tinkering with God's creation?
Or, are the only really "great moral issues" those concerning abortion, gay marriage, and the teaching of sexual abstinence? I happen to believe that the sanctity of life, the health of marriages, and teaching sexual morality to our children are, indeed, among the great moral issues of our time. But I believe they are not the only great moral issues, and Dobson says they are.
So Jim, let's have that debate -- the big debate.
The kind of person that can look out on all the suffering in the world today and select other people's sexual choices as the "great moral issues of our time" is utterly and completely alien to me. I don't know how to find any common ground with that kind of person. I wouldn't know what to say, where to begin. We might as well be from different planets.
(Grist has been all over this issue. See our God & the Environment series for interviews with Cizik and a number of other evangelicals and people of faith on the new religious engagement with global warming.)
New religious coalition seeks climate ‘redemption’ via carbon plan
Energy efficiency and sex
Charles and Benedict chat about climate
Comments View as Flat
GreyFlcn Posted 2:04 pm
06 Mar 2007
Gotta love it
"Creation Care"
Gotta love how a little creative rebranding can cause people to reevaluate environmentalism based off of their own frame of mind, and find it alligns with their own goals and values.
Permalink
Werdna Posted 4:05 pm
06 Mar 2007
finally, seeing the bigger picture
Wow. That is exactly what I have been wanting to hear for so long. We don't have to agree on who wrote the bible, or when life begins, or any of a number of things as long as we do agree on the Big issues.
Maybe with a little more spinning, all of those hot-topics can be seen as what they are---diversions, and we can focus on really making progress in poverty, health, and the environment.
Permalink
GreyFlcn Posted 5:05 pm
06 Mar 2007
Actually,
I've never quite understood why evolutionists and creationists have to be so opposed to each other.
For instance, "Life came from matter"
Well, where did matter come from?
Or how early in the bible it mentions how the timeframe used isn't literal, but instead figurative. Since it was comparing a second to a bunch of years.
Doesn't that leave some cosmic leeway?
_
Maybe god uses evolution on a slow timescale.
Rather than building creatures at the same speed one can make balloon animals.
Maybe "the earth was build in one day" doesn't actually mean 1/365th of a rotation around the sun?
I highly doubt a being which had existed from the beginning of time, would really have such a short timescale.
_
But I guess thats not gonna sell well with either side posing arguements :P
Permalink
caniscandida Posted 9:00 pm
06 Mar 2007
complicated arguments
This is how Laurie Goodstein's article in the NYTimes (DR's first link above) ends:
<<
In interviews, some signers of this latest letter said they were wary of the global warming issue because they associated it with leftists, limits on free enterprise and population control, which they oppose.
"We're saying what is being done here," Mr. Perkins said, "is a concerted effort to shift the focus of evangelical Christians to these issues that draw warm and fuzzies from liberal crusaders."
>>
I am not sure I understand the syntax of that odd expression, "to draw warm and fuzzies from." But I guess the meaning is plain enough.
So over all, in both the letter itself and in the motivations of the signers, we see arguments of different kinds at play:
- It is wrong for evangelical Christians in positions of influence to be distracted from their principal mission, which is to preach against the violations of the "pro-life" ethic and the sexual sinfulness which are the "great moral issues" of our age. In Cizik's case, the distraction happens to be global warming, but in principle it might have been something else.
- All evangelical Christians should be united in recognizing those forms of sinfulness as "the great moral issues," and it is wrong to complicate their picture of morality, and to risk creating divisions among them, by adding other considerations.
- Global warming is only a "controversy," which is too uncertain to warrant any kind of moral opinion. Therefore, to see global warming as a moral problem is in itself morally questionable.
- Seeing global warming as a moral problem leads to a position of wanting to put restrictions on "free enterprise." But free enterprise is something that evangelical Christians ought strongly to value and support.
- Seeing global warming as a moral problem, through the environmentalist linkage, leads to an alignment with liberals on a number of other issues. Alignment with liberals on those issues too is a bad thing, first, because liberals have "warm and fuzzy," i.e. sentimental, ill-conceived and therefore wrong, ideas about what is to be valued; secondly, because liberals have wrong and positively sinful ideas regarding tolerance (remember our slogan, "Jesus Is Intolerant!"), sexual morality and the pro-life ethic; thirdly, liberals strive to elect candidates for political office who are opposed to evangelical Christian values.
In sum, the opposition to Cizik and his activities regarding global warming is motivated by several considerations. My suspicion is that the signatories of the letter are most deeply interested in holding on to what power, wealth and authority they enjoy. They are also sincere in their zeal to impose their narrow ideas regarding sexual morality and the pro-life ethic; but in this case they trundled out those ideas in order to whip up their base, and to remind everyone that they are the most authoritative and consistent exponents of those ideas. It should not go unnoticed that the letter was released to the media by its senders, before it was put into the hands of the NAE board, its addressees.It is in principle well done, for the liberal evangelical Jim Wallis to invite James Dobson to a debate on how Christians should identify the "great moral issues." But I am not sure any minds would be changed, at least not those of the debaters. DR is absolutely right, that there is something inconceivably "alien" about Dobson and his ilk, with regard to their attitudes about sexual morality, and about many other things as well.
On the other hand, there are hopeful signs that more and more evangelicals are beginning to turn away from Dobson, etc., and to follow the direction of Cizik and Wallis, not only in the matter of global warming, but more generally in issues of social justice. E.g. the movie "Amazing Grace," about the activities of William Wilberforce in abolishing the slave trade in Britain and its territories, is being greeted by enthusiasm and many endorsements on the part of evangelicals. Wilberforce, a hero in the fight for social justice, was also an evangelical (within the Church of England), and so represents the more original form of evangelicalism that now inspires Jim Wallis and, in a somewhat more cautious way, Richard Cizik. Dobson's version, on the other hand, is a modern aberration.
Chickens are our cousins! So are other sensitive animals! Enough is enough! No more factory farms!
Permalink
bkrell Posted 11:03 pm
06 Mar 2007
wow
"James Dobson, Gary Bauer, and Tony Perkins -- has America ever puked up a more loathsome triumvirate? "
To quote the GEICO commercial, "Looks like someone woke up on the wrong side of the rock this morning!"
Permalink
amazingdrx Posted 11:40 pm
06 Mar 2007
There is a war
Leonard Cohen - There Is A War
There is a war between the rich and poor,
a war between the man and the woman.
There is a war between the ones who say there is a war
and the ones who say there isn't.
Why don't you come on back to the war, that's right, get in it,
why don't you come on back to the war, it's just beginning.
Well I live here with a woman and a child,
the situation makes me kind of nervous.
Yes, I rise up from her arms, she says "I guess you call this
love";
I call it service.
Why don't you come on back to the war, don't be a tourist,
why don't you come on back to the war, before it hurts us,
why don't you come on back to the war, let's all get nervous.
You cannot stand what I've become,
you much prefer the gentleman I was before.
I was so easy to defeat, I was so easy to control,
I didn't even know there was a war.
Why don't you come on back to the war, don't be embarrassed,
why don't you come on back to the war, you can still get
married.
There is a war between the rich and poor,
a war between the man and the woman.
There is a war between the left and right,
a war between the black and white,
a war between the odd and the even.
Why don't you come on back to the war, pick up your tiny burden,
why don't you come on back to the war, let's all get even,
why don't you come on back to the war, can't you hear me
speaking?
(Great song! Should be played in all evangelical offices daily!)
http://amazngdrx.blogharbor.com/blog
Permalink
bkrell Posted 12:20 am
07 Mar 2007
There's no war
There's no war, only apathy.....Apathy is worse than war.
Permalink
Easterbunny Posted 12:37 am
07 Mar 2007
people of faith
"People of faith"??? Where did that expression come from? Why not call them what they really are: deranged lunatics.
Apologies for those easily offended, but I've been reading Richard Dawkins of late, and am persuaded by his arguments that we should not tolerate anyone who tries to foist these irrational beliefs on anyone else, especially those who do it to children.
Permalink
bkrell Posted 12:50 am
07 Mar 2007
Ah Dawkins
Hey, according to Dawkins, religion is a natural biological construct of our brains....just like homosexuality....Evangelicals can't help the way they are. Don't be upset with them and try and change them...
Permalink
Jason D Scorse Posted 1:02 am
07 Mar 2007
I don't like the term people of faith either
How about simply religious?
J.S. teaches environmental economics and blogs at www.voicesofreason.info.
Permalink
Biodiversivist Posted 1:19 am
07 Mar 2007
triumvirate?
I refuse to look that word up. Tri means three, and they are clearly stooges, so, I am guessing it means three stooges.
In the end, it all comes down to biodiversity. Poison Darts--Protecting the biodiversity of our world
Permalink
bkrell Posted 1:48 am
07 Mar 2007
triumvirate
triumvirate-
1.Roman History. the office or magistracy of a triumvir.
2.a government of three officers or magistrates functioning jointly.
3.a coalition of three magistrates or rulers for joint administration.
4.any association of three in office or authority.
5.any group or set of three.
It's most popular use is in describing the alliance between Julius Caesar, Gnaeus Pompeius Magnus (Pompey), and Marcus Licinius Crassus.
Permalink
wiscidea Posted 1:48 am
07 Mar 2007
Evolution, Creationism, and Dawkins, oh my...
GreyFlc:
There is no conflict between evolution and creationism, unless you interpret the Bible literally. My wife learned about evolution while attending a Catholic school. God works in mysterious ways, so why not via evolution. Indeed, I view the literalists as offending God on a regular basis by vastly underestimating His creativity and power. Pure genius to create a system that creates a multitude of life forms all by itself once You flip the switch... much better than hand-crafting every flea. And if You don't like what you see, just hurl an asteroid into it and try again.
EasterBunny:
Regarding "People of Faith", I agree they are dangerous. Dawkins explains it quite well in "The God Delusion". I was once far more tolerant of religion than I am today. Ineed, I was very curious and wanted to learn more about Chrisitanity, Islam, and other religions. I wondered whether there was something real underlying the stories. I hoped there was a core message that was positive and encouraged people to get along.
But 9/11 and the response of this supposedly Christian nation changed that. I'm tired of all religions. I'm tired of all fundamentalists, even the non-religious. One cannot base their life on a set of instructions passed along by word of mouth for thousand of years and then copied over and over and over by strangers with hidden agendas. One cannot select a single system for running their life and then try to cram the rest of the world into it, forcing the matter whenever some aspect of the natural world does not "cooperate".
There is no revelation via human word. There is no one-size fits all when it comes to solving problems. If there is a God, the only messages from Him, can arrive only directly through His creation... the natural world. I might be right. I might be wrong. But I prefer to trust what I perceive with my own senses -- or can verify by examining someone elses evidence -- over the delusions of a dead stranger.
If the God described by the Christian Bible -- or any other Holy Book -- does exists, He does not deserve worship. There is no way to predict what might or might not piss Him off. He is a malicious and fickle being, setting one group of humans against another by giving them different instructions and telling each they have The Truth. He seems to derived perverse pleasure from war. He threatens us and then tells us He loves all of us. I don't fear Him. I cannot fear Him. His instructions contradict each each other. Who knows what really pleases Him? So why bother trying?
bkrell:
I think Dawkins present "religion as a biological construct" as a theory worthy of investigation, not necessarily something based on observation. Nevertheless, you are probably correct. Evangelicals cannot help they way they are. But I would not compare it to homosexuality, which harms nobody and has certain evolutionary advantages for a commmunity... even if homosexuals do not have children. Fundamentalism, however, might be more like obesity or alcoholism. There was once an advantage -- or still is during certain stages of human development -- but it has become a malady in our modern world.
Dawkins explains it quite well in "The God Delusion", but I'll probably mess it up if I try to explain my interpretation of it right now. I just want to point out one of his observations. As children, it is very important for us to follow the instructions of an adult -- our leader -- without question. It might be a matter of life or death for a five-year-old child when a parent says "Thou shalt not... [insert forbidden activity here]", especially in a hostile environment. Unfortunately, we've held onto this programming, just like we've retained other juvenile traits during evolution, as adults. And not only do we follow certain leaders without questioning them, we pass on the instructions of those leaders to our own children... and the dysfunctional cycle continues on and on.
We must find a way to break the cycle. The means will not be found in any top-down religion. Such organizations, however good their intentions might be, discourge rational thought and reinforce obedience to authority figures. This is fine as long as you have an enlightened leader. But I think it is inevitable that someone more interested in power, wealth, personal comfort -- or simply convinced that they have it all figured out, perhaps because of a little indigestion following a meal of goat's milk and rabbit -- will start telling everyone else what to do.
DISCLAIMER: This is just my opinion. I do not believe I know The Truth. It is up to each individual to share their approach to reducing the suffering in the world so we can benefit from our collective experience and stop repeating the same mistakes over and over. Live and let live. Peace.
Forward!
Permalink
caniscandida Posted 1:55 am
07 Mar 2007
connotations
I do not know how "people of faith" first started being used as a catch-all term for members of any religion. In one regard, it is highly inadequate for that purpose, because "faith" is really a biblical concept, especially important to Christians, and inherited from them by Muslims. One would not obviously think of a worshipper of Dionysus or Krishna or Tlaloc as having "faith" in that god, though it is not impossible; still less is it applicable to a Buddhist or a Confucian.
In that case, "people of religion" might be preferable.
But then again, "people of faith" might possibly work as an alternative term in a binary choice, set up with a post-Enlightenment modernist anthropology in mind, the other term being "people of science." I.e., do we accept that reality in its entirety can be understood by us, and that we need only our reason and our senses to do so? That would make us "people of science." Or, do we believe that in addition to the material world, there is a transcendent reality, a ground of being, which is not entirely knowable to us as we are now, but of which we can receive true intimations and experiences by non-rational faculties? Then, I suppose we could be called "people of faith," where "faith" indicates not so much an intellectual acceptance of a code of religious beliefs, as a confidence in a non-scientific way of knowing.
DR the philosopher perhaps means something like that.
"Religious" is sort of OK, but it has a couple of alternative meanings, so there is room for confusion. E.g., of members of a religion, it can be said that some are believers but not "religious," while others are indeed "religious," meaning that the latter group follow the traditional practices of the religion more scrupulously. Also, in Catholicism, "religious" is a technical term referring to people who profess certain vows and live by a traditional "rule" of life, such as nuns, monks and priests who belong to orders, e.g. the Jesuits.
There is a word, "religionist," which I sort of like, though it is not often used. Unfortunately, the same word may also mean a scholar engaged in the professional study of religions, e.g. a professor in a university's religion department; and such a person may in fact personally not subscribe to any religious beliefs at all.
Chickens are our cousins! So are other sensitive animals! Enough is enough! No more factory farms!
Permalink
wiscidea Posted 2:02 am
07 Mar 2007
faith vs. religion
Hello Jason.
I must admit I use these terms -- faith and religion -- interchangeably -- and that it is very wrong to do so.
In my previous comment, I was really objecting more to faith-based religion that religion in general. To me "faith" indicates unquestioning belief in some concept, often because someone else told you should believe it. "It is done this was because we have always done it this way. Now don't question it or you will burn in Hell."
In my opion "religion" is a set of rules for how you approach life. Unfortunately, most religions are based on rules passed down by word of mouth, and the rational foundation -- if there ever was one -- has been lost in history. There might very well be religions not based on faith. And I would not consider such religions a threat to civilization and the biosphere we depend on.
Which brings me to my interest in Buddhism... but I'll shut up and "listen" for a bit.
DISCLAIMER: This is just my opinion. I do not believe I know The Truth. It is up to each individual to share their approach to reducing the suffering in the world so we can benefit from our collective experience and stop repeating the same mistakes over and over. Live and let live. Peace.
Forward!
Permalink
wiscidea Posted 2:10 am
07 Mar 2007
caniscandida
If you ever publish a book containing your short essays, perhaps after further elaboration of concepts discussed, please let me know about it. I suspect I would enjoy reading it as much as I've enjoyed reading Marcus Aurelius and A.C. Grayling.
DISCLAIMER: This is just my opinion. I do not believe I know The Truth. It is up to each individual to share their approach to reducing the suffering in the world so we can benefit from our collective experience and stop repeating the same mistakes over and over. Live and let live. Peace.
[I'm in the process of developing my disclaimer. Please ignore it if it does not seem appropriate at the time.]
Forward!
Permalink
GreenEngineer Posted 2:14 am
07 Mar 2007
great moral issues
DR says:
The kind of person that can look out on all the suffering in the world today and select other people's sexual choices as the "great moral issues of our time" is utterly and completely alien to me.
The "great moral issue" as I understand it is not about sexual choices, but about the sanctity of marriage in particular, and its ramifications as a foundational social institution. It's bizzare, I agree, but not quite as bizzare as you make it sound.
This may seem like a nit, but I think it's actually a relevant distinction if you want to understand where the Christian sector is coming from.
Incidentally, if you want to learn something about the perspectives and mindset of the moderate Christian conservatives, I recommend reading the Crunchy Cons blog. Don't just read the main postings; check out the commentary. There's a wide range represented, from the knee-jerk conservatives (relatively few) to the thorougly enlightened creation-care Christians.
Seriously, it's been a really informative source of perspective for me. And I think it's important to understand the mindsets of the less-extreme conservatives, because we will absolutely have to forge an alliance with them if we want to see our political goals accomplished.
Permalink
Easterbunny Posted 2:35 am
07 Mar 2007
Our political goals?
My political goals are to eradicate superstition, and to replace it with a deep understanding of scientific methods, including their strengths and weaknesses, so that human society can make rational decisions based on the best available evidence.
This cannot be achieved through an alliance with the religionists (great word, by the way).
Permalink
GreenEngineer Posted 2:40 am
07 Mar 2007
eradicating superstition
That's not a political goal, that's an epistemological goal. It's also not a particularly useful goal, taken the way you present it, because the fact is that the scientific method cannot effectively address many of the most difficult aspects of the human experience.
Now, as a political goal, one could wish to remove the influence of superstition from policymaking. That is at least a reasonable goal. A worthy goal, even. But it's not going to happen in our lifetimes, and in the meantime, we've got this small matter of climate change to deal with.
Permalink
wiscidea Posted 2:40 am
07 Mar 2007
re "conservative" and similar terms
Alright. I'm sitting here in my glass house and thinking it is time for a change. I'm not among the innocent. But, hey, only Nixon could go to China. Terms like conservative, liberal, progressive, libertarian, Christian, Muslim, et cetera are tossed about with reckless abandon, causing great confusion. Maybe it's just me.. but let's pretend for a moment that others feel the same way.
Consider "conservative" as an example. There are social, financial, religious, environmental, philosophical, linguistic, culinary... whatever... conservatives and there is not necessarily any overlap. A person very conservative in one area might be very liberal in another.
I doubt there are really any pure "conservatives" in the world, so such a term is meaningless.
Same for something like "Christian". When someone object's to Christians, are they objecting to those interpreting the Bible literally, those who believe the God of the Old Testament was not the same God described in the New Testament, or somewhere in between?
We ... I... need to be more specific.
I hereby pledge:
I will not use "conservative" or similar terms without providing proper support for what the term is being applied to.
By the way, I think I'm a conservative conservationist. We should not discard any part of a system we do not fully understand, a system that has been working quite well for hundreds of millions of years. Furthermore, we need to maintain a diverse investment portfolio by protecting all ecosystems. We do not know how important each one is. One would not destroy a work of art without first finding out how valuable it is, or remove parts from an airplane to reduce production cost without knowing what that part does. Finally, we should make sure we do not allow our biosphere to fall into disrepair. It is more cost-effective to maintain the system than to try to replace it... and where do you find a company to build a biosphere from scratch?
DISCLAIMER: This is just my opinion. I do not believe I know The Truth. It is up to each individual to share their approach to reducing the suffering in the world so we can benefit from our collective experience and stop repeating the same mistakes over and over. Live and let live. Peace.
Forward!
Permalink
wiscidea Posted 2:56 am
07 Mar 2007
Human Experience
Howdy GreenEngineer.
Just curious...
You wrote that "the fact is that the scientific method cannot effectively address many of the most difficult aspects of the human experience."
What are the most difficult aspects of the human experience?
I think science -- including all the natural sciences and social sciences, even ECONOMIC SCIENCE -- can address the issues of disease, poverty, sustainable economy, feeding everyone a healthy diet, finding diplomatic solutions to international conflict, addressing degradation of the biosphere, reducing crime, and a host of other problems. It is a matter of studying the issues and coming up with rational approaches to solving the problems. If something does not work, gather more information and try a different approach. Constant evaluation and revision.
If we can overcome superstition -- so we do not end up with leaders like George W. Bush -- we will be in a much better position to address the most difficult aspects of human existence. I don't know about you, but when I wake up in the morning, I worry about things like having a job, having a home, and whether I can afford food not drenched in pesticides, not whether the world I live in developed over a period of billions of years or was constructed by a God, molecule by molecule. I worry about whether everyone has access to healthcare, whether young girls might be protected from cervical cancer, not whether a couple guys down the street and enjoying each other's company.
Forward!
Permalink
caniscandida Posted 2:56 am
07 Mar 2007
triumvirate; worshipping God
BKrell, that was a very nice answer to BioD's question. Well, it was not so much a question as a mildly indignant gesture of exasperation.
"Vir" means "man," not "stooge," though there can be no denying that many men are in fact stooges.
Crassus was memorably played by Sir Laurence Olivier in Stanley Kubrick's epic of 1960, "Spartacus"; the young Caesar, a minor role, was played by the dishy John Gavin.
After the assassination of Caesar, a second triumvirate divided up the Mediterranean world among them: Lepidus, the weakest member, got North Africa; Caesar's adopted son Octavian got Western Europe; Caesar's friend Mark Antony got the richest part, all the Eastern Mediterranean provinces.
"To puke up a triumvirate" is a delightful expression which I admit I have never seen before. I shall make a point of using it in a sentence this week.
Do Dobson, Bauer and Perkins constitute a true triumvirate? I am not sure. After all, there are other prominent evangelicals and fellow travelers who seem to have been spewed forth in the same vomiting episode, such as Jerry Falwell, Pat Robertson, Bob Jones, and Richard Land and other spokesmen for the Southern Baptist Convention. And possibly Franklin Graham, who seems not to want to imitate the saintly restraint of his generally moderate father.
WiscIdea, I like very much your long triple answer. I am grateful that you pointed out to Grey Falcon that there is no conflict between the theory of evolution and the biblical doctrine of creation, properly understood. And I agree that fundamentalism, wherever it is found, is always a grave problem, and always dangerous.
Does the God who is described in the Bible deserve to be worshipped? No indeed. There are a number of ways to explain that, but the most thrilling approach IMHO is the one taken by the renowned Jewish literary critic Harold Bloom in his recent book, "Jesus and Yahweh: The Names Divine."
There is a great deal that can be said on this subject. But for now, let it suffice that the God of the Bible is a literary character, the creation of more or less wise human authors. He is not at all to be confused with the God who really exists.
On Dawkins: He has a lot of good things to say, but unfortunately he knows only the most superficial things about religion. Is religiosity a "biological construct" common to most human beings? Very possibly. But if so, how in the world should that cast doubt on the truthfulness of religious beliefs?
Chickens are our cousins! So are other sensitive animals! Enough is enough! No more factory farms!
Permalink
GreenEngineer Posted 3:46 am
07 Mar 2007
Religion and human experience
Let me clarify something. I do believe that, eventually, the scientific method (observe, hypothesize, test) can in fact tell us whatever we want to know about the universe. It can unlock mysteries like the nature of consciousness, free will, love, the religious experience, and so forth. It can also answer more practical mysteries, like what's really going on in our soil, what makes or breaks an ecosystem's sustainability, and how to predict the behavior of complex dynamic systems like climate (and even weather). That is to say, I do not believe in the supernatural (i.e. that which is outside of the "natural world"). (And, yes, I realize that this is a statement of faith.)
However, there's an enormous gulf between what we can theoretically understand and what we can understand now. That gulf is shrinking in absolute terms, but its still enormous. Relative to the challenges we now face (e.g. climate change), compared to those we faced in the past (e.g. feeding ourselves through the winter), the size of gulf may not have changed much at all.
My point is to emphasize the limits of reductionism, the analytical thought process on which the scientific method is based. It's a very powerful tool, but it's not equally effective for all problems. In particular, it is very difficult to use it to address complexly-interconnected nonlinear dynamic systems: in order to analyze these systems, we either have to identify and track every single variable (not usually practical) or make simplifying assumptions. Once we simplify the system sufficiently, we can start to get useful results with a reductionist approach. However, those results may be invalidated by our simplifications. This is the danger of holding the scientific approach as superior in all applications: It provides a greater level of certainty, but that certainty is in many cases illusory. In the extreme cases, it becomes essentially another form of superstition.
Permalink
caniscandida Posted 4:10 am
07 Mar 2007
"superstition"
The Latin ancestral form, "superstitio," was already used in a pejorative way by Roman writers of a philosophically sophisticated sort, e.g. Lucretius, Cicero and Saint Augustine, to refer to painfully scrupulous religiosity, common among many Romans, especially insofar as it had destructive effects. Lucretius famously condemns the sacrificial cults of ancient polytheism with his retelling of one of the most horrendous of Greek myths, the story of the sacrifice of Iphigeneia at the hands of her own father Agamemnon.
EasterBunny certainly has a right to exhort all "reasonable" people to join him/her in eradicating "superstition." Whether his/her antipathy to religion is quite so thoroughgoing as that of Sam Harris, is hard to say. Like Dawkins, Harris is a very interesting writer, with many good observations. But his is not the last word on the subject. I would suggest that the kind of meditativeness that he finds attractive (literally Buddhist, or just inspired by Buddhism?) is in fact present in a number of religious traditions, and practised by at least a few religionists.
I agree entirely with GreenEngineer on the subject of the eradication of superstition. It should be remembered that the political activism of the religious Right in US politics since the late 1970s is not a function of religion per se. It is a sociological phenomenon, an historical development, pertaining uniquely to those groups of Americans who can be identified as conservative Christians. By no means are they typical of all Christians, let alone of all religious groups.
Chickens are our cousins! So are other sensitive animals! Enough is enough! No more factory farms!
Permalink
wiscidea Posted 4:18 am
07 Mar 2007
The Source of My Misundertanding
GreenEngineer,
You wrote...
"It's [eradicating superstition, based on the context] also not a particularly useful goal, taken the way you present it, because the fact is that the scientific method cannot effectively address many of the most difficult aspects of the human experience."
This suggests you find some value in superstition in addressing the most difficult aspects of human existence. If you are suggesting that superstition is valuable because science does not provide 100% certainty, that ultimately we will still be left wondering whether we have a handle on Truth, I still fail to comprehend your view. Are you saying it is okay to rely on ancient texts and tales because science has its own limits?
Once again, how will holding onto superstition help address "many of the most difficult aspects of human experience" more effectively than employing reason to try to understand the world we live in. Which aspects of human existence are you referring to?
Science is not another form of superstition. It is based on experience and subject to change as we gather more information. It is subject to challenge by new views based on new evidence. I suppose we could just agree that a whale is a fish because it says so in the Bible and get on with our lives, but we might encounter some difficulty in understanding their behavior and role in the ocean. I prefer to revise my views as more information is collected.
Forward!
Permalink
GreenEngineer Posted 4:32 am
07 Mar 2007
More clarification
I'm going to use the less perjorative term "mysticism". Whether that equates exactly to "superstition" is really up to you.
In my view, humans are drawn to mysticism of various sorts as framework for attempting to intuitively understand those areas in which science cannot offer much guidance. For example: love, hate, interpersonal relations, free will.
This is not to say that reasoned thought is useless -- far from it. Reasoned thought can inform intuitive understanding. It's just at the end of the day, if reason cannot supply definitive answers (100% certainty is not the goal, but high probability of certainty is), then you have to make your decision on some other basis. Various mystical traditions can provide more-or-less useful guidance in that process.
Note that mysticism and dogmatism are not the same thing. Ancient books and texts may provide useful analogies or frameworks. They should never be taken as the literal, unquestioned truth, any more than a thing told to you by a stranger should be taken as unquestioned truth.
Permalink
Pandu Posted 4:35 am
07 Mar 2007
"these irrational beliefs"
Easterbunny,
(What an odd way to start a comment.)
How can you so certain that we can understand things as they are by rational thought? Such a belief makes an unproven assumption about the ultimate nature of reality, which is that it is material. If it is not material, then how can rational thought (which is like computations based on our knowledge of the material world) reveal it?
Vedic scholars have analyzed the means for acquiring knowledge include hearing various arguments, comparison, presumption, non-existence, inclusion, tradition, gesture, direct perception, inference, and revealed knowledge. They combined these with their understanding of the people's inherent defects that inhibit the acquisition of real knowledge, and concluded that revealed knowledge is the only way to understand the absolute truth. In Bhagavad-gita, Krishna states that "Of all sciences I am the spiritual science of the self, and among logicians I am the conclusive truth," and that, "...only by undivided devotional service can I be understood as I am..." Again He repeated, "One can understand Me as I am, as the Supreme Personality of Godhead, only by devotional service."
Rational thinking, if it is truly useful in these matters, should be able to arrive at the absolute truth regardless of what that truth may be. Instead it seems to lead ultimately to the same unproven assumption upon which rational thinking is based.
Permalink
Pandu Posted 4:57 am
07 Mar 2007
faith, sraddha
Canis,
Huh? I'm not sure there is such thing as a "biblical concept," since so much of the Bible seems to be taken from other traditions. The Vedic tradition uses the Sanskrit term sraddha, meaning "faith." It is said to be essential for advancement in devotional service at every stage.
Permalink
Pandu Posted 5:51 am
07 Mar 2007
Proof.
As I was looking into the study of methods of acquiring knowledge, I found this:
http://www.saragrahi.org/Header%20Links/Tattva%20Sandarbh ...
(special font required at that link)
I was curious about that, so I looked into it a little and found this helpful page at the top of my Google search:
http://www.miskatonic.org/godel.html
Permalink
wiscidea Posted 7:36 am
07 Mar 2007
Therefore...
Assignment of an economic value to any natural system will always underestimate the True value of the system. And so this cannot be used as a factor in determining whether it should be preserved or converted to a stack of gold bars in Dick Cheney's undisclosed bunker.
Furthmore, every path to knowledge is flawed. Every path to determining proper or improper action is flawed. We have no idea what sort of universe we live in. Ancient tales might or might not be true. Scientific discoveries might or might not be close to the truth. And rather than employ our brains -- which were either created for this universe or evolved within this universe -- to identify a rational approach for minimizing suffering, we should just... just... ????????????????
Forward!
Permalink
Easterbunny Posted 8:39 am
07 Mar 2007
Godel's incompleteness theorem
I'm blown away. Using Godel to justify irrationality??
Godel's theorem is about formal systems (i.e. mathematical logic). Formal systems are not the same as rational scientific thought. In fact, most science doesn't use formal logic at all, and only the logical positivists of the early 20th century ever conceived of basing all scientific knowledge on formal logic.
"Revealed knowledge" is just another label for "made up sh*t".
The only reliable knowledge we have is that which is tested though empirical methods. It's not complete, and it's not always correct, but at least the system we have for obtaining it is self-correcting.
"made up sh*t" is not a good basis for policy making.
Permalink
Easterbunny Posted 8:56 am
07 Mar 2007
Reductionism
To GreenEngineer:
Permalink
wiscidea Posted 9:33 am
07 Mar 2007
Speaking of certainty...
http://www.jesusandmo.net/2007/03/05/sure/
Forward!
Permalink
wiscidea Posted 9:35 am
07 Mar 2007
Speaking of faith...
http://www.jesusandmo.net/2007/03/01/fools/
Forward!
Permalink
Easterbunny Posted 1:24 pm
07 Mar 2007
"pretending really hard"!!!
LOL!
Permalink
caniscandida Posted 10:52 pm
07 Mar 2007
faith as biblical concept
Dear Pandu,
there is indeed much in biblical literature which has been borrowed from other cultures. E.g., the story of the Flood famously has antecedents in Bronze-Age Mesopotamia; the image of God as an enthroned king attended by winged servants is apparently Persian in origin; the genre of Wisdom literature has important parallels in Egyptian and Aramaic literature; a suggestion of my own is that the author of the deuterocanonical Book of Judith was influenced by the Greek historian Herodotus.
But the biblical authors tended to add particular theological significances to everything that they borrowed and adapted. Therefore, the suggestion that there can be no such thing as a "biblical concept" is not credible.
On "faith" and "sraddha": I know nothing beyond some superficial stuff about South Asian religions. And I have never studied any South Asian languages (though as one who knows Greek and Latin, I believe I would not find the related classical language of India, Sanskrit, all that difficult; the more derived Indo-European languages that are its daughters or, better, its nieces, e.g. Pali, Urdu/Hindi, and Bengali, are another matter). Clearly, the philosophical systems that arose within Hinduism and Buddhism are remarkably sophisticated and complex, and very few of us in the West have tried to appreciate them.
But I do know that comprehending the meaning of words from ancient languages is not easy. And translating them into modern equivalents is a very tricky business indeed.
Modern English "faith" is an unsatisfactorily loose word, overlapping with "belief," on the one hand, and with "confidence" and "trust" on the other. In the theology and philosophy of modern English speakers, the word is really more of a place-holder than a substantial term. It is not a truly adequate translation of the NT Greek "pistis," but it is traditional, and so far is the best we have got.
"Pistis" is not really "belief," but is much more trust and confidence in the God who sustains us. In the Synoptic Gospels, Jesus says numerous times to people whom he has healed, "Your faith (pistis) has saved you." Pistis in Jesus is a major element of the preaching of Saint Paul; he, as well as later authors, seems to build on the sense of the Hebrew root aleph-mem-nun, seen in the constant Hebrew loanword attached to prayers, "Amen," meaning "verily, truly," and in the OT virtue "emunah," "firmness, steadfastness, fidelity, faithfulness."
The cognate root in Arabic is very close in meaning. A traditional term for "the believers, the faithful" is "al-mu'minunah." The name "Iman" is another derivative; it in fact is the noun that conventionally is translated "faith, belief." Whatever exactly the Muslims mean by that, I could not say.
Still, it seems that the Hebrew "emunah," and the Arabic words, emphasize the trustworthiness of the human being, who professes service to God and obedience to God's commandments; the Hebrew "Amen," and the NT Greek usages of "pistis," emphasize the human being's trust in the trustworthiness of God, as sustainer and saviour.
Whether any of this has anything at all to do with "sraddha," you tell me. If it does, good, I would be happy to learn that. Meanwhile, if you are relying on translations from texts written in a language that you cannot yourself read, then you should be cautious. You should not accept without some research the suggested English equivalents for words belonging to, say, so very ancient and foreign a language as Sanskrit.
Chickens are our cousins! So are other sensitive animals! Enough is enough! No more factory farms!
Permalink
wiscidea Posted 11:51 pm
07 Mar 2007
So Much Lost in Translation
caniscandida,
Thank you very much for bringing up the hazards of relying on translated documents. I'm simply a curious amateur when it comes to getting a grip on ancient texts. Sort of odd that I even care about the subject, given my apparent disdain for most religion. Anyway...
Your comment reminded me of something I just read in a book about Buddhism. For the longest time I just could not understand the concept of Emptiness or why someone would want to work so hard just to realize that they were Empty. Well, the last two books I read MIGHT have clarified the matter for me. There are probably a few Buddhist out there who will disagree. That's fine. We are all here to learn.
The authors of the two books actually tried to explain "Emptiness" in clear language. Apparently, Emptiness is short-hand for "empty of independent existence" or something like that. Furthermore, the original text apparently does not present Emptiness as a concept worthy of capitalization. It's just stated in a matter-of-fact manner. But the first European translation, in an attempt to draw parallels between Buddhism and Christianity, capitalized the word... so it would appear similar to Heaven... I think. Furthermore, they started putting "The" in front of it; the author says there is no equivalent in Asian languages. Translators also changed "Emptiness" to "Void". So now, what originally communicated something like "empty of independent existence" often appears as "The Void" in some translations. Sounds more impressive, but totally destroys the original meaning, in my opinion.
While I cannot accept ceasing to exist, realizing that I'm empty of independent existence is thought provoking. In the grand scheme of things, I do not exist without all of the life around me... pretty much a no-brainer, but some people need a reminder. Zooming in and looking at my immediate environment, I do not exist independent of the people who touch my life... even people I despise.
Forward!
Permalink
Pandu Posted 12:48 am
08 Mar 2007
limits to reason
It is using reason to reveal the limits to reason, and finding that methods such as reason, which are a subset of the universe that the method tries to understand, leads to a tradeoff between completeness and accuracy.
I do not believe I am an irrational thinker. I was an environmental science student in college when I realized that empiricism could not reveal the eseential nature of the universe or of my existence. To me it would seem irrational to rely exclusively on a method that logic proves must fail at its ultimate goal.
Someone else will surely disagree, and I don't know how worthwhile it would be to argue. However, I take offense at the assertion that it is entirely foolish turn to other methods to understand what reason cannot penetrate. I did not choose my path blindly, and I do not walk it that way.
Saying that I have no good reason for concluding that reason has limits that prevent it from answering questions that are important to me, and then exploring additional methods -- such a claim is dead wrong. It looks like the reaction of people who cannot handle having their own faith challenged.
But I'm foolish for learning to use more than one tool in my toolbox.
Permalink
Pandu Posted 2:04 am
08 Mar 2007
books in religion
caniscandida,
I apologize for not making the tongue-in-cheek nature of my comment on the Bible clearer. I've forgotten too much about the book to casually get in to the subject.
In regard to translations, I regularly look for alternative translations for pivotal Sanskrit words, and I regularly consult Sanskrit dictionaries to try to temper whatever bias the translators may have and to try to understand the views of those exposed to other translations.
One of the methods for acquiring knowledge that I mentioned yesterday is tradition. The Sanskrit word is parampara, which is also translated as 'disciplic succession.' The meanings of words are passed through disciplic succession, and preserving correct meanings of scriptural verses is the chief goal of of an instructional (shiksha) disciplic succession.
The test of whether the translations and commentaries on ancient texts are accurate can be judged by the result. In my first week of studying Bhagavad-gita As It Is, 11 years ago, a transcendental window opened for me while I was immersed in the book, and I was able see and have a dialogue with Krishna for what must've been a couple of hours here. He personally tutored me in Bhagavad-gita as stunning awe was washed away by waves of love of God. That is how I got my faith in Bhagavad-gita As It Is and why I'm inclined to trust the translation and purports.
Permalink
Easterbunny Posted 4:09 am
08 Mar 2007
"a method that logic proves must fail"?
Pandu,
You've completely missed the point about Godel. Godel's incompleteness theorem says nothing about empirical science. It is only about formal logic. The only connection between them is a discredited myth about the nature of science, set up by the logical positivists nearly a hundred years ago, and demolished by Popper and every other philosopher of science since.
There are, in principle, no boundaries to what we can discover through empiricism, but there are practical constraints on what we can discover today via this approach.
When you reach out for alternatives to science, you discard all possibility of validating your claims about truth. The other "tools in your tool box" are illusions and you are deluding yourself that they have any value.
Voices in your head? You're hallucinating.
Permalink
Pandu Posted 6:31 am
08 Mar 2007
Big talk
Easterbunny,
Why not provide references so I can evaluate your criticism? Do you want me to just accept your view with blind faith?
If Godel's incompleteness theorum was only applicable to formal logic, then what is the point of it? Mental masturbation?
Again you are simply making statements without giving support. You also seem to be defining reality as that which can be experienced emperically, and then saying that in theory all of reality can be experienced emperically. Can't you see the circular argument? It's almost as if you're skewing your philosophy just to be an atheist.
Obviously anti-religious people can be as arrogant as religious ones. As if you are capable of defining my experience! I am very eager to be proven wrong if that in fact is the situation. But this "you're hallucinating" shit is just a waste of time.
In one sentence you say that anything can be discovered through empiricism when we overcome physical constraints, but then you deny that I purified my senses and saw God. An essential principle behind the yoga system is to gain mastery over one's own senses. I sharpened my senses through careful practice of these techniques and it helped me see Krishna's beautiful figure, hear His wonderous voice, and smell the intoxicating aroma of His body. My spiritual pursuit was validated on that occasion and several others. I don't need your approval.
Sorry I don't have time to proofread now.
Permalink
wiscidea Posted 7:55 am
08 Mar 2007
Returning to topic...
So... there is clearly a civil war among evangelicals... well, there is a struggle for leadership of the evangelical movement.
Is there any indication of where the rank and file stand? Are the congregations evenly split or do they tend to support one side? This is the heart of the matter, I think. Furthermore, does it look like there is dissent throughout the Bible Belt or is the new guard rising to power in only a few states?
The old guard will be powerless without the support of the people.
Another question... how will the rank and file vote during the 2008 election? Will they follow the old guard, new guard, or just stay home?
So many questions and the 2008 election nearly upon us... a year from now.
Forward!
Permalink
Easterbunny Posted 12:08 pm
08 Mar 2007
Arrogant? Moi?
Not quite sure why you need references, when all you have to do is look it up in wikipedia:
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Gödel%27s_incompletenes ...
Far from being mental masturbation, Godel's work was a major blow to the mathematicians at the time who were seeking to encode all knowledge into a formal system. It's also hugely important in modern computer science, because a computer is also a formal system - hence Godel's work laid the foundation for deciding what is computable.
I said nothing about physical constraints - I said "practical constraints". Sure, we could subject the voices in your head to some empirical tests to determine whether they are hallucinations or the voice of some supernatural being. There have been lots of scientific studies of people who hear voices
(e.g. see http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Hearing_Voices_Movement).
You'll have a hard time convincing anyone that "you heard god" is a better explanation than all the other well-documented reasons why people hear voices in their heads.
Which is more arrogant - claiming that you have a personal line to some supernatural being, or insisting that such claims be subjected to empirical evaluation?
Permalink
caniscandida Posted 10:05 pm
08 Mar 2007
"hallucinating"
These words which Easterbunny wrote are on one level true:
<<
When you reach out for alternatives to science, you discard all possibility of validating your claims about truth.
>>
This works on the normal level of politics and society, which is why we recognize today that the most humane states are those that do not in any way privilege the religious claims of individuals or groups, and why the self-entitled, aggressive intrusion of conservative Christians, evangelicals and some Catholics especially, into US politics is a positive danger.
However, if EB's sentence only works on that level, then it has too narrow a sense of "validating your claims about truth." Our personal criteria for judging what is true are often dependent upon our communication with other individuals, and our participation in a society of individuals whom we assume to be intellectually similar to ourselves; and that kind of communication is regularly governed by scientific preconceptions. But sometimes, the criteria that we use are quite personal, and independent of any requirement to communicate with society, and to be influenced by society. That truth (!) seems to be widely recognized, which is why the (otherwise not very interesting) story of "The Matrix" appealed to so many people.
WiscIdea, I agree with you completely that the use of "Emptiness" and "the Void" in English books on Buddhism, to refer to the state to which we are encouraged to aspire, does not seem at all helpful. Presumably meditation, and thoughtful attention to the Four Noble Truths, lead to a better, more positive and attractive sense of what Enlightenment is about. Very much has written on this, and I certainly have nothing to add.
Even in the Four Noble Truths, words may get in the way, especially "suffering" and "desire." And the Eightfold Path always struck me as a horrible and grossly unnecessary entanglement. I suspect most Buddhists prefer an approach much less dependent on textbook prose, an approach that is more aesthetic and nonverbal -- though there is great and beautiful Buddhist literature, my favorite Buddhist book being The Dhammapada.
In East Asian Buddhist poetry and poetic prose, there is the important image of the hand pointing to the Moon: what we see now with our conscious level of attention, e.g. all these words, is always the hand, it is never the Moon; but if we choose, we each have it within ourselves (the Dharmakaya being present in all constituents of being) to turn and behold the Moon itself.
Hence, a much more severe but related image: "If you meet the Buddha on the road, kill him."
Pandu, thank you for the link to the "Bhagavad Gita as it is" site. It is fascinating, and a great deal of work and attention clearly went into it. Aesthetically, it is not easy to stay with for long; but whatever.
I readily can see that "in this Age of Kali," the Bh-G is understood only imperfectly at best. But we try. Your teacher's image of taking medicine makes sense: We must follow the directions on the bottle, or else the directions given by our physician; so, to understand the Bh-G, we must follow the directions that are written in it. But beyond that, the insistence that the attitude of the bhakta must be assumed, raises the danger of potential abuse. May I read and interpret the directions on the medicine bottle myself, or must I wait for a teacher to do so for me?
Thank you also for sharing some sense of your own experience of Krishna. Please know that I respect that very deeply.
Chickens are our cousins! So are other sensitive animals! Enough is enough! No more factory farms!
Permalink
Pandu Posted 12:48 am
09 Mar 2007
concluding
Easterbunny,
My point is not to convince anyone that my impression of the experience was the best understanding. I brought up that experience as an example how a practice that you would not consider scientific or rational was validated for me. I think discussion is good, but I really don't need you to certify my worldview.
I also don't know why you keep referring to hearing voices, unless it's simply to be condescending. For me the experience encompassed all of my senses. If you can see a person standing in front of you, you don't think the person's speaking as 'voices in your head.' But then I guess you are nothing but a voice in my head too, since I haven't even seen you and have no proof that I'm not imagining all of this.
Caniscandida,
You are quite right that the potential for abuse exists. I've learned to keep a distance from authority in ISKCON because I have seen so much corruption in the leadership and so much blind following. The cult-like form that ISKCON has taken has been very disturbing to me, and if I did not have that experience I briefly mentioned above, then I would probably have nothing to do with the organization at all.
This is not the place to describe the problems in detail, but experience has told me that anyone who would want the to weild the authority of the guru role should probably be considered guilty until proven innocent. My faith is that a sincere and honest person using careful intelligence can understand what is true, what is helpful, what is wrong, and what is dangerous. So I'm just trying to go for the former and avoid the latter, and that's working for me, though not without challenges.
I don't know if you noticed that the Bhagavad-gita site has a level up where several other books are hosted. (http://vedabase.net/en/) There are some real gems in there.
I'm inclined to have this be my last comment under this blog entry. It's diverged too much from the intended subject.
Permalink
Easterbunny Posted 1:12 am
09 Mar 2007
Critical thinking
Okay, so now we're at the heart of the difference between scientific ways of knowing and religious ways of knowing. Religious belief protects itself by claiming to be immune from validation by others. In contrast, science only works when a community of scientists scruntinize one another's work, and demand that the results stand up to the highest levels of critical challenge.
"it was validated for me" seems like a rather odd way of arriving at the truth. It's like saying "I believe it because I believe it". Or "anything I can convince myself about must be true". Sometimes scientists fall into this trap too, but eventually the broader scientific community demands something more rigorous. Hence, science is self-correcting, whereas religion is not.
You asked for references earlier. Here's a useful primer on what science is really all about (as opposed to the popular myths in the media):
http://coehp.uark.edu/pase/TheMythsOfScience.pdf
Permalink
Pandu Posted 11:51 pm
03 Apr 2007
peers
It may be a little unfair for me to add another comment at this late date, but I wanted to say one more thing:
Easterbunny says that science is good partly because of peer review.
Scientists do not ask for my opinion because I am not their peer. Easterbunny is apparently not my peer in any of the practices of bhakti, jnana, kundanili, or raja yoga branches. I doubt he even knows what these words mean.
That is why I said that I do not need him to certify my worldview. (Just as he does not ask me to certify his.) When speaking with people who have practiced the disciplines that I've followed, their experience is much more relevant to me.
Each of the yoga systems that I have followed are presented just like a science. Do X and Y happens. If Y doesn't happen, one can usually see that X wasn't done properly. It so happens that X is quite difficult, but tradition holds that many people have successfully done X and gotten Y. Personally I've done X, though far from perfectly, and gotten temporary episodes of Y. As a result, I'm inclined to believe that I can get permanent Y by doing X better.
I entered into this thread because it seemed like people here were having trouble understanding why religious folks believe in a God whom we can't usually see. I thought I could help by giving some insight into one kind of religious philosophy. Anyway, I recently read that in order to make their astronimical theories work, scientists are postulating that some 96% of the universe is either dark energy or dark matter, meaning that we can't detect it directly through our senses. That's a pretty big fudge factor coming from people who think believing in God is a sign of a deranged lunatic.
Permalink
caniscandida Posted 3:58 am
04 Apr 2007
predictability
While I admire my excellent friend Pandu for his yogic discipline, I would respectfully suggest that there is rather more to religion than doing X in order predictably to achieve Y.
What he may have been reading recently on dark energy is the remarkable article by Richard Panek, in the 3/11 issue of the New York Times Magazine:
http://www.nytimes.com/2007/03/11/magazine/11dark.t.html? ...
Panek says that when we look up at the night sky, and see it full of stars, we have this silly idea that we are looking at the constituents of the universe. In fact, all the matter that we are able to see and feel, and all the energy that we are able to see and feel, turn out to be very minor constituents of the universe. Rather, it seems that the universe is mostly made up of "dark matter" (i.e., which seems to be holding the spiral galaxies in shape for unaccountably long periods) and "dark energy" (i.e., which seems to be driving the universe apart faster than the cosmologists had predicted).
Yes, that is very freaky. And anyway, even aside from those issues, it has long been philosophically troubling, that one cannot hope to understand the universe, without being able to do very advanced graduate mathematics.
So sure, philosophers should definitely be engaged by this. But I do not know if religionists need to be equally engaged, save insofar as their particular kind of religion requires them to be philosophers. Mine does; but that is a very personal choice, which I hardly expect to be shared by many others.
Chickens are our cousins! So are other sensitive animals! Enough is enough! No more factory farms!
Permalink