Sunday, July 26, 2009
Another Analogy for My Solution to the Mind-Body Problem
Last week, I dazzled you all with my computer analogy that I thought neatly solved the philosophical mind-body problem as well as the theological problem of God's sovereignty and free will. In the comments, KSralla argued that my approach wasn't consistent with the Christian conception of God:
First, let me spend a minute explaining that by definition, God can't break the laws of physics, any more than He can make 2+2=5. What are the "laws of physics"? As Richard Feynman explained in an essay called "The Character of Physical Law," they are simply the rules that describe the behavior of the objects of our natural investigations. Now because we are fallible, if we ever discover a violation of one of these "rules"--and we're sure it's a legit violation, not due to experimental error--then we must conclude, "The rules aren't what we thought they were yesterday." Einstein overturned Newtonian physics, but the universe itself didn't change because of his work.
Now the average Christian, I think, believes that scientists have come up with the "normal" laws of physics and of biology. Further, the average Christian believes that when Jesus walked on water, or raised Lazarus from the dead, that these miracles were violations of those rules. Maybe they were, and maybe they weren't (I think not--it would make God's design that much more impressive), but either way, it is nonsensical to say that the atoms in Lazarus' body broke the laws of physics that day in the tomb. Whatever behavior his atoms did display, must have been consistent with a generalized body of laws that would be the new and improved "laws of physics."
(In case this sounds too tautologous, note that unless the rules are fairly economical, the study of physics is pointless. The reason it's so helpful for us to learn "the laws of physics" is that it gives us predictive power; we really do gain insight into how nature operates. But we could imagine a world in which the laws were so broad that onlookers with our degree of mental powers would discern no obvious patterns, and the world would be a chaotic muddle. So part of God's design is that all of the wonders of the universe have their physical instantiations--apparently!--composed of a small group of elementary building blocks, which obey a fairly sparse set of rules.)
So we see that KSralla's objection doesn't make any sense. The standard Deistic image of God--against which KSralla is reacting--doesn't really work if you think that God created not only space but also time. It's wrong to think that God created Adam and Eve and everything else, then sat back and waited for His wound-up clock to spin out His design. From God's point of view, it is all simultaneous; He creates Adam and Eve just as He descends to Earth with a flaming sword in His mouth. (Note that this is also how I deal with Mises' praxelogical critique of the Western idea of God. Mises asked, why wouldn't an omnipotent and omniscient being remove all of its felt uneasiness in one action? He does.)
In my view, it's wrong to picture God as only jumping in once in a while to help out nature to fulfill His plans. "Whoa, those whiny Israelites will be in bondage forever if I don't do something. I'll temporarily make bushes impervious to fire and talk to Moses. Then I'll hang out back in heaven for a while until they need Me to swoop in again and change the charge on electrons in the Nile to turn the water into blood."
No, that's not how I picture it at all. Every instant of the history of the universe is intimately infused with God's presence and action; He is always "intervening." But in order to allow us to make sense of things, 99.999999% of the time it seems as if nature obeys its "lifeless" rules, and then once in a great while an apparent "miracle" takes place. There couldn't be apparent violations of the ordinary rules all the time, lest those "rules" would never be perceived in the first place. (Just to clarify, I am not saying that what we call the laws of physics were actually violated during the plagues and so forth. I think those were just unexpected and rare outcomes of the standard rules, given the earlier conditions of the physical universe.)
OK so on to the new analogy, to help make this point: Let's say I have a stack of blank index cards. With my pencil I start doodling shapes on the cards. Also, I don't do the first card, and then the second. Rather, I do part of the doodles on, say, the 87th card in the stack, then I do part of the doodles on the 13th card, and so forth.
Finally, when I'm all done doodling, I call my buddy over. I tell him, "I am going to show you a new world in which your body is that of a frog. Your objective is to get from one side of the street to the other, without getting hit by any of the traffic."
I start flipping through the stack of cards, on which I have drawn the scenes from a game of Frogger. But because I perfectly anticipated what my buddy would will with his mind, I have drawn the scenes such that the frog moves in exactly the way my buddy wants it to. After a few minutes, the novelty wears off and my buddy is dead certain that he is controlling his frog body with his mental desires.
Now, if I stop the demonstration and ask my buddy, "Describe how the cars move?" he will be able to do it. Some cars move really fast, others move slow. But at no time does a car that's on the top right of the xth index card suddenly teleport to the lower left of the (x+1)th index card.
I hope it is clear that in order for my buddy to be able to play the game at all, I had to build in some patterns for the objects in the alternate world to obey. Did these rules constrain me? Not really; I was free to do whatever I wanted with the pencil and the blank cards. But part of what I wanted was for my friend to be able to test his frogging skills, and he couldn't have done that if the cars appeared in and out of existence at apparently random spots on the cards. Moreover, it's clear that the "time" in the frogger world has nothing to do with me; I didn't even create the cards in order.
This is what I think the actual, physical universe must be like. It's true, the replacement of a deterministic, Newtonian universe with quantum uncertainty makes the analogy less compelling. But in any event I think it disposes of the claim that my approach somehow limits God's sovereignty, or limits His creative work to the first week of Genesis.
Unless God violates his own rules (becoming a lawbreaker), then he must (according to his nature) allow the physical universe to expand and evolve according to these rules, and has in effect banned himself from pervading his physical creation at t=X. That might be an acceptable model if it were consistent with the image of the Judeo-Christian God portrayed in scripture. It is not.Several Christians have recoiled from my "solution" in this fashion in the past, and so I want to spend today's post trying to defuse the hostility. (Note that to make sense of today's post, you should first read last week's, though you don't need to read any of the comments to get up to speed.)
First, let me spend a minute explaining that by definition, God can't break the laws of physics, any more than He can make 2+2=5. What are the "laws of physics"? As Richard Feynman explained in an essay called "The Character of Physical Law," they are simply the rules that describe the behavior of the objects of our natural investigations. Now because we are fallible, if we ever discover a violation of one of these "rules"--and we're sure it's a legit violation, not due to experimental error--then we must conclude, "The rules aren't what we thought they were yesterday." Einstein overturned Newtonian physics, but the universe itself didn't change because of his work.
Now the average Christian, I think, believes that scientists have come up with the "normal" laws of physics and of biology. Further, the average Christian believes that when Jesus walked on water, or raised Lazarus from the dead, that these miracles were violations of those rules. Maybe they were, and maybe they weren't (I think not--it would make God's design that much more impressive), but either way, it is nonsensical to say that the atoms in Lazarus' body broke the laws of physics that day in the tomb. Whatever behavior his atoms did display, must have been consistent with a generalized body of laws that would be the new and improved "laws of physics."
(In case this sounds too tautologous, note that unless the rules are fairly economical, the study of physics is pointless. The reason it's so helpful for us to learn "the laws of physics" is that it gives us predictive power; we really do gain insight into how nature operates. But we could imagine a world in which the laws were so broad that onlookers with our degree of mental powers would discern no obvious patterns, and the world would be a chaotic muddle. So part of God's design is that all of the wonders of the universe have their physical instantiations--apparently!--composed of a small group of elementary building blocks, which obey a fairly sparse set of rules.)
So we see that KSralla's objection doesn't make any sense. The standard Deistic image of God--against which KSralla is reacting--doesn't really work if you think that God created not only space but also time. It's wrong to think that God created Adam and Eve and everything else, then sat back and waited for His wound-up clock to spin out His design. From God's point of view, it is all simultaneous; He creates Adam and Eve just as He descends to Earth with a flaming sword in His mouth. (Note that this is also how I deal with Mises' praxelogical critique of the Western idea of God. Mises asked, why wouldn't an omnipotent and omniscient being remove all of its felt uneasiness in one action? He does.)
In my view, it's wrong to picture God as only jumping in once in a while to help out nature to fulfill His plans. "Whoa, those whiny Israelites will be in bondage forever if I don't do something. I'll temporarily make bushes impervious to fire and talk to Moses. Then I'll hang out back in heaven for a while until they need Me to swoop in again and change the charge on electrons in the Nile to turn the water into blood."
No, that's not how I picture it at all. Every instant of the history of the universe is intimately infused with God's presence and action; He is always "intervening." But in order to allow us to make sense of things, 99.999999% of the time it seems as if nature obeys its "lifeless" rules, and then once in a great while an apparent "miracle" takes place. There couldn't be apparent violations of the ordinary rules all the time, lest those "rules" would never be perceived in the first place. (Just to clarify, I am not saying that what we call the laws of physics were actually violated during the plagues and so forth. I think those were just unexpected and rare outcomes of the standard rules, given the earlier conditions of the physical universe.)
OK so on to the new analogy, to help make this point: Let's say I have a stack of blank index cards. With my pencil I start doodling shapes on the cards. Also, I don't do the first card, and then the second. Rather, I do part of the doodles on, say, the 87th card in the stack, then I do part of the doodles on the 13th card, and so forth.
Finally, when I'm all done doodling, I call my buddy over. I tell him, "I am going to show you a new world in which your body is that of a frog. Your objective is to get from one side of the street to the other, without getting hit by any of the traffic."
I start flipping through the stack of cards, on which I have drawn the scenes from a game of Frogger. But because I perfectly anticipated what my buddy would will with his mind, I have drawn the scenes such that the frog moves in exactly the way my buddy wants it to. After a few minutes, the novelty wears off and my buddy is dead certain that he is controlling his frog body with his mental desires.
Now, if I stop the demonstration and ask my buddy, "Describe how the cars move?" he will be able to do it. Some cars move really fast, others move slow. But at no time does a car that's on the top right of the xth index card suddenly teleport to the lower left of the (x+1)th index card.
I hope it is clear that in order for my buddy to be able to play the game at all, I had to build in some patterns for the objects in the alternate world to obey. Did these rules constrain me? Not really; I was free to do whatever I wanted with the pencil and the blank cards. But part of what I wanted was for my friend to be able to test his frogging skills, and he couldn't have done that if the cars appeared in and out of existence at apparently random spots on the cards. Moreover, it's clear that the "time" in the frogger world has nothing to do with me; I didn't even create the cards in order.
This is what I think the actual, physical universe must be like. It's true, the replacement of a deterministic, Newtonian universe with quantum uncertainty makes the analogy less compelling. But in any event I think it disposes of the claim that my approach somehow limits God's sovereignty, or limits His creative work to the first week of Genesis.
Comments:
Bob, regarding praxeology and epistemology, are you more like Mises and a neo-Kantian? or do you take Rothbard's Aristotelian/neo-Thomist empirical position?
# posted by 
: July 26, 2009 at 8:11 PM
: July 26, 2009 at 8:11 PM
Lewis, I would have been able to answer that question 5 years ago, but it's been that long since I really was up to speed with the distinctions, and my views have changed a lot since then. I am pretty sure I agreed with Rothbard's description of the action axiom as (broadly) empirical, but like I said I really haven't dealt with that heavy stuff in a while.
Dear Bob,
Thank you for your thoughtful responses. I view our discussion not so much as an argument, but as a discussion between friends. Please forgive ahead of time some pointed remarks that I might make in this discussion.
In the way of qualification, I am a professional research geologist/geophysicist (my field of specialty is tectonics and structural geology), not a theologian, so please don't misinterpret my comments and paint me as arguing against physics (I quite like physics and math!). Instead, let’s search for a definition of physics which is compatible with both our theism and libertarianism.
Your current definition of physics has waffled between that of a “pattern” and a “rule”. These two terms are epistemologically distinct and are causing us both considerable confusion. You said in another post that the laws of physics are "patterns" that rule the universe. That statement was nonsense. Now you say they are "rules" (good save!). We need to get this sorted out first.
Are laws of physics patterns or rules?
Thank you for your thoughtful responses. I view our discussion not so much as an argument, but as a discussion between friends. Please forgive ahead of time some pointed remarks that I might make in this discussion.
In the way of qualification, I am a professional research geologist/geophysicist (my field of specialty is tectonics and structural geology), not a theologian, so please don't misinterpret my comments and paint me as arguing against physics (I quite like physics and math!). Instead, let’s search for a definition of physics which is compatible with both our theism and libertarianism.
Your current definition of physics has waffled between that of a “pattern” and a “rule”. These two terms are epistemologically distinct and are causing us both considerable confusion. You said in another post that the laws of physics are "patterns" that rule the universe. That statement was nonsense. Now you say they are "rules" (good save!). We need to get this sorted out first.
Are laws of physics patterns or rules?
# posted by : July 27, 2009 at 1:18 AM
: July 27, 2009 at 1:18 AM
I think the story recalling Jesus walking on water violates the laws of physics as you suggest Christianity may allow for the violating of the laws of physics. Humans are much more dense than water which is why I think they must fall through. Other factors matter though such as surface area, mass, etc.
I don't think Kantianism is as vogue within Austrian economics as it used to be. And you can't go wrong with Aristotle. The prefix "Aristotlian" can christen almost any noun. Come on: "Aristotelian socialism."
Seriously though, the action axiom is affirmed both through sense perception and by understanding that any denial of it suffers from self-refutation, two very Aristotelian approaches. Kantianism, I believe, is more of a liability than an asset.
I don't think Kantianism is as vogue within Austrian economics as it used to be. And you can't go wrong with Aristotle. The prefix "Aristotlian" can christen almost any noun. Come on: "Aristotelian socialism."
Seriously though, the action axiom is affirmed both through sense perception and by understanding that any denial of it suffers from self-refutation, two very Aristotelian approaches. Kantianism, I believe, is more of a liability than an asset.
Bob,
I like you analogy, It seems like a good way to understand the workings of the universe within God's sovereignty. I'm still not real comfortable with the idea that our will doesn't directly affect the universe, and that God just anticipates what we would want to do and makes it seem as if we were actually having an influence.
KSralla,
I would have to say regarding the laws of physics, that they are empirically derived rules. That is we observe patterns, and from those particulars, we induce an absolute, that is a rule. I don't think a pattern alone would have any predictive use unless it is abstracted into a rule. (e.g. "I have always seen unsupported bodies fall toward the earth" is a pattern; "An unsupported body will always fall toward the earth" is a rule abstracted from that pattern (which may or may not be true).
I like you analogy, It seems like a good way to understand the workings of the universe within God's sovereignty. I'm still not real comfortable with the idea that our will doesn't directly affect the universe, and that God just anticipates what we would want to do and makes it seem as if we were actually having an influence.
KSralla,
I would have to say regarding the laws of physics, that they are empirically derived rules. That is we observe patterns, and from those particulars, we induce an absolute, that is a rule. I don't think a pattern alone would have any predictive use unless it is abstracted into a rule. (e.g. "I have always seen unsupported bodies fall toward the earth" is a pattern; "An unsupported body will always fall toward the earth" is a rule abstracted from that pattern (which may or may not be true).
Notal,
What is gravity? Please explain. When we describe the law of gravity in Newtonian physics, trust me, we are really describing the law of "what the heck is it?" Ok, so then Einstein comes along and describes it mathematically as bent space. You say what? Then the old law is not really a law, but only a approximation under certain circumstances.
Now, we want to delve even deeper into the nature of physical reality itself, and plumb the depths of fundamental particles. Ok, but Einstein's gravitation laws don't work so well anymore. So after all of this, we are left describing the deepest fundamentals of being by an uncertainty priciple. Where then is the true law of gravity? I don't yet see one which has emerged, only that certain patterns are true given certain conditions. This is unsettling to any economical notion of natural law, so unless we just throw in the towell and concede to post-modern views of reality, we must search elsewhere.
In many ways, it appears that the old ideas of natural law are often kind of like measurement. What is the mass of an object? There is a measurement that is good enough for government work, and then there a measurement that goes off into infinity. Exactly how much do I weigh? I tell my wife that only God knows.
What is gravity? Please explain. When we describe the law of gravity in Newtonian physics, trust me, we are really describing the law of "what the heck is it?" Ok, so then Einstein comes along and describes it mathematically as bent space. You say what? Then the old law is not really a law, but only a approximation under certain circumstances.
Now, we want to delve even deeper into the nature of physical reality itself, and plumb the depths of fundamental particles. Ok, but Einstein's gravitation laws don't work so well anymore. So after all of this, we are left describing the deepest fundamentals of being by an uncertainty priciple. Where then is the true law of gravity? I don't yet see one which has emerged, only that certain patterns are true given certain conditions. This is unsettling to any economical notion of natural law, so unless we just throw in the towell and concede to post-modern views of reality, we must search elsewhere.
In many ways, it appears that the old ideas of natural law are often kind of like measurement. What is the mass of an object? There is a measurement that is good enough for government work, and then there a measurement that goes off into infinity. Exactly how much do I weigh? I tell my wife that only God knows.
# posted by : July 27, 2009 at 1:42 PM
: July 27, 2009 at 1:42 PM
Bob,
A couple questions about your mind-body theory:
1. Why do you reject direct interaction between the soul and the physical body? Do you feel there is conclusive science showing that all physical actions in a human body are determined by current state plus laws of physics, thus leaving no room for direct mind control of the body? Why can't the brain be a mind-body interface of some sort? I guess I'm not convinced that my mind can't be directly controlling my body the way it seems.
2. Your theory doesn't seem to explain the effect that the brain has on the mind. It seems clear that brain damage, drugs, etc. have a direct effect on the mind. How do you deal with that? Is God handicapping minds in sync with events in the physical world? In the case of the mentally handicapped (from birth), is it that God handicaps the mind because of events in the physical world, or does God choose a handicapped body to house a mind that is already handicapped? (This seems pretty weird to me!)
3. It seems like you would allow for the possibility of "emotional zombies": People who behave just like everyone else, but have no mind "behind the scenes" experiencing the person's actions as their own. I don't know why God would create such a person, but in your system there doesn't seem to be anything preventing it.
4. I'd like to hear your thoughts on the implications of your system for artificial brains. If someone were able to make a perfect copy (or simulation) of an existing brain, what would be the result. Would it basically behave just like the real person, but with no mind attached? Would it do nothing (not appear to be a person)? Something else?
A couple questions about your mind-body theory:
1. Why do you reject direct interaction between the soul and the physical body? Do you feel there is conclusive science showing that all physical actions in a human body are determined by current state plus laws of physics, thus leaving no room for direct mind control of the body? Why can't the brain be a mind-body interface of some sort? I guess I'm not convinced that my mind can't be directly controlling my body the way it seems.
2. Your theory doesn't seem to explain the effect that the brain has on the mind. It seems clear that brain damage, drugs, etc. have a direct effect on the mind. How do you deal with that? Is God handicapping minds in sync with events in the physical world? In the case of the mentally handicapped (from birth), is it that God handicaps the mind because of events in the physical world, or does God choose a handicapped body to house a mind that is already handicapped? (This seems pretty weird to me!)
3. It seems like you would allow for the possibility of "emotional zombies": People who behave just like everyone else, but have no mind "behind the scenes" experiencing the person's actions as their own. I don't know why God would create such a person, but in your system there doesn't seem to be anything preventing it.
4. I'd like to hear your thoughts on the implications of your system for artificial brains. If someone were able to make a perfect copy (or simulation) of an existing brain, what would be the result. Would it basically behave just like the real person, but with no mind attached? Would it do nothing (not appear to be a person)? Something else?
Dr. Murphy's model makes free will an illusion. Many Calvinists hold to that position. I can't accept it myself because it makes God the cause of moral evil, which contradicts the Bible. There has to be some room for legitimate free will in order for man to be responsible for his crimes. I think the Bible teaches that God was somewhat like the watch maker. He created the universe and mankind, then stepped back and distanced himself from creation because of man's rebellion. That is the message of Romans 1 and 2.
God's distancing himself from mankind and letting mankind have his way was part of God's judgment on rebellious mankind. God does intervene, and on the most extreme occasions the result is what we call miracles.
But as Dr. Murphy wrote, miracles don't violate the laws of physics; miracles involve uses of the laws of physics in ways which we are too ignorant to understand. For example, computers would appear as miracles to medieval Christians. In fact, medieval Europeans considered the limited medicine of the Middle East to be witchcraft.
God's distancing himself from mankind and letting mankind have his way was part of God's judgment on rebellious mankind. God does intervene, and on the most extreme occasions the result is what we call miracles.
But as Dr. Murphy wrote, miracles don't violate the laws of physics; miracles involve uses of the laws of physics in ways which we are too ignorant to understand. For example, computers would appear as miracles to medieval Christians. In fact, medieval Europeans considered the limited medicine of the Middle East to be witchcraft.
# posted by : July 27, 2009 at 10:27 PM
: July 27, 2009 at 10:27 PM
Bob says: “Maybe they were, and maybe they weren't (I think not--it would make God's design that much more impressive), but either way, it is nonsensical to say that the atoms in Lazarus' body broke the laws of physics that day in the tomb. Whatever behavior his atoms did display, must have been consistent with a generalized body of laws that would be the new and improved "laws of physics."
K Sralla replies: A hurdler can win every meet if he gets to decide how high to set his own bar, while the competition must follow the rules of the game. In order to clear the intellectual hurdle for your notion of natural law, it turns out that you simply lower the bar, and define the laws of physics to be whatever you need them to be to explain a model (which in my opinion still unintentionally obscures the picture of God as depicted in the Bible). However, in putting forth such a loose picture of natural law, you have forfeited the game.
Using your logic, natural law might thus be restated as this: God does practically anything he wants (not in violation of his own character), when he wants, by whatever means he wants, only after he acts, the explanation for this action must be understood by humans to exist within a new generalized body of physical laws. It seems your position (if you agree to this characterization) is really quite close to theologically orthodoxy, but not reasonable for the definition of physics that you are trying to push here. I am sorry, but I must declare game over.
K Sralla replies: A hurdler can win every meet if he gets to decide how high to set his own bar, while the competition must follow the rules of the game. In order to clear the intellectual hurdle for your notion of natural law, it turns out that you simply lower the bar, and define the laws of physics to be whatever you need them to be to explain a model (which in my opinion still unintentionally obscures the picture of God as depicted in the Bible). However, in putting forth such a loose picture of natural law, you have forfeited the game.
Using your logic, natural law might thus be restated as this: God does practically anything he wants (not in violation of his own character), when he wants, by whatever means he wants, only after he acts, the explanation for this action must be understood by humans to exist within a new generalized body of physical laws. It seems your position (if you agree to this characterization) is really quite close to theologically orthodoxy, but not reasonable for the definition of physics that you are trying to push here. I am sorry, but I must declare game over.
# posted by : July 27, 2009 at 10:44 PM
: July 27, 2009 at 10:44 PM
fundamentalist,
The Reformed faith does not hold that free will is an illusion. We hold that man always chooses what he desires most (his will is in bondage only to his own sinful nature). Without God's electing grace, Man always freely chooses according to his own desires, and not according to the revealed will of God portrayed in the Gospel.
And I stongly disagree that God is presented as a watchmaker in scripture. The picture of God in scripture is one of the God who often *acts* (in the human dimension of time and space) throughout the redemptive history of makind. From Genesis to Revelation, God gets involved. This is the source of my discussion with Bob. His model makes the story of both Man's free will God's intervention a fantastic card trick in an attempt to preserve his specific notion of natural law.
The Reformed faith does not hold that free will is an illusion. We hold that man always chooses what he desires most (his will is in bondage only to his own sinful nature). Without God's electing grace, Man always freely chooses according to his own desires, and not according to the revealed will of God portrayed in the Gospel.
And I stongly disagree that God is presented as a watchmaker in scripture. The picture of God in scripture is one of the God who often *acts* (in the human dimension of time and space) throughout the redemptive history of makind. From Genesis to Revelation, God gets involved. This is the source of my discussion with Bob. His model makes the story of both Man's free will God's intervention a fantastic card trick in an attempt to preserve his specific notion of natural law.
# posted by : July 27, 2009 at 11:37 PM
: July 27, 2009 at 11:37 PM
As the great proto-Libertarian Mencken said:
"Christian theology is not only opposed to the scientific spirit; it is opposed to every other form of rational thinking"
In other words, one cannot argue rationally with a Christian.
"Christian theology is not only opposed to the scientific spirit; it is opposed to every other form of rational thinking"
In other words, one cannot argue rationally with a Christian.
# posted by : July 28, 2009 at 5:24 PM
: July 28, 2009 at 5:24 PM
More by Mencken, very apropos:
Thus such a thing as a truly enlightened Christian is hard to imagine. Either he is enlightened or he is Christian, and the louder he protests that he is the former the more apparent it becomes that he is really the latter. A Catholic priest who devotes himself to seismology or some other such safe science may become a competent technician and hence a useful man, but it is ridiculous to call him a scientist so long as he still believes in the virgin birth, the atonement or transubstantiation. It is, to be sure, possible to imagine any of these dogmas being true, but only at the cost of heaving all science overboard as rubbish. The priest's reasons for believing in them is not only not scientific; it is violently anti-scientific. Here he is exactly on all fours with a believer in fortune-telling, Christian Science or chiropractic.
(...)
In even its highest forms religion embraces concepts that run counter to all common sense. It can be defended only by making assumptions and adopting rules of logic that are never heard of in any other field of human thinking.
(...)
Religion, of course, does make some men better, and perhaps even many men. There can be no doubt of it. But making them better by filling their poor heads with grotesque nonsense is an irrational and wasteful process, and the harm it does greatly outweighs the good. If men could be made better—or even only happier—by teaching them that two and two make five there would be plenty of fools to advocate that method, but it would remain anti-social none the less. If the theologians could only agree on their doctrines their unanimity might have some evidential value, just as the agreement of all politicians that the first duty of the citizen is to obey them and admire them has some evidential value. It may not be true, but it is at least undisputed by all save a small fraction of heretics, which is certainly something. Fortunately for common sense, the theologians are never able to agree. Even within the sects, and under the more rigid discipline, there is constant wrangling, as, for example, between the Jesuits and the Dominicans. Thus the cocksureness of one outfit is cancelled out by the ribald denial of all the rest, and rational men are able to consign the whole gang to statistics and the Devil.
:)
Any more comments?
Bob, stop making a fool of yourself. Seriously. Your economic work is too important.
Thus such a thing as a truly enlightened Christian is hard to imagine. Either he is enlightened or he is Christian, and the louder he protests that he is the former the more apparent it becomes that he is really the latter. A Catholic priest who devotes himself to seismology or some other such safe science may become a competent technician and hence a useful man, but it is ridiculous to call him a scientist so long as he still believes in the virgin birth, the atonement or transubstantiation. It is, to be sure, possible to imagine any of these dogmas being true, but only at the cost of heaving all science overboard as rubbish. The priest's reasons for believing in them is not only not scientific; it is violently anti-scientific. Here he is exactly on all fours with a believer in fortune-telling, Christian Science or chiropractic.
(...)
In even its highest forms religion embraces concepts that run counter to all common sense. It can be defended only by making assumptions and adopting rules of logic that are never heard of in any other field of human thinking.
(...)
Religion, of course, does make some men better, and perhaps even many men. There can be no doubt of it. But making them better by filling their poor heads with grotesque nonsense is an irrational and wasteful process, and the harm it does greatly outweighs the good. If men could be made better—or even only happier—by teaching them that two and two make five there would be plenty of fools to advocate that method, but it would remain anti-social none the less. If the theologians could only agree on their doctrines their unanimity might have some evidential value, just as the agreement of all politicians that the first duty of the citizen is to obey them and admire them has some evidential value. It may not be true, but it is at least undisputed by all save a small fraction of heretics, which is certainly something. Fortunately for common sense, the theologians are never able to agree. Even within the sects, and under the more rigid discipline, there is constant wrangling, as, for example, between the Jesuits and the Dominicans. Thus the cocksureness of one outfit is cancelled out by the ribald denial of all the rest, and rational men are able to consign the whole gang to statistics and the Devil.
:)
Any more comments?
Bob, stop making a fool of yourself. Seriously. Your economic work is too important.
# posted by : July 28, 2009 at 5:29 PM
: July 28, 2009 at 5:29 PM
Woody Allen weighs in on the Mind-Body problem....
"Man consists of two parts, his mind and his body, only the body has more fun."
"Man consists of two parts, his mind and his body, only the body has more fun."
Anonymous,
Mencken's quotes about having to be either scientific or religious seem much more about popularity than a logical correlation between being religious and being scientific.
Bobs post brings up a good point about science. there is the scientific truth, and then there is what we know about the scientific truth. Everything mankind knew about medicine, physics, astronomy, etc. 4,000 years ago "pales" to what we know know (just as what we know now might "pale" to what we know 4,000 years from now.)
just because a christian or some other religious person rejects what mankind knows about "science" does not mean they reject science outright. If "christ walks on the water" defies everything we have always KNOWN about physics for 10,000 years, does not PROVE that what he did was not physically possible. likewise, because christians and other religious people believe (or in our words "know") that God created the rules of the game, does not mean that we reject that there are rules of the game.
Example: Shigeru Miyamoto is the creator of Super mario Brothers. in that world, there are set scientific rules that when tested, will result in the "scieince" of the game world. Mario always falls at X speed, If B is pressed, mario will jump, etc. If all Mario can only perform the actions that the game allow, this does not follow that there is no creator of the game, nor does it follow that Shigeru Miyamoto is bound to the same rules as Mario.
This is the essence of christian humility in reference to scientific findings. We believe God created the game with some rules. we do not reject that the rules exist, nor does our belief in God require us to reject the rules. We may have to reject what we currently THINK THE RULES ARE, but this does not make us anti-science, just anti-"jump-to-conclusion."
Post a Comment
Mencken's quotes about having to be either scientific or religious seem much more about popularity than a logical correlation between being religious and being scientific.
Bobs post brings up a good point about science. there is the scientific truth, and then there is what we know about the scientific truth. Everything mankind knew about medicine, physics, astronomy, etc. 4,000 years ago "pales" to what we know know (just as what we know now might "pale" to what we know 4,000 years from now.)
just because a christian or some other religious person rejects what mankind knows about "science" does not mean they reject science outright. If "christ walks on the water" defies everything we have always KNOWN about physics for 10,000 years, does not PROVE that what he did was not physically possible. likewise, because christians and other religious people believe (or in our words "know") that God created the rules of the game, does not mean that we reject that there are rules of the game.
Example: Shigeru Miyamoto is the creator of Super mario Brothers. in that world, there are set scientific rules that when tested, will result in the "scieince" of the game world. Mario always falls at X speed, If B is pressed, mario will jump, etc. If all Mario can only perform the actions that the game allow, this does not follow that there is no creator of the game, nor does it follow that Shigeru Miyamoto is bound to the same rules as Mario.
This is the essence of christian humility in reference to scientific findings. We believe God created the game with some rules. we do not reject that the rules exist, nor does our belief in God require us to reject the rules. We may have to reject what we currently THINK THE RULES ARE, but this does not make us anti-science, just anti-"jump-to-conclusion."
Subscribe to Post Comments [Atom]
<< Home
Subscribe to Posts [Atom]